The Briefing Room
Exclusive Content => Editorials => Topic started by: INVAR on September 27, 2016, 08:25:43 pm
-
We've spent the last decades watching the Constitutional Conservatism that Reagan branded into the GOP get trod underfoot within the Republican Party via the Establishment leadership. It should not have surprised us, because that same Dole/Bush liberal Rockefeller Republican opposed Reagan with vehemence in his runs for the presidency - and even after he was in office. They made it a cause to eradicate it from their party once Reagan left office, because to have listened to the beltway bunch - we are an embarrassment to their party. There is probably no better definition of this than in Angelo Codevillas excellent essay: America's Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution (http://spectator.org/39326_americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution/), which if you have not read - I highly invite you to do so.
But today - it is self-evident that the Republican Party we thought was the home of limited government, Constitutional Conservatism, is nothing of the sort. Since 2012 the leadership made it clear via rules changes that Reagan Conservatives and Originalists were to sit down, shut up and vote the party without having a say in how things are run or what policies and platforms to cherish. The Leadership under Mitch McConnell even threatened to 'punch us in the nose' for daring to primary him with a Tea Party favorite. They lied to the entire base promising to stop Obama's Fundamental transformation if we handed them the Senate. But the polls had barely closed and the Leadership was already giving us the middle finger. The Ruling Class leadership established themselves as nothing but career collaborators with the Democrats and Conservative efforts to demand the foundations we respect, should be upheld. But we were rebuffed and their contempt for us laid bare.
The Establishment worked harder to oppose their own base than the unConstitutional affronts of Obama and the Democrats. Even to the point of empowering and funding his entire agenda. It was a punch to the gut after a slap in the face and they told us at the beginning of this 2016 election cycle to lie back and enjoy the rape.
In the aftermath of the 2016 Primaries and the debacle of Trump - many Conservatives are now left wondering 'what happens to the movement now?'.
Does it morph into this Nationalist Populist Fascism Trump and his hordes are preaching? Does it get folded into Socialism Light under Rience Priebus? Does it get redefined by Trump into something we would never recognize? Does it need to depart the GOP and form or work to build a new party? If so, and a departure is necessary, what then?
What happens to the core principles and foundations that are now apparently a minority within the GOP and the electorate itself?
I may have an answer as to what we might see, because I have seen a very similar thing happen, albeit not politically.
The fallout from Apostasy.
I've witnessed a microcosm of what I think is happening to Conservatism within churches in this country.
Now before you discount that and think that church fellowship and politics have nothing in common - understand that for most Constitutional Conservatives - their political cores are a belief system, doctrines of Americanism if you will - that becomes the prism by which they look at everything in society. Everything. Not just political campaigns. But how they live their lives. Not unlike how some Christians look at the world through the prism of the bible.
If you think that notion is absurd, then you are not a Constitutional Conservative. You are something else entirely.
I've witnessed and/or been part of several large corporate churches having gone apostate on their foundational doctrines to embrace 'new truth' (i.e.: homosexual marriage, Chrislam or even changes in basic doctrinal beliefs) all for the sake of 'getting new people to like us' and grow the weekly coffer. Often it is done under the pretense of 'preaching the Gospel' to the unreached. In one case, a church simply had individuals in leadership who wanted to force the church to accept heresy as a doctrine or tear the entire church down and remake it into their own image. Some due to individuals in leadership that hated the church itself for their own personal reasons.
What happened in those experiences I think, is what we are watching take place now with Conservatism and the GOP. And here is what happens:
During the process of 'fundamental Transformation' - the introduction of heretical 'new truths' are preached within the church. Some doctrines declared outdated, un-useful, offensive or just plain wrong. A discussion is started about adopting or morphing other doctrines into their own. Most nod blindly in agreement, because a large number of brethren believe whatever they are told from the pulpit, rather than prove what is true themselves. However, those who have their nose in scripture are alarmed and upset at the perversions being preached. The leadership does nothing and actually assists the doctrinal changes begin implemented, often by proof texting the bible to authorize the changes. So the new doctrines are imposed, incrementally at first - and then full implementation despite the complaints from longtime members who recognize apostasy.
A large number of brethren convince themselves that they can change the church from within, and work to rectify the growing discord and contentions with the elders and pastors. Often they are placated with meaningless promises of involvement in church board decisions, or their suggestions and complaints will be taken under advisement. They soon find their efforts get them branded as sowers of discord.
The Ministry then goes full tilt to preach 'unity' and 'obedience' to whatever the pastorship says and or decrees is the new doctrine. This happens week after week, so as to condition the members to accept what the church government tells them. Often there are sermon series on Romans 13, and the requirement to obey church hierarchy.
Those who continue to complain or discuss the apostasy with others, are ostracized, sermonized against and ultimately disfellowshipped, marked and put out of the congregation. This causes a huge backlash and the leadership almost always tamps down with an authoritarian fist, warning brethren they will lose their souls if they do not accept the new doctrines and to either shut up and keep their discontent to themselves, or leave.
A major split occurs (which is where I think we are currently at with the GOP). A number of those who recognize apostasy leave the church to form new smaller congregations. The diminishment of the larger church is almost immediate - and usually a war of words, legal actions and other nefarious behaviors are directed at those who decide they no longer want to be part of the Mother Church. Members of the older congregation are instructed to have no contact with those who left, and sometimes they work to discredit, sabotage and ruin the efforts those that left are making to form a new congregation. Often internecine wars go on for years, causing more discord and division. The larger church often aligns itself with larger apostate churches to keep their tithes and offerings up - but in short order they are folded into the churches they have adopted doctrines from and cease to be who they once were.
The dangerous fallout of such splits is the disillusionment in God that many people suffer. Some quit the faith altogether. Some run back to embrace ideas and beliefs they once practiced before conversion. Some grow hostile to the very essence of Christianity, God and the bible itself. Still there remains a remnant of core principled Believers who recognize they have no home and work to establish new fellowships among likeminded.
Among the splintered groups comes those 'leaders' who believe in the core doctrines that were discarded, but they now want a following for themselves. So they work to yank as many people from the now irrelevant 'mother church' into their own congregations, promising them a restoration of 'truth once delivered' by a church that has gone apostate. They succeed for awhile, but then members are subjected to the personal interpretations of the 'new leader'. Like sheep - lots of brethren will follow a man because of his oratory skills or influence. People want to go where there are numbers rather than dwell within a handful. But the warring factions of those who split the first time, split again and again - most often over whose name is on the door and who is in charge. Some insist upon the precise and exact interpretation of everything from prophecy to which translation must be the only one referenced, or they declare the splintered group to be just another apostate group. More splits occur.
This leads to a tiny minority of core people beholden to doctrine rather than men or numbers that are left to fellowship together. Home fellowships or congregations are on the rise with small groups renting storefronts. Their numbers are less than a couple dozen people every week. Their influence in the community is limited or next to nothing.
The results are that the brethren are jaded and worry about which charlatan or false preacher will come in and try to lead them astray. They turn inward in terms of trust, and the preaching of the Gospel is neglected for the sake of simply catering to a core group of people who want to meet and congregate and share what they have in common. The Great Commission becomes more diluted and society is untouched or influenced by the truths they should be sharing.
The culture around us is a testament to the damage that this kind of apostasy and splits in a body that is supposed to be serving as a witness and light to a nation that once called itself of God. The church at large becomes lukewarm and ineffective.
That said, there are positives that occur when a biblically-oriented people remove themselves from apostasy. Their faith and values are not diminished or rewritten to suit the agenda of others. And while it may seem they are in the wilderness and irrelevant - they learn the beauty that comes from truly being free of 'plantation control'. They can maneuver and move wherever the Spirit of God directs them to move without approval or direction of a hierarchy of men that often limits what individuals can do unless the 'leadership' endorses it.
Over time, I have seen smaller groups network with others and they become a 'leaderless' movement as it were, all claiming Christ as their head and of no need for a party of men to tell them what they can or cannot do. They field their own missionaries, outreach and are having an influence on younger people who were invisible in the larger corporate churches. I see God's Hand moving in these groups and I think that they will be the ones Daniel 11:32 describes as doing 'great exploits' - despite the fact Christian influence in America and the West in on the wane.
I am not discouraged over the fact that Christianity is largely irrelevant in a hedonist culture that sees them as intolerant or evil. We were told this would happen in Matthew 24. I am content to know that it is with a minority that a witness is given before God.
What happens to the Reagan Constitutional Conservative Movement Now?
As with the church - if the Constitutional Conservative movement is splintered and relegated to pockets and corners, having been rejected by the majority party and a nation that no longer reflects the values we believe in, we should in no wise capitulate and give into becoming apostates ourselves. We have to admit we have no home or place within the Republican party. It is wholly apostate and corrupted, it has entrenched rules that will forever eschew what you and I believe in. We risk having our core values watered down and diminished by remaining within it. We can build a new fellowship and party that better values what we are governed by.
For even if we are irrelevant as far as the political zeitgeist and direction of the country goes in the near future - we are the ones who have yet to do great exploits as a tiny minority that holds to the truth of our foundations and religious heritage. We are the ones who will provide a witness and a searing conscience to those who willfully discarded what was established for liberty to be maintained in this land. We are the ones to point the disillusioned to the path and the way back to freedom.
Our political worldview based on the true history of our founding and the documents that established liberty should not change simply because the rest of the nation has embraced Socialism and big government. We will be the remnant that have the seeds of liberty in our souls - and should they need to be planted in the ashes of consequences, we will be the ones to plant good seed for a hoped-for good crop understanding that though we are limited to planting and watering - it is God that brings forth the increase.
-
This is a good read. Thanks. @INVAR
That said, there are positives that occur when a biblically-oriented people remove themselves from apostasy. Their faith and values are not diminished or rewritten to suit the agenda of others. And while it may seem they are in the wilderness and irrelevant - they learn the beauty that comes from truly being free of 'plantation control'. They can maneuver and move wherever the Spirit of God directs them to move without approval or direction of a hierarchy of men that often limits what individuals can do unless the 'leadership' endorses it.
This is where I view myself. Despite what others might think. I am far from being a perfect person. But from that experience I have an invaluable (to me) wealth of information.
-
Thanks, @INVAR ! Great essay, and well worth reading in its entirety!
I especially agree with:
For even if we are irrelevant as far as the political zeitgeist and direction of the country goes in the near future - we are the ones who have yet to do great exploits as a tiny minority that holds to the truth of our foundations and religious heritage. We are the ones who will provide a witness and a searing conscience to those who willfully discarded what was established for liberty to be maintained in this land. We are the ones to point the disillusioned to the path and the way back to freedom.
Our political worldview based on the true history of our founding and the documents that established liberty should not change simply because the rest of the nation has embraced Socialism and big government. We will be the remnant that have the seeds of liberty in our souls - and should they need to be planted in the ashes of consequences, we will be the ones to plant good seed for a hoped-for good crop understanding that though we are limited to planting and watering - it is God that brings forth the increase.
We are in a time when the veneers of apparent Conservatism are being stripped away to reveal either lesser core beliefs or what is in fact, solid support for Liberty and Original Intent.
It is good being off the plantation.
-
"And while it may seem they are in the wilderness and irrelevant - they learn the beauty that comes from truly being free of 'plantation control'"
Every presidential election (save GHWB, but hey I was 18 and not really paying attention and just assumed he'd be a continuation of Reagan) I've held my nose and voted R because of the alternative. It's been harder every time. Even this year the choice was difficult, but I remember the point when I realized that yes, this time I was actually going to vote for someone whom I felt was the best reflection of my values and the heck with "not losing". It feels so much better ro be free.
-
Thanks, @INVAR
Original Intent reminds me.
Man, it would be nice if I could talk either one of those two candidates into a wee bitty bite of the Apple.
-
I was at my parents house today helping my mom with my dad...
Anyway she was watching CNBC and they had some analyst on who was predicting the Republican Party would split in two shortly.
Republican and Conservative being two separate parties for the 2020 election, if not sooner.
-
I was at my parents house today helping my mom with my dad...
Anyway she was watching CNBC and they had some analyst on who was predicting the Republican Party would split in two shortly.
Republican and Conservative being two separate parties for the 2020 election, if not sooner.
I think they have and it is all over but the shouting. :silly:
-
I posted this to another discussion a few days ago, but I think it bears repeating:
You know, that may be the beginning of a way to revitalize the conservative movement. There are many malcontented people in the country today, but who feel they have no place to go that represents them. If we can present our philosophy to them, separate from the label "conservative" which both the Dems and the GOP have fairly successfully painted as distasteful, we may be able to grow up a new cohort of liberty-minded individualists. The "malcontents" I'm talking about are those quiet people (of all races and ethnicities, not just those we've previously thought of as fruitful ground for conservatives) who feel that there's no one and no group who represents their beliefs, desires, and hopes for the future. They are the ones we need to find and welcome. It bears some thinking about.
-
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,227168.msg1072133.html#msg1072133
-
I posted this to another discussion a few days ago, but I think it bears repeating:
You know, that may be the beginning of a way to revitalize the conservative movement. There are many malcontented people in the country today, but who feel they have no place to go that represents them. If we can present our philosophy to them, separate from the label "conservative" which both the Dems and the GOP have fairly successfully painted as distasteful, we may be able to grow up a new cohort of liberty-minded individualists. The "malcontents" I'm talking about are those quiet people (of all races and ethnicities, not just those we've previously thought of as fruitful ground for conservatives) who feel that there's no one and no group who represents their beliefs, desires, and hopes for the future. They are the ones we need to find and welcome. It bears some thinking about.
Definitely, but the approach should be attempting to persuade in terms they can understand, not demanding that they come to our preferred terms. I think this is something Reagan understood that most of us seem to have forgotten.
As an illustration: it is not enough for a defendant's lawyer to stand up in front of the jury box and say something like: "he's innocent, innocent as the driven snow, and if you could just put your blinders down for a second and look at the facts, you'll see that I'm correct." The defense lawyer may be absolutely correct, but that approach will almost certainly result in a conviction. Instead, a good defense lawyer (which is almost a repetition, most defense lawyers are good, almost by definition) will do her best to take the measure of the individuals sitting in the jury box - including most especially the ones she thinks like the defendant the least - and try to craft an explanation of the evidence in terms they can understand as individuals based on their own life experience. It doesn't always work, but it's about the only way the defendant has any way of getting an acquittal.
We need more Reaganesque kitchen table talks, and less soapbox preaching. The former reaches the uncommitted, and hopefully a few of the opposition; the latter simply reaches the choir.
-
Republican does not equal Conservative.
I am of the opinion that the Republican party has moved further to the left and will CONTINUE to do so until it loses an election or two. It will only become clear to them that they have abandoned the base when the conservatives leave en mass for another party. The sooner that happens, the sooner the party will move back to the right. Until that happens we will continue to get McCain, Rommney and Trump like candidates at the top of the ticket.
To help the exodus along, I have switched to the Constitution Party and I will be voting for Castle. I encourage others to do the same.
-
Definitely, but the approach should be attempting to persuade in terms they can understand, not demanding that they come to our preferred terms. I think this is something Reagan understood that most of us seem to have forgotten.
As an illustration: it is not enough for a defendant's lawyer to stand up in front of the jury box and say something like: "he's innocent, innocent as the driven snow, and if you could just put your blinders down for a second and look at the facts, you'll see that I'm correct." The defense lawyer may be absolutely correct, but that approach will almost certainly result in a conviction. Instead, a good defense lawyer (which is almost a repetition, most defense lawyers are good, almost by definition) will do her best to take the measure of the individuals sitting in the jury box - including most especially the ones she thinks like the defendant the least - and try to craft an explanation of the evidence in terms they can understand as individuals based on their own life experience. It doesn't always work, but it's about the only way the defendant has any way of getting an acquittal.
