Push For Secession If Healthcare Passes?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Government is based on a long past tradition; chaos is based on the present.

Gay marriage, drug prohibition, laws that say you can't buy or do certain things on Sunday, the belief that we should "defend Israel" because they're "God's chosen people," the idea that Jesus is coming back which almost provides an incentive to bring about the "end times," abstinence-only sex ed (totally irresponsible), the pervasive attitude that sex/nudity are things that should only be discussed behind closed doors, opposition to teaching science in science classrooms, support for teaching fairy tales in science classrooms, opposition to abortion. I'm sure I could think of some others.

Point is, if you want a free society, you can't expect people to live up to the moral standards established by your religion...especially when that religion is based off of ancient desert scribblings that aren't relevant to most people. Freedom means being able to do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. I understand that not all Christians want to restrict freedom, but many do, and those are the people I'm worried about running government in the south.

It is possible that my father was better than me but that I have become better than him because he pained to instilled himself in me. With this reasoning, it is then possible to see the Holy Father in a tree.
Speaking of trees, do you know what the heart of a tree is? Since water is the blood of a tree, the pump is the sun.
Strangely, after God created man in the garden, He didn't put him before a man but before a tree. A tree of life. Man as himself and without the tree is not fit to know himself. The animals and plants serve as both our nourishment and as our reflection. Take them away and we are both dead and invisible to what we are.

 

[LDA]

Now you're just preaching.

No they didn't. They even put a clause in the Constitution explicitly prohibiting Congress from interfering in the states having established religions, which most of the states that ratified the Constitution had at the time (i.e., the 1st amendment).

Just read what Madison and Jefferson had to say on established religions:

1.Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together

-James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt

Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle

-Thomas Jefferson

And there's a ton of these quotes. They very clearly did not think that religion should be influencing public policy.

 

[AuH20]

Gay marriage, drug prohibition, laws that say you can't buy or do certain things on Sunday, the belief that we should "defend Israel" because they're "God's chosen people," the idea that Jesus is coming back which almost provides an incentive to bring about the "end times," abstinence-only sex ed (totally irresponsible), the pervasive attitude that sex/nudity are things that should only be discussed behind closed doors, opposition to teaching science in science classrooms, support for teaching fairy tales in science classrooms, opposition to abortion. I'm sure I could think of some others.

Point is, if you want a free society, you can't expect people to live up to the moral standards established by your religion...especially when that religion is based off of ancient desert scribblings that aren't relevant to most people. Freedom means being able to do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. I understand that not all Christians want to restrict freedom, but many do, and those are the people I'm worried about running government in the south.

Besides drug prohibition & gay marriage, I don't see anything that would violate one's natural rights. The rest of your concerns seem to be policy fluff and I'm not even Christian.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I agree, except that natural law was not established by the Founding Fathers, it was only recognized by them, and that only partially. It was established by God.

The Almighty Fullness did not establish that He was the Son of God. That was established in faith by others around Him. The Lord Jesus Christ declared Himself to be the Son of Man. The Son of "God" infers intimacy while the Son of "man" infers just the opposite. Christ wasn't just a worthless man, but the even more worthless offspring of a worthless man.
Likewise, I believe our Christian Founding Fathers were standing in God's judgement when they declared our independence from tyranny. This was quite crucial because the king was the rightful authority ordained by God.

 

[erowe1]

Gay marriage, drug prohibition, laws that say you can't buy or do certain things on Sunday, the belief that we should "defend Israel" because they're "God's chosen people," the idea that Jesus is coming back which almost provides an incentive to bring about the "end times," abstinence-only sex ed (totally irresponsible), the pervasive attitude that sex/nudity are things that should only be discussed behind closed doors, opposition to teaching science in science classrooms, support for teaching fairy tales in science classrooms, opposition to abortion.

That is indeed quite a litany of items that characterize fundamentalists and that limit freedom. Unfortunately for your argument, the ones that characterize fundamentalists do not limit freedom (opposing laws that redefine the word "marriage," and opposing use of tax dollars to indoctrinate children contrary to their beliefs, beliefs about the end times, attitudes about sex and nudity) and the ones that limit freedom do not have anything to do with fundamentalism (drug prohibition).

But you are right about laws in some places that prohibit sale of alcohol on Sundays, and whatnot. So I'll give you that one.

