 Author
|
Topic: Should children get the freedom of religion? (Read 17593 times)
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
"Freedom of Will"? That would get us into the whole philosophical/theological discussion of whether we have free will, or whether everything is pre-determined.  Predetermination would make life so much more simple... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Walt
|
"Freedom of Will"? That would get us into the whole philosophical/theological discussion of whether we have free will, or whether everything is pre-determined. Predetermination would make life so much more simple... No, it'd be the same. We just wouldn't realize we didn't really have choices ... because between X, Y, and Z - we're predetermined to do Z. Of course, predetermination also means God creates suffering and evil, rather than it being a consequence of free-will. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
I answered the last one... which in essence answers the first two.
But now your claiming that John Adam's principles were theocratic and not libertarian, something that you've argued against in other posts.
Theocracy is about forced ethics - not voluntarily and mutually (and individually) agreed upon morality/lawfullness. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
"Freedom of Will"? That would get us into the whole philosophical/theological discussion of whether we have free will, or whether everything is pre-determined. Predetermination would make life so much more simple... No, it'd be the same. We just wouldn't realize we didn't really have choices ... because between X, Y, and Z - we're predetermined to do Z. Of course, predetermination also means God creates suffering and evil, rather than it being a consequence of free-will. Uncle Walt, I'm gonna write up a long, multi-paragraphed reply to this, if that's alright with ya, when I have a block of time to jot down some thoughts on this (cuz I like what you wrote!) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Walt
|
"Freedom of Will"? That would get us into the whole philosophical/theological discussion of whether we have free will, or whether everything is pre-determined. Predetermination would make life so much more simple... No, it'd be the same. We just wouldn't realize we didn't really have choices ... because between X, Y, and Z - we're predetermined to do Z. Of course, predetermination also means God creates suffering and evil, rather than it being a consequence of free-will. Uncle Walt, I'm gonna write up a long, multi-paragraphed reply to this, if that's alright with ya, when I have a block of time to jot down some thoughts on this (cuz I like what you wrote!) It's a'right wit me ... 'course, I ain't guarantyun I'll read it all ... that's the problem with crossing "long, multi-paragraphed" replies and short attention spans. lol I'm more a "sound bite philosopher", than a deep thinker. lol |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Now your claiming that John Adams was a voluntaryist? Or promoted voluntaryist ideals?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
"Freedom of Will"? That would get us into the whole philosophical/theological discussion of whether we have free will, or whether everything is pre-determined. Predetermination would make life so much more simple... No, it'd be the same. We just wouldn't realize we didn't really have choices ... because between X, Y, and Z - we're predetermined to do Z. Of course, predetermination also means God creates suffering and evil, rather than it being a consequence of free-will. Uncle Walt, I'm gonna write up a long, multi-paragraphed reply to this, if that's alright with ya, when I have a block of time to jot down some thoughts on this (cuz I like what you wrote!) It's a'right wit me ... 'course, I ain't guarantyun I'll read it all ... that's the problem with crossing "long, multi-paragraphed" replies and short attention spans. lol I'm more a "sound bite philosopher", than a deep thinker. lol Ah heck, Uncle Walt, the simplicity of it all IS concise and sound-bitey (!!!), but you'd be amazed at how different each person interprets sound bites... lol  Or how people will say "It's not that simple!" or "You don't understand, things are a bit more complex than THAT", when you try to be all matter of fact about stuff. This drives me nuts, because whenever people are refering to things being 'not that simple' or telling me how I don't understand how 'complex' the system is, it's because they are talking about MANMADE complexities that jack up the whole equation. The *Intellectuals* freakin' steam my pipes... trying to say 'this is how things are!' and I'm over here trying to explain to them 'that is how things were built by mankind, all complex like... but that's not how they actually work and function, and I think the current situation proves the unsustainability and illogicalness and LIE of -how things work- in a system that grooves on the complex and confusing so as to flex those intellectual muscles - WHAT MANKIND BUILT DOES NOT WORK BECAUSE IT BROKE BASIC LAWS!" Know what infuriates me? Smart people ignoring basic