MASS PSYCHOSIS - How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL

[Gunny]

Should be required viewing. Sounds a whole lot like what's been going on in this country/society. Right down to the isolation (covid lockdown).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09maaUaRT4M

[Gunny]

The companion piece.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFie-UCFV_s

[Gunny]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvPKTVK10JE

[AHZ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvPKTVK10JE


yes the greater good.

often there is a greater good, but it's nearly always not what the totalitarians are offering.

[Gunny]

yes the greater good.

often there is a greater good, but it's nearly always not what the totalitarians are offering.Isn't that the sell though? "greater good", "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", et al. Wrap the fear mongering/BS in a sound principle and sell it to casual-to-non-thinking masses.

To the point that the authoritarian minority currently is forcing the desires of the (very) few onto the masses at the expense of the needs of the many. And selling it for the greater good because if you don't agree with woke inclusiveness you're a hateful bigot and the masses live in absolute terror of being labeled such, never mind if it's not true.

[AHZ]

Isn't that the sell though? "greater good", "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", et al. Wrap the fear mongering/BS in a sound principle and sell it to casual-to-non-thinking masses.

To the point that the authoritarian minority currently is forcing the desires of the (very) few onto the masses at the expense of the needs of the many. And selling it for the greater good because if you don't agree with woke inclusiveness you're a hateful bigot and the masses live in absolute terror of being labeled such, never mind if it's not true.




greater good can be a real thing. like a good school system, or honest cops.

the evil imposter greater good is generally a harder sell, like, "why is it smart to send all the jobs away"?


good and evil do exist.


globalism being portrayed as unconditionally good (a greater good) should raise red flags.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

greater good can be a real thing. like a good school system, or honest cops.

the evil imposter greater good is generally a harder sell, like, "why is it smart to send all the jobs away"?


good and evil do exist.


globalism being portrayed as unconditionally good (a greater good) should raise red flags.

Globalism is bad as it is only good for the globalists.
Globalism leads towards a dictatorial government, imho. --Tyr

[Gunny]

greater good can be a real thing. like a good school system, or honest cops.

the evil imposter greater good is generally a harder sell, like, "why is it smart to send all the jobs away"?


good and evil do exist.


globalism being portrayed as unconditionally good (a greater good) should raise red flags.


Globalism is bad as it is only good for the globalists.
Globalism leads towards a dictatorial government, imho. --Tyr

Part of the problem: can't see the forest for the trees. I was referring to how it applies to our government. Fix our government and globalism isn't an issue unless it is what the People want and vote for. In the latter case, anti-globalists are SOL. In the meantime, a government that is representing itself is foisting whatever it wants on the People, which is the general topic, not just globalism. I don't see any global, "woke" movement.

[AHZ]

Part of the problem: can't see the forest for the trees. I was referring to how it applies to our government. Fix our government and globalism isn't an issue unless it is what the People want and vote for. In the latter case, anti-globalists are SOL. In the meantime, a government that is representing itself is foisting whatever it wants on the People, which is the general topic, not just globalism. I don't see any global, "woke" movement.


all the payola that corrupts the government comes from globalist financial institutions that are profitizing destruction and division, and rewarding evil.

while i could theorically being on board with some form of greater global order, the current one being created now is definitely a creation of demons.

we want totalitarianism against pedo. and we actually want cops too, with significant stopping power. we're not animals. we just also want tariffs and america first trade policy.

this is not too much to ask far.

this used to be called just being a country.

you people have changed.

[Kathianne]

Part of the problem: can't see the forest for the trees. I was referring to how it applies to our government. Fix our government and globalism isn't an issue unless it is what the People want and vote for. In the latter case, anti-globalists are SOL. In the meantime, a government that is representing itself is foisting whatever it wants on the People, which is the general topic, not just globalism. I don't see any global, "woke" movement.

Indeed. People DO LIKE the prices that come with competition or rather globalism! That politicians like Biden Inc set up ways for their own enrichment, doesn't mean competition is bad, rather particular persons are. Same with business leaders that abuse their opportunities to exploit others, here and abroad.

A good rule or thumb, often called one of the logical fallacies is beware of persons speaking in absolutes.

[AHZ]

Indeed. People DO LIKE the prices that come with competition or rather globalism! That politicians like Biden Inc set up ways for their own enrichment, doesn't mean competition is bad, rather particular persons are. Same with business leaders that abuse their opportunities to exploit others, here and abroad.

A good rule or thumb, often called one of the logical fallacies is beware of persons speaking in absolutes.


only up to a point. no matter how low prices get, you have zero buying power when your job is sent away.

the good is short lived, and there are long term consequences to losing markets, and even production capacity itself.


consider it from defense points of view, all you hawks.


is it smart to have your enemy in charge of your supply lines?

what would west point say?

[Gunny]

only up to a point. no matter how low prices get, you have zero buying power when your job is sent away.

the good is short lived, and there are long term consequences to losing markets, and even production capacity itself.


consider it from defense points of view, all you hawks.


is it smart to have your enemy in charge of your supply lines?

what would west point say?Simple truth: The People of the US are as responsible for jobs LEAVING (as opposed to being "sent away" as the government and capitalists. Capitalists are in business to make money, period. There's no incentive for them to stay here.

Mostly via the Dems but originally the Republicans, industry has been regulated out of business. Add spoiled Americans who are also in business to make money and their labor unions with their overheads and Americans have put themselves out of business and incentivized industry leaving. Our industry cannot compete on the World market fairly because of us and our government.

Again, fix the government to represent what is best for the Nation and its people without catering to their every desire and you solve most of these issues. The sheeple don't want to educate themselves. Easier to let a government in business for itself to tell them what to think.

[Kathianne]

Simple truth: The People of the US are as responsible for jobs LEAVING (as opposed to being "sent away" as the government and capitalists. Capitalists are in business to make money, period. There's no incentive for them to stay here.

Mostly via the Dems but originally the Republicans, industry has been regulated out of business. Add spoiled Americans who are also in business to make money and their labor unions with their overheads and Americans have put themselves out of business and incentivized industry leaving. Our industry cannot compete on the World market fairly because of us and our government.

Again, fix the government to represent what is best for the Nation and its people without catering to their every desire and you solve most of these issues. The sheeple don't want to educate themselves. Easier to let a government in business for itself to tell them what to think.

Exactly. Realize what the 'global rate' is for your job-make decisions. Choose different field; argue for more competitive salaries across the board-bringing US products in line with others-when possible. Have business leaders, politicians that speak truth to workers and truth to business owners/stock holders on price points with competition. If someone had done that in the 50s 60s we likely would still have a steel industry. Talk about reinvesting and R & D to American corps, that were happy to keep paying more and more for less quality and bigger profits.

No one reason has caused any of this-no one is doing anything other than spitting in the wind like Trump, ginning up his followers into a frothing from the mouth bunch of whiners, with zero clue to how economics work.

[fj1200]

Wow, I guess any thread can be about globalism.

Free trade FTW!

[Kathianne]

Wow, I guess any thread can be about globalism.

Free trade FTW!

This used to drive me nuts, but Jim has always been of the mindset that however a thread meandered, it just did. What isn't ok, is just interjecting 'globalism'; 'you suck, you know it's true!'; those type of diversions if you will.

[AHZ]

Simple truth: The People of the US are as responsible for jobs LEAVING (as opposed to being "sent away" as the government and capitalists. Capitalists are in business to make money, period. There's no incentive for them to stay here.

Mostly via the Dems but originally the Republicans, industry has been regulated out of business. Add spoiled Americans who are also in business to make money and their labor unions with their overheads and Americans have put themselves out of business and incentivized industry leaving. Our industry cannot compete on the World market fairly because of us and our government.

Again, fix the government to represent what is best for the Nation and its people without catering to their every desire and you solve most of these issues. The sheeple don't want to educate themselves. Easier to let a government in business for itself to tell them what to think.


no they're not responsible.


globalists are responsible.

you still deny the downsides of your dumb ideology to this day.

you still can't explain how it's smart to send all the jobs away.

you live a pack of lies.

totalitarian abusers always end up blaming the victims, and feeling noble in a "most rational nazi" kind of way.

[Kathianne]

no they're not responsible.


globalists are responsible.

you still deny the downsides of your dumb ideology to this day.

you still can't explain how it's smart to send all the jobs away.

you live a pack of lies.

totalitarian abusers always end up blaming the victims, and feeling noble in a "most rational nazi" kind of way.

Soon the nanjix will fix all to your liking. Never listen to anything outside of your mind.

[AHZ]

Soon the nanjix will fix all to your liking. Never listen to anything outside of your mind.


you seem to acknowledge globalism was a bad idea, in retrospect.

otherwise why are you assigning blame?

[SassyLady]

I can remember when I posted something on mass psychosis during covid and feedback was something along junk science. Now it seems to have entered MSM and it's a thing.
:rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

you seem to acknowledge globalism was a bad idea, in retrospect.

otherwise why are you assigning blame?

Nanjix forever!

[SassyLady]

To me there is a difference in globalism and free trade. I'm a capitalist but don't want international organizations dictating anything that interfers with the Constitution. I would prefer the US be not dependent on other countries interrupting our supply chain.

[AHZ]

I can remember when I posted something on mass psychosis during covid and feedback was something along junk science. Now it seems to have entered MSM and it's a thing.
:rolleyes:


now they want to say it's trump supporters only who have psychosis.

[Kathianne]

To me there is a difference in globalism and free trade. I'm a capitalist but don't want international organizations dictating anything that interfers with the Constitution. I would prefer the US be not dependent on other countries interrupting our supply chain.

Those concerns I can concur with. Supply chains and controlling our own resources are not just important, but in national interests. The 'bad' choices nearly always involve some sort of corruption-that much I'll agree with others. The solution though is not turning within, but convicting the wrong doers.

[AHZ]

Those concerns I can concur with. Supply chains and controlling our own resources are not just important, but in national interests. The 'bad' choices nearly always involve some sort of corruption-that much I'll agree with others. The solution though is not turning within, but convicting the wrong doers.


the globalist teachings have 100% embraced the opposite of what you espouse now.



it seems like you just saying vague platitudes right now.

what key fields are worth of protecting? tech, agriculture, pharmaceutical?

[Kathianne]

the globalist teachings have 100% embraced the opposite of what you espouse now.



it seems like you just saying vague platitudes right now.

what key fields are worth of protecting? tech, agriculture, pharmaceutical?
Nanjix!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Indeed. People DO LIKE the prices that come with competition or rather globalism! That politicians like Biden Inc set up ways for their own enrichment, doesn't mean competition is bad, rather particular persons are. Same with business leaders that abuse their opportunities to exploit others, here and abroad.

A good rule or thumb, often called one of the logical fallacies is beware of persons speaking in absolutes.

That is true, human nature functions on greed. Everybody wants more money and a better life.
Yet globalist understand what they want, they just do not want to work for it. They think the brilliant minds can organize ways to steal it for the enslaved public.
The public that they enslaved through government dictates. That is why we are seeing new laws that steal away our freedoms. Globalist are at heart greedy and evil and they think being that way is just fine.
We capitalists simply want to earn our money without corruption and enslavement of others. --Tyr

[Kathianne]

That is true, human nature functions on greed. Everybody wants more money and a better life.
Yet globalist understand what they want, they just do not want to work for it. They think the brilliant minds can organize ways to steal it for the enslaved public.
The public that they enslaved through government dictates. That is why we are seeing new laws that steal away our freedoms. Globalist are at heart greedy and evil and they think being that way is just fine.
We capitalists simply want to earn our money without corruption and enslavement of others. --Tyr

So, Toyota is globalist; Ford is capitalist? How's that working? Which teams are on which side? What about clothing, no names. Made in Indonesia or Vietnam or Guam? Are those folks, at .25$ an hour the awful globalists?

[AHZ]

That is true, human nature functions on greed. Everybody wants more money and a better life.
Yet globalist understand what they want, they just do not want to work for it. They think the brilliant minds can organize ways to steal it for the enslaved public.
The public that they enslaved through government dictates. That is why we are seeing new laws that steal away our freedoms. Globalist are at heart greedy and evil and they think being that way is just fine.
We capitalists simply want to earn our money without corruption and enslavement of others. --Tyr


excellent.

we always put limits on capitalism, like "no child labor etc". like no slave labor etc.

"no trading with the enemy" has also been a law for good reason.

globalism is an intentional forgetting of previous moral and practical limits on markets.

[AHZ]

So, Toyota is globalist; Ford is capitalist? How's that working? Which teams are on which side? What about clothing, no names. Made in Indonesia or Vietnam or Guam? Are those folks, at .25$ an hour the awful globalists?


no they're co-victims in globalism. their governments oppress them and make them into defacto slaves putting free people out of work.

and we should not incentivize their servitude with massive purchase orders.

we shouldn't inventivize this behavior, long term it enslaves all because it's a race to the bottom.

the only long term benefit is for corporate shareholders.

[Kathianne]

no they're co-victims in globalism. their governments oppress them and make them into defacto slaves putting free people out of work.

and we should not incentivize their servitude with massive purchase orders.

we shouldn't inventivize this behavior, long term it enslaves all because it's a race to the bottom.

the only long term benefit is for corporate shareholders.

So much for capitalism and free trade with the Nanjix, huh.

[AHZ]

So much for capitalism and free trade with the Nanjix, huh.


tariffs and protectionist considerations have always been a part of trade policies.

[Kathianne]

tariffs and protectionist considerations have always been a part of trade policies.

Your point, in context?

[AHZ]

Your point, in context?


You seem ignorant of the basics of trade policy and real downsides of globalist zealotry.

[Kathianne]

You seem ignorant of the basics of trade policy and real downsides of globalist zealotry.


:laugh2: Nanjix!

[fj1200]

This used to drive me nuts, but Jim has always been of the mindset that however a thread meandered, it just did. What isn't ok, is just interjecting 'globalism'; 'you suck, you know it's true!'; those type of diversions if you will.

I do like a good meandering but then there's grabbing the wheel and heading off the cliff. :thumb:

[Gunny]

@ AHZ You have zero idea WTF you are rambling about. You think you know everything therefore are not open to learn anything. Bill Engvall has a sign for you, and I posted a thread about it. You're just being stupid.

Obviously you cannot address the topic of the thread which is NOT globalism. That's YOUR petty little rant. Be that as it may, it STILL is nothing more than a symptom of the disease but fits directly in line with the narrator's commentary. You can't address the topic so you prefer your ignorant bliss with your kindergarten level solutions and otherwise roll right along being part of the problem.

The masses have been purposefully dumbed down, IMO, for that very reason and you are a shining example. So caught up in your little pissant shit guarding the grapes you can't see the bureaucracy stealing the rest of the store:rolleyes:

[Gunny]

Exactly. Realize what the 'global rate' is for your job-make decisions. Choose different field; argue for more competitive salaries across the board-bringing US products in line with others-when possible. Have business leaders, politicians that speak truth to workers and truth to business owners/stock holders on price points with competition. If someone had done that in the 50s 60s we likely would still have a steel industry. Talk about reinvesting and R & D to American corps, that were happy to keep paying more and more for less quality and bigger profits.

No one reason has caused any of this-no one is doing anything other than spitting in the wind like Trump, ginning up his followers into a frothing from the mouth bunch of whiners, with zero clue to how economics work.

Educating the masses. The narrator speaks to the masses not wanting to be educated. In his opinion, it is one of the biggest reasons driving all others. Add to that it appears to me most people are too afraid anymore to ask questions for fear of being labeled, with current admin stoking the flames of fear as fast as they can pump the bellows.

[AHZ]

@ AHZ You have zero idea WTF you are rambling about. You think you know everything therefore are not open to learn anything. Bill Engvall has a sign for you, and I posted a thread about it. You're just being stupid.

Obviously you cannot address the topic of the thread which is NOT globalism. That's YOUR petty little rant. Be that as it may, it STILL is nothing more than a symptom of the disease but fits directly in line with the narrator's commentary. You can't address the topic so you prefer your ignorant bliss with your kindergarten level solutions and otherwise roll right along being part of the problem.

The masses have been purposefully dumbed down, IMO, for that very reason and you are a shining example. So caught up in your little pissant shit guarding the grapes you can't see the bureaucracy stealing the rest of the store:rolleyes:


what am i wrong about?

did you figure out how it's smart to send all the jobs away?

if not, quit wasting my time.

globalization is not always good for everyone. thats one of those "greater good" arguments.

it has pros and cons, but there's not talking to you, you can admit no cons.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So, Toyota is globalist; Ford is capitalist? How's that working? Which teams are on which side? What about clothing, no names. Made in Indonesia or Vietnam or Guam? Are those folks, at .25$ an hour the awful globalists?

No Kathianne, THEY ARE THE ENSLAVED!!!! Globalists run those Factories/ Companies.....--Tyr

[Gunny]

what am i wrong about?

did you figure out how it's smart to send all the jobs away?

if not, quit wasting my time.

globalization is not always good for everyone. thats one of those "greater good" arguments.

it has pros and cons, but there's not talking to you, you can admit no cons.You mean I refuse to agree with your stupidity? For once you are correct. You can discuss the topic as presented in the first three posts/videos or STFU. You can do it for yourself or I will do it for you.

I'm tired of you ruining thread after thread with your same stupid shit.

[revelarts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj2RCPWDTG4

[AHZ]

You mean I refuse to agree with your stupidity? For once you are correct. You can discuss the topic as presented in the first three posts/videos or STFU. You can do it for yourself or I will do it for you.

I'm tired of you ruining thread after thread with your same stupid shit.


Unconditional myopic support of globalist stupidity is a prime example of mass psychosis.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

only up to a point. no matter how low prices get, you have zero buying power when your job is sent away.

the good is short lived, and there are long term consequences to losing markets, and even production capacity itself.


consider it from defense points of view, all you hawks.


is it smart to have your enemy in charge of your supply lines?

what would west point say?
Same things I have pointed out-especially when we have an enemy= China= making thousands of things we need and use.
What happens if we go to war with China? ---Tyr

[fj1200]

https://assets3.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/r/2023/01/04/c16bbf8f-0360-4b35-9e35-6c40fd8310c6/thumbnail/1200x630/6b0a8d1220f1ab4a880c0372d2e3b7ae/cbsn-fusion-4-rescued-after-tesla-plunges-off-cliff-in-california-thumbnail-1594703-640x360.jpg?v=46e0dad4db516ed39a3a8f6257e75e73

[AHZ]

Same things I have pointed out-especially when we have an enemy= China= making thousands of things we need and use.
What happens if we go to war with China? ---Tyr


what do you want to bet all the ukraine hawks will also say changing the trade relationship with china is "impossible", for some stupid bag of dog dick reasons.

I know you can appreciate the poetic nature of "stupid bag of dog dick reasons".

[AHZ]

for those who feel the thread has been hijacked:

what are some other mass psychotic beliefs?

one great example should not be a thread stopper.

[Kathianne]

for those who feel the thread has been hijacked:

what are some other mass psychotic beliefs?

one great example should not be a thread stopper.

Bye

[fj1200]

for those who feel the thread has been hijacked:

what are some other mass psychotic beliefs?

one great example should not be a thread stopper.

That's not even a good example. There are entire threads devoted to what you seek to yammer on about whereever you can cram it in.

[Kathianne]

for those who feel the thread has been hijacked:

what are some other mass psychotic beliefs?

one great example should not be a thread stopper.

Since you seem adamant on challenging the limits, this is your last 'thread ban' until it stops. Next will be 24 hour bans, to be increased if you choose to keep up the derailing and challenging of mods.

[Gunny]

On the topic of "the Greater Good" ... I cannot say I agree with the narrator on his take, except as he presents it. He presents two extremes, authoritarian rule or anarchy. He speaks in absolutes. He presents society solely in a negative light, and construct. While it may be the latter, the utopian minded people he speaks of must live on some other planet because they don't exist on this one. Society and/or law does not exist for good people. It exists for weak people and criminals, mostly to protect the former from the latter. In a real world where real people kill other real people for whatever reason, society is for the protection of the people.

Whatever the narrator wishes to label it, putting one's desires above the needs of others is just plain selfishness. We don't live in the narrator's utopia. We live in a society. For those who wish to bitch about society and having to participate for it to function, leave. That means pretty much walking out of one's house naked and into the hills. For all the bitching I hear, I don't see many of the bitchers doing THAT. Not being part of society means not having the advantages of anything it offers.

It can go too far the other way. On that, I agree with the narrator. We can see in the media tool daily the inherent danger and downward slide to authoritarianism here in this country. My current observation is we are living in an age where fear, mostly of government and societal labeling, is worse than it was in the 60s living in daily fear we were going to get nuked. All I see currently are a bunch of deer staring at headlights.

It is up to the people to act collectively (dirty word to the I/Me crowd/narrator) to stop the authoritarianism. Even the narrator mentions this here and in other videos -- parallel constructs. But what is it he's constructing? Parallel society to push out the authoritarian one. A parallel society that will need to be watched by the people so it too doesn't slide to either extreme.

Edit: As an aside, I would further point out to AHZ that using the narrator's argument, corporations/people would be free to take their businesses wherever the Hell they want, without government/socital control. So he needs to figure out what he's arguing for or against. Tomorrow, when he can :)

[revelarts]

IMO..
Concerning govt, socialism, capitalism, anarchy, the question isn't either or. Its the LIMITS of each. And the collective moral principles people want to love...Live under.
There is no perfect system of govt But the best form of govt is LIMITED govt with primarily LOCAL control.
There is no perfect economic system but capitalism LIMITED by govt & morals is the best.
when I say Best I don't mean the most powerful or the richest.
I'm talking about for the most FREEDOM for the most people (which used to a valued ideal in the US).
Best for the most options. Different states and cities with different laws means more options. SMALL LOCAL & REGIONAL biz means more options, vs large gov't & market captured protected mega corps.

One of Govts big flaws is it's separation from the people & secrecy... The larger it gets the worse the problem.
One of capitalism major flaws is its innate lack of morals. Money is its True goal. Not service or products. Those are simply means to the end. And without people IMPOSING universally understood good morals to the transactions , up front or via community reaction or govt sanctions, capitalism becomes just a different form of abuse or tyranny
also Size (monopoly of markets) & collusion for size (effectively monopoly) is a horrific problem.
IF FREEDOM for the most people is something we value. Rather than freedom for corporations to do whatever THEY want.

Big govt plus big corps working together is slightly better than big govt running everything "socialism".
But faceless UNACCOUNTABLE international corps and two-faced national/international govts working together is a horror show as well.
The trains may run on time but "for the greater good" is ONLY what they say it is. And if you don't like it too bad. There are NO other options allowed and NO other places to go.

