Secularism
Secularism has become a religion for the Modern American Leftist (MAL). The principle of Church and State separation for the MAL is not based on “separate but equal” footing. The MAL practices an intolerant religion that requires the dominion of the secularism over all other beliefs.
The public schools have become the MAL’s church. Daily attendance is required all year round so the virtues and benefits of unfiltered secularism can be preached to the young. Posting the Ten Commandments or the valedictorian’s reference of God is considered a sacrilege in this holy place.
It was the Founder’s intent separate religion from politics because they saw that the connection corrupted both. But the Declaration of Independence makes clear that it was not their intention to supplant the authority of God with the authority of the state. The assertion that rights are “endowed by their Creator” is meant to temper the reach of the government.
Our failure to comprehend that lesson is degrading both our schools and our communities.
This letter has not been edited.
Is it any wonder that the vast majority of secularists are either socialist or marxist. Both groups of which hate religion of any sort that would allow free thinking.or individuality of morals.
Posted by on October 18, 2007 02:38 PMAnyone that makes a statement like that of 2:38 is obviously guilty of not being able to think very deeply.
Posted by BO on October 18, 2007 03:07 PMJames Jones, Jim Jones, coincidence, I think not.
Posted by flimflam on October 18, 2007 03:14 PMI'd was thinking of some rather sarcastic statements about JJ's little rant, but decided to point out the one big flaw in his thinking:
Attendance to public schools is not mandatory. You have the choice of home schooling or a private religious school. Or you can send them to public schools to learn their 3 R's and you and your minister can teach the 4th R, Religion, at home without worrying if the school is teaching your particular flavor of faith.
Posted by Roger on October 18, 2007 03:37 PMI love when conservatives play the victim card.
Posted by on October 18, 2007 04:03 PMHere are the facts stated in Jones post:
The rest of the post consists of various of his opinions.
Posted by Truth on October 18, 2007 04:11 PMThomas Jefferson carefully chose the word creator because to appease the religionists and at the same time show that a deity is a personal belief and government institutions should not use God, the 10 Commandments, etc. Jefferson personally believed christianity was the cruelest hoax in the history of mankind.
Latter government documents supersede the Declaration anyway. Specifically the 1st amendment of the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli make clear the US does not recognize any religion.
In short James, I won't force science into your religious indoctrination camp--you keep your mythology out of the taxpayer supported, government owned, public schools (unless it is a mythology class that is).
As for the paranoia about a religion of scularism, that usually comes from t.v. preachers with diamond pinky rings. As Ray Stevens said "Would Jesus wear a Rolex on his T.V. show?"
Posted by Edmond on October 18, 2007 04:22 PMJJ said:
"intolerant religion that requires the dominion of the secularism over all other beliefs."
What ordinary people are doing is simply (as allowed by the Constitution) not allowing the dominant religion to thrust its bronze age mythology down the throats of a captive & impressionable audience. We are not "imposing" our ideas on anyone, we are simply not allowing you push your religious beliefs on our kids.
Blind adherence to religious dogma tends to stunt mental & intellectual growth. And the proof is there for all to see.
Posted by drew on October 18, 2007 04:25 PMOh, Lord (oops, that must mean I'm not a liberal) where to begin?
Fom the top:
"separate but equal”" was the rallying cry of the segregationists. Not the best people to quote.
Next, I didn't realize public school attendance was required at all, much less all year-round. My nephews must be major criminals for being home schooled through 6th grade and taking summer vacation from their public school earlier this year.
Finally, the Declaration really has nothing to do with the mechanics of government. You may be thinking of the Constitution. The Declaration was basically a "#@%& You" to King George (shades of CSU?) and a letter of intent that they were to become insurgents and overthrow the legally established goverment of the time.
In being a religionist, James Jones is characteristically in competition with anyone or anything that does not agree with his dogma. It doesn't matter if a concept is non-religious, it must be construed to be religious, intolerant and infexible in order to be understood.
Posted by What? on October 18, 2007 05:22 PMHow many wacky memes can Jimmy fit in one incoherent letter?
Posted by James Jesus Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on October 18, 2007 05:26 PMRoger & Mac
Here's a pop quiz. What, if any, difference is there in these two statements.
1. Daily attendance is required all year round.
and
2. Attendance in public schools is mandatory.
Edmond,
So you learned in school that the Treaty of Tripoli supeseded the Declaration of Independence.
We may be in more trouble then I realized.
Posted by James Jones on October 18, 2007 05:46 PMWhat?
For instance?
Posted by James Jones on October 18, 2007 05:49 PMRepugnant,
I don't know. How many have I done so far?
Posted by James Jones on October 18, 2007 05:52 PMMAL, I think not. We are The Secular Humanists Elite. Or SHE for short.
You can call secularism a religion, you can call a dog an aardvark, doesn`t mean a thing.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 18, 2007 05:53 PMJames you drove the nail straight out the back of the board, your letter is spot on in my opinion just by reading some of the childish posts in response to it.
And to think that now some of our educators in this country can prescribe birth control to your daughters without your knowledge or consent. What is next, conjugal visit rooms in our elementary schools?
The end is near for any rational policy in public education - secularism is alive and well in our the education system. It started way before the forum at Boulder high school last year and will continue until all beliefs that parents instill in their children are derailed by their policies.
It is no wonder our children are so far behind in education when compared to the rest of the modern world. All we know how to do is preach anti religion, anti US, pro-sex , pro-drugs (but responsibly of course) plus all of the anti Bush sentiments and BDS (Bush derangement syndrome) to the kids who should be learning ABC's and math.
God help us all - oops - is that a separation issue?
Jim,
Great letter. It's no wonder that the regulars don't understand a word of it. You can tell a lot about a man by viewing those that align themselves against him. You must be a great person Mr. Jones.
Yet our kids used to learn much more in school.
Let's just keep it up and see how many failures we can put out.
GO PUBLIC EDUCATION!!!
Jack,
I don't know how, or if, we can reclaim the public schools in the name of education. I always keep Reagan's maxim in mind and keep faith with the common sense and good will of the American people.
Whatever the answer might be - reform or revolution -ultimately we will do it because we understand at a basic level that the little ones are both our responsibility and our future.
Thanks for the kind words.
Posted by James Jones on October 18, 2007 06:21 PM"Here's a pop quiz. What, if any, difference is there in these two statements.
1. Daily attendance is required all year round.
and
2. Attendance in public schools is mandatory"
Well, # 1 is out of context here - the sentence immediately prior should read "The public schools have become the MAL’s church"
Using that context, from what I can see, they mean the same thing, except that # 2 has some leeway for vacation days and holidays.
Unknown,
D+
"But that's out of context" alibi doesn't quite work lacking a genuine nexus.
Holidays? Now there's a reach. You would have gotten a C- without it.
Posted by James Jones on October 18, 2007 06:26 PMJones: "The assertion that rights are “endowed by their Creator” is meant to temper the reach of the government."
Those words are in the Declaration of Independence. It is the Constitution and not the Declaration of Independence that sets forth the reach of government.