But even still I don't quite follow your reasoning. It looks like you're saying that you currently live in a state where you have to endure being surrounded by people who teach their kids creationism and abstinence, who believe other things that you consider silly, who don't share your attitudes about sex, who don't use the word "marriage" the way gay couples who consider themselves married use it, and who have succeeded in passing laws that limit your freedom in the single way of preventing you from buying alcohol on Sunday. And you also have to endure all the enormous infringements of your freedoms and burdens placed on you by the federal government above and beyond all that.

And you wouldn't want to have those burdens that the federal government places on you lifted because, even though you'd be a whole lot more free and prosperous, you'd also still have to endure all those things you currently have to endure anyway by being surrounded by fundamentalist Christians?

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

One cannot violate a natural right.

Besides drug prohibition & gay marriage, I don't see anything that would violate one's natural rights. The rest of your concerns seem to be policy fluff and I'm not even Christian.

A natural right reduces down beyond the idea to something concrete like DnA. This is what makes a natural right different from a civil right.

 

[tremendoustie]

We really have no place to go. So, our only recourse is to make the government a better one. The process of divorce in The Declaration of Independence and the process of remarriage to a more perfect government in The Constitution established the people as the owner of all property while the government served them as a necessary tyranny.

The government doesn't own anything. A bunch of politicians cannot by writing a document confiscate the rightfully aquired property of others.

 

[AuH20]

That is indeed quite a litany of items that characterize fundamentalists and that limit freedom. Unfortunately for your argument, the ones that characterize fundamentalists do not limit freedom (opposing laws that redefine the word "marriage," and opposing use of tax dollars to indoctrinate children contrary to their beliefs, beliefs about the end times, attitudes about sex and nudity) and the ones that limit freedom do not have anything to do with fundamentalism (drug prohibition).

But you are right about laws in some places that prohibit sale of alcohol on Sundays, and whatnot. So I'll give you that one.

But even still I don't quite follow your reasoning. It looks like you're saying that you currently live in a state where you have to endure being surrounded by people who teach their kids creationism and abstinence, who belief other things that you consider silly, who don't share your attitudes about sex, who don't use the word "marriage" the way gay couples who consider themselves married use it, and who have succeeded in passing laws that limit your freedom in the one way of preventing you from buying alcohol on Sunday. And you also have to endure all the enormous infringements of your freedoms and burdens placed on you by the federal government above and beyond all that.

And you wouldn't want to have those burdens that the federal government places on you lifted because, even though you'd be a whole lot more free and prosperous, you'd also still have to endure all those things you currently have to endure anyway by being surrounded by fundamentalist Christians?

I'll tell you this. I'll trade today's oligarchy for that supposed theocracy anyday of the week. No slavish devotion to the state, global warming or diversity. No more taxes. So I'd have to tolerate the quirks of a few outspoken christians? Where do I sign up?

 

[erowe1]

Now you're just preaching.



Just read what Madison and Jefferson had to say on established religions:



-James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt



-Thomas Jefferson

And there's a ton of these quotes. They very clearly did not think that religion should be influencing public policy.

I don't get it. How am I preaching? The first amendment is what it is, and it means exactly what I said. I see nothing in either of the quotes you gave that indicate a belief on the parts of Jefferson or Madison that the states in the union should be prohibited from having established religions. But even if they did think that, so what if 2 founding fathers held that view? It didn't make it into the Constitution, which, far from prohibiting states from having established religions, instead explicitly prohibited the federal government from interfering with them when they did. Why do you suppose the Constitution had to include that? It never would have been ratified otherwise. Most of the signatory states did have established religions. When we speak of the founders, when don't speak of a single monolithic entity, but if there is any point of view that we can attribute to "the founders" as a whole, and that can be considered normative (which I admit, is a tenuous idea in itself), then it must be what is expressed in the Constitution as it was understood by those who ratified it (as opposed to those who merely wrote it).

 

[LDA]

That is indeed quite a litany of items that characterize fundamentalists and that limit freedom. Unfortunately for your argument, the ones that characterize fundamentalists do not limit freedom (opposing laws that redefine the word "marriage," and opposing use of tax dollars to indoctrinate children contrary to their beliefs, beliefs about the end times, attitudes about sex and nudity) and the ones that limit freedom do not have anything to do with fundamentalism (drug prohibition).