...For the greater good....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

IMO..
Concerning govt, socialism, capitalism, anarchy, the question isn't either or. Its the LIMITS of each.And the collective moral principles people want to love...LIve under.
There is no perfect system of govt But the best form of govt is LIMITED govt with primarily LOCAL control.
there is no perfect economic system but capitalism LIMITED by govt & morals is the best.
when I say Best I don't mean the most powerful or the richest.
I'm talking about for the most FREEDOM for the most people (which used to a valued ideal in the US).
Best for the most options, different states and cities with different laws means more options. SMALL LOCAL & REGIONAL biz means more options, vs large gov't & market captured protected mega corps.

one of Govts big flaws is it's separation from the people & secrecy... The larger it gets the worse the problem.
one of capitalism major flaws is its innate lack of morals. money is its True goal. Not service or products. Those are simply means to the end. And without people IMPOSING universally understood good morals to the transactions , up front or via community reaction or govt sanctions, capitalism becomes just a different form of abuse or tyranny
also Size (monopoly of markets) & collusion for size (effectively monopoly) is a horrific problem.
IF FREEDOM for the most people is something we value. Rather than freedom for corporations to do whatever THEY want.

Big govt plus big corps working together is slightly better than big govt running everything "socialism".
But faceless UNACCOUNTABLE international corps and two-faced national/international govts working together is a horror show as well.
The trains may run on time but " for the great good" is ONLY what they say it is. And if you don't like it to bad. There are NO other options allowed and NO other places to go.

...For the greater good....

Bravo. I am with you in this posting.
Either we turn back to the trying to be a moral society or we don't.
If it is the conclusion that we don't , it is going to be very bad and eventually this nation will cease to be. Evil kills its host.
Millions have no concept of that reality. They are being raised blind by a population educating blindness and greed!
Such as that is doomed to its own destructive end as well! --Tyr

[fj1200]

IMO..


Bravo.

Just so I'm understanding here. Government is a vehicle for imposing morality. Is that right?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just so I'm understanding here. Government is a vehicle for imposing morality. Is that right?

NO! No, BUT government already does when it passes laws restricting thief, rape, murder, etc, etc.
To have a civilized society government has to enforce certain moral standards and it does with its laws.
The problem comes when certain factions gain power and try to destroy certain moral standards so they can install or carry on with their immoral actions.
They try to change decency to admit and aid them in their immorality. Government by nature seeks power. It also targets individuals that disagree
with it, especially if they object to its placating evil and aiding darkness as the dems want and install every damn chance they get. A FACT..--Tyr

[revelarts]

NO! No, BUT government already does when it passes laws restricting thief, rape, murder, etc, etc.
To have a civilized society government has to enforce certain moral standards and it does with its laws.
The problem comes when certain factions gain power and try to destroy certain moral standards so they can install or carry on with their immoral actions.
They try to change decency to admit and aid them in their immorality. Government by nature seeks power. It also targets individuals that disagree
with it, especially if they object to its placating evil and aiding darkness as the dems want and install every damn chance they get. A FACT..--Tyr

I agree, accept i would say... strait up... YES. Govt does impose morals standards.
Just like you said murder, rape, theft, even "you shall not commit false witness" (lying) is covered in law via fraud, laws, false advertising laws, slander, perjury laws etc...


That's what any good law is, a LIMITED reflection of good morals. A FINAL backstop to immoral behavior.
The thing is the Gov't & laws should be LIMITED (and mostly local). Most morals should be enforced by God given INTERNAL moral checks, checks by family, checks by community standards pressures, the law should only be a FINAL check for LIMITED extreme moral offenses. (AND the laws themself subject to LOCAL checks)

Fj look, On our better days, we all KNOW that we should care about everyones welfare.
Love your neighbor as yourself is a general universal leaning, that makes society.
Seems to me, an innate desire for connection, love & peace, not just weakness are the general drivers for 'society'.

And Tyr Yep, the thing that gets gov't off track is the fact that some people reject the God given outlines of reality and God's clear teachings of what's best for us.
They don't want God's way, they want what they want, so they start rejecting real morals and then making up BS & turning immorality into law.
Along with some peoples old fashion desire to control others and their environment as much as possible.

[Gunny]

Just so I'm understanding here. Government is a vehicle for imposing morality. Is that right?Why does government exist if not to impose control based on whatever? Most every law we have on the books (I am sure there are exceptions) is based on someone's idea of right and wrong = morality.

At the one end of the argument where everyone is virtuous and needs no control, there is no need for government. Man is incapable of such. At the other end is "A Brave New World". Only the people themselves can keep a semblance of balance. A responsibility the people of our society have seemingly abdicated.

[revelarts]

Why does government exist if not to impose control based on whatever? Most every law we have on the books (I am sure there are exceptions) is based on someone's idea of right and wrong = morality.

At the one end of the argument where everyone is virtuous and needs no control, there is no need for government. Man is incapable of such. At the other end is "A Brave New World". Only the people themselves can keep a semblance of balance. A responsibility the people of our society have seemingly abdicated.

Gunny sums up James Madison.

“If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.”

[fj1200]

NO! No, BUT government already does when it passes laws restricting thief, rape, murder, etc, etc.
To have a civilized society government has to enforce certain moral standards and it does with its laws.
The problem comes when certain factions gain power and try to destroy certain moral standards so they can install or carry on with their immoral actions.
They try to change decency to admit and aid them in their immorality. Government by nature seeks power. It also targets individuals that disagree
with it, especially if they object to its placating evil and aiding darkness as the dems want and install every damn chance they get. A FACT..--Tyr


I agree, accept i would say... strait up... YES. Govt does impose morals standards.
Just like you said murder, rape, theft, even "you shall not commit false witness" (lying) is covered in law via fraud, laws, false advertising laws, slander, perjury laws etc...


That's what any good law is, a LIMITED reflection of good morals. A FINAL backstop to immoral behavior.
The thing is the Gov't & laws should be LIMITED (and mostly local). Most morals should be enforced by God given INTERNAL moral checks, checks by family, checks by community standards pressures, the law should only be a FINAL check for LIMITED extreme moral offenses. (AND the laws themself subject to LOCAL checks)

Fj look, On our better days, we all KNOW that we should care about everyones welfare.
Love your neighbor as yourself is a general universal leaning, that makes society.
Seems to me, an innate desire for connection, love & peace, not just weakness are the general drivers for 'society'.

And Tyr Yep, the thing that gets gov't off track is the fact that some people reject the God given outlines of reality and God's clear teachings of what's best for us.
They don't want God's way, they want what they want, so they start rejecting real morals and then making up BS & turning immorality into law.
Along with some peoples old fashion desire to control others and their environment as much as possible.

I'll argue that those are not moral standards. Those are crimes agaist life (murder), liberty (rape), and property (theft) along with breach of contract. Rights that we should all enjoy. I could be a completely amoral person who would like to do all of those things but I don't because I don't want to go to jail or be sued. Once a level of "moral standard" is codified into law then judgement is being passed. Whose judgement do we want to rely on? Our guy we voted for who can do no wrong or the guy we didn't vote for who is morally bankrupt.

You want a check against capitalism? Capitalism is its own check, when capitalism is allowed to be. You want God's clear teachings? Whose version of God would you like?

[fj1200]

Why does government exist if not to impose control based on whatever? Most every law we have on the books (I am sure there are exceptions) is based on someone's idea of right and wrong = morality.

At the one end of the argument where everyone is virtuous and needs no control, there is no need for government. Man is incapable of such. At the other end is "A Brave New World". Only the people themselves can keep a semblance of balance. A responsibility the people of our society have seemingly abdicated.

Protect your natural rights and enforce contracts.

[Gunny]

I agree, accept i would say... strait up... YES. Govt does impose morals standards.
Just like you said murder, rape, theft, even "you shall not commit false witness" (lying) is covered in law via fraud, laws, false advertising laws, slander, perjury laws etc...


That's what any good law is, a LIMITED reflection of good morals. A FINAL backstop to immoral behavior.
The thing is the Gov't & laws should be LIMITED (and mostly local). Most morals should be enforced by God given INTERNAL moral checks, checks by family, checks by community standards pressures, the law should only be a FINAL check for LIMITED extreme moral offenses. (AND the laws themself subject to LOCAL checks)

Fj look, On our better days, we all KNOW that we should care about everyones welfare.
Love your neighbor as yourself is a general universal leaning, that makes society.
Seems to me, an innate desire for connection, love & peace, not just weakness are the general drivers for 'society'.

And Tyr Yep, the thing that gets gov't off track is the fact that some people reject the God given outlines of reality and God's clear teachings of what's best for us.
They don't want God's way, they want what they want, so they start rejecting real morals and then making up BS & turning immorality into law.
Along with some peoples old fashion desire to control others and their environment as much as possible.Society does teach its young. We use Wilhelm I's compulsory education system to teach them what government deems necessary.

[Black Diamond]

Society does tach its young. We use Wilhelm I's compulsory education system to teach them what government deems necessary.

Is that Prussian?

[Gunny]

Is that Prussian?Yes. Our public education system is based on it.

[Gunny]

I'll argue that those are not moral standards. Those are crimes agaist life (murder), liberty (rape), and property (theft) along with breach of contract. Rights that we should all enjoy. I could be a completely amoral person who would like to do all of those things but I don't because I don't want to go to jail or be sued. Once a level of "moral standard" is codified into law then judgement is being passed. Whose judgement do we want to rely on? Our guy we voted for who can do no wrong or the guy we didn't vote for who is morally bankrupt.

You want a check against capitalism? Capitalism is its own check, when capitalism is allowed to be. You want God's clear teachings? Whose version of God would you like?That those you mention are crimes at all is derived from moral standard. Societies have existed and still exist that do not consider those crimes. The standard that deems them crimes is morality.

When morality is passed as law, the law is (theoretically) the judge, not "our guy we voted for".

I suspect many are as you state however. Completely amoral yet afraid of jail. Society based on fear. Seems we're right back where we began :)

[fj1200]

That those you mention are crimes at all is derived from moral standard. Societies have existed and still exist that do not consider those crimes. The standard that deems them crimes is morality.

When morality is passed as law, the law is (theoretically) the judge, not "our guy we voted for".

I suspect many are as you state however. Completely amoral yet afraid of jail. Society based on fear. Seems we're right back where we began :)

The example was only the amoral guy not going to jail based on supposedly morality based laws. Most don't break laws because they're good, moral people. I only argue that those laws are not morality based. Reasonable people can disagree but either way laws morality are subjected to people's differing views on morality. We can look at the same law and disagree on its morality but we can both look at murder, rape, theft, etc. and know that they're wrong and not have to agree on a moral standard.

[Kathianne]

Actually the way fj looks at this is the way it's presented in Con Law 1. Our laws are written for 'We the People' that included, even way back at the founding, Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, deists, Quakers, the list goes on and on. Now we add in Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, etc. Bottom line: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.


John Locke (1632-1704) argued that the law of nature obliged all human beings not to harm “the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another”:

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.


John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Thomas Hollis (London: A. Millar et al., 1764). 12/16/2019.

[revelarts]

I'll argue that those are not moral standards. Those are crimes against life (murder), liberty (rape), and property (theft) along with breach of contract. Rights that we should all enjoy....
tel me if i'm miss reading you here. you seem to say.
Murder, rape & theft are not part of any 'moral' standard.
They are 'crimes' against life liberty property & contract.

Later you say morals are different for different people.
And some people are Amoral but are only afraid of consequences of actions rather than any morals.

Ok 1st of all
Lets get a definition of morals
a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
ETHICALmoral judgments
b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
a moral poem
c: conforming to a standard of right behavior
took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment
a moral obligation
e: capable of right and wrong action

That's modern Merriam Webster

1828 Websters (https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/moral) says
MOR'AL, adjective [Latin moralis, from mos, moris, manner.]
1. Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined. The word however may be applied to actions which affect only, or primarily and principally, a person's own happiness.

I don't understand how you can argue that murder, rape, theft, and "breach of contract" are outside of the realm of morals.

The question really isn't whether any individual thinks this or that is right or wrong... MORAL.
When GOOD laws are enacted they are based on some group's understanding of what RIGHT & WRONG... MORALS. (ideally a Group closely following God's morals in justice & mercy)
in the US, founded primarily by people deeply immersed in protestant Christian theology (sorry Kath that's just the facts). the Moral ethos they based laws on was Christian based. the God of the Bible's concept of what's right and wrong was the foundation of law.



Protect your natural rights and enforce contracts.
Natural rights?
Based on what?
Without an objective standard to base those "rights" on they are just assertions.
Who says you have ANY rights? if we're all 'just animals' evolved from the goo, then rights are BS. might makes right.
Without God there are no real rights to appeal to. Only the law of jungle.
And BTW yes, ONLY the God of the Bible grants those rights, as each person is created 'in the image of God'. Only the new testament clearly outlines that they apply universally to ALL people on earth male & female.
not Hinduism or Buddhism where it's karma that determines you fate. Not pagan religions where it's the whim of the gods. Not Islam where woman are 3rd class & infidels can be lied to can killed for Allah. Not even Judaism where the gentiles are not really part of God's contract. (BTW the greeks only allowed citizens 'rights' and considered women and 'barbarians' less than human.)
The 'natural right's you appeal to are a philosophical outgrowth of Christian theology.


The example was only the amoral guy not going to jail based on supposedly morality based laws. Most don't break laws because they're good, moral people. I only argue that those laws are not morality based. Reasonable people can disagree but either way laws morality are subjected to people's differing views on morality. We can look at the same law and disagree on its morality but we can both look at murder, rape, theft, etc. and know that they're wrong and not have to agree on a moral standard.
Most people can look at murder theft rape etc and see the wrong. some cannot nowadays. As time goes on more people are trying to 'morally' justify things most here in the west think is immoral.
Killing children, in the womb, now just after birth. somehow even all murder isn't thought immoral ...or a crime... anymore.


Actually the way fj looks at this is the way it's presented in Con Law 1. Our laws are written for 'We the People' that included, even way back at the founding, Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, deists, Quakers, the list goes on and on. Now we add in Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, etc. Bottom line: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

Here's the thing about Locke Even he roots nature back to God. the Christian understanding of God as creator.
Here's a Catholic scholar that makes the point using Locke's own words.
https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&context=tcl
Basically Locke thought that man could figure out law by looking at Nature, Nature made by God, Man created by God therefore God's Natural Law.

the declaration of independence says it this way
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....

If there's no Creator, then where exactly are these so called "rights" coming from?

[Kathianne]

tel me if i'm miss reading you here. you seem to say.
Murder, rape & theft are not part of any 'moral' standard.
They are 'crimes' against life liberty property & contract.

Later you say morals are different for different people.
And some people are Amoral but are only afraid of consequences of actions rather than any morals.

Ok 1st of all
Lets get a definition of morals
a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
ETHICALmoral judgments
b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
a moral poem
c: conforming to a standard of right behavior
took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment
a moral obligation
e: capable of right and wrong action

That's modern Merriam Webster

1828 Websters (https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/moral) says
MOR'AL, adjective [Latin moralis, from mos, moris, manner.]
1. Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined. The word however may be applied to actions which affect only, or primarily and principally, a person's own happiness.

I don't understand how you can argue that murder, rape, theft, and "breach of contract" are outside of the realm of morals.

The question really isn't whether any individual thinks this or that is right or wrong... MORAL.
When GOOD laws are enacted they are based on some group's understanding of what RIGHT & WRONG... MORALS. (ideally a Group closely following God's morals in justice & mercy)
in the US, founded primarily by people deeply immersed in protestant Christian theology (sorry Kath that's just the facts). the Moral ethos they based laws on was Christian based. the God of the Bible's concept of what's right and wrong was the foundation of law.



Natural rights?
Based on what?
Without an objective standard to base those "rights" on they are just assertions.
Who says you have ANY rights? if we're all 'just animals' evolved from the goo, then rights are BS. might makes right.
Without God there are no real rights to appeal to. Only the law of jungle.
And BTW yes, ONLY the God of the Bible grants those rights, as each person is created 'in the image of God'. Only the new testament clearly outlines that they apply universally to ALL people on earth male & female.
not Hinduism or Buddhism where it's karma that determines you fate. Not pagan religions where it's the whim of the gods. Not Islam where woman are 3rd class & infidels can be lied to can killed for Allah. Not even Judaism where the gentiles are not really part of God's contract. (BTW the greeks only allowed citizens 'rights' and considered women and 'barbarians' less than human.)
The 'natural right's you appeal to are a philosophical outgrowth of Christian theology.


Most people can look at murder theft rape etc and see the wrong. some cannot nowadays. As time goes on more people are trying to 'morally' justify things most here in the west think is immoral.
Killing children, in the womb, now just after birth. somehow even all murder isn't thought immoral ...or a crime... anymore.



Here's the thing about Locke Even he roots nature back to God. the Christian understanding of God as creator.
Here's a Catholic scholar that makes the point using Locke's own words.
https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&context=tcl
Basically Locke thought that man could figure out law by looking at Nature, Nature made by God, Man created by God therefore God's Natural Law.

the declaration of independence says it this way
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....

If there's no Creator, then where exactly are these so called "rights" coming from?

There is no denying a God in what the founders, fj, Locke, or I wrote. Not a bit.

Same with 'science.' I believe in the scientific method, (compared to what's too often being called science today), yet I strongly believe in God also.

[Gunny]

The example was only the amoral guy not going to jail based on supposedly morality based laws. Most don't break laws because they're good, moral people. I only argue that those laws are not morality based. Reasonable people can disagree but either way laws morality are subjected to people's differing views on morality. We can look at the same law and disagree on its morality but we can both look at murder, rape, theft, etc. and know that they're wrong and not have to agree on a moral standard.

Disagree. I do agree with Kathianne. The laws are worded the best they can be to not reflect a moral basis for the very reason that should they represent specific morality they would give one a basis to scream discrimination or whatever other violation of one's "God-given Rights" is taking place.

The morality behind our law is in fact based on Judeo-Christian laws. Evidenced by those nations whose laws are not, and their what we consider barbaric. inhumane practices, based on THEIR sense of morality.

A BIG issue with our legal system now is it attempts to remove intent - the reason for - the law and it comes up looking just stupid and we get stupid decisions from it. Nevertheless eggheads burn the midnight oil trying to remove the basis with wordsmithing.

Our laws would be very different if our culture was Japanese, Indian, ME, Russian and so on. As they are different from those cultures even now.


Actually the way fj looks at this is the way it's presented in Con Law 1. Our laws are written for 'We the People' that included, even way back at the founding, Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, deists, Quakers, the list goes on and on. Now we add in Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, etc. Bottom line: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

[fj1200]

Disagree. I do agree with Kathianne. The laws are worded the best they can be to not reflect a moral basis for the very reason that should they represent specific morality they would give one a basis to scream discrimination or whatever other violation of one's "God-given Rights" is taking place.

The morality behind our law is in fact based on Judeo-Christian laws. Evidenced by those nations whose laws are not, and their what we consider barbaric. inhumane practices, based on THEIR sense of morality.

A BIG issue with our legal system now is it attempts to remove intent - the reason for - the law and it comes up looking just stupid and we get stupid decisions from it. Nevertheless eggheads burn the midnight oil trying to remove the basis with wordsmithing.

Our laws would be very different if our culture was Japanese, Indian, ME, Russian and so on. As they are different from those cultures even now.

I'm not sure how you disagree with me but agree with Kathianne; I didn't think we were too far apart. :slap:

I don't think I was really saying that there is no morality in our laws but that there is no requirement for morality in our laws. There is certainly morality in some of our laws and those laws have gotten challenged in recent times when they disagree with the morality of a segment of the population. I think our laws would be different if our culture was homogenistic like those that you list. We don't have a homogenistic culture so it opens up the differences in morality driving our laws.

[SassyLady]

Some cultures allow honor killings. It's part of their legal system. In Iran it's in their Constitution to allow a husband to kill his wife for committing adultery.

A society determines what is acceptable. Unfortunately in some societies it's not the majority that determines this .. it's more often than not those currently in power. In Iran (and seversl other countries) it's the men who determine what is moral and legal.

[fj1200]

tel me if i'm miss reading you here. you seem to say.
Murder, rape & theft are not part of any 'moral' standard.
They are 'crimes' against life liberty property & contract.

Later you say morals are different for different people.
And some people are Amoral but are only afraid of consequences of actions rather than any morals.

Ok 1st of all
Lets get a definition of morals
a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
ETHICALmoral judgments
b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
a moral poem
c: conforming to a standard of right behavior
took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment
a moral obligation
e: capable of right and wrong action

That's modern Merriam Webster

1828 Websters (https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/moral) says
MOR'AL, adjective [Latin moralis, from mos, moris, manner.]
1. Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined. The word however may be applied to actions which affect only, or primarily and principally, a person's own happiness.

I don't understand how you can argue that murder, rape, theft, and "breach of contract" are outside of the realm of morals.

The question really isn't whether any individual thinks this or that is right or wrong... MORAL.
When GOOD laws are enacted they are based on some group's understanding of what RIGHT & WRONG... MORALS. (ideally a Group closely following God's morals in justice & mercy)
in the US, founded primarily by people deeply immersed in protestant Christian theology (sorry Kath that's just the facts). the Moral ethos they based laws on was Christian based. the God of the Bible's concept of what's right and wrong was the foundation of law.

I'm saying that we can agree to respect each other's rights and not have to agree on a moral standard. Does the Libertarian standard of rights include morality?
https://www.cato.org/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism

I don't deny the existence of God but many Libertarians do? Is their idea of rights predicated on a supreme being?


Natural rights?
Based on what?
Without an objective standard to base those "rights" on they are just assertions.
Who says you have ANY rights? if we're all 'just animals' evolved from the goo, then rights are BS. might makes right.
Without God there are no real rights to appeal to. Only the law of jungle.
And BTW yes, ONLY the God of the Bible grants those rights, as each person is created 'in the image of God'. Only the new testament clearly outlines that they apply universally to ALL people on earth male & female.
not Hinduism or Buddhism where it's karma that determines you fate. Not pagan religions where it's the whim of the gods. Not Islam where woman are 3rd class & infidels can be lied to can killed for Allah. Not even Judaism where the gentiles are not really part of God's contract. (BTW the greeks only allowed citizens 'rights' and considered women and 'barbarians' less than human.)
The 'natural right's you appeal to are a philosophical outgrowth of Christian theology.

But what is that objective standard? I don't believe that there is an insistent view of God that Lockean rights are based on. Others can argue differently but I don't think it's a necessity. I dispute that it becomes the "law of the jungle."


Most people can look at murder theft rape etc and see the wrong. some cannot nowadays. As time goes on more people are trying to 'morally' justify things most here in the west think is immoral.
Killing children, in the womb, now just after birth. somehow even all murder isn't thought immoral ...or a crime... anymore.

And even some Christians will make that argument which goes back to arguing about whose definition of morality are we going to go by. And non-Christians will bristle when you tell them that every child was "knit in the womb", etc. But an argument that says that every being is entitled to life is a completely different argument.


Here's the thing about Locke Even he roots nature back to God. the Christian understanding of God as creator.
Here's a Catholic scholar that makes the point using Locke's own words.
https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&context=tcl
Basically Locke thought that man could figure out law by looking at Nature, Nature made by God, Man created by God therefore God's Natural Law.

the declaration of independence says it this way
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....

If there's no Creator, then where exactly are these so called "rights" coming from?

