July 13, 2009
Prevent the Erosion of Liberty
Was Martin Luther King a terrorist? The government sure viewed him as one. He, as well as I, promote civil disobedience towards the wrongs of the government. He is/was a Patriot. We must change through peaceful, God fearing, measures.
The further away from Christianity we get, the more we erode our virtues. Then the further away, from the intent of the Constitution, our government will get. Without the blueprint of the Christian worldview principles, as a moral people, we cannot stand together as a nation on those principles. This is evidenced by our current governmental vision in moving towards Socialism then eventually to Communism. Where did we go wrong? It begins with trying to eliminate the Christian principles set up by our founding fathers. Liberty is being eroded with thunderous applause.
We the People?
What do you have to say about Northern Europe? They have largely ditched religion and gone somewhat socialist. They also rate high on happiness surveys. Crime is low. Doesn't look half bad to me...
ReplyDeleteWas Martin Luther King a terrorist?
ReplyDeleteYou do realise that terrorism requires random violence to promote terror? King was all about non-violent protest through civil disobedience.
The government sure viewed him as one.
Did they? You have evidence to support this assertion? I thought they viewed him more as a closet pinko Commie.
He, as well as I, promote civil disobedience towards the wrongs of the government. He is/was a Patriot. We must change through peaceful, God fearing, measures. (emphasis mine).
"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrews 13:17"
Are you a Patriot before you're a Christian?
The further away from Christianity we get, the more we erode our virtues. Then the further away, from the intent of the Constitution, our government will get.
Anything to back this up? I doubt it.
Without the blueprint of the Christian worldview principles, as a moral people, we cannot stand together as a nation on those principles.&nbp;
Rubbish, you can be moral without a God despite your protestations to the contrary. You can also be immoral while declaring yourself Christian and the reason you cannot stand as a nation on those principles is because they were not the principles your country was founded on.
This is evidenced by our current governmental vision in moving towards Socialism then eventually to Communism.
Do you have any evidence that socialism leads ultimately to communism? As Martin has already pointed out, many European countries have socialist governments but none of them seem inclined to make a move towards communism.
Where did we go wrong?
By insisting your bronze aged religion is relevant in a modern world perhaps? ;-)
It begins with trying to eliminate the Christian principles set up by our founding fathers.
There's nothing to eliminate. Your founding fathers realised that Christian principles were not a sensible foundation for the governance of a country* and instead realised that religion should be kept out of governmental affairs altogether. Hell, they pretty much took the English Magna Carta, removed the references to God and used that as a starting point.
* the first 3 commandments are unconstitutional, the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th and 10th aren't enforced (or really enforceable). That leaves 6, 8 and 9 where 9 is only enforceable when you're under oath and the other 2 were co-opted by Christianity from earlier civilisations.
Liberty is being eroded with thunderous applause.
Where is your liberty being eroded? the possibility you may have to shoot less people with your handgun each month? Or is it just that you can't burn heretics and gays anymore like a good Christian should be able to?
We the People?
Indeed.
"the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th and 10th aren't enforced" should of course read "the 4th, 5th, 7th and 10th aren't enforced"
ReplyDeleteCould have a look at the Patriot Act while you're at it...
ReplyDeleteRead the short blurb under the cartoon.
This is mind-numbingly, colossally stupid.
ReplyDeleteSorry, buddy, but it's awful. I get the impression you're not even trying any more.
Was Martin Luther King a terrorist?
No, he was an activist. A terrorist commits actions. King instead borrowed from the playbook of Gandhi -- a man very opposed to Christians -- by participating in non-violent civil disobedience. These non-violent displays, by definition, involved contemplated inaction, rather than action.
Maybe you were thinking of Malcolm X...
The government sure viewed him as one.
No, various municipalities viewed him as a threat, true, and he was even jailed based on trumped up charges (or, at least, charges which were based only on his ethnicity), but he was not a terrorist.
Maybe you were thinking of Malcolm X...
He, as well as I, promote civil disobedience towards the wrongs of the government. He is/was a Patriot.
To be clear here, one cannot be a patriot when one promotes disobedience against one's government. The rebellious Americans who we hold as the original patriots were terrorists, I'll grant you, but they were not patriots -- they were rebels. They did not become patriots until the establishment of the U.S.A.
If you insist that you are comparable to King based on a shared disobedience against the government, then at best you are a rebel, not a patriot.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, just a factual correction.
We must change through peaceful, God fearing, measures.
This is demonstrably false. America was borne out of violent measures which did not involve your god in anything more than a personal level on the part of a few of the participants. India was borne out of peaceful non-violence which had nothing whatsoever to do with your god.
