a question for the atheists

[Lagboltz]

....
I made NO mistake! If you believe otherwise, please correct me?

I think you are misunderstanding the nature of this discussion. Nobody is saying you are wrong. My take is that you are simply changing the subject.

The current issue as far as I was concerned is only about the misquote circulating in the conservative sites about Washington considering that guns could be used against our own government. It seemed that gun lovers had altered the quote to be a justification that automatic weapons were useful in case people wanted an armed rebellion against the government. I was suspicious about that and looked it up.

What you are doing now is relating all the wonderful things that George said from more reliable sources, but they have nothing to do with the use of weapons against the government in the misquote. As I said, you are just changing the subject.

 

[TheJPRD]

Your rights come from god alone?

And you accuse democrats of inaccuracy?

You are medieval

You base your entire world view on crumbling mythology

This kid seems to love being taken to the woodshed! Ok, let's do it again, and try listening and learning this time??? When out nation was created, and the world was informed about our new nation, the announcement was made in our Declaration of Independence. The principle upon which we established our nation was clearly and unambiguously stated in that document: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Please note that our founders did not say that the Rights stated in the Declaration were all-inclusive, hence the wording "among these are".

I won't accuse all Democrats of "inaccuracy", but I WILL accuse you of being wrong AGAIN if you believe our Rights come from government or from any entity other than God! If you believe that our Rights come from another source, feel free to tell us who/what that other source is, and provide support for your claim! If you prefer to save time, I'll tell you now that you won't find one!

I do not challenge any person here for their belief or non-belief in God. I challenge solely on the basis of personal philosophy, personal motives, and positions on the issues. If anyone here is "medieval", it's those who constantly demogogue believers in God! Your medieval hatred of believers is no different than Torquemada's was for Jews, Protestants, and Atheists during the Spanish Inquisition! If it were not for the Christian tolerance and personal principles of our founders, you might find yourself being burned at the stake. Luckily for you, they recognized that our God-Given Rights apply not only to Christians and Jews, but to Muslims and Atheists as well. Take off your white hood, bigot, and thank the God of Atheism that you were born in the USA!

 

[Openmind]

As Cash noted, I was not saying that Lagboltz was wrong in his description of the Washington quote, nor was I blaming him for pointing out the error. I stated in my post that Washington's outlook on the Constitution and his philosophy of the laws of our Republic are the exact principles embraced by today's Conservatives. Our founders disagreed from time to time on a variety of issues. Of ultimate importance, however, is their universal agreement that our Constitution is the heart of our law, that our Rights come from God alone, and that those rights may not be modified in any manner other than by the Amendment process. This is why we Conservatives despise Judicial activism, as it's nothing more than what Washington called "usurpation" in his Farewell Speech.

It is not "blaming" to discuss Washington's overall philosophy on the Constitution itself, the necessity of Amendment to change those God-given Rights, and his belief that morality and religion are the critical pillars of our Republic. My post expanded upon Washington's philosophy so that other posters were not confused about his position. I was simply noting that although our GOP nominee for President was defeated in November, our Conservative positions remain as true today as they were when our founders wrote the Constitution! I made NO mistake! If you believe otherwise, please correct me?

I think it is kind of funny that you "expanded upon Washington's philosophy so that other posters were not confused about his position." Don't you find that a little arrogant. . .that assumption that YOU know better than anyone else what Washingon's philosophy was, and that "other posters" would be "confused about his position?

Obviously, the words of the Constitution, and the intent of the founders are NOT written in stone, and they are open to interpretations. . .or we wouldn't need the SCOTUS (the third branch of government installed by the Founders themselves) to "interprete" that intent!

And, neither our founders nor the SCOTUS are God. so obviously errors of judgement can occur. . .or partisanship in making decisions!

Did I hear that we would get a new member in the SCOTUS in the next couple of years? That's great!

 

[TheJPRD]

I think you are misunderstanding the nature of this discussion. Nobody is saying you are wrong. My take is that you are simply changing the subject.

The current issue as far as I was concerned is only about the misquote circulating in the conservative sites about Washington considering that guns could be used against our own government. It seemed that gun lovers had altered the quote to be a justification that automatic weapons were useful in case people wanted an armed rebellion against the government. I was suspicious about that and looked it up.

What you are doing now is relating all the wonderful things that George said from more reliable sources, but they have nothing to do with the use of weapons against the government in the misquote. As I said, you are just changing the subject.

If you're ONLY talking about a specific misquoting of Washington, and if that's the ONLY purpose of this discussion, that's fine with me. That seems to be a mere matter of "words", however, and strikes me as an unimportant use of time and space.

However, I detected a strong inference that because Washington was misquoted on this topic, that he would NOT have supported the overthrow of a repressive government via armed rebellion of the citizenry. Obviously, that's a false inference, as Washington in fact LED an armed revolution of citizens against a repressive and dictatorial government. The heart of the subject appeared to be Washington's position on the use of arms against tyrannical government, arms sufficiently adequate to overthrow that government. If so, I was NOT changing the subject. My statements were intended to support the Conservative premise that Washington could have easily said what he was misquoted as saying, for the words are representative of his beliefs and actions. Make sense now?