We need more Reaganesque kitchen table talks, and less soapbox preaching. The former reaches the uncommitted, and hopefully a few of the opposition; the latter simply reaches the choir.
I completely agree; that's what I'm talking about. We need to reach out to the malcontented folks around the country and talk to them about what bothers them and how our principles address those problems.
-
We need more Reaganesque kitchen table talks, and less soapbox preaching. The former reaches the uncommitted, and hopefully a few of the opposition; the latter simply reaches the choir.
"...we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, • would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
II Chronicles 7:14 is the only way. This nation needs to be re-evangelized.
-
@INVAR You make a lot of good points and I think you make a very good point in drawing the parrells between faith and politics.
I ran across an interesing article on the subject of faith: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,227328.0.html
I think a driving for here that often get overlooked is the post modern world view. Much of what we are experiencing is the clash of ideas. On the one hand the growing belief that there are no absolutes, versus the traditional the belief that the Bible or the Constitution are true and remain relevant.
-
@INVAR You make a lot of good points and I think you make a very good point in drawing the parrells between faith and politics.
I ran across an interesing article on the subject of faith: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,227328.0.html
I think a driving for here that often get overlooked is the post modern world view. Much of what we are experiencing is the clash of ideas. On the one hand the growing belief that there are no absolutes, versus the traditional the belief that the Bible or the Constitution are true and remain relevant.
Right. The liberals insisting there is a free lunch while making us pay for it.
-
@INVAR You make a lot of good points and I think you make a very good point in drawing the parrells between faith and politics.
I ran across an interesing article on the subject of faith: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,227328.0.html
I think a driving for here that often get overlooked is the post modern world view. Much of what we are experiencing is the clash of ideas. On the one hand the growing belief that there are no absolutes, versus the traditional the belief that the Bible or the Constitution are true and remain relevant.
Without absolutes - there is no need for a Constitution. Life will be governed by the whims of who rules and what they say is law at the moment.
For the record, it has been interesting watching the Constitution suffer the same fate as the Bible in society. Forget the plain words - everything is open to personal interpretation or they await justices to tell us what the plain words really mean - often based on what others in the past have decided the words should mean.
-
Cancelled for lack of interest after everyone joined the Bush Cult and started drinking the Bush Kool-Ade.
-
I posted this to another discussion a few days ago, but I think it bears repeating:
You know, that may be the beginning of a way to revitalize the conservative movement. There are many malcontented people in the country today, but who feel they have no place to go that represents them. If we can present our philosophy to them, separate from the label "conservative" which both the Dems and the GOP have fairly successfully painted as distasteful, we may be able to grow up a new cohort of liberty-minded individualists. The "malcontents" I'm talking about are those quiet people (of all races and ethnicities, not just those we've previously thought of as fruitful ground for conservatives) who feel that there's no one and no group who represents their beliefs, desires, and hopes for the future. They are the ones we need to find and welcome. It bears some thinking about.
"It better serves the needs and designs of the political left to couch all political and policy debates and discussion in terms of left or right, conservative or liberal." - Joseph Sobran (conservative author / idealist, contemporary and colleague of WFB).
-
Without absolutes - there is no need for a Constitution. Life will be governed by the whims of who rules and what they say is law at the moment.
For the record, it has been interesting watching the Constitution suffer the same fate as the Bible in society. Forget the plain words - everything is open to personal interpretation or they await justices to tell us what the plain words really mean - often based on what others in the past have decided the words should mean.
Not one in one thousand people you ask at random on the street can correctly answer the question, "What is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy?" Until that is reversed IOW only one in one thousand cannot NOT answer that question correctly, the Idiocracy will be in the ascendency and the godless plutocratic Empire will continue to march to power over the entire planet.
-
Not one in one thousand people you ask at random on the street can correctly answer the question, "What is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy?" Until that is reversed IOW only one in one thousand cannot NOT answer that question correctly, the Idiocracy will be in the ascendency and the godless plutocratic Empire will continue to march to power over the entire planet.
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. The more they multiplied, the more they sinned against Me; I will change their glory into shame.… - Hosea 4:6
-
@INVAR @Oceander @LateForLunch
So how do we implement the needed outreach to those malcontent people of all types in the country who would perhaps reject anything labeled "conservative" out of hand? Perhaps we need to write up a statement of principles and beliefs that we can use as a starting point for discussion and education. What do you all think?
-
Not one in one thousand people you ask at random on the street can correctly answer the question, "What is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy?" Until that is reversed IOW only one in one thousand cannot NOT answer that question correctly, the Idiocracy will be in the ascendency and the godless plutocratic Empire will continue to march to power over the entire planet.
:amen: The only way to stop that nonsense is to go to your local school board meeting and insist they stop teaching the children that America is a democracy,and explain to the children the differences between a democracy and a republic,and point out why democracies are always destined to fall.
-
@INVAR @Oceander @LateForLunch
So how do we implement the needed outreach to those malcontent people of all types in the country who would perhaps reject anything labeled "conservative" out of hand? Perhaps we need to write up a statement of principles and beliefs that we can use as a starting point for discussion and education. What do you all think?
@Doug Loss
We can't. I have been trying for several years on several political boards to just quit allowing the left to identify themselves as "Liberals" to to GET CONSERVATIVES TO QUIT CALLING THE FASCIST LEFT AND FASCIST RIGHT "LIBERALS" also because there is no creature on earth LESS "liberal" than a leftist. In FACT,in America,it is the CONSERVATIVES that are trying to preserve our liberal form of government.
So far as I know, I have convinced NO ONE to do this. They are still calling the left "liberals" and sneering like it is an insult. If we can't even get our "own" people to recognize something this basic,what luck are you going to have convincing the brain dead sheeple?
-
@INVAR @Oceander @LateForLunch
So how do we implement the needed outreach to those malcontent people of all types in the country who would perhaps reject anything labeled "conservative" out of hand? Perhaps we need to write up a statement of principles and beliefs that we can use as a starting point for discussion and education. What do you all think?
Start by leaving out the word 'conservative'. That way they will never know what hit them.
-
@Doug Loss
We can't. I have been trying for several years on several political boards to just quit allowing the left to identify themselves as "Liberals" to to GET CONSERVATIVES TO QUIT CALLING THE FASCIST LEFT AND FASCIST RIGHT "LIBERALS" also because there is no creature on earth LESS "liberal" than a leftist. In FACT,in America,it is the CONSERVATIVES that are trying to preserve our liberal form of government.
So far as I know, I have convinced NO ONE to do this. They are still calling the left "liberals" and sneering like it is an insult. If we can't even get our "own" people to recognize something this basic,what luck are you going to have convincing the brain dead sheeple?
The answer is that some genius must come along and figure out a way to make becoming an enlightened, vigilant, knowledgeable centurion at the gate of Liberty more convenient and fun than being a lazy, easily- distracted, apathetic, bovine conformist to the whims and dictates of an all-powerful, tyrannical super-State.
Largely and increasingly, my impression of the majority of today's young people in regard to understanding how we are governed, is that they are much like passengers on the Titanic who don't want to hear about ice bergs, sinking or "any of that sort of boring old-people crap".
-
The answer is that some genius must come along and figure out a way to make becoming an enlightened, vigilant, knowledgeable centurion at the gate of Liberty more convenient and fun than being a lazy, easily- distracted, apathetic, bovine conformist to the whims and dictates of an all-powerful, tyrannical super-State.
Largely and increasingly, my impression of the majority of today's young people in regard to understanding how we are governed, is that they are much like passengers on the Titanic who don't want to hear about ice bergs, sinking or "any of that sort of boring old-people crap".
Institute a draft. Teach citizenship in schools. Convene an Article V convention. Cut them off.
-
@Doug Loss
We can't. I have been trying for several years on several political boards to just quit allowing the left to identify themselves as "Liberals" to to GET CONSERVATIVES TO QUIT CALLING THE FASCIST LEFT AND FASCIST RIGHT "LIBERALS" also because there is no creature on earth LESS "liberal" than a leftist. In FACT,in America,it is the CONSERVATIVES that are trying to preserve our liberal form of government.
So far as I know, I have convinced NO ONE to do this. They are still calling the left "liberals" and sneering like it is an insult. If we can't even get our "own" people to recognize something this basic,what luck are you going to have convincing the brain dead sheeple?
Unless you try, how would you know? I'm saying, let's get back to our original principles. Let's drop all the political terminology, the dogma we've acquired over the years, and try to engage the people looking for something to believe in, some way out of the malaise the left has imposed on the country. Let's try to build a positive spirit of individualism, of ability, of responsibility for our rights and those of others. Let's give those people something to believe in, not just railing at those who try to hold them back.
Here's a theme song for us:
Mary Ellen Carter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhop5VuLDIQ)
-
@INVAR @Oceander @LateForLunch
So how do we implement the needed outreach to those malcontent people of all types in the country who would perhaps reject anything labeled "conservative" out of hand? Perhaps we need to write up a statement of principles and beliefs that we can use as a starting point for discussion and education. What do you all think?
A people that have abandoned God and a nation that has become hostile to His Laws, is a people and nation that have no ability to comprehend or understand the moral precepts that undergird the foundations of liberty.
In short - without a religious and moral people who are beholden to God - you have no ability to get them to understand the principles of liberty and Republicanism.
We are become a wicked and debased people, I cannot even get Christian churches to discuss repentance and standing up for morality anymore. Their leaderships are more concerned about weekly offerings declining if they start 'offending people'. We truly have become an Isaiah 30:10 nation.
Until the nation repents - such efforts you suggest are futile.
But if you want to try in your inner circle of folks - start getting people back to God and scripture. Because everything else that we were sprang up from that seed and root.
-
Exactly why trump has such a popularity. He is feeding off mom and pop attitudes and beliefs that the America their parents and grandparents built is gone. Trump has promised "To Make America Great Again". Which is, of course, exactly what they want to hear. But he really doesn't have Christ in his life so he doesn't have the spiritual backing to pull it off. Which, even if elected, will be why he fails.
-
It dies off?
I'm 40 and barely remember Reagan.
-
It dies off?
I'm 40 and barely remember Reagan.
Yes. It dies off. There is the "new" Conservatism. Tolerant and accepting. In touch with their inner Gaia. As soon as my intolerant butt is gone they have it all. But until then I will be unbending against islam, illegal immigration, the homosexual agenda, abortion, globalism, climate change, etc.
-
Yes. It dies off. There is the "new" Conservatism. Tolerant and accepting. In touch with their inner Gaia. As soon as my intolerant butt is gone they have it all. But until then I will be unbending against islam, illegal immigration, the homosexual agenda, abortion, globalism, climate change, etc.
Just letting you know... prattling on about Reagan is not a way forward for the movement. Most people under 40 only know of Reagan from their biased sources: colleges and the media.
-
A people that have abandoned God and a nation that has become hostile to His Laws,
@INVAR
You must be confused. This is NOT Iraq,Iran,or Saudi Arabia. It's not even Rome. It's the United States of America,and OUR laws are the law of man.
-
...But he really doesn't have Christ in his life so he doesn't have the spiritual backing to pull it off. Which, even if elected, will be why he fails.
@bigheadfred
I guess any American that isn't a Bible Thumper and accepts "The word of GAWD!" as his or her personal slavery ticket to salvation isn't a "real American",huh?
And some people still wonder why conservatism doesn't dominate!
-
:pop41:
-
@bigheadfred
I guess any American that isn't a Bible Thumper and accepts "The word of GAWD!" as his or her personal slavery ticket to salvation isn't a "real American",huh?
And some people still wonder why conservatism doesn't dominate!
:amen:
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
People think Trump is looney but they really need to take a look in the mirror when they extra "Jesusy". That crap won't fly with anyone under the age of 50. I've heard loonies say God decides elections, to Jesus riding dinosaurs, etc.
-
A people that have abandoned God and a nation that has become hostile to His Laws, is a people and nation that have no ability to comprehend or understand the moral precepts that undergird the foundations of liberty.
In short - without a religious and moral people who are beholden to God - you have no ability to get them to understand the principles of liberty and Republicanism.
We are become a wicked and debased people, I cannot even get Christian churches to discuss repentance and standing up for morality anymore. Their leaderships are more concerned about weekly offerings declining if they start 'offending people'. We truly have become an Isaiah 30:10 nation.
Until the nation repents - such efforts you suggest are futile.
But if you want to try in your inner circle of folks - start getting people back to God and scripture. Because everything else that we were sprang up from that seed and root.
You need to visit an Orthodox church sometime. My preference is for ROCOR (the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia), as it seems the most "fundamental" of the various hierarchies, but pretty much any Orthodox church will have what you're not finding elsewhere.
-
I'll have a go this weekend at writing up something like a statement of principles and beliefs that might be useful as a starting point to give people something to believe in. I'll post it here and you can tear it to shreds, OK? :laugh:
-
@INVAR
You must be confused. This is NOT Iraq,Iran,or Saudi Arabia. It's not even Rome. It's the United States of America,and OUR laws are the law of man.
Then stop complaining about the tyranny of men and the foibles of bad character in our rulers. Without the moral foundations liberty that was enshrined for us, men will decide how liberty is to be defined for you, if you are permitted to exercise it at all.
We have arrived at this juncture of the tyranny of men precisely because in the name of eschewing everything from that book and that religion that a majority now despise or are indifferent to - we are becoming Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Namely a caste system of top down tyrannical leadership.
-
@Doug Loss
We can't. I have been trying for several years on several political boards to just quit allowing the left to identify themselves as "Liberals" to to GET CONSERVATIVES TO QUIT CALLING THE FASCIST LEFT AND FASCIST RIGHT "LIBERALS" also because there is no creature on earth LESS "liberal" than a leftist. In FACT,in America,it is the CONSERVATIVES that are trying to preserve our liberal form of government.
So far as I know, I have convinced NO ONE to do this. They are still calling the left "liberals" and sneering like it is an insult. If we can't even get our "own" people to recognize something this basic,what luck are you going to have convincing the brain dead sheeple?
To me the spectrum is simply between totalitarian and free.
More government control/sponsorship/supervision/reccomendations/oversight/meddling is more totalitarian.
If you are free, you, your things, and your soul are beholden to no one except as you choose. You respect the Rights of others as you would have them respect yours. For me, my prime obligation is to my Creator and those others I call family. Or more simply put, God, Family, County, State, Country, in that order, as I see fit.
-
Then stop complaining about the tyranny of men and the foibles of bad character in our rulers. Without the moral foundations liberty that was enshrined for us, men will decide how liberty is to be defined for you, if you are permitted to exercise it at all.
We have arrived at this juncture of the tyranny of men precisely because in the name of eschewing everything from that book and that religion that a majority now despise or are indifferent to - we are becoming Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Namely a caste system of top down tyrannical leadership.
@INVAR
Ok,now I know you are confused. Not to mention delusional. I AM complaining about the tyranny of men when I complain about organized religion,from the guy with the big hat in Rome,to the Fascist that gives YOU your marching orders every Sunday,and tells you that he and you are empowered to force the rest of us to live according to your superstitious beliefs because GAWD DEMANDS IT!
Now,if YOU want to live according to the tenants of your religious beliefs,have at it! The problem is that if you had the power you wouldn't stop there. You would insist that everyone else live according to those beliefs also,and would use the force of law to punish those who don't. For all practical purposes,the only difference between fundie Christians and Fundie Muslims is the clothing. You don't really hate each other for any other reason than jealousy. You both want to dominate the world and force people to live according to your beliefs.