There have been many successful rebellions/coups throughout history, and few -- if any -- have been both peaceful and [Christian] god-fearing. The fact that you seem to so revere (small pun intended there) the American Revolution, and yet claim that we "must change through peaceful, God fearing measures," shows that you are quite ignorant as to the origins and methods of your own reverie.
Maybe you should ask your kids, since they're home schooled.
The further away from Christianity we get, the more we erode our virtues.
No, we started away from Christianity, so if you support the virtues of the "founding fathers," then you support non-Christian virtues...
...and slavery.
Then the further away, from the intent of the Constitution, our government will get.
This is a loaded statement, and I don't think you have any idea what you're actually doing when you use it.
Getting away from the intent of the Constitution is a good thing, in some cases. The Bill of Rights, which you ostensibly hold so dear, were all Amendments to the Constitution. They were all changes, including both clarification and introduction to and of the concepts within.
One can hardly argue that the framers of the Constitution were abolitionists, and since I assume you are against slavery, we can decisively say that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were moves away from "the intent of the Constitution."
When people (especially you and your kind) make statements involving "the intent of the Constitution," they seem to always have their own version of events in mind, with little or no bearing on what actually took place. You have invented this nonsensical notion that the framers of the Constitution were diligently copying passages directly from the bible while they wrote it, and you seem oblivious to the mountains of evidence showing this is just not the case.
ReplyDeleteI will, for the sake of humor, grant you that Jefferson may have used a bible as a basis for the Declaration or for the Constitution itself, but you realize, I should hope, that if he did, it was his bible, don't you? Heresy!
Without the blueprint of the Christian worldview principles, as a moral people, we cannot stand together as a nation on those principles.
This redundant statement is trivially true, and just as worthless. Clearly, without a specific set of principles, we cannot stand on that specific set of principles.
Of course, what you meant to say is that we cannot stand together at all without Christian principles, but...
This is evidenced by...
Yes...
...our current governmental vision in moving towards Socialism then eventually to Communism.
No... What? You're dumb.
Where did we go wrong?
Where did we go wrong? Or where did you go wrong? You went wrong when you assumed that Christian principles were somehow involved in the framing of the U.S. Constitution. They weren't. The very first Amendment makes it clear that religion and government are separate entities, and provides protection for the voice of any detractors.
Don't you know what that means?
Anyway... You were asking about where you went wrong...
It begins with trying to eliminate the Christian principles set up by our founding fathers.
No, it begins by recognizing that "our founding fathers" did not set up Christian principles in the first place.
To say otherwise is to promote a deliberate lie. You have been shown time and again the error of statements such as these, and yet here you are paying lip-service to them again. You're wrong. You're a liar. Be honest and admit it.
Liberty is being eroded with thunderous applause.
Points only for referencing Star Wars, even if you completely missed the point. In that scene, the Galactic Senate was being effectively dissolved in place of a Galactic Empire, very much like the Roman Empire went back and forth when it was tinkering with the notion of democracy.
This is largely off the point, however. You have a case for the erosion of liberty in things like the USA PATRIOT act, the Department of Homeland Security, etc., but you fail completely when you start harping on biblical principles. You don't even recognize the inherent contradiction in your own position -- you cannot promote democracy while simultaneously promoting authoritarian theocracy.
Figure it out. The U.S. "is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." If you knew anything about this quote at all (never mind it has been quoted and linked a dozen times for you), you would know that it was made when Jefferson was the Vice President, or, perhaps more appropriately for the context, Presiding Officer of the Senate. If you so venerate the "founding fathers," then you should appreciate this quote and everything it means to your disassembled position.
--
Stan
Freddies dead,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your attempt at quoting scripture to me but you must bring your "A" game to do so and you will see me bow and concede to that authority every time. This time you failed to do so, but it still is appreciated. I absolutely love scripture silencing my arrogance and fallibility. More, please.
In the case of Hebrews 13 you fell short because you have to find out what "authority" is being referenced. I don't know what translation that you chose but I will continue to use KJV. QUOTE MINE ALERT!! Woop, woop.
So who has rule over me? According to the Bible it is Christ alone, as it states in 1 Timothy 2:5-6,1 Peter 2:24-25, and 1 John 2:27. So lets go back a little ways to look at Hebrews 13 in context.
Hebrews 13:6-8 "So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me. Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."
Hebrews 13:17 "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."
It is wrapped up in Hebrews 13:20-21 "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep , through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."
So who rules over us? Jesus Christ.
So to answer your question, I am not a Patriot before my Christianity...ever.
(to be continued)
(con't)
ReplyDeleteThe further away from Christianity we get, the more we erode our virtues. Then the further away, from the intent of the Constitution, our government will get.