Who indeed? But the answer to that question is not necessary if we agree that we each are entitled to a base level of rights.

[fj1200]

Some cultures allow honor killings. It's part of their legal system. In Iran it's in their Constitution to allow a husband to kill his wife for committing adultery.

A society determines what is acceptable. Unfortunately in some societies it's not the majority that determines this .. it's more often than not those currently in power. In Iran (and seversl other countries) it's the men who determine what is moral and legal.

And that is a "morality" that is unacceptable if we all agree that a wife has natural rights.

[revelarts]

And that is a "morality" that is unacceptable if we all agree that a wife has natural rights.

You remember when Robert Bork was up for supreme court nomination?
One the questions the left senators asked was if he believed in "natural rights" the answer they all wanted to hear was, NO.
Most academics have been teaching college/uni students to reject the concept FJ.
Why?
It's religious connotations of a natural law giver.

[revelarts]

I'm saying that we can agree to respect each other's rights and not have to agree on a moral standard. Does the Libertarian standard of rights include morality?
https://www.cato.org/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism

I don't deny the existence of God but many Libertarians do? Is their idea of rights predicated on a supreme being?



But what is that objective standard? I don't believe that there is an insistent view of God that Lockean rights are based on. Others can argue differently but I don't think it's a necessity. I dispute that it becomes the "law of the jungle."



And even some Christians will make that argument which goes back to arguing about whose definition of morality are we going to go by. And non-Christians will bristle when you tell them that every child was "knit in the womb", etc. But an argument that says that every being is entitled to life is a completely different argument.



Who indeed? But the answer to that question is not necessary if we agree that we each are entitled to a base level of rights.
Why should we agree to a base level of 'rights'?
Who's base?
If we can't even agree on what human is or a male and female at this point there is no base FJ.

The base that you seem to want to assume is the smoke left from the Christian base.

In India many people will not kill a fly or a rat, because it may be Aunt Rupi. Or simply because it's another soul/person. Animal rights activist are almost there as well.

Most in the west still generally think that humans have MORE rights than animals or plants, why?, it's the smoke left of the Christian teaching that still permeates the culture. Even after the reasons for the belief has been forgotten.
The concept that God made man in His image and set him above the plants & animals. To be care takers of and kill and eat them as necessary.

Other than 'might makes right' what REASON do we have to justify killing plants or animals?

One is hard pressed to think of one. At least one that could be held consistently.

People are claiming free health care as a right.
A living wage as a right.
A free education as a right.
Housing as a right.

Without a universally agreed apon ground for the BASIS of rights,
Either they are arbitrary 100% ...or more clearly, simply non-existent.

If people bristle at the reality of the situation that doesn't make it false.

Libertarians and Atheist and Christians who don't want to rock the secularists boat. Can ACT like rights are unhinged from Christianity but it can't last. Academics and slow boil hedonism has seen to that.

[fj1200]

You remember when Robert Bork was up for supreme court nomination?
One the questions the left senators asked was if he believed in "natural rights" the answer they all wanted to hear was, NO.
Most academics have been teaching college/uni students to reject the concept FJ.
Why?
It's religious connotations of a natural law giver.

I don't recall. Maybe you can help me out with the transcript. But it doesn't really matter because...


Why should we agree to a base level of 'rights'?
Who's base?
If we can't even agree on what human is or a male and female at this point there is no base FJ.

The base that you seem to want to assume is the smoke left from the Christian base.

In India many people will not kill a fly or a rat, because it may be Aunt Rupi. Or simply because it's another soul/person. Animal rights activist are almost there as well.

Most in the west still generally think that humans have MORE rights than animals or plants, why?, it's the smoke left of the Christian teaching that still permeates the culture. Even after the reasons for the belief has been forgotten.
The concept that God made man in His image and set him above the plants & animals. To be care takers of and kill and eat them as necessary.

Other than 'might makes right' what REASON do we have to justify killing plants or animals?

One is hard pressed to think of one. At least one that could be held consistently.

People are claiming free health care as a right.
A living wage as a right.
A free education as a right.
Housing as a right.

Without a universally agreed apon ground for the BASIS of rights,
Either they are arbitrary 100% ...or more clearly, simply non-existent.

If people bristle at the reality of the situation that doesn't make it false.

Libertarians and Atheist and Christians who don't want to rock the secularists boat. Can ACT like rights are unhinged from Christianity but it can't last. Academics and slow boil hedonism has seen to that.

... you're pretty much making my point for me. All those things that can't be agreed upon because there is no basis for morality based law because everyone has a different basis for their morality whether they are based on God or not. You haven't really dispute that point. Propose a law and say it's because of "my God's morality" and see how far you get. Propose a law and say it's because of "an individual's natural rights" and I'm sure you'll get further.

And please don't try and guess what you think I want. Nobody has been very good at that.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't recall. Maybe you can help me out with the transcript. But it doesn't really matter because...



... you're pretty much making my point for me. All those things that can't be agreed upon because there is no basis for morality based law because everyone has a different basis for their morality whether they are based on God or not. You haven't really dispute that point. Propose a law and say it's because of "my God's morality" and see how far you get. Propose a law and say it's because of "an individual's natural rights" and I'm sure you'll get further.

And please don't try and guess what you think I want. Nobody has been very good at that.




And please don't try and guess what you think I want. Nobody has been very good at that

Answer, -- to be obstinate? That would be a good guess, methinks fj.--;)--Tyr

[Kathianne]

Those interested in this argument might wish to read more:

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/what-happened-to-natural-law-in-american-jurisprudence

While always enlightening and confusing at the same time, Aquinas is always worth a read. Here's a pertinent quote:


He stated, "the light of reason is placed by nature [and thus by God] in every man to guide him in his acts." Therefore, human beings, alone among God's creatures, use reason to lead their lives. This is natural law.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Natural Law, and the Common Good

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Those interested in this argument might wish to read more:

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/what-happened-to-natural-law-in-american-jurisprudence

While always enlightening and confusing at the same time, Aquinas is always worth a read. Here's a pertinent quote:

Bravo my friend. "Reason" is what sets us above all other life on earth...We have that because of the spirit born within us.. --Tyr

[Kathianne]

Bravo my friend. "Reason" is what sets us above all other life on earth...We have that because of the spirit born within us.. --Tyr

Underlying reason why 'Catholic education' so often produces graduates that are competitive with extremely expensive private schools. While Jesuits take it to the more extreme, the root of programs are based on Aquinas. Question everything, go back to the roots. With the Constitution it's the reading the Founders were raised with, basically Renaissance writers-with a Hobbes thrown in from emerging Dark Ages. What the Founders had, that was not as widely available to their muses were the surviving writings of Plato, Aristotle, and more. They learned from Athens the dangers of democracy.

By the same token, Catholic universities have always been able to embrace science while revering faith. One of the signposts of Catholicism is that 'all' is from God, the Creator-(natural law anyone?). God is the source of all knowledge, learned and revealed. God makes possible all the tools and individuals that make and test hypothesis and eventual products from those tests. God gave humans free will. It's ours to use individually and collectively. Choose well.

[revelarts]

I don't recall. Maybe you can help me out with the transcript. But it doesn't really matter because...
... you're pretty much making my point for me. All those things that can't be agreed upon because there is no basis for morality based law because everyone has a different basis for their morality whether they are based on God or not. You haven't really dispute that point.
If God is real, then there is the best (only) basis. An objective standard.
If God is not real, then, well, anything goes.
That's my point.




Propose a law and say it's because of "my God's morality" and see how far you get. Propose a law and say it's because of "an individual's natural rights" and I'm sure you'll get further.


Well, That's more of a pragmatic question.
And that depends on what group you're speaking to. In Some of the circles i've run in saying "because of God's morality" WILL in fact get you votes and backing on laws.

But my main point is more factual, long term and foundational to the question.
But To your point here, people at this time do seem to hear the terms "natural rights" and "rights" Emotionally & UNCritically. And make certain assumptions WITHOUT having any real idea of the foundation... or as I pointed out, the LACK of foundation without God.
Its very much like a Christmas Tradition, just something we think we should do or have because welll....we always have... and it's NICE.
"we don't have to talk about Jesus (or the pagan roots). It might turn some people off. JUST enjoy Christmas why don'tcha!" "You'll get more people to the office Christmas party if don't mention the prayers, or the Bishop coming over & the bible reading."

If that's the kinda thing you're arguing for, fine. Go for it, folks can PROMOTE what they LIKE about Christmas (or Rights) and leave off the Basis that will offend. But don't complain or be shocked when others want to leave off what you think is "essential" & "basic". And start adding things that you NEVER considered part of the "real" Christmas tradition.

You already, for pragmatic reasons, want to Unhitched "natural rights" from all it's roots. So you can't assume anything you deem essential about 'rights' would carry over. The warm fuzzy connotation and feelings people get from the concept does have rhetorical power among many because of it's history. But it has no intrinsic meaning or base when used that way. it's weak sauce easily being blown over or co-oped without it's base.

[revelarts]

Those interested in this argument might wish to read more:

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/what-happened-to-natural-law-in-american-jurisprudence

...:
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/what-happened-to-natural-law-in-american-jurisprudence
Outstanding article! pretty much says it all. :thumb:



Compared to the thin assertions of the guy in this article...
https://www.cato.org/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism
what he does is IGNORE everything mentioned above in fedsoc.org article. And he somehow pours nearly everything about rights into the writings of atheist & deist like Hobbs & Jefferson. BS.

[Kathianne]

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/what-happened-to-natural-law-in-american-jurisprudence

Outstanding article! pretty much says it all. :thumb:



Compared to the thin assertions of the guy in this article...
https://www.cato.org/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism
what he does is IGNORE everything mentioned above. And he somehow pours nearly everything about rights into the writings of atheist & deist like Hobbs & Jefferson. BS.

The two actually say the same, just as fj and I did earlier. The difference is the mindset of the authors, at least what they choose to explain or not regarding their reasoning.

[Kathianne]

Underlying reason why 'Catholic education' so often produces graduates that are competitive with extremely expensive private schools. While Jesuits take it to the more extreme, the root of programs are based on Aquinas. Question everything, go back to the roots. With the Constitution it's the reading the Founders were raised with, basically Renaissance writers-with a Hobbes thrown in from emerging Dark Ages. What the Founders had, that was not as widely available to their muses were the surviving writings of Plato, Aristotle, and more. They learned from Athens the dangers of democracy.

By the same token, Catholic universities have always been able to embrace science while revering faith. One of the signposts of Catholicism is that 'all' is from God, the Creator-(natural law anyone?). God is the source of all knowledge, learned and revealed. God makes possible all the tools and individuals that make and test hypothesis and eventual products from those tests. God gave humans free will. It's ours to use individually and collectively. Choose well.

Just wanted to throw in why the Church has no problem with evolution. At the same time embracing without contradiction God created the world.

[revelarts]

Just wanted to throw in why the Church has no problem with evolution. At the same time embracing without contradiction God created the world.
umm Kath... please..dont get me started down that track.

new thread at least

[Kathianne]

umm Kath... please..dont get me started down that track.

new thread at least

Natural diversion. ;)

[Black Diamond]

Natural diversion. ;)

Not to be confused with natural selection :cool:

[revelarts]

The two actually say the same, just as fj and I did earlier. The difference is the mindset of the authors, at least what they choose to explain or not regarding their reasoning.


you mean they both use the english language. & they speak of the same topic.
In that way they are the same. yes.
but the Cato article IGNORES the bulk of what the Federalism book review covers.
the ROOTS of Natural law in the idea ...outlined by Aquinas and followed through on in Law.
that God is the foundation of all, and he placed in all reason. & that many saw the light of the Bible's morals as authoritative. And all of western law springs from that and has moved away from that.

the CATO article says
"The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously"

As in like comes from NOWHERE,
or in deist sense "God wound up a clock" but has no dealings after.
Again the difference is in the FOUNDATION it acknowledges... or does not.
the idea that "order in society arises spontaneously" does don't go to the point of what is right or wrong what IS does not say what OUGHT.
theft rises in society arises spontaneously, should we make room for it and all the things we consider vises?
if not why not.
Strong aggressive men in society arises spontaneously.
Shouldn't they dominate as many woman as they want?
If we're going by NATURE only. we can spin it in any direction at any point.
without Creator who's will is REVELED, law from nature can spin off in any direction.
this is what philosophers and people like Marquis de Sade understood. and many modern philosphers understand.
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/52215018-8bc7-4310-b106-643b5c4c53c5/dg4frik-785c3508-142a-4f19-862b-ffba9642acb6.png/v1/fit/w_828,h_422,q_70,strp/morals_without_god_quote_richard_taylor_by_1hope_d g4frik-414w-2x.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9. eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZD QxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgy MjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaW dodCI6Ijw9NTUwIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvNTIyMTUwMTgtOGJj Ny00MzEwLWIxMDYtNjQzYjVjNGM1M2M1XC9kZzRmcmlrLTc4NW MzNTA4LTE0MmEtNGYxOS04NjJiLWZmYmE5NjQyYWNiNi5wbmci LCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTA4MCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2Vydm ljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.VOwpl8DHj2G6_CYgvjO KDYB3BgNBvpA3iH725HJTWoE


And i have to quickly add the disclaimer
"Saying that Atheist have no REASON for morals does not they do not have any."

it simply means they have NO REASON or BASIS to ground ANY moral standards on at ALL.
They may be very "good" people, but Good is a word that has no basis other than a certain social context.
Begin "bad" is no better or worse other than people feelings.. and could in fact be considered NATURAL.
And Justified as such.

[fj1200]

Answer, -- to be obstinate? That would be a good guess, methinks fj.--;)--Tyr

You're answering a question I didn't ask? But jump in to the conversation any time.

[fj1200]

If God is real, then there is the best (only) basis. An objective standard.
If God is not real, then, well, anything goes.
That's my point.

You keep avoiding the issue. Even with God being real there are differing definitions of morality. But if God is not real, I don't agree with your conclusion.


Well, That's more of a pragmatic question.
And that depends on what group you're speaking to. In Some of the circles i've run in saying "because of God's morality" WILL in fact get you votes and backing on laws.

But my main point is more factual, long term and foundational to the question.
But To your point here, people at this time do seem to hear the terms "natural rights" and "rights" Emotionally & UNCritically. And make certain assumptions WITHOUT having any real idea of the foundation... or as I pointed out, the LACK of foundation without God.
Its very much like a Christmas Tradition, just something we think we should do or have because welll....we always have... and it's NICE.
"we don't have to talk about Jesus (or the pagan roots). It might turn some people off. JUST enjoy Christmas why don'tcha!" "You'll get more people to the office Christmas party if don't mention the prayers, or the Bishop coming over & the bible reading."

If that's the kinda thing you're arguing for, fine. Go for it, folks can PROMOTE what they LIKE about Christmas (or Rights) and leave off the Basis that will offend. But don't complain or be shocked when others want to leave off what you think is "essential" & "basic". And start adding things that you NEVER considered part of the "real" Christmas tradition.

You already, for pragmatic reasons, want to Unhitched "natural rights" from all it's roots. So you can't assume anything you deem essential about 'rights' would carry over. The warm fuzzy connotation and feelings people get from the concept does have rhetorical power among many because of it's history. But it has no intrinsic meaning or base when used that way. it's weak sauce easily being blown over or co-oped without it's base.

The group we're talking about it citizens/lawmakers/etc. I don't disagree that you'll get votes but the unfortunate truth of the matter is there's fewer people who will just accept your statement as a matter of faith.

Again, you don't know what I'm arguing for even though I've been stating for a few pages now. We're talking about getting to the same place and I just disagree that we need laws to be argued as coming from a place of morality. I only argue that they can come from the rights that most people would agree that everybody has. Life, liberty, and property. Ask someone if it should be against the law for someone to kill them? for someone to decide what they can and can't do? to just take someone's house? I'm guessing that they'll agree with you and at which point you can tell them that they agree with Locke. You can then discuss whether those rights need to have "come from God" to be valid but at least you're agreeing with the rights that everyone should have.

[fj1200]

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/what-happened-to-natural-law-in-american-jurisprudence
Outstanding article! pretty much says it all. :thumb:



Compared to the thin assertions of the guy in this article...
https://www.cato.org/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism
what he does is IGNORE everything mentioned above in fedsoc.org article. And he somehow pours nearly everything about rights into the writings of atheist & deist like Hobbs & Jefferson. BS.

If you don't like his "thin assertions" maybe you can read the whole book.

[revelarts]

You keep avoiding the issue. Even with God being real there are differing definitions of morality.

Even with X & Y chromosomes being real & sexual organs being real people have differing definitions of gender.
Even with human DNA being real and a heart beat being real people have differing definitions of when life begins.
Even with the U.S. gov't breaking over a 1000 treaties with the Native Americans there are differing definitions who has land rights to U.S. lands.

When have facts ever made everyone AGREE? people deny reality in the face of facts large & small daily.

My point has never been that wether or not people have differing definitions of morality. I've made that point myself.
my point has been that GOD as we know Him from scripture is the only ground or real morals.

wether on not people believe it, or think that deeply about it, or want to mentioned it in public while trying to get votes are different issues.
the fact is WITHOUT God, morals and rights and any laws based on them are all arbitrary... NONE have any real foundation beyond arbitrary cultural preferences.
and the GOOD ONEs that we have in the west are a direct result of acknowledging God and his word. even though now people don't want to hear it.


But if God is not real, I don't agree with your conclusion.

1+1=2
the logic of the argument is sound. so logically it's true.
You don't have to agree with it, but that doesn't make it false.



The group we're talking about it citizens/lawmakers/etc. I don't disagree that you'll get votes but the unfortunate truth of the matter is there's fewer people who will just accept your statement as a matter of faith.

Again, you don't know what I'm arguing for even though I've been stating for a few pages now. We're talking about getting to the same place and I just disagree that we need laws to be argued as coming from a place of morality. I only argue that they can come from the rights that most people would agree that everybody has. Life, liberty, and property. Ask someone if it should be against the law for someone to kill them? for someone to decide what they can and can't do? to just take someone's house? I'm guessing that they'll agree with you and at which point you can tell them that they agree with Locke. You can then discuss whether those rights need to have "come from God" to be valid but at least you're agreeing with the rights that everyone should have.

Again NOW you're talking about pragmatism.. how to PROMOTE the right ideas... without mentioning God.
OK fine.
If that's how you want to play it fine.

You've asked a person about killing, they generally agree, great.
Now ask them about euthanasia... and abortion. Then ask at what point does child get rights and is it not ok to kill them?
& at what point does a sick or old person loose their right to life?
Then why their idea of Rights/morals/law on the matter is better than anyone else's or true?
Then ask them, Why no one should kill them... exactly?

You're more comfortable skating over the 'why' with people, OK.
But let's not pretend that reality wont jump up and say hello at some point.

[fj1200]

Even with DNA being real & sexual organs being real people have differing definitions of gender.
Even with human DNA being real and a heart beat being real people have differing definitions of when life begins.
Even with the U.S. gov't breaking over a 1000 treaties with the Native Americans there are differing definitions who has land rights to U.S. lands.

When have facts ever made everyone AGREE? people deny reality in the face of facts large & small daily.

My point has never been that wether or not people have differing definitions of morality. I've made that point myself.
my point has been that GOD as we know Him from scripture is the only ground or real morals.

wether on not people believe it, or think that deeply about it, or want to mentioned it in public while trying to get votes are different issues.
the fact is WITHOUT God, morals and rights and any laws based on them are all arbitrary... NONE have any real foundation beyond arbitrary cultural preferences.
and the GOOD ONEs that we have in the west are a direct result of acknowledging God and his word. even though now people don't want to hear it.



1+1=2
the logic of the argument is sound. so logically it's true.
You don't have to agree with it, but that doesn't make it false.



Again NOW you're talking about pragmatism.. how to PROMOTE the right ideas... without mentioning God.
OK fine.
If that's how you want to play it fine.

You've asked a person about killing, they generally agree, great.
Now ask them about euthanasia... and abortion. Then ask at what point does child get rights and is it not ok to kill them?
& at what point does a sick or old person loose their right to life?
Then why their idea of Rights/morals/law on the matter is better than anyone else's or true?
Then ask them, Why no one should kill them... exactly?

You're more comfortable skating over the 'why' with people, OK.
But let's not pretend that reality wont jump up and say hello at some point.

Whatever dude. Throwing a bible at them is not a better way.

And your use of logic and fact could use some work.

[Gunny]

And that is a "morality" that is unacceptable if we all agree that a wife has natural rights.I disagree with "laws are not morality based". I explained why I believe that in my response.

I will give you I jumped the gun when I responded. I get hurried a lot around here (home). Of course they are worded for the normal person to interpret as being amoral. Appeasing the heathens :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

Why should we agree to a base level of 'rights'?
Who's base?
If we can't even agree on what human is or a male and female at this point there is no base FJ.

The base that you seem to want to assume is the smoke left from the Christian base.

In India many people will not kill a fly or a rat, because it may be Aunt Rupi. Or simply because it's another soul/person. Animal rights activist are almost there as well.

Most in the west still generally think that humans have MORE rights than animals or plants, why?, it's the smoke left of the Christian teaching that still permeates the culture. Even after the reasons for the belief has been forgotten.
The concept that God made man in His image and set him above the plants & animals. To be care takers of and kill and eat them as necessary.

Other than 'might makes right' what REASON do we have to justify killing plants or animals?

One is hard pressed to think of one. At least one that could be held consistently.

People are claiming free health care as a right.
A living wage as a right.
A free education as a right.
Housing as a right.

Without a universally agreed apon ground for the BASIS of rights,
Either they are arbitrary 100% ...or more clearly, simply non-existent.

If people bristle at the reality of the situation that doesn't make it false.

Libertarians and Atheist and Christians who don't want to rock the secularists boat. Can ACT like rights are unhinged from Christianity but it can't last. Academics and slow boil hedonism has seen to that.


I don't recall. Maybe you can help me out with the transcript. But it doesn't really matter because...



... you're pretty much making my point for me. All those things that can't be agreed upon because there is no basis for morality based law because everyone has a different basis for their morality whether they are based on God or not. You haven't really dispute that point. Propose a law and say it's because of "my God's morality" and see how far you get. Propose a law and say it's because of "an individual's natural rights" and I'm sure you'll get further.

And please don't try and guess what you think I want. Nobody has been very good at that.Y'all are wandering off the trail. The idea presented, as I understand it anyway, is not what specifically is everyone's bitch. It's that we have them.

In order to form a "parallel", shadow, what-have-you society that tweaks out all the suckiness of the current one, the people have to begin with at least one common belief. That would be that society needs needs fixing and personal desires have to be put aside for the moment in order to affect common/unified change. The hardest sell is to people on the "right" who think working together to achieve a common goal is trampling on their individual rights. So forget fixing anything and/or a lawful, peaceful way to do it so long as one can proclaim one's sovereignty one is guarnteed to lose as an individual under current society.

