USSA

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is the full text: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I fail to see how what I said conflicts with what you said or what was stated in the amendment. It sounds like you're arguing simply for the sake of arguing which is extremely byzantine.

Don't forget to vote if the response was helpful

Sig history "dad" Ishmail-Samuel Mustafa Unix is a Four Letter Word, and Vi is a Two Letter Abbreviation

Christian Graus

Stan Shannon wrote:

It is the notion that we are all created equal, that our rights come from our creator, not from man or government, and that each one of us has the right to pursue happiness in our own way.

But, that's just too loose. I mean, what if my happiness comes from rape, for example ?

Stan Shannon wrote:

No Jewish, Muslim or other religion has ever created a civilization with these concepts, and never will. They have shown precious little ability to even adapt to it.

Actually, there are points in history where Muslims have shown themselves to be far more tolerant than Christians of the day.

Stan Shannon wrote:

No, I mean maximizing the opportunity for each person to provide for themselves while remaining free.

But you regard it is a lack of freedom if society doesn't let the poor starve, so....

Stan Shannon wrote:

No and we have not been for quite some time.

Who is your king ? Which banknote does he appear on ?

Stan Shannon wrote:

Just because he, and others, realized the need for change ( and planned for it) does not mean that he would have endorsed your politics.

Of course not. But you seem to me to point backwards instead of forwards. I am suggesting that Jefferson et al realised that society would change and that the changes may not well be what they had in mind, but would be up to that society to decide upon.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

soap brain

Stan Shannon wrote:

Well, that wouldn't be very christian now would it? Christianity is the source of our civilization, that is where all of these political concepts can ultimately be traced. God or no God, our civilization exists because of Christianity, and will exist for only as long as we remain christian. No Jewish, Muslim or other religion has ever created a civilization with these concepts, and never will. They have shown precious little ability to even adapt to it.

*shudder* The world isn't divided up into Christian and stone-age, you know.

Stan Shannon

Because the first amendment was never intended to be an absolute guarantee of anything other than congress would be limited in its power. And since the founders never envisioned a judicial branch with the sort of self assumed, non-constitutional, authority that it now exercises unchallanged, they felt that would be sufficient to constrain the power of the federal government. The first amendment is a statement not so much of individual rights as it is a statement on the proper limitations upon centralized political power.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

Christian Graus wrote:

But, that's just too loose. I mean, what if my happiness comes from rape, for example ?

It ins't loose at all. The standards and rules that define the limits of such pursuits, in a Jeffersonian republic, lie with the people themselves at the local level of government.

Christian Graus wrote:

Actually, there are points in history where Muslims have shown themselves to be far more tolerant than Christians of the day.

Actually, there are not. Islamic governments might have shown some degree of greater tolerance than did governments which had coopted christianty. But that is only because christianity was being forced to serve a political master. The religion itself finally broke free of that, however, which led to the establishement of modern western civilization.

Christian Graus wrote:

But you regard it is a lack of freedom if society doesn't let the poor starve, so....

No, I don't. Simple unbiased obeservation clearly demonstrates that there is less hunger and need in free market economies than in collectivist economies. I stand by the facts, not my emotions. Free market economies work, centrally planned economies do not. The case is closed on that issue.

Christian Graus wrote:

Who is your king ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States[^]

Christian Graus wrote:

Of course not. But you seem to me to point backwards instead of forwards. I am suggesting that Jefferson et al realised that society would change and that the changes may not well be what they had in mind, but would be up to that society to decide upon.

You are still suggesting that your politics represent some kind of progress. What they represent is the very kind of political change people like Jefferson tried most vigorusly to ensure would never happen. THe modern left represents a return to a past that we have not seen in centuries. A dependent population, ruled by an unchallanged political authority, and required to observe a state based moral authority that superceeds all other fo

Oakman

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

The world isn't divided up into Christian and stone-age, you know.