Anything to back this up?
Yes, basic understanding of the present evidence of things going on these days. You know the illegal actions by our current government and (self-professed secular) administration. You must understand that the Patriot Act (still in effect and enforced) is a sprint away from the Constitution and liberty, don't you?
I doubt it.
You were wrong, yet again. You could be wrong about God also. You are taking a real chance on your own understanding (worldview). You need to repent. The word "repent" is the Greek word metanoeĊ , which speaks of a "change of mind" (nous being the Greek word for "mind"). You must change your whole way of thinking, your whole worldview.
Rubbish, you can be moral without a God...
Anything to back this up? There is no ultimate grounding of ethics without God. In looking just at your self interest, there is no reason for an individual to follow any. There is no reason not to cheat for gain.
Do you have any evidence that socialism leads ultimately to communism?
I may have misspoken since they are actually one in the same. Commune-ism, A commune is a shared community. A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership. Liberty is dead with socialism and communism. No individual owns anything.
"The reason that state wide or world wide socialism does not and can not work is because it is 1) impossible for one group to provide for the needs of all people, and 2) completely unfair..." Here is a good article explaining that point of view.
the first 3 commandments are unconstitutional...
BzzzT!! Wrong. Laws establishing religion, for or against, is unconstitutional. The 4th was fulfilled already in Christ. We are in Christ's rest forever.
The 5th commandment is indeed in our laws. Children are under the authority of their parents. Children cannot sign contracts, for example.
Look at what Hebrews 13:4 says. That may be why adultery is not against our laws. The founding fathers knew God will judge that one.
There is no ultimate grounding of ethics without God. In looking just at your self interest, there is no reason for an individual to follow any. There is no reason not to cheat for gain.
ReplyDeleteYes, actually, there are many reasons. A safe society leads to better reproduction and high survival rate of children, hence more genetic predisposition to cooperation. Do ants require an ancient book of stories to cooperate, or is it just innate in them?
the first 3 commandments are unconstitutional...
BzzzT!! Wrong. Laws establishing religion, for or against, is unconstitutional.
So the first commandment, that Yahweh is the Only True God, is not religious?!
That you shall worship no other gods than the Mesopotamian god Yahweh is not religious?!
Do you just make up your own reality to live in?
Stan,
ReplyDeletethen at best you are a rebel, not a patriot.
Dude a patriot is one who loves and defends their country. Doesn't this mean even from a tyrannical government, like our founding fathers.
One can hardly argue that the framers of the Constitution were abolitionists...
Now who is showing ignorance. The entire signing of the constitution was delayed many days because of the heated arguments over slavery. It was a compromised position to be haggled over later, which in turn, caused a war.
This is a loaded statement, and I don't think you have any idea what you're actually doing when you use it.
"Getting away" from the intent of the Constitution is still an awful thing. Amendments are part of the constitutional architecture so no one is "getting away from intent of the Constitution" by amending it.
mind-numbingly, colossally stupid indeed. Wait there is more...
Martin,
ReplyDeleteSo the first commandment, that Yahweh is the Only True God, is not religious?!
Nope, just a statement of fact. I thought a religion is an organized approach to human spirituality. Christianity, Islam and Judaism certainly are religions. Laws saying Islam is the Nations religion, or that no can publicly preach Christianity, would be unconstitutional.
I will concede that the 3rd may be unconstitutional although I recommend avoiding such a thing, never the less. That is a serious violation against your Creator. No one uses Hitler as a cuss word, I wonder why that is...?
Just think of blasphemy like screaming 'Fire!" in a crowded room. Thus, it is not unconstitutional.
Nope, just a statement of fact.
ReplyDeleteSo then, by that rationale, Hindus, Wiccans, and atheists would be breaking the law? They do have other gods before Yahweh, so that's breaking a commandment.
What for them? Fines? Jail? Prison camps?
Martin,
ReplyDeleteWhat for them? Fines? Jail? Prison camps?
Much, much worse!
Like Hebrews 13:4 says for the 9th Commandment, God will be the Judge. A man made law is not necessarily required. Apparently harm to others (stealing, murder, perjury) induced a man made law, harm to self (1st-5th,9th-10th) not so much, to honor free will.
Then to make a law out of the first four commandments is not necessary and is in fact contrary to everything America stands for: the pursuit of happiness.
ReplyDeleteIf someone wishes to be a Hindu, there should be no law preventing that, right?
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies dead,
I appreciate your attempt at quoting scripture to me but you must bring your "A" game to do so and you will see me bow and concede to that authority every time. This time you failed to do so, but it still is appreciated. I absolutely love scripture silencing my arrogance and fallibility. More, please.
