Subject:  Re: Brainwashing children for a fantasy world. |
Author:
Kevin Tull
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 20:53:16 11/11/02 Mon
In reply to:
JohnE
's message, "Re: Brainwashing children for a fantasy world." on 12:22:04 11/10/02 Sun
John E: Kevin,
I strongly disagree with your statements about christians having "no beef" with Atheists and If or when the government makes a pledge to say, one nation under "*no* god", then we could honestly say that Atheists are pushing their agenda.
Kevin: Let’s see, I’m looking back over my statements and strangely enough there is no mention of "Christians having ‘no beef’ with Atheists," the closest thing to what you implied is when I said "There are no religious Libertarians I know of who argue against atheism as their main beef in life." The implication in my last statement being that you come across as an Atheist who argues against religion as your main beef in life.
And where did you read that I equate a pledge that might have, in this hypothetical scenario, a "no God" inserted into it as claiming that Atheists are pushing their agenda. I didn’t even mention the pledge of allegiance. Maybe it has something to do with hyperbole that I engage in to stress my points.
John E: I don't know why you would bring up the scenario of jail or death sentences, for American's Constitutional right to worship in private? Maybe you are referring to the heresy or witch trials performed by the *Godly* founders of America?
Kevin: And speaking of hyperbole, here you have missed the point. I was implying that both religion in government or Atheism in government taken to the extremes of being mandated and enforced against the people is equally wrong. Of course, in that statement I only used Atheism as an example because it’s your apparent hatred or intolerance of religion that has led you to make similar statements against religion, although maybe not as extreme. I purposely exaggerated a scenario to make a point. Some people reading it realized the exaggeration and I thought you would too being an intelligent sort.
FYI, there is no "Constitutional right to worship in private," in fact the right to privacy is not even mentioned in the Constitution. I would be of the opinion that the ninth amendment covers that though, but it would seem that anything not specifically enumerated as rights, and many enumerated rights are left up to the legislators and courts to decide. As far as the founders responsibility in the (sarcasm alert) pressing and burning matters of witchcraft, It would seem that none I know of are personally responsible for the wrongful executions during that pious epic known as the Salem witch trials (unless you consider the entire population of the colonies at that time, founders.)
Certainly, Cotton Mather helped stir up passions that led to these famous witch hunts, but in the sense of him being a founder of America, I doubt you would find anything in his writings that proposed the colonies break off from the British Crown. This paragraph is merely a educational side note really, and a distraction from the original topic, that is if we still have one.
John E: I can see how a christian/jews, (of all political parties) could feel so smug, knowing that the American government is proselytizing others with their beloved jesus/god references. Something isn't right, when the government has to support religion and the first amendment specifies not to do so... *Blind faith*
Kevin: Are you getting a clue yet? Libertarians believe in the separation of church and state regardless of whether they are "religious" or not. Therefore, I believe, most Libertarians agree with you that the government should have no proselytizing in any form. We Libertarians and Libertarians of faith agree that there should be no swearing to God to hold office; no pledges of allegiance to God or government; no swearing to God in courts to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We should be against faith based initiatives as much as we should be against the government granting churches licenses to be non profit or the government granting of licenses for two people, or more, to join in a religious union or non-religious union.
John E: We are all born Atheist as children, then most of us were proselytized into an "unnatural" belief state of mind. For the lucky ones, we go through a slow detoxification process back to the pure, natural state of logic and reason. The American people are being "overdosed" on religion and when they are under the influence, they will make religiously biased/bigoted govern-MENTAL decisions.
Kevin: (sarcasm alert) Thanks for the fascinating insight that all babies deny the existence of god. I’m sure that was a well thought out statement, and I wish you had come "out of the darkness" sooner with that enlightening idea. Babies consciously denying the existence of God, who would have known? (sarcasm ended) I know I’m being a smart ass, but like you it’s is just something that comes to me from time to time. Usually inspired by someone who I hope can appreciate it.
You have to know of the belief in a higher power to deny it. I would argue that babies do believe in a higher power, they are fed and kept warm and clean and are spoken to by an entity they have no ability to comprehend at birth, they rely entirely, based on faith, that they will get nourishment, warmth and comfort from their higher power that moves in ways they cannot cognitively understand, nor can they apply the concept of a higher power to that entity, but they do have faith even if they can not express it as such.
You would do better to argue that this is the natural basis for religion, even though you believe religion to be irrational. The idea might be better expressed that as we grow we should realize that cognitively what we believed in we now understand to be a natural part of our childhood experience and we should not consider it rational once we have developed cognitively enough to understand a the concept of a belief in religion. If I was an Atheist I would probably express my viewpoint from this stance, but I am not.
Anyway, again back to some semblance of a topic. I and all other Libertarians of faith are inherently against the mixture of government and religion, but this is not good enough for you because as long as we believe in our particular faith you perceive us to be unqualified to lead as elected representatives. Is it safe to assume you don’t vote or do you refuse to vote for Libertarians who you have "litmus tested" for signs of religious influence? How do propose cleansing us all of religious influence? I know, you don’t care if we believe in blue smurfs as long as we don’t get elected to office.
OK, so John E hates, despises, loathes all religion and all religious influence, right? Or maybe John E hates, despises, loathes all religious influence in government like most Libertarians do? It’s both right? Se we are making progress. (sorry I forgot to give the sarcasm alert)
John, are you active in the Libertarian Party? If you are it must be miserable for you and the other Libertarians who you work with in this cause to stand each other. How do you get along with people who you seem to have so little respect for? I think maybe you talk this way on the list and you actually treat other Libertarians who express any religious faith decently in real life, eh?
Into the light,
Kevin
John E: Out of the darkness,
JohnE
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