Which is why people have been playing Muslims and Christians for almost a thousand years now. You both insist on dominating and don't want any competition or any protest.
THAT is why we have Freedom of Religion in the US. Freedom of Religion is also freedom FROM religion if we so choose,and it is un-Constitutional in America to establish or recognize an official church.
-
@INVAR
Ok,now I know you are confused. Not to mention delusional. I AM complaining about the tyranny of men when I complain about organized religion,from the guy with the big hat in Rome,to the Fascist that gives YOU your marching orders every Sunday,and tells you that he and you are empowered to force the rest of us to live according to your superstitious beliefs because GAWD DEMANDS IT!
Now,if YOU want to live according to the tenants of your religious beliefs,have at it! The problem is that if you had the power you wouldn't stop there. You would insist that everyone else live according to those beliefs also,and would use the force of law to punish those who don't. For all practical purposes,the only difference between fundie Christians and Fundie Muslims is the clothing. You don't really hate each other for any other reason than jealousy. You both want to dominate the world and force people to live according to your beliefs.
Which is why people have been playing Muslims and Christians for almost a thousand years now. You both insist on dominating and don't want any competition or any protest.
THAT is why we have Freedom of Religion in the US. Freedom of Religion is also freedom FROM religion if we so choose,and it is un-Constitutional in America to establish or recognize an official church.
My friend, you are so far off the mark you aren't even wrong, you're just incomprehensible. You clearly know nothing about the actual tenets of Christianity. Your hatred of all religion is quite clear. It's not rational.
-
Your hatred of all religion is quite clear. It's not rational.
@Doug Loss
ROFLMAO! That is RICH! You believe in the supernatural and magic,holy ghosts,life after death,etc,etc,etc,and you tell me that *I* am the one not rational????
-
@INVAR @Oceander @LateForLunch
So how do we implement the needed outreach to those malcontent people of all types in the country who would perhaps reject anything labeled "conservative" out of hand? Perhaps we need to write up a statement of principles and beliefs that we can use as a starting point for discussion and education. What do you all think?
Good ideas. Perhaps start with a list of the things you hold valuable and then try to explain in positive terms how those values would in fact contribute to someone else's life, and in particular, why certain things seem counterintuitive. A simple example is Adam Smith's invisible hand. It seems counterintuitive that if everyone is allowed to pursue their own selfish aims, society will be the better for it, but that is generally what happens. So the next task is to try and explain why that is. Things of that nature.
-
@INVAR
For all practical purposes,the only difference between fundie Christians and Fundie Muslims is the clothing.
And that one group will pray for you while the other will chop off your head. Maybe I'm being a little nit picky here, but I do feel like it's a difference that's at least worth mentioning.
-
@Doug Loss
ROFLMAO! That is RICH! You believe in the supernatural and magic,holy ghosts,life after death,etc,etc,etc,and you tell me that *I* am the one not rational????
Hating something that you believe (not "know," believe) is irrational does not make you any the less irrational. Hatred is irrational.
Furthermore, it is not logically possible to rule out the existence of God in the natural universe. There was a rather interesting paper that came out a few years back that essentially demonstrated that Godel's incompleteness theorem applied to the natural universe. One of the consequences of that is that there are truths about the natural universe that cannot be expressed through natural terms. I.e., there are truths about the Universe that cannot be stated, and thus cannot be proven (or disproven) by beings who live in, and are a part of, the natural universe. There's a little blog-type summary of the position here (it also contains a link to a more extensive paper on the topic): http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~cannata/cs313e/Class%20Notes/04%20Marshall%20Godel's%20Incompleteness%20Theorem.pdf (http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~cannata/cs313e/Class%20Notes/04%20Marshall%20Godel's%20Incompleteness%20Theorem.pdf)
The bottom line is this: the fact that God's existence cannot be proven by positivist methods does not mean that God does not exist. But then again, as my rather simplistic understanding of Christianity goes, that is why there is the Grace of God; that true belief comes through the acceptance of God's grace, and not through rational deduction alone.
It is irrational to think otherwise.
One more little point: atheists like to think themselves freed of the chains of ignorance and superstition, but if you examine their claims with any degree of skepticism and in any reasonable detail, they end up resolving themselves into a set of beliefs, not knowledge, but beliefs. Since the bedrock of religion is belief, it necessarily follows that atheism is, at bottom, simply another form of religious belief.
-
And that one group will pray for you while the other will chop off your head. Maybe I'm being a little nit picky here, but I do feel like it's a difference that's at least worth mentioning.
@InHeavenThereIsNoBeer
No,the first group will pray for your soul as they chop off your head,while the second group just chops off heads.
A distinction without a real difference.
-
Hating something that you believe (not "know," believe) is irrational does not make you any the less irrational. Hatred is irrational.
Furthermore, it is not logically possible to rule out the existence of God in the natural universe. <<
@Oceander
It is logical to demand proof,and say the absence of proof strongly indicates it is false.
The bottom line is this: the fact that God's existence cannot be proven by positivist methods does not mean that God does not exist.<<
It damn sure doesn't prove that God does exist,either.
>>It is irrational to think otherwise.<<
Say WHAT? HOW is it irrational to claim that a complete and total lack of proof is reasonable cause to suspect something is not true?
One more little point: atheists like to think themselves freed of the chains of ignorance and superstition, but if you examine their claims with any degree of skepticism and in any reasonable detail, they end up resolving themselves into a set of beliefs, not knowledge, but beliefs. <<
Which is why I never tell anyone I am an atheist. They do as much preaching as the fundie Christians and Muslims.
-
@Doug Loss
ROFLMAO! That is RICH! You believe in the supernatural and magic,holy ghosts,life after death,etc,etc,etc,and you tell me that *I* am the one not rational????
Do you consider the founding father's irrational, they believed a creator was self evident? Most were devout Christians believing in the Bible and the resurrection.
-
@bigheadfred
I guess any American that isn't a Bible Thumper and accepts "The word of GAWD!" as his or her personal slavery ticket to salvation isn't a "real American",huh?
And some people still wonder why conservatism doesn't dominate!
@sneakypete First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'll go with that, and I am a Christian. Despite your pejorative characterization of religion, in some cases perhaps well deserved, a vast number of "Real Americans" existed before the Vikings found this place. Some of them became Christians, some didn't.
Among those honorable people in either camp is a shared set of values. Your word is your bond. You stand up for what you believe is right. You defend your friends, relentlessly pursue your enemies, but can come to terms in a mutually honorable peace--or, in some cases, not. Fundamental rules exist, and breaking those promotes outrage whatever one's religious beliefs.
You don't steal from others. (It pisses them off, just as you would be pissed off if they stole something of yours).
You don't needlessly kill them. (That pisses off their relatives).
You don't screw their wives (Messing with family units is often taboo, even though there may be exceptions).
You feed the poor, sick, and weak who can't feed themselves. (Note, I didn't say won't feed themselves.)
Be kind to animals and lesser creatures, unless they are a threat to you and yours, or you want them for food, then kill them quickly and mercifully.
Teach children the ways of adulthood as they are old and mature enough to learn without unnecessarily rushing it.
Protect women and children from harm.
Most cultures would agree on most, if not all of that, at some level (individual/family/extended family/band/tribe/nation) regardless of religious belief, because human nature is pretty much hard wired in. The same spectrum of wants, needs, aggravations, ambitions, and desires are present in humanity as were thousands of years ago, only the scope of those and the trimmings have changed.
That takes us back to the idea of fundamental Rights.
The right to believe--or not.
The right to assemble in groups
The right to have an opinion and voice it
The right to challenge what you think is wrong
The right to defend yourself and yours
The right to have your stuff, without ANY one else messing with it.
The right to face those who accuse you of wrong, to make them prove what they contend or be believed innocent of that wrong.
To not be punished for any wrongs unless your people have decided you did, and only after consideration of all evidence for and against you. You have a right to defend yourself and have any and all who can aid in that defense present their information on your behalf. No punishment should be disproportional to the nature of whatever you did, if such applies, nor should it be unusually cruel.
For a Christian of Jew, those rules are laid out in the Bible, for others, in other scriptures or cultural tradition, but whether or not to follow some moral 'code' remains an individual choice.
The concept of Honor transcends culture, and although it is often co-opted or encumbered with other stuff, Men of Honor understand, instinctively, and follow that internal code. By any reasonable standard they are moral men. Those who are not, need rules spelled out in the most minute detail, and will still try to weasel out of them.
In terms of religion, we may not believe the same thing, yet I would trust you to conduct yourself honorably despite that.
That is what would make you a "Conservative" in my eyes, and beyond doubt a "Real American".
-
@InHeavenThereIsNoBeer
No,the first group will pray for your soul as they chop off your head,while the second group just chops off heads.
A distinction without a real difference.
Sorry, but that's simply irrational. For you to be saved, YOU have to accept Christ as your Saviour. If I cut off your head you can't do that and therefore it would make no sense to pray for you.
I seem to also recall God saying something about murder.
-
@bigheadfred
I guess any American that isn't a Bible Thumper and accepts "The word of GAWD!" as his or her personal slavery ticket to salvation isn't a "real American",huh?
And some people still wonder why conservatism doesn't dominate!
Wow. Christmas must really suck at your house. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Ranting about chopping heads off when you're chopping heads off. Nice. I don't care if you don't have any kind of belief system that helps with your concept of civilized behavior. But I do. And my concept of The Christ has as much to do with what isn't in the Bible as what is there. When I was a little kid going to Sunday school and learned about the message of Christ I thought it was a pretty good deal. Then I took a good look at the people around me. I couldn't figure out WHY they couldn't follow that path. Didn't they understand? When I was eleven I finally figured it out. It wasn't that they didn't understand. They didn't CARE. So I quit with organized religion. But I kept reading and learning. My life goal is to realize my potential as a spiritual person. I've read many a 'religious' text and studied the mores, ways, and means of different cultures. Cherrypicking along the way.
Your thinking that Christianity is slavery shows me a very limited understanding of some pretty basic things. I would like for you to expound on some of the key items from your belief system that DON'T include ideas, concepts, or practices that have a basis in a belief system from some of the 'organized' religions in the world that make you a 'Conservative'. Please and thank you.
@Doug Loss @INVAR @Smokin Joe
-
"they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools" - Romans 1:22
-
The movement itself is in the breakdown lane with the hood up and tow trucks won't stop.
-
@InHeavenThereIsNoBeer
No,the first group will pray for your soul as they chop off your head,while the second group just chops off heads.
A distinction without a real difference.
That's about as delusional a comparison as you could possibly make. Seriously, exactly when was the last time you heard of a Christian group chopping off anyone's head?
-
That's about as delusional a comparison as you could possibly make. Seriously, exactly when was the last time you heard of a Christian group chopping off anyone's head?
The Protestant Reformation. Sir Thomas More for one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More) It was still going on as late as the 1730s in MD, where a Jesuit Priest sold himself to one of my ancestors and thus became property of the Manor Lord and untouchable under English Law. When things settled down, the priest bought his freedom back. The old Manor House had a priest's hole and was reputed to have a tunnel to the stables to facilitate escape for fugitive Catholics. My mother played in it as a child.
I won't go into the 'troubles' in Ireland, because decapitation was not the accepted methodology for either side.
-
Do you consider the founding father's irrational, they believed a creator was self evident? Most were devout Christians believing in the Bible and the resurrection.
@Idaho_Cowboy
I keep hearing that crap repeated over and over by True Believers,but repeating it as dogma doesn't make it true.
SOME of the Founding Fathers were no doubt devout Christians. Anybody that makes the blanket claim that "THE Founding Fathers were devout Christians" is being disingenuous at best,or outright lying at worse.
Yeah,all the Founding Fathers played the politically correct word games they grew up playing in a era when it was illegal to not be a devout Christian,and the Churches had as much power as the Kings,but getting away from that was one big reason so many of them came to America. INCLUDING some of the non-mainstream religious sects were persecuted for having the "wrong" faith. Remember,these people grew in an era when letters and government documents all began with "In the year of our Lord",and you could have your property seized and be put in prison for denying the existence of God.
Even after they came to America the well-educated and well-off financially non-believers had to play that game with the public because so many of the public back there were so uneducated and ignorant that the Bible was the only book in the homes most of them grew up in. If they hadn't played that game with the ignorant,chances are there would have been no revolution and they would have been put in prison.
THAT is why we have Freedom of/from Religion as one of the bases that established our government. These were educated men who know of The Reformation,the causes of it,the people behind it,and the horrors committed in the name of God. They wanted to make sure that never happened here.
-
The Protestant Reformation. Sir Thomas More for one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More) It was still going on as late as the 1730s in MD, where a Jesuit Priest sold himself to one of my ancestors and thus became property of the Manor Lord and untouchable under English Law. When things settled down, the priest bought his freedom back. The old Manor House had a priest's hole and was reputed to have a tunnel to the stables to facilitate escape for fugitive Catholics. My mother played in it as a child.
I won't go into the 'troubles' in Ireland, because decapitation was not the accepted methodology for either side.
I know this won't satisfy our resident anti-Christian, but neither group in Ireland, nor the European Catholic/Protestant crazies during the Reformation, were truly Christian according to my Orthodox understanding of the term. Seriously, anyone acting in this way has automatically abrogated any right to the term "Christian" by being so far outside Christ's teachings.
-
I know this won't satisfy our resident anti-Christian, but neither group in Ireland, nor the European Catholic/Protestant crazies during the Reformation, were truly Christian according to my Orthodox understanding of the term. Seriously, anyone acting in this way has automatically abrogated any right to the term "Christian" by being so far outside Christ's teachings.
@Doug Loss
Tell it to the Pope and the Irish,not us.
-
I know this won't satisfy our resident anti-Christian, but neither group in Ireland, nor the European Catholic/Protestant crazies during the Reformation, were truly Christian according to my Orthodox understanding of the term. Seriously, anyone acting in this way has automatically abrogated any right to the term "Christian" by being so far outside Christ's teachings.
While I agree in spirit, they would have had your head for openly saying so.
-
@Doug Loss
Tell it to the Pope and the Irish,not us.
Hey Sneaky. Good morning. Are you an Athiest? Or just someone who wants to be one? Why don't you give this a skim?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjPtpup7rnPAhVXVWMKHT6nByYQFghZMAk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bethinking.org%2Fdoes-science-disprove-god%2Fdoes-science-contradict-religion&usg=AFQjCNFL7EdZftFszpocTxk0zgvKIQwKGA&sig2=F3MwcVDKarViAzOWd3ymhQ (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjPtpup7rnPAhVXVWMKHT6nByYQFghZMAk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bethinking.org%2Fdoes-science-disprove-god%2Fdoes-science-contradict-religion&usg=AFQjCNFL7EdZftFszpocTxk0zgvKIQwKGA&sig2=F3MwcVDKarViAzOWd3ymhQ)
The more they find out, the more they understand that science follows God. I may not have the VAST intellectual resources that you do so I am wondering if you could explain to a dummy like me some of your belief system that makes you a "Conservative"? Please keep it simple and use small words. Please and thank you.
I do have a problem with people becoming so absorbed by a construct that leads to people getting their heads chopped off, but that doesn't really do anything to convince me there is no God and/or Christ. If anything, such behavior points to their existence more than it does to disprove it. The differences between mind and brain leadeth me there. Meaning that your ability to REASON there is no God points me in the direction that by having that ability, there is one.
-
While I agree in spirit, they would have had your head for openly saying so.
@Smokin Joe @Doug Loss
I have relatives that would scream "You are an agent of SATAN!" at him for even suggesting such a thing. You just ain't religious unless you are willing to kill non-believers to please God.