The Declaration of Independence made no attempt to say how the colonies would be governed. They were adopted in 1776. The next year, the Articles of Confederation were adopted to set out how the colonies would be governed. Then, in 1787 the Articles were replaced by the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The statement "endowed by their creator" does not modify the words "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" or give those words a different meaning than what they would otherwise have had.
Jones: "But the Declaration of Independence makes clear that it was not their intention to supplant the authority of God with the authority of the state."
The authority of God as determined by who? Jones? All the Declaration of Independence says is that those rights were endowed by God. It says nothing approaching what Jones attributes to it.
Unfortunately, Jones has a bad habit of going beyond what the facts say or justify in order to make a point.
Posted by Truth on October 18, 2007 06:28 PMJack has a point I agree public education is screwed up, but it has nothing to do with God. My southern school in the 60's had plenty of religion in it, but it was still going down the drain quickly.
Posted by Mac on October 18, 2007 06:28 PMSkeptical,
They are kind of a raggedy-ass bunch but they're all I have so far.
And - what they lack in intelligence they make up for with enthusiasm.
Keep pushing back my friend.
Posted by James Jones on October 18, 2007 06:30 PMSharon B,
How about
Organization of Secular Humanistic Inexorable Troglodytes
What do you think?
Posted by James Jones on October 18, 2007 06:34 PMMac,
Oh I don't know. Look how good you turned out.
Posted by James Jones on October 18, 2007 06:37 PMJames Jones, how about Modern American Conservatives. MAC and cheese? Or Retro-American Puritan Elites?
What does any of this prove, except how clever we two are?
Posted by Sharon B. on October 18, 2007 07:27 PM My Dear Mr. Jones,
Being a product of public schools in the 50s and 60s, I remember well the mandatory fear-inspired pledge to "God" (added in '54)and country, as well as the "duck and cover' drills to protect us from those "Godless Commie's" nukes.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that both were an excersize in futility, simply because "God" never protected anyone from a "noo-cu-lar" ( in Bush-speak) weapon, and if one was close enough to observe a flash, we just as well could have bent over and kissed our asses goodbye.
The same fear-based propaganda is still alive and well in our public schools.
Also, since the Commies wasted all their capitol on weaponry and have since gone bust (except in China).
W Bush has seen to it that Muslims have replaced the Commies as the reason we need to pay tribute to the Military-Industrial-Complex (MIC.)
Thank God for my public school education.
Alas, if WE didn't spend so much on OUR weaponry ALL our children could be educated enough to live in peace and not think they have to 'duck and cover" from terrorists.
Jim, I sincerely hope you'll think about the possibilities of investing in education instead of selling our seed corn to buy "single-use nukes" that have no investment return .
Posted by dmz on October 18, 2007 07:56 PMYou'll see that Jones will avoid the question of who determines what is the authority of God. And what God, the Christian one, the Quaker one, the Puritan one, or simply the deity, what? Is Jones saying the founders had the bible in mind, and, if so, on what basis? The fact is that Jones really doesn't say anything concrete, he just wants to vent his opinion about a few things. And he has every right to do that. But venting should not be confused with substance.
Posted by Truth on October 18, 2007 08:10 PMCharles B
It's not
Hahahahahah!!!!
You keep dropping that last "a." It should be
Hahahahahaha!!!!
Focus man - Focus!!!!!
Posted by James Jones on October 18, 2007 09:16 PMdmz,
So you think we should invest in education instead of nukes.
Interesting notion.
We will take it under advisement and get back to you real soon.
Posted by James Jones on October 18, 2007 09:21 PMSharon B,
You started it and now you don't want to play any more.
Just like a girl.
Posted by James Jones on October 18, 2007 09:23 PMEdmond,
You know nothing about Thomas Jefferson and his Christian beliefs. He was a very religious man. True Christian? Probably not.
He held church service in the congress building every sunday. Paid the marine core band to play the hyms out of US treasury. Paid for missionaries to the indians out of the same. The list goes on. Ahyone of you liberals who boast about T.J. know nothing about him.
Lets see... my statement came from a quote of his (look it up) and I read his version of the bible. By the time he got rid of all the old testament bs, saul of tarsus bs and miracle bs you and james love so much he was left with 143 pages of the teachings of Jesus.
Posted by Edmond on October 18, 2007 10:47 PMJames Jones. Conservatives Of the World, COW.
Regressed Old Conservatives` Kitch. ROCK
Now you.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 18, 2007 11:27 PMWhy do superstitous buffoons like JJ always try to equate secularism to a religion? Oh yeah, they figure that's the only way to drag people of an intellectual and skeptical bent down to their level. Sorry DAMF, not going to work, your sleazy church is losing it's battle against reality.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 12:18 AMEdmond
It was the Founder’s intent separate religion from politics because they saw that the connection corrupted both
Posted by James Jones on October 19, 2007 06:54 AMSharon B
I unerstand you once ran for the high office of:
Liberal Avatar of Concupiscent, Ululating Nabobs Association - LACUNA
Tell me it's not true,
Posted by James Jones on October 19, 2007 07:07 AMJames, I agree. It is past time to take this Marxist element to task. Thanks for the letter.
Posted by Ben on October 19, 2007 07:32 AMJames Jones seems to be filling in for Brian Stuckey in the Letters department.
It's always amusing when a religious conservative refers to something they disagree with--secularism, global warming--as a "religion": a mythology foolishly believed in by stupid people to further a political agenda. Can you say "irony"?
If secularism is a religion, why don't you respect it the same way you want your own religion respected?
As always, Jones avoids the hard questions. Such as, what God is he talking about, the Christian God, the Quaker God, the Puritan God, the deist God, the Mormon God, the Baptist God, the Catholic God, and on and on.
And where does Jones want us to go to find out what this God wants? The bible? And if so, why?
Here is the way a person who doesn't know what he is talking about answers his critics:
"They are kind of a raggedy-ass bunch."
Rather than address his critics, Jones would rather play games:
"Sharon B, How about Organization of Secular Humanistic Inexorable Troglodytes"
"I unerstand you once ran for the high office of: Liberal Avatar of Concupiscent, Ululating Nabobs Association - LACUNA"
The question is, is this Jones' second childhood or his first?
Jones' sermon might play well at some churches, but it falls short of being meaningful from an intellectual or common sense standpoint.
Hans,
I do respect secularism.
It was the Founder’s intent to separate religion from politics because they saw that the connection corrupted both.
I also understand the limits of secularism
But the Declaration of Independence makes clear that it was not their intention to supplant the authority of God with the authority of the state. The assertion that rights are “endowed by their Creator” is meant to temper the reach of the government.
Ben,
They don't call themselves Marxisits anymore. Their principles are Marxist but they call themselves Liberals.
It sounds better.
Posted by James Jones on October 19, 2007 08:23 AMTruth,
OK - I hate seeing you suffer this way so I will answer your hard question.
But first you have to understand this:
Different relgions have different theologies.
I know that seems complicated but time is short and you need to keep that in mind to understand the next bit.
Since the founders did not institute a national religion, different religions can flourish under the same government.
Americans can worship, or not worship, as they please and they all have the same standing.
This creates a condition often described as religious tolerance. That is a condition that does not exist in, say for instance, Saudi Arabia or among American leftists.
And just as a point of information -
The Quaker God is the True God.
