Freedom of Religion is its Own Enemy

World Wide Web ^ | 5/26/05 | Henry R. Sturman

[little jeremiah]

I read most of the thread and it's kept me up past my bedtime.

Although, I have to admit, I couldn't stomach reading every single solitary word of the Carolina instrument man or tpaine revisited. I read much of them, but didn't want to have their words imprinted on my brain right before sleep.

I have my consciousness to think about.

[Brian Allen]

<< Thomas Jefferson was a liberal? >>

Yes he was -- and a Democrat to boot.

And was also happy.

And gay.

But a wealth of twisting and spinning has gone on since his day in the meaning of language and especially in the preemption of such words as "liberal," now a euphmism for totalitarian socialist and "gay" which stands in for queer, and deviant and sodomist.

And the Democrats of even twenty years ago, let alone two hundred and twenty, wouldn't recognize any relationship between themselves and the lying, looting, stand-over and shake-down criminal gang that these days hides behind that tag.

[backhoe]

FYI, FWIW:

Early warning shots-- the War against Religion...
various FR links & stories | 05-06-05 | the heavy equipment guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1397759/posts

[xzins]

I don't like the idea of my tax money paying for abortion. It is a subject that's not been thoroughly discussed in the people's legislature and had legislative decision (vote) made on it. It is a ruling by judicial fiat. In other words it is imposed on us. (Planned Parenthood receives government funding.)

Likewise, the evol/creation/id debate has not been discussed in the people's legislature. These reps are elected to weigh all the needs and to find reasonable solutions that balance the various needs of the citizenry. If they get it wrong, they get voted out of office. Additionally, these elected reps are to do their work in light of the constitution. Unfortunately, in many areas, they get immediately over-ruled by a judicial oligarchy that now rules our government.

The legislature would come up with some kind of compromise on crevo. The judges would not allow it based on their wild interpretations of the meaning of the first amendment.

It is just this debate in legilative session that would prevent every lunacy being made part of public policy. HOWEVER, even when turned down, the people involved would know that their pet issue had been given its day to make its case, and that it had lost.

They would then be free to vote reps in and out. They would have a part in the process. To short-circuit that part by judicial fiat is what presents the most danger to this society.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Check out the discussion between Sir Francis Dashwood and the other dude. Goes back a bit. Just awesome. "

Thanks :) It will help if you read Dashboard's with the knowledge he is an atheist who thinks there is no basis for morality at all. He is only *on your side* on this because he also hates gays like you do. Given enough people like him though, he will do the same to *religionists* like you. He was not arguing for the morality of your God, he was calling for the law of the jungle. Read his profile, and then google his FR name to get an idea where he is really coming from. He is playing you.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I say that as one who favors gay marriage enacted into law. There are no ideological shortcuts to pondering the tough issues. None at all."

I want to first of all thank you for showing civility in this thread. Some of the people here wet their pants with the anticipation of posting insults.

I actually don't LIKE gay marriage. I don't LIKE homosexuality. When I see two guys holding hands and kissing, I have to turn my head. It goes against my nature. Rights, as I understand them, are not about what I like or dislike though. Or even what a group of people with power at the ballot box like or dislike. I just don't see where gay marriage infringes on someone else's rights. The problem for the future is when a different majority gets control, they could turn around and take away other people's rights too. Society then becomes governed not by unalienable rights but by the whims of the mob in control. I would say that THAT is one of the bigger questions.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Wait until they read your profile and see what you really believe; and learn who the real Dashwood was. They will know then where you stand, and they will abandon you as well. And like the people you meet offline, they will laugh at you too :)

Like I am laughing at you :)

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I don't like the idea of my tax money paying for abortion.

If Roe v. Wade says abortion is a private matter, then it cannot have public money...

Logical?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You do see how the Marxist operates...

Mis-characterizing the words of others, false analogies, almost all the informal fallacies (I could give them to you in Latin), the art of the smear, accusing others of what they indeed are doing themselves, false assumptions, denying facts, etc...

It is a stated methodology to confuse and confound the language in the Marxist dogma, to re-define words so that they mean nothing or whatever the Marxist can use them for.

My analysis: this weblog and the people that come here are feared by the Leftists, so they have sent their Martinettes and quizzlings to disrupt.

Notice the attempt to play "last word" with me. That is a clue... Shakespeare was great... "Thou protesteth too much."

The lack of education was so evident when I was accused of being Christian Taliban (art of the smear) and using the Bible (oh, the horror), when in fact I quoted the Shakespearean villian Macbeth... "Who is he that is not of woman borne?"

[GrandEagle]

Separation between Church and State means, or at least should mean, that government will not takes sides promoting one religion over the other.

Interesting article. - Thanks for the ping!
I would argue that even the above statement is from a liberal slant, although more to the "center".
What is conveniently erased from history is that there were established state religions until well into the 1800's. If memory serves me correct, the last official state religion was eliminated by a vote of the people living in the state sometime in the mid 1850's.
At the time of the Constitutions writing, most states had an official, state endorsed, religion. Three of those states maintained this after the Constitutions ratification.
Also conveniently erased is the fact that the Bible was used as a textbook in public schools (generally for a reading textbook) for well over 150 years.

Now, keeping in mind that the folks in authority in these states were the very people who wrote and ratified our Constitution, their credentials to understand what it meant are impeccable. Consider:

Merrian-Webster Online:
Main Entry: respect
Function: transitive verb
1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM b : to refrain from interfering with
2 : to have reference to : CONCERN
synonym see REGARD

It glaringly self apparent that the intent if the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

means exactly what is says, that the Federal Congress can make no law establishing an official religion of the United States. It specifically prohibits the Federal government from having an opinion on the ESTABLISHMENT of religion, therefore the Federal government can not establish or un-establish a religion.