So if I'd linked to where I got my quote you'd have accepted it without question? Cool http://bible.cc/hebrews/13-17.htm - translation 1. You can now go back to obeying your leaders. Or of course you could find a different translation and interpret it to support your case ... wait, that's exactly what you did - isn't the Bible great? you can interpret it just about any way you want to support just about any argument. It does of course make it completely valueless as a means of absolute authority but then I'm fine with that.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteThe further away from Christianity we get, the more we erode our virtues. Then the further away, from the intent of the Constitution, our government will get.
I asked: Anything to back this up?
Yes, basic understanding of the present evidence of things going on these days.
Presenting some of the evidence would be good, or you could just assert a few things at random, ah, it seems I jumped in too early ...
You know the illegal actions by our current government and (self-professed secular) administration.
Your government pays lip service to the concept of "secularism" while every politician affirms their piety to make sure of re-election.
You must understand that the Patriot Act (still in effect and enforced) is a sprint away from the Constitution and liberty, don't you?
I'm wondering just what that has to do with your original argument "The further away from Christianity we get, the more we erode our virtues. Then the further away, from the intent of the Constitution, our government will get". Maybe you could try proving that link instead of throwing out random non-sequiturs which just show your government has taken an opportunity to impinge on your civil liberties.
I said: I doubt it.
You were wrong, yet again.
I happily concede that I could be but you have not, as yet, shown that to be the case.
You could be wrong about God also. You are taking a real chance on your own understanding (worldview). You need to repent. The word "repent" is the Greek word metanoeĊ , which speaks of a "change of mind" (nous being the Greek word for "mind"). You must change your whole way of thinking, your whole worldview.
I refer you to my previous answer.
I said: Rubbish, you can be moral without a God...
ReplyDeleteand Dan +†+ responded...
Anything to back this up? There is no ultimate grounding of ethics without God. In looking just at your self interest, there is no reason for an individual to follow any. There is no reason not to cheat for gain.
The only thing ultimate about Biblical morality is it's expression of might makes right. Things are good and bad only because your God says they are good or bad not because they actually are good or bad.
We can quite easily have a set of objective moral values without resorting to the whims of a deity.
By morality I mean a code of values which can guide our actions.
By objective I mean based on external fact rather than via imagination.
By value I mean something that we need and must act to achieve and retain.
People face a simple dichotomy - to live or to die - and as living isn't guaranteed he must do something in order to survive. We do not know, innately, what to do, so we need a means of determining things and a way of determining how to apply that knowledge. We use reason to gain knowledge and determine which actions should be taken and which shouldn't. Morality then is the problem of applying reason to living. If we want to live we need this code to survive. We can see that the purpose of morality is to enable us to live (not to please some deity).
There is a hierarchy of relationships implied by a moral code. Some values will be greater than others and that leads us to require a standard. That standard is a persons life - basic values like food, water, shelter. We also need a purpose to live (which makes us choose to live) - for a rational person that purpose is to live and enjoy life. Pleasure becomes a profound value. Your example of cheating can be determined wrong thus:
I cheat (say, on my wife) and get short term pleasure (a quick roll in the hay). My wife discovers my infidelity and leaves me, that leads to long term displeasure.
My objective moral standard tells me that long term displeasure has a negative effect on my purpose (to enjoy life) and so I determine that cheating is 'bad'.
I said: Do you have any evidence that socialism leads ultimately to communism?
ReplyDeleteDan +†+ said...
I may have misspoken since they are actually one in the same. Commune-ism, A commune is a shared community. A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership. Liberty is dead with socialism and communism. No individual owns anything.
So, no then. It's irrelevant that the two are ideologically similar, your argument was that one ultimately leads to the other and unless you have a specific example of that happening you have failed to support your argument.
"The reason that state wide or world wide socialism does not and can not work is because it is 1) impossible for one group to provide for the needs of all people, and 2) completely unfair..." Here is a good article explaining that point of view.
This is a non-sequitur.
I said: the first 3 commandments are unconstitutional...
ReplyDeleteDan +†+ said...
BzzzT!! Wrong. Laws establishing religion, for or against, is unconstitutional. The 4th was fulfilled already in Christ. We are in Christ's rest forever.
A correction then, any attempt to make the first 3 commandments into laws would be unconstitutional - or would you be OK if they chose the one God to be Vishnu?. The 4th (again, if enacted into law) would impinge on the personal liberty you keep harping on about.
The 5th commandment is indeed in our laws. Children are under the authority of their parents. Children cannot sign contracts, for example.
Nowhere in the law does it specify honouring your mother or father - indeed children can, and do, emancipate themselves from parental authority.