Even the dumbass prog-lefties understand this. A minority of less than 10% changing current law to suit themselves because they are undermining current society and government from within, using its own rules/laws against it. We are no longer a nation if laws; rather, we've become a nation of lawsuits.

This argument is presented by whoever the Hell academy of ideas is. I've presented the same argument for years prior to each election. Where "vote against the Dem" falls short is that the people, at all levels, have not put in place the people that can or will effect change for the better, or to reflect the ideas presented by the Founding Fathers and/or Constitution. We allow the dems/MSM to choose our candidates and try to pick the least rotten fruit.

No one is going to beat this system by direct challenge and full-frontal assault.

.

[revelarts]

Whatever dude. Throwing a bible at them is not a better way.
Many people have for a long time have thought the country needs a revival.
Some point out the that the country & revolution was born after one.

Reason alone did not make western culture, the teaching of the Bible. (reveled truth). And the teaching and actions of the churches ... (with all the churches collective flaws) is what created the morals and laws & ideals you and most conservatives & libertarians want to promote.
More people generally believed in God. And even if they didn't individually believe, they understood that the teachings were "good" and the ideals worth promoting.

One writers says that the thinkers of the enlightenment wanted to throw God off a bridge to kill him.
But before they threw him off they went through his pockets and took all the virtues & morals they liked and claimed them as their own.
Thing is, they never really understood that they don't work as well without him.

(see the French Revolution... "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" everybody knows right? turned into a bloody mess)

[Gunny]

[QUOTE=revelarts;1014508]Many people have for a long time have thought the country needs a revival.
Some point out the that the country & revolution was born after one.

Reason alone did not make western culture, the teaching of the Bible. (reveled truth). And the teaching and actions of the churches ... (with all the churches collective flaws) is what created the morals and laws & ideals you and most conservatives & libertarians want to promote.
More people generally believed in God. And even if they didn't individually believe, they understood that the teachings were "good" and the ideals worth promoting.

One writers says that the thinkers of the enlightenment wanted to throw God off a bridge to kill him.
But before they threw him off they went through his pockets and took all the virtues & morals they liked and claimed them as their own.
Thing is, they never really understood that they don't work as well without him.

(see the French Revolution... "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" everybody knows right? turned into a bloody mess)God does not have to be sold to those who believe. No amount of selling will change those who have closed their ears to Him.

Reforming government needs to be sold to the people, without religion, as it is currently written. Otherwise, what's in it for the non-religious? Being controlled by the religious?

[revelarts]

Many people have for a long time have thought the country needs a revival.
Some point out the that the country & revolution was born after one.

Reason alone did not make western culture, the teaching of the Bible. (reveled truth). And the teaching and actions of the churches ... (with all the churches collective flaws) is what created the morals and laws & ideals you and most conservatives & libertarians want to promote.
More people generally believed in God. And even if they didn't individually believe, they understood that the teachings were "good" and the ideals worth promoting.

One writers says that the thinkers of the enlightenment wanted to throw God off a bridge to kill him.
But before they threw him off they went through his pockets and took all the virtues & morals they liked and claimed them as their own.
Thing is, they never really understood that they don't work as well without him.

(see the French Revolution... "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" everybody knows right? turned into a bloody mess)God does not have to be sold to those who believe. No amount of selling will change those who have closed their ears to Him.

Reforming government needs to be sold to the people, without religion, as it is currently written. Otherwise, what's in it for the non-religious? Being controlled by the religious?

the same thing that been for them for the past hundred near 200 years.
Ask an honest Atheist what they'd rather live under, Totalitarian atheism like China or Islamic kalif like Saudi Arabia or under the horrors of the Quakers like William Penn?

Freedom of conscious is a CHRISTIAN virtue. Codified in the west most clearly very early on by Roger Williams in Rhode island colony.

Christianity creates the most positive clean freedoms & rights with the LEAST constraints.
If Christians are acting properly, the worse thing about it is that non-christians would have put up with HEARING about it every day (you know like religious people put up with f-bombs and other profanity all day on the street at work and in film, TV & music). . And maybe NOT working on Sundays... the oppressive horror of it.
OH YEAH.. and children might have to hear a pray or 2 in school! and maybe read the 10 commandments and the sermon on the mount!!! Gasp!!!!
As far as abortion and lgbtxyz 'rights' go, It will be like the dark ages of the 1970s.


https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-forced-worship-stinks-in-god-s-nostrils-roger-williams-72-18-94.jpg

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-it-is-less-hurtful-to-compel-a-man-to-marry-someone-whom-he-does-not-love-than-to-follow-roger-williams-151-79-44.jpg

the country would be better off... not perfect but better off. but the main thing about a revival Gunny is that fewer Americans would be going to Hell.

[fj1200]

I disagree with "laws are not morality based". I explained why I believe that in my response.

I will give you I jumped the gun when I responded. I get hurried a lot around here (home). Of course they are worded for the normal person to interpret as being amoral. Appeasing the heathens :rolleyes:

I'm witcha. I can agree to disagree.


Y'all are wandering off the trail. The idea presented, as I understand it anyway, is not what specifically is everyone's bitch. It's that we have them.

In order to form a "parallel", shadow, what-have-you society that tweaks out all the suckiness of the current one, the people have to begin with at least one common belief. That would be that society needs needs fixing and personal desires have to be put aside for the moment in order to affect common/unified change. The hardest sell is to people on the "right" who think working together to achieve a common goal is trampling on their individual rights. So forget fixing anything and/or a lawful, peaceful way to do it so long as one can proclaim one's sovereignty one is guarnteed to lose as an individual under current society.

Even the dumbass prog-lefties understand this. A minority of less than 10% changing current law to suit themselves because they are undermining current society and government from within, using its own rules/laws against it. We are no longer a nation if laws; rather, we've become a nation of lawsuits.

This argument is presented by whoever the Hell academy of ideas is. I've presented the same argument for years prior to each election. Where "vote against the Dem" falls short is that the people, at all levels, have not put in place the people that can or will effect change for the better, or to reflect the ideas presented by the Founding Fathers and/or Constitution. We allow the dems/MSM to choose our candidates and try to pick the least rotten fruit.

No one is going to beat this system by direct challenge and full-frontal assault.

.

As you like to say it's really a semantics argument. Morality based or not there's going to be disagreement at the margin and there's a lot of crazy at the margin these days.

[fj1200]

Many people have for a long time have thought the country needs a revival.
Some point out the that the country & revolution was born after one.

Reason alone did not make western culture, the teaching of the Bible. (reveled truth). And the teaching and actions of the churches ... (with all the churches collective flaws) is what created the morals and laws & ideals you and most conservatives & libertarians want to promote.
More people generally believed in God. And even if they didn't individually believe, they understood that the teachings were "good" and the ideals worth promoting.

One writers says that the thinkers of the enlightenment wanted to throw God off a bridge to kill him.
But before they threw him off they went through his pockets and took all the virtues & morals they liked and claimed them as their own.
Thing is, they never really understood that they don't work as well without him.

(see the French Revolution... "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" everybody knows right? turned into a bloody mess)

OK. Round and round we go.


Reforming government needs to be sold to the people, without religion, as it is currently written. Otherwise, what's in it for the non-religious? Being controlled by the religious?

Bingo. That has all the hallmarks of a theocracy and those are typically not a good idea. /understatement

[revelarts]

Reforming government needs to be sold to the people, without religion, as it is currently written. Otherwise, what's in it for the non-religious? Being controlled by the religious?


OK. Round and round we go.
Bingo. That has all the hallmarks of a theocracy and those are typically not a good idea. /understatement


I don't doubt for a moment that Williams would agree with you. Then again as a Catholic, I'm really glad a Puritan isn't running the show.
I deplore many so called Christians, especially those who are absolute in who is saved and who condemned.
Not one of my Jesus friends.

And here we have one of the real problems with conservatives and libertarians.
They really seem MORE afraid of being TOO conservative than too liberal.
More afraid of their religious supporters than the liberals who can't tell a woman from a man and put porn in public schools and have men in dresses teaching children and are subverting every virtue and institution they say they care about.

Willing to tolerate compromise with that... but too much religion. can't have that.
Out of public schools, A-Ok. Out of Public a biz okey doke, might hurt some feelings. Out of political conversation, yes, it's a vote killer. But But But we want all the old virtues back in society. honestly hard work, no killing, no stealing, better families. just not to much God talk.
What's wrong with this picture folks?


BTW If it wasn't for the crazy oppressive religious trying to take over the world Roe v Wade would have never been challenged... or over turned.

Look, FJ you can't see the globalist threat but you think too much religion talk is bad for the country?
Seriously?
Gunny are you and Kath really worried about too much religion?
While the country is speeding like maniac in the OTHER direction a whole lot faster than what I'm promoting.

So, hey, maybe we can go the crazy oppressive Christian way a bit more before we start complaining or worrying about it how hard it will be to live under the soon coming condemning christian controlled religious dictatorship that's around the corner?

...............
..............
BTW gunny "the law without religion, as it is currently written." are unconstitutional. we need LESS laws as written.
and somehow the point is missed that the OLD laws as written were already christian themed. NO new laws need to be written.
just adherence to old laws that were already based in christian principals ... that's been my main point.
you know when back when the US was religious dictatorship that non-christain couldn't live in safely & unoppressed .

friends like these man wow

[Kathianne]

[QUOTE=Gunny;1014511]





And here we have one of the real problems with conservatives and libertarians.
They really seem MORE afraid of being TOO conservative than too liberal.
More afraid of their religious supporters than the liberals who can't tell a woman from a man and put porn in public schools and have men in dresses teaching children and are subverting every virtue and institution they say they care about.

Willing to tolerate compromise with that... but too much religion. can't have that.
Out of public schools, A-Ok. Out of Public a biz okey doke, might hurt some feelings. Out of political conversation, yes, it's a vote killer. But But But we want all the old virtues back in society. honestly hard work, no killing, no stealing, better families. just not to much God talk.
What's wrong with this picture folks?


BTW If it wasn't for the crazy oppressive religious trying to take over the world Roe v Wade would have never been challenged... or over turned.

Look, FJ you can't see the globalist threat but you think too much religion talk is bad for the country.
seriously?
Are Gunny are you and Kath really worried about too much religion?
While the country is speeding in the OTHER direction a whole lot faster than what I'm promoting.

So maybe we can go the crazy oppressive Christian way a bit more before we start complaining or worrying about it how hard it will be to live under the soon coming condemning christian controlled religious dictatorship that's around the corner?


You are ignoring all we've written regarding liberal topics. Not one of us are liberal, other than like using RINO; DeSantis ass kissers; commies; now anti-religious or not religious enough is a better alternative than arguing points.

Again, none of us have said that the country should be less religious-I'm not even saying that about Evangelicals who gleefully condemn me to death, over my religion. LOL! We may want to look at some of those folks, but maybe not?

We are saying that laws need to be written to apply to all-even to Muslims for instance, that might find their religion at odds with some. The price of living in this multi-culture country; and it has been since the beginning is that we all have to play by the same rules. It's not always been equal or fair like during the first 75 years or so with slavery or even longer with women.

Indeed the most dangerous topic today is the rule of law not being followed along with due process amongst the elite class. Good lawyers have always been their ace in the hole, now it's expanded thanks to Joe, (though some of us remember that great Irish Catholic-Ted Kennedy).

[fj1200]

And here we have one of the real problems with conservatives and libertarians.
They really seem MORE afraid of being TOO conservative than too liberal.
More afraid of their religious supporters than the liberals who can't tell a woman from a man and put porn in public schools and have men in dresses teaching children and are subverting every virtue and institution they say they care about.

Willing to tolerate compromise with that... but too much religion. can't have that.
Out of public schools, A-Ok. Out of Public a biz okey doke, might hurt some feelings. Out of political conversation, yes, it's a vote killer. But But But we want all the old virtues back in society. honestly hard work, no killing, no stealing, better families. just not to much God talk.
What's wrong with this picture folks?


BTW If it wasn't for the crazy oppressive religious trying to take over the world Roe v Wade would have never been challenged... or over turned.

Look, FJ you can't see the globalist threat but you think too much religion talk is bad for the country?
Seriously?
Gunny are you and Kath really worried about too much religion?
While the country is speeding like maniac in the OTHER direction a whole lot faster than what I'm promoting.

So, hey, maybe we can go the crazy oppressive Christian way a bit more before we start complaining or worrying about it how hard it will be to live under the soon coming condemning christian controlled religious dictatorship that's around the corner?

...............
..............
BTW gunny "the law without religion, as it is currently written." are unconstitutional. we need LESS laws as written.
and somehow the point is missed that the OLD laws as written were already christian themed. NO new laws need to be written.
just adherence to old laws that were already based in christian principals ... that's been my main point.
you know when back when the US was religious dictatorship that non-christain couldn't live in safely & unoppressed .

friends like these man wow

I seriously don't understand why you need to read way more into my posts than I put in there. I'm not afraid of being too conservative or have too much religion talk. I'm essentially saying that it's unnecessary and sometimes counterproductive to the goal that we probably all want to achieve.

You can also misstate my globalist position in the correct thread.

[Gunny]

And here we have one of the real problems with conservatives and libertarians.
They really seem MORE afraid of being TOO conservative than too liberal.
More afraid of their religious supporters than the liberals who can't tell a woman from a man and put porn in public schools and have men in dresses teaching children and are subverting every virtue and institution they say they care about.

Willing to tolerate compromise with that... but too much religion. can't have that.
Out of public schools, A-Ok. Out of Public a biz okey doke, might hurt some feelings. Out of political conversation, yes, it's a vote killer. But But But we want all the old virtues back in society. honestly hard work, no killing, no stealing, better families. just not to much God talk.
What's wrong with this picture folks?


BTW If it wasn't for the crazy oppressive religious trying to take over the world Roe v Wade would have never been challenged... or over turned.

Look, FJ you can't see the globalist threat but you think too much religion talk is bad for the country?
Seriously?
Gunny are you and Kath really worried about too much religion?
While the country is speeding like maniac in the OTHER direction a whole lot faster than what I'm promoting.

So, hey, maybe we can go the crazy oppressive Christian way a bit more before we start complaining or worrying about it how hard it will be to live under the soon coming condemning christian controlled religious dictatorship that's around the corner?

...............
..............
BTW gunny "the law without religion, as it is currently written." are unconstitutional. we need LESS laws as written.
and somehow the point is missed that the OLD laws as written were already christian themed. NO new laws need to be written.
just adherence to old laws that were already based in christian principals ... that's been my main point.
you know when back when the US was religious dictatorship that non-christain couldn't live in safely & unoppressed .

friends like these man wow

Bro, you're talking to the guy whose grandfather was a deacon, superintendent of Sunday School, and in the choir and gospel singers. Church twice on Sunday and on Wednesday evening. When Rev Billy Graham was on tv, the World stopped and we were front and center. Vacation Bible School every summer.

I'm quite secure in my beliefs. There's a time and a place for everything.

Reforming a secular government for a secular society is not that time. In fact, pushing religion to reform government in this country would turn away more people than it would enlist.

So, if the people don't want my religion why bother? Because I currently am expressly allowed my religion by law and prefer that to


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhNJJmmCkqY

Without government reform, we're headed down this path, IMO. If such be the case, there's only one religion and it isn't God. Secure the right to have your God before pushing Him.

[revelarts]

...

Without government reform, we're headed down this path, IMO. If such be the case, there's only one religion and it isn't God. Secure the right to have your God before pushing Him.
"Secure the right to have your God before pushing Him."

Just like Jesus and the apostles said we should do?

[Gunny]

"Secure the right to have your God before pushing Him."

Just like Jesus and the apostles said we should do?Trying to play semantics with me? Tsk tsk:rolleyes: Jesus chose to teach the people, not reform government.

Within the context of the conversation, reformation of government and what it would take, yes. The primary logic to my statement eludes you: in a totalitarian government, you have no religion to preach and even more likely no one to preach it to. Secure the right to spread God's Word and you have the right to do so anywhere anytime to whoever chooses to listen.

[revelarts]

Trying to play semantics with me? Tsk tsk:rolleyes: Jesus chose to teach the people, not reform government.

Within the context of the conversation, reformation of government and what it would take, yes. The primary logic to my statement eludes you: in a totalitarian government, you have no religion to preach and even more likely no one to preach it to. Secure the right to spread God's Word and you have the right to do so anywhere anytime to whoever chooses to listen.

Ok, so keeping it in context.
which of the current presidential candidates do you think will do the most to promote freedom... including religious freedoms?
and is that a primary criteria you think religious people (even ones that don't want to talk about it) should be using to select a candidate?

Also... how should such a candidate communicate those intentions ....without saying anything about it.

[Kathianne]

Ok, so keeping it in context.
which of the current presidential candidates do you think will do the most to promote freedom... including religious freedoms?
and is that a primary criteria you think religious people (even ones that don't want to talk about it) should be using to select a candidate?

Also... how should such a candidate communicate those intentions ....without saying anything about it.
To me, you're now offering another problem altogether. Trying to figure out the candidates religious mindsets or heaven forbid their true beliefs.

So many self-pronounced righteous Christians voted for Trump. Wasn't there a more religious fellow out of the gazillion candidates? Then again, I've no clue to Trump's or anyone else's real beliefs. Between them and God.

Most people running for president aren't exactly my choice in role models. I do prefer one though that will at least pay lip service to societal norms, though those are fading fast.

[revelarts]

To me, you're now offering another problem altogether. Trying to figure out the candidates religious mindsets or heaven forbid their true beliefs.

....

But I didn't ask about "candidates religious mindsets or heaven forbid their true beliefs"

I asked
"which of the current presidential candidates do you think will do the most to promote freedom... including religious freedoms?"

and
"is that a primary criteria you think religious people (even ones that don't want to talk about it) should be using to select a candidate?"

Also...
"how should such a candidate communicate those intentions ....without saying anything about it?"


None of those have to do with trying to judge/divine a candidate's heart/personal belief, just his or her actions and intents.
As pointed out the Roger Williams quotes, there are plenty of people who don't have religious beliefs but still promote things that ALIGN with them.
I've never said that only religious people should be in office. I'm not sure why that's not clear.
What i've said is that the roots/basis of the ideals, rights and freedoms are Christian. And those ideals etc need to be promoted and the history known at some point. And it should be recognized that without that religious base the concepts are not as strong. And cannot be defended logically. They can be defended emotionally & based on "traditions". but not logically.
At least not any more logically than the idea of everyone having a "right" to eat cake or a "right" to a 2 story house.

[Kathianne]

But I didn't ask about "candidates religious mindsets or heaven forbid their true beliefs"

I asked
"which of the current presidential candidates do you think will do the most to promote freedom... including religious freedoms?"

and
"is that a primary criteria you think religious people (even ones that don't want to talk about it) should be using to select a candidate?"

Also...
"how should such a candidate communicate those intentions ....without saying anything about it?"


None of those have to do with trying to judge/divine a candidate's heart/personal belief, just his or her actions and intents.
As pointed out the Roger Williams quotes, there are plenty of people who don't have religious beliefs but still promote things that ALIGN with them.
I've never said that only religious people should be in office. I'm not sure why that's not clear.
What i've said is that the roots/basis of the ideals, rights and freedoms are Christian. And those ideals etc need to be promoted and the history known at some point. And it should be recognized that without that religious base the concepts are not as strong. And cannot be defended logically. They can be defended emotionally & based on "traditions". but not logically.
At least not any more logically than the idea of everyone having a "right" to eat cake or a "right" to a 2 story house.




Your critique of my post is spot on. I got stuck on previous.

I don't have a good feel for most of these contestants yet.

Between Biden and Trump I have to look at their 1st amendment behaviors and I find Biden is worse by far in action.

I suppose my worry here is how many actually have paid attention to actions?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

To me a candidate should be first looked at his political record. Next in that vein his personal behavior. And third if he has a religious belief -asking what it is.
Granted that may eliminate most of them if not all.
If so with the all, then vote for the least offensive one.
Or rather which one fits with ones own preferences about things (/law/government) that are important to either the nation or ones own personal beliefs.--Tyr

[Gunny]

Ok, so keeping it in context.
which of the current presidential candidates do you think will do the most to promote freedom... including religious freedoms?
and is that a primary criteria you think religious people (even ones that don't want to talk about it) should be using to select a candidate?

Also... how should such a candidate communicate those intentions ....without saying anything about it.The point to the thread from my porch is a situation and possible solution in a generalized manner. It is not an immediate fix, nor does it tie into current events. The method described in the videos is basically the creation of a bottom-up (grass roots) parallel society that over time overwhelms and chokes out a (semi)authoritarian one. It doesn't tear down original intent, law, nor construct; rather, replaces current cancer with healthy people.

I do not see any current candidate as especially qualified to have any position of power or leadership in such a scenario. Current neoliberals making comprising both parties generally support the system as it is. The system as it is is replacing written law and the ideal of America with itself.

Returning the Constitution of the United States as the law of the land guarantees freedom of religion. As far as candidates not talking about religion, I do not know of one that has not nor is that what anyone is saying. We're saying that law cannot be based on religion and appeal to a majority.

An example is: I want to accomplish all of the above, AND I'm going to base it on Southern Baptist Doctrine. No? You want it based on YOUR religion? I already read a good dose of what Kathianne thinks of Southern Baptists in another thread :laugh:. THIS never gets enough traction to roll downhill backward out of the driveway. It devolves into religious bickering immediately.

Using law instead of religion can sell across the board. Across the board is what one wishes to achieve when discussing mass movement.

[Kathianne]

The point to the thread from my porch is a situation and possible solution in a generalized manner. It is not an immediate fix, nor does it tie into current events. The method described in the videos is basically the creation of a bottom-up (grass roots) parallel society that over time overwhelms and chokes out a (semi)authoritarian one. It doesn't tear down original intent, law, nor construct; rather, replaces current cancer with healthy people.

I do not see any current candidate as especially qualified to have any position of power or leadership in such a scenario. Current neoliberals making comprising both parties generally support the system as it is. The system as it is is replacing written law and the ideal of America with itself.

Returning the Constitution of the United States as the law of the land guarantees freedom of religion. As far as candidates not talking about religion, I do not know of one that has not nor is that what anyone is saying. We're saying that law cannot be based on religion and appeal to a majority.

An example is: I want to accomplish all of the above, AND I'm going to base it on Southern Baptist Doctrine. No? You want it based on YOUR religion? I already read a good dose of what Kathianne thinks of Southern Baptists in another thread :laugh:. THIS never gets enough traction to roll downhill backward out of the driveway. It devolves into religious bickering immediately.

Using law instead of religion can sell across the board. Across the board is what one wishes to achieve when discussing mass movement.


Actually my first target of protestants would be German Lutherans, not exactly Evangelicals. The latter hit my radar much later in life, less than personal and their more generalized hate on any not seeing God reflected in their vision.

