Posted on 06/29/2002 1:57:34 PM PDT by theoverseer
I made no contention that it is a "Godless" document that totally rejects and hates religion. It rejects traditional christian views of government. Meaning it totally rejects the idea that there are any God-instituted governmental institutions that have a "right to rule." It totally rejects that idea in favor of government being an agreement between the citizenry to defend life, liberty and property. It has no higher calling than that. You are, as usual, taking a reasonable argument and trying to turn it into something bizarre, twisted and completely unrelated to what I said. But what can we expect from you? You have shown that you lack the ability to understand something as basic as the difference between principled opposition to government prohibition of vice and a desire to legalize it simply so one can use it.
How odd that it is the religious believers in your god-hating governmental scheme who are the guarantors of your indulgence and freedom under it.
That's funny, the majority of religious people I know place little value on the first 5 amendments. They have little love for free speech, religion, assembly, right to keep and bear arms without restriction, right to be secure in one's home and they tend to feel that a full trial by jury is a Godless sympathy with the "criminal."
The lesson history teaches about atheist societies is that they mare mass-murdering meat grinders and soffocating nanny states unparalleled in their horror by any other governments that have ever existed.
There are no atheistic societies. An atheistic society would require a population that is overwhelmingly dominated by atheists. Even the Soviet Union and NAZI Germany were religious nations. The majority of Russians and Germans were Christians and the majority of non-Russians in the USSR were Muslims. Evil is evil. This country was no better than the Soviet Union from 1789-1865. Slavery as an institution was no different from the Gulag archapelago and the Soviet work camps outside the Gulag.
Two-hundred million were beaten, shot, starved, gassed, hanged, eviscerated, and burned in the 20th Century alone in the name of atheism.
Bull$hit. They were executed in the name of a "higher ideal." The classless society, the pure aryan Europe/World, turning Cambodia to an agrarian utopia, etc. Even the US, a "Christian nation," had concentration camps during WWII.
You couldn't govern an ant farm with your philosophy, let alone thrive in a society made up only of sneering atheists such as yourself. In a society filled with such serpents you would be eating each other tail first as rapidly as you could gobble down the scales.
Because I am different than you, I'm an Atheist now? Well then we atheists out number you greatly. We number 75% of the population. Every Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Sihk, Deist (which I am) and Wiccan is an atheist. You represent the face of the Christianity that I rejected for a doctrine of a God that is actually a rational being.
The only theocratic societies that have existed have stagnated. They hate technology and any sort of science that doesn't have some religious statement after every sentence in a lab write up. The computer you are using would never have been created in the theocracy you lust for. The Physics of it would be millennia too advanced for the type of peabrain idiotic religionists that tried to destroy Galileo and Copernicus for their theories. That mentality is the end result of religion. It is impossible to have freedom of inquiry and religion coexist. Freedom of inquiry always makes the religious nutcases fearful that their precious little belief system might be questioned let alone challenged...
But only after you had murdered all the religious believers.
If I murder anyone it will be in self-defense or in defense of another's life. If peaceful Christians who have done me no harm are being rounded up I'll get my gun and murder the people doing the rounding up. No one has the right to initiate force.
You freeload on our benevolence.
If that be the case you freeload on the scientific advancements such as vaccinations, medicine, consumer electronics, telecom infrastructure, modern military armaments, energy infrastructure and more that non-Christians made availible and have continued to maintain to this very day. Modern computers are not the work of Christians. There are more pagans in IT than Christians.
Are you serious?
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives who advocated growth and progress---THIS IS SCIENCE...mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality--UNDER GOD...the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values GROWTH!
Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative and calling all the residuals---technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION--crusade/WAR--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY against God--man--society!!
Liberals/Evolution BELIEVE they are the conservatives--guardians too...
the shield between state and religion(evolution/atheism) is gone---this is chernobyl---radiation poisoning---NUCLEAR SOCIAL ANTARTICA/AMERICA!!
Hypnotism--witchcraft ideology--politics--religion--BRAINWASHING--superstition--BIAS---EVOLUTION/ATHEISM is a Hate CRIME
ps...Atheism/evolutionism is the essence of liberalism/socialism---THIS IS UNNATURAL SCIENCE---State secular MONOPOLY religion forbidding the freedom of speech/religion of everything except atheism!
Which French philsophers that pre-dated Locke besides Descartes influenced the founders more than English Liberals like Locke?
No wonder your thoughts are so scrambled. You are what you mentally devour.
Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Socialism was championed as much by Christians as it was by atheists. In fact more atheists are inclined to lean toward Smith and Rand than Marx and Trotsky.
animal--biological self interest is atheism-evolution---
Enlightened self interest is Christianity--SCIENCE--Creation!
And you continue to dodge my question, which French philosophers influenced them more than Locke and other British liberals? Philosophy does not spontaneously appear in a nation and exist on its own. It is promulgated by certain philosophers. Now answer the question, which french philosophers were so influential?
Self-interest is irrelevant to science. Any self-interest is unChristian. It is a form of selfishness and has no place in a Christian society. Christianity is a collectivist religion, it forces the individual to sacrifice him/herself for some ellusive "greater good."
You have a lot to learn.
I simply stretched one clause one direction.
It's pretty much the same technique you are using. You totally ignore history and the actions of the Founders to come up with your own interpretation of the Constitution which you then use to declare un-constitutional an activity that even Thomas Jefferson thought was very Constitutional.
Now, for the main thrust, warp and woof of this debate - you stooped to name-calling first. That means you must be a Liberal!
Well perhaps here you have an opportunity to educate me. Kindly cite me the supporting evidence for your assertion that Thomas Jefferson saw the the regulation of educational activity as a legitimate function of the Federal government.
As for ignoring history -- I think the point of not being a liberal is that we don't assume that a power legitimately belongs to the government merely because it has been usurped in the past.
I would agree that history indicates that there is no practical limit to the power of the US Government beyond whatever public polling and the "democratic" process will allow at any given time. But then, I thought the purpose of FR was to work towards restoring constitutional republican government to America. Democratic usurpation of undelegated power -- government by plebiscite -- is not constitutional and I don't think you've done a very good job of proving oterhwise.
Well I'm glad you don't live there either.
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.