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."
You type: | You see: |
---|---|
*italics* | italics |
**bold** | bold |
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.
Is faith an important driver in Dr. Carson's life? Absolutely. But there is a huge difference between that and forcing it on others.
And by the way, Carson is dead on when he states that the Founders were overwhelmingly Christians. See: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding... for a list of every single founder and their declared affiliation.
-1 for a baseless attack post. You don't have to like Dr. Carson or vote for him, but both of your accusations here are patently false.
Carson's past seems to be one of intellect and individual achievement.
He threw out the "fundamentally transform" line to his base at a political rally, but never 'elaborated' on what he meant by it. Progressives typically deny that he is a socialist with the sophistry of claiming he is not implementing government ownership of "all" means of production (and never mind the essence of what he is doing and would do if he had more power). They also do not recognize that his fascism is itself a form of socialism. There is more than enough in his past to figure out his ideological statism and collectivism, including his Marxist upbringing, Alinskyite "organizing", affinity to terrorist Ayers, specific actions with pen as president, "you didn't build that", past membership in an explicitly socialist party, etc., but most people don't take ideas seriously enough to integrate and assess what he is and the consequences.
db is looking at Carson's fundamental premises to assess what he is even though Carson does not think of himself as a theocrat and would not be able to or want to implement a full across the board theocracy. It is the fundamental premises that are incrementally killing us, one step at a time. Carson is an impressive individual, but has alarming false premises and confusions. He has a lot of explaining to do about what he would do and why instead of the constant religious zealotry if he is to be taken seriously as a better candidate.
My challenge is to the assertion of theocracy. There doesn't seem to be anything in his history to call into question his devotion to The Constitution (far cry from O, Clintons, or any liberal for that matter).
He also seems to be sincere in his Christian faith, which is another reason to challenge the theocracy assertion. Christianity is antithetical to tyranny. Christianity is about willingly coming to God, not being forced to convert or die.
Again, this discussion isn't about tenants of any faith, it's about an assertion of Carson/theocracy that has not been supported by facts.
If you think you have the right, power or wisdom to make decisions for Other People, you should not identify yourself with either of those labels.
Supporting Capital Punishment and opposing Gay Rights or Abortion Choice are two prime examples, even if you say you like lower taxes and 'smaller government.'
Those are NOT examples of 'lower government intrusion into individuals' lives.'
Methinks you're so busy complaining about the man's faith that you are allowing it to completely override any logic or reason you claim to operate on. He didn't perform surgery based on faith, but by application of sound medical principles, some of which he pioneered!
Have you read his story about growing up and how he went from having terrible grades to being tops in his class because his mother forced him to spend time reading instead of watching television? And how he bucked the overwhelming trend of black incarceration (Carson's father left at age 8) and instead became an enormously productive citizen?
Good grief, man. Bury your hatchet! It's as if you simply refuse to acknowledge anything good about someone of faith out of nothing more than spite. That's pure bigotry and hatred - hardly the hallmarks of an Objectivist.
You don't have to agree with Dr. Carson. You don't have to agree with me. But you could make an effort to disagree politely. Tolerance starts with tolerance.
I'm also noticing that your posts mysteriously are all winding up with an extra thumbs up, even though no one has even responded to many of them. So tell me, who is upvoting your posts?
Anyway, one of the secret up-pointers of some of ewv's posts is me, as I have for some of yours.
Comment on 'there is more out there'. This argument for obscurantism has been demolished both by Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins.
My browser won't let me vote for my own posts OR vote more than once for anyone else's...
Does your system work differently?
Maybe the Galt's Gulch site programmers should look into copying a technique from FaceBook... if you Like a page or a comment, names are displayed in alt-text if you hover the votes.
Would That be a solution for you?
Sikhs, maybe... most Buddhists... but darned near Every Other Religion seems to have their aggressive factions. Look around.
The third rail is questioning questioning one syllable of Rand. Ironically, many in the gulch have replaced The Bible with Atlas Shrugged and then chastise Christians as being dogmatic.
Rand was no doubt a great thinker, but her wisdom doesn't exceed the thousand years of human history.