Mind you, I know very good people in both belief systems, but have an overwhelming desire to bunch folks up in return to their doing the same. I'm very much a love each other until there's reasons not to. I know Jesus would not be happy with my attitude much of the time.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

all the payola that corrupts the government comes from globalist financial institutions that are profitizing destruction and division, and rewarding evil.

while i could theorically being on board with some form of greater global order, the current one being created now is definitely a creation of demons.

we want totalitarianism against pedo. and we actually want cops too, with significant stopping power. we're not animals. we just also want tariffs and america first trade policy.

this is not too much to ask far.

this used to be called just being a country.

you people have changed.

Far too much of this is true. the globalists have billions to play around with. They infest everything that gives them what they want. Money is no object when it comes to buying people.
And when money doesnt work they use heavy handed tactics which include executing those not saying yes to them. a fact. --Tyr

[revelarts]

The point to the thread from my porch is a situation and possible solution in a generalized manner. It is not an immediate fix, nor does it tie into current events. The method described in the videos is basically the creation of a bottom-up (grass roots) parallel society that over time overwhelms and chokes out a (semi)authoritarian one. It doesn't tear down original intent, law, nor construct; rather, replaces current cancer with healthy people.

I do not see any current candidate as especially qualified to have any position of power or leadership in such a scenario. Current neoliberals making comprising both parties generally support the system as it is. The system as it is is replacing written law and the ideal of America with itself.

Returning the Constitution of the United States as the law of the land guarantees freedom of religion. As far as candidates not talking about religion, I do not know of one that has not nor is that what anyone is saying. We're saying that law cannot be based on religion and appeal to a majority.

An example is: I want to accomplish all of the above, AND I'm going to base it on Southern Baptist Doctrine. No? You want it based on YOUR religion? I already read a good dose of what Kathianne thinks of Southern Baptists in another thread :laugh:. THIS never gets enough traction to roll downhill backward out of the driveway. It devolves into religious bickering immediately.

Using law instead of religion can sell across the board. Across the board is what one wishes to achieve when discussing mass movement.
Ok 1st,
I've been on this board A LOT of years too, can you remember any NEW laws I've proposed... as a former Baptist I can't speak for them But I've always pleaded for LESS laws less Gov't.
2nd,
What "baptist doctrine" are you and kath afraid Baptist are going to press into law? When they come into ultimate power. Ladies have to wear hats?

But OK, In away I hear you, I guess my problem with the way it's put is that when people say don't bring "religion" into law.
It basically tells me I'm not allowed to have input into laws. My faith says everything I do or promote has a "religious" connotation.
For many "religious" people that's the general POV.

And more specifically at this point if I say. "there's only male & female." then that can be... has been... categorizes as a purely religious view.
Same with the idea of keeping porn out of school libraries.
Homosexual marriage, Do I or baptist, have a legal right to promote my view in civil law since mine is mainly a "religious view"?
Euthanasia laws, I have no opinion or voice in civil law because mine is a "religious view"?
Death penalty laws, I have no opinion of voice in civil law because mine is a "religious view"?
Gun rights, Gun laws, I have no opinion of voice in civil law because mine is a "religious view"?
Right to worship or free speech Do I have no opinion of voice in civil law because mine is based in a "religious view"?
MLK was preacher, no right to speak morally or from a religious POV on human & civil rights? Should his "baptist doctrine"?
War? only secular reasons allowed in the discussion... made into the law?

For at least some Christian people nearly EVERY issue that's brought up as law is a "religious" issue.
Because laws that are important ARE moral.

Do we have to SAY that explicitly or try to convince others simply based on that. NO.
When Gabby showed up 'out of the blue' with some junk about abortion I posted a list of medical quotes showing life begins at conception.
Not a list of Bible verses.
And i'll add this, before I became a Christian I was selfishly pro-choice. But I wouldn't lift a finger or say a word to defend it, other than voting for people who would. A few Christians did talk to me about abortion. From a moral, Bible and the Science perspective and i was honest enough to keep my mouth shut, KNOWING I had no moral or good scientific defense. but I still voted pro-choice.
But Personally I had no problem with Christians voting based on their beliefs. It never crossed my mind that they could not or should vote based on their beliefs. Or not be able to promote their beliefs as law. I never felt any more oppressed/pressured by unreasonable Christians than i had by liberals who wanted me to change what I ate or how i handle my trash and Cars etc to "save the planet". Both made demands based on Moral appeals and "BELIEFS". Non-Christian flag waving patriots the same. "be a REAL man, Fight & die for the country because its the greatest eveh evah in the world!!" Even libertarians make moral claims and expect people to BUY them on FAITH. I've never seen "religious" claims as outside of the pale. In fact to be honest they made more sense to me than the flag waving, cry at the anthem, patriotism when i considered ALL of U.S. history and not just the noble parts.

My point here I guess is this, on many issues the points turn on someone's understanding of reality. INCLUDING so called "religious" understandings.
People are in different places and we have to be EXTREMELY careful when we say .. "don't bring religion into it" especially if it's "for the greater good".


BTW
Hitler wanted to get religion out of politics too, he became the religion.
Stalin wanted to get religion out of politics, the state became the religion.
Mao same as Stalin.
French revolution "Liberty, EQUALITY, Fraternity", we agree on those basics right? They wanted to get religion out of politics too.
didn't turn out so good.
Hitler co-oped the churches (they let themselves be co-oped)
Stalin, Mao, and Robespeire Killed a lot of Clergy... plenty of Roman Catholic priest & nuns.

just sayin'

[fj1200]

But OK, In away I hear you, I guess my problem with the way it's putis that when people say don't bring "religion" into law.
It basically tells me I'm not allowed to have input into laws. My faith says everything I do or promote has a "religious" connotation.
For many "religious" people that's the general POV.

I don't recall anyone ever saying that.

[revelarts]

I don't recall anyone ever saying that.
If someone says we should not make any laws that are based in my "religion", that's what I hear.
Since all of my legal and moral decisions, legal proposals, are ultimately based there or filtered through there.

(frankly It's one reason I'm for LIMITED gov't, outlined in the constitution, so that people have more personal freedom. NOT being under the thumb of ANY single ideology.)

[fj1200]

If someone says we should not make any laws that are based in my "religion", that's what I hear.
Since all of my legal and moral decisions, legal proposals, are ultimately based there or filtered through there.

I was referring to DP specifically but if you propose a law be prepared that it doesn't pass for various reasons constitutional, societal, etc. And if you do propose said law be prepared with other rationale than, "God said so."

[revelarts]

I was referring to DP specifically but if you propose a law be prepared that it doesn't pass for various reasons constitutional, societal, etc. And if you do propose said law be prepared with other rationale than, "God said so."
Ok 1st,
I've been on this board A LOT of years too, can you remember any NEW laws I've proposed... as a former Baptist I can't speak for them But I've always pleaded for LESS laws less Gov't.
2nd,
What "baptist doctrine" are Gunny and Kath afraid Baptist are going to press into law? When they come into ultimate power. Ladies have to wear hats?"


(frankly It's one reason I'm for LIMITED gov't, outlined in the constitution, so that people have more personal freedom. NOT being under the thumb of ANY single ideology.)[/I][

[Kathianne]

If someone says we should not make any laws that are based in my "religion", that's what I hear.
Since all of my legal and moral decisions, legal proposals, are ultimately based there or filtered through there.

The same could be said of any of us, you don't actually know.

I say, "Good morning, Rev.!" Perhaps in my head I also say, 'God bless you.' For any number of reasons, including respect for the fact I don't know your beliefs, I choose to not verbalize. Nothing wrong with that. I believe you're better off with my calling on a blessing for you.

Now, if we are friends, real friends. We'd both be aware of our beliefs, to a lesser or greater degree. I do not have that level of intimacy with neighbors, acquaintances, fellow workers, etc.

We live in a pluralistic society-if one wants a more hemogenic society you'd have to seek it out.

[Kathianne]

Ok 1st,
I've been on this board A LOT of years too, can you remember any NEW laws I've proposed... as a former Baptist I can't speak for them But I've always pleaded for LESS laws less Gov't.
2nd,
What "baptist doctrine" are Gunny and Kath afraid Baptist are going to press into law? When they come into ultimate power. Ladies have to wear hats?"



(frankly It's one reason I'm for LIMITED gov't, outlined in the constitution, so that people have more personal freedom. NOT being under the thumb of ANY single ideology.)



I'm pretty sure I never said anything about any religion trying to make laws. I said I wouldn't want that.

[revelarts]

The same could be said of any of us, you don't actually know.
I say, "Good morning, Rev.!" Perhaps in my head I also say, 'God bless you.' For any number of reasons, including respect for the fact I don't know your beliefs, I choose to not verbalize. Nothing wrong with that. I believe your better off with my calling on a blessing for you.
Now, if we are friends, real friends. We'd both be aware of our beliefs, to a lesser or greater degree. I do not have that level of intimacy with neighbors, acquaintances, fellow workers, etc.
in personal relations absolutely.

in politics, mmm, sometimes the guns come out.



We live in a pluralistic society-if one wants a more hemogenic society you'd have to seek it out.
or help create it.

The left is trying to convert everyone. It's very mission minded. and does not tolerate heretics.
I think we should be at least as honest and fervent in trying to create people who agree with us at a deep level as well.
But FAR more tolerant.

but hey maybe that's out of line.

[fj1200]

Ok 1st,
I've been on this board A LOT of years too, can you remember any NEW laws I've proposed... as a former Baptist I can't speak for them But I've always pleaded for LESS laws less Gov't.
2nd,
What "baptist doctrine" are Gunny and Kath afraid Baptist are going to press into law? When they come into ultimate power. Ladies have to wear hats?"



(frankly It's one reason I'm for LIMITED gov't, outlined in the constitution, so that people have more personal freedom. NOT being under the thumb of ANY single ideology.)



If I'm not mistaken you referenced euthanasia and abortion in this thread. And the discussion IMO is the policies that we would advocate for and not necessarily specific laws.

As far as the baptists are we talking CBF or Southern Baptists? Because I'll tell you that they would both propose laws and there would be stark difference between them.

[revelarts]

If I'm not mistaken you referenced euthanasia and abortion in this thread. And the discussion IMO is the policies that we would advocate for and not necessarily specific laws.


euthanasia and abortion were outlawed in most states long ago.
Marriage was between men & women. men couldn't go into woman's bathrooms.
I was against the NEW laws that allowed them to become legal in certain states.
Repeal the new laws.
No new laws proposed on my part, old laws back in place.



As far as the baptists are we talking CBF or Southern Baptists? Because I'll tell you that they would both propose laws and there would be stark difference between them.
for example what laws?

[fj1200]

euthanasia and abortion were outlawed in most states long ago.
I was against the NEW laws that allowed them to become legal in certain states.
Repeal the new laws.
No new laws, old laws back in place.

Make new laws, repeal old laws... You're splitting hairs. My point still stands, it's necessary to advocate your view that can get passed and pass constitutional muster.

[fj1200]

for example what laws?

They would be at opposite ends of banning gay marriage for one. Minor child abuse, err, transitioning for two.

[Kathianne]

in personal relations absolutely.

in politics, mmm, sometimes the guns come out.


or help create it.

The left is trying to convert everyone. It's very mission minded. and does not tolerate heretics.
I think we should be at least as honest and fervent in trying to create people who agree with us at a deep level as well.
But FAR more tolerant.

but hey maybe that's out of line.
I believe in respect first, for me it's a given-not even need to be proven-until one disrespects me. Then it's mutual. I think we'd all be better off if the first assumption we all have is that the person we are meeting for the first time is a great person, even if not a person I want to be good friends with, a person worthy of respect. I do NOT need to know their religion or deepest thoughts/beliefs. As long as they act civil to me.

If we are to become more than casual acquaintances, both have to be open to sharing. Why we believe what we do or think these laws should or should not come to pass or even be enforced today. I do not dislike all Muslims on sight. Same with Baptists or Evangelicals or atheists. The only one I might try to influence on religion would be the atheist, but not until we got to know each other. ;)

If you are using your religion as a reason I should support a new law or a Muslim was, my background and beliefs would make me naturally suspicious of purpose for such. Now the same purpose, with explanation of why it was being proposed, but leaving actual religion out of it, would make my support more likely. I would not automatically suppose that your religion or Islam were the only purpose the person was proposing the law.

[revelarts]

I believe in respect first, for me it's a given-not even need to be proven-until one disrespects me. Then it's mutual. I think we'd all be better off if the first assumption we all have is that the person we are meeting for the first time is a great person, even if not a person I want to be good friends with, a person worthy of respect. I do NOT need to know their religion or deepest thoughts/beliefs. As long as they act civil to me.

If we are to become more than casual acquaintances, both have to be open to sharing. Why we believe what we do or think these laws should or should not come to pass or even be enforced today. I do not dislike all Muslims on sight. Same with Baptists or Evangelicals or atheists. The only one I might try to influence on religion would be the atheist, but not until we got to know each other. ;)

If you are using your religion as a reason I should support a new law or a Muslim was, my background and beliefs would make me naturally suspicious of purpose for such. Now the same purpose, with explanation of why it was being proposed, but leaving actual religion out of it, would make my support more likely. I would not automatically suppose that your religion or Islam were the only purpose the person was proposing the law.

that's cool.
God made everyone different.

question for you though.
If you met John the baptist, do you think he'd be the type of guy that'd wait to get to know someone before he talked to them about religion?
The apostle Paul?

They were just people like you and I.
would you think they we wrong or offensive for doing it differently than you?

[fj1200]

Does the guy proselytizing on the street corner as you're walking to the stadium ever convert anyone?

[revelarts]

Does the guy proselytizing on the street corner as you're walking to the stadium ever convert anyone?
yes.
do you want some youtube video... i can start a thread.

[Kathianne]

that's cool.
God made everyone different.

question for you though.
If you met John the baptist, do you think he'd be the type of guy that'd wait to get to know someone before he talked to them about religion?
The apostle Paul?

They were just people like you and I.
would you think they we wrong or offensive for doing it differently than you?

Hard to put myself in those places and times, but knowing what I do of the times-through bible reading-I'd say if I ran across them, I'd have some idea of what they were about, so stranger only in the sense of not having yet met in person.

[revelarts]

Hard to put myself in those places and times, but knowing what I do of the times-through bible reading-I'd say if I ran across them, I'd have some idea of what they were about, so stranger only in the sense of not having yet met in person.
Ok but Do you think they'b be much different if they showed up in the U.S. today?
I mean they may change some peripherals with "the times" but do you really think they'd be very different in approach?

[Kathianne]

Ok but Do you think they'b be much different if they showed up in the U.S. today?
I mean they may change some peripherals with "the times" but do you really think they'd be very different in approach?

Sorry, that is a what if game I've no clue on how to approach. I do not know enough about the thinking of either, just their love of Jesus. John being a prophet, both being chosen by God. Certainly different than playing what if with Hitler or Lincoln or even Caesar.

[revelarts]

Sorry, that is a what if game I've no clue on how to approach. I do not know enough about the thinking of either, just their love of Jesus. John being a prophet, both being chosen by God. Certainly different than playing what if with Hitler or Lincoln or even Caesar.

Well John the baptist was basically a street preacher who wore goat's hair clothes, had long hair, lived in the hills and ate l locust and wild honey, never drank alcohol or wine, hung out at a river loudly preaching to passers by.
Jesus contrasted himself to John in saying that He did drink wine and eat bread (like "normal" person) but some people didn't want to hear what either had to say. Calling John a demon and Jesus a party boy. Jesus said John was the greatest prophet.

God seems to use people of all kinds, from the loud and gruff to the soft and gentle.
He made us all, so it makes sense to me at least.

It seems to me there's not ONE way to tell people.
"Speak the truth in Love" is a pretty BROAD outline.

wether people accept it, or get mad or confused, or annoyed or not... is on them.
They killed John the Baptist and Paul and Jesus.
Do you think it's because of the way they said it? or what they said?

[Kathianne]

Well John the baptist was basically a street preacher who wore goat's hair clothes, had long hair, lived in the hills and ate l locust and wild honey, never drank alcohol or wine, hung out at a river loudly preaching to passers by.
Jesus contrasted himself to John in saying that He did drink wine and eat bread (like "normal" person) but some people didn't want to hear what either had to say. Calling John a demon and Jesus a party boy. Jesus said John was the greatest prophet.

God seems to use people of all kinds, from the loud and gruff to the soft and gentle.
He made us all, so it makes sense to me at least.

It seems to me there's not ONE way to tell people.
"Speak the truth in Love" is a pretty BROAD outline.

wether people accept it, or get mad or confused, or annoyed or not... is on them.
They killed John the Baptist and Paul and Jesus.
Do you think it's because of the way they said it? or what they said?

As I said, I can't speak of John the Baptist or Paul, other than what I've read in the Bible. I'm not one to have memorized, certainly do not claim knowing any of it inside and out.

Some men are basically evil, they kill what they don't understand, fear, or are jealous of. Sometimes just for fun. Jesus was born to sacrifice, for all of us-whether we accept that or not.

Jesus loved John and Paul, Jesus loved.

[Gunny]

Ok 1st,
I've been on this board A LOT of years too, can you remember any NEW laws I've proposed... as a former Baptist I can't speak for them But I've always pleaded for LESS laws less Gov't.
2nd,
What "baptist doctrine" are you and kath afraid Baptist are going to press into law? When they come into ultimate power. Ladies have to wear hats?

But OK, In away I hear you, I guess my problem with the way it's put is that when people say don't bring "religion" into law.
It basically tells me I'm not allowed to have input into laws. My faith says everything I do or promote has a "religious" connotation.
For many "religious" people that's the general POV.

And more specifically at this point if I say. "there's only male & female." then that can be... has been... categorizes as a purely religious view.
Same with the idea of keeping porn out of school libraries.
Homosexual marriage, Do I or baptist, have a legal right to promote my view in civil law since mine is mainly a "religious view"?
Euthanasia laws, I have no opinion or voice in civil law because mine is a "religious view"?
Death penalty laws, I have no opinion of voice in civil law because mine is a "religious view"?
Gun rights, Gun laws, I have no opinion of voice in civil law because mine is a "religious view"?
Right to worship or free speech Do I have no opinion of voice in civil law because mine is based in a "religious view"?
MLK was preacher, no right to speak morally or from a religious POV on human & civil rights? Should his "baptist doctrine"?
War? only secular reasons allowed in the discussion... made into the law?

For at least some Christian people nearly EVERY issue that's brought up as law is a "religious" issue.
Because laws that are important ARE moral.

Do we have to SAY that explicitly or try to convince others simply based on that. NO.
When Gabby showed up 'out of the blue' with some junk about abortion I posted a list of medical quotes showing life begins at conception.
Not a list of Bible verses.
And i'll add this, before I became a Christian I was selfishly pro-choice. But I wouldn't lift a finger or say a word to defend it, other than voting for people who would. A few Christians did talk to me about abortion. From a moral, Bible and the Science perspective and i was honest enough to keep my mouth shut, KNOWING I had no moral or good scientific defense. but I still voted pro-choice.
But Personally I had no problem with Christians voting based on their beliefs. It never crossed my mind that they could not or should vote based on their beliefs. Or not be able to promote their beliefs as law. I never felt any more oppressed/pressured by unreasonable Christians than i had by liberals who wanted me to change what I ate or how i handle my trash and Cars etc to "save the planet". Both made demands based on Moral appeals and "BELIEFS". Non-Christian flag waving patriots the same. "be a REAL man, Fight & die for the country because its the greatest eveh evah in the world!!" Even libertarians make moral claims and expect people to BUY them on FAITH. I've never seen "religious" claims as outside of the pale. In fact to be honest they made more sense to me than the flag waving, cry at the anthem, patriotism when i considered ALL of U.S. history and not just the noble parts.

My point here I guess is this, on many issues the points turn on someone's understanding of reality. INCLUDING so called "religious" understandings.
People are in different places and we have to be EXTREMELY careful when we say .. "don't bring religion into it" especially if it's "for the greater good".


BTW
Hitler wanted to get religion out of politics too, he became the religion.
Stalin wanted to get religion out of politics, the state became the religion.
Mao same as Stalin.
French revolution "Liberty, EQUALITY, Fraternity", we agree on those basics right? They wanted to get religion out of politics too.
didn't turn out so good.
Hitler co-oped the churches (they let themselves be co-oped)
Stalin, Mao, and Robespeire Killed a lot of Clergy... plenty of Roman Catholic priest & nuns.

just sayin'The sell is reforming government to take back freedoms lost, which includes religion. Reestablishing government based on a religion does not necessarily include freedom. In fact, history shows the opposite. You mention totalitarians as your examples to support your argument, but how many people have been murdered in the name of an organized religion throughout history? Just as many if not more.

Nothing in that statement says a word about how you make your choices, via religion or not. The thought police are who you are trying to get rid of, not replace. If teh state allows no god but itself, you are free to choose nothing.

[Gunny]

in personal relations absolutely.

in politics, mmm, sometimes the guns come out.


or help create it.

The left is trying to convert everyone. It's very mission minded. and does not tolerate heretics.
I think we should be at least as honest and fervent in trying to create people who agree with us at a deep level as well.
But FAR more tolerant.

but hey maybe that's out of line.That would be the point to this entire discussion? A plan to reform government from the ground up necessitates reforming society from the ground up as well. It requires aware people to participate in order for it to work.

You base selling that goal without riders/earmarks/whatever you wish to call duplicitous motives; especially arguably one of the most controversial, individual topics there is. Success in reforming society, regaining control of government and freedoms surrendered for protection brings with it freedom of religion. the above bolded statement of your allows none.

[Black Diamond]

I'd be all about teachers not being allowed to teach this woke crap. Any way to do that besides by decree ?

[revelarts]

The sell is reforming government to take back freedoms lost, which includes religion. Reestablishing government based on a religion does not necessarily include freedom. In fact, history shows the opposite. You mention totalitarians as your examples to support your argument, but how many people have been murdered in the name of an organized religion throughout history? Just as many if not more.

Nothing in that statement says a word about how you make your choices, via religion or not. The thought police are who you are trying to get rid of, not replace. If teh state allows no god but itself, you are free to choose nothing.Trying to replace the thought police? really? is that what you think i'm proposing?
...
What is it that I've said about Christian INFLUENCE on laws that'd make you think it made sense to bring up the idea that I or other christians would support (or lead to) thought police, oppression and religious mass murder?

History?
History of the U.S. shows that?
Where exactly? (prohibition? you think we'll try that again?)

what's this fear really about folk?
I've being very strait forward, be nice to get a candid reply.

[fj1200]

Trying to replace the thought police? really? is that what you think i'm proposing?
...
What is it that I've said about Christian INFLUENCE on laws that'd make you think it made sense to bring up the idea that I or other christians would support (or lead to) thought police, oppression and religious mass murder?

History?
History of the U.S. shows that?
Where exactly? (prohibition? you think we'll try that again?)

what's this fear really about folk?
I've being very strait forward, be nice to get a candid reply.

IMO you keep overstating this "fear." It's not fear, it's the reality that in an increasingly secular US that religious arguments are not going to fly; and in my opinion aren't really necessary anyway. I'm almost positive that anyone here would welcome a religious revival in this country. It's just that laws are not going to lead the way; at best laws will follow any such revival.