I once told a Holy Roller preacher that was babbling nonsense about "killing commies for Gawd!" that if there was a God and he was all-powerful,he could damn sure do his own bleeping killing. He pretty much became unhinged when I said that. He was sane enough he didn't get right in my face or personally threaten me,though.
-
Hey Sneaky. Good morning. Are you an Athiest? Or just someone who wants to be one? <<
No. They do too much preacher to suit me.
I'm an agnostic. I don't give a damn if there is a God or not,but if there is,the SOB needs to be fired and replaced by a God that isn't a hypocrite.
-
What you are referring to are constructs of man and not really universal truths and opposition to such I can agree with. Anyways, have a nice day. I am going to attempt to go fishing. Before I find out my new medication has side effects that prevent me from doing so. And you many funny. "I don't give a damn"... :silly: :silly: :silly:
-
What you are referring to are constructs of man and not really universal truths and opposition to such I can agree with. Anyways, have a nice day. I am going to attempt to go fishing. Before I find out my new medication has side effects that prevent me from doing so. And you many funny. "I don't give a damn"... :silly: :silly: :silly:
Yeah, if he didn't give a damn he wouldn't be ranting about it so much. :wink:
-
Here's the beginning of a statement of principles and beliefs to present to those we'd like to convince they belong with us. It's not nearly finished, but I think it's a place to start the discussion:
What We Believe
We believe that all people have certain rights, which are theirs from birth and which cannot be taken from them. These include the right to live, the right to speak freely and without retribution, the right to own property and do with it anything they desire, the right to live their lives in the way they desire, the right to associate with others or to refrain from associating with others, the right to defend themselves against any attacks by others, and the right to defend others exercising the same rights when those others are attacked. These rights are absolute; they can only be restrained when exercising them would interfere with the rights of others to exercise the same rights.
This is not an exhaustive list of the rights people are born with. There are certainly other rights that are inherent with existence, but which we haven't specified here. There are some rights that might be thought of as growing from the rights listed, but which others might consider individual rights.
You will notice that these rights are not predicated on any particular personal characteristic or on membership in any particular group. These are rights inherent to all people. They inhere to the individual, not to any group.
From these rights grow the concepts of freedom and liberty. “Freedom” is the condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance. It also includes the capacity to act by choice rather than by determination. “Liberty” is a similar concept, the condition of being free from oppressive restriction or control by a government or other power. The rights listed above show that we believe all people are born free. To achieve liberty they must accept only those restrictions upon their freedom that they agree to, acting in consort with other individuals. An example would be agreeing to work together to provide for the defense of the group all belong to rather than each individual trying to defend only himself and those he's responsible for.
-
Elect Hillary Clinton and the Reagan/Constitutional Conservative Movement will be about as significant as the Constitution Party is today. Just Saying.
-
Elect Hillary Clinton and the Reagan/Constitutional Conservative Movement will be about as significant as the Constitution Party is today. Just Saying.
It's already there, and Hildabeast had little to do with it's irrelevance.
The GOP leadership and the folly of party loyalists have consigned the Reagan movement politically irrelevant and shrinking.
Trump simply kills what is left of it as he and his mob ascribe the word 'Conservative' to themselves.
-
We are here. Living our lives, Raising our children, Being productive. Volunteering, and depending upon the government for very little.
-
>> Anyways, have a nice day. I am going to attempt to go fishing.<<
You too,and good for you. MUCH more productive thing to do than waste time on a bulletin board. I'm getting ready to go out and do some work in my shop. Mostly cleaning and organizing,but even that makes me happy once I get it done.
-
Yeah, if he didn't give a damn he wouldn't be ranting about it so much. :wink:
@Doug Loss
I despise hypocrites and hypocrisy,especially in cases where the lying weasels in leadership positions talk their cult members into doing their dirty work for them.
Organized religion is about nothing but power and money. Period.
-
It's already there, and Hildabeast had little to do with it's irrelevance.
The GOP leadership and the folly of party loyalists have consigned the Reagan movement politically irrelevant and shrinking.
Trump simply kills what is left of it as he and his mob ascribe the word 'Conservative' to themselves.
EXACTLY! 888high58888 It wasn't the Dims that destroyed the Republican Party. It was the old-money northeastern Country Club Republicans.
-
We believe that all people have certain rights, which are theirs from birth and which cannot be taken from them.
That means nothing to the Statist. By what authority are they born with those rights? Why can't the government restrict or abolish them if 'the people' see fit for their safety and security? Such a statement simply hands the Statist the argument that rights are simply the grant of some man named Doug Loss and the people that signed onto those rights. Therefore, other men can change them on a whim if they see fit.
If you leave God, Providence, Nature's God, or Creator out of the establishing statement of where Rights are derived, then they have no more foundation or permanency than sand. If rights are given or agreed to by men, they can be legally diminished or abolished by men. Look, they have already done this when our establishing document ALREADY STATES where our Rights are derived, because the bulk of our population no longer considers themselves beholden to God, Providence, Nature's God or the Creator. The majority now believe government is the arbiter of rights, justice and fairness. Without a Higher Authority than men, government will forever be used as the tool to diminish, regulate and abolish the rights they do not want interfering with their rule.
These include the right to live, the right to speak freely and without retribution, the right to own property and do with it anything they desire, the right to live their lives in the way they desire,
Anything they desire?? We already have that. It's how people can lose their livelihoods because they refuse to bake a cake, and grown men can decide they are little girls and use bathrooms they want to use. Speaking freely without retribution is already being enjoyed by BLM calling for people to kill cops.
You must include language that makes it clear that a civil society is ordered liberty, not anarchy whereby everyone can do 'as they desire'. As a property owner, I should be able to do with my own things, what I see fitting as to best provide for the happiness of myself and family. Not what 'I desire'. That word opens the door to licentiousness and anarchy. Liberty has to be grounded upon the bulwark foundation of moral principles that are out of the reach and authority of men - meaning they cannot be changed for a different set of moralities. In Europe - what was once considered morality is being replaced with Sharia Law. Here, our morality is being replaced with Hedonistic Marxism. As a people we either agree that the biblical/Judeo-Christian morality we were established by is immutable and the foundation everything stands upon - or we don't. And if we do not - then this exercise of creating a statement of Conservative Belief is meaningless. Everyone will do what is right in his own eyes, or as cede all authority to the state to decide. And we will continue this slide into tyranny.
the right to associate with others or to refrain from associating with others, the right to defend themselves against any attacks by others, and the right to defend others exercising the same rights when those others are attacked. These rights are absolute; they can only be restrained when exercising them would interfere with the rights of others to exercise the same rights.
I would be more specific and add a few. The right to do business or refrain from doing business with persons, agendas or entities that conflict with the mission, conscience or principles of the company owners. The right to assemble and belong to any group without interference, (excepting groups that are hostile to, or at war with these rights and foundations be they foreign entities or domestic). To be able to peaceably protest without interfering with the movements or rights of others in places of their own choosing without restriction to locations and times. The right to self defense and the right to defend others exceeds all other rights and preserves those rights from infringement to preserve and maintain liberty. Therefore, the inalienable, insoluble and permanent right of the people to keep and bear weapons such as firearms, swords, blades, ammunition and the materials to manufacture, supply and otherwise provide for the possession of and use of such arms, cannot, shall not and will not be infringed, limited, restricted or abolished by congress, the courts or the Executive.
My .02¢
-
@Doug Loss
I despise hypocrites and hypocrisy,especially in cases where the lying weasels in leadership positions talk their cult members into doing their dirty work for them.
Organized religion is about nothing but power and money. Period.
Sneaky,
I have no problem with your suspicions and personal disbelief of organized religion and religion itself - it does indeed have a sordid history, and it was never what was intended to be from the beginning. You choosing to be free from religion is your right and choice. I have no issue with that.
That said - for the sake of this argument, I would implore you to consider agreeing with the statement that our rights are Providential or in the realm and Authority of the Creator rather than by or from the authority of men, only for the purpose of establishing permanence of our rights under Liberty. Our Rights must derive and come from an Authority higher than those of men simply due the fact that by doing so - you and your posterity would hold onto liberty a lot longer and would have a moral case for doing so. It provides us an inalienable right to resist any infringements or abolishments by the hands of government. We technically have that now, but too many are ignorant of that because most people look at government as the highest authority and therefore having the ability to regulate, restrict or infringe on our rights with impunity.
I'm not asking you to believe in God, I'm suggesting agreeing with the principle that our rights come from outside the authority of men and institutions of men, and they have no authority to interfere with them.
Otherwise we do not have rights at all.
We have privileges, granted by the whim of government.
Just a suggestion to further the discussion.
-
That means nothing to the Statist. By what authority are they born with those rights? Why can't the government restrict or abolish them if 'the people' see fit for their safety and security? Such a statement simply hands the Statist the argument that rights are simply the grant of some man named Doug Loss and the people that signed onto those rights. Therefore, other men can change them on a whim if they see fit.
If you leave God, Providence, Nature's God, or Creator out of the establishing statement of where Rights are derived, then they have no more foundation or permanency than sand. If rights are given or agreed to by men, they can be legally diminished or abolished by men. Look, they have already done this when our establishing document ALREADY STATES where our Rights are derived, because the bulk of our population no longer considers themselves beholden to God, Providence, Nature's God or the Creator. The majority now believe government is the arbiter of rights, justice and fairness. Without a Higher Authority than men, government will forever be used as the tool to diminish, regulate and abolish the rights they do not want interfering with their rule.
I intentionally stayed away from any mention of religious beliefs so as to cast the net as widely as possible. And I wasn't writing this to convince the statists; they've already made their choice against freedom. I'm trying to coalesce the thoughts of those who are malcontented with the current situation but who haven't been able to figure out what to do and where to belong.
Anything they desire?? We already have that. It's how people can lose their livelihoods because they refuse to bake a cake, and grown men can decide they are little girls and use bathrooms they want to use. Speaking freely without retribution is already being enjoyed by BLM calling for people to kill cops.
You must include language that makes it clear that a civil society is ordered liberty, not anarchy whereby everyone can do 'as they desire'. As a property owner, I should be able to do with my own things, what I see fitting as to best provide for the happiness of myself and family. Not what 'I desire'. That word opens the door to licentiousness and anarchy. Liberty has to be grounded upon the bulwark foundation of moral principles that are out of the reach and authority of men - meaning they cannot be changed for a different set of moralities. In Europe - what was once considered morality is being replaced with Sharia Law. Here, our morality is being replaced with Hedonistic Marxism. As a people we either agree that the biblical/Judeo-Christian morality we were established by is immutable and the foundation everything stands upon - or we don't. And if we do not - then this exercise of creating a statement of Conservative Belief is meaningless. Everyone will do what is right in his own eyes, or as cede all authority to the state to decide. And we will continue this slide into tyranny.
I'm trying to start from the general and work toward the specific. And "desire" doesn't only mean carnal desire. You will notice that I mention that those rights can be restrained where they impede the ability of others to exercise the same rights. That covers desires that would harm others.
I would be more specific and add a few. The right to do business or refrain from doing business with persons, agendas or entities that conflict with the mission, conscience or principles of the company owners. The right to assemble and belong to any group without interference, (excepting groups that are hostile to, or at war with these rights and foundations be they foreign entities or domestic). To be able to peaceably protest without interfering with the movements or rights of others in places of their own choosing without restriction to locations and times. The right to self defense and the right to defend others exceeds all other rights and preserves those rights from infringement to preserve and maintain liberty. Therefore, the inalienable, insoluble and permanent right of the people to keep and bear weapons such as firearms, swords, blades, ammunition and the materials to manufacture, supply and otherwise provide for the possession of and use of such arms, cannot, shall not and will not be infringed, limited, restricted or abolished by congress, the courts or the Executive.
Again, I'm starting from the general, then moving to the specific. As I say, this is just a beginning. What I want to do is to get basic, universal principles down, then develop them to show how everything you mention here flows naturally from them.
-
I intentionally stayed away from any mention of religious beliefs so as to cast the net as widely as possible. And I wasn't writing this to convince the statists; they've already made their choice against freedom. I'm trying to coalesce the thoughts of those who are malcontented with the current situation but who haven't been able to figure out what to do and where to belong.
You are talking about Rights. If you do not set them in the right foundation, then everything you desire to build on top of it, will be unstable and easily collapsed. That's just a plain fact.
Describing a set of beliefs so as to attract the widest nest possible sounds good, but then you will have to be all things to all people - and you are setting yourself up for division and discord among those you attract in very short order. It is better to attract people to an established foundation rather than simply getting them all in one place and then attempting to get an agreement on what kind of foundation to build. Because if you do the latter - it will come to nothing.
I'm trying to start from the general and work toward the specific.
The 'general' has to come from a specific foundation or you're just talking platitudes with no solid support. Immutable concept of liberty are founded in our Judeo-Christian-Biblical heritage. You do not have to go preaching that out front - and you do not need that to be a requirement to belong, but it should be the basis you build the principles you are attempting to get a wayward population to re-embrace. We're talking Apologetics here. Apologetics to our heritage and our unique form of liberty.
And "desire" doesn't only mean carnal desire. You will notice that I mention that those rights can be restrained where they impede the ability of others to exercise the same rights. That covers desires that would harm others.
You and I might understand that, but the language of society today would interpret that word to mean other than what you intended it to.
As I say, this is just a beginning. What I want to do is to get basic, universal principles down, then develop them to show how everything you mention here flows naturally from them.
Start with the foundation. Developing principles without a foundation is not wise. What you might be confusing is how to persuade others to the principles you are laying out. That is what has been missing for decades within the Conservative movement - the ability to persuade others that the principles we hold are worthwhile and essential for liberty to exist. When society cast out our religious heritage and morality, the Conservative movement went lukewarm on our faith and principles out of fear of offense and to cast that wide net you describe. Look what the results were.
You are talking about doing what has already been done within the GOP when you are talking about starting with general ideas and moving to specifics. You will find that in so doing, the specifics are rejected outright in a society that has devolved such as ours has.
Whether or not you would agree with this - we are talking about spiritual principles here. Grounding them in general ideas without laying them in the bedrock from which they originally came from is as I said, building a movement in sand.
I'm trying to help, not hurt.
-
Anything they desire?? We already have that. It's how people can lose their livelihoods because they refuse to bake a cake, and grown men can decide they are little girls and use bathrooms they want to use. Speaking freely without retribution is already being enjoyed by BLM calling for people to kill cops.
Don't stop reading mid-paragraph. Equal weight with the first words is the last sentence in the same paragraph.
These rights are absolute; they can only be restrained when exercising them would interfere with the rights of others to exercise the same rights.
-
Don't stop reading mid-paragraph. Equal weight with the first words is the last sentence in the same paragraph.
You and I already understand what that means being on this board.
A majority of people do not, even a majority that vote Republican.
-
Sneaky,
That said - for the sake of this argument, I would implore you to consider agreeing with the statement that our rights are Providential or in the realm and Authority of the Creator rather than by or from the authority of men, only for the purpose of establishing permanence of our rights under Liberty. Our Rights must derive and come from an Authority higher than those of men <<
@INVAR
Nope. Not gonna do it. We,any and all of us,ONLY HAVE THOSE RIGHTS WE ARE WILLING TO FIGHT AND DIE TO KEEP. IMO,people that think there rights come from a God have a tendency to lay back and pray for the God to restore their rights when an oppressive government takes them away. People who understand and accept that nobody is going to give them a damn thing and they have to be proactive in one form or another if they want to continue to keep living free have a better chance of continuing to live free.
>>I'm not asking you to believe in God, I'm suggesting agreeing with the principle that our rights come from outside the authority of men and institutions of men, <<
Which means you are in essence asking me to believe in a God that will do for me what I am not willing to do for myself. That has not been my experience in life,and I can't see where it has been anyone else's,either.
