CNN: "Freedom requires religion" says Mitt Romney

[RonPaulMania]

Sadly, I have found no other person who has thought about these kinds of philosophical issues to understand them.

Socrates, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, De Cartes are no ones? There were some wonderful thinkers who thought of the existence of life. The question is do you understand teleology, philosophy, and ethics/morality and how did you arrive at your line of thought?

Freedom does not the existence of God, or any kind of "super-authoritarian", and freedom certainly does not require religion (a type of social organization).

You don't need 100 pages. You just need to come up with causation of principles. Give me 1 principle of causation. You haven't given one as you will see.

This discussion presumes a few mostly-uncontraversial ideas that I will not justify for lack of time and space: volition (which I like to call "self-determinism") and causality (that actions have consequences).

I deny your definition of causality, and your definition of volition is inexact.

When a human takes these actions, the person is the *cause* of his own survival. In other words, a human literally causes his own existence (in the future). If a person does not have freedom (to chose his own actions), a person has no way to cause his own continued existence (and in that case, is utterly dependent upon the actions of others).

You are confusing existence with coercion. If I'm coerced into exile from a city I don't stop existing. We do not cause our existence, our parents do, we only cause our subsistence of life. We can't create ourselves.

I want one principle of causation of rights outside of our soul given by God. Show me why animals have the same rights as we do if you really believe what you do.

God exists, it's not just a belief, it's a fact and can be proven logically. What God you believe in is a matter of faith, not logic. Irrespective of faith in this equation if you take God out of our existence we have no more rights than an animal.

 

[RonPaulMania]

My freedom of religion is my freedom from religion.

And will end in your freedom from liberty and truth.

 

[RonPaulMania]

And what do you believe? Are rights god given, earned, or demanded like respect?

Rights are given by God because we have an immortal soul. None of that is an article of faith but are logical beings which can be concluded by inductive logic and finally by deductive logic. Without both things present we are no different than animals.

 

[RonPaulMania]

I don't want to disrespect anyone's religion, but I define a right as something you cannot take away from me because it is mine alone. I believe it is a very rational concept to say that this is what defines a right, and for the good of civilization we will respect the concept of rights. No god required.

What if someone took your rights and turned you into the collectivity of the masses. On what grounds can you show your rights? You don't see how we are losing rights in this country because of the very concept of what you are espousing: a Godless moral society of liberty. This is nothing more than anarchy.

You can't define something by self-existence unless that law is self-existent (e.g. the sun is in the sky). It is not self-existent you have rights of and by yourself just because you exist. Plants exist, do they have rights? What gives you rights and not plants?

Let's start simple because this isn't going anywhere with logical rationalizations.

 

[Duckman]

What if someone took your rights and turned you into the collectivity of the masses. On what grounds can you show your rights? You don't see how we are losing rights in this country because of the very concept of what you are espousing: a Godless moral society of liberty. This is nothing more than anarchy.

If someone tries to force me to collectivism, will he stop if I assert that my right to resist comes from god? I doubt he cares. I argue that it regardless of philosophy, is de facto true that you only have those rights that everyone will mutually agree you have OR that you need to take through self-defense.

You can't define something by self-existence unless that law is self-existent (e.g. the sun is in the sky). It is not self-existent you have rights of and by yourself just because you exist. Plants exist, do they have rights? What gives you rights and not plants?

Plants can neither assert their rights nor take them through self-defense.

 

[driller80545]

So without god you have no rights. animals have no rights. do all the gods provide their worshipers with rights or is it only your idea of god that provides his people with rights and makes them better that the other life forms on this planet. since god is an idea, are rights only an idea also?
i still profess that you only have rights if you demand them from the powers that be. this is why people die for liberty. this is why oppressed peoples have no rights. they don't demand them and are not willing to die defending them. they aren't granted by god, but earned by standing up and defending them.
had the people of iraq believed strongly enough that sadaam hussein stole their rights, they would have destroyed him saving us a lot of trouble for example.

 

[undergroundrr]

Romney is simply paraphrasing George Bush I, who asserted that atheists should not be recognized as US citizens.

Freedom requires religion? Before meeting so many excellent theists who are supporting Ron Paul, I had become convinced that freedom precludes religion.