Look at what Hebrews 13:4 says. That may be why adultery is not against our laws. The founding fathers knew God will judge that one.
...or the founding fathers felt that what people got up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms wasn't any of the governments damned business.
The entire signing of the constitution was delayed many days because of the heated arguments over slavery. It was a compromised position to be haggled over later, which in turn, caused a war.
ReplyDeleteO RLY?? I've never heard this, and could locate nothing via various search methods to corroborate this claim. If you have sources, cough them up.
Of course, since many of the signatories owned slaves, and continued to own slaves, rather than setting them free, your claim seems especially specious.
Amendments are part of the constitutional architecture so no one is "getting away from intent of the Constitution" by amending it.
Psst, dipshit: Legislation is part of the Constitutional architecture, too. I guess you're all of a sudden a fan of the USA PATRIOT act, eh? After all, the manner in which it was passed is in keeping with the Constitutional architecture...
Martin asked with incredulity:
So the first commandment, that Yahweh is the Only True God, is not religious?!
To which Dan had the unparalleled audacity to reply:
Nope, just a statement of fact.
Well, fuck you very much, Dan.
Sparring with you on this blog has been real, and it's been fun, but right now it's not real fun. Instead, it's you being a complete and utter douchebag in response to a legitimate question. Sure, sure, you'll tell us you were joking, but who the fuck are you kidding when you pull this sort of shit, anyway?
No, the assertion that your version of deity is the version of deity is not a statement of fact, but a statement by a douchebag.
Is that my opinion?
Nope, just a statement of fact.
Fuck off.
Oh, and any time you want to address the Treaty of Tripoli quote, consider this an invitation and request.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I was busy bar-b-queing before it got too hot. It's 103 degrees now, ouch!
I've never heard this,(constitution signing was delayed) and could locate nothing via various search methods to corroborate this claim. If you have sources, cough them up.
There are plenty of books that speak of the history of the constitution and contrary to popular belief, not everything is online. Read a book you student. Although, I perfectly understand your lack of education by not being home schooled. :7) These names can easily be looked up and the info can be gathered.
George Mason, a slave owner, was a true abolitionist. Go figure. He was the leader of a large group that was pushing for individual rights and refused to sign the Constitution since it lacked them. He did get his wishes later though. He was the one who drafted the amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights. The compromise of "three fifths of all other Persons" (slaves) in Section 2 of Article I showed the concern for the south to sign the constitution. A time limit was set in Section 9 of Article I, for importation of slaves. Maybe, subconsciously, people understood that it had to end.
I am sure you heard about Patrick Henry's famous speech on March 23, 1775 that ended:
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
Although, I just read that one joker on Wiki doubts the speech quote....whatever wiki you are so (sarcasm)dependable. (/sarcasm)
I did find something on the ratifying of the Constitution that curiously labeled Mason and Henry anti-federalists. Which may be understandable since the debates did continue after the July 2nd, 1776 resolution and bitter feeling ensued since the libery of individuals were not addressed pre-Bill of Rights. The Civil War was the result of those debates so you can extrapolate the heated battles that went on. Maybe I should take back the 'delay because of slavery' assertion, since there were many debates and compromises going on during that time of the signing. Slavery was a huge one though.
I did find this "On September 28, 1787, after three days of bitter debate, the Confederation Congress sent the Constitution to the states with neither an endorsement nor a condemnation."
Maybe, that is where I got the "delay" claim from. Hope that clears the record.
Maybe, that is where I got the "delay" claim from. Hope that clears the record.
ReplyDeleteNope. Instead, it sounds like you took some relatively obscure information and did with it what you do with scripture -- you "interpreted" it in your own magical way.
While I have no doubt that some brave persons were debating slavery -- even as abolitionists -- I nonetheless doubt very much the veracity of any claim that the signing of the Constitution was delayed "because of the heated arguments over slavery."
Of course, you must also realize that in general, even those who were abolitionists weren't exactly progressive -- almost all whites viewed blacks as inferior, even if they were abolitionists. Even Harriet Beecher Stowe's allegedly Lincoln-convincing opus is blatantly racist, even if it is abolitionist.
So no, all you've done is tacitly admit that you were full of shit when you said the signing was delayed due to slavery, but it's hardly the first time you've been shown to be full of shit, so I won't hold it against you.
I do, however, still hold against you the asinine claim that 'the Hebrew god is the only god' is a non-religious statement of fact, and I hold up before you -- again -- the quote regarding the Treaty of Tripoli. Anytime you want to revise your statements regarding the U.S. being founded on Christian principles, I'm waiting.
--
Stan