 Author
|
Topic: Should children get the freedom of religion? (Read 17746 times)
|
|
Pat McCotter
|
By the way, there isn't a 'global warming' crisis... any more than there is a federal budget crisis. A crisis doesn't take several decades to sneak up on you.
There is a federal budget problem but there isn't a global warming problem. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Visualize Whirled Peas
Give Pizza Chance
I think it's wrong that only one company makes the game Monopoly. - Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
Mr. Ross - a set of questions FOR YOU:
Can liberty and freedom only exist in a one-size-fits-all ethical code? (formulated by some 'law system')
HOW CAN FREEDOM OF RELIGION EXIST IN A ONE SIZE FITS ALL CODE OF ETHICS?
Do you seriously, I mean seriously, think that liberty and freedom are only possible when every individual sees abortion, gay marriage, drug use and cussing as "ethical" ?!
And do you seirously, I MEAN SERIOUSLY, see any individual or group of individuals who live under a code of ethics (but do NOT force you to agree to THEIR code of ethics) that stipulate abortion, gay marriage, drug use and cussing are 'bad' and 'not allowed' as being somehow 'unfree' and 'anti-liberty' ? HOW does that personal code of ethics infringe on YOUR rights to life, liberty and the lawful acquiring and protecting of property?!
GAH! YOU DRIVE ME NUTS! ABSOLUTEY NUTS!
Where is your logic in this? Please explain -
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
And, for the record: I am pro-choice, have probably banged more chicks than every man in this thread put together have, have done my share of drugs pre-1993, am an avid fan of cussing, and am a supporter of polygamy.
Before you go and accuse me of being some righteous prude - I'm defending FREEDOM OF RELIGION HERE, which the 'law system' DOES NOT UNDERSTAND and tramples upon over and over again, and it's getting WORSE. SELF GOVERNING means letting people be free and live in liberty under their own ethical codes and supreme laws and/or creator's laws - all we need agree upon is a code of morals in regards to individual rights.
JOHN ADAMS tried to explain this over and over again! Freakin' Deists didn't understand!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
John Adams wasn't freedom of religion. Though he was a strong voice in the architecture of the Massachussets' Constitution, he was a lessor voice in the US Constitution. The Massachussets' Constitution didn't originally contain a strong freedom of religion position.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
By the way, there isn't a 'global warming' crisis... any more than there is a federal budget crisis. A crisis doesn't take several decades to sneak up on you.
There is a federal budget problem but there isn't a global warming problem. Actually there isn't a problem with either. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
You seem to lack an understanding of human nature. Voters aren't doing unto others as they would wish upon themselves.
Or the voters wouldn't continually be unhappy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
John Adams wasn't freedom of religion. Though he was a strong voice in the architecture of the Massachussets' Constitution, he was a lessor voice in the US Constitution. The Massachussets' Constitution didn't originally contain a strong freedom of religion position.
You're wrong about this, Mr. Mercier - when we delve into the Massachusetts constitution, I hope it clears things up a bit. And, had John had a stronger voice in defense of the philosophy of self-governance by the outline he gave in the Constitution of Massachusetts, which was NOT set up as a 'state', and kept the individual rights secure, and ABOVE that of a state's setup, and had John had a stronger voice in the formation of the US Constitution years later, we wouldn't be where we are at today - this is exactly where attempting to force everyone to live under the same code of ethics leads to - complete tyranny. we got this mess we're in right now BECAUSE John Adams didn't speak more strongly about the difference between morality and ethics - John knew that all we had to do was agree upon the foundation of morality, whereas Jefferson believed that it was ethics that had to be one size fits all (and Jefferson was WRONG.) Why do you think John Adams set up the manmade system of law as a privilege and not a 'right' - ? Maybe you and I should begin going through that Constitution of Massachusetts instead of me and Ross - where do you want to have the discussion? In the Fight Club thread, or the 'oh, behave' alternate thread? I'm game either way - |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pat McCotter
|
By the way, there isn't a 'global warming' crisis... any more than there is a federal budget crisis. A crisis doesn't take several decades to sneak up on you.
There is a federal budget problem but there isn't a global warming problem. Actually there isn't a problem with either. The sky is blue. John.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Visualize Whirled Peas
Give Pizza Chance
I think it's wrong that only one company makes the game Monopoly. - Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
You seem to lack an understanding of human nature. Voters aren't doing unto others as they would wish upon themselves.
Or the voters wouldn't continually be unhappy.
