Posted on 08/09/2002 10:52:13 PM PDT by jennyp
Sorry for your confusion. There is no arbitrary decision making elite required. Initiating force is wrong. That's the deal.
It is also a moral barometer of sorts. It takes a very special kind of person to endorse the slaughter of the unborn. Thus you can learn exactly how far you are from a moral base in regards to another person.
The standard is the initiation of force. If you initiate force, the rest will punish you.
You continue to ignore the points I made: (1) non-atheists can kill on a grand scale; and (2) non-atheists can be communists. Now that we've established that you're still ducking, and still living in a fantasy world where: (a) atheism = communism; and (b) theism = virtually no murder and no communism, let's get on with one of your points (I'm free to ignore any of your other points, as you are free to ignore mine).
In the 20th century, Germany in both world wars was a Christian nation. They did not champion life and freedom. Okay? Your worldview still hanging in there? I figured that. Keep ducking, it's the only way you can cling to your fantasies.
Appears that you have some problems with comprehension, so I'll post it again.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Hey great. You're sounding more conservative by the minute. So, I suppose you're against gay marriage and bigamy, right? And abortion?
Well?
The initiation of force constitutes a violation of liberty.
He's dead, therefore he's wrong - is that how you want it?
The Keyword in your little demonstration is "Governments"
Not Morality or Rights, those are reserved by and for the Creator. The People may form a Government to protect those things the Creator gave all men. Without the Creator the Government is just a group of men forcing their own agenda.
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---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(private/personal) GROWTH---non intrusive limited self perpetuating govt--politcians/partisan big govt hacks!
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/America---
That was the contract we signed when we ratified the Constitution. So, I'll take that deal.
Really? Then how do we know what "liberty" means? Should you have the "liberty" to own a Huey Gunship? Maybe you're half-crazy, but you can still function in a "libertarian" society and thus are judged "rational" enough to buy your very own fully armed attack helicopter.
Maybe I'm a different type of "libertarian" that thinks that this is crazy. Let's say that my version of "liberty"--liberty from fear of crazy people with military ordinance--wins out. You have to hand over your 'copter. You don't want to. Looks like we're going to have to "initiate force" against you.
Who decides between our two (or many) competing worldviews of what constitutes "liberty"? If I asked 50 people to write out what they thought "liberty" meant, I'd get 50 different answers.
You're pretty far off base here, Cowboy. In fact, much is changing around you that make these matters no so rigid as they once were.
What's your position on birth control? Against it like so many were less than a hundred years ago? What about recreational intercourse? Used to be condemned at church, shouldn't be having sex unless a pregnancy is planned.
What about in vitro fertilization? Frozen embryos.
You might be accused of straying from what was considered a moral base not so long ago.
Another example: let's say the smallpox virus breaks out in your neighborhood. In a "libertarian" society, according to most libertarians, no one could quarantine you or force you to take a vaccine. But if we wanted to stop the spread of the virus, we'd have to initiate force against you to get you to comply if you were unwilling.
This puzzles me. I have known all-too-many liberals, yet I have never knowingly met a witch-hunter. Perhaps you could elaborate? By the way, do you weigh more than a duck?
Pulling it all together, what we have right here in our own country are all of the ingredients necessary for a totalitarian police state
Everthing, that is, except for all-powerful totalitarians.
Really, if you are carrying around an unleashed and lethal bio-weapon, why not?
Do you have a preference for which side of the initiation you want to be on? If you have no preference whether force is initiated against you or if you are the instigator, you have a (small) point. On the other hand, if you prefer not to have force instigated against you, welcome aboard.
I know what I wrote, and I clearly stated why I wrote it. I was pointing out to HV that religious people can commit mass murder, not only atheists, which seems to be his claim. I was not making a condemnation of Christianity, nor do I care to do so now. Spain was just a convenient example, and one I know about. I also mentioned to HV that his figure of 4.5 million did not include the conduct of Spain or Russia. That's my point. You want me to wave original source documents around? Why? It's not necessary for the points I made.
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.