But that's just between you and me - OK?
Posted by James Jones on October 19, 2007 08:37 AMIdiot wind, blowing through the cockles of your teeth. You're an idiot man, It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe
Posted by Bob Dylan on October 19, 2007 08:43 AMI guess James would like to see schools have classes in Snake Handling and Speaking in Tongues. Maybe he would have gotten a degree if they would have had these types of classes.
Posted by Dirk Diegler on October 19, 2007 08:54 AMJJ says:
"...the Declaration of Independence makes clear that it was not their intention to supplant the authority of God with the authority of the state..."
The Delcaration says:
"as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor"
To me that says that the STATES have the power to do the things mentioned, with the PROTECTION of Divine Providence (doesn't really say "God" in this section). Not the WITH THE PERMISSION OF or IN CONJUNCTION with Divine Providence. Seems like Divine Providence is being kept at arms length. At least, that's the way it reads to me.
Posted by Mac on October 19, 2007 09:03 AMJJ seems to understand this, but many others here do not appear to get it - the Declaration (by the way, we really should be talking about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, people) only mentions the word God once, and that is in this context: "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". Creator is also mentioned ONCE, and Divine Providence ONCE. This implies, to me, that the author(s) were not Christian, per say, but certainly spiritual. Also, they wanted to leave plenty of leeway for everyone to interpret it their own manner, thus building consensus in a very spread-out territory before mass communications.
Posted by Mac on October 19, 2007 09:11 AMI step out for a minute and now I have to read through all those responses, seesh.
OK, JJ, let's try this again, because you are obviously not reading my response:
You said: "Daily attendance is required all year round so the virtues and benefits of unfiltered secularism can be preached to the young."
I said: "Attendance to public schools is not mandatory."
Children are not forced to go to public schools. They (or more to the point, their parents) have choices. Kind of hard to shove things down someone's throat if they have the option to go elsewhere.
Whether the school is all-year or not is irrelevant. Some are, some are not. I never attended year-round in my years in private school or in public school.
And if you want unfiltered preaching, go to a private school. I am a product of a religious education and when I compare my education to that of my public school friends, I find I got the short end of the stick.
Posted by Roger on October 19, 2007 09:16 AMJones, while you, as I expected, mainly avoided answering my question, at least you got part of it right: "Different relgions have different theologies."
So which theology is it that you think the Supreme Court should be guided by when interpreting the Constitution? For example, when dealing with abortion, should the Supreme Court be guided by those Christians who think as you do, or with those who think that abortion is always wrong, or with those who think more liberally that there are a number of circumstances in which it is acceptable, or by those unaffiliated religious people who think abortion is always OK, or perhaps those who have a deist approach and do not think there is a God who has an opinion about abortion? Or do you think maybe that the Supreme Court should not be guided at all by different people's different religious beliefs?
I realize you don't want to pin yourself down to an answer, but isn't that a cowardly approach?
The fact is that you are simply unable to do more than make a general statement that our government should in some unexplainable way be guided by someone's religious beliefs. You are simply unable to apply your statements to the real world. I presume that you would like for that someone to be James Jones, right?
That is why your post is simply more of an attack sermon than a sensible and meaningful post.
Posted by Truth on October 19, 2007 09:18 AMI've always been amused by the jeebus jumpers and bible thumpers attempts to define humanism, whether secular or not, as a "religion so they could seek to ban it from public schools on the grounds of separation of church and state.I suppose unintended irony might be one description of this stance but I prefer rank hypocrisy.
Getting right down to it the leading humanist of western culture may very well have been Martin Luther after all he took god away from the priestly classes and delivered it into the hands of ordinary humans.
"It was the Founder’s intent separate religion from politics because they saw that the connection corrupted both," says JJ finally making sense but then employs reality to toss a rose into the fray leaving befuddlement in its wake through his impaired reasoning, to wt:
"The second solution to stop the Iraq war is to embrace Islam," says Osama bin Laden.
"I come to you Osama...Jesus dies for your sins...Yes, Osama, even you can be saved and enter into the Glory of Heaven," says Televangelist Bill Keller.
Therefore, JJ, let us all become secularists because you will never read a headline that says "Secularists Slaughter Secularists.
Deicide Corner: "God in his wisdom made the fly. And then forgot to tell us why." Ogden Nash and RG adds: "Credulous Noah could have swatted the fly. But the righteous Noah did not even try."
Poor Jimmy, so many many things to be afraid of.
If it isn’t the Mongol Hordes, or the War Against Christmas, it’s the dreadful number of ravening atheists and agnostics just plain not believing.
Of course Jimmy sees everything in terms of “Churches” and “sacrilege” and shadowy groups bent of oppression, but that is because Jimmy would do things that way and doesn’t understand (being the narcissist that he is) that anybody could possibly see things differently.
There is no “MAL” except in Jimmy’s fevered imagination, and atheism isn’t a belief with churchlike organizations, it is the absence of such beliefs, and an accompanying distaste and disbelief in such grand meta-narratives.
So sorry Jimmy, you will need to seek out or construct a new bogeyman to frighten yourself with, this one won’t do.
One of the most amusing things about all this ado about nothing is, simply, that Jimmy-Jesus boy himself - on another line of postings =-clearly states that he IS NOT RELIGIOUS. This line had to do with "morals" as Jimmy-Jesus was expounding on them.
Forked tongue, out of both sides of the moutn, all at the same time; you have a sermonette by Jimmy-Jesus Jones.
But, it does keep the forum FUN!
Posted by Old Grouch on October 19, 2007 10:56 AMMac,
I am referring to the following section:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The point being that rights are endowed by the creator and, by implication, not by the state. The next sentence:
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Asserts that it the role of government to protect those rights in a democratic process. These two statements describe the source of the rights of man, reject any notion of Divine Right and the limits the authority of government in a general sense.
Whatever relgious views the different founders had (and they varied widely) they agreed on the existance of a Creator and the establishment of what can be called a Natural Law.
That principle was argued again prior to the Civil War in the Lincoln/Dougals debates.
Douglas argued that slavery was justified because it was duly authorized by a democratic process. Lincoln argued that there is a Natural Law which establishes that all men are endowed with freedom irrespective of the wishes of the people expressed, however fairly, through the state.
In making this both Lincoln and the Founders rejected secular humanism without adopting any particluar religion. That is the genuis of our tradition.
We can discuss the Declaration and the Constitution separately. They were two different documents produced for two, different purposes.
Posted by James Jones on October 19, 2007 11:15 AMTruth,
"So which theology is it that you think the Supreme Court should be guided by when interpreting the Constitution?"
This is going to get complicated.
The Ten Commandments are etched in marble on the walls of the room where the Supreme Court meet.
But, that does not mean that the Supreme Court is supposed to use the Talmud to interpret the Constitution.
What the justices are supposed to use to interpret the Constitution is what is written in the Constitution. What they do is examine laws that have been passed or judicial rulings to determine if they comport with what is in the Constitution.
They do refer to other documents such as the Federalist Papers but since we are not a theocracy, they do not seek theologic instruction.
So the answer to your hard question is: None.