You don't have to vote for Dr. Carson - there are plenty of candidates. But if you're going to claim to be an Objectivist, your first and foremost priority should be accurate representations of reality. This falls far short of that.
He promotes adding a second health insurance program to citizens to cover costs up to a few thousand with Obamacare converted to a single payer for catastrophic care.
He never talks about our losses of rights by Bush or Obama. He doesn't seem to care about our loss of privacy from government.
+1
Jan
I'm by NO means advocating to a theocracy. Like Carson, I believe The Constitution is the law of the land, That said, it's informed by the moral compass of the Judeo-Christian principles of Western Society.
My question continues to be, on what did dbhaling base the assertion of Ben Carson wanting a theocracy (original post)?
The founding ideas of America were the rights of the individual to his own life, liberty, property and pursuit of his own happiness here on earth in accordance with his own reason in choosing his own goals, free of authoritarian controls. Christianity demanded duty to serve a supernatural god; renunciation of reason, of happiness and of life on earth; sacrifice to others; and an ethics of duty and submission across the board in the form of dogmatic commandments. It was primarily other worldly and mystical, with duty to others on earth as a distant second. It was the philosophy of the entrenched ignorance and stagnation of the Dark and Middle Ages, not America. Christian mysticism, duty, sacrifice on earth as a way of life, and other worldliness did not and could not possibly intellectually lead to the American ideals of achieving happiness on earth under a system of capitalism and material values, which religionists have continued to denounce for centuries. It is also not what most Americans who consider themselves to be "Christian" take seriously in their own lives, even while they embrace the worst ethical premises of self-sacrifice, with deadly consequences.
The Enlightenment did not completely eradicate religion or altruistic ethics, but to the extent that intellectuals paid lip service to its premises -- with no solution to it in philosophy, especially in ethics -- the accomplishment of the founding of America was in spite of, not because of, the remnants of the religious mentality. It was not accomplished by the remaining most fervent mystics, evangelists and Bible thumpers. The founders were generally ardent admirers of Newtonian science and reason. (See I. Bernard Cohen's Science and the Founding Fathers) Christianity played no role in the founding Enlightenment political philosophy and principles of government.
The Bible is not the basis of the Constitution. The few references to religious notions related to founding documents were not specifically Christian, like the deistic notion a creator (in the Declaration), were deliberately vague, and played no actual role in the ideas, nor could they have in any logical way.
Ben Carson and other religious conservatives who constantly push religion in their politics are not only intellectually ignorant of the historical and philosophical basis of a free society, they are a threat to it. See Ayn Rand's "Conservatism: An Obituary" in her Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. They continue to inject and dominate irrelevant religious dogma into political discussions that not only cannot support a free society but undermine it. Yet the ugly trend has been to progressively increase pushing this nonsense rather than leave their religious beliefs private.
Ben Carson in particular appears to allowing his religious obsessions to take over everything he does, now in politics. He has said little about the policies he would pursue, in part because he pushes religion instead. He emphasizes his professed religious righteousness (mixed with some crackpot history and philosophy) at the expense of rational defense of individualism and freedom, and in place of discussing policy for serious national problems -- as if to say, 'I am religious so whatever I do will be good and never mind what that may be'. The exceptions have been his revealing his sweeping, dogmatic attacks on a woman's right of abortion and denunciations on religious grounds of certain kinds of scientific research. Whether or not he has good ideas that have yet to be expressed, this is not promising as he uses religion to rationalize interfering in highly personal choices not made in accordance with his religion.
For all his success as a surgeon, and because that is where he dedicated his time, he does not appear to understand much at all of political philosophy and the kinds of problems we face. (Has he ever mentioned property rights?) Previous interviews with him -- a few years before he became famous for opposing Obamacare at an official presidential prayer meeting -- show him as rather conventional in altruistic-based establishment government. He now appears to be trying to catch up on his lack of certain kinds of important knowledge by listening to anti-intellectual stock conservatives who have his ear. Whether or not he thinks of himself as a theocrat (which he apparently does not), he badly mixes his espousal of the Constitution with incompatible religious dogma. If he were not doing that, he would not be promoting the religious restrictions he advocates. The problem is not that he is explicitly anti-Constitution on principle but rather that he doesn't know the difference.
