User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 138

  1. #41
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,122

    Default

    The Liquid Laser has his facts straight!


    Seperation of Church and State was origionally advocated by the religious because many of them had faced persecution in Europe and had SEEN what happens if church and state are too close to one another. You get this point a lot when you read Madison's notes on the writing of the Constitution (highly boring, but it adds an entirely new context to the constitution... not to mention it amuses me when the SC judges claim to KNOW what the founders wanted without reading anything other than the constutition that they wrote apparently.....).

    On another note- not even Machiavelli thought that combining religion and state was a particularly good idea- noting that they corrupt and weaken one another.

    And I have no idea why IlyaK decided to "bestow upon us" his 10 year plan for the country....
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    "An imbecile habit has arisen in modern controversy of saying that such and such a creed can be held in one age but cannot be held in another. Some dogma, we are told, was credible in the twelfth century, but is not credible in the twentieth. You might as well say that a certain philosophy can be believed on Mondays, but cannot be believed on Tuesdays...What a man believes depends upon his philosophy, not upon the clock or the century."
    --GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy, pg 278

    Yeah I don't know about you, but I judge truth upon the merits of its arguments, not what the calendar states.



    Which is itself a religious concept. Plus as the second principal author of the Constitution just stated, religion and law are "twin sisters".

    Plus, it should be mentioned that the seperation of "Church and state" only applies to Congress - ie the Federal government. At the time of ratification, and for some later, many states had official churches established.

    The notion that the government is to be completely neutral in regards to religion didn't exist within American legal philosophy untill 1947.
    That quote from Orthodoxy is ridiculous. A lot of ideas in history have been quite decent for their time and culture, but clearly not good for later times. For instance, in Genghis Khan's time, if a mongol killed a Chinese, he'd pay a lot lesser of a penalty than a lot of other very minor things.

    The Greek myths were good ideas for 3000 years ago. Not so anymore. We know why lightning hits, and it's not because of Zeus. Or Thor. Or if you're smart, God or Allah for that matter.
    I am an ENTJ. I hate political correctness but love smart people ^_^

  3. #43
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    That quote from Orthodoxy is ridiculous. A lot of ideas in history have been quite decent for their time and culture, but clearly not good for later times. For instance, in Genghis Khan's time, if a mongol killed a Chinese, he'd pay a lot lesser of a penalty than a lot of other very minor things.
    And why can't that idea apply to our time as well?


    The Greek myths were good ideas for 3000 years ago. Not so anymore.
    Really? Cause many of the ideas formulated by the likes of Plato and Aristotle are still relevant today.


    We know why lightning hits, and it's not because of Zeus. Or Thor.
    Hardly anybody took mythology seriously even back then. Plato even criticised Homer in his treatises.

    You maybe interested in Paul Veyne's Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths?

    Or if you're smart, God or Allah for that matter.
    Well I don't adhere to Occasionalism, and neither does the Catholic tradition, so your argument falls flat on that account.

    Islam does adhere to Occasionalism(ie everything in nature is the will of God), but it's interesting the premise of this thought. The basic premise is that since God is a rational being, everything he does is in accord with reason. So when he makes the world revolve around the sun, he does so because it's in accordance with his rational nature.

  4. #44
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    On another note- not even Machiavelli thought that combining religion and state was a particularly good idea- noting that they corrupt and weaken one another.
    Nevertheless, he noted the ulititarian purposes of religion in regards to promoting civic virtue.

    Also in The Art of War, Machiavelli credits Christianity with doing away of superstitions that often plagued the effectiveness of armies in pagan times.

  5. #45
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Nevertheless, he noted the ulititarian purposes of religion in regards to promoting civic virtue.

    Also in The Art of War, Machiavelli credits Christianity with doing away of superstitions that often plagued the effectiveness of armies in pagan times.
    I am going to digress into talk of religion, but I would like to keep this a politics and religion thread rather than just a religion thread.

    I would agree that the law and religion are twin sisters. All that really means is that they were birthed in the same place and of similar purpose. Its no accident that the Old Testament reads more like a contract of laws, rather than an enlightening religion. I believe that there was once a time, when there was no such thing as religion. What we call religion today, simply WAS the LAW. I am NOT saying that the leaders maliciously developed it to control the masses.