Posted by James Jones on October 19, 2007 11:27 AMJJ, I think you are making a (admittedly minor) leap with your logic. You say the Founders believed, whereas I think it entirely possible that this was just an 18th century sound bite. I imagine there is much research on this, but I don't have time to do it.
I would also argue that believe in a Creator does not necessarily mean belief in ANY religious system derived by or run by humans. Even the most "devout" (hee hee) athiest cannot arue that he or she was not created. The question is by whom or what:?
You are correct about the two documents - and I still maintain that the Declaration, aside from the "We're outta here" provisions, is a very vague document upon which to base any governmental decisions. I guess other people felt similarly, which is why the Constitution and B.O.R. were created.
By the way, you are great fun to debate.
Posted by Mac on October 19, 2007 11:36 AMMac,
My general understanding of Deism is the belief in God and the rejection of religion.
That's probably a fair description of Jefferson and Franklin.
There would , much like humanism, a lot of variations so it is dangerous to generalize.
But the generalizations help describe the principles.
Honest discourse is the best use of this page. Mutual respect is the key. I have enjoyed our debate as well.
Posted by James Jones on October 19, 2007 11:56 AMOh that terrible securalism. With all those secular sucide bombers and the secular tradition of oppressing women. Not to mention all those times the securalists come knocking on my door trying to convert me to their "faith" of evolution and reason.
What we need is
"Hans, I do respect secularism."
So your letter is not necessarily a complaint. That's nice to hear.
"I also understand the limits of secularism."
Fair enough; some of us recognize the limits of Christianity, or theism in general.
"Posting the Ten Commandments...is considered a sacrilege."
So what, then, is actually accomplished by posting the Ten Commandments? It's a flimsy moral guide at best (think of all the horrible things people do that technically don't break a single one of them; on the other hand, "Thou shalt not kill" has never prevented a war), and is often at odds with the rights guaranteed Americans in the Constitution. (Freedom of religion violates the First Commandment. Also, the American economy is based entirely on coveting.)
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on October 19, 2007 12:11 PMJames Jones, when you start a discussion with a flawed premise, "Secularism has become a Religion" then we have three choices: agree that up has now become down, that hot is cold, or, try to convince you that you error, or, ignore this flawed logic.
In one of your posts you use the term "they". Naughty, naughty, when I did that about pro-birth people you accused me of creating hobgoblins.
Now let me also speak of the founders intent as you did.
They needed justification to break away from King George. They needed a "higher power" than him. They chose "Creator".
Why? Who can say, you have your opinion of their intent, I have mine. Both are equally valid.
To say that it is self-evident, as they used that term, is awkward since they then went on to explain this concept that was not so self evident that it could stand alone without further description.
To say that certain rights come from a creator is nice, but wrong.
Humans have no more rights than a chipmunk. We do not have the right to life, or 50% of our pregnancies would not end in miscarriage, we do not have the right to liberty, but we want it, and the right to pursue happiness is lovely, but unrealistic in the natural world. And why did they stop after those three rights? Why then did they allow slavery? They used God, in the watered down form of Creator to justify their new government. They did not prove Gods existence, or demand that citizens affirm it, These rights exist only in human society. God does not grant us any of these wishes we call rights. We have rights under the Constitution, not in nature.
Secular humanists are gaining ground every day.
Since you live in Lakewood, drive by 10th and Pierce street. There is a white 2 story cape cod house on the east corner. I used to live there.
There is a plaque on the wall that SHE started here.
This was fun, but you are stubborn. Even at 7:00 in the morning.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 19, 2007 02:49 PMJones: "Mutual respect is the key."
As in:
Jones about his critics: ""They are kind of a raggedy-ass bunch."
???
Posted by Truth on October 19, 2007 03:11 PMJones says that theology has no place in Supreme Court determinations because we are not a theocracy. He must also think the same of deliberations by the president, the Congress and other government officials. So what meaning his original post has in real life he completely ignores. It sounds to me like he is pretty much in agreement with most secularists.
Posted by Truth on October 19, 2007 03:19 PMThe "Raggedy ass bunch," referred to James Jones supporters, not his critics.
He gets a browny point for that.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 19, 2007 03:27 PMHans,
What's accomplished by posting the Ten Commandments?
First consider the eithics andby that I mean the study of the general nature of morals and the specific moral chocies to be made by the individual in realitionship to others.
The ethics of a religious person will be informed by their religion. The ethics on a non-relgious person (including atheists) will be formed by some other logical formulations.
An atheist might reasonably say that the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments is a myth but; if more people lived their lives in conformance with Ten Commandments, then the world would be a better place.
So the Ten Commandments have a value beyond their importance as a relgious teaching. You express a good deal of contempt for the Ten commandments but you have not, at least so far, told us about the superior ethical template you prefer.
Second let's consider our form of government. The founders asserted that our rights are endowed by the Creator as I have discussed at great length above.
Secular Humanists on the other hand present the case for understanding the world without reference to a god.
They can't both be right - it's one or the other and the community has to make a choice. The decision to take the Ten Commandments down and forbid prayer and so on is an choice the presents the view of the Secular Humanists.
Refusing to allow the Ten Commandments to be placed on the wall even as an ethical code because they are also a religious teaching is choosing the Secular Humanist approach and represents (is my thesis) the intolerance the founders tried to avoid in refusing to intstitute a nationa religion.
Now you may argue the details of how Secular Humanism isn't actually religion but my point is that the result is the same.
A state-established religion inevitably results in the intolerance we see in the schools today where the valadictorian is forbidden from mentioning that her faith in God palyed a role in her success.
Posted by James Jones on October 19, 2007 03:36 PMCan I get an AMEN!
A lot of people struggle with questions of right and wrong: good and evil. Many study, pray or contemplate to find their way - but not you.
No you just walk around and by someehow or other by the age of ten the light of truth and beauty just bubbled up from the unkown inner reaches of your being and you saw it all.
You are one lucky guy.
Posted by James Jones on October 19, 2007 03:43 PMSharon B,
If human beings have no more rights than chipmunks, then what arguement do you have to make against the practice of slavery if it is duly instituted by a government that is ruled by the consent of the governed?
Stubborn - moi?
Posted by James Jones on October 19, 2007 03:47 PMTruth,
No Truth. You still haven't got it.
What the justices are supposed to use to interpret the Constitution is what is written in the Constitution. What they do is examine laws that have been passed or judicial rulings to determine if they comport with what is in the Constitution.
"..deliberations by the president, the Congress and other government officials" are different. But if, say for instance, the President makes a decision based on the dictates of his conscience and his conscience is informed by theology - that doesn't mean we are a theocracy.
If a citizen votes on a certain question based on the dictates of his conscience and his conscience is also informed by his theology - it still doesn't mean we are a theocracy.
Are you starting to see a glimmer here Truth?
Phrases like "He must also think" should never appear in your posts.
Posted by James Jones on October 19, 2007 03:57 PMJames Jones,
One of your responses stuck out to me. You said while discussing the role of a creator in the Declaration of Independence:
“Whatever relgious views the different founders had (and they varied widely) they agreed on the existance of a Creator and the establishment of what can be called a Natural Law.”
