Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:32:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
953 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> I have the freedom to believe what I want, as do you. If the state
> acknowledges something like the existence of 'little green fairies', it does
> not mean I have to believe in them, nor does it make me an outcast if I
> don't. If we take our freedoms seriously, and these freedoms are protected,
> it shouldn't matter what 'the state' says in an artcle somewhere.
But that's not quite the point, either. If the State has the right to
mandate religion (which it does NOT, despite John's wishes to the contrary),
then I have no legal recourse if the State throws me in jail for not bowing
at the alter of the State God. Sure, I'll have the moral authority to
maintain my lack of belief in God, but what good will it do me if I'm
imprisoned for the rest of my life?
Freedom is the issue, and freedom certainly isn't voluntary
self-enslavement to a document. If you knew that I routinely break into
your apartment while you're asleep and inspect all of your private documents
and possessions, and if you also knew that you could do nothing about it,
would you perceive that as a violation even if I harmed or stole nothing?
> I would rather see the references of God removed, but whether its there or
> not will not affect my belief system. It's like 'In God *we* trust', not
> 'In God *I* trust'--if the nation trusts a parchment written 200+ years ago,
> then 'in DOI we, as a nation, trust'--I will, however, abstain from trusting
> a piece of paper.
I know you've raised this issue before, but I don't know that it's been
fully addressed. No one worships the document itself, since that would be
ludicrous idolatry. No one worships anything about it, in fact; they simply
revere the wisdom required to create the document, since that same wisdom
recognized even then that the document should never be proof against revision.
As far as affecting one's belief system, that's not quite the point
either. I'm not worried about suddenly becoming a believer just 'cause the
State says so; instead, I reject the notion of a State's encroachment into
the realm of my belief system. The bare fact that the State would presume
to issue a statement on the matter is itself abhorrent, even before the
subsequent impact of that statement can be discerned.
> > Well, it'll be about time. I for one am sick of self-righteous and
> > bigotted Christians persecuting everyone else, so if it takes a revolution
> > to establish a state of true religious freedom, then I say get me my rifle!
> You really like the guns. In the final analysis if the situation doesn't
> improve or go the way it should, get out the guns--It's just a step above
> 'who has the biggest stick rules'.
Like it or not, it's always been that way, and it always will be that
way--that's how evolution works, both biologically[1] and socially. Anyway,
my "guns" statement was intended as a note of irony. I've had protracted
arguments on the issue of gun ownership in this very forum, so my views on
the matter should be, I hope, available for review by anyone interested!
[1] Though in biological evolution "the biggest gun" equates to "the
traits best suited to survival in the current environment."
> Revolutions are for impatient people who want things their way and they want
> it now, instead of working with the system to improve it from the inside. • **snip**
> It causes instability, and you lose the foundational history of who you were
> before the revolution to build on.
You can't make an across-the-board statement like that and expect to apply
it to reality. Stability, in contrast, can also mean that all potentially
unstable elements have been terrified into submission, or that the unstable
elements are simply so complacent that they can't be galvanized into action.
The instability of revolution can be extraordinarily good, and the stability
of constancy can be extraordinarily bad. There hasn't been a revolution in
China in quite some time...
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> in any case you are ONCE AGAIN missing the point. If the State (...) While I agree with you in your point about keeping religion out of state run affairs... I have the freedom to believe what I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