    In another sense, the angels, gods and demons, were simply a misfire. Like a moth who flies into a hot lamp. Surely moths have not been selected to fly straight into a light source and commit suicide. Its simply a byproduct of a system that WAS selected (the so called celestial/light compass of some insects).

    In a similar sense, humans benefit when they can learn from elders and not from experience. One COULD learn to avoid tigers by experience with them, but it would be better to learn by simply accepting the command to NOT approach tigers. Humans have excelled through accumulated knowledge and so it stands that the kid who couldnt simply "accept" to stay away from the tiger did not have as good of a chance at passing on genes.

    So its in this sense, religion and law are sisters. Religion is the byproduct of the selection for those who could simply accept what was preached. The law is religion, but without the supernatural misfire.



    I would like to keep this a political thread. I agree that religion and the law are sisters. I wanted to add however, that I only feel this relates to the origins of both. Im not sure origins, should always dictate how something should be treated in the future. For example, science has many roots in nature minded religious 'scientists'. This does not mean that separation of science and religion is a bad thing based on the origins. So now apply that to politics and religion. hopefully we can come to the same conclusion.

  6. #46
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    I am going to digress into talk of religion, but I would like to keep this a politics and religion thread rather than just a religion thread.
    In order to discuss politics and religion, you need an understanding of both. So thus, some discussion as to the basic nature of both entities is in order.

    Im not sure origins, should always dictate how something should be treated in the future.
    As John Paul II noted, fidelity to roots and origins does mean a mechanistical imitation of the past, but is creative and seeks new ways of understanding those origins in light of the contemporary situation.

    So while one need not be enslaved to origins, one can never fully break free of them either. So the best route is one that stresses continuity.


    For example, science has many roots in nature minded religious 'scientists'. This does not mean that separation of science and religion is a bad thing based on the origins.
    "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."
    --Pope John Paul II

    So seperating the two is to neglect and ultimately damage both.

    So now apply that to politics and religion and hopefully we can come to the same conclusion.
    The problem is that many of our basic political assumptions are based upon religious assumptions. So how can they ever be fully seperated?

    This applies perfectly to the Political Theology debate Im supposed to have with BW.

  7. #47
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    This applies perfectly to the Political Theology debate Im supposed to have with BW.
    Speaking of political theology, this comparison between the political theories of Carl Schmitt and the theological theories of Karl Barth is in order:
    In Schmitts view, the category of the political is constituted by the irreducible relation of friend and enemy (Freund und Feind). And according to Eichhorn, the closest structural relation between Barth and Schmitt lies here: the same accusation which Schmitt brings against political liberalism that it is no longer capable of perceiving the distinction between friend and enemy is directed by Barth against theological liberalism. While political liberalism pursues the dream of rational consensus and so pretends that there is no longer an enemy, theological liberalism similarly eliminates the category of heresy, so that the theological distinction between friend and enemy disappears.

    And this disappearance of heresy, Eichhorn argues, has grave political consequences. In Barths view, liberal theology had forfeited the capacity to resist the National Socialist regime.
    Indeed, Barths own struggle against liberal theology was precisely an attempt to reintroduce the distinction between truth and heresy, so that a theological intervention in the state would again be possible (just think of the Barmen Declaration, with its profoundly political deployment of the concept of heresy). In short, Eichhorn argues that the (Schmittian) friend/enemy political distinction requires a (Barthian) theological distinction between truth and heresy."

    "Mathias Eichhorn: the state in the thought of Karl Barth and Carl Schmitt"

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    I agree with this sentiment similar to isolationists. However, I really don't think we need to detonate another hydrogen bomb. I sincerely doubt anyone doubts our air, sea, land and general weapons superiority. We do spend close to 4 times who ever is in second on the military budget.



    -take it a step further: create a voucher system. The best schools will get the most money, instead of the current system where the better schools simply drive up the land values in surrounding neighborhoods. That extra value should go directly to the schools.

