OK then explain the permissive moral rot in other terms . Who knows ,maybe it is a flaw in enlightenment thinking .
|
OK then explain the permissive moral rot in other terms . Who knows ,maybe it is a flaw in enlightenment thinking .
Hello tom:
Freedom.Quote:
OK then explain the permissive moral rot in other terms .
Excon
That is not freedom ;what we have is the French revolution waiting for Napoleon to restore order .
Of course it was a flaw in their thinking. This was always going to happen given enough time. Of course it gave rise to numerous possibilities. Do you think they were promoting some sort of ideological position? Like science it was an ongoing ended experiment.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tut
That's why Tocqueville praised the role of religion in the American experiment .Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Quote:
There is no better illustration of the usefulness and naturalness of religion, since the country where its influence is greatest today is also the country that is freest and most enlightened.
Hello again, tom:
You have YOUR moral rot, and I have MINE.
Let me see. Keeping people who love each other from getting married is a rotten thing to do. Putting people in jail for smoking pot, is really ROTTEN. Closing abortion clinics forcing women to travel long distances, or use a coat hanger, is pretty rotten...
Shall I go on?
excon
No you have your definition of marriage and I have mine... I do not favor imprisoning pot smokers no matter how many time you try to pin that on me. You belly ache about closed abortion clinics and don't say a word about the legal butchery that is more common than you would like to admit given your silence about the Philly clinic .
I'm not saying it wasn't useful. I don't really know the details but I would imagine that one role of religion may well have been to act as some type of common bonding element for that early society.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tut
Please give us some more of your twisted philosophy, why don't you really say what you mean. Just do it because if fells good and to hell with everyone elseQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, clete:
What you call twisted, I call freedom.Quote:
please give us some more of your twisted philosophy,
But, let me see if I can find something REALLY twisted to satisfy you... Oh, yeah... My government is reading my emails and listening to my phone calls. That's rotten. My government TORTURED people... That's STINKING. My government keeps people imprisoned FOREVER without convicting them of anything... That's as rotten as you get...
Happy now?
Excon
Freedom is also guaranteeing my second amendment rights.
Freedom is letting me exercise all my rights in pursuit of my happiness. :) Keep your guns, but don't expect me to take your word for it that your relatives are as sane as you are.
And don't tell me YOUR traditions and dogma or church is better than mine. Or your freedom is more important than mine, or your morals are better than mine. That's an opinion and you have a right to it in your house, not mine.
That's fair ain't it, even if you don't like it, right? So keep your second amendment rights and let a female keep her right to choose a legal abortion. That's fair too... RIGHT?
If what your saying is something you truly believe in then why is it that the following situation exists?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Why is it when you ask Dems about being pro choice they resoundingly state YES! But when asked about the choices other make then they decry their supriority. Things like smoking or gun control or a moment of silence to reflect. If you truly believe as you say then there wouldn't be the big push from your side to limit those around you by force.
Where is the logic in telling a populace that they don't know any better so your going to force them by gun to do your superior bidding?
Examples please, you lost me. I don't care if you smoke, OR what you smoke. Light 'em if you got 'em.Quote:
so your going to force them by gun to do your superior bidding?
Gosnell was performing legal abortions while the state turned their head, so apply that to your don't expect me to trust your relatives logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Otherwise got to agree with caldad, choice and freedom to libs tends to be only those choices and freedoms they agree with.
Ok, there are private property rights in this country. As an owner of a private business then within reason it is up to the owner to to set the working conditions. But in most states if you own a bar and those allowed in it are adults only you can't decide on behalf of the business to allow smoking on the premises, How about the auto shop where exhaust is spewed into the air but god forbid someone lights up a legal product. If you disobey you can receive the full force of the law which is the part that has guns pointed at you when they take you away for re-education.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
How about when it was made illegal to enjoy a soda the size of your choosing ? If something is put into law and that law is broken they don't just do nothing.
Why is it that if a student were to bring a bible to school to read then it is banned as if it were pornographic material and for disobeying there are heavy reprecussions? Freedon isn't just about what you want. And your happiness has no guarantee. You are allowed to pursue it but by no means are you allowed to force it upon others.
We all have our own paths in life. It is the blending of those paths that give flavor to life. Law of a society need to be in place to allow society to grow. Many today feel that the cause of the greater good is only vested in themselves. That is how the use of the guns is coming into play.
Where is the sreaming going on when restrictive fees are being charged for doing the right thing (after all it goes against the principle of hurting the poor doesn't it?).
Look at Obamacare. It too has been foisted upon us without even reading it and now will be issued under the threat of a gun if not followed to the letter. See a trend here?
Next up, telling you how much money you can save for retirement and/or confiscating it.
As a private property owner that has had that property taken (fairly compensated{?}) under "imminent domain" I can fully agree with many of your points. Unfortunately many knee jerk impulsive reactions by lawmakers, local, state and federal often takes many years to correct and not without a public out cry. Sometimes those efforts fail, no matter the good of the cause or arguments.
I don't know if it's a dem, repub thing, more though as private interests drives most policy, such things tend to drive me NUTS.
Who was it that said they wouldn't confiscate your guns over a little depression - or in this case a little anxiety? NY has been busy confiscating guns since their SAFEact passed. They took thus guy's because ge once took a little anti-anxiety meducation, which apparently is a violation.
