I hate to tell you, but in 1789, there hadn’t been a shitload of utopian movements. There was not really any way to tell what was coming down the pike.
Funny, Edmund Burke (the father of conservatism) saw it pretty clearly. And he was not the only one. It’s not that remarkable an insight that when you tear down a society overnight and destroy the traditions that gave it shape and order, violence and then dictatorship ensue.
[/quote]
Good for him. He gets a fucking medal. That doesn’t change the fact that 1) there hadn’t been a shitload of utopian movements to base what might happen off of and 2)They needed a change in the first place. Thomas Paine went head to head with Burke over the same subject, and whooped him.
Was it the best way to do it? Maybe not, because of the way it ended up. But those glorious first days were history changing, and the Storming of the Bastille has been forever ingrained in history as a moment that symbolizes the people taking back the power from an abusive government.
That, to me, is worth every fuckin dead Frenchmen from that war.
Where the fuck are you getting your history? It is well known that the ideas of the French Revolution shook the monarchies so badly that nearly all of Europe united against Napoleon. It has always been my contention him declaring himself Emperor was one of the only strategic mistakes he made as far as his legacy.
The ideas embraced by America and France in those years changed the history of the world, and moved all European countries towards being republics. So yea, I’ll take six million dead. They would have only died in a war between Kings making a land grab anyway.
No one is arguing that. Doesn’t change at all the idea that a monarchy is outdated and ridiculous.
It’s far less NOW. It was unbelievably powerful for centuries.
At least the people here make their bed and lay in it. It is still the best of all forms of government. Does it have problems? Yes, but with the flaws of human nature that’s inevitable.
And don’t give me that bitch ass communist line about “two establishment candidates that differ on little of real substance.” There’s plenty of difference between the two parties, in social issues and in economics.
Christ, start moving your head kid, you’re leading with your chin.
That, to me, is worth every fuckin dead Frenchmen from that war.
[/quote]
See? The amount of slaughter (and all the abuses that follow) one is willing to justify-or even participate in-depends on the person’s attachment to his cause.
I hate to tell you, but in 1789, there hadn’t been a shitload of utopian movements. There was not really any way to tell what was coming down the pike.
Funny, Edmund Burke (the father of conservatism) saw it pretty clearly. And he was not the only one. It’s not that remarkable an insight that when you tear down a society overnight and destroy the traditions that gave it shape and order, violence and then dictatorship ensue.
Good for him. He gets a fucking medal. That doesn’t change the fact that 1) there hadn’t been a shitload of utopian movements to base what might happen off of and 2)They needed a change in the first place. Thomas Paine went head to head with Burke over the same subject, and whooped him.
[/quote]
Really? Despite the fact that events quickly proved Burke right?
Yes, it’s very easy to cheerlead for someone else’s war. As I said, you have more in common with the neocons than you think.
Where the fuck are you getting YOUR history? The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars were especially destructive because the French Revolution had birthed the levee en masse and nationalism, both baleful developments that put a nation in arms and led to total war (again, so the utopian French revolutionaries could “liberate” their neighbors).
Since 1648 and Westphalia , European wars had been limited in scope, and armies relatively small and composed of professionals. So no, six million would not have “only died in a war between Kings making a land grab anyway.”
Communist? That’s a first for me. Care to describe any of these differences that really matter?
In fact, this could be said about Big Business as a whole (take agriculture policy, for just the most obvious example).
Yes, the Democrats are worse on cultural issues, but the GOP essentially pays lip service on abortion and gay rights. Social conservatives, for all the noise made on their behalf, get virtually nothing out of the Republican Party. The Democrats are marginally better on foreign policy, in that they’re not quite as reflexively or even insanely bellicose (as epitomized by John McCain).
But again, they embrace the same fundamental view of American foreign policy. Clinton’s Kosovo can be viewed as a dress rehearsal for Bush’s Iraq.
The two parties are Coke and Pepsi. Open your eyes.
Edit: I left out a huge one. Both parties are statist, whatever occasional rhetorical fillips they may make about “community” or “federalism.” You could probably count the small government conservatives in Congress on both hands: Ron Paul, Jimmy Duncan, Tom Coburn in the Senate…
See, I’m considering it like this, too. Today, the Baptist Church doesn’t use the threat of force in order to confiscate part of my wages for redistribution. But, our democratic government does.