    -i think an elective system from early on would be fine: make everyone take 1 math course, 2 natural science courses, 1 critical reading/writing course, and one more class could be an art/music/elective. To make up for less classes, include more breaks per class period and make them longer.



    Doctors are already not allowed to form unions, I see no reason why teachers can't be barred from unions as well.
    School could be year round, with more 2 to 3 week long breaks. This would give the teachers a more year round job and thus would justify paying them more. With higher pay, more capable individuals would be compelled to teach.



    I completely agree on the touchy feely bullshit. No one is a real equal. The fact that people should have equal rights does not mean, everyone has equal talents. The idiots of the classroom often hold back those who can handle more, from ever reaching truly challenging material.



    in reference to the idiots, you would be shocked to know that econ IS taught in ALL public school where I came from! Sadly people usaully leave that class with their ideals or lack there of unchanged. I owe it to the fact that econ at that level is just common sense. I would guess that many people simply cannot grasp "captain obvious" topics like we would hope.



    I agree that having the standardized tests at the end of the year dictates too much of when and what is being taught.



    agreed. For example, those who argue against Roe vs Wade, need to state NON RELIGIOUS reasons for why they believe roe vs wade should be overturned. If they cant give any reason other than those relying on the supernatural (it has a soul!) then they have no power in the court system.



    Agreed. I was at target yesterday. Its like we live in fucking mexico. I have no problem with people who want to come work hard for their own american dream, but learn the language dammit!

    I think the best example for why a lot of the reverse discrimination is so ridiculous is the asian population. Asians earn more than white people, in our own damn country. Why? Because hard work is part of their culture! If the rest of the ethnicities can't compete than tough.



    On the one hand I agree with you. On the other hand though, I'm not sure that I want to live in a society that forces people to think or not think certain things. As much as I desire a rational society, I do not think you can legislate cultural change. Legislation is the wrong way to deal with what I guess you want dealing with.



    Agreed. I think we need a new Manhattan project to solve our energy problems. With the price of oil dropping, I worry that we'll will go back to
    not inovating and just consuming more foriegn oil. The market is sometimes too slow to do anything timely about it.
    1) To me, it seems that the people that need to be afraid of our capabilities...aren't. We haven't sent the radiation radars haywire for more than half a century. To do so would show that we no longer think that nukes are useless. If a developing nation such as NK detonates a nuke, it gets people to talk. If the US would detonate a nuke, it'd mean that it would unilaterally win every negotiation, since there'd be little doubt as to what kinds of mushrooms backed our diplomacy.

    2) Interesting...

    3) Art/music/elective IMO shouldn't even be taught in public schools. If you want to do that, do that on your own time. Not on school time.

    4) Right. I remember my best friend telling me doctors weren't allowed to unionize. Not sure why the teachers still have theirs. If your role is indispensable to society, we need to have guarantees that anyone in that role has no power to remove its function.

    5) Signing this.

    6) If they're graded on econ, it'd make them think differently. I hope.

    7) Standardized tests at a set time means you can use "test-teaching and test-taking" techniques to game the system. The entire point would be to defeat those system-gaming techniques and test knowledge of the content, rather than test-taking skills.

    8) Religion can be done away with quite easily. Make people forget it and nobody will realize it existed in the first place. Nobody can see God. God is an idea. Isolate it and stop feeding it and it will die.

    9) Exactly why I can't stand people with heavy accents that just stick to their cliques and then expect to find jobs in the most Americanized places such as Wall Street. The Chinese people are genuinely friendly in my experience. Even when you realize that they're competing with you, you can't help but for some reason warm up to them. Indians, though, you just want to get away from. I'm not quite sure as to why, but that's been my experience.

    10) Signing this. I have a very good Asian friend (he's actually quite Americanized, though his family is very Asian), and some Japanese friends. How polite they are and how hard working they are is astonishing. Their respect for authority and hierarchical structures, however, seem to hamper them.

