ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century

[Azdgari]

Perhaps, Gill, because you made sure to interpret their positions in such a way as to reinforce your anti-atheist bigotry?

[rickymooston]

Maybe this is a unrealistic assumption, but I have to say, so far, I'm seen several people on here that have confirmed it, so I'm not giving up that assumption yet.

The people you've been dealing with here likely support the principals of democracy, free speech and the rest.

What they are saying is, nature doesn't make it so.

Many societies have existed where those rights didn't exist and in fact many Christian societies are included here. Consider the fact that the New Testament tells slaves to be nice to their masters, even if those masters are Christian. It doesn't tell Christian slave masters to free their slaves although I believe at least one case is recorded where a Christian slave was freed.

The order of the monarchy is used as the main analogy of the relationship between man and God. No suggestion is made that that order is wrong.

Is essence, American democracy is not following biblical principals but principals that evolved in
American society over time. Some Christian values may have had a positive impact but several of the founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson were not even Christians by any serious definition of the word.

[Gill]

Perhaps, Gill, because you made sure to interpret their positions in such a way as to reinforce your anti-atheist bigotry?

heh, no, not a bigot, just yet anyway.  I was just interested to understand where people were coming from.

[Gill]

Maybe this is a unrealistic assumption, but I have to say, so far, I'm seen several people on here that have confirmed it, so I'm not giving up that assumption yet.

The people you've been dealing with here likely support the principals of democracy, free speech and the rest.

What they are saying is, nature doesn't make it so.

Many societies have existed where those rights didn't exist and in fact many Christian societies are included here. Consider the fact that the New Testament tells slaves to be nice to their masters, even if those masters are Christian. It doesn't tell Christian slave masters to free their slaves although I believe at least one case is recorded where a Christian slave was freed.

The order of the monarchy is used as the main analogy of the relationship between man and God. No suggestion is made that that order is wrong.

Is essence, American democracy is not following biblical principals but principals that evolved in
American society over time. Some Christian values may have had a positive impact but several of the founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson were not even Christians by any serious definition of the word.

I don't doubt anyone here supports * democracy.    I think,  this is an innate desire of all people, which is why it should be recognized as a natural-right, which it rightfully is.

What if the founding documents said something like: 'all men are made equal by the government,  endowed with rights from the government'.  This is the philosophy of the communist.

[rickymooston]

What if the founding documents said something like: 'all men are made equal by the government,  endowed with rights from the government'. 

The real authority in the system is "we the people". And indeed, it was the people with the common belief in the "natural rights" that put them in place by force of arms. That is to say, people were bound by a common belief in 'freedom'.

The checks and balances include a right to free speech; i.e., to disagree with the system. Jury of one's peers. Laws of evidence, etc, etc. Regular elections and more importantly, the right of assembly. Even the right to bear arms. The right to create political parties. There is even a limit on the power of the president and a way to get rid of him.

Serving under God, natural rights (from God) and so on are all rhetoric. The substance is a system with checks and balances to reduce abuses.

George III of England served "God", "Ich Dein" was his official motto and it meant I serve. God save the king was the anthem of the UK at the time, wasn't it? I believe so.

This is the philosophy of the communist.

The communists have several aspects which make the idea of rights suspect. First there is the idea of a
"counter revolutionary".  Further more it is a one party system.

Now, I'm unsure which came from Marx/Engels and which from Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Pot Pol etc. Its been more
than 20 years since I've been well read on this.

Granted the communists consider themselves a "democracy" but one isn't allowed to assemble. One isn't allowed to form other parties.

The main thing about communism is that wealth is shared and there is no "capitalist" owning production. Everthing is in the hands of the 'workers'.

[Frank]

I don't doubt anyone here supports * democracy.    I think,  this is an innate desire of all people, which is why it should be recognized as a natural-right, which it rightfully is.

What if the founding documents said something like: 'all men are made equal by the government,  endowed with rights from the government'.  This is the philosophy of the communist.

I don't believe people have an "innate" desire to live in a democracy at all. The only innate desire people have, besides procreation, is the desire to be part of the herd however that herd may be governed. Why do you think religion exists? Why do you think we're always looking for a strong leader. I'm sure there are millions of people in america who would have been quite happy for Dubya to have been president for life.
People like regimented, ordered lives, and that's what religion and the state represent. Give us your compliance and we will give you law, order, and a sense of belonging.

[rickymooston]

I don't believe people have an "innate" desire to live in a democracy at all.

It doesn't seem hard to convince people its a good idea unless they are in the priveledged group.

The only innate desire people have, besides procreation, is the desire to be part of the herd however that herd may be governed.

The "only"? how can you be sure? I certain agree we have social instincts.

Why do you think religion exists?