>>Otherwise we do not have rights at all.<<
Once again,we ONLY have those rights we are willing to fight and die for,and to kill for if necessary.
-
Whether or not you would agree with this - we are talking about spiritual principles here. Grounding them in general ideas without laying them in the bedrock from which they originally came from is as I said, building a movement in sand.
I'm trying to help, not hurt.
I understand that, and I appreciate the criticisms. What I'm afraid of is that if I ground those inherent rights unequivocally as coming from God, we will turn away a substantial group who will immediately dismiss this as a religious call, which it is not. How about this modification:
"We believe that all people have certain rights, which are theirs from birth and which cannot be taken from them. Many people believe these rights to be imbued by God the Creator; others see them as inherent to consciousness and self-awareness. But all agree that these rights are fundamental to all people. These include..."
-
"We believe that all people have certain rights, which are theirs from birth and which cannot be taken from them. Many people believe these rights to be imbued by God the Creator; others see them as inherent to consciousness and self-awareness. But all agree that these rights are fundamental to all people. These include..."
@Doug Loss
I'll sign up for that one.
-
Nope. Not gonna do it. We,any and all of us,ONLY HAVE THOSE RIGHTS WE ARE WILLING TO FIGHT AND DIE TO KEEP. IMO,people that think there rights come from a God have a tendency to lay back and pray for the God to restore their rights when an oppressive government takes them away. People who understand and accept that nobody is going to give them a damn thing and they have to be proactive in one form or another if they want to continue to keep living free have a better chance of continuing to live free.
I'm not one of those prosperity Gospel types Pete. I'm not one of those Christians who think that we have no stake in securing our rights or liberties. God did not just hand the nation over to the Founders and said 'Here ya go'. They did indeed have to fight for it in a bloody contest, and you are correct - we MUST FIGHT for the rights we believe in, God is not just going to hand them to us on a silver platter. On that we are agreed.
Those rights are HATED by the world and anathema to the natural state of human nature, whose entire history is replete with the acts of subjugation, slavery and oppression. To maintain them requires the threat and ability to use force. Its why the Founders enshrined the Second Amendment for us as an inalienable right.
Which means you are in essence asking me to believe in a God that will do for me what I am not willing to do for myself. That has not been my experience in life,and I can't see where it has been anyone else's,either.
I'm asking you to agree with the concept that our rights belong in a Court of Authority that the filthy hands of men and government have no right to encroach upon, rescind or take away. I do not care what form you wish to ascribe it to. Believers will lay it in the court of God, because in our estimation that court trumps the authority of men to tamper. I do not know exactly how you would describe that with your belief system, but I am suggesting you find the right words, and even that we disagree on this point - we can stand together on the cause of enshrining our rights. I'm talking in the legal sense that courts of men have no jurisdiction to touch them, so that you and your posterity will always have the legal moral authority to resist each and every encroachment upon them, whether secular OR religious tyranny.
-
@Doug Loss
I'll sign up for that one.
Thanks Pete. I'm trying to write something to draw people together, not to push them apart.
-
Thanks Pete. I'm trying to write something to draw people together, not to push them apart.
@Doug Loss
I have absolutely no objection to any American citizen holding any beliefs they want to hold,as long as they don't try to make laws their personal/religious beliefs to control the thoughts or actions of other citizens.
We are either ALL free,or none of us are free.
-
@Doug Loss
I have absolutely no objection to any American citizen holding any beliefs they want to hold,as long as they don't try to make laws their personal/religious beliefs to control the thoughts or actions of other citizens.
We are either ALL free,or none of us are free.
One of the things about "religious" belief is it gives a person a base for moral and ethical restraint. A code of conduct. How do you present something to a populace that includes any kind of restraint without someone screaming it infringes on their right to freedom from religion? One of the things that I am concerned with is Chimera research. The big push for transgenderism and/or people doing body modifications with the lifting of bans on certain genetic research may open a Pandora's Box of he-she-its. I've said this before. When Manbearpig becomes a reality does that mean we have to meekly accept (in my view) abominations as part of society? Your inclusive ALL gives me some pause.
-
One of the things about "religious" belief is it gives a person a base for moral and ethical restraint. A code of conduct. How do you present something to a populace that includes any kind of restraint without someone screaming it infringes on their right to freedom from religion? One of the things that I am concerned with is Chimera research. The big push for transgenderism and/or people doing body modifications with the lifting of bans on certain genetic research may open a Pandora's Box of he-she-its. I've said this before. When Manbearpig becomes a reality does that mean we have to meekly accept (in my view) abominations as part of society? Your inclusive ALL gives me some pause.
That's today's definition of 'freedom', which at one time we would have called 'anarchy'.
It is NOT liberty. It is not the kind of liberty our Founders intended for us to have.
A civil society can only exist so long as a moral foundational code binds a population together. For us, it was biblically-based - but since that is now persona non-grata, we have everyone's definition of morality being whatever they think is right in their own eyes. Anarchy.
Ancient Israel went down this path. They rendered themselves extinct in very, very short order.
Which is what I expect our fate will be as well.
Adams rightly stated that our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, and that it was wholly inadequate to govern any other kind of people.
Franklin noted that only a moral and religious people are capable of freedom. As societies grow more corrupt and vicious - they will require oppressive controls just to keep order.
Well, without a common foundation of morality we all agree to - this experiment in liberty is already finished.
Sneaky would take exception to that statement because I assume he would automatically assume that means he has to covert to religion in order to be part of such a society. Not the case at all. Mark Levin, a Jew gives credit to our Christian heritage for establishing those liberties he cherishes, even if he disagrees with the faith. I do not see why an Atheist cannot see the benefit in that system that they also are permitted to thrive in.
-
In a month we will have to determine the direction of the movement from here. Either Trump will be elected or not. If not, we are looking at an oppositional movement to Hillary and her policies. If Trump, holding his feet to the fire and praying he doesn't go off unhinged.
Two different courses of action hopefully, but we need to get beyond this election and start thinking about it.
-
That's today's definition of 'freedom', which at one time we would have called 'anarchy'.
It is NOT liberty. It is not the kind of liberty our Founders intended for us to have.<<
@INVAR
BullBush! You are just steamed that somebody somewhere is having a non-approved good time.
>>A civil society can only exist so long as a moral foundational code binds a population together. For us, it was biblically-based -<<
Even MORE BullBush. Our Constitution is based on the Greek form of government,as well as some others,including at least one American Indian tribe. In case you didn't get the memo,neither ancient Greece or American Indians were big on Bible-Thumping.
>> but since that is now persona non-grata, we have everyone's definition of morality being whatever they think is right in their own eyes. Anarchy.<<
Yeah,all them damn people out there doing all that thinking stuff on their own,and nobody in charge!a KILL THEM!
>>Adams rightly stated that our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people<<
Did he define WHICH religion,or was he just playing to the people who hear what they want to hear?
>>Franklin noted that only a moral and religious people are capable of freedom. <<
ROFLMAO! Ben Franklin got laid more than Elvis.
>>As societies grow more corrupt and vicious - they will require oppressive controls just to keep order.<<
Which is exactly were organized religion steps in. The provide the corruption and the viciousness,along with the oppression and control. It's who they are and what they do best.
Well, without a common foundation of morality we all agree to - this experiment in liberty is already finished.
Sneaky would take exception to that statement because I assume he would automatically assume that means he has to covert to religion in order to be part of such a society. Not the case at all. Mark Levin, a Jew gives credit to our Christian heritage for establishing those liberties he cherishes, even if he disagrees with the faith. I do not see why an Atheist cannot see the benefit in that system that they also are permitted to thrive in.
-
In a month we will have to determine the direction of the movement from here. Either Trump will be elected or not. If not, we are looking at an oppositional movement to Hillary and her policies. If Trump, holding his feet to the fire and praying he doesn't go off unhinged.
Two different courses of action hopefully, but we need to get beyond this election and start thinking about it.
@Free Vulcan
When Bubbette! gets sworn in we are on the road to either slavery or revolution.
IF Donald Little Hands were to accidentally win,we are on the road to martial law and a special election because the man is clearly insane,and I just don't see the US military turning the nuclear launch codes over to anyone as unstable as he is. Which event would also likely read to martial law.
-
BullBush! You are just steamed that somebody somewhere is having a non-approved good time.
Oh yes, it is so wrong for us to be disgusted and disapprove of perverts going into little girls bathrooms to peep because they declare themselves to feel like a little girl at that moment, or that people should be forced to violate their consciences to serve and celebrate behavior they find repugnant and abhorrent.
Which is exactly were organized religion steps in. The provide the corruption and the viciousness,along with the oppression and control. It's who they are and what they do best.
Thanks for making my entire point.
Without a common foundation of morality we all agree to - this experiment in liberty is already finished.
So finished it is, we have no common ground upon which to stand.
-
If Trump, holding his feet to the fire and praying he doesn't go off unhinged.
Trump supporters will support anything he does, it will be impossible to hold his liberal feet to the fire.
-
@Free Vulcan
When Bubbette! gets sworn in we are on the road to either slavery or revolution.
IF Donald Little Hands were to accidentally win,we are on the road to martial law and a special election because the man is clearly insane,and I just don't see the US military turning the nuclear launch codes over to anyone as unstable as he is. Which even would also likely read to martial law.
I'm hoping you're wrong, but thinking you may be right. :beer:
-
@Smokin Joe @Doug Loss
I have relatives that would scream "You are an agent of SATAN!" at him for even suggesting such a thing. You just ain't religious unless you are willing to kill non-believers to please God.
There is something just plain strange about that attitude.
Jesus wants Christians to teach about Him, to win over folks who don't believe.
Well, Ya can't teach people anything if you kill 'em.
I once told a Holy Roller preacher that was babbling nonsense about "killing commies for Gawd!" that if there was a God and he was all-powerful,he could damn sure do his own bleeping killing. He pretty much became unhinged when I said that. He was sane enough he didn't get right in my face or personally threaten me,though.
Yep, and between The Flood, Soddom and Gommorah, the plague of the firstborn, and a few other cosmic parlor tricks, He has, and did a bang-up job of it.
(Like some kids' Daddys would say in an extreme fit of pique "I brought you into this world...")
Nothing about killing unbelievers in His name I saw in the New Testament, But there are a few things in the Old Testament, like that 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' thing in Exodus 18, but that also covered "Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death", (so no stump training the ponies... :nometalk:)
Defending those of the faith as we all defend against terrorists is self-defense, and done because Islam isn't so much a religion as a pseudo-Theocratic Totalitarian government that is an equal opportunity attacker, with one Hell of a lot of political meddling going on for economic reasons. There may be battle lines drawn using religion as an excuse, but mostly it's about being part of the same extended tribe, and either killing off the competition or not being killed off. Lots of folks who aren't "Holy Rollers" either way end up along for the ride, whether that is defending, being defended, or out looking to be the one defended against.
Between Islam and Christianity, that feud goes back so far, it's tough to say who started it, but it continues, because Christians aren't part of their tribe. Some of my ancestors were wrapped up in the Crusades, and there has been plenty of blood spilt to go around.
Most of the Middle East looks like some hardscrabble land to me, so with the exception of controlling oil rights (recent), having dates for Saturday night (or any night, they grow on trees, there), and olive groves (old school oil rights), I reckon I can see why more people aren't fighting over it, and the religious importance of a few acres there becomes a source of conflict, but I wonder how much of that nowadays is having the 'rights' to lighten tourists' wallets and pilgrims' purses. Back when it affected overland trade routes more it may have had even greater economic importance, and even now, with pipelines proposed through there, we're back to the trade route thing, with the added bonus of oil and gas reserves to trade.
Someone threatens your living, you compete and fight for it, they want to kick you off your land, you fight 'em, they want to mess with your little kid, you and Mr. Pick Handle do a little 'splaining along with a couple other relatives who can keep their mouths shut and swing for the fences.
They try to kill you or yours, every home should have a shotgun, just be neat, pick up your hulls, and toss 'em in the reloading bin, and make sure you're the one who fills out the paperwork.
-
Here's the beginning of a statement of principles and beliefs to present to those we'd like to convince they belong with us. It's not nearly finished, but I think it's a place to start the discussion:
What We Believe
We believe that all people have certain rights, which are theirs from birth conception and which cannot be taken from them. These include the right to live, and upon coming of age (insert number) the right to speak freely and without retribution, the right to own property and do with it anything they desire, the right to live their lives in the way they desire, the right to associate with others or to refrain from associating with others, the right to defend themselves against any attacks by others, and the right to defend others exercising the same rights when those others are attacked. These rights are absolute; they can only be restrained when exercising them would interfere with the rights of others to exercise the same rights.
Suggested amendments, which have probably already been done.
-
Suggested amendments, which have probably already been done.
I thought about adding those ideas into the first paragraph, but I was afraid it would complicate the basic statement too much. I think they can be added a bit later as expansions on the core concepts, perhaps by expanding the meaning of "birth" to encompass the concept of "existence." I wouldn't condition the right to speak freely with an age restriction, just with an addendum that the right may be conditioned by those responsible for the minor until maturity has been demonstrated. (Or something like that.)
-
There is something just plain strange about that attitude.
Jesus wants Christians to teach about Him, to win over folks who don't believe.
Well, Ya can't teach people anything if you kill 'em.Yep, and between The Flood, Soddom and Gommorah, the plague of the firstborn, and a few other cosmic parlor tricks, He has, and did a bang-up job of it.
(Like some kids' Daddys would say in an extreme fit of pique "I brought you into this world...")
Nothing about killing unbelievers in His name I saw in the New Testament, But there are a few things in the Old Testament, like that 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' thing in Exodus 18, but that also covered "Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death", (so no stump training the ponies... :nometalk:)
Defending those of the faith as we all defend against terrorists is self-defense, and done because Islam isn't so much a religion as a pseudo-Theocratic Totalitarian government that is an equal opportunity attacker, with one Hell of a lot of political meddling going on for economic reasons. There may be battle lines drawn using religion as an excuse, but mostly it's about being part of the same extended tribe, and either killing off the competition or not being killed off. Lots of folks who aren't "Holy Rollers" either way end up along for the ride, whether that is defending, being defended, or out looking to be the one defended against.
Between Islam and Christianity, that feud goes back so far, it's tough to say who started it, but it continues, because Christians aren't part of their tribe. Some of my ancestors were wrapped up in the Crusades, and there has been plenty of blood spilt to go around.
Most of the Middle East looks like some hardscrabble land to me, so with the exception of controlling oil rights (recent), having dates for Saturday night (or any night, they grow on trees, there), and olive groves (old school oil rights), I reckon I can see why more people aren't fighting over it, and the religious importance of a few acres there becomes a source of conflict, but I wonder how much of that nowadays is having the 'rights' to lighten tourists' wallets and pilgrims' purses. Back when it affected overland trade routes more it may have had even greater economic importance, and even now, with pipelines proposed through there, we're back to the trade route thing, with the added bonus of oil and gas reserves to trade.
Someone threatens your living, you compete and fight for it, they want to kick you off your land, you fight 'em, they want to mess with your little kid, you and Mr. Pick Handle do a little 'splaining along with a couple other relatives who can keep their mouths shut and swing for the fences.
They try to kill you or yours, every home should have a shotgun, just be neat, pick up your hulls, and toss 'em in the reloading bin, and make sure you're the one who fills out the paperwork.
@Smokin Joe
:amen: :amen: :amen:
-
Suggested amendments, which have probably already been done.
We believe that all people have certain rights, which are theirs from birth conception and which cannot be taken from them.