Fundamentalists aren't just against gay marriage, they're again gays being able to form in any kind of union. So that's the problem. The whole argument from semantics is just stupid. My personal opinion is that government should be out of the business of rewarding or punishing relationships altogether.

Evolution is science, man. I don't know what to tell you about that. If you believe that a certain part of science is fake because the bible tells you so, that's absurd. We see evolution all around us, and if you don't believe in it, you don't understand it. Should we teach that every species of animal, including millions of species of insects, were all on the Arc? My original comment referring to Jesusland was not just about freedoms, but about attitudes that guide policy.

And you wouldn't want to have those burdens that the federal government places on you lifted because, even though you'd be a whole lot more free and prosperous, you'd also still have to endure all those things you currently have to endure anyway by being surrounded by fundamentalist Christians?

I don't think it's how it would work out. If we had the equivalent of a "confederacy," you can bet that the religious influences would become even more powerful. The only reason we aren't passing laws that force these issues is because a large part of the country isn't on board. If it was just a nation of the southern states, where almost everyone believes in Christianity, I think the rights of those that reject Christianity would be in peril.

I don't get it. How am I preaching? The first amendment is what it is, and it means exactly what I said. I see nothing in either of the quotes you gave that indicate a belief on the parts of Jefferson or Madison that the states in the union should be prohibited from having established religions. But even if they did think that, so what if 2 founding fathers held that view? It didn't make it into the Constitution, which, far from prohibiting states from having established religions, instead explicitly prohibited the federal government from interfering with them when they did. Why do you suppose the Constitution had to include that? It never would have been ratified otherwise. Most of the signatory states did have established religions. When we speak of the founders, when don't speak of a single monolithic entity, but if there is any point of view that we can attribute to "the founders" as a whole, and that can be considered normative (which I admit, is a tenuous idea in itself), then it must be what is expressed in the Constitution as it was understood by those who ratified it (as opposed to those who merely wrote it).

The other guy is preaching, not you.

Having any kind of established religion, to the point of where one religion is given an advantage over the other, is necessarily an infringement of the rights of anyone that doesn't believe in the established religion. What if the established religion was Christianity, specifically, the Baptist version? Do you think the other denominations would be okay with that? Of course not.

 

[AuH20]

I don't think it's how it would work out. If we had the equivalent of a "confederacy," you can bet that the religious influences would become even more powerful. The only reason we aren't passing laws that force these issues is because a large part of the country isn't on board. If it was just a nation of the southern states, where almost everyone believes in Christianity, I think the rights of those that reject Christianity would be in peril.

Actually, many of these mega-churches are tied to the powers in D.C. If it all falls apart, their influence would wane.

 

[erowe1]

Should we teach that every species of animal, including millions of species of insects, were all on the Arc?

If you care at all about freedom, then you shouldn't believe that "we," being the state, should teach anything about those beliefs, neither anything that advances them, nor anything that contradicts them, or for that matter, anything at all. It looks to me like your driving motivation is not the desire to let everyone else live and believe how they want, but to have your own beliefs and lifestyle be the ones that enjoy state privileges rather than someone else's.

 

[LDA]

If you want to argue that government shouldn't be involved in education at all, sure. I view that as infrastructure. Without an educated populace, we'd really be in trouble. There's a clear difference between teaching science and teaching religion. The two can't be compared.

 

[AuH20]

If you want to argue that government shouldn't be involved in education at all, sure. I view that as infrastructure. Without an educated populace, we'd really be in trouble. There's a clear difference between teaching science and teaching religion. The two can't be compared.

Like global warming? It's actually closer to a religion.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It isn't a matter of want. A natural law is the truth and that is what sets us free. Even death can't escape this proposition. A king's conscience can't ignore it. If it does, then he isn't deemed a king at all but a tyrant.
And what is this truth? The soul of a lowly trespassing prostitute and the soul of a highest king on the throne were created equal with the same exact business agenda for happiness!

Again, you're talking principle, and I agree with you. But in a practical reality, force will prevail as long as the majority is ignorant and selfish, they will demand more of the corruption and unconstitutional behavior we've been getting. It is not I you need to convince, my friend-it is the great unwashed masses who you need to convince.

 

[LDA]

Like global warming? It's actually closer to a religion.