    11) It's not about forcing people to think certain things. It's about forcing people to THINK, rather than be stupid morals/ethics/religious/values based sheep. Ironically, most people that vote for republicans would be far better off with the democrats. They don't want additional taxing towards a class they'll never reach (because apparently, they think they'll reach that $250,000 threshold when they're only making $60,000 a year now and they're 42 and too ugly and stupid to hire in any good position), they want smaller government (when a lot of the work they do is government sponsored), and generally shoot themselves in the foot CONTINUOUSLY over ridiculous values.

    A person's values should be personal. People shouldn't give a damn whether or not a president can down a beer with them. They should care whether or not the president will improve the status of the nation. When the country improves, so will their lives.

    But too many republicans are too dumb to see that.
    I am an ENTJ. I hate political correctness but love smart people ^_^

  9. #49
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    On one side you have people saying that the US was founded as a Christian nation. On the other side you have people saying that the US was never in any way a Christian nation. Neither side is entirely accurate.

    It's true that several of our most notable founders were deists, e.g. Thomas Jefferson. However it would be ignorant to ignore the obvious influence of Christianity upon our nation's founders. For example the idea of the "separation between Church and State" was originally conceived and practiced by a Baptist minister.

    Ultimately both sides are right, and both sides are misleading.
    Be that as it may, that is why I think the whole angle of argument needs to be dropped -- because neither is entirely right -- but conservative Christians keep leaning on the horn as if they can somehow make an "appeal to authority" [the Founding Fathers] in order to legitimize their own desires over those of other equal-blooded Americans.

    There is no special legitimacy for Christianity.
    I'm tired of the "appeal to authority" that is made solely for the purpose of saying in a kid-like way, "So there -- that's why Mom and Dad should take MY side!"

    Ideas either sink or swim on their own.
    They either reflect the majority or they do not.
    Christians don't get "special dibs" on what America "should be like."
    Even if the Founding Fathers would have been more reflective of conservative values, they still wouldn't have special dibs.

    I just flipped past a Christian station this morning, I was listening to music, and then they ran all their typical political mumbo-jumbo and had some cheesy sketch (even with goofy "Adventures in Odyssey" style voiceovers) about how we all had to please God by getting out to vote... and how we need to vote based on "Christian values" -- as if there's one definition of "Christian values" and one candidate is obviously aligned and the other is completely not. No talk of issues or appropriateness of the times for a particular personality approach or anything else... and I had a pretty good idea of which candidate(s) they were encouraging people to vote for.

    You'd think we'd learn after eight years of voting "Christian values" and having little to show for it. You know what they say about doing something that hasn't worked the last 1000x one MORE time in hopes that suddenly this time something might be different....

    11) It's not about forcing people to think certain things. It's about forcing people to THINK, rather than be stupid morals/ethics/religious/values based sheep. Ironically, most people that vote for republicans would be far better off with the democrats. They don't want additional taxing towards a class they'll never reach (because apparently, they think they'll reach that $250,000 threshold when they're only making $60,000 a year now and they're 42 and too ugly and stupid to hire in any good position), they want smaller government (when a lot of the work they do is government sponsored), and generally shoot themselves in the foot CONTINUOUSLY over ridiculous values.
    Yes. That's what pisses me off about the religious bias -- they're voting for things that are actually not in their best interests if they actually thought through it ... all based on the notion of "Christian values." It's clear it's the ideology speaking, NOT common sense or even rational self-interest.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #50
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Yes. That's what pisses me off about the religious bias -- they're voting for things that are actually not in their best interests if they actually thought through it ... all based on the notion of "Christian values." It's clear it's the ideology speaking, NOT common sense or even rational self-interest.
    Americans tend not to vote out of "rational self-interest" and that is a good thing. Also, the parties people often consider to be the "rational" for someone to support really aren't. This line of thinking betrays a very outmoded "class interest" type of thinking, one that was never really embraced by Americans.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

Similar Threads

  1. Canadian banks with branches commonly found in the USA?
    By Usehername in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-29-2012, 04:19 PM
  2. Love the New Fact Verifying Culture of the USA
    By nomadic in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-03-2008, 01:14 PM
  3. When the house was standing...
    By Makaub in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-27-2008, 07:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO