Posted on 09/03/2009 4:52:50 AM PDT by spirited irish
Again, don't know the person. But if she's an advocate of good gov't she, of course, won't have a problem as long as the person continues to be an ally of the promotion of freedom.
Paine's support of the French Revolution and his aid to Napoleon in planning an attack on Britain showed that this wasn't the way he went.
The article appears to be an advocacy of good government only in the sense that the author advoctates a particular religion, and associates bad government with non-adherance to that religion.
My points were mostly about Paine...that the Founders did generally, in fact, denounce him based on his actions.
Seems like having harsh things to say about them in a political context (this is the News/Activism forum) isn't something someone looking to forge those alliances would be well advised to do.
The basic premise of the article, repeated multiple times, is that the root causes is the rejection of the authority of the traditional Church, and adherance to it’s teachings.
Spirited: The essay speaks of many things: the true meaning of liberty, the nature of man, the existence of the transcendent, the existence of a spirit theater, the existence of man’s soul and the truth that he is made in the spiritual image of his Creator, the real existence of both heaven and hell, the mystery of man’s will, the pathological lies of Marx, et al, and much more besides.
Yet you’ve reduced the many issues the essayist speaks of to one absolutely false conclusion. Yes, the writer mentions the Church in passing as one of the reasons behind the rebellion. It is you who have falsely elevated the ‘mere mention’ to the absolute ‘be-all-end-all.
snip: Once that regime is overthrown, and a governmet that operates by “consent of the governed” established, do you think this person would have any problem with that same atheist having an equal voice in setting public policy and making law?
Spirited: Given that one of the profoundly important issues raised by the author is that of ‘moral imbecility and diabolical imbecility,’ I think it’s entirely safe to say that she would, in your words, ‘have problems’ with atheists-—and anyone else, for that matter-—who lies as easily as he breathes. Liars are treacherous; they cheat, steal, betray, and destroy. They do these things because they lack impulse-control, which takes us back to the true meaning of liberty, as defined by Augustine.
The article is rife with scriptural references presented as evidence to back up her arguments. The religiosity of the article involves a lot more than "mentioning the Church in passing".
OK. We got conflictiong opinions on what the author would do after a successful overthow of a totalitarian regime, and extablisment of a more amenable form of government.
How about the first part of the qustion? Do you thing the author would forge an alliance with atheists and work with them to overthrow such a regime?
We can probably assume that forging such alliances isn't her PRIMARY objective since atheists have a rich history in the last century or more of siding with the despots.
However, if an atheist is speaking up for liberty and going against a dictator, who's to say she wouldn't side with him/her politically?
So she'd forge an alliance with an atheist fighting against a tyrannical government, and then assuming they both survived, tell them "Thanks. Now, get the hell out, we don't want you here."?
In "my words" it was "would she have any problem with that same atheist (who fought along side her against the tyrannical government) having an equal voice in setting public policy and making law?"
If you think she'd have a problem with that, do you think she'd consider the US Constitution fundamentally flawed because it not only allows it, but protects that right?
Already answered this but you don't seem to get it. If she's really into freedom, she'd likely work with the person as far as he/she believed in furthering the cause. But if he/she turned out to be a Tom Paine and his/her beliefs were leading later toward despotism, she would be wise to say get the hell out.
Don't know the woman. Can't say for sure. But many christian believers would act according to the above scenario.
My apologies. That post was meant to go to Spirited Irish, who has a quite different opinion from yours on what the author would do under those circumstances.
In Paine's day it was the Church of England that sided with the despot.
I notice that there's been a quiet transition from "Gnostics" to "atheists". I though gnostics, while not Christians, do belive in a supreme being/creator.
That's because Paine was brought into the discussion.
He went from siding against the English "chrisian" despots to siding with the French atheist despots.
who has a quite different opinion from yours on what the author would do
On the contrary. I never claimed to have an opinion on what the author might do, having mentioned several times I don't know her.
He sided with the revolutionaries. How do you become a "despot" while under some else's rule?
He wrote The Rights of Man in 1792, in support of the revolution and against the hereditary monarchies. He felt the system of hereditary monarchy wrong, because it stood contrary to the idea that all men were equal before God. This does not sound like the works of an atheist
On the contrary. I never claimed to have an opinion on what the author might do, having mentioned several times I don't know her.
Then I have misunderstood your last few posts.
Not sure who you're referring to. Paine sided with the French revolutionaries. Are you talking about that?
Then I have misunderstood your last few posts.
Yes, apparently.
Yes.
Ping. If you have a few minutes and an interest, your take on this? Awaiting an education...
In that case you are confused. I didn’t say Paine was a despot.
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.