[Kathianne]

IMO you keep overstating this "fear." It's not fear, it's the reality that in an increasingly secular US that religious arguments are not going to fly; and in my opinion aren't really necessary anyway. I'm almost positive that anyone here would welcome a religious revival in this country. It's just that laws are not going to lead the way; at best laws will follow any such revival.

If people were more moral, in practice, fewer laws would be necessary.

[Gunny]

Trying to replace the thought police? really? is that what you think i'm proposing?
...
What is it that I've said about Christian INFLUENCE on laws that'd make you think it made sense to bring up the idea that I or other christians would support (or lead to) thought police, oppression and religious mass murder?

History?
History of the U.S. shows that?
Where exactly? (prohibition? you think we'll try that again?)

what's this fear really about folk?
I've being very strait forward, be nice to get a candid reply.I don't know, Rev. What IS your fear about? This is a political science discussion you cannot keep your religion out of. Are you afraid that freedom from totalitarianism is going to deter your right to religious freedom? To the contrary. You wish to interject your religion where it doesn't belong. Religion belongs in the hearts and minds of Man, not the mechanizations of government.

It is one of the most divisive arguments among people. Look at this thread. We can't get past you trying to force your religion on everyone. Thread progression has come to a halt. And you somehow think trying to sell infusing religion into government reform is going to end any differently? Dead on arrival.

[revelarts]

I don't know, Rev. What IS your fear about? This is a political science discussion you cannot keep your religion out of. Are you afraid that freedom from totalitarianism is going to deter your right to religious freedom? To the contrary. You wish to interject your religion where it doesn't belong. Religion belongs in the hearts and minds of Man, not the mechanizations of government.

It is one of the most divisive arguments among people. Look at this thread. We can't get past you trying to force your religion on everyone. Thread progression has come to a halt. And you somehow think trying to sell infusing religion into government reform is going to end any differently? Dead on arrival.
Without religion, freedom is dead on arrival. It has NO meaning except... what the state gives it.
That's what i'm afraid of.

strait forward enough?

what freedoms do you think you'll lose if i promote my beliefs? where you think it "does not belong"?

[Kathianne]

Without religion, freedom is dead on arrival. It has NO meaning except... what the state gives it.
That's what i'm afraid of.

strait forward enough?

what freedoms do you think you'll lose if i promote my beliefs? where you think it "does not belong"?
Not sure we're talking about the same topic anymore. You have every right to your region and to speak of and practice such. 1st amendment.

No one here is saying differently. What I for one would have a problem with is some push by a religious or even anti religious group pushing for laws created in their vision. I don't care if Christian, Muslim, Catholic, or something else.

[Gunny]

Without religion, freedom is dead on arrival. It has NO meaning except... what the state gives it.
That's what i'm afraid of.

strait forward enough?

what freedoms do you think you'll lose if i promote my beliefs? where you think it "does not belong"?Think in context with the thread. Freedom has never had any more meaning than what the State gives it. Freedom does not require religion in any way, shape nor form.

You tell me what freedoms we have lost, Rev. Any other time you're bouncing off the walls about it.

[revelarts]

Think in context with the thread. Freedom has never had any more meaning than what the State gives it. Freedom does not require religion in any way, shape nor form.
You tell me what freedoms we have lost, Rev. Any other time you're bouncing off the walls about it.

well gunny,
in the context of the thread I just wish i could get a strait forward answer to maybe 10%-50% of my questions.
that'd be nice. rather than these dodgy comments & deflections to questions I've never asked and things i never siad.


And if you think we haven't lost any freedoms, what the heck do you keep talking about "restoring" ...."restoring" "without bringing religion into it"?
"restoring" what exactly?

[Gunny]

well gunny,
in the context of the thread I just wish i could get a strait forward answer to maybe 10%-50% of my questions.
that'd be nice. rather than these dodgy comments & deflections to questions I've never asked and things i never siad.


And if you think we haven't lost any freedoms, what the heck do you keep talking about "restoring" ...."restoring" "without bringing religion into it"?
"restoring" what exactly?That's your problem. You DO get factual, straight-forward responses. You just don't like the answers so you reword your same questions.

Did you watch any of the videos or read any of the threads? What do you suppose the main topic is about, your continual rabbit holes and trying to make it personal aside?

Questions to ask yourself as they pertain to the topic:

Are you satisfied with government in its current form? Do you think government is in any way diminishing your rights under law? Do you think government is leaning in a totalitarian direction?

The narrator presents ideas and methods to reset government, by the people, by non-violent, non-treasonous means.

You got a better idea? Nothing else short of winning an armed conflict is going to move the people currently controlling government out of power and return it rightfully to the people.

Most of all, it's an intellectual exercise, not a competition :slap:

[revelarts]

And if you think we haven't lost any freedoms, what the heck do you keep talking about "restoring" ...."restoring" "without bringing religion into it"?
"restoring" what exactly?


That's your problem. You DO get factual, straight-forward responses. You just don't like the answers so you reword your same questions.
Did you watch any of the videos or read any of the threads? What do you suppose the main topic is about, your continual rabbit holes and trying to make it personal aside?

Questions to ask yourself as they pertain to the topic:
Are you satisfied with government in its current form? Do you think government is in any way diminishing your rights under law? Do you think government is leaning in a totalitarian direction?
The narrator presents ideas and methods to reset government, by the people, by non-violent, non-treasonous means.
You got a better idea? Nothing else short of winning an armed conflict is going to move the people currently controlling government out of power and return it rightfully to the people.
Most of all, it's an intellectual exercise, not a competition :slap:

so
"Nothing else short of winning an armed conflict is going to move the people currently controlling government out of power and return it rightfully to the people."


OK, so you didn't name anything to be "restored" except
it's that the current controllers need to be out of power, and the power returned to "the people"
agreed.

And from earlier
talking to people about religion will turn people off so don't so it, and religion has no place in politics...just your heart.
and religion leads to violence and thought police... except in your heart i guess.

And nothing short of violence will restore "the people" to power.


I think I got it.

[Kathianne]

so
"Nothing else short of winning an armed conflict is going to move the people currently controlling government out of power and return it rightfully to the people."


OK, so you didn't name anything to be "restored" except
it's that the current controllers need to be out of power, and the power returned to "the people"
agreed.

And from earlier
talking to people about religion will turn people off so don't so it, and religion has no place in politics...just your heart.
and religion leads to violence and thought police... except in your heart i guess.

And nothing short of violence will restore "the people" to power.


I think I got it.

I'm lost on where you and Gunny have gone with this, somehow I've lost clarity on what you're seeking.

Exactly how do you wish to incorporate religious beliefs into laws? Specifically it looks like laws pertaining to lgbq+++? I'm going out on a limb here, but think Gunny and myself would be pretty much in agreement with you on what we'd expect from schools. I'd like this to be addressed by courts in avor of kids benefit, but highly doubt God would be brought up in law or ruling. How do you think it should go, cause on that particular you seem to disagree.

[Gunny]

so
"Nothing else short of winning an armed conflict is going to move the people currently controlling government out of power and return it rightfully to the people."


OK, so you didn't name anything to be "restored" except
it's that the current controllers need to be out of power, and the power returned to "the people"
agreed.

And from earlier
talking to people about religion will turn people off so don't so it, and religion has no place in politics...just your heart.
and religion leads to violence and thought police... except in your heart i guess.

And nothing short of violence will restore "the people" to power.


I think I got it.

Not even close.

[Gunny]

I'm lost on where you and Gunny have gone with this, somehow I've lost clarity on what you're seeking.

Exactly how do you wish to incorporate religious beliefs into laws? Specifically it looks like laws pertaining to lgbq+++? I'm going out on a limb here, but think Gunny and myself would be pretty much in agreement with you on what we'd expect from schools. I'd like this to be addressed by courts in avor of kids benefit, but highly doubt God would be brought up in law or ruling. How do you think it should go, cause on that particular you seem to disagree.

The point of mentioning armed insurrection was to contrast it to the idea presented in the videos. Non-violent and non-treasonous replacement. Nothing more to that than that.

The only other points I've tried to make, that you and FJ appear in agreement on, is when appealing to the masses, you appeal to something all want in common (govt reform) and don't appeal to something that is divisive (religion) and will hurt the primary cause.

Not sure what the disconnect is. Nothing there says "no religion". Nothing there says one cannot use religion as the basis for one's beliefs. It's as simple as religion is not just not good for the sales pitch being made, but detrimental to it. The idea being to succeed with the goal of reforming government?

[Black Diamond]

The point of mentioning armed insurrection was to contrast it to the idea presented in the videos. Non-violent and non-treasonous replacement. Nothing more to that than that.

The only other points I've tried to make, that you and FJ appear in agreement on, is when appealing to the masses, you appeal to something all want in common (govt reform) and don't appeal to something that is divisive (religion) and will hurt the primary cause.

Not sure what the disconnect is. Nothing there says "no religion". Nothing there says one cannot use religion as the basis for one's beliefs. It's as simple as religion is not just not good for the sales pitch being made, but detrimental to it. The idea being to succeed with the goal of reforming government?
Okay do you not want any religion in government? Is it good the 10 commandments are gone from court houses and the like ? What omar being sworn in on a Quran? Prayer gone from public school ? Are these things good ?

[Kathianne]

Okay do you not want any religion in government? Is it good the 10 commandments are gone from court houses and the like ? What omar being sworn in on a Quran? Prayer gone from public school ? Are these things good ?

I don't have a problem with removal of regions articles from public buildings. OTOH I also have no problem with kids silently saying a prayer OR if a school makes accommodations for Muslim students, they should provide same for any students requesting same time.

[revelarts]

I'm lost on where you and Gunny have gone with this, somehow I've lost clarity on what you're seeking.

Exactly how do you wish to incorporate religious beliefs into laws? Specifically it looks like laws pertaining to lgbq+++? I'm going out on a limb here, but think Gunny and myself would be pretty much in agreement with you on what we'd expect from schools. I'd like this to be addressed by courts in avor of kids benefit, but highly doubt God would be brought up in law or ruling. How do you think it should go, cause on that particular you seem to disagree.

Well from My POV
as i mentioned.
I'm really not saying anything new. just adding historical context.

My initial point was only that the roots of all our freedoms. and the way most conservatives think about what the moral lines are, and what should be legal or not is BASED ... comes from the christian Bible based culture from Europe, filtered through Aquinas, Wycliff, Calvin etc, brought to the U.S. promoted by the Puritans, Baptist, Quakers, Catholics etc, imbibed by Deist and even "infidels"/atheist. who assumed the morals to be true.

And that today we've forgotten those roots and without the knowledge of that root, and more people going back to those roots, the freedoms we ASSUME "everybody knows" are going to slip away.


Having tried to say that a few times and few different ways.
It seems everyones take away from that is that I want everyone to lead every political conversation with that info.
Or that I want to the church to take over gov't or to try and get voters to make baptist doctrine into laws or something.
Things I've never proposed in any way.
But some how it seems people's serious concerns come out with anyone even mentioning the facts of history that religion/Christianity played. still plays.
As the root of western moral & legal standards.

So somehow the response is that religion CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT be brought up in politics. And how bad religion is... violent even.
I'm not sure what i'm not communicating clearly and why folks are jumping to every negative conclusion about "religion" after mentioning historical facts.

And as i mentioned before, I want no new laws.
I want REPEAL of new laws so that the old laws stand.
The old laws that ALIGN CLOSER with "religion".

Amazingly it seems that the old laws align closer to "religion" specifically, broad brush Conservative Christianity.
It's almost like the people who wrote them were religious or influenced by religion or maybe even Christian or something.

[fj1200]

... I just wish i could get a strait forward answer to maybe 10%-50% of my questions.

It's hard because you ask between 2x and 10x too many questions and they typically seem rhetorical in nature.

[Gunny]

Well from My POV
as i mentioned.
I'm really not saying anything new. just adding historical context.

My initial point was only that the roots of all our freedoms. and the way most conservatives think about what the moral lines are, and what should be legal or not is BASED ... comes from the christian Bible based culture from Europe, filtered through Aquinas, Wycliff, Calvin etc, brought to the U.S. promoted by the Puritans, Baptist, Quakers, Catholics etc, imbibed by Deist and even "infidels"/atheist. who assumed the morals to be true.

And that today we've forgotten those roots and without the knowledge of that root, and more people going back to those roots, the freedoms we ASSUME "everybody knows" are going to slip away.


Having tried to say that a few times and few different ways.
It seems everyones take away from that is that I want everyone to lead every political conversation with that info.
Or that I want to the church to take over gov't or to try and get voters to make baptist doctrine into laws or something.
Things I've never proposed in any way.
But some how it seems people's serious concerns come out with anyone even mentioning the facts of history that religion/Christianity played. still plays.
As the root of western moral & legal standards.

So somehow the response is that religion CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT be brought up in politics. And how bad religion is... violent even.
I'm not sure what i'm not communicating clearly and why folks are jumping to every negative conclusion about "religion" after mentioning historical facts.

And as i mentioned before, I want no new laws.
I want REPEAL of new laws so that the old laws stand.
The old laws that ALIGN CLOSER with "religion".

Amazingly it seems that the old laws align closer to "religion" specifically, broad brush Conservative Christianity.
It's almost like the people who wrote them were religious or influenced by religion or maybe even Christian or something.You aren't listening. That current law is based on Judeo-Christian morality was dealt with first or second page of the thread. Law is worded in a secular manner as to include all, religious and non-religious. Law based solely on religion would be challenged at every turn by the non-religious (as they already have done and do) simply because it is based on religion.

Nobody's forgetting anything, Rev. It's about addressing issues in appropriate forums. It's about attempting to sell one idea at a time which has a better chance of success than piling a bunch of wants into one package like Congress does. The non-religious are never going to agree that our laws are Judeo-Christian-based, nor to support that they should be. They have message board pages of pages denying any such thing regardless the fact they are wrong.

The non-religious however are part of society and have the same Rights as religious people. As intended. Attempting to sell an idea to the people includes all. Not going to sell much when when your pitch takes away/tramples on the rights of some.

[Gunny]

Okay do you not want any religion in government? Is it good the 10 commandments are gone from court houses and the like ? What omar being sworn in on a Quran? Prayer gone from public school ? Are these things good ?


I don't have a problem with removal of regions articles from public buildings. OTOH I also have no problem with kids silently saying a prayer OR if a school makes accommodations for Muslim students, they should provide same for any students requesting same time.

I personally do not care whether or not the Ten Commandments appear as a donated decoration in a courthouse. I have a MAJOR issue with the crybaby fuckwits claiming it somehow infringes on the Establishment clause/their rights. That's stupid leftists in their neverending mission to destroy our history and culture and rewrite it. A basic tenet of totalitarianism, which this thread is about.

"School prayer" amounted to saying a prayer at lunchtime over your Daniel Boone lunchbox. "Karma" got OHare for that shit. If I felt like praying over my lunch at school I'd do it. Fuck them.

[Black Diamond]

I personally do not care whether or not the Ten Commandments appear as a donated decoration in a courthouse. I have a MAJOR issue with the crybaby fuckwits claiming it somehow infringes on the Establishment clause/their rights. That's stupid leftists in their neverending mission to destroy our history and culture and rewrite it. A basic tenet of totalitarianism, which this thread is about.

"School prayer" amounted to saying a prayer at lunchtime over your Daniel Boone lunchbox. "Karma" got OHare for that shit. If I felt like praying over my lunch at school I'd do it. Fuck them.

The argument as you probably know says the more we get God (meaning the Christian one) out of our schools and society and maybe government the more we decline.
I am interested in this stuff but I also feel that my post got to the crux of what you and rev are discussing

[Gunny]

The argument as you probably know says the more we get God (meaning the Christian one) out of our schools and society and maybe government the more we decline.
I am interested in this stuff but I also feel that my post got to the crux of what you and rev are discussing

I saw your post as a side issue as I was not and am not arguing about getting God out of anything. God is always with those of us He is always with. We are not the only members of society. The appeal is societal freedom and reform. reform society and the government follows as reformed members of society fill government seats.

Hard enough to sell for a spoiled society used to instant gratification. Reforming society from the ground up would take awhile. None of us would live to see the outcome. We're just caught in the current struggle.

[Gunny]

Why should religion be kept out of government? Couple of examples. One worse than the other. Hopefully, cooler heads in Israel will prevail.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4170035-iran-and-israel-find-common-purpose-the-subjugation-of-women/

[revelarts]

Why should religion be kept out of government? Couple of examples. One worse than the other. Hopefully, cooler heads in Israel will prevail.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4170035-iran-and-israel-find-common-purpose-the-subjugation-of-women/

who's not listening?

"And as i mentioned before, I want no new laws.
I want REPEAL of new laws so that the old laws stand.
The old laws that ALIGN CLOSER with "religion".

Amazingly it seems that the old laws align closer to "religion" specifically, broad brush Conservative Christianity.
It's almost like the people who wrote them were religious or influenced by religion or maybe even Christian or something."

[revelarts]

...
..
But OK, In away I hear you, I guess my problem with the way it's put is that when people say don't bring "religion" into law.
It basically tells me I'm not allowed to have input into laws. My faith says everything I do or promote has a "religious" connotation.
For many "religious" people that's the general POV.
For at least some Christian people nearly EVERY issue that's brought up as law is a "religious" issue.
Because laws that are important ARE moral
...
My point here I guess is this, on many issues the points turn on someone's understanding of reality. INCLUDING so called "religious" understandings.
People are in different places and we have to be EXTREMELY careful when we say .. "don't bring religion into it" especially if it's "for the greater good".
///
BTW
Hitler wanted to get religion out of politics too, he became the religion.
Stalin wanted to get religion out of politics, the state became the religion.
Mao same as Stalin.
French revolution "Liberty, EQUALITY, Fraternity", we agree on those basics right? They wanted to get religion out of politics too.
didn't turn out so good.
Hitler co-oped the churches (they let themselves be co-oped)
Stalin, Mao, and Robespeire Killed a lot of Clergy... plenty of Roman Catholic priest & nuns.
just sayin'

I don't recall anyone ever saying that.





Government Allegedly Refuses to Let Husband and Wife Participate in Foster Care, Adoption Over Biblical Views: ‘Their Faith Is Not Supportive’
https://www.faithwire.com/2023/08/29/government-allegedly-refuses-to-let-husband-and-wife-participate-in-foster-care-adoption-over-biblical-views-their-faith-is-not-supportive/

Can't have religion or religious people involved in or giving input into laws or gov't controlled activities.
That'b be bad. "mind control", "theocracy" & the history of religious violence you know.

The gov't here is obviously just following the Golden Rule.
those in gov't just want the BEST for children, and religious people are not "supportive".
And the secular gov't officials wouldn't want THIER CHILDREN raised by religious people so .. boom. do unto others.
Golden Rule APPLIED.

Maybe this makes it a little clearer WHY I say, when I hear "you can't have religion in politics" it rubs the wrong way.
It's this kinda crap.
Because it almost means , by default, not only "no religious laws" but no "religious people".

The fact that "no one HERE" has SAID that... or thinks they mean that, is no comfort.
The point is, the logical application of the way it's phrased, and the secular mindset means exclusion.
As a start.

And Please don't tell me that 'the courts will fix it' and this is an extreme case and it will never happen as policy.
I don't want to list the things I've warned of as logical extensions of bad legal/court precedents & ideas that have come to pass.

Ideas have consequences... sometime unintended.. sometimes intended.
If we look at the principals 1st & add pinch of honest understanding of human nature.
We can often get a clue of what direction somethings head towards.

[Gunny]

Government Allegedly Refuses to Let Husband and Wife Participate in Foster Care, Adoption Over Biblical Views: ‘Their Faith Is Not Supportive’
https://www.faithwire.com/2023/08/29/government-allegedly-refuses-to-let-husband-and-wife-participate-in-foster-care-adoption-over-biblical-views-their-faith-is-not-supportive/

Can't have religion or religious people involved in or giving input into laws or gov't controlled activities.
That'b be bad. "mind control", "theocracy" & the history of religious violence you know.

The gov't here is obviously just following the Golden Rule.
those in gov't just want the BEST for children, and religious people are not "supportive".
And the secular gov't officials wouldn't want THIER CHILDREN raised by religious people so .. boom. do unto others.
Golden Rule APPLIED.

Maybe this makes it a little clearer WHY I say, when I hear "you can't have religion in politics" it rubs the wrong way.
It's this kinda crap.
Because it almost means , by default, not only "no religious laws" but no "religious people".

The fact that "no one HERE" has SAID that... or thinks they mean that, is no comfort.
The point is, the logical application of the way it's phrased, and the secular mindset means exclusion.
As a start.

And Please don't tell me that 'the courts will fix it' and this is an extreme case and it will never happen as policy.
I don't want to list the things I've warned of as logical extensions of bad legal/court precedents & ideas that have come to pass.

Ideas have consequences... sometime unintended.. sometimes intended.
If we look at the principals 1st & add pinch of honest understanding of human nature.
We can often get a clue of what direction somethings head towards.

You are using bad government as an example. Isn't this thread about how to overcome bad government? Or it was:rolleyes:

You are not keeping it in context of the discussion. I consider the decision you cite to be incorrect, and unconstitutional. It's religious persecution.

When the right people take back government, such a decision is rare, and would more than likely be overturned. Religion belongs to the people. Government belongs to the people. Government does not belong to religion and it should not. That doesn't mean religious people in government cannot make decisions based on their morals/ethics. They are in fact expected to and elected to office based on where they state they stand.

The wrong people are in office. Replacing them with the right people solves ALL people's issues, not just yours nor any other individual's.

[revelarts]

You are using bad government as an example. Isn't this thread about how to overcome bad government? Or it was:rolleyes:

You are not keeping it in context of the discussion. I consider the decision you cite to be incorrect, and unconstitutional. It's religious persecution.

When the right people take back government, such a decision is rare, and would more than likely be overturned. Religion belongs to the people. Government belongs to the people. Government does not belong to religion and it should not. That doesn't mean religious people in government cannot make decisions based on their morals/ethics. They are in fact expected to and elected to office based on where they state they stand.

The wrong people are in office. Replacing them with the right people solves ALL people's issues, not just yours nor any other individual's.

I'm partly saying, sort of, what you were saying in the other tread about BEING RAISE with religion.
Even though you and i didn't "believe it" at least I still thought the principals and teaching were basically OK, and a decent moral framework. if not 100% correct.
MOST PEOPLE in the U.S. did.

As a matter of course, not a matter of Gov't mandate. Or religious take over.
the religion and it's morals simply permeated the culture.
the ideas that made the consensus framework of most people's thinking of "right and wrong" was basically Christian.