laws. Laws they even know and acknowledge in one breath, and then deny in the next breath. :/ What a dynamic to work with... FRUSTRATING. So, yeh, back to what you were saying... with predetermination. Remember when Ron Paul and Peter Schiff were warning about an upcoming housing market crash and monetary system collapse (devaluation of the dollar) and folks were like "You guys are CRAZY" - until it happened - and then news folks were like "Wow, you two knew this before it happened - how did you know this?!" Like it was some kinda magic. But it wasn't; it was basic math. It was basic laws. You break those laws, and it is destined to fail, and they knew it because 1 plus 1 equals two. It was presdestined to fail because it broke some laws of math (coupled with breaking some human laws of not infringing on rights, but that's another seperate rant.) Same is true of what the religious sometimes say about things being predetermined by acts of immorality. If you lie, cheat, steal, break promises, kill... you are setting yourself up for failure. Now, to them, the failure is in "God's Eyes" or towards God - and the 'punishment' is hell. The irony in this is that even the hardcore atheist anarchists are saying "If government infringes on people's rights, it is destined for failure" - and that is true, we're living it right now - but they are asking the government not to do the same exact things, re: not covet their property or their life, as well as their 'voluntary service', which the religious would call goodwill, as well as asking government not to steal from them for ANY reason, good or bad, as the reasons do NOT matter, abiding by lawful behavior DOES matter if one wants things to be predestined to actually WORK towards the professed goal! So, all this talk of predestination and predetermination is scientifically and mathematically accurate. It's not hocus-pocus yap - the laws are the laws. We either follow them and respect them, or we are predestined to fail. We don't go around sticking forks in electrical outlets or jumping out of fifth floor buildings because we know there are laws, laws we don't fully understand, but know enough to know that gravity and electricity function here on Earth in such a way that others figured out long before us (as the laws were here before they even arrived, as a species), and so we do our best not to break those laws. If we viewed the laws of liberty in the same way (re: acknowledge what we do know constitutes lawful/moral behavior, which is simply not to infringe on another's rights by lying, cheating, stealing, breaking promises, covet, killing in an aim to claim another's life or property), we'd be a lot closer to liberty by now - but we focussed on these other laws instead and have made peace with those (gravity, electricity), and do not view them as 'out to get us' or 'trying to tell us what we can do and can't do', we live more in harmony with those variables than we do with the laws of liberty - we have to work on our relationship with the laws of liberty and acknowledge them better... and make peace with some calling it "God" - |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
Now your claiming that John Adams was a voluntaryist? Or promoted voluntaryist ideals?
Oh, HECK NO!  He most absolutely wasn't a voluntaryist. I wouldn't say he promoted it, either. His field (re: law, administration of government) relied on people not choosing voluntaryist setups at a level where the system of law and of government became unneccesary and/or resulted in his being out of 'work' - he knew that most people, by habit, sought to be governed, and he only hoped to help them construct a government for themselves that was moral and just. He did, however, support voluntaryist ideals and its right to be a form of self governing, absolutely. It wasn't his particular brand of liberty and freedom, but he sure as heck wasn't about to deny it as a moral, peaceful expression of liberty and freedom, either. I bet there were times he wished he wasn't so entrenched in the systems of government he, himself, was, because I'm positive he understood both the morality and sustainability of such a form of self governing. He'd just invested far too much time, energy and resources to a different form of government to become a voluntaryist, is all. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
His 'consent of the governed' was a collective concept... voluntaryism would require individual consent. Even the concept of the thirteen States having individual consent over their collectives was unacceptable; which is why the US Constitution does not require unanimity amongst the member States as the Articles did.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
And in case your wondering... there is no basic laws, I think you may be considering natural laws. But the 10C aren't natural laws... they aren't by nature universal to all humans.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Walt
|
And in case your wondering... there is no basic laws, I think you may be considering natural laws. But the 10C aren't natural laws... they aren't by nature universal to all humans.
They aren't even universal to all Judeo-Christians, since there are various versions of them. Many people can't even agree whether the commandment is not to "kill", or not to "murder" - which ARE two different things. And then you get vague ones like "Honor your father and mother". What does "honor" mean, in that context? Or what counts as "having another God"? LOL ... My brother was the one who went to seminary, not me. But since he's the one unemployed, I guess there's not much call for religious philosophers as a career path. BoE - Interesting take on "secular predestination". But I think those are just consequences of actions. Predestination (to me) would mean even if you thought you had a choice between actions A, B, or C ... you don't. The one you "chose" has already been determined by a higher power. You don't actually have any choices. Merely the illusion of them. Or, to tie it to a more modern philosophy - we are just a game for a higher power. Kinda like The Sims. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Mass Con Art III - 'Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.'
Seems Adams didn't hold the Jewish faith in high regards.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Walt
|
Mass Con Art III - 'Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.'
Seems Adams didn't hold the Jewish faith in high regards.
Massachusettes was 1 of 5 states requiring a religious test for public office, until 1820. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
His 'consent of the governed' was a collective concept... voluntaryism would require individual consent. Even the concept of the thirteen States having individual consent over their collectives was unacceptable; which is why the US Constitution does not require unanimity amongst the member States as the Articles did.
This is why I'm trying to explain to you the difference between a Commonwealth and a State - you are right that in a State it was rule of a collective - it was NOT the case in a Commonwealth. I have linked you to examples, and am trying to go over it now with you in the John Adams thread - I sure hope you don't think I've been trying to explain this to you for almost two years now simply because I'm 'nuts' - I'm trying to explain it because it's what everyone keeps saying they want. I'm trying to explain it because I really, really, really want to see the concept of Liberty be more than just a 'wish' or a 'hope' - I WANT LIBERTY IN MY LIFETIME. I want it in YOUR lifetime, Mr. Mercier. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
And in case your wondering... there is no basic laws, I think you may be considering natural laws. But the 10C aren't natural laws... they aren't by nature universal to all humans.
Are you sure you're a Catholic?  There are basic laws, if liberty, freedom and/or peace are your desired outcome. To deny there's an equation to Liberty, Freedom or Peace is to deny that we even have a potential to reach it - people don't write down philosophies or outlines of ideas for self-governing for nothing. They write them because they know there has got to be a way to achieve liberty, and the same variables come up - be it in the form of the 10Cs, the Non-Agression Principle, or ZAP, or John Adam's Constitution for Massachusetts. The variables that keep coming up are: Don't infringe on my rights to life and property (re: don't lie, cheat, steal, break promises or kill me to take my property or life.) If you infringe on my rights, I *may* (or may not) select to lie, cheat, steal, break promises or kill you in defense of my own life or property, as my freewill to do so is not capable of being taken away from me - and - a government can not profess to give freedom of religion and take away any right that could be used in the defense of life and/or property. Natural Laws are Freewill - acts that transpire, as you said, in nature, in the defense and/or protection of a species. Birds, for instance, when eggs are stolen from their nests, will go after the bird who stole from them, and they will try to kill the bird that stole from them. In defense of life and property. Natural Law and Universal Law aren't the same. But, we are all born with the Universal Laws inside of us. They are a higher set of Laws to Natural Law. We are born with BOTH sets of laws. We get to choose (freewill) which will guide us in our decision making - and - we get to choose what exactly it is we most want to protect and defend in this lifetime - be it life, property, happiness, freedom of religion, our children, our dreams, our hopes, our house, whatever we choose, possibly a multitude of things - the 10Cs ARE Universal to all humans, the only difference is in that set of laws by which we go by when put in a position to defend life or property (and that's a matter of ethics/freedom of religion/right of conscience, etc.) - Do we choose to go by Natural Law (which says we 'may', if we want, defense life and property with retatliation of force), or do we choose to go by Universal Law (as the Amish do, in selecting not to defend life or property.) A government that allows for self-governing/Liberty and Freedom can NOT make that choice for you (hence, establishing the concept of 'rights') - |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