Stan gets Greco-Roman cultural heritage mixed up with Catholicism. It is certainly true that the monasteries were one of the few places where knowledge was respected during roughly 500 C.E. to 1000 C.E. But that knowledge and those ideals pre-existed Catholicism by a fair amount. And it's arguable that Emperors in Constantinople did more to preserve our cultural heritage than Popes ever could have.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

soap brain

Oakman wrote:

500 C.E. to 1000 C.E

:-D Common Era. I like, I like. :rose:

Oakman wrote:

Stan gets Greco-Roman cultural heritage mixed up with Catholicism. It is certainly true that the monasteries were one of the few places where knowledge was respected during roughly 500 C.E. to 1000 C.E. But that knowledge and those ideals pre-existed Catholicism by a fair amount. And it's arguable that Emperors in Constantinople did more to preserve our cultural heritage than Popes ever could have.

No no no, absolutely not. Only Christians have the moral guidance to do anything good or useful, and I SHAN'T be moved on the issue. :suss:

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

Stan gets Greco-Roman cultural heritage mixed up with Catholicism.

No, actually I don't. But, than, I don't get catholocism mixed up with christianity either. We are not a Greco-Roman civilization. That civilization died. We are a christian civilization which emerged out of the collapse of that earlier civilization. Certainly there are aspects of that earlier civilization that are fundamental to our own and have become usefully reincorporated into modern westeern civilization. But those aspects have been carefully considered and applied from a christian perspective over the centuries.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

soap brain

Stan Shannon wrote:

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Have you ever considered changing your signature to something less......ridiculous? [adjunct:] Or maybe just change the font? You may not have noticed, but the 'o' and 'e' aren't italicised like the rest. It's really ugly.

modified on Sunday, January 18, 2009 10:05 AM

Stan Shannon · modified on Sunday, January 18, 2009 10:05 AM

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Have you ever considered changing your signature to something less......ridiculous?

Actually, Ravel, it is a quite insightful observation to the more intellectual mature among us. The modern west has made us all idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing. We have allowed ourselves to be consumed by a cultural imperative that mandates that we hate virtually everything about ourselves. Our religion, our history, hell even our own ethnic identity is something we ridicule and disparage. We believe in nothing except tht we suck and that our only hope is for us to as quickly as possible eliminate ourselves is some kind of grand cultural suicide.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

It's really ugly.

Must be something on your end, the font looks fine to me.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Christian Graus

Stan Shannon wrote:

The standards and rules that define the limits of such pursuits, in a Jeffersonian republic, lie with the people themselves at the local level of government.

OK, fair enough. So, not really a country, but a group of disconnected towns ?

Stan Shannon wrote:

Islamic governments might have shown some degree of greater tolerance than did governments which had coopted christianty. But that is only because christianity was being forced to serve a political master. The religion itself finally broke free of that, however, which led to the establishement of modern western civilization.

Well, one can argue that the governments were corrupting true Christianity, but the same could be argued of those who use Islam to support terrorism today, for example. It proves nothing, in both cases, the religion has been shown to be used as a force for good, and for evil.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Simple unbiased obeservation clearly demonstrates that there is less hunger and need in free market economies than in collectivist economies.

Assuming this is true, it;'s still true that more people starve to death, because that group of poor, of whatever size, is left to fend for themselves in your ideal world.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Free market economies work, centrally planned economies do not. The case is closed on that issue.

I agree - I just see that there are more than two options, broadly speaking.

Stan Shannon wrote:

What they represent is the very kind of political change people like Jefferson tried most vigorusly to ensure would never happen.

This is patently not true, given that I do not advocate any sort of society that existed in any form when Jefferson was alive.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Stan Shannon

Christian Graus wrote:

So, not really a country, but a group of disconnected towns ?

So why is it that the way the United States has been governed for over 200 years is such a mystery to you? The towns are not disconnected. They are united by the constitution.