Neither Carson nor anyone else electable could turn this country into a full blown theocracy within a presidential term of office, and he is very mixed and would not want to. But everywhere he pursues religious restrictions while ignoring reform of already existing government abuse is another nail in the coffin of this country. He could be expected to worsen the entrenchment of altruistic-based welfare statism across the board, intellectually unable to challenge it, and he could be expected to promote specifically religious agendas such as suppressing abortion rights wherever he could get away with it and to follow Bush's ugly precedent in discriminating against stem cell research on religious grounds (while doing nothing to alleviate government funding controlling research). Whatever else he might try do on top of it as consequence of his fundamental religious premises and which he dares not announce in advance, that attack on science alone is a mind boggling theocratic precedent to build on. Any of this religious fanaticism pushed in politics is enough to frighten reasonable people into either not voting or running from him, pushing the country into the arms of a Hillary Clinton.
I don't recall hearing Ben Carson mention his religious position even once in the debate last night.
I'm still deciding on which candidate is my first choice, but Ben Carson and his religiously grounded morality certainly is not my last choice.
The "boundary" of abortion is pre-birth. Your false insinuation that I support murdering babies is an irrational personal smear and is morally despicable.
There's a profound difference between "the church" with the pilgrims/colonists were renouncing and Judeo-Christian morality. You seem to be throwing everything you can think of against the wall and hoping something will stick.
There's simply no getting around the fact that the Founding Father were deeply religious men, and it was their belief that our natural rights come from our Creator that guided in the founding principles. Belief in our Creator and reason are not mutually exclusive. Again, one need look no further than their assertion of where our natural rights derive.
This may differ from your philosophy, but simply wanting an apple to be an orange doesn't make it so... A is A.
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.
One might also take note of Washington's first Thanksgiving proclamation and the chruch services conducted in the Capitol building during Jefferson's tenure as President.
America was not founded as a theocracy (quite the contrary), but to say its Founding Fathers were not guided by their faith and the fact that our natural rights come from our Creator is to ignore documented history.
That's one reason I can't see the 'logic' in your 'arguments.' It still keeps walking and quacking like a duck! A Christian Fundamentalist Evangelical Duck.
Please don't assume we're all evil because we don't agree with you. Rand had very little use for or support of Religion, and while there are many 'believers' in this group, many Objectivists (let alone atheists) have some pretty 'strongly held opinions' on the subject and many will appear to be strongly In Disagreement with some of the positions you've taken.
How many books have been written in the past century or two to try to answer the kind of question you're posing?
If the answer is obvious, where's the consensus? There isn't any because 'consensus' of 'agreement' is NOT "proof." It's just a group of folks who agree with each other on some topic.
And in many similar situations, one person's interpretation of What The Founding Fathers Really Meant may not hold any water for the next person in line.
Personally, I espouse the Socratic Method of asking questions in the search for Root Cause of an issue or problem. Believers don't tend to stick around for discussions like that, in my many years of experience.
I would venture that there Just Might be something they're Afraid Of. I wish they'd stick around long enough to keep peeling the layers off that onion.
Cheers!
https://www.plusaf.com/
Your a little weak on your philosophy, Paine, Jefferson and the founding fathers were all followers of Locke, but they were not followers of Hume and the Scottish Enlightenment.
For the record, I am not Christian, nor am I observant of any faith, but I ardently defend the religious liberty of others to practice their religion without government interference. Or to be free to not practice any religion. I find the PC opposition to anyone expressing or even admitting to any religious connection much more troubling than any presidential candidates profession of personal faith.
Reasoning with false propositions and then believing the results of such reason is faith. It is easy for a person to get into such a trance state by suspending one's critical faculty and thinking selectively. Your " Can you wrap your mind around that fact?" is an example of such a mental state.
What I do not get is why so many conservatives and other theists are hanging out at a site dealing with Ayn Rand and Objectivism which by its nature has no supernatural aspects to it and thus nowhere to place a god which would create existence, i.e., the natural world.