Generally, the folks who want to abide by the fictitious "Separation of Church and State" amendment are intelligent people, fully capable of understanding the English language, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they know the facts and simply do not like them. Since they know the truth, I find it a waste of time to even make the argument with them.

Cordially,
GE

[jwalsh07]

You didn't have to.

In other words you lied.

I have seen you on other threads to know where your sense of morality comes from.

Did you write my name down in the "book"?

Am I wrong to say that your desire to prohibit gay marriage does not come from your religious belief that it is immoral?

You're wrong to make false assertions in a debate based on what you think. You're wrong to hurl insults when your reasoning is faulty and debunked. And you're wrong to attempt to redefine words when it suits your ideology.

What reason do you have for wanting to ban gay marriage?

I'm not. Gay marriage is oxymoronic. I'm attempting to limit the size of government. I get one vote in that matter.

Does your reasoning not come from your religious belief, ultimately?

I don't argue the redefining of the word marriage from a religious point of view for a reason. You're it. I argue it from a secular point of view so as not to allow the chaff in with the wheat. You and your religion/fascist thing is a perfect example.

I would certainly argue from a religious point of view that the act of homosexuality is wrong but I would also argue that what goes on in the privacy of ones property is not the interest of the state.

I stopped making false accusations when you stopped beating your wife.

Your problem is the evidence on this thread supports my position that you lied, you have no such evidence for your next false assertion in a long list of them.

Yes, I believe people should govern themselves. I do not believe other people should govern them when their actions do not infringe on their rights. I believe in the smallest government possible. You are the one pushing for a strong intrusive government. You obviously have no clue what fascism is. It is the private *ownership* of property and the government control over said property.

Thanks for the attempted lesson but think again. The basic element of fascism is authoritarian central government, public control of property flows from that basic element not the other way around. I have found that there is a segment of the libertarian movement who are very authoritarian. They would, if they could, have an overly strong central government enforcing their world view from DC. Some would even rewrite the Constitution of the Unoted States. Amazing, huh?

The most basic right we have is the right to our own existence, to the ownership of ourselves. You would ban a segment of people from doing something with there property (themselves) when their actions in no way infringed anybody else's rights to life, liberty, or property. You want the government to control the property of someone else. Your view in this matter is fascist.

You sink deeper and deeper into the pit of false assertion. You have no "right" redefine words to your suiting. But authoritarians see that as no particular problem in pursuit of what they see as correct. That shoe fit?

People do not have the right to vote away someone else's right to life, liberty, or property. Mob rule is inconsistent with a free society. Democracy is not an end in itself.

Evidently you disagree with President Reagan that this country is big enough for everybody and every town, county and state must adhere to the 0.5% solution. Your way or the jackboot?

I stopped making false assertions when you stopped beating your wife.

LOL, anybody can see that I never mentioned religion nor do I favor authoritarian rule from an overly strong central government. We live in a pluralist nation that is plenty big enough for those of us who wish to live by different sets of rules while recognizing that certain rights are inalienable. Evidently though, that isn't good enough for you. Too bad.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I was at a M.I.R.A. lecture on the Big Bang Theory given by a professor from M.I.T.

I asked him this at the open forum Q&A session afterwards:

Is the Big Bang theory an admission the universe was initiated by an Immaculate Conception?

A simple Socratic inquiry...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Also conveniently erased is the fact that the Bible was used as a textbook in public schools (generally for a reading textbook) for well over 150 years.

Universities were also divinity schools...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"In other words you lied"

No, I made a correct inference.

"Did you write my name down in the "book"?"

You don't rate.

"Gay marriage is oxymoronic. I'm attempting to limit the size of government. I get one vote in that matter."

You have shown no attempt to limit the size of government. Your vote doesn't trump other people's rights to life, liberty, and property.


"I don't argue the redefining of the word marriage from a religious point of view for a reason"

That is obvious. You are not honest about where your motivations lie.


"The basic element of fascism is authoritarian central government, public control of property flows from that basic element not the other way around."

There is no difference. You want an authoritarian central government to control what individuals do with their property (themselves) when it does not infringe anybody else's rights. That is fascism. More broadly speaking it is collectivism.

" have found that there is a segment of the libertarian movement who are very authoritarian. They would, if they could, have an overly strong central government enforcing their world view from DC. Some would even rewrite the Constitution of the Unoted States. Amazing, huh?"

Amazing? No. Unfounded assertion? Absolutely.

"You have no "right" redefine words to your suiting. But authoritarians see that as no particular problem in pursuit of what they see as correct. That shoe fit?"

I redefined nothing. The shoe fits you.


"Your way or the jackboot?"

That would be you.

"anybody can see that I never mentioned religion nor do I favor authoritarian rule from an overly strong central government"

Anybody who doesn't read your posts that is.

[GrandEagle]

Universities were also divinity schools
Also true, I forgot that point!

[GrandEagle]

Nor is "Freedom of Religion".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

You can't get much closer than this...

[xzins]

If abortion is a private matter, then it should not have public money. However, it does have public money, by virtue of various judicial decisions and a bit of accounting sleight of hand.

[little jeremiah]

I agree. But discussion such as this are useful for a couple of reasons - helping to sharpen one's intelligence and communication skills, and good for lurkers who haven't made up their minds yet about issues such as this, for instance, young people.

[little jeremiah]

Wow - a new compendium. I'll ping my list to it.

[Evolution]

Education should be left up to the states.

If the heartland of America (Mid-west, and South) wants intelligent design then let them have it.

If the armpit and @$$hole of America (New England,West Coast, New York etc) want to teach Evolution then let them have it.

No Child Left Behind was an awful bill and the GOP should go back to their original and correct position and eliminate the bloated bureaucracy called the Department of Education.