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 (18736)	11/27/2004 10:34:19 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

“What evidence???? Only if you ignore the reality of historical and philosophical context and impose an anachronistic fantasy can you come to the conclusion that the Constitution of the United States is an Atheistic document. Talk about "not getting it"!“ “Talk about not getting it,” is right! Now you pretend that I am arguing the that the Constitution is a document to promote atheism! Can’t you stick with an argument just once in your life? The Constitution has NOTHING to do with Buddhism, atheism, Christianity, Mithraism, or Judaism. The Constitution is a set of LAWS. It is the legal framework for the rule of LAW. Law, in civilized society, is not based on superstition or faith. It is based on reason and justified through reason. There is NOTHING in the Constitution about Jesus, Mohammed, or Yahweh. There are no LAWS in the Constitution that come from any religious texts or that reference the superiority or the existence of any God(s). “did they all change their minds in the few years that separate the two documents? Give your head a shake“ I would not want you to shake yours. You seem incapable of understanding the difference between the Declaration and the Constitution. It is not argued that there were not various religious persuasions in the colonies. I mean…get real! Religious differences had haunted the world for centuries. But the Constitution is NOT a religious document. It is a legal document. It is the Governing charter which defines the legal structure of Government in the colonies and the fundamental rights of the People and the States. It is not about faith, it is not about God, and it is not about atheism! LOL! It does not promote a Christian Nation, and it does not allow for any religious dogma to inform the laws of the Nation. It does not matter one whit what any single one of the signers believed privately about supernatural ideas. It did not matter whether they liked long hair or short, vegetables or meat. The Constitution was NOT a religious document. The Constitution was about FREEDOM and INDEPENDENCE from Great Britain. The Treaty of Tripoli makes it clear that The United States was not a Christian Nation. Therefore, in your feckless attempt to present the Constitution as a theistic document in spite of any evidence that it is anything but secular…you are left with the embarrassment of claiming that the Constitution of the United States is a polytheistic document! Once again--to the surprise of absolutely no-one--you have dug yourself a hole you cannot climb out of! “If you want to examine a truly Atheistic Revolution based solely on reason then you need to look at the French Revolution“ I’m sorry, I’m not going to follow the argument down mouse holes that have nothing to do with what we were discussing. The Constitution was a secular document. If you don’t know the difference between secular and atheistic then argue with somebody who is as bewildered as you apparently are. I said: "First of all…even the mythological Jesus begged to be spared suffering--and implored to be relieved of death." You respond: “DT is right; you are up there with the "Bush was behind 911" crowd with your mythtaken theories about the historicity of the Gospels.“ Frankly, your response is so unrelated as to be retarded. It is not about 9-11. It is about whether or not my assertion that Jesus pleaded to be spared suffering was correct and supported by Christian dogma. You know it is correct and you know my point was thus made, so why not admit it--instead of introducing false arguments littered with puerile insults? A criminal is someone who commits a crime or breaks a Law. That's not a word game, that's the primary definition of the word.“ And I have explained to you over and over again that it is often moral to break laws even though you are a criminal when you break laws. I gave as one example the criminal acts of those whom secreted Jews from the legal actions of the democratic and legal Government which was attempting to capture them. I put it to you that these were moral acts even while yet being criminal ones. I related this to my confutation of your implication that those who forcibly resisted the Stamp Act were immoral because they were (you said) "a bunch of criminals." I have tried to show you that there are laws that are immoral and that therefore breaking or opposing such laws may be moral, indeed. If you keep arguing against the obvious I will take it to reflect on either your intelligence or your integrity. Because, greg or e…if you cannot understand these obvious things, then something is gravely the matter with your mind or your personality. “Why would having your head cut off make you immoral???“ Exactly, just because the Government beheads a Christian (as an example) because they consider preaching Christianity to be a crime (as it is in many places)….does not mean the Christian is immoral for being a Christian--even though he may well be a criminal. Again, whether your inability to comprehend this is real or pretense--it is still indicative of a serious problem. “My point was simply that if Societies make their own moral rules then any revolting against the societies laws besides being Criminal is also an act against morality, and hence immoral“ Again, you are exposing an extreme ignorance or you are intentionally acting in a false manner. Many of the rules in many societies have been anything but moral. If you think hanging “witches” is moral then you are a sick person and more mixed up than a simpleton. Just because it was moral to irrational and primitive people does not make it moral in the value judgments of rational people. “If that is the case then "What's selected is average. What's average is normal" is very much on point. It was not on point. It was simply a smart-ass fragment of a response which sought to distort what was a perfectly clear and uncontroversial fact. “but your statements say otherwise. My point was/is right on target.“ You are playing juvenile games trying to associate pieces from different contexts and create a pretended meaning. I did not argue that letting religious fanatics have their own land to murder one another over while rational people simply walked away from them was “Utopia”. I was suggesting that it would be a good thing to be able to escape from primitive minds in some way like to another planet. Not Utopia, Greg. Just a place where people can have an intelligent conversation and can create values that are thoughtful instead of mindless. “That seems to be your stock answer to avoid dealing with issues. Oh well…“ No. It was a particular answer to a particular spew of dribble from you which had nothing to do with my post.