WRONG! We do not have and have NEVER had the "right" to be born. If your birth threatens the safety and/or security of the family,your family has the same right to self-defense as any other LIVING human being. Right up to the point a baby can be born and become a human,they are only potential humans and actual parasites.
People have been aborting or killing infants in hard times of no food/no safety and having to run ever since the time of the cave man. They have had to do it in order to insure the survival of the living members of the family that are old enough to contribute to the family food supply and defense. Often times the infant would be smothered to keep it from crying and alerting enemies or wild animals of where the family was hiding. The usual cause was it was better for the infant to die quickly with a minimum of suffering instead of starving to death while dragging down the strength of the mother.
Granted,we live in more civilized times these days,and things have now turned upside down to the point where having a baby guarantees you "Free" food,housing,utilities,clothing,medical care,and even a check to live off of each month,and a awful lot of babies are born today that would never have been born in their mother and "likely candidate number ?" had to pay all the bills.
That does nothing to change the basic biological facts,though.
No matter how you spin it,a fetus is nothing but a POTENTIAL human.
-
WRONG! We do not have and have NEVER had the "right" to be born. If your birth threatens the safety and/or security of the family,your family has the same right to self-defense as any other LIVING human being. Right up to the point a baby can be born and become a human,they are only potential humans and actual parasites.
I disagree. A republic, if you can keep it, life if you can hang on to it. There are no guarantees beyond birth, and in those few cases where the mother and infant would die, we have sanctioned terminating pregnancies (tubal and ectopic pregnancies, among others). But the one place designed to keep that developing baby safe should not be the slaughterhouse corral. There are enough who wish to raise it if the parents cannot.
As far as "potential humans and parasites", it can be argued there are millions living in their (grand)parents' basements and garage lofts who have yet to develop fully, living at the expense of the hosts. It is all too often a neotenic generation, nor is it limited to the most recent.
People have been aborting or killing infants in hard times of no food/no safety and having to run ever since the time of the cave man. They have had to do it in order to insure the survival of the living members of the family that are old enough to contribute to the family food supply and defense. Often times the infant would be smothered to keep it from crying and alerting enemies or wild animals of where the family was hiding. The usual cause was it was better for the infant to die quickly with a minimum of suffering instead of starving to death while dragging down the strength of the mother.
Yep, they have. But those were extreme cases and times, not the Untied States in the 20th or 21st century.
Historically, there have been a number of things people have been forgiven or which have been downplayed that occurred in survival situations, up to and including eating humans. We don't condone Jeff Daumer's 'Oriental Menu', either.
Even in the bible (No thump, just a few cites) Luke 21:23: But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
Lamentations 4:10The hands of the pitiful women have boiled their own children; They were their food in the destruction of the daughter of my people.
Just for a couple of references.
Granted,we live in more civilized times these days,and things have now turned upside down to the point where having a baby guarantees you "Free" food,housing,utilities,clothing,medical care,and even a check to live off of each month,and a awful lot of babies are born today that would never have been born in their mother and "likely candidate number ?" had to pay all the bills.
That does nothing to change the basic biological facts,though.
No matter how you spin it,a fetus is nothing but a POTENTIAL human.
Well, I have the opposite spin. We'll disagree. In terms of DNA: Species Homo sapiens. That makes it human. All that is at issue is the phase of development, and we see much older examples of the species that, for whatever reason, would not function autonomously well enough to survive long in extreme times. That doesn't mean we should sanction the removal of the infirm, the disabled, those who have cognitive difficulties from the population , any more than I think we should sanction the removal of humans who are not fully developed yet. Given time and the standard amount of nurturing they will develop into adult humans.
Any other species, given a sufficiency of provender, will protect its young, why shouldn't we?
The answer is not a biological one, although people have tried to sell it as one. The question is one of how to open a culture to the idea of eliminating those who refuse to be subject to power.
Start small, (literally), and work your way up. If the elimination of "unhealthy" babies in the womb is sanctioned, then the elimination of any inconvenient baby follows. After that we move on to the suffering, the dying, those who have cognitive deficits (beyond just being a Democrat), and the aged. The latter group is the real target. The latter group, once the elimination of the former groups is sanctioned, is vulnerable, from a strictly economic standpoint. Most people consume more in medical care in the last 6-12 months of their life than they do in the rest of it.
Those will be the arguments, "Remember Grandma/pa as they were." Don't let them suffer." (Which is what Obamacare will do, just to push for euthanasia.
But at the core of that, those old folks remember much freer times, they remember some semblance of Liberty, those mouthy old SOBs will pipe up, fearlessly, and tell some pup that that isn't the way this is supposed to work and educate everyone in the room. That's a serious pain in the ass of any wannabe totalitarian, and the easiest way to stop it is a nice, quiet, medical pogrom (for their own good, of course).
It isn't over resources, so that justification is out the window. It is over control, and the babies are just the first to be slaughtered on the totalitarian altar, sacrificed to the totalitarian god of power.
YMMV.
-
You are just steamed that somebody somewhere is having a non-approved good time.
For some reason joyful is not the first word that comes to mind when I see your posts Pete. I'm glad my perception is clearly misguided.
WRONG! We do not have and have NEVER had the "right" to be born. If your birth threatens the safety and/or security of the family,your family has the same right to self-defense as any other LIVING human being. Right up to the point a baby can be born and become a human,they are only potential humans and actual parasites.
Next time a woman is expecting ask her what she is expecting. From my point of view the minute their is new DNA created your are dealing with a new and separate life with it's own rights. It is certainly human and as it is doesn't have the mother's DNA you certainly can't claim it is part of the mother's body.
-
@Idaho_Cowboy
I keep hearing that crap repeated over and over by True Believers,but repeating it as dogma doesn't make it true.
SOME of the Founding Fathers were no doubt devout Christians. Anybody that makes the blanket claim that "THE Founding Fathers were devout Christians" is being disingenuous at best,or outright lying at worse.
Yeah,all the Founding Fathers played the politically correct word games they grew up playing in a era when it was illegal to not be a devout Christian,and the Churches had as much power as the Kings,but getting away from that was one big reason so many of them came to America. INCLUDING some of the non-mainstream religious sects were persecuted for having the "wrong" faith. Remember,these people grew in an era when letters and government documents all began with "In the year of our Lord",and you could have your property seized and be put in prison for denying the existence of God.
Even after they came to America the well-educated and well-off financially non-believers had to play that game with the public because so many of the public back there were so uneducated and ignorant that the Bible was the only book in the homes most of them grew up in. If they hadn't played that game with the ignorant,chances are there would have been no revolution and they would have been put in prison.
THAT is why we have Freedom of/from Religion as one of the bases that established our government. These were educated men who know of The Reformation,the causes of it,the people behind it,and the horrors committed in the name of God. They wanted to make sure that never happened here.
You must have had a funny history book. First of all the very ideas on which America was founded have their basis in faith it was a central part of their reasoning. The Pilgrims and the Puritans began by building a society upon the principles of the Bible. John Locke's view of nature was grew from his faith.
Study the federalist and anti-federalist papers, these men did not simply tack on the word God as a page decoration. The writings of many of the most influential founders reveal a deep seated personal faith. George Washington, John Adams, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Rush, and even Thomas Jefferson's writings show they were men of great faith. It was the source of their vision, their bravery, and their wisdom.
You can use revisionist history to deny that, but it doesn't change the foundation America sits on. Furthermore no nation apart from that faith has ever achieved even a measure of the freedom America did. America is the bright spot of all of human history or in America the Government finally was removed from the relationship between God and man and men were free to worship God as they chose. That is the key difference of America and if you are honest about the Bible you know that God never gave Government the right to enforce Christianity. The persecution committed by the Catholic Church, the actions of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and any Christian who has used his religion to cover his sins were blatantly wrong; as wrong as the pharisees Jesus rebuked time and again. We must not judge God by the behavior men, not when God told us we live in a fallen world. There is a truth higher than the muck and the mire of this world and it is that we must seek to understand, to live, and as responsible citizens of a Republic to embody in our government as the founding fathers did.
-
One of the things about "religious" belief is it gives a person a base for moral and ethical restraint. A code of conduct. How do you present something to a populace that includes any kind of restraint without someone screaming it infringes on their right to freedom from religion? One of the things that I am concerned with is Chimera research. The big push for transgenderism and/or people doing body modifications with the lifting of bans on certain genetic research may open a Pandora's Box of he-she-its. I've said this before. When Manbearpig becomes a reality does that mean we have to meekly accept (in my view) abominations as part of society? Your inclusive ALL gives me some pause.
We are at a very tough spot as we are not trying to legislate morality, we are trying to legislate reality.
-
@sneakypete First Amendment:
I'll go with that, and I am a Christian. Despite your pejorative characterization of religion, in some cases perhaps well deserved, a vast number of "Real Americans" existed before the Vikings found this place. Some of them became Christians, some didn't.
Among those honorable people in either camp is a shared set of values. Your word is your bond. You stand up for what you believe is right. You defend your friends, relentlessly pursue your enemies, but can come to terms in a mutually honorable peace--or, in some cases, not. Fundamental rules exist, and breaking those promotes outrage whatever one's religious beliefs.
You don't steal from others. (It pisses them off, just as you would be pissed off if they stole something of yours).
You don't needlessly kill them. (That pisses off their relatives).
You don't screw their wives (Messing with family units is often taboo, even though there may be exceptions).
You feed the poor, sick, and weak who can't feed themselves. (Note, I didn't say won't feed themselves.)
Be kind to animals and lesser creatures, unless they are a threat to you and yours, or you want them for food, then kill them quickly and mercifully.
Teach children the ways of adulthood as they are old and mature enough to learn without unnecessarily rushing it.
Protect women and children from harm.
Most cultures would agree on most, if not all of that, at some level (individual/family/extended family/band/tribe/nation) regardless of religious belief, because human nature is pretty much hard wired in. The same spectrum of wants, needs, aggravations, ambitions, and desires are present in humanity as were thousands of years ago, only the scope of those and the trimmings have changed.
That takes us back to the idea of fundamental Rights.
The right to believe--or not.
The right to assemble in groups
The right to have an opinion and voice it
The right to challenge what you think is wrong
The right to defend yourself and yours
The right to have your stuff, without ANY one else messing with it.
The right to face those who accuse you of wrong, to make them prove what they contend or be believed innocent of that wrong.
To not be punished for any wrongs unless your people have decided you did, and only after consideration of all evidence for and against you. You have a right to defend yourself and have any and all who can aid in that defense present their information on your behalf. No punishment should be disproportional to the nature of whatever you did, if such applies, nor should it be unusually cruel.
For a Christian of Jew, those rules are laid out in the Bible, for others, in other scriptures or cultural tradition, but whether or not to follow some moral 'code' remains an individual choice.
The concept of Honor transcends culture, and although it is often co-opted or encumbered with other stuff, Men of Honor understand, instinctively, and follow that internal code. By any reasonable standard they are moral men. Those who are not, need rules spelled out in the most minute detail, and will still try to weasel out of them.
In terms of religion, we may not believe the same thing, yet I would trust you to conduct yourself honorably despite that.
That is what would make you a "Conservative" in my eyes, and beyond doubt a "Real American".
Very interesting and right on. This reminds me of John Locke's ideas on nature. As an example the Charles Eastman wrote on the beliefs of the Sioux Indians before the arrival of the white man and their culture revolved around honor, honesty, and generosity. The discovery of the American Indian was quite a shock Europeans it was evidence that man didn't need a great and mighty government.
-
For some reason joyful is not the first word that comes to mind when I see your posts Pete. I'm glad my perception is clearly misguided. <<
@Idaho_Cowboy
I am not responsible for your misconceptions.
>>Next time a woman is expecting ask her what she is expecting. <<
She will rightfully say,"A baby". A fetus becomes a baby when it is born.
-
She will rightfully say,"A baby". A fetus becomes a baby when it is born.
Preemies?
I'm curious about the transformation process that makes a fetus a baby, is it when it touches air or does the slap on the bottom make it human and what was it before?
-
You must have had a funny history book. First of all the very ideas on which America was founded have their basis in faith it was a central part of their reasoning. <<
Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth.
>>The Pilgrims and the Puritans began by building a society upon the principles of the Bible. John Locke's view of nature was grew from his faith. <<
The Pilgrims and the Puritans weren't the Founding Fathers,and neither was John Locke.
>>Study the federalist and anti-federalist papers, these men did not simply tack on the word God as a page decoration. The writings of many of the most influential founders reveal a deep seated personal faith. George Washington, John Adams, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Rush, and even Thomas Jefferson's writings show they were men of great faith. It was the source of their vision, their bravery, and their wisdom. <<
I guess if you look hard enough,you can discover anything you want. SOME of the FF'ers were religiously devout,but not most of them.
>>You can use revisionist history to deny that, but it doesn't change the foundation America sits on.<<
Religious cults repeatedly telling the same lie over and over doesn't make it a truth to anyone but their cult's "True Believers".
>>Furthermore no nation apart from that faith has ever achieved even a measure of the freedom America did. <<
Going by YOUR standards,Italy and Mecca should both be beacons of lights shining to highlight all the freedoms and successes of their faiths.
How's that working out for ya?
Look,you are a True Believer,and devoutly and sincerely believe all that is true. If it makes you happy to believe that,I am happy for you.
It doesn't make it true,though.
-
Preemies?<<
@Idaho_Cowboy
Are you now claiming that preemies aren't babies?
>>I'm curious about the transformation process that makes a fetus a baby, is it when it touches air or does the slap on the bottom make it human and what was it before?<<
It's alive and breathing on it's own,and nurses independently instead of being a parasitic growth inside the mother's body. Before the birth,if the mother had died the fetus would have also died. This is no longer true/
[/b]
-
You must have had a funny history book. First of all the very ideas on which America was founded have their basis in faith it was a central part of their reasoning. <<
Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth.
>>The Pilgrims and the Puritans began by building a society upon the principles of the Bible. John Locke's view of nature was grew from his faith. <<
The Pilgrims and the Puritans weren't the Founding Fathers,and neither was John Locke.
>>Study the federalist and anti-federalist papers, these men did not simply tack on the word God as a page decoration. The writings of many of the most influential founders reveal a deep seated personal faith. George Washington, John Adams, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Rush, and even Thomas Jefferson's writings show they were men of great faith. It was the source of their vision, their bravery, and their wisdom. <<
I guess if you look hard enough,you can discover anything you want. SOME of the FF'ers were religiously devout,but not most of them.
>>You can use revisionist history to deny that, but it doesn't change the foundation America sits on.<<
Religious cults repeatedly telling the same lie over and over doesn't make it a truth to anyone but their cult's "True Believers".
>>Furthermore no nation apart from that faith has ever achieved even a measure of the freedom America did. <<
Going by YOUR standards,Italy and Mecca should both be beacons of lights shining to highlight all the freedoms and successes of their faiths.
How's that working out for ya?
Look,you are a True Believer,and devoutly and sincerely believe all that is true. If it makes you happy to believe that,I am happy for you.
It doesn't make it true,though.
Daniel Webster one of America's greatest early historians disagrees. Who's repeating a lie?
“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”
― Daniel Webster
“If religious books are not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth be not diffused, then error will be. If God and His Word are not known and received, the devil and his works will gain the ascendency. If the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt and licentious literature will. If the power of the gospel is not felt throughout the length and breadth of this land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness will reign without mitigation or end.”
― Daniel Webster
-
Pete, nor does your kvetching automatically make everyone else's positions wrong. You do have many good thoughts, as we've seen in other topics. But your extremely vehement anti-religious claims are only making opponents of many who would otherwise agree with you on most things. Your position is well-known and understood at this point; belaboring it isn't helping anyone. And everyone else, you won't change Pete's mind, so jumping on him will only detract from substantive discussions.