Ya know, if the domestic philosophy you and I agree on to such a large degree were to be in place upon our wakening tomorrow, it would not last a single generation with your foreign policy.
Nobody would like it to work more than I, but it just does not answer to the realities of the post modern geopolitical arena.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m sick of “republican conservative christians” for seemingly different reasons than you.
First, as I just noted many tend to be hypocrites of the first order.
Second, for some reason they don’t believe separation of church and state applies to Christianity. Why doesn?t my state allow liquor to be sold on Sunday? (essentially when you try to legislate your morals on everyone)
Third, many ?Christian? ideologies are very left wing, and they refuse to see it. I?m sorry, it is not a conservative idea to want to ban gay marriage, it is not a conservative idea to support military conquest, it is not a conservative idea to try to dictate what is taught in the science classroom, it?s not a conservative idea to support the patriot act, it?s not a conservative idea to support drug laws. As an actual conservative, it makes me mad to be associated with these politically non-conservative ideas.
They seem to think you can?t be a good Christian and believe in separation of church and state.
DD - i found you . . .(insert evil laughter - no make that an evil giggle - much creepier . . .)
That’s the way to prove a point - say that those who fail to live up to the standard prove that the standard is meaningless while ignoring those who do and who hoist the standard even higher by their virtue and conduct - yes, that’s a great line of reasoning - personal experience must trump rational understanding!!
Ahh - we don’t believe that separation of church and state applies to Christianity - wow, worked that out all for yourself eh? We absolutely believe in the separation of church and state - there is no national religion in the US - that is the high wall erected via jurisprudence to avoid the establishment of the American National Church like The Church of England . . .
[/quote]
I just wanted to point out that I put ?republican conservative Christian? in quotes, because I was talk about the people that label themselves those things and live and vote by entirely different principals. (I consider myself one, though I don?t really know about the republican part anymore) If you aren?t one of the hypocritical bastards, then don?t take that personally.
I personally don?t like to merge political and religious ideology. I don?t like that to vote for a conservative I sometimes have to vote for people that actually think the earth is only a few thousand years old. When I vote politically I have to essentially endorse religious beliefs.
This is the way liberty and freedom works. You can do or say or vote anything or anyway you want, as long as in doing so you don?t step on the rights of others. There are constraints on our freedom. Your rights end where other?s begin. I?m not saying you can?t vote based on your values at all. But there are certain things you should not be able to do regardless of your values. That is the point of the constitution.
Yay! You have really been using that word a day calendar, unfortunately it only gave you a surface definition. For conservatives today in the current setting it means less government interference. By your definition communists have been the ?conservative? force some times.
No, I mean the military is there for protection purposes. It should not be used as an ideological instrument. Spreading political philosophy through military force is quite literally and fascist and communist construct.
Not at all. But there are reasons classes are divided into subjects. Things like creationism logically do not fall into a scientific classroom. We actually had a biblical history class in my highschool, and I would be all for discussion of things in a class like that. Or a religious philosophy class.
It is not me that is attempting to add things into classes where they don?t logically flow. You are apparently the one attempting to dictate your beliefs where they don?t belong, not me.
Exploring things like creationism and biblical history in a science classroom I see as like trying to include saxophone playing in English class. If a teacher forbids a child from playing an instrument in her class, it is not suppression of free thought or expression. The kid just needs to take it to the band room.
By what you are saying every class should be open to any line of quandary. If not, you aren?t freely allowing students to explore and make up their own minds.
Although I do personally think that many some of the limitations and questions with certain theories don?t seem to get fully explored like they should be
[quote]
Bring on the anarchy - I’m ready for the DD revolution . . .[/quote]
I just wanted to point out that I put ?republican conservative Christian? in quotes, because I was talk about the people that label themselves those things and live and vote by entirely different principals. (I consider myself one, though I don?t really know about the republican part anymore) If you aren?t one of the hypocritical bastards, then don?t take that personally.
I personally don?t like to merge political and religious ideology. I don?t like that to vote for a conservative I sometimes have to vote for people that actually think the earth is only a few thousand years old. When I vote politically I have to essentially endorse religious beliefs.
This is the way liberty and freedom works. You can do or say or vote anything or anyway you want, as long as in doing so you don?t step on the rights of others. There are constraints on our freedom. Your rights end where other?s begin. I?m not saying you can?t vote based on your values at all. But there are certain things you should not be able to do regardless of your values. That is the point of the constitution.
Yay! You have really been using that word a day calendar, unfortunately it only gave you a surface definition. For conservatives today in the current setting it means less government interference. By your definition communists have been the ?conservative? force some times.
No, I mean the military is there for protection purposes. It should not be used as an ideological instrument. Spreading political philosophy through military force is quite literally and fascist and communist construct.
Not at all. But there are reasons classes are divided into subjects. Things like creationism logically do not fall into a scientific classroom. We actually had a biblical history class in my highschool, and I would be all for discussion of things in a class like that. Or a religious philosophy class.
It is not me that is attempting to add things into classes where they don?t logically flow. You are apparently the one attempting to dictate your beliefs where they don?t belong, not me.
Exploring things like creationism and biblical history in a science classroom I see as like trying to include saxophone playing in English class. If a teacher forbids a child from playing an instrument in her class, it is not suppression of free thought or expression. The kid just needs to take it to the band room.
By what you are saying every class should be open to any line of quandary. If not, you aren?t freely allowing students to explore and make up their own minds.
Although I do personally think that many some of the limitations and questions with certain theories don?t seem to get fully explored like they should be
[/quote]
DD - something you and I both agree on - wow! Yep, republican conservative and christian - although often linked together, you certainly couldn’t prove the connection by the actions and voting records of either the citizens or the politicians claiming that title. Agree with you 100% on that - ok,happy time is over.
You went on to say that you don’t like to merge political and religious ideology. Hmmm, this is strange. For instance, the religious concept of free will (very important doctrine in many religions) is a foundational belief behind the political principle of the right of self-determination, representative government, and personal responsibility (had tie-ins to legal philosophy as well). If you are voting for people based on the strength of their character - I don’t see how you can divorce that from their personal belief system as well.
Religious belief leads to personal character leads to decisions lead to actions - seems rational that you would want to vote for people you could trust (unlike our poor vetting of GWB).
Yes, but you must agree that you and I both vote on our values and principles and our V&P’s are base din our religious views as well.
As for conservative - you know, we conservatives have been voting like socialists for so long - perhaps we should change party names with them . . . .
And finally for this post - please don’t oversimplify Intelligent Design to mere religious propaganda. Evolutionist believe matter/energy always has existed, ID’ers believe there had to be a cause for matter/energy to exist - because that is in keeping with rationale thought. We can start a whole discussion into comparing the pros and cons of E vs. ID, but that is my point - this healthy and stimulating debate should be part of the classroom as we seek to create inquisitive minds that seek more and more knowledge of the truth.
After all, most of the greatest scientific discoveries had been made by men of faith, who sought to understand God better through his creation and this lead them to more and more discoveries - religion is no the enemy of science - dogmatism is the enemy of both religion and science. It is the closed mind, the limited classroom, the restrained intellect that fosters ignorance, hatreds and evils. . . . not the belief in the Divine, the application of the scientific method to all things - please understand that the Divine is not afraid of an intellectual conversation or a rigorous investigation of the facts - only weaker minds fear these things because they fear the conclusions!
To write off any religion view or any contrary opinion about the origin of the universe due to belief alone - simply becomes the immediate stricture of honest inquiry and the death of true discovery.
Free will is not a universally accepted religious concept, even within the Christian community.
The other thing that I do is separate morals, character, and ethics from the specifics of religion. Being a kind honest good human is not an exclusive property of Christianity, nor must you posses them in order to be a Christian.
You can most certainly vote morals outside of endorsing a particular religion.
What actually makes a person a Christian? Belief that Jesus was the begotten son of god and paid the price of our sins. Belief in ethics and morals are not dependant on that. A polititian can share your ethics and values without being specifically your religion.
Using religion as an indication of the morality of a person (more specifically politicians) is massive fail.