Romney's sentiment is reprehensible and evil. Thank you to the faithful who prove Romney wrong - who prove that it is possible, indeed necessary, to practice your faith without disrespecting and infringing upon those of us who eschew faith.

 

[Marshall]

He's actually correct. He saying you can't separate one's freedoms from God. If you don't admit that God exists and that all rights are given by God than freedom is consequently lost. It's in the Constitution and it's philosophically correct as well.

Suppose God didn't exist and we didn't have an immortal soul given dignity because immortal souls are a reflection of God, why should we have any more liberty than a dog? The founders believed this from a deistic perspective, and previous Church/State relationships from Europe understood this connection from a specific religion. The Constitution stopped a specific Church/State relationship, but it was never intended to be devoid of God as even the founders understand there is no freedom without God.

How about because human beings are self-aware? I'm not sure if thats a fair trade off for not being able to lick my own junk, but I wasn't given a choice in that matter.

 

[noxagol]

Do you actually really believe that? What do you own at birth? What do you own at 10 years old? Do you believe you should be free and have rights at 10 years old? Yet you own nothing. You legally don't own your body under the age of reason as it falls squarely on your parents to guide you.

I feel like I'm arguing against my little brother sometimes. Gratuitous arguments without collaborating teleology is no argument.

Where do you guys come up with such pop philosophy? Seriously, I have no idea where you people come up with this stuff but I'm very interested because it makes no sense.

Do you actually really believe that?

Yes. And it is the most empirical way of going about where rights come from.

What do you own at birth?

You own yourself. You own yourself beginning at conception. This is why abortion is murder. Someone is damaging your property, your body and through this your life, against your will.

What do you own at 10 years old?

Well, you still own your body. You own anything that you have created or were given up to this point. I owned a Nintendo system that I worked for my parents doing extra things around the house to earn money for. It was mine, and no one could take it away from me. At 17, my parents threatened to take my car away and my keys and I told them that if they did that I would call the police and have them arrested for theft. That stuff was mine, I worked the job that gave me the money and I payed for that car on my own. They could not take it from me.

Do you believe you should be free and have rights at 10 years old?

Absolutely. You have the right to say no to things. For instance, I believe a child has the right to refuse medical treatment even against the will of their parents. It is the child's life and body, they have the final say. [/quote]

Yet you own nothing.

You own a lot more than you think.

I feel like I'm arguing against my little brother sometimes. Gratuitous arguments without collaborating teleology is no argument.

And I feel like I am arguing against a close minded church goer, go figure. You didn't even delve into the idea further than face value. Guess what, most religious people I know do treat themselves like property and have owners aside from themselves, and that owner would be God. You should think out and examine statements more than just at face value, and without preconceived notions and emotion.

Where do you guys come up with such pop philosophy? Seriously, I have no idea where you people come up with this stuff but I'm very interested because it makes no sense.

It doesn't make any sense because you have already made your mind up on this subject and you didn't bother to think it through more than just reading the sentence and using preconceived notions and your own close mindedness to come to the conclusion that it makes no sense.

 

[noxagol]

...says the guy who describes people as "property".

And yet you treat yourself as property by giving yourself to God. If you are not property, how can you "give" yourself to something else?

And, the religious slave holders of the south back in the day would disagree with you on people being property. They in fact used the bible as justification for why they could own another person, going back to Noah's three sons.

 

[FunkBuddha]

Anyone who won't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon gets no respect from me.

There are plenty of good reasons not to support him. If it were between him or Huckafacist, I'd take him any day.

 

[nexalacer]

When talking about ownership of ones body, it is important to remember that ownership implies control. If you wish to argue that you don't own (i.e. control) your own body, it is a self-denotating argument, unless you wish to argue that someone outside of yourself is controlling your vocal cords in order to make the sound. If that's your argument, I'll recommend you to the nearest psych ward and call this "debate" over.

And parents never own you as they can't control you. They can tell you what to do, but you can (and probably did!) ignore their commands quite easily. They can't physically control your body in any way, shape, or form, therefore they cannot, by definition, own you.

Really, the only rights we can logically deduce from self-ownership are property rights. You own your body, so you own all the fruits of the labor of your body.