But now that a growing portion of secular society think Christianity is bad or at least suspect.
why should they adhere to the the general framework of morals in or out of law/politics?

there was NO NEED for Priest, Pastors or "the church" to make the laws because the people all ready GENERALLY believed that there were only 2 genders, and God or somehow we all have the right to freedom of speech, religion. The right not to have our home busted in without warrant, or be tortured, or torture.
Those things were the RIGHT thing to do.
Now it's ANYTHING goes.
Free speech they say is Too dangerous.
So the golden rule says "do unto others" So the thing to do is Protect people from harmful hateful speech that will cause pain and suicide.
Since religion teaches things that are hateful and bigoted by a NON Christian framework, then it must be suppressed... for the greater good.
"do unto others" is the greater law.. so the constitutional protections don't apply Gunny.
except the "promote the general welfare".

bottom line is thsi
the nation had a basic overall POV that was Christian. Now not so much.
and that means what was set up BY people thinking under a general Christian framework (not theocracy) can't be defended fully.
And it is being dismantled, cannibalized.
And assumed as changeable in definition as gender, man & woman.

the whole culture needs to be renewed to the the older way of thinking.. it's roots.
and that has to be organic, not by Christians making new laws or taking over but by MORE people understanding who God is.
because at this point,
Well there's a verse from the old testament that summed up a time when Israel went to crap politically and spiritually.


"...In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes...."

If there is no objective framework for morals then ,at best, the laws will become a mishmash of ideologies and personal visions of right & wrong.
people "doing unto others" what they think is best.

It won't be right people, but people who think they are right.

[fj1200]

Government Allegedly Refuses to Let Husband and Wife Participate in Foster Care, Adoption Over Biblical Views: ‘Their Faith Is Not Supportive’
https://www.faithwire.com/2023/08/29/government-allegedly-refuses-to-let-husband-and-wife-participate-in-foster-care-adoption-over-biblical-views-their-faith-is-not-supportive/

...

Horrible, but apparently MA DCF isn't even following MA law.


Basic rights of foster parents:

To be treated with dignity and respect.
To be free from all forms of discrimination in their role as a foster parent.
To be free from any retaliation for asserting the rights outlined in this new law.
To have information regarding the foster home (including all household members) be kept confidential.


https://www.mspcc.org/maff/fpbor/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Okay do you not want any religion in government? Is it good the 10 commandments are gone from court houses and the like ? What omar being sworn in on a Quran? Prayer gone from public school ? Are these things good ?

OK, NO BIBLE BUT OK THE QURAN....HMMMMMM
SEE no favoritism, right?
SWEAR THE CAMEL FFKKKERS IN ON THEIR BOOK BUT DO AWAY WITH THE BIBLE. Goooooooood show Dem O Rats....focj..--Tyr

[fj1200]

OK, NO BIBLE BUT OK THE QURAN....HMMMMMM
SEE no favoritism, right?
SWEAR THE CAMEL FFKKKERS IN ON THEIR BOOK BUT DO AWAY WITH THE BIBLE. Goooooooood show Dem O Rats....focj..--Tyr

Who said people couldn't be sworn in on the bible?

[Kathianne]

Who said people couldn't be sworn in on the bible?
Beat me to it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It's hard because you ask between 2x and 10x too many questions and they typically seem rhetorical in nature.

Nice way to dodge questions. What is wrong with answer 2 or 3 questions...
DID YOU EVER PLAY DODGEBALL IN SCHOOL?? Tyr

[Kathianne]

Beat me to it.
I may not like Nazis having the right to march for their recruitment attempts.
I may not like someone burning the US flag to make some point.
I may not like someone being sworn into government position using Koran or Wiccan book.

However, all are protected, just like ours are to write what we want here or to say in the public square. Yes, one is responsible for what is said or written, but that's that.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Who said people couldn't be sworn in on the bible?

I was predicting, because everybody knows the demorats want the bible banished. Dont ffing play dumb on that. ok?--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I may not like Nazis having the right to march for their recruitment attempts.
I may not like someone burning the US flag to make some point.
I may not like someone being sworn into government position using Koran or Wiccan book.

However, all are protected, just like ours are to write what we want here or to say in the public square. Yes, one is responsible for what is said or written, but that's that.
Point I was making is the worthless ffing dems want the bible completely gone from everything. They hate Christianity....--So lets not pretend that is not their faithful stand on the issue. ok?--Tyr

[Kathianne]

Point I was making is the worthless ffing dems want the bible completely gone from everything. They hate Christianity....--So lets not pretend that is not their faithful stand on the issue. ok?--Tyr
Not ok, those are your opinion, not facts. Lots of Dems are Christians and even bible based Christians at that.

[fj1200]

Nice way to dodge questions. What is wrong with answer 2 or 3 questions...
DID YOU EVER PLAY DODGEBALL IN SCHOOL?? Tyr

I don't answer rhetorical questions. Especially when thrown out in batches.


I was predicting, because everybody knows the demorats want the bible banished. Dont ffing play dumb on that. ok?--Tyr

Uh huh. :rolleyes:


Not ok, those are your opinion, not facts. Lots of Dems are Christians and even bible based Christians at that.

Truly. I know plenty.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not ok, those are your opinion, not facts. Lots of Dems are Christians and even bible based Christians at that.


" Not ok, those are your opinion, not facts. Lots of Dems are Christians and even bible based Christians at that. ""

Well, my friend, there is a big difference between True Christians and fake ones. There are far more fake ones, imho.
Being Christian does not jive with being a demorat, ( issues matter ) at least not in my book. but everybody is free to reason out their own ideals on that. --Tyr

[Gunny]

I'm partly saying, sort of, what you were saying in the other tread about BEING RAISE with religion.
Even though you and i didn't "believe it" at least I still thought the principals and teaching were basically OK, and a decent moral framework. if not 100% correct.
MOST PEOPLE in the U.S. did.

As a matter of course, not a matter of Gov't mandate. Or religious take over.
the religion and it's morals simply permeated the culture.
the ideas that made the consensus framework of most people's thinking of "right and wrong" was basically Christian.

But now that a growing portion of secular society think Christianity is bad or at least suspect.
why should they adhere to the the general framework of morals in or out of law/politics?

there was NO NEED for Priest, Pastors or "the church" to make the laws because the people all ready GENERALLY believed that there were only 2 genders, and God or somehow we all have the right to freedom of speech, religion. The right not to have our home busted in without warrant, or be tortured, or torture.
Those things were the RIGHT thing to do.
Now it's ANYTHING goes.
Free speech they say is Too dangerous.
So the golden rule says "do unto others" So the thing to do is Protect people from harmful hateful speech that will cause pain and suicide.
Since religion teaches things that are hateful and bigoted by a NON Christian framework, then it must be suppressed... for the greater good.
"do unto others" is the greater law.. so the constitutional protections don't apply Gunny.
except the "promote the general welfare".

bottom line is thsi
the nation had a basic overall POV that was Christian. Now not so much.
and that means what was set up BY people thinking under a general Christian framework (not theocracy) can't be defended fully.
And it is being dismantled, cannibalized.
And assumed as changeable in definition as gender, man & woman.

the whole culture needs to be renewed to the the older way of thinking.. it's roots.
and that has to be organic, not by Christians making new laws or taking over but by MORE people understanding who God is.
because at this point,
Well there's a verse from the old testament that summed up a time when Israel went to crap politically and spiritually.


"...In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes...."

If there is no objective framework for morals then ,at best, the laws will become a mishmash of ideologies and personal visions of right & wrong.
people "doing unto others" what they think is best.

It won't be right people, but people who think they are right.First thing I don't get is:
Even though you and i didn't "believe it"


I argue in favor of secular government because it is inclusive while theocracies are exclusive. I have never in my life stated I am not Christian, or did not "believe" and it's one of those things with me that if anyone's going to push they best bring a damned big sword and their A game. Don't confuse the former with the latter.

You do help make my point though. I get it. This Nation was started at least in part by people fleeing religious persecution. For THAT reason, the US government shall not establish a religion. In and of itself, it's perfect. It includes everyone and all religions, like them or not. Isn't that what America is about?

Neither you, I, Kathianne, nor anyone can fix stupid, hateful people. They attack everything good and right by our established moral standard/ethics and laws. They always exist and always will in every generation, society/culture and/or country. Give them everything and they're STILL miserable POSs. Cuz that's jsut what they are and theya re determined to share.

You beat them by leaving them out, which is based on the original argument made by the video narrator. Why do these a-holes have audiences? Because misery loves company and drama draws interest and interest makes money for the human garbage that owns these media platforms with algorithms set to promote the crap.

There's no easy fix, nor has anyone offered that. I have zero problem with ideas presented by the narrator aside from the fact the chances of any such thing happening. Two generations ago God was everywhere and everyone had a flag. Except for the poor, miserable victims listed above. It would take as many or more generations to turn it around.

In the meantime, Christ tells us to spread the word. No one is saying don't, The whole point is sharing Christ and building government for all are not the same goals. Each has its time and place.

[revelarts]

I argue in favor of secular government because it is inclusive while theocracies are exclusive. I have never in my life stated I am not Christian, or did not "believe" and it's one of those things with me that if anyone's going to push they best bring a damned big sword and their A game. Don't confuse the former with the latter.

You do help make my point though. I get it. This Nation was started at least in part by people fleeing religious persecution. For THAT reason, the US government shall not establish a religion. In and of itself, it's perfect. It includes everyone and all religions, like them or not. Isn't that what America is about?....

In the meantime, Christ tells us to spread the word. No one is saying don't, The whole point is sharing Christ and building government for all are not the same goals. Each has its time and place.





https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GCfFLr3XcAAdAbI?format=png&name=900x900

Even some atheist understand it.

the the ideals of Justice & freedoms we promote today in law and culture
"ARE THE DIRECT LEGACY" of Christianity.
and without acknowledging that, reaching back to that TODAY we will not have it.

that does not mean a "theocracy"
it means promoting a LIMITED gov't and freedoms that in many respects aligns with the Christian world view.

Christians say "thou shall not kill, steal, commit fraud/lie, etc..
Secularist agree correct?
Does that make the law THEOCRACY?

the three branches of gov't align with the Christian theological idea that men are sinners who CANNOT be trusted with power.
Hence 3 branches so that no group can dominate etc.
Does that make the U.S. Gov't a theocracy?

Same goes for freedom of religion.
the Christian idea is that NO ONE can or should force anyone to believe anything.
(It's what's in the Bible even though Rome & Europe somehow lost that thread)
Since there is freedom of religion like the Bible says.
Does that make the U.S. a Theocracy since it's based that idea on a Christian value?

The idea of personal property is one that's promoted in the Bible and honored in U.S. and the Bill of Rights.
Does that make the U.S. theocratic?
Haven't some ancient gov'ts say the humans and the state own nothing.
Don't other secular gov'ts and others sometime say that the state or the community really owns everything?
why isn't that true? who says?
Personal Property is just an IDEA.
Why should it be assumed as a right?
Sure you could/must use force to promote it. But as a concept for people to embrace WHO SAYS that it's the best way to think of property.
the Christian LEGACY says it and we've adopted the idea like smoke in a house long lived in NOT knowing it's been worked out theologically for the culture over thousands of years of religious tradition.
Should we give up the idea because of it's religious roots.

the idea of the equality of all human beings, genders & groups.
This is a purely Christian Ideal for the west. The Greeks didn't believe this, the people of India have a cast system, most cultures assume some other culture or groups are LESS than human or that some elite deserve MORE rights & privileges. Even "science" and SECULAR social darwinism don't promote humanities equality as a concept that should be applied in law.
WHO SAYS that they are not correct? it's the Christian theological ideal that FINALLY, in fits and starts, broke through many of the old prejudices and promotes across the world the idea that ALL PEOPLE are created in the image of God, THEREFORE we should treat each other with due respect.
Does that make the U.S. a Theocracy since our laws are based on that Christian value?
On what SECULAR grounds TODAY are you going to defend the view of the equality of human beings?
Many Secularist understand that if we just use "science" then why not cover ANIMALS on the same level, rights wise, as human since humans are JUST animals.
Others go farther than say plants should have those rights too!
Other Secularist go in the opposite direction and say NO ONE has any rights, that's just a word, and obviously people aren't equal so "WE" the smart people have to control the others LIKE animals for the benefit of the whole.
What is our secular argument against them supposed to be? What Secular reasons do you give for the idea of human equality? Or the higher stance of humans over animals and plants? tradition?

Many people today don't want to look that closely at what we're dealing with and think we can separate the ideals we want to promote from "religion".
OK
Fine SHOW ME HOW.

I'm not promoting a theocracy BUT the plain truth is that the very concept of who human beings are, our rights, and how gov't acts based on those ideas are in fact CHRISTIAN.
You may think that, but "everybody knows that we...".. NO THEY DON'T!
That's why you have people claiming there are 57 genders. They don't "KNOW" jack.

We can not pretend that there's some COMPLETE separation of gov't and religion.
People's world views finally go back to something. Even if they don't think about it.
And if we want to preserve or restore what we consider a good system it does not help to pretend that we must divorce ourselves from mentioning our religious foundations and just promote a hard core secular state with ZERO religious undertones.

You can not keep a traditional conservative secular American gov't with it's ideals of justice and freedom that's not based in the religious assumptions.
If so, please tell me how.

[fj1200]

You can not keep a traditional conservative secular American gov't with it's ideals of justice and freedom that's not based in the religious assumptions.
If so, please tell me how.

I think you're not addressing the main problem with where you want to go. Choose any issue that you would believe a Christian would advocate for or against and I'll find a Christian on the other side.

And to answer your questions above, "does that make the US a theocracy?" No, it does not.

[revelarts]

I think you're not addressing the main problem with where you want to go. Choose any issue that you would believe a Christian would advocate for or against and I'll find a Christian on the other side.

That is a real problem, but the initial problem i'm addressing in the previous is to clarify what a "theocracy" is, verses a nation whose foundational principals are in fact based in a hard core old school Christian world view.
Getting people to understand that their ASSUMPTIONS about the BASICS of what a good "secular" gov't is are actually just an old school Christian world view.

But yes, speaking of the extremes, there are plenty of people who say they are Christians today and do promote many ideas that they claim are Christian. (or not anti-christian)
But even many of them will admit that those ideas ARE NOT what Christians of the past understood to be biblical ideals.
And they are hard pressed to connect the details or foundations of what they promote to biblical ideals.
But if they do they usually default to the ideal of Christian LOVE as the Christian basis for their political stances. While ignoring everything else the bible says or assumes about various issues.

As I mentioned the very idea of who human beings are,
are we basically good
are humans more than animals or plants
are humans due any "rights"
are some humans more equal than others
are there only 2 genders
is killing wrong in all, or most, circumstances
is personal property a real thing
Should/do people have freedom to say what they want or believe what they want?
and more.

The answers to these questions had pretty much been baked into western culture's mind by the Christian "religion".
Today the answers to those are no longer assumptions. Other people's "truth" about those issues are assumed just as valid or moreso.
And some people having left Christian foundational concepts would even use PART of Christianity to undermine them.
Such as, we should LOVE the animals, plants, the earth the SAME (or More) than we love ourselves. They are living beings too!
'Love is Love' why can't they get married? Why is gender a factor or close relations or the number of people or species?
If you LOVE others you won't say "HATEFUL" things, it should not allowed.
Why should we have nations? 'People are basically good' we should just Love each other and disarm.

People can and do use the Bible like a buffet just like they do with the constitution.
But Christians of the past have 'run the numbers' on these concepts for over 1000 years now. Theocracy is not a Biblical solution for gov't but a gov't based on a general Christian world view is.

Because you won't get the kind of justice & freedoms we promote here from any other foundation.

Getting other Christians on board with that program is a big problem and getting secular people to see it as well is another.
But some do, like the atheist i quoted, and the conservative atheist Jordan Peterson and Jews like Dennis Prager
But frankly a revival would be great right about now, for people's personal salvation and the blessing of the nations.



And to answer your questions above, "does that make the US a theocracy?" No, it does not.

:thumb:

[fj1200]

^Good luck to all of us.

[revelarts]

Here's WEF spokesperson Yuval Harari is making the point.... as an atheist... as a secularist.... that rights and nations... are pure fictions.
Made up stories, "like religion".
start at 9:28 for 1 minutes or so of the relevant portion

https://youtu.be/YZa4sdIwV04?si=D08CM_Oep_gGcce9&t=568


Since people with Harari's take on "religion" as, just made up stories that have NO place in serious public or legal discourse,
So they also can not find ANY RATIONAL/REAL foundation for rights, or nations, or the morals in laws either.
It's just whatever the group decides or whatever individuals can get away with.

If there is No God, some folks want to believe that each man is a god.
But it turns out that each man is just an animal.

So we really can't play the "we must separate religion from politics" card and expect SECULAR people or purely SECULAR gov'ts to continue to take the concepts of rights, equality etc etc seriously.
Accept maybe as more fictional "religious" ideas that should be eventually excluded from gov't.



(& yes of course, atheist and the non religious HAVE morals (as much as religious people)... personal morals... but they have no RATIONAL basis for them.
Like people who claim "love at 1st sight", few would deny a persons REAL feelings, however most understand that there's no RATIONAL reason for them.
In contrast to a love grown by real experience and knowledge of a persons character and mutual compatibility. the difference is one is based on real knowledge of another person while the other is purely on personal feelings.)

[fj1200]

Here's WEF spokesperson Yuval Harari is making the point.... as an atheist... as a secularist.... that rights and nations... are pure fictions.
Made up stories, "like religion".
start at 9:28 for 1 minutes or so of the relevant portion


Since people with Harari's take on "religion" as, just made up stories that have NO place in serious public or legal discourse,
So they also can not find ANY RATIONAL/REAL foundation for rights, or nations, or the morals in laws either.
It's just whatever the group decides or whatever individuals can get away with.

If there is No God, some folks want to believe that each man is a god.
But it turns out that each man is just an animal.

So we really can't play the "we must separate religion from politics" card and expect SECULAR people or purely SECULAR gov'ts to continue to take the concepts of rights, equality etc etc seriously.
Accept maybe as more fictional "religious" ideas that should be eventually excluded from gov't.



(& yes of course, atheist and the non religious HAVE morals (as much as religious people)... personal morals... but they have no RATIONAL basis for them.
Like people who claim "love at 1st sight", few would deny a persons REAL feelings, however most understand that there's no RATIONAL reason for them.
In contrast to a love grown by real experience and knowledge of a persons character and mutual compatibility. the difference is one is based on real knowledge of another person while the other is purely on personal feelings.)

Again, he's not a WEF spokesperson. Not sure why you seek to elevate these people into something they are not. But I've been thinking about your earlier posit. Not only do you need to convert those wayward Christians to your thinking, you also need to convert those wayward atheists to your thinking. Those are two things that are fools errands IMHO because I don't think it's necessary. But we could just review the thread rather than getting back into it all over again.

[Gunny]

Again, he's not a WEF spokesperson. Not sure why you seek to elevate these people into something they are not. But I've been thinking about your earlier posit. Not only do you need to convert those wayward Christians to your thinking, you also need to convert those wayward atheists to your thinking. Those are two things that are fools errands IMHO because I don't think it's necessary. But we could just review the thread rather than getting back into it all over again.

Judeo-Christian God sells only to a certain segment of society. That has to be considered when trying to sell a better society to all.

[fj1200]

Judeo-Christian God sells only to a certain segment of society. That has to be considered when trying to sell a better society to all.

True. And in my opinion not necessary.

[revelarts]

Again, he's not a WEF spokesperson.
You're right The WEF says he's just one of their "Agenda Contributors".
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/yuval-harari/
Yuval Harari - Agenda Contributor | World Economic Forum



Not sure why you seek to elevate these people into something they are not.
Not trying to elevate him, It's just how I was 1st introduced to him and it's hard for me to shake the mislabel.
It's not point I want to bother over. I'll get it right eventually.



But I've been thinking about your earlier posit. Not only do you need to convert those wayward Christians to your thinking, you also need to convert those wayward atheists to your thinking.
Those are two things that are fools errands IMHO because I don't think it's necessary. But we could just review the thread rather than getting back into it all over again.

For the sake of the nation It's not necessary to everyone to convert.
For the sake of the nations health it's not necessary for everyone to believe most Christian doctrines.
Just acknowledge some basics foundational principals. that many say they believe ANYWAY. they just don't realize WHY they believe it or WHERE the beliefs came from.
Plus here's the thing, the constitution and most law up until the 1960-70-80s ALREADY have the principals embedded there ALREADY.
So it's not like it's a LONG way to go.

As far a a fool's errand goes , well who would have thought that homosexual marriage and men competing in women's sports AS "WOMEN" was a realistic goal to shoot for in 1985?
It'd sound insane then and still sounds insane, but it's HERE.

Also, again I ask what's the alternative.
If you've got a way(s) to convince people that the reality of "Human Rights" & personal freedom, personal property, 2 genders etc needs to preserved and reclaimed let me know.

the 1st part of what I'm saying is the the reason we've had anything like that TODAY is because it came from the religious TRUTHS of Christianity.
If you know of another way to maintain and restore them let me know.

[fj1200]

Also, again I ask what's the alternative.
If you've got a way(s) to convince people that the reality of "Human Rights" & personal freedom, personal property, 2 genders etc needs to preserved and reclaimed let me know.

the 1st part of what I'm saying is the the reason we've had anything like that TODAY is because it came from the religious TRUTHS of Christianity.
If you know of another way to maintain and restore them let me know.

As I recall we've discussed it already. Throwing the bible argument at them will be counterproductive. Advocating because "the bible says" will not work. Attempt to persuade them with reasonable arguments and then the fact that you might have a biblical reference after they're already listening becomes a different discussion.

[Kathianne]

As I recall we've discussed it already. Throwing the bible argument at them will be counterproductive. Advocating because "the bible says" will not work. Attempt to persuade them with reasonable arguments and then the fact that you might have a biblical reference after they're already listening becomes a different discussion.

It shouldn't be so hard to observe X and Y chromosomes. Let the alphbeters prove their take on. reality.

[revelarts]

As I recall we've discussed it already. Throwing the bible argument at them will be counterproductive.
Advocating because "the bible says" will not work.
It's worked for more than a few people.
But why can't you hear when i say that many items are already in the constitution and our older laws. And appeals to the best of our traditions.
Also reality is on the bible's side, simply because the bible is TRUE. whether on not people believe it. there are 2 genders , the bible says it, and as K mentioned, science show it as well.
what part of that doesn't stick?
why do you keep assuming the Bible is the ONLY tool i want to use. I say it's the ULTIMATE tool and the only foundation. But it's not the only place where it's principals are seated and can be pointed too.
Part of the problem is even when you ask people to follow the constitution they become selective and want to ignore many of the basics when it suits them.
It seems most folks simply want their way and don't have seriously held principals, many people operate out of habits, convenience, personal preferences, "cultural norms" and pragmatism.



Attempt to persuade them with reasonable arguments and then the fact that you might have a biblical reference after they're already listening becomes a different discussion.
yes, no one said you have to Start with the Bible.
Folks have been doing it that way for some time.
However if you're dealing with folks like Harari. and what his type are teaching in colleges.
they aren't interested in reasonable arguments they have a different world view of what human beings are, and what factors apply to reality. they have a different religion.
Harari doesn't believe humans have rights. what reasonable argument are going to make?
He says human rights and freedoms are PURE fiction.
What's the secular reasoned response would you start with to back the constitution and bill of rights's view on that, and secure the principals in other law?

