Posted on 09/07/2002 7:55:51 PM PDT by mhking
OK.
This is not a democratic republic, it is a representative constitutional republic, the written foundations of which reflect a profound, and well justified fear of democracy--which you have demonstrated the reason for. I have no desire to return to the days when the church burned heretics, books and scientists with equal lack of compunction.
Well said.
This nonsense is of course absolutely wrong.
This is an abysmally ignorant opinion. I quote from Thomas Paine's "Common Sense".
This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every Part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster . . .
As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith. . . .
For myself I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be a diversity of religious opinions among us. . . .
This is not exactly a minor tract in the history of the US Constitution. The notion was being actively bandied about by philosophers such as Montesque and Deist congregations since at least 1644, that we know of from existing records. To imagine that the notion had no influence on an active deist like Jefferson is to defy reason.
Our founding fathers were educated men, steeped in history, and the current events of the time. Madison and Jefferson, in particular, were well known to be extensively familiar, and ardently drawn, toward the likes of Montesque, on the nature of law, and, as is acknowledged in their biographies, were ever ready to discuss the pernicious nature of Church NOT separated from state. As in:
The Thirty Years War
The genocide of the Anabaptists
The burning of witches
The Trial of Galileo
The word "disestablishmentarian" was coined to describe these two men, and Washington, for goodness sakes. At any rate, by what stretch of the imagination do you come to the astounding conclusion that Madison and Jefferson could have stumbled upon this notion in the brief interval between the writing of the US constitution and the constitution of Virginia?
I did not call you unreasonable for the above. I submit you abandoned reason when you posted the below:
There is no Board of Scientific Laws that deems some things theories and some things laws. There is only differing levels of certainty regarding theories.
There most certainly is a "theory of Gravity". In fact, there are several. The one we currently adopt is currently being hammered by the fact that it seems to fail for outlying stars in rotating galaxies.
We thought, until very recently, with high confidence, that the continents were fixed on the earth. No reputable scientist thinks that there is closure on any "law" of science, such that we no longer need think about it critically.
In a course or section marked clearly "history of science", absolutely. As a viable, contending scientific thesis--not until it's a science widely acknowledged as such by working scientists.
Hmmm... I always thought it was the law of gravity. And every morning, when I get out of bed and my feet naturally go to the floor, I believe it, no matter how badly I wish I could fly.
So,...and when did you try getting out of bed in the outer orbit of the Andromeda Galaxy? Sure, you can demonstrate micro-gravity in our local gravity well. But you have absolutely no getting-out-of-bed experiments to report in the vacuum of space, now do you? Clearly, there is an emmense Gravity Gap, filled with the athiestic wishful thinking of physicists and astronomers.
You are right about that. Common Sense was not any part of the history of the Constitution, it was part of the history of the American Revolution, an entirely separate event in American history. Neither Paine nor Jefferson, whatever their otherwise considerable influence on our nation's history, was a founder, in the narrow sense, since neither one participated in the Constitutional Convention, or even directly participated in the debates in the ratification conventions.
The word "disestablishmentarian" was coined to describe these two men
Afraid not, disestablishentarian was coined to describe members of an unsuccessful British political movement to 'disestablish' the Church of England in Britain. After these two howlers, I am afraid that your historical analysis can not be taken seriously.
That is not very logical, since the two quotes mean the same thing.
As has been discussed earlier, mythology to the contrary notwithstanding, this process of acknowledgement is in large part, a political process. The way public institutions are governed is also based on a political process, one that involves ALL citizens, not a self-appointed scientific elite. Government by 'scientific' elites has been tried by both the Nazis and the Communists, and it does not work.
You'll have to get a majority of posters to agree before I'll believe you. In the meantime, I'm going to operate on the assumption that the different context of each of those two quotes is somewhat important.
In the meantime, what do you think about such majority-determined concepts as a flat earth, white male-only voting rights, and Clinton's praiseworthy tenure as President?
OK, OK, you don't like the results of democratic elections. No problem, I will go along with your idea of government by annointed elites, so long as I get to pick the members.
You're sidestepping the issue. You declared that a majority consensus is all that is required for a thing to be true. I direct your attention once again to your post #28.
Majority rule works great if you're in the majority, doesn't it?
You've already had you ass handed to you on the 1st Amendment, and everyone knows it but you. Majority rule, my logic-spurning adversary: You lose. And, while we're piling on, your already shoddy grasp of the US political structure has just taken another kick in the crotch. Anointed elites? In what post did I suggest such a course?
Perhaps a few remedial courses at the Electoral College would remedy the matter...
In context it is clear that I said that a 95% majority will control the government. In politics, that is what counts.
If you care to run a poll on FR as to who is correct about the first amendment, I will be glad to help out in making the arrangements, then we will see what everyone thinks. On this thread, at this point, there is only you and I, and you do not even have a majority of our two votes.
Evolutionists keep talking about the 'tree of life' as if it was something real. It is not even something on which evolutionists agree! Every single evo author paints a different tree. All the 'tree of life' shows is that evos were able to graduate from kindergarten.
Oh, oh, can I play then? Okay. You lose.
In context it is clear that I said that a 95% majority will control the government. In politics, that is what counts.
Fine. Now defend post 28.
(ENP)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.