Later you wrote about the Lincoln/Douglas debates:
“Douglas argued that slavery was justified because it was duly authorized by a democratic process. Lincoln argued that there is a Natural Law which establishes that all men are endowed with freedom irrespective of the wishes of the people expressed, however fairly, through the state.
In making this both Lincoln and the Founders rejected secular humanism without adopting any particluar religion. That is the genuis of our tradition.”
I think you and I would both agree that the founders were not in agreement over what “creator” meant. Some were devout Christians and took creator to mean the Christian god, some were deists who believed in a creator but not a personal god (i.e. something created the universe, set it in motion but then apparently had better things to do and doesn’t get involved in this world or its people) while others were deeply skeptical about weather a creator even existed.
I am more interested in discussing the Natural Law aspect of your comments. Natural Law theory is fairly complex and covers a lot of area, but I believe in this discussion we are concerned with the Natural Law idea of inaliable rights or rights that are built into nature itself.
You seem to be coming from the position that Natural Law theory requires a deity. This is a common misunderstanding because it is the current dominant version of natural law and has been widely adopted by religions particularly Catholicism.
One of the earliest conceptions of Natural Law came from Aristotle. His ideas on this topic were not dominant in his writing, however he did distinguish between nature and law. Essentially he thought law was based on custom and culture which was variable, where as nature was consistent and existed out side of culture. He on a couple of occasions did mention that natural laws were superior to “cultural laws” but in other cases he seemed to say the opposite. It is unclear weather he really supported natural law theory or not. But one way or another he did inspire later Natural Law theorists. I think it is also important to note Aristotle’s conception of natural law did not depend on deities.
Secularism and Natural Law theory are not necessarily opposites. There have been a number of secular formulations of Natural Law theory. Notably, Hobbs posited one of the earliest secular versions of Natural Law theory. Locke later revised Hobbs theory as did Thomas Jefferson.
Additionally, legal positivism is a derivative of natural law theory which also holds the idea of inaliable right and there are certainly secular versions of this theory, perhaps most notably Bentham.
There are also blends of Natural Law theory that are semi religious and semi secular (i.e. the idea that natural law supersedes god, god being omnipotent could act against natural law, but if he did he would be in the wrong and should not be obeyed).
So when you combine the fact that there was no agreement on what a Creator was, and that Natural Law is not necessarily dependent on a deity, it is much harder to argue that the founders were rejecting secular humanism. I think likely some of the founders had a religious vision of the what the nation should become and some had a much more secular vision.
I think it is always a mistake to try to reduce the ideas of any generation to one agreed upon philosophy.
Keri,
Jefferson at one time described himself as a Christian Diest. There are all sorts of what you describe as "blends" of philosophy. There are in fact humanists who think of themselves as religious. Typically the borrow heavily from the Judeo-Christian ethic.
I'm not especially interested in whether Aristotle (who had no trouble believing in God, in fact he believed in a host of them) thought cultural law might supersede natural law. If he had something pertinent to say they you should adduce it.
Does Natural Law require a diety? Probably.
If there is a Natual Law then who wrote them and why? If they have evolved by chance and natural seclection then they are not laws. That is sufficient for me on this page.
It is an interesting question but not my motivation for posting here.
I am interested here in the question of whether
We put the Ten Commandments up on the school room wall.
Public prayer in school is acceptable or not.
The validictorian is allowed to assert that her success is due to her faith in a public assembly or not.
We teach our children they are part of something bigger then themselves or not.
It is a mistake to reduce the ideas of any generation to one philosophy which is precisely what the Secularists are doing today in our schools. The difference with your statement is that we have not all agreed on it.
We have a common heritage based on tolerance, classical liberalism and pluarlism to draw on and we are turning away from those traditions.
There are fundamentals we can rely on that have worked well for us in the first two centuries of the Republic. There is a reason for that.
But now we have a brave new world where the Ten Commandments have come down, the metal detectors have gone up and our children can no longer feel safe in our schools.
The choices we make have consequences.
Posted by James Jones on October 19, 2007 06:05 PMThe ten Commandments are pretty lame for the most part. See what George Carlin said about them.
First bunch all about God and his me, me me needs. Worship me, no other gods, etc, keep Sabbath holy and so on.
No commandments against rape, also no commandments on pre-marital sex. NSo word on wife beating either. Hmmm, looks like men and not God wrote those.
Just some good suggestions, been around for centuries before the 10 ones.
Put up the original versions, with all the wording, not the truncated version told to children.
No teacher lead prayer in schools, kids can pray on their own any time. That is not good enough for Christians who want not prayer in school, but school approved prayer.
James know this, but he acts like he never heard it.
Humans are social animals, and sociologists know that we get our human rights, from life to the pursuit of happiness in human society.
Out in nature, we have no rights period. Not one. There we are on equal, or less equal footing with all the animals.
Tying the 10 to guns in school is illogical. Put back the 10 and prayer and nothing will change, except kids will mock these changes and refuse to go along.
Saying choices have consequences and then listing choices and making up the consequences is silly.
We have metal detectors because there are so many hand guns out there, and there will always be mentally ill young men.
Was my previous post removed?
If so, for what reason?
Posted by Charles B. on October 19, 2007 09:50 PMLet me say it again Jimmy Jay:
Your religion is dying.
Christian evangelism like yours is the death rattle of your favored mythology.
That's a hopeful thing for the future of humanity.
(Note to moderator: Delete this to affirm that the RMN has a religious test for posting).
Posted by Charles B. on October 19, 2007 10:14 PM
Jones: "But if, say for instance, the President makes a decision based on the dictates of his conscience and his conscience is informed by theology - that doesn't mean we are a theocracy."
Right. And if the person's conscience tells him that abortion if acceptable and that prayer in school is not, you have no business claiming that somehow his views are contrary to our founding documents. In other words, your initial post is simply wrong.
Posted by Truth on October 20, 2007 07:19 AMTruth,
Where do you think I said that the founding documents require a ban on abortion or prayer in school?
Obviously the Decalaration makes no attempt to establish practices that will be adopted in public schools. You can pray, or not pray, that is a choice the founders left to the community.
There is no mention of abortion in the Constitution. The founders left it to the the community to determine what, if any, regualtions will be imposed on abortion.
I have never said otherwise.
The problem, Truth, is that you spend a lot of time disputing things I never post and steadfastly ignore every point I actaully make.
Posted by James Jones on October 20, 2007 07:54 AMWhat, then, is the point of your posts? Or is there one? You have yet to offer a single example of how your posts address the real world. How do your posts affect any of the current issues or problems? Are you now willing to admit that your posts are meaningless and just an opportunity for you to do some ranting? Are you at last willing to admit that your posts do not have anything to do with reality, that they say nothing at all about how current issues and problems should be addressed?
And are you going to continue to explain your sound bytes with yet more sound bytes?
Posted by Truth on October 20, 2007 08:04 AMCharle B,
Let's just assume for a moment that my letter and following posts are nothing but Christian Evangelism.
I am quite certain that is all you have read.
Then my religion has been dying for about 2,000 years now.
Posted by James Jones on October 20, 2007 08:04 AMTruth,
I have fully and carefully responded to every question. And in every instance you have ignored my response and moved on to some new objection.
If you take the time to review the thread you will see that is true.