Many theories have been proposed. I think you are on to something but is that everything? A sense of
belonging to the order of the universe? 

Why do you think we're always looking for a strong leader.

Having  strong leader isn't incapatible for having a reason to choose one. And further more, a strong
leader isn't enough. Very few Americans would vote for Joseph Stalin.

I'm sure there are millions of people in america who would have been quite happy for Dubya to have been president for life.
People like regimented, ordered lives, and that's what religion and the state represent. Give us your compliance and we will give you law, order, and a sense of belonging.

Really? When he exited office his numbers were at an all time low.

I've met people who felt a theocracy was better because they believed a theocracy would follow God's principles. I think members of the aristocraacy like Goering believed in an aristocracy but democracy certainly has wide appeal

[Frank]

 author=rickymooston link=topic=21064.msg468800#msg468800 date=1325465870]

Having  strong leader isn't incapatible for having a reason to choose one. And further more, a strong
leader isn't enough. Very few Americans would vote for Joseph Stalin.

If you go by Americam elections only 50% actually vote for anybody. I doubt Stalin would get many votes but I'll bet in the current climate Hitler would. All that Master race/American exceptionalism would go down a treat. It's only after he was elected that you find out what he is really like. By then of course it's too late. How many rights have you lost because of Patriot act 1+2? Do I see armed masses decending on Washington to demand those rights be reinstated. Obama has just signed into law indefinite detention FFS.

For 95% of human history democracy has barely existed. All we've had are absolute monarchs/emperors/pharoas etc supported by whatever religion held sway in that part of the world. None of these people were elected and there was no apparent mass movement to change it.

Generally speaking all people want is a roof over their heads, enough to eat, and enough money to pay the bills. Give them those things and they don't care who is in charge.

[violatedsmurf80]

Is essence, American democracy is not following biblical principals but principals that evolved in
American society over time. Some Christian values may have had a positive impact but several of the founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson were not even Christians by any serious definition of the word.

Although your point is is true there are also things that are called blue laws and which thay are still in practice today.

[Gill]

I don't doubt anyone here supports * democracy.    I think,  this is an innate desire of all people, which is why it should be recognized as a natural-right, which it rightfully is.

What if the founding documents said something like: 'all men are made equal by the government,  endowed with rights from the government'.  This is the philosophy of the communist.

I don't believe people have an "innate" desire to live in a democracy at all. The only innate desire people have, besides procreation, is the desire to be part of the herd however that herd may be governed. Why do you think religion exists? Why do you think we're always looking for a strong leader. I'm sure there are millions of people in america who would have been quite happy for Dubya to have been president for life.
People like regimented, ordered lives, and that's what religion and the state represent. Give us your compliance and we will give you law, order, and a sense of belonging.

No, most people do have an innate desire to be free from government oppression.   Which is why, all the most modern civilizations are democratic to a degree.

[Gill]

If you or someone else doesn't have such a desire though, that is okay, you are free to join a slave community.

[Frank]

If you or someone else doesn't have such a desire though, that is okay, you are free to join a slave community.

Maybe you should include the 50% who won't bother vote in the presidential election this year. Yet the guy who wins with his slightly more than 25% will take that as a mandate to govern. If any country in the west is heading for dictatorship it's America. Voter apathy, rightwing politics, and billionaires paying for political parties.
We'll see which one of us ends up in a slave community first.

[Azdgari]

No, most people do have an innate desire to be free from government oppression.   Which is why, all the most modern civilizations are democratic to a degree.

Recognizing an innate desire for something doesn't entail believing that thing to be a good idea.

[Gill]

If you or someone else doesn't have such a desire though, that is okay, you are free to join a slave community.

Maybe you should include the 50% who won't bother vote in the presidential election this year. Yet the guy who wins with his slightly more than 25% will take that as a mandate to govern. If any country in the west is heading for dictatorship it's America. Voter apathy, rightwing politics, and billionaires paying for political parties.
We'll see which one of us ends up in a slave community first.

No it's actually the right wing conservatives who favor personal liberty.   The liberal democrats are the best to vote for if one wants to encourage a further socialist nation, as they already are....

[Azdgari]

Then why are they always ragging on the ACLU as an evil organization?

[Frank]

If you or someone else doesn't have such a desire though, that is okay, you are free to join a slave community.

Maybe you should include the 50% who won't bother vote in the presidential election this year. Yet the guy who wins with his slightly more than 25% will take that as a mandate to govern. If any country in the west is heading for dictatorship it's America. Voter apathy, rightwing politics, and billionaires paying for political parties.
We'll see which one of us ends up in a slave community first.

No it's actually the right wing conservatives who favor personal liberty.   