[revelarts]

Judeo-Christian God sells only to a certain segment of society. That has to be considered when trying to sell a better society to all.
Europe was 100% pagan before most of it turn to Christianity as a majority world view.
Irish Druids where literally drinking blood out of human skulls and doing human sacrifices to pagan gods. Heck the Greeks had human sacrifices regularly including hunting little girls and eating them. I suspect those people weren't an easy sell.
We often fail to remember how much the Truth of the Bible changed everything in Europe & around the world.
The US is often ready to throw cash & bodies into war in foreign countries "for freedom". the battle of ideas for the freedom we talk about cost a lot less in every way.

And if we really believe in God can we put a limit on what he's able to do?
Are we supposed to sit back and say, weelllll most people wont like it so I won't mention it?

I'm not saying anyone needs to be obnoxious but, Jesus and the Apostles didn't get killed or change the world because they kept their mouths shut to get along with everyone.
And they never expected everyone to get on board.
And they never have but the world changed anyway because enough did.

[fj1200]

It's worked for more than a few people.
But why can't you hear when i say that many items are already in the constitution and our older laws. And appeals to the best of our traditions.
Also reality is on the bible's side, simply because the bible is TRUE. whether on not people believe it. there are 2 genders , the bible says it, and as K mentioned, science show it as well.
what part of that doesn't stick?
why do you keep assuming the Bible is the ONLY tool i want to use. I say it's the ULTIMATE tool and the only foundation. But it's not the only place where it's principals are seated and can be pointed too.
Part of the problem is even when you ask people to follow the constitution they become selective and want to ignore many of the basics when it suits them.
It seems most folks simply want their way and don't have seriously held principals, many people operate out of habits, convenience, personal preferences, "cultural norms" and pragmatism.

You're trying to convince millions. Millions of indoctrinated obstinate souls who cringe at religion and the bible. I assume the bible is the only tool you want to use because it's the one you keep going on about. We've, arguably, been moving towards a more "constitutional" interpretation for 50 years whether some like it or not. And if the bible isn't the only tool, or not the first tool, then what is?


yes, no one said you have to Start with the Bible.
Folks have been doing it that way for some time.
However if you're dealing with folks like Harari. and what his type are teaching in colleges.
they aren't interested in reasonable arguments they have a different world view of what human beings are, and what factors apply to reality. they have a different religion.
Harari doesn't believe humans have rights. what reasonable argument are going to make?
He says human rights and freedoms are PURE fiction.
What's the secular reasoned response would you start with to back the constitution and bill of rights's view on that, and secure the principals in other law?

Who cares what he says. He's an egghead who is going to blather on and on to people who agree with him. Be better than him.

[revelarts]

...We've, arguably, been moving towards a more "constitutional" interpretation for 50 years whether some like it or not...
ok what?? we've been moving TOWARDS a more constitutional interpretation over the past 50 years?
what country are you talking about?
Not the one that surveils all our communications, tortures people, where presidents drone strike foreign nations and us citizens willy nilly, search homes without warrants, ask for papers, has free speech zones, censors media, arrest journalist, bans people from expressing personal religious view in various venues, etc etc..



Who cares what he says. He's an egghead who is going to blather on and on to people who agree with him. Be better than him.
He's one of the millions who cringe at religion FJ, he and thousands like him are teaching U.S. students in universities today.
What do you say to him and them about human rights, the bill of rights & all the laws that are still on the books that align with the ideals of freedom and personal property.
please don't dodge the question.
you don't like using the Bible ok.
what are you going to use instead, or as well, to convince millions who have NO standards excepts whatever the current cultural winds say.

[Gunny]

Europe was 100% pagan before most of it turn to Christianity as a majority world view.
Irish Druids where literally drinking blood out of human skulls and doing human sacrifices to pagan gods. Heck the Greeks had human sacrifices regularly including hunting little girls and eating them. I suspect those people weren't an easy sell.
We often fail to remember how much the Truth of the Bible changed everything in Europe & around the world.
The US is often ready to throw cash & bodies into war in foreign countries "for freedom". the battle of ideas for the freedom we talk about cost a lot less in every way.

And if we really believe in God can we put a limit on what he's able to do?
Are we supposed to sit back and say, weelllll most people wont like it so I won't mention it?

I'm not saying anyone needs to be obnoxious but, Jesus and the Apostles didn't get killed or change the world because they kept their mouths shut to get along with everyone.
And they never expected everyone to get on board.
And they never have but the world changed anyway because enough did.

Once again, lost in your idealism rather than dealing with fact. You can spare me the repetitious, religious history lessons. I'm pretty up to snuff. No one is arguing Western society isn't based on Judeo-Christian ethic. You're the only one providing examples of those who are. Where the ethics morality came from is irrelevant to your own example. You don't have to sell the history of it to those who know where it came from. You have to sell the ethic to the people who believe as the person in your example does. Obviously, you aren't going to sell your religion as a motivating factor to these people. I can go on and on about the fallacy to their thinking and have at times on more than one message board, but that is not the primary objective the OP seeks.

The primary objective is to sell the principles/ethics to ALL, regardless religion, to create a better society. For ALL. Since most believe they have to answer to right and wrong and where it comes from, regardless the gymnastics required to get there, it is THERE where you start. You don't start by slamming the door in your own face with a message that turns off and tunes out those that would otherwise be on board.

[revelarts]

The primary objective is to sell the principles/ethics to ALL, regardless religion, to create a better society. For ALL. Since most believe they have to answer to right and wrong and where it comes from, regardless the gymnastics required to get there, it is THERE where you start. You don't start by slamming the door in your own face with a message that turns off and tunes out those that would otherwise be on board.

Not my primary objective but everyone has their own path.

so again
What's your sales pitch?
I've asked many times the only response i'm get over and over is basically "DON'T MENTION GOD or THE BIBLE!, that's BAD." from everyone.
fine. i get it. sheesh. YOU & FJ (others?) don't want to mention God or the Bible or foundational details of European or American history.
I think I've made my points about as clear as i can.
What's your sales pitch.

Harari and tens of thousands, of others don't believe humans have rights. what reasonable argument are going to make?
He says human rights and freedoms are PURE fiction.
What's the secular reasoned response would you start with to back the constitution and bill of rights's view on that, and secure the principals in other law? He's one of the millions who cringe at religion, he and thousands like him are teaching U.S. students in universities today. What do you say to him and them about human rights, the bill of rights & all the laws that are still on the books that align with the ideals of freedom and personal property?

[fj1200]

ok what?? we've been moving TOWARDS a more constitutional interpretation over the past 50 years?
what country are you talking about?
Not the one that surveils all our communications, tortures people, where presidents drone strike foreign nations and us citizens willy nilly, search homes without warrants, ask for papers, has free speech zones, censors media, arrest journalist, bans people from expressing personal religious view in various venues, etc etc..

I said arguably. Start a Constitution thread if you want to discuss specifics but the country and the Court has been moving right since the 70s.


He's one of the millions who cringe at religion FJ, he and thousands like him are teaching U.S. students in universities today.
What do you say to him and them about human rights, the bill of rights & all the laws that are still on the books that align with the ideals of freedom and personal property.
please don't dodge the question.
you don't like using the Bible ok.
what are you going to use instead, or as well, to convince millions who have NO standards excepts whatever the current cultural winds say.

I'm sure he and others like him are beyond hope but those people are always going to exist. And like I said I don't care what he thinks, he's not the target audience.

[fj1200]

Not my primary objective but everyone has their own path.

so again
What's your sales pitch?
I've asked many times the only response i'm get over and over is basically "DON'T MENTION GOD or THE BIBLE!, that's BAD." from everyone.
fine. i get it. sheesh. YOU & FJ (others?) don't want to mention God or the Bible or foundational details of European or American history.
I think I've made my points about as clear as i can.
What's your sales pitch.

Harari and tens of thousands, of others don't believe humans have rights. what reasonable argument are going to make?
He says human rights and freedoms are PURE fiction.
What's the secular reasoned response would you start with to back the constitution and bill of rights's view on that, and secure the principals in other law? He's one of the millions who cringe at religion, he and thousands like him are teaching U.S. students in universities today. What do you say to him and them about human rights, the bill of rights & all the laws that are still on the books that align with the ideals of freedom and personal property?

I never said that. I said when I explain the basis for a law I'm not going to yell out, "BIBLE!" and be done. You're still dodging the issue of Christians who will distinctly counter the bible argument that you make and at that point you're arguing theology not laws.

[revelarts]

I never said that. I said when I explain the basis for a law I'm not going to yell out, "BIBLE!" and be done. You're still dodging the issue of Christians who will distinctly counter the bible argument that you make and at that point you're arguing theology not laws.

still haven't heard a sales pitch or argument to Harari and those like him that you keep saying won't listen to the Bible.

What's your pitch to THEM?
what's the basis of law when YOU explain it to them?

[fj1200]

still haven't heard a sales pitch or argument to Harari and those like him that you keep saying won't listen to the Bible.

What's your pitch to THEM?
what's the basis of law when YOU explain it to them?

I don't expect them to listen, care, or agree with me so I'm not going to pitch anything to that group. I already told you my basis for law multiple pages ago, Natural Rights; life, liberty, property.

Besides, Harari seems to be a lightweight. Not worth elevating.

https://www.discovery.org/a/review-of-yuval-noah-hararis-sapiens/

[revelarts]

Activist & Former Muslim (muslim brotherhood no less) Ayaan Hirsi Ali, became an atheist 20 years ago, became friends with many of atheisms most well known academic/public promoters, now says that Christianity is superior to atheism ...

Why I am now a Christian
Atheism can't equip us for civilisational war

https://unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/


Someone talked to her about God at some point, even if it was as just a book, and she changed because of it.
Islam is not silent, the woke nuts are not silent, many atheist are not silent about dismissing and expelling Christianity.
Telling the TRUTH/reality about history which includes religious history of how & why we have what we have.
And finally the TRUTH about God and Jesus Christ will offend plenty of people but some will turn to parts of the truth overtime... maybe even all of it.
God made reality and it's hard to fight all of it. People get tired of it eventually.

[Kathianne]

Activist & Former Muslim (muslim brotherhood no less) Ayaan Hirsi Ali, became an atheist 20 years ago, became friends with many of atheisms most well known academic/public promoters, now says that Christianity is superior to atheism ...

Why I am now a Christian
Atheism can't equip us for civilisational war

https://unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/


Someone talked to her about God at some point, even if it was as just a book, and she changed because of it.
Islam is not silent, the woke nuts are not silent, many atheist are not silent about dismissing and expelling Christianity.
Telling the TRUTH/reality about history which includes religious history of how & why we have what we have.
And finally the TRUTH about God and Jesus Christ will offend plenty of people but some will turn to parts of the truth overtime... maybe even all of it.
God made reality and it's hard to fight all of it. People get tired of it eventually.

I think that pretty much anyone who is or was religious/spiritual remains open to rediscovering religion. However, they are also the most likely to be totally turned off by attempts to threaten the 'wrath of God' types of arguments. It's also pretty difficult if using hatred or 'wrongness' of other belief systems in general.

BTW, while I personally think Christianity is correct, I wouldn't place $$$ or my soul that Jesus would agree on it being the only way. IOW, Only through acceptance of Christ is my belief.

[revelarts]

Here's Jordan Peterson
also the secular atheist (secular atheist at least so far)
He approaches the idea of human worth and responsibilities coming from both a pseudo-religious or mythical premise and a purely practical POV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpSkdpk4KKE

[Gunny]

Not my primary objective but everyone has their own path.

so again
What's your sales pitch?
I've asked many times the only response i'm get over and over is basically "DON'T MENTION GOD or THE BIBLE!, that's BAD." from everyone.
fine. i get it. sheesh. YOU & FJ (others?) don't want to mention God or the Bible or foundational details of European or American history.
I think I've made my points about as clear as i can.
What's your sales pitch.

Harari and tens of thousands, of others don't believe humans have rights. what reasonable argument are going to make?
He says human rights and freedoms are PURE fiction.
What's the secular reasoned response would you start with to back the constitution and bill of rights's view on that, and secure the principals in other law? He's one of the millions who cringe at religion, he and thousands like him are teaching U.S. students in universities today. What do you say to him and them about human rights, the bill of rights & all the laws that are still on the books that align with the ideals of freedom and personal property?


Not your objective? Then why pages of derailing this thread? Your objective which appears to be trying to convince yourself and everyone else your are right and yours is the way appears no better than those you cite as examples.

You want a theocracy based on YOUR religious beliefs. The Ayatollah has one of those. How's that worked for Iran?

When an idea is what's best for all and doesn't infringe on your right to believe what you want, being a naysayer just because you can does nothing positive for you nor anyone else.

[Kathianne]

Not your objective? Then why pages of derailing this thread? Your objective which appears to be trying to convince yourself and everyone else your are right and yours is the way appears no better than those you cite as examples.

You want a theocracy based on YOUR religious beliefs. The Ayatollah has one of those. How's that worked for Iran?

When an idea is what's best for all and doesn't infringe on your right to believe what you want, being a naysayer just because you can does nothing positive for you nor anyone else.

I'm always reminded of those who decided Christ had to be crucified. Certainly it was to fulfill what was promised, yet like Judas, the choices were wrong on a personal front. They all agreed that Christ had not been wrong in any teachings, but his teaching the way he was, was dangerous. They also were threatened by how the message of Christ was being received. They were guarding their power and prestige. They convinced themselves and each other that he was blasphemous and had to die. This fulfilled the prophecies, but at the price of the individuals souls.

Hatred and fear are seldom the way to deal with problems. You don't have to 'hate' your enemy to deal with them. Indeed, once could argue that appeasement of Iran and proxies are creating a scenario of much worse repercussions than were ever necessary.

[revelarts]

I think that pretty much anyone who is or was religious/spiritual remains open to rediscovering religion. However, they are also the most likely to be totally turned off by attempts to threaten the 'wrath of God' types of arguments. It's also pretty difficult if using hatred or 'wrongness' of other belief systems in general.

BTW, while I personally think Christianity is correct, I wouldn't place $$$ or my soul that Jesus would agree on it being the only way. IOW, Only through acceptance of Christ is my belief.

I try not to guess where a professed non Christian might be spiritually speaking, accept by what they say and do. I was agnostic at one point, with no hard feelings toward any religions. I did not CARE what they said. I did not believe any so it wasn't a problem IMO. I think i was unusual, seems many folks are passionate in some direction.
But I agree with you, of course, most people don't want their beliefs challenged, or told the honest "BAD NEWS" about the wrath of God.
Some people are far more sensitivity too that kind of talk than others. Various things like that are 3rd rail issues for some folks. The nerves are raw and the reactions are emotional & explosive rather than rational.

But again Jesus, the apostles, early christians and some even in foreign countries today have been killed for simply telling the story Jesus's redemptive work FROM the wrath of God.
Jesus said some people would HATE his followers for simply talking about it. not forcing anyone into anything, not making it law, just talking.
But he commanded that we are to speak the truth in love anyway. & be wise as snakes but harmless as doves.

Jesus is a healer, loves everyone but he never stepped back from telling people the truth for the sake of polite company or politics.

God has given everyone personalities and hopefully Christians can be honest but tactful and kind.
But frankly if folks ask for a strait answer, I for one will try to give it if i can.

[Kathianne]

I try not to guess where a professed non Christian might be spiritually speaking, accept by what they say and do. I was agnostic at one point, with no hard feelings toward any religions. I did not CARE what they said. I did not believe any so it wasn't a problem IMO. I think i was unusual, seems many folks are passionate in some direction.
But I agree with you, of course, most people don't want their beliefs challenged, or told the honest "BAD NEWS" about the wrath of God.
Some people are far more sensitivity too that kind of talk than others. Various things like that are 3rd rail issues for some folks. The nerves are raw and the reactions are emotional & explosive rather than rational.

But again Jesus, the apostles, early christians and some even in foreign countries today have been killed for simply telling the story Jesus's redemptive work FROM the wrath of God.
Jesus said some people would HATE his followers for simply talking about it. not forcing anyone into anything, not making it law, just talking.
But he commanded that we are to speak the truth in love anyway. & be wise as snakes but harmless as doves.

Jesus is a healer, loves everyone but he never stepped back from telling people the truth for the sake of polite company or politics.

God has given everyone personalities and hopefully Christians can be honest but tactful and kind.
But frankly if folks ask for a strait answer, I for one will try to give it if i can.

I agree, at least to a point. ;) I feel Jesus and the apostles tell their story with a clarity that I can't hope to. Indeed, I trip all over the place just trying to follow to the best of my ability, too often falling short.

I do my best to live the life as I believe I should. I hope that serves as an example to those that know me. If asked, I will discuss my beliefs, but not without it being brought up-I'm not a preacher, but I listen and am always happy to discuss. I'm not the keeper of the gates, God is.

[revelarts]

Not your objective? Then why pages of derailing this thread? Your objective which appears to be trying to convince yourself and everyone else your are right and yours is the way appears no better than those you cite as examples.

You want a theocracy based on YOUR religious beliefs. The Ayatollah has one of those. How's that worked for Iran?

When an idea is what's best for all and doesn't infringe on your right to believe what you want, being a naysayer just because you can does nothing positive for you nor anyone else.

um, Yes I think I am right.
But the amazing thing is that You seem to think you're right.
Is there a problem with us believing we are correct and trying to SHOW others why by using evidence, logic history etc.?
I mean, this is "debate policy" correct.
not "be nice and pretend everybody else is right".


But Gunny I think you've really missed my points.
OK, Please just tell me what theocratic laws I've talked about putting in place?
Tell me ONE.
What are my religious beliefs that I want to impose on others, via gov't or otherwise?
Please, quote me where i said ANYWHERE in this this thread or on the board for all the years i've been here That i want the gov't to tell others what to believe, or to infringe on what others believe.

And I want to make it clear here.
IF YOU CAN NOT DO IT
Then I'm NOT promoting theocracy. And you should back up and come up with a different complaint, because that one is a lie.

I don't appreciate the misrepresentation Gunny.
SHOW ME where I've proposed any new theocratic/religious rules, law, edicts, executive orders of any kind.
If you cannot, then you need to change your argument and stop lying about what i'm saying.

[Gunny]

um, Yes I think I am right.
But the amazing thing is that You seem to think you're right.
Is there a problem with us believing we are correct and trying to SHOW others why by using evidence, logic history etc.?
I mean, this is "debate policy" correct.
not "be nice and pretend everybody else is right".


But Gunny I think you've really missed my points.
OK, Please just tell me what theocratic laws I've talked about putting in place?
Tell me ONE.
What are my religious beliefs that I want to impose on others, via gov't or otherwise?
Please, quote me where i said ANYWHERE in this this thread or on the board for all the years i've been here That i want the gov't to tell others what to believe, or to infringe on what others believe.

And I want to make it clear here.
IF YOU CAN NOT DO IT
Then I'm NOT promoting theocracy. And you should back up and come up with a different complaint, because that one is a lie.

I don't appreciate the misrepresentation Gunny.
SHOW ME where I've proposed any new theocratic/religious rules, law, edicts, executive orders of any kind.
If you cannot, then you need to change your argument and stop lying about what i'm saying.

Your words in your posts in this thread. Not mine.

I don't lie. I have absolutely no reason to. It's not good business, liars always get caught, because they can't remember all the lies they have to tell to cover the first one. Easier to tell the truth. Whether someone likes it or not.

[revelarts]

Your words in your posts in this thread. Not mine.

I don't lie. I have absolutely no reason to. It's not good business, liars always get caught, because they can't remember all the lies they have to tell to cover the first one. Easier to tell the truth. Whether someone likes it or not.
what words specifically?
What religious law, rule, executive order, edict, directive, or orders have I proposed?
What beliefs (religious or otherwise) have I said should be outlawed or imposed?

Should be easy since you keep saying that I want a theocracy.... like Iran.

[Gunny]

I don't expect them to listen, care, or agree with me so I'm not going to pitch anything to that group. I already told you my basis for law multiple pages ago, Natural Rights; life, liberty, property.

Besides, Harari seems to be a lightweight. Not worth elevating.

https://www.discovery.org/a/review-of-yuval-noah-hararis-sapiens/

Just my opinion based on observation, but I suspect this "shadow society" already unknowingly exists. The extremes on both right and left, and the showing (or not) at the polls suggests there are more people disaffected by current occupiers of government than not. Only minorities on both sides even want current front-running candidates that are nevertheless being foisted on us.

I don't see it as a planned thing and I doubt it could be. I think, as illustrated in one of the videos (Chech Republic, IIRC), some innocuous nothing would set off a chain reaction. Point is, seems to me the ingredients are mostly in place.

Unfortunately, unlike Chech-land, I don't see our government capitulating to a mass showing of popular will.

[fj1200]

Just my opinion based on observation, but I suspect this "shadow society" already unknowingly exists. The extremes on both right and left, and the showing (or not) at the polls suggests there are more people disaffected by current occupiers of government than not. Only minorities on both sides even want current front-running candidates that are nevertheless being foisted on us.

I don't see it as a planned thing and I doubt it could be. I think, as illustrated in one of the videos (Chech Republic, IIRC), some innocuous nothing would set off a chain reaction. Point is, seems to me the ingredients are mostly in place.

Unfortunately, unlike Chech-land, I don't see our government capitulating to a mass showing of popular will.

Well, in regards to Harari and his WEF ilk they're not so much shadow but just eggheads talking to eggheads IMO. As far as the government not capitulating I think it's a matter of momentum. Whipsawing every 4 or 8 years is not going to give time for government to capitulate to anything because it's going to flip back. I think government at the state level has seen a response to popular will there as more and more states have become more and more red since the 90s and maybe even earlier. Goldwater was 60 years ago and arguably the turning point. The Republicans aren't where I/we want them to be but the fact that they're not an essentially minority party anymore says something.

[Gunny]

Well, in regards to Harari and his WEF ilk they're not so much shadow but just eggheads talking to eggheads IMO. As far as the government not capitulating I think it's a matter of momentum. Whipsawing every 4 or 8 years is not going to give time for government to capitulate to anything because it's going to flip back. I think government at the state level has seen a response to popular will there as more and more states have become more and more red since the 90s and maybe even earlier. Goldwater was 60 years ago and arguably the turning point. The Republicans aren't where I/we want them to be but the fact that they're not an essentially minority party anymore says something.

Agree on Harari. He is not well-received critically. A gay, Jew-turned-atheist who IMO espouses a theory based long on personal circumstance and prejudice and short on anything real beyond the attempt to use "science" as window dressing.

My previous comment is more in line with the OP addressing a "sick society" and "parallel society" as a possible solution for those who chose to not follow the religion of bad government. Really, nothing more than an academic exercise I found interesting. I'm far more inclined to believe the only way this government and society is going to end is badly. Too many existent checks in boxes barreling toward disaster with current government driving the train. It would require a sheep-like society that is sleep-walking along to wake up and stop it. I've lost having that much faith in people anymore.