Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (18585)	11/19/2004 2:23:21 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"because it completely defeats your contention that America is basically an A-Theistic Republic." It is a Republic of rights and freedoms. All people of all religions and all humanists, atheists, secularists alike are equal citizens of the Republic. The Republic is not a religious entity but an entity which gives power to "We, The People" and which considers personal beliefs a private matter outside the interest of the State except where a particular superstition may transgress on the rights and freedoms...as in some of the religious cults that stray too close to literal interpretations. "So in other words there can be no "freedom" without "Rights" but you have failed to demonstrate why freedom is a transcendent "RIGHT" in the first place" I have never claimed it was "transcendent". It is a right based on the reason and the nature of human beings. The nature of humans is to wish to be happy and free from suffering and death. The most rational way to achieve these immanent drives and goals is to promote cooperation and the protection of individual Rights and Freedoms--and to guard against the violation of person or property. Moral arguments do not require transcendent anythings. And moral arguments based on superstitions usually promote hatred, strife, murder, and prejudice between competing ideologies--hardly behavior that one considers as "moral". "The stamp act may have been unpopular but it was perfectly legal" Whether or not it was legal is irrelevant to my point that it demonstrates a wordly reason for Revolution--not a Christian reason. England was not preventing the practice of Christianity in the colonies, so the Revolution was obviously not provoked by any Christian ideas. Indeed, the man who was most responsible for selling the Revolution was anything but a Christian! LOL!