I post here to tell people what I think and why I think it.
There is very little I think that you will understand.
Posted by James Jones on October 20, 2007 08:38 AMTruth, I have yet to meet a person that attends a church of any denomination that has not said to me they do not tithe at least 10% of their income to their " God".
I could care less about who goes to church,or who pays their way into heaven., or what their religion is.
I have noticed this about so called religious people.
A hypocrite is a person who is not himself on Sunday.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on October 20, 2007 08:42 AM"If human beings have no more rights than chipmunks, then what [argument] do you have to make against the practice of slavery?"
I didn't know chipmunks enslaved each other. It's occurred to me that Chip and Dale might be lovers, but I suppose one could conceivably be the other's slave. Alvin, Simon, and Theodore are undoubtedly Dave Seville's slaves (albeit not always obedient ones), but human enslavement of animals is nothing new.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on October 20, 2007 10:27 AMJJ said optimistically:
"...my religion has been dying for about 2,000 years now."
True, and fortunately the pace if it's extinction has quickened significantly since the information age was born.
It turns out your religion and factual information are mutually exclusive...
All you have is your sad quixotic hope. It shows in the degree of desperation hucksters like you display.
Posted by Charles B. on October 20, 2007 12:02 PMTruth,
I never cease to admire your attempts to nail jello to a wall. Why you do it, however, remains a toal mystery.
James Jones is not, really, even good "60 second sound bite" material. For someone who, on one line of postings, tells everyone that he IS NOT RELIGIOUS, he certainly wastes reams, and hours, attempting to explain "religion" as . . . it wanders into and out of his . . . stream of consciousness? . . . more or less as he goes along.
As to the whole matter of "stream of consciousness", I seem to remember a book - sometimes described as a "novel", which for its day and age it more or less was at that, novel indeed - called, if memory serves, ULYSSES. This was written by a "James Joyce"; and its principal claim to its 15 minutes of fame was getting itself banned in Boston as "pornographic".
This was a collection of disjointed, disconnected, rambling, pointless, figures, and fleeting impressions that the author passed off as being "great literary thought" - at least to those gullible enough to actually fall for something such as that - while laughing all the way to the bank at the "Literati" who extolled this mess as something great. It appears James Jones is trying to imitate the Joyce creation; and do for Religion what Joyce did to Literature.
It doesn't work. Joyce HAD a good education, and was a writer. Jones merely skims along, like a skating water-bug, over the surface of something so way beyond his depths as to be hazardous; and lacking even a shred of writing talent, he fills space, without ever really saying anything either creative, inventive, reflective, or memorable about the subject.
I see where the subject of chipmunks arose. That brings back Jones's wonderful attempt at creating a logical syllogism. The one where he winds up with chipmunks not being able to become human, because they could not compose the "Moonlight Sonata". This one surfaced in one of Jones's anti-abortion rants; though I see it's used here to deal with slavery. Sort of "same difference", as the youth used to say about something that silly.
Jonesy,
I would certainly agree that there is "very little that (anyone else) would understand" here. You never really produce much that is understandable in the first place; and, one might say you have outdone yourself here.
However, you have given us a gold mine of opportunity for the future - whenever you again come out from behind the smoke and mirrors of that LaLaLand of OZ, or wherever, in which you are the Whiz of a Whiz you are.
I know it's only fantasy; but I've always wondered how you wound up giving someone a brain, when you really have so little - or none - to spare yourself. But, then again, whizing is something different down here in the REAL world anyway,
Do keep on keeping on, old boy.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 20, 2007 12:27 PMHans Christian Brando, Goddess I love you. that made me laugh.
Ants take prisoners and work them to death. Maybe I should start using ants as an example. And before JJ says it, because an animal does something, doesn`t mean it is okay for us to do it. We have no more rights than ants also.
Love the chipmunk lovers. The mental picture is funny.
James, slavery hurts people, we do not need a God or a legislator to tell us that this practice does nothing to further the human community I always harp on.
Do you need a God to tell you slavery is bad?
See, that is the humanist point, we do not need or want a heavenly authority, which changes with time, to tell us what works for society.
The beauty of secularism, for good people, is that we can work out the business of being human on our own. All alone, no Gods, no Goddesses, no visions, no dreams, no prophecies, no contact with the spirit world of imagination.
Just us. Doing our best for each other.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 20, 2007 01:57 PMJones, although you are not good at fooling others, you do a good job of fooling yourself.
For example, you falsely claim you have answered the questions I have asked you.
You have twice stated:
"The assertion that rights are “endowed by their Creator” is meant to temper the reach of the government."
But you simply find yourself unable to provide any examples of how that phrase tempers or limits the reach of government. I believe you recognize that it is the Constitution that states what the reach of government is. So, how does that phrase any way change, modify, or temper the Constitution? What problems and issues does that phrase affect and in what way?
You are unable to say. I think it is because you made the quoted statement hurriedly and without really giving thought to what you were saying. You were trying to be cute rather than accurate. Your quoted statement is quite an empty one without any real meaning. But you have fooled yourself into thinking that you have really said something of substance. I think maybe the reason you stubbornly refuse to try to explain or discuss the statement is because you are afraid you'll expose its emptiness.
Posted by Truth on October 20, 2007 02:05 PMMore. You need to try to understand that the Declaration of Independence was in no way meant to set out the way the colonies were to be governed. I think it is your lack of understanding in this regard that has caused you to fall into error.
Posted by Truth on October 20, 2007 02:10 PMOG, my question is whether Jonesy and his ilk really do just want a theocracy, or whether they put up this fuss merely to establish some toe-hold in case the atheist hordes they frighten themselves with, ever materialize
Posted by Bango Skank on October 20, 2007 06:22 PMBango, if we gave them a theocracy they couldn`t agree on the opening prayers. They would break up into hundreds of sects and cults.
James dear, do you need a God to tell you slavery is wrong?
Posted by Sharon B. on October 20, 2007 07:19 PMHi Sharon,
They're all broken up into hundreds of sects and cults already. Just pick up the phone book and look in the Yellow Pages under "Chruches". The Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ is one of the most growing, expanding, and flourishing money makers in today's market.
Have a good weekend, dear lady. They say it's snow for us here tomorrow.
Bango Skank,
The Jones level wouldn't know what to do with a theocracy. He's just a shill for whichever one of the louder entrepreneurs in the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ happens to catch his fancy with a particular buzz-word, or talking point. And, from time to time, he also throws in some Romanism - around the level of the old Baltimore Catechism No. 1 level - since he seems to be enamored of a Roman Priest down in the Colorado Springs area who sometimes posts here.
The real theocracy seekers - such as the late Falwell, Kennedy, "Moral Majority" - which ain't neither and never was - Pat Robertson, and that ilk are on another level entirely. A real theocracy would be beyond them too, except insofar as it might cover a territory about the size of a local County; but, they enhjoy all the prestige of White House dinners, etc., etc., that "relgious leadership" bestows on them. Not to mention the thrill of showbiz, that's at the root of it all for most of them to begin with.
The underlying fear is one of . . . obsolescence, one might say . . . more than anything else. Billy Sunday was a big hit in his day; and the tent revival was the seasonal equivalent of the circus for so much of rural America for many years. Vide, Mark Train's descriptions in several works.