Not all voters are unhappy - you should have seen the happiness on the faces at town hall who 'won the vote' to increase the town budget for education and town services during this year's meeting. There's going to be a new batch of paid employees, with health benefits, who are 'very happy' in this economic recession/depression - until the whole unsustainable mess collapses, that happiness will exist - It very much was a case of doing unto others as you would have done unto you - the 'majority' doesn't mind being taxed more heavily, even though a man rose up to explain how he would no longer be able to afford to live in the home he'd had for decades in this town if taxes went up any higher, as his social security did not reflect the rise in cost of living, and he was hardly making it as it was, with fuel costs he'd had no idea were going to increase by such a drastic margin over the course of the past few years ... they wanted what they wanted, it was 'good', they had determined, and the individual man's situation and rights were besides the point. It's just town business, after all. The collateral of the individual is not of concern. When he moved here, it wasn't like this. It just slowly started to happen, and he tried to peacefully address it - he wasn't alone. Decades of locals trying to stop it; being overwhelmed by town attorneys, interpretations of the NH constitution, dismissals of individual rights in favor of 'democracy'... it's been a long struggle, coping with the whole concept of 'doing unto others' with no boundaries or lawful exceptions to what you can do to others. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
Why do you think Christ came? What interpretation were you taught?
Eh? "Why?" I highly doubt there was a biblical Christ. I think the question is silly. But I think if you ask most people you're going to get some variant of "to die for our sins" or "to die on the cross." The amount of the Bible spent on the Jesus' treatment of the commandmants is quite small.
Question for you: if a group of individuals wanted to have a little (or big) community where, IN THEIR COMMUNITY, homosexual marriage wasn't allowed, drugs weren't allowed, and having sex in exchange for money wasn't allowed, and all agreed to those ideals - would that be 'allowed' in a freedom and liberty oriented self-governing structure or form of governance/government ?
That wouldn't be a very free or liberty-oriented community. Shall we begin with outlawing each and every Amish community? I never claimed the Amish people were free or liberty-oriented--no one should. But how or why would you outlaw an entire class of people? That doesn't sound very free or liberty oriented either. Can liberty and freedom only exist in a one-size-fits-all ethical code?
I don't know what you mean. And I don't think you do either. Do you seriously, I mean seriously, think that liberty and freedom are only possible when every individual sees abortion, gay marriage, drug use and cussing as "ethical" ?!
What is the relevance of every individual's opinion on those issues? I don't care if you think buttons are unethical. And do you seirously, I MEAN SERIOUSLY, see any individual or group of individuals who live under a code of ethics (but do NOT force you to agree to THEIR code of ethics) that stipulate abortion, gay marriage, drug use and cussing are 'bad' and 'not allowed' as being somehow 'unfree' and 'anti-liberty' ? HOW does that personal code of ethics infringe on YOUR rights to life, liberty and the lawful acquiring and protecting of property?!
Nope. Not until they start forcing people to do things. Including people within their community who don't want to belong any more. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
Why do you think Christ came? What interpretation were you taught?
Eh? "Why?" I highly doubt there was a biblical Christ. I think the question is silly. But I think if you ask most people you're going to get some variant of "to die for our sins" or "to die on the cross." The amount of the Bible spent on the Jesus' treatment of the commandmants is quite small.
Question for you: if a group of individuals wanted to have a little (or big) community where, IN THEIR COMMUNITY, homosexual marriage wasn't allowed, drugs weren't allowed, and having sex in exchange for money wasn't allowed, and all agreed to those ideals - would that be 'allowed' in a freedom and liberty oriented self-governing structure or form of governance/government ?
That wouldn't be a very free or liberty-oriented community. Shall we begin with outlawing each and every Amish community? I never claimed the Amish people were free or liberty-oriented--no one should. But how or why would you outlaw an entire class of people? That doesn't sound very free or liberty oriented either. Can liberty and freedom only exist in a one-size-fits-all ethical code?
I don't know what you mean. And I don't think you do either. Do you seriously, I mean seriously, think that liberty and freedom are only possible when every individual sees abortion, gay marriage, drug use and cussing as "ethical" ?!
What is the relevance of every individual's opinion on those issues? I don't care if you think buttons are unethical. And do you seirously, I MEAN SERIOUSLY, see any individual or group of individuals who live under a code of ethics (but do NOT force you to agree to THEIR code of ethics) that stipulate abortion, gay marriage, drug use and cussing are 'bad' and 'not allowed' as being somehow 'unfree' and 'anti-liberty' ? HOW does that personal code of ethics infringe on YOUR rights to life, liberty and the lawful acquiring and protecting of property?!
Nope. Not until they start forcing people to do things. Including people within their community who don't want to belong any more. I need a block of time to respond to this, but I won't have that until Monday the earliest; ty for the interesting replies that I can't wait to do battle with. Hold that En Garde for a bit... you do look so stunning in your fencing attire.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
ty for the interesting replies that I can't wait to do battle with.
Always so combative... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
ty for the interesting replies that I can't wait to do battle with.
Always so combative... Not always... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
ty for the interesting replies that I can't wait to do battle with.
Always so combative... when I do get around to replying, I will be do it in the voice of 'nice' and non-combative, just for you (this one time :p ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