Judge orders guns returned to Amherst man mistakenly identified as violating the SAFE Act - Buffalo
Really? Taking a half a Xanax could lead to confiscation in NY? What's next, enjoying a glass of wine?
It is the narrowmindedness of the politicians we have today as well as the special interests that have infected the system like a virus. It is truly a shame that we have long term politicians because it keeps the fresh ideas from coming forward. I believe the fore fathers never invisioned lifetime politicians. I truly believe they were meant to live under the laws they created rather then be exempt. That alone has created mass animosity for government rule as well as bred a huge mistrust in the way things are handled.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Honest debate should always start by looking at the real problem and not those guided by party lines. Education for the law makers should be paramount to any issue taking place that is up for vote. Emotion drives many issues. But when you react purely on emotion then you subvert the greater good.
Just look at how the gun debate is being handled and the parade of victims being passed in front of our eyes to twist reality. We all need to stand strong and peer through the fog so we may sift the information with clear vision for the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Careful with what you say. Since he was a permit holder then you are not allowed any alcohol while carrying. There is zero tolerance for that. But no where in the article and most importantly was it shown that his lawyer fees were paid for by the State / County that created the problem in the first place. They did address his possible redress in the federal courts but what has happened and going to happen on a nationwide basis can be a nightmare for those involved and a god send to lawyers looking to make a few bucks.
I question that legality.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Lawmakers don't listen to constituents, they listen to donors who have lobbyists, mostly former lawmakers. That a damn shame in my opinion. One would hope our lawmakers were already properly educated before we elect them.
Properly educated is a base term. Just look at how many rumors I have tried to dispel in this thread alone and all of us are aducated people at our own level. What Im calling for is education of the matter at hand no matter what that is. If it is up for a vote it should be by an informed decision and not just by some lobby of the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
"Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society." George Washington.
Does that mean only Christian morality? Atheist need not apply?
I didn't say that.. they said a religious and moral people. One can be religious and still reject a creator god. Just ask the Hindu and Buddhist.
I think there is inadequate space to discuss the separation of religion and morality as per the quotes. If indeed, they can be separated at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The Enlightenment gave rise to the possibility that ethics and theology could be distinct. What we have is a history of human knowledge (rightly or wrongly) being the foundation of a society.
We have all testified here that when push comes to shove religion is made to fit the science of law and politics. That's the tradition we have inherited from the Enlightenment. The whole idea is to prevent the sciences from fitting the religion.
P.S.
In case someone reminds me. I know this has very little to do with the current thread.
Tom look at what you have just posted, in defending your second amendment you are assuming your nation comprises a moral and religious people, the fact is that in many respects it is far from that allowing permissiveness and licentuiousness under the rights conferred by that same constitution and even your founders said It is wholly inadequate to the government of such circumstancesQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Those pillars that Washington spoke of have been eroded and therefore obviously need to be reinforced by other means
I am not ready to abandon the constitution .Like I already stated is that people who lose their liberty due to the effects of societal moral decay are ripe for the next Napoleon. Rather I'll continue to state my case that the direction the nation has turned is the wrong one.
Let me remind you that Napoleon, despite his adventurism and despotism, reformed the laws and that his system remains today. One should not fear reform and even complete change
Yeah nothing like a military dictatorship to restore order... and you ask why we want to keep our 2nd amendment rights.. why we don't want a national registry of gun owners .
I hope we have gotten way past that civil war stuff in America.
Most of us have... a lot of one certain ethnic group seem to have a problem doing that for the most part.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I was born a Yankee but I've spent nearly all of my adult life in the south... so I relate to the Rebels far more than I do to the north.
And there are far too many northern liberals that can't get past it and let us southerners have our Rebel flag... probably because they still fear the south...
You don't want responsibility you don't honestly think that you could successful resist the military with small arms do you? This is civil war thinkingQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well Tal I don't think you have, not as long as people like Tom are aroundQuote:
I hope we have gotten way past that civil war stuff in America.
And I still question just how passionate the military would be about suppressing their fellow Americans in the just cause of protecting our freedom from a repressive government.
Hello again,
There's an argument to be made about the second Amendment. It SHOULD be made between intelligent human beings who are GROUNDED in reality... But, when ONE side says they need their guns to defend themselves against the U.S. Army, the conversation has gone off the rails..
And then to THINK that the US Army would JOIN that rebellion is nuts, nuts, and even more nuts than that.
excon
Ex I agree with you this is civil war thinking, and so is the idea that citizens will support the army in resisting an invader effectively. Actually what is needed is that such people get out of the wayQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve
Do you question how passionately we went after Tim McVeigh? What makes YOU think YOUR rebellion is going to any more popular than HIS was??Quote:
And I still question just how passionate the military would be about suppressing their fellow Americans in the just cause of protecting our freedom from a repressive government.
Excon
Ex there is some sort of ego thinking operating here, the vigilante, the spirt of Zorro, of Batman even, but they are all in their head or even worseQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, clete:
Couple things... I don't doubt the military WOULD act against a repressive government. But, a government that elects its president and debates the passage of laws pursuant to its RULES, isn't repressive... It's not even close. George W. Bush taking away our 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights was MUCH closer to REPRESSION than ANYTHING Obama is doing...Quote:
Ex there is some sort of ego thinking operating here, the vigilante, the spirt of Zorro, of Batman even, but they are all in their head or even worse
On the other hand, maybe we need to see one side WHIPPED up on real good before we can get something done... I'm ready to go.
Excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:10 PM. |