From property rights, we can deduce a moral code that is far superior to any moral code found in a holy book because it is universal and consistent. While there is an extensive proof of this moral code that I won't go into here, basically, any moral rule that denies property rights contradicts itself, and is, thus, an invalid moral rule.

All of this stems from nature and does not require any supernatural force to come to being, thus the idea that freedom comes from religion is unnecessary.

If you wish to debate this with me, please answer one question before we move on:

What is your definition of a god, or God, or the gods?

Thanks!

 

[undergroundrr]

Very good, nexalacer. Pretty much what John Locke said, which later inspired the founders to write things like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. America was born from challenges to religious doctrine.

 

[noxagol]

When talking about ownership of ones body, it is important to remember that ownership implies control. If you wish to argue that you don't own (i.e. control) your own body, it is a self-denotating argument, unless you wish to argue that someone outside of yourself is controlling your vocal cords in order to make the sound. If that's your argument, I'll recommend you to the nearest psych ward and call this "debate" over.

And parents never own you as they can't control you. They can tell you what to do, but you can (and probably did!) ignore their commands quite easily. They can't physically control your body in any way, shape, or form, therefore they cannot, by definition, own you.

Really, the only rights we can logically deduce from self-ownership are property rights. You own your body, so you own all the fruits of the labor of your body.

From property rights, we can deduce a moral code that is far superior to any moral code found in a holy book because it is universal and consistent. While there is an extensive proof of this moral code that I won't go into here, basically, any moral rule that denies property rights contradicts itself, and is, thus, an invalid moral rule.

All of this stems from nature and does not require any supernatural force to come to being, thus the idea that freedom comes from religion is unnecessary.

If you wish to debate this with me, please answer one question before we move on:

What is your definition of a god, or God, or the gods?

Thanks!

Yes, which is what I said, and I thank you.

 

[Spirit of '76]

And yet you treat yourself as property by giving yourself to God. If you are not property, how can you "give" yourself to something else?

On can certainly devote oneself to something or someone. That doesn't necessarily mean that humans are merely economic units.

That's ultimately the same kind of utilitarian mindset employed by marxists, and I reject it outright. The only difference is that for you, the "property" can be privately-owned, while for marxists even human "property" is communal.

But I am not "property"; I am a man.

 

[Spirit of '76]

I suppose we can agree to disagree, but I'll side with Ron Paul on this one.

"We get our rights from our Creator as individuals."

-- Ron Paul​

"I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."

-- Ron Paul​

 

[nexalacer]

I'll be quite clear, I'm not agreeing to disagree. There is no disagreement in this issue. There is truth or falsehood. Based on logic and empiricism, I am quite convinced that my point of view is the truth. However, if using the same methodology (logic and empiricism) you can prove to me that our rights come from your god, then have at it as I'd be happy to be proven wrong as I want to make sure that might beliefs are based on rational truth.

But the important first step for this proof is a definition of "God." Provide this along with your proof.

Otherwise, you're wrong.

 

[ancible]

I am an atheist, but also aim to be as much a realist as my limited view of universal goings-on will allow.

So here is my thought (given in a calm and neutral tone, paulites!): We as humans have potential freedom because we can wield power to fight for it.

This is possible because of the spread of information. If one is not free but unaware of that fact, nothing can be done to correct it, short of realizing the state of things. I would also make the statement that it is impossible to be free when you think you are not.

So for my personal view, I think that the state of being "free" (as people who follow the path of God are not absolutely free; i.e. Mother Theresa would not be free of guilt at hurting a child for no reason and deliberately. And atheists do not think that they have total control of the, say, laws of physics in this instant [forget the future, sci-fi fans!]) is conditional on the understanding of the meaning of such and so probably this debate (argument?) is not worth getting upset about.

Ron Paul 2008!

 

[OptionsTrader]

"Freedom requires religion" says Mitt Romney
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/romney.speech/index.html

That's funny, one of his sexy in a dress competitors says "Freedom Is About Authority"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260

 

[user]

That's funny, one of his sexy in a dress competitors says "Freedom Is About Authority"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260

So there you have it. Submit to their authority or their religion? I think we're all glad there's a better choice.