Billy Graham has made millions out of the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ - some say even billions - but, the days of "crusades" are about over. And even TV entertainers, such as Pat Robertson, aren't all that much of a hit today.
It's more a matter of really hanging on to what they have, in the face of diminishing returns. While of course, the idea of "atheist hordes" does serve to take the place of all those "Godless Communists", of the "Evil Empire", who were lurking off shore, just waiting to march in and make Bolsheviks of us all. Add in "Islamofascists", and "illegal Mexicans", and you have the replacements for the old Jim Crow fears that motivated the Southern Baptists, and others in those benighted parts of the Nation.
But, the reality of Protestantism itself - being as it is, completely founded on nothing more than a form of "make it up as you go along", locally and very, very, very INDIVIDUALISTICALLY at root - really militates against emergence of any genuine theocracy ever getting hold - again outside a particular locale, with limited population. Our day and age really has no John Calvin, nor a John Knox, nor does it even have a Jos. Smith Jr., for that matter. About the closest we've come in several decades might be L. Ron Hubbard, and the tin-can-e-meter dianetics/scientology cult, with Tom Cruise as its chief poster boy.
Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to lecture. And have a good weekend.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 20, 2007 07:52 PMOld Grouch, and now the family and close associates of Oral Roberts are in the news.
And I am still waiting for an answer on the slavery question from JJ.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 21, 2007 12:14 AMArguement is useless as a tool to change someone's beliefs. Only proveable truth can do that and even then only when those that hold the belief are willing to listen, which is a rare occurence indeed. No debate about religion accomplishes any positive results except to those who enjoy arguement for it's own sake. The very fact that this forum is full of arguement about church and state is the primary example of why the two should never be mixed in any way.
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 21, 2007 12:30 PMAllen, now that was great. Some times asking questions of a person can make them think. Like JJ who is still out there somewhere trying to figure out how to protest slavery without a God or religion to tell him to.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 21, 2007 02:03 PMJerry Falwell's son inherits the mantle doing what his "daddy" taught him, much like Ron Hubbard (Scientology} inherits the mantle from Satan and passes it on to McCaviage.
“. . . bad science contributes to the steady dumbing down of our nation. Crude beliefs get transmitted to political leaders and the result is considerable damage to society. We see this happening now in the rapid rise of the religious right and how it has taken over large segments of the Republican Party. I think fundamentalist and Pentecostalist Pat Robertson is a far greater menace to America than, say, Jesse Helms who will soon be gone and forgotten.”
-- Martin Gardner
Sharon B,
Let's make certain your question is properly framed.
You told me that humans have no more rights than a chipmunk. I asked you: If that's true then what case you would make against slavery if a self-governing people determined that you (or some group)have no "natural" right to liberty.
You responded
"James, slavery hurts people, we do not need a God or a legislator to tell us that this practice does nothing to further the human community I always harp on."
The you asked me:
"James dear, do you need a God to tell you slavery is wrong?"
My anser is: Yes, sort of.
You think slavery should be illegal because you think it's wrong. That approach operates in a community ruled by Divine Right but, in pluralistic societies it is required to actually make a case for what you think is right and what you think is wrong.
We really can't count on everyone being as nice as you (and Truth, Can I Get an Amen?, Hans, et al) now can we?
Lincoln and Douglas had a series of debates on this very question. Here are a few highlights:
Douglas
"(Lincoln) reads from the Declaration of Independence, that all men were created equal, and then asks, how can you deprive an African of that equality which God and the Declaration of Independence awards to him? "
"Douglas hammered away at the ideas of the United States' Founding Fathers (Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, etc.) who created a Constitution that allowed for both slave and free states.
The great principle of this Government is, that each State has the right to do as it pleases on all these questions, and no other State, or power on earth has the right to interfere with us, or complain of us merely because our system differs from theirs. "
(I've cleaned uo the language a bit)
Slavery had existied in the US for centuries at that time so the argument that the salves should be set free becuase slavery ins't nice really would not have been sufficient. Lincoln acutally made the case.
Lincoln
"When he says he "cares not whether slavery is voted down or voted up''-that it is a sacred right of self-government-he is, in my judgment, penetrating the human soul and eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty in this American people.
If you will take the Judge's speeches, and select the short and pointed sentences expressed by him-as his declaration that he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or down"- you will see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is wrong. If you do admit that it is wrong, Judge Douglas cannot logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. Judge Douglas declares that if any community want slavery they have a right to have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he cannot logically say that any body has a right to do wrong"
Douglas argues that what a society of free people decides to do is right because, just as you posit, no one has any rights unless the granted by society.
Lincoln argued that slavery is always wrong and society authorizing the practice does not make it right.
Now, I do understand you think that slavery is wrong. But I don't think you appreciate Douglas did not argue,
"Look we know slavery is wrong but we think we ought to keep it going anyway."
He argued that slavery was right because society had established that it was right.
My opinion is that none of the MAL's posting here think that salvery is right today. But all of you offer up Douglas' principle.
Can you see the danger with that line of reaoning?
JJ, I don`t need God or Goddess or dreams or portents to tell me slavery, like rape and wife or child or husband beating is wrong.
These things make it almost impossible for a society to exist and offer everyone equal opportunity to live and succeed.
It is to our everlasting shame that when the rest of the civilized world had done away with slavery, we let it happen here.
If you need a God, then think of someone raiding your home (bad) and taking away all your family members for slaves (also bad).
I do not offer up anyone's principle, and yes our rights come from living in human society and these rights can be taken away, but in the end if people want for themselves what they want for others, society progresses.
This is an older version of the golden rule, do not do that to others, which you do not wish done to you.
From there society has the work cut out of deciding how to live with no heavenly authority.
Even the Bible allows slavery, it was okayed by God, if you obeyed the rules.
Another reason I have no time for the tribal God of the Bible or his illogical offspring.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 21, 2007 06:45 PMHi Sharon,
Well, you did manage to get an answer, such as it was. I have Danny Demon sitting on my shoulder, whispering in my ear, this evening. And he's come up with a question, too. I would give long odds - if I were a betting man - that Jones won't even begin to answer this; but, here goes:
James Jones,
You have indicated you need - or "sort of" do - a "god" to tell you slavery is wrong.
What is your response when a "god" tells you that slavery is right, for all, everywhere?
This is the reality of the teachings of Mohammed. Indeed, the religion itself is called, "Islam" - slavery - and the followers thereof are called, "Muslims" - slaves. And it is a fundamental of this religion that these are glorious, noble, and highly worthy religious designations. Thus, religious slavery and physical slavery are both directly from a "Creator", or "god" - or, in Arabic, "Allah" - and human slavery is absolutely "right", permitted, even sanctioned as a religious necessity/obligation.
Since you hold that our Constitutional rights derive from a "Creator" - or a form of "god" - how then do you justify the abolition of slavery outside of our Nation, and the rest of the world, when a "Creator", or "god", specifically demands that there be slavery?
And, further, how do you justify invading another Nation to impose our form of "freedom and democracy" AGAINST their "Creator", or "god", and Its special commandments for those who derive their religious "rights" from that "Creator", or "god"?