This is where I draw the line between voting religion and morals. If there are certain concepts that are of moral nature specific to a brand of religion, they don?t belong in law. Things as I?ve mentioned before, like blue laws, should be done away with.
Free will is not a universally accepted religious concept, even within the Christian community.
The other thing that I do is separate morals, character, and ethics from the specifics of religion. Being a kind honest good human is not an exclusive property of Christianity, nor must you posses them in order to be a Christian.
You can most certainly vote morals outside of endorsing a particular religion.
What actually makes a person a Christian? Belief that Jesus was the begotten son of god and paid the price of our sins. Belief in ethics and morals are not dependant on that. A polititian can share your ethics and values without being specifically your religion.
Using religion as an indication of the morality of a person (more specifically politicians) is massive fail.
This is where I draw the line between voting religion and morals. If there are certain concepts that are of moral nature specific to a brand of religion, they don?t belong in law. Things as I?ve mentioned before, like blue laws, should be done away with.
[/quote]
Congratulations- you have missed the point entirely! So proud of you - you can place this trophy next to all the others . . . .
I don’t believe I ever said that morals were dependent on the religion of the individual. The religious beliefs held by an individual (apart from the teaching of their church - which we all know very few hold to everything their religion teaches) are the topic of discussion.
Nor did I state that free will was a universally held tenet of faith. Nor did I outline the specific tenets of faith one must hold to be a member of a particular faith. Nor did I state that someone who does not hold to a particular religion is without morals. Nor did I state that people of different belief systems could not hold the same principles and values. Nor did I state that a particular set of principles and values belonged solely to specific religions groups. Nor did I state that politicians had nothing in common with religious individuals. Nor did I state that religion is the indication of the morality of an individual. Nor did I state that anything you talked about . . .
Are you sure you responded to the right post?
I made this mistake once and woke up between an armadillo and a Mexican hooker in Topeka . . . weird how that armadillo knew my name too. . . . good times . . .
Congratulations- you have missed the point entirely! So proud of you - you can place this trophy next to all the others . . . .
I don’t believe I ever said that morals were dependent on the religion of the individual. The religious beliefs held by an individual (apart from the teaching of their church - which we all know very few hold to everything their religion teaches) are the topic of discussion.
Nor did I state that free will was a universally held tenet of faith. Nor did I outline the specific tenets of faith one must hold to be a member of a particular faith. Nor did I state that someone who does not hold to a particular religion is without morals. Nor did I state that people of different belief systems could not hold the same principles and values. Nor did I state that a particular set of principles and values belonged solely to specific religions groups. Nor did I state that politicians had nothing in common with religious individuals. Nor did I state that religion is the indication of the morality of an individual. Nor did I state that anything you talked about . . .
Are you sure you responded to the right post?
I made this mistake once and woke up between an armadillo and a Mexican hooker in Topeka . . . weird how that armadillo knew my name too. . . . good times . . .[/quote]
Uh, maybe because most of that was explaining and expounding on my beliefs? Not everything is about you. It is permissible to introduce concepts into a discussion even if you didn?t originate them.
I don’t believe I ever claimed you said that morals were dependent on the religion of the individual. (though you were the one trying to marry the 2 concepts)
Nor did I accuse you of saying that free will was a universally held tenet of faith. Nor did I accuse you of saying the specific tenets of faith one must hold to be a member of a particular faith. Nor did I accuse you of saying that someone who does not hold to a particular religion is without morals. Nor did I accuse you of saying that people of different belief systems could not hold the same principles and values. Nor did I accuse you of saying that a particular set of principles and values belonged solely to specific religions groups. Nor did I accuse you of saying that politicians had nothing in common with religious individuals. Nor did I accuse you of saying that religion is the indication of the morality of an individual. Nor did I accuse you of saying that anything you talked about . . .
Are you sure you responded to the correct post?
Basically I was saying that people shouldn?t vote their religion. And you somehow made the asinine claim that that means you can?t vote based on your values. To which I retorted that values morals and ethics are separate from religious preferences and that you absolutely still can vote based on those.
You do, however, seem to have conceded that you can vote based on your morals and values without confusing the issues with religion, which is my point. Voting based on your morals, and based on your religion are indeed 2 different things. So me saying people shouldn?t vote their religion is different than not voting your values.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
…Basically I was saying that people shouldn?t vote their religion. And you somehow made the asinine claim that that means you can?t vote based on your values. To which I retorted that values morals and ethics are separate from religious preferences and that you absolutely still can vote based on those.
You do, however, seem to have conceded that you can vote based on your morals and values without confusing the issues with religion, which is my point. Voting based on your morals, and based on your religion are indeed 2 different things. So me saying people shouldn?t vote their religion is different than not voting your values.
C’mon DD, it’s a bit presumptuous and arrogant for you to insist on the above, that is, that folks should emulate your “superior” position of separating their morals from their religion. First you must establish why that is such an all-fired supreme ideal, the separation doctrine, which you haven’t done yet. Then you can launch into your diatribes on applying that to the voting process.
I honestly don’t think you’re capable of successfully accomplishing all that.
[/quote]
Beyond it being a personal belief, as I noted, I expounded on the specifics of what I considered “voting your religion”. Morals and values are fine. Legislating beliefs specific to a particular religion is not. Like I’ve said before federal blue laws are forbidden by the bill of rights.
I’m just saying I don’t like endorsing a religion with my vote. And many of the politicians seem to turn their platform into that. I don’t like it. So I’m pissing and moaning on an internet forum.
I bet you take the 2nd amendment very seriously and literally. why not the first?
I agree that I did not prove it an “all-fired supreme ideal” but I was working from the assumption of a belief in the constitution.
Which part are you disagreeing with? You never addressed the argument of the two way protection of church and state. Are you saying the fed should have the right to institute blue laws?
If you believe in the first amendment as a 2 way protection of churches, why then should your religion dictate your vote.
As for myself I try and base my vote on political philosophy, instead of a religious one. Are you saying I’m wrong in doing that?
Beyond it being a personal belief, as I noted, I expounded on the specifics of what I considered “voting your religion”. Morals and values are fine. Legislating beliefs specific to a particular religion is not. Like I’ve said before federal blue laws are forbidden by the bill of rights.
I’m just saying I don’t like endorsing a religion with my vote. And many of the politicians seem to turn their platform into that. I don’t like it. So I’m pissing and moaning on an internet forum.
I bet you take the 2nd amendment very seriously and literally. why not the first?
I agree that I did not prove it an “all-fired supreme ideal” but I was working from the assumption of a belief in the constitution.
Which part are you disagreeing with? You never addressed the argument of the two way protection of church and state. Are you saying the fed should have the right to institute blue laws?
If you believe in the first amendment as a 2 way protection of churches, why then should your religion dictate your vote.
As for myself I try and base my vote on political philosophy, instead of a religious one. Are you saying I’m wrong in doing that?[/quote]
So, could you define for me the line where voting according to my personal religious beliefs (values and principles) crosses over into “no-no” land of “voting your religion”.
Just curious where that magical little line is . . …for instance, I belief abortion is murder so I vote against politicians who support abortion. SO does the Catholic church- have I crossed the line now?
I belief in honestyso I vote against politicians who cheat on their wives, taxes, business partners, etc. So does several religions - have I crossed the line now?
Where or where is that magical little line . . . .
Beyond it being a personal belief, as I noted, I expounded on the specifics of what I considered “voting your religion”. Morals and values are fine. Legislating beliefs specific to a particular religion is not. Like I’ve said before federal blue laws are forbidden by the bill of rights.
I’m just saying I don’t like endorsing a religion with my vote. And many of the politicians seem to turn their platform into that. I don’t like it. So I’m pissing and moaning on an internet forum.
I bet you take the 2nd amendment very seriously and literally. why not the first?
I agree that I did not prove it an “all-fired supreme ideal” but I was working from the assumption of a belief in the constitution.
Which part are you disagreeing with? You never addressed the argument of the two way protection of church and state. Are you saying the fed should have the right to institute blue laws?
If you believe in the first amendment as a 2 way protection of churches, why then should your religion dictate your vote.
As for myself I try and base my vote on political philosophy, instead of a religious one. Are you saying I’m wrong in doing that?
So, could you define for me the line where voting according to my personal religious beliefs (values and principles) crosses over into “no-no” land of “voting your religion”.
Just curious where that magical little line is . . …for instance, I belief abortion is murder so I vote against politicians who support abortion. SO does the Catholic church- have I crossed the line now?
I belief in honestyso I vote against politicians who cheat on their wives, taxes, business partners, etc. So does several religions - have I crossed the line now?
Where or where is that magical little line . . . .[/quote]
Did you miss all the posts where I try and lay that out?
And no, just because a religion shares your beliefs doesn’t mean anything. Are those morals only uniquely justifiable through a specific religious philosophy? no.
However, I think you just eliminated every politician. who do you vote for?
Did you miss all the posts where I try and lay that out?
And no, just because a religion shares your beliefs doesn’t mean anything. Are those morals only uniquely justifiable through a specific religious philosophy? no.
However, I think you just eliminated every politician. who do you vote for?
[/quote]
I guess I did, although I must confess to being entirely inebriated while reading your post with one eye shut (seems to help me understand you better) so it is possible I missed something while Maria was grabbing my . … oh sorry there she goes again. (slaps his biyatch) What were you saying?
Ahh yes - we were looking for that line that distinguishes voting for your religion versus voting for your beliefs. Could you restate it distinctly for me? I promises I will pays good attentions whilst you ruminate . . .no, I’ll ruminate - you illuminate. . . something like that.
Ahh, see that’s the wonder of voting for people you don’t know very well and then getting burned after the voting is done . . . Obama promised me a new car, paid off mortgage, a new job . . . (see what I did there?)
Ya know, if the domestic philosophy you and I agree on to such a large degree were to be in place upon our wakening tomorrow, it would not last a single generation with your foreign policy.
Nobody would like it to work more than I, but it just does not answer to the realities of the post modern geopolitical arena.
[/quote]
You’ve got it exactly backwards. A limited central government and a free state will not survive sustained militarization and constant war. There was a reason the Founding Fathers, as well as many of theorists that preceded them, were foes of a large military. It’s the same reason that sustained representative government grew up in Britain and America, two countries that have usually had small armies except in true emergencies.
Kauffman concludes his book by looking at all the baleful domestic effects of a large military and security state. Foreign wars and a large military have been one of the greatest forces for centralization and loss of liberty in American history. You don’t even have to look at the extremes of Woodrow Wilson or George W. Bush (which should be obvious to anyone). The whole idea of withholding taxes (i.e. taken from your paycheck without you ever even having the money) was a wartime expedient put in in 1942 that, surprise, surprise, is still with us today. Centralized education, which any true conservative should be against, was birthed in Prussia at the same time as conscription, and had a similar pattern in the U.S. I lent my dad my copy of the book, so don’t have it handy, but Kauffman discusses the wartime origin of everything from income taxes to daylight savings time. Want to bet that if we keep torture around for wartime use, we’ll be doing it to our own citizens within a generation?
Here’s an excerpt, his interesting argument on George McGovern:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
pushharder wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
…Basically I was saying that people shouldn?t vote their religion. And you somehow made the asinine claim that that means you can?t vote based on your values. To which I retorted that values morals and ethics are separate from religious preferences and that you absolutely still can vote based on those.
You do, however, seem to have conceded that you can vote based on your morals and values without confusing the issues with religion, which is my point. Voting based on your morals, and based on your religion are indeed 2 different things. So me saying people shouldn?t vote their religion is different than not voting your values.
C’mon DD, it’s a bit presumptuous and arrogant for you to insist on the above, that is, that folks should emulate your “superior” position of separating their morals from their religion. First you must establish why that is such an all-fired supreme ideal, the separation doctrine, which you haven’t done yet. Then you can launch into your diatribes on applying that to the voting process.
I honestly don’t think you’re capable of successfully accomplishing all that.
Beyond it being a personal belief, as I noted, I expounded on the specifics of what I considered “voting your religion”. Morals and values are fine. Legislating beliefs specific to a particular religion is not. Like I’ve said before federal blue laws are forbidden by the bill of rights.