This goes beyond the metaphysical aspects of creationism as a substitute for science and rational understanding. It also includes the embracing of faith as a means of knowledge in rejection of reason (including false and contradictory claims of rationalizing faith in the name of reason), duty and sacrifice as ethical premises, and in politics the promotion of government to interfere with people's personal lives and work conflicting with religion dogma.
There are two aspects to this. One is that a number of people have enough good in them that they are attracted to the sense of life and at least some of the principles of Atlas Shrugged despite the influence of religion. Almost everyone is subjected to that to some extent from a very early age, and remnants or worse are often retained later in life, making it difficult to sort out without a proper education. This results in genuine confusion even by some who like Ayn Rand and would like to understand. That can only become straightened out through rational discussion for those open to it and not so emotionally programmed that they refuse to question fundamental concepts and methods of thinking.
The other aspect is the handful of militant religious conservatives hostile to Ayn Rand's ideas who think they are supposed to push their nonsense here in some kind of battle despite the fact that it is contrary to the purpose and guidelines of the forum. They are destructive and don't belong here at all.
Taken together, it is true that this forum intended for Ayn Rand's ideas is too often dominated by stock conservative dogma or the current fad in slogans. It has kept a number of more serious people interested in Ayn Rand from participating because the boring nonsense makes it not worth it. That of course is what the militants want.
The fact that we are not omniscient and so do not know everything about the universe is not a justification for faith in the supernatural. There are no facts that justify leaping to supernatural beliefs. That you do not understand everything means that you don't understand it, not that making up religious dogma explains the rest. "God did it" is not explanation. When you don't understand something it's time to top talking about it as if you do.
Insisting on reason is not an "elitist mentality". Your personal hostility does not belong here. If you can't accept that Ayn Rand rejected all forms of the supernatural and the accompanying religion then there are many other places you can go to promote your religion.
and what some of us have trouble 'wrapping our minds around' is that Those Events and Experiences just never seem to be documented, accurately reported, proven Or Replicable in Any Way, Shape Or Form!
Sorry, it's the 'scientist in me' that really likes to see reproducability, evidentiary documentation and proof and 'shit like that' Before I can agree with what People Believe.
There are tons of things "we can't prove or understand" but unless that phrase is followed immediately by the word "YET", someone is heading in the direction of Faith and Belief on you and suddenly Proof will be irrelevant to the alleged 'discussion.'
I'm not schizophrenic either, and I've never had any such similar experience. I like proofs and replication of experiments, but have never seen any reasonable data to show me a reason to not be an atheist.
And, unlike many Theists of all flavors, I can be a kind, ethical, generous, loving person AND be an atheist at the same time. And I don't believe that I'm all that unusual... :)
Faith is the opposite of reason, not something that results from it. Atheism is a-theism, a rejection of belief in the supernatural, not a preoccupation. It is understood through reason, not "wrapping" one's mind around contradictions to embrace them. It becomes politically relevant to emphasize in defending against theocratic attempts to impose faith based government restrictions. It becomes philosophically important to discuss when it is misrepresented by religionists or when someone is genuinely confused and needs to rationally discuss it. None of this is "preoccupation".
What arrogance.
It's a belief, unprovable at all, and about as weak a proof or justification for your continuing 'belief' as pretty much anything you could say!
Until She Died has all the implications in it of a "I'm right, but we all have to die in order to see that I am/was Right." Poppycock!
That's the core of Belief... A strongly-held opinion in the absence of any tangible proof.
As long as A=A, anything resembling 'after-death experiences, revelations or 'truths' ' absolutely should have no traction here!
After All (so to speak), if there IS a 'heaven', why doesn't everyone's 'near-death experiences' tend to have anything in common???.... sure, they see their dear, departed relatives and all that, but shouldn't they all see the same surrounding environments? Same trees, lakes, clouds? Or are there lots of different 'heavens' where you will go, depending on ... what?!
Trying to answers to questions like those suck one down a rabbit-hole of fantasy in which only "Believers" can Find Common Truth. And even That is 'uncommon.'