-
Daniel Webster one of America's greatest early historians disagrees. Who's repeating a lie?
― Daniel Webster
Everybody that quotes Daniel Webster.
-
Are you now claiming that preemies aren't babies?
It's alive and breathing on it's own,and nurses independently instead of being a parasitic growth inside the mother's body. Before the birth,if the mother had died the fetus would have also died. This is no longer true/
@sneakypete
I'm asking you if you think a preemie in an incubator is a baby yet?
A parasitic growth? You are a hard and cruel man, I'm nearly speechless. By your standard they remain that for a long time. I've yet to see a self sufficient one year old either. Do the elderly cease to be human and become parasitic lumps again? What about the mental challenged. What do you think makes human life human?
-
Everybody that quotes Daniel Webster.
Deep man, deep.
Glad you were there to tell us how it was and know more than all original historical sources.
-
@sneakypete
@Idaho_Cowboy
I'm asking you if you think a preemie in an incubator is a baby yet?<<
Is the preemie inside the mother,and the mother inside the incubator? I thought what I wrote was pretty plain.
>>A parasitic growth? You are a hard and cruel man, I'm nearly speechless. <<
Nah,you just don't like losing.
>>By your standard they remain that for a long time. I've yet to see a self sufficient one year old either. Do the elderly cease to be human and become parasitic lumps again? What about the mental challenged. What do you think makes human life human?<<
Once again,tell me how many of the people you just listed in your attempt to distort what I wrote are physically hooked to the internal organs of another human,and get everything they need to survive from that human?
Or maybe you think the incubators are human,also?
-
From my point of view life is created way before it is homed in a physical structure. The soul is there before conception and enters the home at that point. You can talk all you want to about viability yada yada yada. Abortion is murder. Legalized murder. That doesn't make it right. Any deviation from that is simply shitty thinking. A woman has the right to choose life or murder.
Science follows God. Or an Architect. Or intelligent Design. From the macroscopic to the microscopic. For all things to have arisen to such a perfect degree from a random set of circumstances is small thinking. You're not giving yourself much of an opportunity to live life. IMO, DNA is owned by a superior intelligence. Screwing around with it at our primitive level invites catastrophe. I hear a little voice speaking in the back of my head. It sounds kinda like "GET OFF MY LAWN".
Cowboy Reincarnation by Wallace McRae
"What does Reincarnation mean?"
A cowpoke asked his friend.
His pal replied, "It happens when
Yer life has reached its end.
They comb yer hair, and warsh yer neck,
And clean yer fingernails,
And lay you in a padded box
Away from life’s travails."
"The box and you goes in a hole,
That’s been dug into the ground.
Reincarnation starts in when
Yore planted ‘neath a mound.
Them clods melt down, just like yer box,
And you who is inside.
And then yore just beginnin’ on
Yer transformation ride."
"In a while, the grass’ll grow
Upon yer rendered mound.
Till some day on yer moldered grave
A lonely flower is found.
And say a hoss should wander by
And graze upon this flower
That once wuz you, but now’s become
Yer vegetative bower."
"The posy that the hoss done ate
Up, with his other feed,
Makes bone, and fat, and muscle
Essential to the steed,
But some is left that he can’t use
And so it passes through,
And finally lays upon the ground
This thing, that once wuz you."
"Then say, by chance, I wanders by
And sees this upon the ground,
And I ponders, and I wonders at,
This object that I found.
I thinks of reincarnation,
Of life and death, and such,
And come away concludin’: ‘Slim,
You ain’t changed, all that much
-
Deep man, deep.
Glad you were there to tell us how it was and know more than all original historical sources.
@Idaho_Cowboy
You asked,and I told you. I am not responsible for you liking the answers.
-
It died the day HW moved into the White House.
-
Once again,tell me how many of the people you just listed in your attempt to distort what I wrote are physically hooked to the internal organs of another human,and get everything they need to survive from that human?
Or maybe you think the incubators are human,also?
Why does being inside another human any different than a breastfeeding baby on the outside. All of the same bodily functions take place. You are obliviously seeing a difference here that I'm missing.
Consider this. If you could raise a baby in an artificial device from conception to complete gestation would it have been a baby the whole time?
-
If they find an amoeba on Mars it will be forever touted as the first alien life we have ever discovered. One cell is still life.
-
If they find an amoeba on Mars it will be forever touted as the first alien life we have ever discovered. One cell is still life.
Very true. In regards to unborn babies, if it isn't human life what kind of life is it?
-
Why does being inside another human any different than a breastfeeding baby on the outside. All of the same bodily functions take place. You are obliviously seeing a difference here that I'm missing.
@Idaho_Cowboy
Hundreds of millions of babies grew into healthy adults without ever breast-feeding even once. They also do their own breathing,eliminate their own wastes,and can usually see and hear the things around them. They do none of this in the womb,and you know it.
Consider this. If you could raise a baby in an artificial device from conception to complete gestation would it have been a baby the whole time?
Once it reached the point where it didn't need the device to circulate blood,breathe,etc,etc,etc,yes,they would. Prior to that they are nothing more than growths that have the potential to be human.
Deep down you know all this yourself,but the dogma that has been drilled into you since you were a defenseless child yourself won't allow you to recognize it.
-
If they find an amoeba on Mars it will be forever touted as the first alien life we have ever discovered. One cell is still life.
@geronl
And not all life is human.
-
Deep down you know all this yourself,but the dogma that has been drilled into you since you were a defenseless child yourself won't allow you to recognize it.
I saw my daughter wave to me on an ultrasound so don't pull that rubbish with me. My wife had a miscarriage very early on. We didn't mourn the loss of a lump of tissue. I had a friend that had a preemie baby that had more tubes that you could imagine hooked up to that little kid, but he's an adult now and everyone is glad he made is past being a parasitic life. I know a baby when I see it.
Once it reached the point where it didn't need the device to circulate blood,breathe,etc,etc,etc,yes,they would. Prior to that they are nothing more than growths that have the potential to be human.
Then you look at this, and you tell me it's not a life. You tell me that because this child needs a machine to breathe that it isn't a human life! You tell me that! You go to a hospital and tell the parents that. You tell them that deep down they know it isn't a baby, you tell them it's a parasitic growth.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I saw my daughter wave to me on an ultrasound so don't pull that rubbish with me.<<
@Idaho_Cowboy
Are you claiming she recognized you? How do you know it was a wave,and not a nerve spasm. I blinked my eyes a few moments ago. Does that mean I am flirting with you?
>> My wife had a miscarriage very early on. We didn't mourn the loss of a lump of tissue. <<
Correct me if I am wrong,but doesn't a miscarriage qualify as a birth?
>>I had a friend that had a preemie baby that had more tubes that you could imagine hooked up to that little kid, but he's an adult now and everyone is glad he made is past being a parasitic life. I know a baby when I see it. <<
So,she was born and THEN she was hooked up to tubes,and now you are arguing that I am wrong BECAUSE SHE WAS BORN and was then hooked up to tubes?
>>Then you look at this, and you tell me it's not a life. You tell me that because this child needs a machine to breathe that it isn't a human life! <<
That is NOT what I said and you can't find a post of mine claiming I did say it.
>>You tell me that! You go to a hospital and tell the parents that. You tell them that deep down they know it isn't a baby, you tell them it's a parasitic growth.<<
It is a waste of time for us to try to discuss this any further. Your mind is locked on your position and nothing will ever be able to convince you to look at the evidence because you are approaching it entirely from an emotional POV. Hell,you can't even recognize what the term "parasitic growth" means because of your biases. Your knee jerks,and right away you are upset because you see it as a negative thing,when it is neither negative or positive. It is just a clinical term that means "dependent on the host". Nothing more and nothing less. Yet you focus on that because your personal history,quite naturally,gives you a personal emotional bias that nothing can overpower.
-
This conversation is living proof that there is no common ground upon which to stand as a society when we cannot even agree on what constitutes a life or liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
This thread exemplifies the reason this nation is off the cliff in decline and accelerating to the bottom.
-
@sneakypete
We have a parasitic growth called the fedgov. How do you change something like that? Please throw some insight at this. Plus all the other smaller offshoot parasites that do nothing for the host but by leave of the parent parasite are destroying the host. Best thing is to get down and dirty and excise the parasite. And then burn it with fire. I wonder how you view yourself? Parasite. Or something else. If there is nothing out there then there is nothing in there either. So it is pointless to even begin to try. Unless you are a parasite. Maybe you view yourself as an isolated energy system. But I don't think science has found any of those yet. Everything interacts with everything else. I think it is that interaction that we need to define. So leave religion out and answer it from a scientific point of view. What kind of force and how much. What kind of energy and how much. etceterata
-
This conversation is living proof that there is no common ground upon which to stand as a society when we cannot even agree on what constitutes a life or liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
This thread exemplifies the reason this nation is off the cliff in decline and accelerating to the bottom.
@INVAR
Exactly. Close-minded people who are unwilling to allow others to have their own thoughts. Dogmatic dogs.
-
@sneakypete
We have a parasitic growth called the fedgov. How do you change something like that? Please throw some insight at this. Plus all the other smaller offshoot parasites that do nothing for the host but by leave of the parent parasite are destroying the host. Best thing is to get down and dirty and excise the parasite. And then burn it with fire. I wonder how you view yourself? Parasite. Or something else. If there is nothing out there then there is nothing in there either. So it is pointless to even begin to try. Unless you are a parasite. Maybe you view yourself as an isolated energy system. But I don't think science has found any of those yet. Everything interacts with everything else. I think it is that interaction that we need to define. So leave religion out and answer it from a scientific point of view. What kind of force and how much. What kind of energy and how much. etceterata
@bigheadfred
I am as tired of this circular argument as I am the circular firing squads. No one can reason with the committed religious types because religion isn't based on reason,it's based on faith and superstition. Fundie Islam is no more than a couple of baby steps away from every other fundie religion.
-
@sneakypete
We have a parasitic growth called the fedgov. How do you change something like that? Please throw some insight at this. Plus all the other smaller offshoot parasites that do nothing for the host but by leave of the parent parasite are destroying the host. Best thing is to get down and dirty and excise the parasite. And then burn it with fire. I wonder how you view yourself? Parasite. Or something else. If there is nothing out there then there is nothing in there either. So it is pointless to even begin to try. Unless you are a parasite. Maybe you view yourself as an isolated energy system. But I don't think science has found any of those yet. Everything interacts with everything else. I think it is that interaction that we need to define. So leave religion out and answer it from a scientific point of view. What kind of force and how much. What kind of energy and how much. etceterata
I'm up for a scientific viewpoint.
First off, a parasite isn't the same species as the host. It is another organism of another species, dependent on the host organism for nutrients. If the host dies, parasites commonly have the option of moving on. A tick, most beetles, mites, worms, insects all have the ability to find another host if they can. They are still a separate and genetically different organism from their host, often not of the same biological (taxonomic) Class, Order, or Family of the host.
Defining an immature form of the same organism, despite the variation in DNA still within the genus and species as a "parasite" doesn't fly. The quintessential question is one of when life begins. Not life as we, adults, know it. It'll be a long time before the little nipper pops the chute and starts making stock picks or drag racing on Saturday night, but it's still, given normal opportunities for development and barring accident, or incident, a developing human from conception.
"Fetus" describes a stage of development, just as "infant", "Toddler", "Child", "pre-teen" or "tween", "teenager", "young adult", "adult", "mature adult", "Middle aged", "Senior", "Elderly", "Old fart", "Crusty a**ed curmudgeon", "geezer", and a host of other euphemisms which place someone in an age group often associated with a developmental phase in human life. No one would argue that any of those other developmental stages are not human, so why pick on the little guy?
In essence, I see that as a way of rationalizing the destruction of what would have otherwise been a healthy (within acceptable parameters) human.
Of all those developmental stages, this is the one not capable of screaming its outrage and pain at being summarily destroyed. I guess that makes it easier to rationalize, and the fact that they won't be waiting on the porch or behind the screen door with a shotgun makes it less dangerous to destroy them.
While other species under stress (not enough food or illness) will spontaneously abort their young, as humans well might (miscarriages), no other species destroys its own young strictly for abstract reasons.
Some studies have found an increased risk of breast cancer with induced abortion, other organizations have a clear profit motive in burying that information, if that research is correct.
-
I'm up for a scientific viewpoint.
First off, a parasite isn't the same species as the host. It is another organism of another species, dependent on the host organism for nutrients. If the host dies, parasites commonly have the option of moving on. A tick, most beetles, mites, worms, insects all have the ability to find another host if they can. They are still a separate and genetically different organism from their host, often not of the same biological (taxonomic) Class, Order, or Family of the host.
Defining an immature form of the same organism, despite the variation in DNA still within the genus and species as a "parasite" doesn't fly. The quintessential question is one of when life begins. Not life as we, adults, know it. It'll be a long time before the little nipper pops the chute and starts making stock picks or drag racing on Saturday night, but it's still, given normal opportunities for development and barring accident, or incident, a developing human from conception.
"Fetus" describes a stage of development, just as "infant", "Toddler", "Child", "pre-teen" or "tween", "teenager", "young adult", "adult", "mature adult", "Middle aged", "Senior", "Elderly", "Old fart", "Crusty a**ed curmudgeon", "geezer", and a host of other euphemisms which place someone in an age group often associated with a developmental phase in human life. No one would argue that any of those other developmental stages are not human, so why pick on the little guy?
In essence, I see that as a way of rationalizing the destruction of what would have otherwise been a healthy (within acceptable parameters) human.
Of all those developmental stages, this is the one not capable of screaming its outrage and pain at being summarily destroyed. I guess that makes it easier to rationalize, and the fact that they won't be waiting on the porch or behind the screen door with a shotgun makes it less dangerous to destroy them.
While other species under stress (not enough food or illness) will spontaneously abort their young, as humans well might (miscarriages), no other species destroys its own young strictly for abstract reasons.
Some studies have found an increased risk of breast cancer with induced abortion, other organizations have a clear profit motive in burying that information, if that research is correct.
Very well stated.
-
I once was called to work at the last minute without being told what it was, and found myself at an annual meeting of Planned Parenthood at the Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles as part of their security. I overheard some of the discussions and saw their list of topics and was horrified (though I kept my feelings to myself). The main topic of every speaker (mostly doctors or hospital administrators) was how to increase the number of "procedures" i.e., generate more revenue and bring more "resources" to their efforts.
Make no mistake, they were discussing abortion of human babies ("procedures") as if they were discussing selling hamburgers or widgets. They spoke of marketing strategies, public relations, political aspects, "problematic" factions (pro-life groups) with the overall emphasis on reporting revenue and numbers bragging about increases in revenue, disparaging critics and projecting movement in their percentages of growth.
This was not a humanitarian enclave it was just business and the bottom line was clearly making more money by ending more lives of more babies. The magnitude of callousness and matter-of-fact nonchalance of the speakers/attendees left a lasting impression on me which I have carried with me to this day.
I am not easily offended by insensitivity. I'm fairly worldly, phlegmatic about businesses - even those which involve medical products and services - but the strange lack of concern with matters of humanity or terminating human lives in the millions reminded me of things I had only read about concerning Nazis, Imperial Japanese or fundie-muzz medical experiments or the ruminations of Margaret Sanger in some of her more unguarded moments. It also recalled some of the plans of SPECTRE villains' in James Bond movies.
The only other things I have read which evoked the same sort of shocked revulsion were the descriptions of the activities of Satanic characters'in CS Lewis's classic Space Trilogy (Perelandra, Out of the Silent Planet, That Hideous Strength) There was a sense that these people regarded human beings with the same detached curiosity as a cat toying with a small dying animal. Utter and complete indifference to the suffering / loss of the object.