 

[Lagboltz]

If you're ONLY talking about a specific misquoting of Washington, and if that's the ONLY purpose of this discussion, that's fine with me. That seems to be a mere matter of "words", however, and strikes me as an unimportant use of time and space.

However, I detected a strong inference that because Washington was misquoted on this topic, that he would NOT have supported the overthrow of a repressive government via armed rebellion of the citizenry. Obviously, that's a false inference, as Washington in fact LED an armed revolution of citizens against a repressive and dictatorial government. The heart of the subject appeared to be Washington's position on the use of arms against tyrannical government, arms sufficiently adequate to overthrow that government. If so, I was NOT changing the subject. My statements were intended to support the Conservative premise that Washington could have easily said what he was misquoted as saying, for the words are representative of his beliefs and actions. Make sense now?

No, it doesn't make sense. I think the misquote was a flagrant twist by someone to justify automatic weapons, and that is not a "mere matter of words." Besides Washington was talking about the overthrow of British tyranny, and not US tyranny.

 

[TheJPRD]

No, it doesn't make sense. I think the misquote was a flagrant twist by someone to justify automatic weapons, and that is not a "mere matter of words."

I despise misquotes, particularly those aimed at supporting one position or another. I strongly condemn such trickery.

To the issue itself, however, the mis-quote of Washington alone does NOT imply that he believed something other than what was expressed in the mis-quote.

Besides Washington was talking about the overthrow of British tyranny, and not US tyranny.

The several States were part of the British Empire at the time they revolted against the tyranny of King George. Washington led an armed revolution against the nation of which he was at the time a citizen in the eyes of Great Britain. Are you arguing that Washington would meekly accept the tyranny of an American government, and would not have supported an armed revolution against such tyranny simply because it was homegrown? If so, I’d love to see your logic-trail and your supporting rationale for that leap-of-faith conclusion!

 

[TheJPRD]

I think it is kind of funny that you "expanded upon Washington's philosophy so that other posters were not confused about his position." Don't you find that a little arrogant. . .that assumption that YOU know better than anyone else what Washingon's philosophy was, and that "other posters" would be "confused about his position?

Why you’d find my explanation of the real issue in this discussion “funny” escapes me. It’s not “arrogant” to clarify a probable misperception. Some may have surmised that because Washington was misquoted on the topic that he believed something other than what was expressed in that misquote. In fact, Washington’s actions themselves clearly demonstrate that he believed that armed revolution is justified when a government abuses its powers. One might justly conclude that Washington’s actions represented his philosophy on “arms”, and that the use of arms to overthrow dictatorial governments is justifiable.

 

[Openmind]

Why you’d find my explanation of the real issue in this discussion “funny” escapes me. It’s not “arrogant” to clarify a probable misperception. Some may have surmised that because Washington was misquoted on the topic that he believed something other than what was expressed in that misquote. In fact, Washington’s actions themselves clearly demonstrate that he believed that armed revolution is justified when a government abuses its powers. One might justly conclude that Washington’s actions represented his philosophy on “arms”, and that the use of arms to overthrow dictatorial governments is justifiable.

Now that you "soften" your position, you sound a lot more reasonable. . .I like the change to "might."
And. . .face it, the issue is a moot point anyway, because the same people who are "gun crazy" are also those who have build up our military to be by far the most powerful in the world. . .and the most deadly!

And it doesn't matter how many semi-automatic weapons our "militia" (which, by the way, was supposed to be a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. . . not a "free for all, every individual does what he wants with his firearms!"), there is NO WAY a "militia" of UNREGULATED whiners that will NEVER comprise more than a MINORITY of the people in this country can EVER overthrow this government by force.

Be realistic, we are no longer in the 18th century, fighting a King that lived thousands of miles away with canon balls and bayonets! And, today's "militias" have done nothing more than use their fire power to KILL people, without EVER coming close to affect the power of the US government, and in fact with the effect of turning the masses against them.

An example among many? The Oklahoma bombing by Tim McVeigh!

Motivation

​

McVeigh and Nichols cited the federal government's actions against the Branch Davidian compound in the 1993 Waco Siege (shown above) as a reason they perpetrated the Oklahoma City bombing.​

​

​

The chief conspirators, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, met in 1988 at Fort Benningduring basic training for the U.S. Army.[17] Michael Fortier, McVeigh's accomplice, was his Army roommate.[18] The three shared interests in survivalism, opposed gun control, and supported the militia movement.[19][20] They expressed anger at the federal government's handling of the 1992 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) standoff with Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge as well as the Waco Siege—a 1993 51-day standoff between the FBI and Branch Davidian members which began with a botched ATF attempt to execute a search warrant leading to a fire fight (it is unknown whether ATF agents or Branch Davidians fired the first shot) and ended with the burning and shooting deaths of David Koresh and 75 others.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

 

[Lagboltz]

I despise misquotes, particularly those aimed at supporting one position or another. I strongly condemn such trickery.