Yep, and I CAN wrap MY mind around That! :)
I suspect that is true as well.
and, I think you now it.
Personally, it doesn't matter to me one iota what she did or didn't believe on her deathbed (or what anyone else believes of disbelieves on theirs) but I wouldn't doubt it that most hedge their bets when their life is on the line...why not? Worst case you blank out to nothing, best care you're forgiven, accepted,and squeak in under the wire.
The other thing I would add is that if you are only looking for people who agree with you 100%, you're looking for an incredibly boring and non-existent world. One of the great things about life is the vast variety of people! We couldn't laugh at the idiots if there weren't any. We couldn't pan the stupid political decisions if there were no progressives, communists, fascists, etc.
Religion is fundamentally antithetical to Ayn Rand's ideas. It is not "refreshing difference". Nor are statists destroying people's lives a "great thing about life" to give blarman something to laugh at.
Yes, you like to think of yourself as a "pure" Objectivist and that you openly condemn anything and everything else without toleration. That's your decision. My comment was a response specifically to lrshultis. You aren't invited to comment on why I choose to do things. You claim to own your life, so do I. If you want me to have any respect for you owning your opinions, you'd better demonstrate that that goes both ways.
Ha! I thought I was the only one on here optimistic enough to think we still have a chance of taking the country back.
To me, the election of Clinton, or Trump, will signal the official end of the "rule of law" that attempts to protect our individual rights. The confusing anarchy that follows will be a difficult time.
To address your point, though, what has Ben Carson said that makes you think he's for a religious theocracy?
He has stated emphatically, and on multiple occasions, that The Constitution is America's governing document. The basis for the Constitution, and the natural rights if affords, was the Founding Fathers belief in Judeo-Christian faith and morality.
The whole notion of natural rights (the fundamental pillar of the DOC and The Constitution) comes from the belief that we're endowed with them by our Creator. To reject the notion that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values is to fundamentally misunderstand the founders.
And to be clear, a deist is one who believes in creation but does not believe that God interferes with our day to day lives.
What part of "endowed by their Creator" is problematic? The Founding Fathers seemed to think it quite important.
That however is a fishing expedition. Of course America is not, and has never been a theocracy. That said, the volume of evidence demonstrating that the Founding Father were devout men of faith and God. Furthermore, the evidence is overwhelming that America (and western civilization) is based on Judeo-Christian principles.
I'm unclear as to why this is viewed a bad thing. Judeo-Christian beliefs and enlightened thinking are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the greatest scientific minds in history were also men of great faith in God.
As John Adams stated, our system of government will only work for a religious, moral people. A moral compass is essential to freedom and liberty. Without it, anarchy will rise, followed abruptly by tyranny.
The Declaration of Independence did not endorse Christianity https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Christianity with its mysticism and altruism is not the basis of the "moral compass" required for a capitalist society and is antithetical to freedom, not a requirement for it. See Ayn Rand's works.
Most great scientists have not been "men of God". To the extent they were religious personally they were able to keep it out of their work. They succeeded in science in spite of religion, not because of it. Those who are truly "men of God" wind up wallowing in asceticism like an Augustine or a Francis of Assisi.
This is an Ayn Rand forum, not a place to militantly and repeatedly promote religion and its revisionist history.
Ayn Rand was a brilliant philosopher, but she didn't walk on water. Her writings do not trump those of Locke, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Einstein, and countless others.
You can be a devotee of Rand and still be able to recognize that the Founding Fathers believed our natural rights came from our Creator... that what they themselves wrote. I'm not sure how quoting Rand refutes "endowed by their Creator" inclusion in the seminal founding document.
The meaning of the phrasing in the Declaration of Independence has already been discussed here and elsewhere on this forum several times and you ignore it. Instead of discussing what is written you make repetitive dogmatic pronouncements and derisive dismissals as you you promote your religious dogma.
No one has relegated "Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein to the JV science squad". That is your own snide invention. Take your abusive posts somewhere else.
The hostility is entirely incoming, as I've not personally attacked anyone.
http://Dictionary.com (for expediencies sake).