Christian Graus wrote:

Well, one can argue that the governments were corrupting true Christianity, but the same could be argued of those who use Islam to support terrorism today, for example. It proves nothing, in both cases, the religion has been shown to be used as a force for good, and for evil.

Any such argument would be historically inaccurate. Islam served as both a justification for and means of consolidating a large conqured area. That is why is was created. That is how it was spread. Christianity was created in an entirely different era for entirely different purposes. It might ultimately have been drawn into the same whirlpool of violence and used to justify many evil deeds, but the two religions have absolutely nothing in common otherwise aside from a loose affiliation with Judaism. All one need do is observe what Christianity became once free again of its misuse by the state.

Christian Graus wrote:

Assuming this is true, it;'s still true that more people starve to death, because that group of poor, of whatever size, is left to fend for themselves in your ideal world.

Again, there is little historic justification for any such accusation. I know that that would appear to be a valid consequence of free market capitalism, but that has not been the actual real world results. Obviously, people can starve for any number of reasons, but the kind of rampant inhumanity you insist occurs simply does not in reality. People are simply better than that. Given freedom and opportunity, they care for one another.

Christian Graus wrote:

I agree - I just see that there are more than two options, broadly speaking.

ANd I don't. The reliance upon a little bit of collectivism creaes the very economy inefficienty that justifies the application of even more collectivism. It is an inenvitable and insidious process that has only one result, and that result is ultimate cataclysmic economic collapse.

Christian Graus wrote:

This is patently not

soap brain

Stan Shannon wrote:

Must be something on your end, the font looks fine to me.

Maybe. This[^] is what it looks like for me.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Actually, Ravel, it is a quite insightful observation to the more intellectual mature among us. The modern west has made us all idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing. We have allowed ourselves to be consumed by a cultural imperative that mandates that we hate virtually everything about ourselves. Our religion, our history, hell even our own ethnic identity is something we ridicule and disparage. We believe in nothing except tht we suck and that our only hope is for us to as quickly as possible eliminate ourselves is some kind of grand cultural suicide.

What crap. Hardly any Americans think that America is anything but the greatest thing ever. Self-deprecation has been common in all societies throughout history, not something 'Leftist' or 'new'.

Christian Graus

Stan Shannon wrote:

The towns are not disconnected. They are united by the constitution.

But, you're saying that each town should be free to establish it's own laws. So, not really a country if I don't know from being in one state, what the laws are in another, or even the mores.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Any such argument would be historically inaccurate.

While much of what you said is true, this is not. There was a time when Islam was the tolerant one, and the educated one. As an aside, a Christian country that permits other religions is still bigoted compared to a country that allows all religions. The US is this today, witness the furor over the very idea that Obama might be a Muslim.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Again, there is little historic justification for any such accusation

Not sure what history has to do with it, I am talking about the views you espouse, that the moment the people choose to help their weakest members in an organised, non ad hoc manner, you regard it as the end of civilisation.

Stan Shannon wrote:

The reliance upon a little bit of collectivism creaes the very economy inefficienty that justifies the application of even more collectivism. It is an inenvitable and insidious process that has only one result, and that result is ultimate cataclysmic economic collapse.

So, you do see only two options. Anything that is a little 'collectivism', in your eyes, can only lead to total 'collectivism'.

Stan Shannon wrote:

And who does? The society Jefferson lived in remained a primitive, preindustrial one.

This kind of side stepped the point I was making.

Stan Shannon wrote:

And it purposefully had nothing to do with government being empowered to care for the needs of anyone. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Quite simply, a place where anyone who wanted to grab some land and start farming it, is a place where any need for support of the poor, through any means, is greatly diminished.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

peterchen

You obviously don't know a lot about socialism.

Burning Chrome ^ | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist

Haakon S

peterchen wrote:

You obviously don't know a lot about socialism.

How can you say that? I live in a contry, Norway, with a socialist government.

peterchen

I grew up in East Germany. Norway? Dying and rotting capitalism, hands down.

Burning Chrome ^ | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist