Ben Carson is for a religious theocracy
Ben Carson is not for freedom, he is for enslaving people and he is not intellectually honest since he thinks "our founders were Christians."
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
When we look at what the founders of this country thought about the nature of our rights we find that it was John Locke, not Christianity. They did not make mystical assertions pronouncing rights with no understanding, and no appeals to Christian dogma are or could ever be a defense of the rights of the individual.
Your personal attacks and misrepresentations reveal that at best you have no understanding of what I wrote. Your post is non-responsive. This is a forum for Ayn Rand's ideas, not militant religionists attacking them with religious conservative dogma. If you can't retrain yourself then you do not belong here. Your repeated appeals to Christian moral duty and faith do not add to the discussion and are contrary to the goals and guidelines for this forum.
What if his name was... Gogol Dievid Schmixiv, otherwise known as Gog Dio (by his normal custom), or just God to his drinking buds... in some high school lab, and we're all in some petri dish of a universe waiting our turn in the autoclave...
Some weirdo 9560 years ago had this insight and said something, and it got convoluted that one had to worship Mr. Schmixiv so he wouldn't dump our petri dish in the autoclave...
OK, this is absolute nonsense, but how the hell do we know? Serious... this makes as much sense as anything else... so I'll tip a shot of the tequila I'm drinking tonight to Ser Schmixiv... and his lab experiment. I hope he got an A for this. I htink he deserves it. --giggles--
I do not expect you to out yourself for down voting me... just as I would not epect libdems to admit they voted to condemn our country. At heart, they are no less destroyers than the Socialists and Leninists - not just self-centered destroyers to the end, but those who would burn our constitution because you think it not exactly as you feel it should be.
Yeah, I am a Theist. I know you have to hide in the shadows, not because you have a belief in your own structure, but because it's far easier, on the internet, to be a troll stab-and-slasher hiding behind a keyboard than standup for what you believe in, and give a RATIONAL argument to that.
Hmmm????
Of course religion will not enslave us. That would be like saying guns kill people. It is religious people who would enslave us.
Slaves weren't counted as people. Not really. Three fifths and all that. Still, just demonstrating absurdity.
The Golden rule however, in today's perverted society is questionable cause what one might deem acceptable done to others may not be acceptable done on to me.
Galt's oath is one of my favorite's and of course: No one may initiate force, fraud or coercion upon any individual nor any individual's property or contracts, is my number one choice. It actually underlies our constitution. Shame it wasn't stated out right then liberals couldn't change the intent to suit themselves.
I'm not saying Dr. Carson can't "enslave" us. Who knows what will really happen when someone takes office? What I am saying is it isn't the religion that will do it. Religion used in that manner is a tool.
Also, I'll say it again: there could not have been more freedom when there was slavery simply because the slaves were not free. The only way there could have been more freedom for the entire population, at that time, would be if the slaves were not counted as people and, therefore, not part of the population.
During the time frame I referred to there were even fewer laws than that.
Since I was not there for either, this is all the facts I have to go by.
Your statement implied that prayer in school may have had something to do with having more freedom.
My statement implied that legalized slavery may have had something to do with having more freedom.
Neither statement is true but one is just as likely as the other.
I believe Rush calls that "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd".
Those who claim objectivity along with their mysticism are not objective; they are pragmatic.
Religiosity, like any belief system, is formed from ideas in human heads. Ideas, like other organic entities, seek to survive and proliferate. True objectivity is the defense against that kind of viral infection. A=A is the epistemological litmus test.
What humanity has not yet achieved is not to resort to murder when ideas seem to clash. We need that next stage of psycho-epistemological evolution.
Load more comments...