Deism
1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
That circle is impossible to square with those who want to jettison Judeo-Christian principles from the founding of this country.
Again, this is getting away from your original assertion that Dr. Carson wants a theocracy. Can you provide a single example of him advocating for this?
It's not typical Christian so much as it's typical of a certain kind of dogmatic pseudo intellectual religious conservative.
I'm somewhat baffled by the denial of the undeniable. The founders has NO intention of the church driving America, but they assert that they were not guided by their faith is contradicted by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. No serious scholar can deny it.
But again, we've gone beyond the scope of your initial assertion about Carson. But there, too, he (Carson) has stated emphatically that The Constitution should be the law of the land.
What baffles me is the insistence of some in denying historical fact to make America comport with Rand's philosophy. Rand was not a Founding Father. Had she been around at the time, she may have had profound arguments with the likes of Adams, Washington, and Jefferson.
You may not like the fact that faith and belief in natural rights coming from our Creator was part of the Founders guiding beliefs, but your dislike does not change the facts.
Again, this is far afield of the initial assertion of the discussion about Carson and theocracy.
Those are the facts. Read the Federalist Papers or the Antifederalist Papers. Read the journals of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, or any of the others. They were spiritual men, but they staunchly held to the belief that belief could not and should not be enforced by government fiat. That belief was ensconced as the First Amendment and the explicit prohibition on a religious test for government service.
You seem to have the opinion that nothing good ever came of those who professed faith. If that's how you want to view 99.99% of this world's occupants, that's up to you. But even a broken watch gets the time right twice a day.
Good way to put it. Accomplishments cannot come from something that does not exist.
a little satanic if you ask me
Notice they WON'T worship the CREATOR of all things & material. That's the difference.
Edited a bit of spelling.
You may want to check writings of Founding Fathers and reassess your position. Case in point: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
Our Founding Fathers were most assuredly Christians. They did not, however, want an established federal religion/church (at state level was perfectly fine, though).
Read it for yourself & decide if he's really a true Christian. It is a deep and interesting read.
And now for the founding father: http://washingtonsheadquarters.org/wp... and http://transplantedtatar.com/2013/01/...
Because this awesome site is primarily dedicated to Objectivism, I will not fully engage in any debate that centers in on religion. I stand by my original charge: masonry isn't Christianity because if you're going to worship GOD, you're NOT going to refer to Him as (so stupid) as "The Great Architect Of The Universe". Give me a break. Anyone who's a Christian knows that God created everything: including the very things that 'architects' use to build their stuff. Worshipping the "architect" versus the Creator means they choose to worship 2nd place. 2nd place is: First loser. (I borrowed phrase that from the awesome U.S. Navy Seals)
The other thing that I did not find (may have missed it) is 'how' they determined the religion of an individual. The only way I would consider legit is by self-declaration - you can attend a service for social or reasons (such as keeping your SO happy).
Good info. Thank you.
Jan
Jan
Adding to his intellectual dishonesty; what he has done his whole adult life has required a scientific mind and confidence in his own abilities. Now he is willing to give credit for all of that to a god, even though in the debates he is willing to say "I did that". Imagine the contradictions in his head.
Carson has never stated anything other that he is an accomplished man of faith. He has stated that he will not support a theocracy, Christian or otherwise. He's also stated that the Constitution trumps religion. But lets sensationalize fears and go against his words, without cause. Thus far Carson is an intelligent man of honor and integrity..thats seems not enough for some rational thinkers. Our Founders were essentially Christian, Deism is still a belief in a God.
http://www.deism.com
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ben...
Man, if Carson was an athiest or pretended to be one, or was dishonest enough to sidestep questions about his beliefs, the folks here would be deliriously happy and lauding his accomplishments
We, western civilization, owes much, its very existence, to Christianity. That is fact.
So no one who ever had a belief did anything not completely aligned with those beliefs. Odd, this country was founded by folks with beliefs and yet its open to all manner of beliefs, including not to believe in anything.
I appreciate the point taken for having a differing opinion. If it was related to the final statement I made I suggest you read on the Dark Ages and the unifying role of the catholic church in rescuing Europe from anarchy AND the muslims. I'm not remotely catholic nor do I condone what they have done in the past but they do get credit for saving western civilization, starting with Constantine.