Yeah. For them not for you. You're not rich enough. All they want from you is your vote. Then you can go away be poor because I doubt you have a pot to piss in.
I'll bet you can't wait for November so you can vote for one of bible thumping loonies they're lining up to run against Obama or are you waiting to see which one of them will promise to bring in the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions.
I mean after all the right to an abortion shouldn't be part of any americans personal liberty now should it?

[Azdgari]

^^ Forget abortion.  How about the right to sexual education in the first place?  Gotta oppose that.

[Frank]

^^ Forget abortion.  How about the right to sexual education in the first place?  Gotta oppose that.

Exactly. Gill, and others of his ilk, have a very blinkered view of what "personal liberty" actually entails.

[Brakeman]

I'd like to see a comparative list, with one column being freedoms a secular government prohibits due to atheism, and a column of freedoms a theocratic government prohibits.

I'm sure it'd be a close race ..............................Not!

[Samothec]

Yeah, people do care about what it says, if they have any interest in living in a free society.

Tell that to the theists who want to turn the USA into a theocracy.

lol, maybe there are people that way, but that will never happen.

You haven't been paying attention to the Tea Party and their manipulation of the Republican Party.

[Gill]

If you or someone else doesn't have such a desire though, that is okay, you are free to join a slave community.

Maybe you should include the 50% who won't bother vote in the presidential election this year. Yet the guy who wins with his slightly more than 25% will take that as a mandate to govern. If any country in the west is heading for dictatorship it's America. Voter apathy, rightwing politics, and billionaires paying for political parties.
We'll see which one of us ends up in a slave community first.

No it's actually the right wing conservatives who favor personal liberty.   

Yeah. For them not for you. You're not rich enough. All they want from you is your vote. Then you can go away be poor because I doubt you have a pot to piss in.
I'll bet you can't wait for November so you can vote for one of bible thumping loonies they're lining up to run against Obama or are you waiting to see which one of them will promise to bring in the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions.
I mean after all the right to an abortion shouldn't be part of any americans personal liberty now should it?

I really don't see how abortion or the death penalty is a major concern for most anyone when we have a government now which is spending itself into oblivion and taking all the citizens with it.   So yeah,  I don't think I'll be voting for someone who believes that spending more tax money will grow the economy.   

[Azdgari]

I really don't see how abortion or the death penalty is a major concern for most anyone when we have a government now which is spending itself into oblivion and taking all the citizens with it.

It's a major concern to right-wing Ameican conservatives.  Much more of a concern than the debt is.

So yeah,  I don't think I'll be voting for someone who believes that spending more tax money will grow the economy.

So you'll be part of the ~50% who don't vote then, right?

[Gill]

So yeah,  I don't think I'll be voting for someone who believes that spending more tax money will grow the economy.

So you'll be part of the ~50% who don't vote then, right?

No, I'll vote for any republican, since they believe in free-market economics.

[Gill]

.

[Azdgari]

No, I'll vote for any republican, since they believe in free-market economics.

Which is far more important than preserving your rights.  Okay.

[Gill]

Yeah, people do care about what it says, if they have any interest in living in a free society.

Tell that to the theists who want to turn the USA into a theocracy.

lol, maybe there are people that way, but that will never happen.

You haven't been paying attention to the Tea Party and their manipulation of the Republican Party.

The Tea Party is for smaller government, I haven't heard much about religious issues.  Sounds like a good idea to me.  Unless of course, one enjoys a massive government putting it's hands into all aspects of people's lives.  Some people don't mind that I suppose....

[Azdgari]

A true free-market economy would allow the trading of slaves.  After all, laws forbidding the keeping and trading of slaves are an oppressive government regulation.  The market will sort it out.  Do you really want the government to get involved?

[Gill]

A true free-market economy would allow the trading of slaves.  After all, laws forbidding the keeping and trading of slaves are an oppressive government regulation.  The market will sort it out.  Do you really want the government to get involved?

It doesn't have to be a 'true free-market', zero regulation,  but,  certainly less regulation.

[Samothec]

Government run healthcare.  Is that not a socialist concept, since the government is owning and controlling an otherwise private industry?  And, of course, supported by most liberals.   One example of many....

If you are talking about Medicare then you are completely wrong. What happens with Medicare is that you sign up with an insurance company who gets money from you (your premiums) and deals with paying your medical bills. Does the government participate in this process? Yes basically by limiting what the health care provider can charge through regulations and by subsidizing a portion of your health care.

Do you have a problem with the government subsidizing things? Be careful – oil companies and other big businesses are subsidized and don't want the government to stop. And the conservatives will fight you tooth and nail to keep the subsidies going.

So, "government is owning and controlling an otherwise private industry"? No – totally wrong. Regulating and subsidizing it, yes.