Free Republic

"Any sexual behavior outside of heterosexual behavior is disordered. It is biologically wrong as procreation cannot result."

I don't see why nature's "intentions" (which in itself ascribes anthropomorphic characteristics to nature) should matter at all when making moral judgements on actions. Many people do plenty of things at odds with their biological imperatives every day, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. "Natural law" is nothing more than one big "is=ought" fallacy.

Slang happens. The meaning and application of words change. Get over it.

Slang happens. The meaning and application of words change. Get over it.

Without a God, the concept of good is meaningless? That's am ambitious claim- care to expand on it?

Uh, which history books, exactly?

"If God exists, and I state that "God exists" - then I'm on His good side.
If God exists, and I state that "God doesn't exist" - then I'm going to Hell.
If God doesn't exist, and I say "God exists" - there is nobody to get mad at me when I die.

Therefore, all aetheists should proclaim with a one voice, "I believe in God" - it is a rational, self-interested and logically based statement. You have everything to gain, and nothing to lose. =)"

Unless, of course, the Muslim God is real. Or you subscribe to the "wrong" Christian faith. Or Norse mythology is real, and you are condemned to Hell for not being valiant enough and earning a place in Valhalla. Pascal's Wager fails because it does not consider the existance of *multiple* faiths, many of which are mutually exclusive (even within Christianity!) No matter what you believe in, you almost always stand to lose something if someone else is right.

So your solution for a percieved "cultural breakdown" is despotism and persecution of those with different beliefs? Nothing could be more at odds our Founding Father's intentions. I find it humorous that you would even post such a suggestion on a site called the "Free Republic."

Interesting argument, but you haven't sold me yet.

"The evil cancer of modern liberalism has spread through society. Few people, however, recognize its root. It all boils down to a simple credo:

Hardship is bad, and society should work against it."

This might be true. If we take your definition of hardship, essentially "unrealized goals", that may account for some of the left's more utopian aims. Many of the "safety-net" and welfare programs are in theory supposed to eliminate suffering.

"The better things become, however, the better one will wish they were. Since the driving motivation behind the human spirit is a desire to make things better, a world without hardship would be fundamentally incompatible with it."

This part of your argument is a problem. After all, didn't you say earlier that the eradication of hardship, "all goals being met", is absolutely impossible? This would mean that, despite the intentions of leftists, the human spirit is in no danger at all. Oddly, your argument seems to work in FAVOR of liberals. If liberals are attempting to "make things better", and if "the better things become, the better one will wish they were"- it seems like liberal policies would compliment that aspect of human nature you describe instead of undermine it!

Your reference to slavery is also peculiar. Do you really believe that liberals (1) cognizant of the fact that a perfect world would not necessarily be good for humanity and (2) honestly believe they could achieve it and (3) want to achieve it out of actual malicious intent? I'd have a much easier time buying a theory that portrayed liberals as misguided than out and out malevolent.

"Prior to 1492 what is now the United States was sparsely inhabited, unused, and undeveloped. The inhabitants were primarily hunter-gatherers, wandering across the land, living from hand to mouth and from day to day. There was virtually no change, no growth for thousands of years. With rare exception, life was nasty, brutish, and short: there was no wheel, no written language, no division of labor, little agriculture and scant permanent settlement; but there were endless, bloody wars."

Bull. What evidence we have for the lifestyles and cultures of Native American nations is scant and inconclusive, to be sure. However, to conclude from this that there was a monolithic, unchanging "Native American" culture is absurd. The various nations and peoples that populated "America" before Columbus' arrival were dynamic and diverse. We have ample physical evidence of complex trade routes in North America, and archeological data indicated that cultures rose and fell over time. Pre-Columbian America = Hobbesian State of Nature is just as much a fantasy as Modern America = "Great Satan." Western Civilization looks great on its own; you don't need to misrepresent other cultures to make it look better.

"The result, ultimately, was the United States of America."

Err, no. ONE result was the United States of America. Another was Canada, and another was Mexico, and another was Peru, etc. Columbus, to my knowledge, never set foot on what was to become the US.

"It was Columbus' discovery for Western Europe that led to the influx of ideas and people on which this nation was founded—and on which it still rests. The opening of America brought the ideas and achievements of Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and the thousands of thinkers, writers, and inventors who followed."

Insofar as it brought *settlers* who possessed these ideas, I'm good with this. Not surprisingly, very few English, Spanish, Dutch, or Portugese colonists were teaching Aristotle or Newton to the Native Americans. There are exceptions of course. The Cherokees adapted to English civilization in a way that few other native peoples did. That they were so cruelly treated by the early U.S. is one of the great tragedies (and lost opportunities) in American history.