I am not mormon, but live in las vegas, founded by mormons. They are still persecuted for their polygamist beliefs ( I say a man who takes on multiple wives shouldnt be jailed , but perhaps given a stint in a nut house (kidding)). Warren Jeffs was on the FBI "most wanted" list, primarily for his polygamist beliefs (although they did dig up a lot of other dirt to convict him on).
The third tier is gone, the second is being set up and that leaves Dump Trump and Party With Carly. It's a three way menage a trois of wrong, wrong, wrong and no right choices.
As for conservative? Together they are the controlling majority. When a group such as the Government Party Coalition takes power they take steps to keep power. Completely controlling the elections, fortifying the whole voting system and looting the votes with winner take all. There are a number of wikpedia and other articles that state the progression to a totalitarian government from a two party system of government from a multi party system. An accurate road map.
Conservative in their new found power in that they make change slowly if at all, and only when it suits them. Especially the left of the left who find comfort in being very very ultra conservative now that they are the inside of the in crowd. Their penchant for disobeying the Constitution is in seeing how long they can hoodwink the public into thinking there is still such a document.
The new attack is over 'a period.' that's coming up in Reframing 201 Addressing Key Issues and was touched on in 102. Liberal? Yes in the sense they are still moving left into a totalitarian Dear Leader Daddy State after destroying the nuclear traditional family. In short...you hit the nail on the head with a 10 pound sledge. For me it's a race to the finish with time left. For the country as a whole it's time to learn stiff arm salutes and how to say. "We Serve The Party." Why change a tried and true method.
Especially since totalitarianism is being voted in with the last gasp approval of the .....'electorate?'
Then it's your problem.. Starting with the bill for burying the remains....I haven't bothered. What for?
Doesn't he understand that all these changes happened in the 1950s. What an ignoramus..
They went after Trump when he was #1. Now its Carson's turn. The other Repubs are non events. The media loves liberals probably because they spend lots of money and the media will benefit from that. who knows..... I am voting for Trump if he makes it to the election- at least he isnt backed by anyone that I can see.
Maybe he should take that advice.
(I willingly post this knowing that I will probably achieve a new record of negative votes - C'est la vie)
In fact the ideas are not bad, tho' 'anything beyond human consciousness' is a good candidate for ridicule, compare talking about the thoughts of a dead body, whether eminent or not during life.
I agree about being cautious about the worth of simply quoting. Without a comment on relevance to some issue it is often just adulation or worship. Since I am again going against AJA in 'refrain from comparing' I give an up point - for the pleasure, for the inspiration to comment as well as for the good parts of the post.
The Founders saw nothing wrong with established secular law backed by religious morality. I would call them "enlightened Christians," rather than Deists, as they still believed in the power of prayer, but resisted mixing governance with faith. They expected people to support the law and each other to honor their god, in whatever way they believed.
A Deist (I am one - full disclosure) finds evidence of a higher spiritual force in reason and nature, believing each individual is an agent of the higher power. If you want miracles, make them happen.
You mean he might do things like try to change our present day moral atmosphere?
Do you think this might mean the end of Miley Cyrus sightings, Kardashian shows and stories? OMG, what about the Housewives franchises?
Who could possibly live without Celebrity Big Brother or I Am Cait?
Who could live without abortion? Imagine having to deny oneself a pleasure that is one's right? Imagine having to think of consequences before acting? Imagine, if you don't abort, having to pay to bear and raise the child...yourself? None of which is fair, or kind, to the woman who shouldn't have to say no. Nor is it right to expect a woman to use birth control (which, if it is being used, seems to fail constantly these days.)
Actually, I get the impression that Dr Carson is a religious man. I don't have the impression that he wants to force religion down the throats of citizens. He appears to embrace the morals and ethics of religion with the understanding that the individual is free to make errors. If you enjoy the increasingly paternalistic governments we have had for several decades, you may think of it as Dr. Carson appears to believe the "parent" must allow the "child" to learn from making errors.