That sort of detachment and lack of empathy or affect is usually described by psychologists as "dissociative" and is a symptom of mental illness/characterological disorder.
They did not seem to me be normal human beings but rather a consortium of somber, avaricious, bright-but-morally-retarded psychopaths who had all escaped from the same mental hospital and set up a monstrously successful business together. The very, very lucrative Business of Death.
-
I'm up for a scientific viewpoint.
@Smokin Joe
No,you're not. What you are up for is selling your agenda. It may be heartfelt on your part,but it is still an agenda that will NEVER recognize any "uncomfortable" truth. NOT really criticizing you for that BECAUSE you are expressing your heartfelt beliefs.
I will add that once I respond to the posts on this thread today that were posted before this response,so you should all be aware that before you go giving each other "high 5's" to celebrate "defeating the heaten",you didn't.
Nor did I defeat you. My purpose was to establish there is more than one "truth",and "truths" are often claimed because of personal biases. I have been having this and similar argument with True Believers for over 50 years now,and the one thing I know is that NONE of you are ever going to admit there is even the tiniest possibility you are wrong because you function on faith,and faith does not allow questioning.
>>First off, a parasite isn't the same species as the host.<<
Neither is a fetus. A fetus can't multiply and it can't survive the death of the host and move to another host.
End of discussion as far as I am concerned.
-
I once worked at an annual meeting of Planned Parenthood as part of the security. I overheard some of the discussions and saw their list of topics - I was horrified. The main topic of every speaker (mostly doctors or hospital administrators) was how to increase the number of "procedures" i.e., generate more revenue and bring more "resources" to their efforts.
Make no mistake, they were discussing abortion of human babies as if they were discussing selling hamburgers or widgets. They spoke of marketing strategies, public relations, political aspects, "problematic" factions (pro-life groups) with the overall emphasis on reporting revenue and numbers bragging about increases, disparaging critics and projecting movement in their percentages of growth.
This was not a humanitarian enclave it was just business and the bottom line was clearly making more money by ending more lives of more babies. The magnitude of callousness and matter-of-fact nonchalance of the speakers attendees left a lasting impression on me which I have carried with me to this day.
I am not easily offended - fairly worldly, phlegmatic about businesses - even those which involve medical products and services - but the insensitivity of and strange lack of concern with matters of humanity or terminating human life reminded me of things I had only read about concerning Nazi, Imperial Japanese or fundie-muzz medical experiments on human beings.
The only other things I have read which evoke the same sort of shocked revulsion in me were the descriptions of some of the Satanic characters' activities in CS Lewis's Space Trilogy. There was a sense that these people regarded human beings with the same detached curiosity as a cat toying with a lizard it was slowly killing.
They did not seem to me be normal human beings but rather a consortium of somber, avaricious, bright-but- morally-retarded psychopaths who had all escaped from the same mental hospital and set up a monstrously successful business together.
Keep in mind, though that this will not be the end for those people, it is to them just an industry, not a slaughter of "lumps of tissue" on an industrial scale. (We're all just "lumps of tissue", just bigger and generally more autonomous).
Any industry reaches a point where it starts looking for new products, new markets to branch into.
So who is next?
With State Control of medical resources, expense of treatment will be a factor.
Those in a 'persistent vegetative state'?
Those who don't have a 'just so' genetic profile?
Who carry recessive genes which may be harmful?
Those with mental problems? (So easy to claim someone who thinks the Government is out to eliminate them is 'nuts' and eliminate them...)
Cognitive deficits?
Is the big 'find out who you are', swab yourself and get in the genetic database movement just a matter of "finding out who you are"? (Most folks have a pretty good idea who their parents are, and their parents knew their parents, etc.--maybe some records, but DNA?)
How about those old folks? So expensive....
Or the people who don't have the right BMI?
How will the next batch be picked to run through the shredder? and the next?
-
It ain't over until it's over. In biology/ecology, parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism)
Next you are going to tell me a puppy isn't the same species as a dog because it can't reproduce (yet). The larval forms of a species are still members of their respective species, Pete. No way around it.
Now we can be done discussing it if you want to.
-
It ain't over until it's over. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism)
Next you are going to tell me a puppy isn't the same species as a dog because it can't reproduce (yet). The larval forms of a species are still members of their respective species, Pete. No way around it.
Now we can be done discussing it if you want to.
@Smoking Joe
No,I am going to tell you that you are full of shit with a head as thick as a brick because you refuse to see what you are programed to not see.
A puppy IS a dog,just like a child is a human. the puppy is a puppy because it was born to a dog,just like a child is a human because it was born to a human.
I know you are a product of brain washing,but you should be able to follow something that simple and keep it in mind.
I was going to let this go,but you just HAD to come back for a cheap shot with the same lame-ass argument I had already shot down. This means you are either being purposely deceptive,or you are too stupid to understand simple words. I leave it to you to decide.
-
Exactly. Close-minded people who are unwilling to allow others to have their own thoughts. Dogmatic dogs.
No one is denying you your thoughts in this discussion, or your expression of them. You have done so pretty vehemently. Your hostility of faith and those who hold it, is noted.
What you have provided, is an illustration of why Conservatism, the Republic and the liberty that was enshrined for us is no longer possible in this country - and our fate into tyranny and ruin are sealed.
We do not have a common foundation upon which to stand.
-
It ain't over until it's over. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism)
Next you are going to tell me a puppy isn't the same species as a dog because it can't reproduce (yet). The larval forms of a species are still members of their respective species, Pete. No way around it.
Now we can be done discussing it if you want to.
Point of general information concerning domesticated dogs. Domesticated dog breeds derived by human selection from wild dogs (dingos, wolves, coyotes, etc) which had traits more associated with younger ones (namely greater tolerance for other species, docility, softer fur, larger eyes, amiability in general, normally found in puppies / younger members of those species). These qualities are lumped generally into the group of attributes known as chronomorphic (having to do with qualities which appear at specific times in development). Over time, the chronomorphic traits seen in young animals became the dominant traits of the newly-bred varieties through adulthood.
Over the long centuries, in addition to chronomorphic docility, ectomorphic qualities (physical appearance only) were selected and new breeds emerged from that process. Unfortunately for some of those varieties, when humans were selecting the genetics they preferred, they also inadvertently selected recessive genetic problems like weak hips (in some hounds and retrievers) prone to complete failure later in life, and other problems (the nervous jitters of smaller breeds).
-
@Smokin Joe @LateForLunch @sneakypete @INVAR @Doug Loss
I had something running around in my head last night and I actually got up and wrote it down so I wouldn't forget it. There have been scientific studies showing that prayer can be measured as having a positive effect. Call it intelligent directed energy. From there I can deduce a superior intelligence directing energy that results in me. That being said Trump and Sanders have tapped into an energy or maybe an angry nerve. Conservatism should do the same thing. Approach it from the standpoint of positive directed energy. Whether that can be done intelligently is open to question. Think of Pokemon Go. A fad that gets people off and moving. I am at work so maybe later. Thought I would throw the idea out there.
Zero Point. My political energy at a ground state. I was going to abstain. But now I am voting third party. Intelligent directed positive energy.
See ya luv ya bye
-
Are you claiming she recognized you? How do you know it was a wave,and not a nerve spasm. I blinked my eyes a few moments ago. Does that mean I am flirting with you?
I am saying it was 100% clear what she was a separate human, not a parasitic growth. Moving on her own.
Correct me if I am wrong,but doesn't a miscarriage qualify as a birth?
In this case you would be wrong, before a certain number of weeks it isn't counted as a stillbirth. You keeping shifting the goal posts tell me how unreasonable I am and yet you have yet to put forth a consistent ability to tell when your fetus with 100% human DNA truly becomes a human. You have tried to claim a baby in the woman isn't a baby, but now you want to consent that the same baby if born premature and hooked up to machines that mimic the functions of the womb is a baby. What changes and when does it change?
That is NOT what I said and you can't find a post of mine claiming I did say it.
Right here @sneakypete
Once it reached the point where it didn't need the device to circulate blood,breathe,etc,etc,etc,yes,they would. Prior to that they are nothing more than growths that have the potential to be human.
How else is that to be interpreted?
So,she was born and THEN she was hooked up to tubes,and now you are arguing that I am wrong BECAUSE SHE WAS BORN and was then hooked up to tubes?
So what happens to the Baby that is becomes human? What are you trying to claim?
It is a waste of time for us to try to discuss this any further. Your mind is locked on your position and nothing will ever be able to convince you to look at the evidence because you are approaching it entirely from an emotional POV. Hell,you can't even recognize what the term "parasitic growth" means because of your biases. Your knee jerks,and right away you are upset because you see it as a negative thing,when it is neither negative or positive. It is just a clinical term that means "dependent on the host". Nothing more and nothing less. Yet you focus on that because your personal history,quite naturally,gives you a personal emotional bias that nothing can overpower.
If you are interested in evidence your supposed inhuman parasitic growth can feel pain at only 8 weeks of age.
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/12/expert-told-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/
Don't you find it interesting that planned parenthood finds these parasitic growth's human enough to be worth collecting and selling their organs?
Hundreds of millions of babies grew into healthy adults without ever breast-feeding even once. They also do their own breathing,eliminate their own wastes,and can usually see and hear the things around them. They do none of this in the womb,and you know it.
You've already been corrected on mis-using the definition of parasite and species. I think you should find a copy of what to expect when you are expecting, you will find that babies are far active in the womb than you may have imaged. Not only are their brains highly devolved, they can hear and will jump at and can turn towards sounds. They move independently. Their lungs breath in amniotic fluid to strengthen themselves and many other organs are active.
-
My purpose was to establish there is more than one "truth",and "truths" are often claimed because of personal biases. I have been having this and similar argument with True Believers for over 50 years now,and the one thing I know is that NONE of you are ever going to admit there is even the tiniest possibility you are wrong because you function on faith,and faith does not allow questioning.
@sneakypete The truth isn't a matter of opinion it simply is.
truth
tro͞oTH/
noun
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
We can't change the truth by arguing or discussion or even reasoning, we can only discover the truth. Two and Two make four. A baby is a human life from conception from the same moment it gets the unique DNA code he or she will carry for the rest of their lives, the same species as it's mother and father. We can't change that, I may be passionate in my defense of the unborn, but the creation of a new human life is a scientific observable phenomenon.
Many folks have tried to live a different truth throughout history and it has not served them well. Kipling says it so well in The God's of the Copy Book Headings:
S I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
-
Keep in mind, though that this will not be the end for those people, it is to them just an industry, not a slaughter of "lumps of tissue" on an industrial scale. (We're all just "lumps of tissue", just bigger and generally more autonomous).
Any industry reaches a point where it starts looking for new products, new markets to branch into.
So who is next?
With State Control of medical resources, expense of treatment will be a factor.
Those in a 'persistent vegetative state'?
Those who don't have a 'just so' genetic profile?
Who carry recessive genes which may be harmful?
Those with mental problems? (So easy to claim someone who thinks the Government is out to eliminate them is 'nuts' and eliminate them...)
Cognitive deficits?
Is the big 'find out who you are', swab yourself and get in the genetic database movement just a matter of "finding out who you are"? (Most folks have a pretty good idea who their parents are, and their parents knew their parents, etc.--maybe some records, but DNA?)
How about those old folks? So expensive....
Or the people who don't have the right BMI?
How will the next batch be picked to run through the shredder? and the next?
Making the claim that the victims aren't human has been the mark of a great many genocides.
-
@Smoking Joe
No,I am going to tell you that you are full of shit with a head as thick as a brick because you refuse to see what you are programed to not see.
A puppy IS a dog,just like a child is a human. the puppy is a puppy because it was born to a dog,just like a child is a human because it was born to a human.
I know you are a product of brain washing,but you should be able to follow something that simple and keep it in mind.
I was going to let this go,but you just HAD to come back for a cheap shot with the same lame-ass argument I had already shot down. This means you are either being purposely deceptive,or you are too stupid to understand simple words. I leave it to you to decide.
Three letters, pete: DNA Like you said, words mean something. A parasite, by definition is a different species. That developing baby is the same species as the mother. We're mammals, and that's how our offspring develop.
Like I said, we're going to disagree. All those science classes programmed me to be a scientist. It is what it is, and allowed to continue to develop, you get an autonomous human. That takes a decade or more, but you won't get anything else, not a monkey, not a dog, not the blob, but a human.
-
@bigheadfred
I am as tired of this circular argument as I am the circular firing squads. No one can reason with the committed religious types because religion isn't based on reason,it's based on faith and superstition. Fundie Islam is no more than a couple of baby steps away from every other fundie religion.
Not as tired as I am of this watching the sacrifice of million of babies to the God's of convenience and greed and then to see those actions justified and encouraged by our wicked society.
-
@sneakypete
How viable are any of us outside the protective womb of society and civilization? How long would people live apart from doctors and abundant nutritious food. You might find a lot of folks aren't any more viable away from civilization than a baby is out of womb or away from the bottle or the breast.
Even climate, take away our technology that helps keep us cool and warm. How viable are any of us alone in the arctic or the desert? Does that make us any less human are we mere parasites feeding off of this earth?
Has the definition of human life changed as the technology has changed the age at which we are viable either older or younger?
-
@bigheadfred
I am as tired of this circular argument as I am the circular firing squads. No one can reason with the committed religious types because religion isn't based on reason,it's based on faith and superstition. Fundie Islam is no more than a couple of baby steps away from every other fundie religion.
I got trounced for my views on islam. I formed my opinion in 1983. And got the heat for my view of organized religion as a lie. But I still believe in a higher power--intelligence. It makes sense to me. Exploitation of that is wrong. Anyways, I still would like to see some consensus on how one should comport oneself in the face of the onslaught against what I consider normal. But after the big pissing match I suppose this thread is dead.
-
I got trounced for my views on islam. I formed my opinion in 1983. And got the heat for my view of organized religion as a lie. But I still believe in a higher power--intelligence. It makes sense to me. Exploitation of that is wrong. Anyways, I still would like to see some consensus on how one should comport oneself in the face of the onslaught against what I consider normal. But after the big pissing match I suppose this thread is dead.
Nah. It isn't dead. I got my attitude about Islam in the early 90s working with an Algerian. It was an eye opener. There is no "radical" islam, it all believes the same stuff. Just some are more motivated to act on it than others. My family has been Roman Catholic for over a thousand years, but I will still listen to what the Pope says and disagree if I think he's wrong. Maybe I'm just a 'bad' Catholic. While The Church doesn't have a squeaky clean history (understatement alert), that was the doings of people, motivated by whatever motivated them, but hardly in keeping with the teachings of Jesus, and that basically goes for any denomination. Anything gets too organized, too big in that sense becomes a magnet for those who seek power, prestige, and wealth or the trimmings thereof. That makes it tough to not become an abusive force, and that it has not been worse is the amazing part.
Get back to the basics, though and realize when the time comes, our relationship with The Almighty is nothing but personal, and the emphasis changes. I alone am responsible for my actions and beliefs, and the effects those have. No one else, can't hide behind a catechism, it's on me.
As for the rest, demand I believe as you do under pain of death, and we're gonna have a problem--especially if I don't believe that way. Threats of lethal force should be met in kind, and Islam is just such a threat, not just to Christians, but anyone who doesn't believe as they do.
-
Get back to the basics, though and realize when the time comes, our relationship with The Almighty is nothing but personal, and the emphasis changes. I alone am responsible for my actions and beliefs, and the effects those have. No one else, can't hide behind a catechism, it's on me.
Amen.