On what basis do you establish the "superiority" of a "Creator", or form of "god", mentioned in the Declaration of Independence over a "Creator", or form of "god" held to be the source of all being in another culture?
Posted by Old Grouch on October 21, 2007 07:57 PMSharon B,
" I do not offer up anyone's principle, ..."
I did not say that you were a Doulgas disciple. I am quite certain that you have no idea what the man stood for.
My point is that:
"...and yes our rights come from living in human society and these rights can be taken away, but in the end if people want for themselves what they want for others, society progresses."
Is exactly the case Douglas made in favor of continutin the practice of slavery in the US prior to the Civil War.
Your passing judgement of shame on earlier generations for the practice of slavery is sanctimonious.
Slavey was commonly practiced among humans thousands of years before the America was discovered and the institution survives even today in parts of Africa and southern Asia.
In fact, if you were consistent and argued then what you argue today, you would have come down on the side of the anti-abolitionists.
Like you, Dougals also argued "slavery hurts people" which he abhorred. His position was
"Now, I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the African to be the equal of the white man. If he did, he has been a long time demonstrating the fact. For thousands of years the African has been a race upon the earth, and during all that time, in all latitudes and climates, wherever he has wandered or been taken, he has been inferior to the race which he has there met. He belongs to an inferior race, and must always occupy an inferior position. I do not hold that because the African is our inferior that therefore he ought to be a slave. By no means can such a conclusion be drawn from what I have said. On the contrary, I hold that humanity and Christianity both require that the African shall have and enjoy every right, every privilege, and every immunity consistent with the safety of the society in which he lives. On that point, I presume, there can be no diversity of opinion."
So you see the anit-abolitionists did not argue that slaves should be brutalized as was so often the case. They argued that slaves should be treated humanely.
According to your position, slaves have the same rights as a chipmunk and I am quite certain you would never stand by and watch a chipmunk be brutalized.
Grouch,
So many questions Grasshopper.
Do not concern yourself with the odds.
"What is your response when a "god" tells you that slavery is right, for all, everywhere? This is the reality of the teachings of Mohammed. "
We need not speculate on this question. The Founders understood and rejected Isalm just as they understood and rejected Secular Humanism.
They founded a nation based on the principles of the Judeo-Christian ethic (the lessons taught in the Old and New Testaments) and that is the reality.
We need only concern ourselves with reality.
"Since you hold that our Constitutional rights derive from a "Creator" -"
You are gravely confused Grasshopper.
The Declaration establishd that our rights are endowed by the Creator. Also that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed and are formed to protect those rights.
The purpose of the Constitution is the describe the workings of that government: the three branches, checks and balances and so on.
"how then do you justify the abolition of slavery outside of our Nation, and the rest of the world, "
I would tell them that slavery is wrong because their slaves have been endowed by their creator with the right to liberty.
You should understand, Grasshopper, that those of us who hold to the principles of the Founders and not unduly troubled when other nations adopt principles that contradict our own.
It is the MAL alone who becomes uncertain and filled with doubt if, say for instance, France or Saudi Arabai govern by different values.
"And, further, how do you justify invading another Nation"
We should invade other nations when
A) not to do so would threaten the security of the US, as in the case of France during WW II or Afghanistan during the War on Terror or
B) when, in our judgement, the suffering of the people of that nation is intolerable; as in the case of Somalia.
The people of the US have essentially no imperialistic instincts. In fact it was our desire to avoid all hint of colonialism that hindered progress in Iraq following the fall of Saddam.
Sometimes Grashopper it is better to think than ask.
Posted by James Jones on October 22, 2007 06:55 AMMALS,
We are at the end of this thread and I have enjoyed it immensly. I would ask you to take another look at my letter. You will see that it is not my purpose here to proselytize.
I understand that you disagree with the Founder's principle and that you reject the authority of the Creator. I make no objection to your taking that position.
I think that your right to freedom of expression derives from the Creator and understand that it is not for me to ineterfere in any way with that right - even when used to deny the source of your rights.
What I do ask is:
If the community wants to put the Ten Commandments of the wall - allow it.
If the community want to pray openly in the schools - let them.
If the valadictorian wants to prolcaim her faith as the source of her strength - do not forbid.
None of these things are evangelizing. It seems to me you should take some comfort from the knowledge that
Believers did not constitute a theocracy in the first place,
a theocracy did not develop in all those years of public worship and
there is no Believer today arguing for a theocracy.
What I am asking for is that you extend to the rest of the community the same tolerance that is required of us by our beliefs. Let the Creator back into the public square.
Posted by James Jones on October 22, 2007 07:18 AMUnlike the Buddhist who he is trying to imitate, the grasshopper-keeper is a person of war, not peace. There are two principle ways of dealing with threats. One is diplomacy and the other is war. Grasshopper-keeper rejects diplomacy and calls for war every time there is a threat.
Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia are all considered to be threats. Guess what the grasshopper-keeper would like for us to do, and without either the draft or raising taxes.
Grasshopper-keeper: "Sometimes, it is better to think than to ask".
What the grasshopper-keeper fails to realize is that it is always better to think before answering.
Methinks grasshopper-keeper should stick to talking to grasshoppers.
Posted by Truth on October 22, 2007 07:42 AMThere was a time when there was prayer in many schools, a time when the ten commandments were often displayed in public places. That was also a time when there was slavery, when Jim Crow was king, when legal immigrants of all stripes were persecuted, when predatory capitalism was allowed to persecute millions, when the Native Americans were marched to their deaths, when America invaded countries at will in order to impose its will and power on them.
Posted by Truth on October 22, 2007 08:24 AMTruth,
As the "grasshopper" to whom Jimmy-Jesus boy was referring, I do have to say that he certainly is NOT my "keeper". He isn't capable of that job to begin with, even with real grasshoppers.
The usual cop-out. He doesn't answer questions. He can't. He merely re-asserts his own unfounded premises all over again, as if they were axiomatic, and calls that "thinking".
His imitation of a Buddhist is hilarious; but it's just as shallow and superficial as any of the rest of his bloviation.
He is, however, an example of today's "True Believer". Give him a buzz-word, or a catch-phrase, to cherish - the simplest possible, and least founded in fact - and he'll blather about his faith in it endlessly.
Could it be that's where his infatuation with chipmunks originates, because of all the noisy, and empty, constant chattering?
Posted by Old Grouch on October 22, 2007 09:07 AMJames Jones, I think your attempt at reading my mind, as in who or what I know, especially about Douglas, is childish.
I know right from wrong without a God authority and many people do the same.
If you need a God to know how to treat others, then I am glad you have one.
As to slavery, if you do not want to be a slave then don`t enslave others.
The Golden Rule is enough, and I could care less who spoke out against slavery in the past, but I think it was mostly women.
Until you apologize for that remark about what I know about Douglas, I am not posting to you anymore.
I don`t think I have a crush on you any more, sob, sob.......you meany you.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 22, 2007 12:55 PMGiven the threat of terrorism in public places, don't you think letting the "Creator" back into the public square should be done only after he/she/it is identified so that we can be sure he/she/it poses no threat?
Posted by Charles B. on October 22, 2007 01:09 PM