I believe God was mentioned once or twice by our founders. They seem to have come up with a fairly decent road map that has led to the past success of the United States.
It appears to me that, for a number of years, enlightened humanists (including those whose words state a belief in God...but whose actions don't quite jive with the words) have chosen to use gradualism to veer off that map in order to progress toward an enlightened world.
Frankly, I liked the freedom of the dark religious ages (50s and 60s) a bit better than the feeling that I have to watch everything I say or do,,,even in my own house (cameras, microphones, TVs are two way streets.) You have to think twice before adjusting a bra strap at a stop light!
Isn't it odd that at the time we had prayer in school, we had far more freedom?
It appears to me that freedom is now somehow being confused with hedonism. Don't infringe on anyone's right to indulge in a moment of passion. Don't infringe on a persons right to make mistakes over and over again...while someone else pays for them (because it is only fair.) At the same time one must understand that individual rights, from privacy to obtaining individualized health care, must be sacrificed for the greater good.
I find it curious that you would think a religious man, who has stated that the constitution overrides religion, would create an enslaving religious theocracy.
Also, if what you say occurs...we become enslaved by Dr. Carson's government (should he win)...at least we will get to keep our heads should we disagree with his religious beliefs. I prefer that to the direction we are heading (excuse the pun) now.
Dr. Carson may "appear" to believe that the parent must allow the child to learn from his errors but when those "errors" are associated with a "cost" to society, will he be able to sit idly by and and do nothing?
Religious people do not believe there is any conflict between the Constitution and their religious beliefs so whatever he might do as president would, in his mind, be in accordance with the constitution. His statement means nothing.
I am responsible for that which occurs after those dates.
to the best of my knowledge we had no slavery.
we had apartheid and still do.
we had racism, sexism, and bigotry and still do.
we had and have government sponsored racism, sexism and still do
I just don't vote for the racist, sexist, bigoted government and I don't fill out their forms. Insead I write on it using one example This is a racist question. You should be ashamed for asking.
As for the 3/5's rule it was a northern invention to keep the amount of Representatives down. The south wanted full count for the opposite reason.
US Civics and history 101 high school level. at least back in 1960.
Where is the inference that anyone, here and now, should be responsible for what happened in the past?
As long as people of different races exist, there will be racism. As long as there are two genders, there will be sexism (and it appears there will be more ways in which to be sexist if gender as a social concept becomes generally accepted.)
Government will sponsor what it needs to in order to continue to exist and thrive.
Life 101
Either way you judge or examine or research in the context of the time for them and our times for us. One doesn't translate out of that hard and fast condition.
As far as your last is concerned poppycock. It will exist until people, humans, terrans refuse to participate in any way shape or form spoken or written.If you stand by your As long as declaration you are the problem. so I refuse to participate much less accept your racist, sexist outlook. Simple as that. It's a secular 'get behind me.'
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".
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.
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.
Jan
Question: How did Ben Carson ever get to be a brain surgeon?
..Piers Morgan, British progressivista.
Answer: By graduating Yale, U Michigan Medical School, and a residency in neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins.
Hope that helps, unemployed TV guy.
..David Burge
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegra...
10 common sense rules help us do that. It took millennia for mankind to come up with that realization. This is what our forefathers meant by being a 'Virtuous' people. Do not confuse, which an easy thing to do, The common sense realizations of our biblical ancestors and the destructive organizing of those life lived lessons.
If you want common-sense guidance to ethical values, check out Rand's list of 7 virtues, http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/Vir.... Compare these to the traditional seven deadly sins. Significantly, pride occurs on both lists, though differently defined.
Ultimately there is the one golden rule variously stated: Treat others as you want to be treated; do unto others as you want done unto you; don't do to others what you don't want done to you; and the clearest formulation, Galt's Oath -- "I swear by my life and my love of it that I shall never live for the sake of another [man] nor ask another to live for mine."
Interactions among individuals are thus by mutual consent for mutual benefit. No one may initiate force or fraud against another. Religion is fraud. Political power is force. Measure your candidates accordingly.
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.
Load more comments...