I’m just saying I don’t like endorsing a religion with my vote. And many of the politicians seem to turn their platform into that. I don’t like it. So I’m pissing and moaning on an internet forum.
I bet you take the 2nd amendment very seriously and literally. why not the first?
For crying out loud, if one wishes to express themselves through their vote and their vote is based on their religious beliefs, don’t you think that is PRECISELY what the First Amendment is all about?
[/quote]
If you are voting for the legislation of beliefs only justifiable through specific religious theology, you are going against the 1st amendment. How about vice taxes, I would put them in this category too. I consider taxing gambling to a larger extent than a normal business a violation of the first amendment. As I?ve explained before a ?non belief in a wrong?.
Like I?ve said before morals justifiable solely through religious doctrine is what I?m talking about. They should stay out of politics.
Example: Jesus said drunkenness is bad.
Legislated result: Tax the hell out of all alcohol. (or prohibition if you forget that little federal crock)
I?m saying that?s wrong. Are you saying it isn?t?
So you essentially entirely avoided my argument.
And yet you never argued with the examples or logic of 2-way protection or even offered an alternative.
Taxes are the original for of regulation. And yes, they do regulate alcohol, drugs, tobacco, gambling, est. this way.
No you just think your ashtray is the real one, but it?s still an ashtray. I noted that your interpretation of a national religion and specifics of the Anglican church aren?t literally there either. Not to mention some things in the constitution and bill of rights are too vague not to be interpreted. Such as free speech as I noted earlier.
I agree, but as I noted the fed does pull this crap too. There is a reason they are called vice taxes or even sometimes referred to as sin taxes. They are legislated religious values.
[quote]
I know all about the 14th Amendment and the incorporation clause but I have a problem with that. Color me undistinguished and a intellectual midget for saying that but I don’t care.
The 14th in my view was addressing problems related to slavery and was not intended to revamp or amend the Bill of Rights.
If you believe in the first amendment as a 2 way protection of churches, why then should your religion dictate your vote.
As for myself I try and base my vote on political philosophy, instead of a religious one. Are you saying I’m wrong in doing that?
You have no more right to demand that someone else base their vote strictly on their political philosophy than they have the right to demand that you base it on a religious one.[/quote]
You can vote however you want, like I said I don?t like endorsing particular religious beliefs when I do. And it is against the first amendment when these people elected start assuming religious moral authority.
Ya know, if the domestic philosophy you and I agree on to such a large degree were to be in place upon our wakening tomorrow, it would not last a single generation with your foreign policy.
Nobody would like it to work more than I, but it just does not answer to the realities of the post modern geopolitical arena.
You’ve got it exactly backwards. A limited central government and a free state will not survive sustained militarization and constant war. There was a reason the Founding Fathers, as well as many of theorists that preceded them, were foes of a large military. It’s the same reason that sustained representative government grew up in Britain and America, two countries that have usually had small armies except in true emergencies.
Kauffman concludes his book by looking at all the baleful domestic effects of a large military and security state. Foreign wars and a large military have been one of the greatest forces for centralization and loss of liberty in American history. You don’t even have to look at the extremes of Woodrow Wilson or George W. Bush (which should be obvious to anyone). The whole idea of withholding taxes (i.e. taken from your paycheck without you ever even having the money) was a wartime expedient put in in 1942 that, surprise, surprise, is still with us today. Centralized education, which any true conservative should be against, was birthed in Prussia at the same time as conscription, and had a similar pattern in the U.S. I lent my dad my copy of the book, so don’t have it handy, but Kauffman discusses the wartime origin of everything from income taxes to daylight savings time. Want to bet that if we keep torture around for wartime use, we’ll be doing it to our own citizens within a generation?
Here’s an excerpt, his interesting argument on George McGovern:
wow - you’re almost a conservative. It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside seeing how close you are to coming over to the right side.
Fan-freaking-tastic - you mean you’re in favor of abolishing taxes, allowing communities and even individual families choosing the method and manner of their children’s education?
Are you really in favor of repealing the Goldwater-Nichols act and returning to states their militias (national guard) and shrinking the size of our standing military?
Are you honestly in favor of us developing our own natural oil supplies and getting out of the geo-political mess of the ME oil trade?