Global warming isn't agreed upon by all scientists, and I agree, it's more like a religion. We're talking about things like evolution. The idea that we pass on traits and that species gradually evolve to reflect this passing on of traits over time. Usually, the best argument people will launch against this (and it's a poor argument) is "I don't believe we came from monkeys." Well, we came from something, and something was very different from modern day humans.

 

[erowe1]

If you want to argue that government shouldn't be involved in education at all, sure. I view that as infrastructure. Without an educated populace, we'd really be in trouble. There's a clear difference between teaching science and teaching religion. The two can't be compared.

If you're advocating compulsory education funded by coercive taxation, which it looks to me like you are, then you have no business pretending that anything you've said here has anything at all to do with you wanting freedom. Quit being a poser and just come out and say you're against secession because you're an Obama supporter.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Evolution is science, man. I don't know what to tell you about that. If you believe that a certain part of science is fake because the bible tells you so, that's absurd. We see evolution all around us, and if you don't believe in it, you don't understand it.

Evolution is not objective science, it is philosophy. Even within the secular scientific community, evolution is controversial. Neither Darwin nor contemporary biologists have subjected evolution to the scientific method (that I know of).

Perhaps you could cite for us an example of a study which observed evolution occurring in real time? I'm open to the possibility, I just don't see the objective evidence.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

If you want to argue that government shouldn't be involved in education at all, sure. I view that as infrastructure. Without an educated populace, we'd really be in trouble. There's a clear difference between teaching science and teaching religion. The two can't be compared.

You think people weren't educated before government schooling? I don't see "schooling" as necessarily equivalent to "education". Lincoln hardly spent any time in school, and now he has all sorts of worshipers on this board and throughout America. Where is "education" to be found in the Constitution? This is a role that parents and communities need to play, not the government. Besides, in my experience, the more the government gets involved with schooling, the worse it gets. (Hence, a college degree today is about equivalent to a 1950's high school diploma)

 

[LDA]

If you're advocating compulsory education funded by coercive taxation, which it looks to me like you are, then you have no business pretending that anything you've said here has anything at all to do with you wanting freedom. Quit being a poser and just come out and say you're against secession because you're an Obama supporter.

I'm against secession because it would involve discarding the constitution and trusting ignorant southerners to write a new one. No thanks, I think the old one would work just fine, if we would actually pay attention to it. As for liberal, sure, I consider myself a classic liberal. If you want to call me a modern day liberal, you have no idea what I believe.

I don't see why state or local government can't or shouldn't provide public education. What other option is there? I'm against the federal government having anything to do with education.

Evolution is not objective science, it is philosophy. Even within the secular scientific community, evolution is controversial. Neither Darwin nor contemporary biologists have subjected evolution to the scientific method (that I know of).

Perhaps you could cite for us an example of a study which observed evolution occurring in real time? I'm open to the possibility, I just don't see the objective evidence.

I'm not going to teach you evolution, but it's a pretty basic idea. I already explained it in some detail. You agree that people pass on traits, right? I believe that the passing on of traits has been going on since life began. The difference is that you believe God poofed life into existence 6,000 years ago, and we all came from one man that God created and a woman created out of a human rib. I believe that we've been evolving for a lot longer than that.

But, again, I'm not going to teach you something that 7th grade science class should have. The fact that so many people deny such a basic thing as evolution means that our public education system really is a failure.

You think people weren't educated before government schooling? I don't see "schooling" as necessarily equivalent to "education". Lincoln hardly spent any time in school, and now he has all sorts of worshipers on this board and throughout America. Where is "education" to be found in the Constitution? This is a role that parents and communities need to play, not the government. Besides, in my experience, the more the government gets involved with schooling, the worse it gets. (Hence, a college degree today is about equivalent to a 1950's high school diploma)

Well, schooling is necessary to become educated. All of the technology and discoveries we have today are not because people read the bible, it's because people learned math and science, and used that in various professions.

If anyone on this board worships Lincoln, maybe they should read "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. Lincoln is probably one of the worst presidents we've ever had, especially from a libertarian perspective.

And, again, the constitution deals with the federal government. It says all other powers are delegated to the people or the states. Education could be one of those powers, if the state chooses. I agree with the evaluation that government intervention into education has made it worse, though.