To the issue itself, however, the mis-quote of Washington alone does NOT imply that he believed something other than what was expressed in the mis-quote.

The several States were part of the British Empire at the time they revolted against the tyranny of King George. Washington led an armed revolution against the nation of which he was at the time a citizen in the eyes of Great Britain. Are you arguing that Washington would meekly accept the tyranny of an American government, and would not have supported an armed revolution against such tyranny simply because it was homegrown? If so, I’d love to see your logic-trail and your supporting rationale for that leap-of-faith conclusion!

You seem to be fantasizing that I'm making a leap of faith. I don't know where you get this.

The misquote only implied something about the person who altered the quote, and nothing about G.W. I thought I made that clear.

You keep defending G.W. for things that I am not accusing him of thinking.

 

[TheJPRD]

You seem to be fantasizing that I'm making a leap of faith. I don't know where you get this.

You may wish to re-read my posts. I am not fantasizing, nor did I accuse you of making a "leap of faith". I asked you a question, that being, whether you'd argue that Washington's actual position on "arms control" and "revolution" was in opposition to the misquote. I stated that if that was indeed your belief, THAT would be a "leap of faith". I gave my reasons for my argument that Washington would have held a position similar to that stated in the misquote. Rather than address that question, you ignored it. We're left not knowing whether you're making a "leap of faith" or not, since you avoided the issue entirely. Perhaps now you understand where I got this??

The misquote only implied something about the person who altered the quote, and nothing about G.W. I thought I made that clear.

You did make that clear. However, you failed to expand your position to follow-up on the additional inquiry I made to you. I satisfied your interest in whether I was defending the person(s) misquoting Washington by stating my position. We agree on that matter 100%.

You keep defending G.W. for things that I am not accusing him of thinking.

George Washington needs no defense from me or anyone else. My post was made for the purpose of clarifying Washington's position on the issues of "arms control" and "revolution". You didn't address those matters, continuing to attack the mis-quoter. If that's you're ONLY concern in all this, you should have been satisfied by my unqualified agreement with you.

 

[Openmind]

You may wish to re-read my posts. I am not fantasizing, nor did I accuse you of making a "leap of faith". I asked you a question, that being, whether you'd argue that Washington's actual position on "arms control" and "revolution" was in opposition to the misquote. I stated that if that was indeed your belief, THAT would be a "leap of faith". I gave my reasons for my argument that Washington would have held a position similar to that stated in the misquote. Rather than address that question, you ignored it. We're left not knowing whether you're making a "leap of faith" or not, since you avoided the issue entirely. Perhaps now you understand where I got this??



You did make that clear. However, you failed to expand your position to follow-up on the additional inquiry I made to you. I satisfied your interest in whether I was defending the person(s) misquoting Washington by stating my position. We agree on that matter 100%.



George Washington needs no defense from me or anyone else. My post was made for the purpose of clarifying Washington's position on the issues of "arms control" and "revolution". You didn't address those matters, continuing to attack the mis-quoter. If that's you're ONLY concern in all this, you should have been satisfied by my unqualified agreement with you.

There you go again with your fantasy that you are "clarifying" Washington's position. . . when all you are doing is "interpreting" his position and YOUR interpretation is no more (or no less) valid that anyone else's interpretation who can read and use critical analysis of the context (including the time period).

And I believe that the question that started this discussion was precisely the misquote. . whether or not it was intentional, and why one would misquote a historic statement and spread the MISQUOTE rather than the real statement around.

It is funny though that, I answered your "interpretation" by telling you how I believe your idea of "revolution" is a moot point, but you chose not to even address MY point of view on this.

Which is fine with me. . .I just think you love to split hair and you tend to get overly focus on what YOU want, and what YOU can "explain" to others, seemingly without any concern for what OTHERS' opinions may be!

 

[Lagboltz]

You may wish to re-read my posts. I am not fantasizing, nor did I accuse you of making a "leap of faith". I asked you a question, that being, whether you'd argue that Washington's actual position on "arms control" and "revolution" was in opposition to the misquote. I stated that if that was indeed your belief, THAT would be a "leap of faith". I gave my reasons for my argument that Washington would have held a position similar to that stated in the misquote. Rather than address that question, you ignored it. We're left not knowing whether you're making a "leap of faith" or not, since you avoided the issue entirely. Perhaps now you understand where I got this??

You did make that clear. However, you failed to expand your position to follow-up on the additional inquiry I made to you. I satisfied your interest in whether I was defending the person(s) misquoting Washington by stating my position. We agree on that matter 100%.

George Washington needs no defense from me or anyone else. My post was made for the purpose of clarifying Washington's position on the issues of "arms control" and "revolution". You didn't address those matters, continuing to attack the mis-quoter. If that's you're ONLY concern in all this, you should have been satisfied by my unqualified agreement with you.

Openmind just covered everything I would have to say on the matter. I really am not interested in the details of what Washington thought as much as you are. I have no opinion on what he wrote, and I'm not interested in being dragged into a discussion of it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Do you celebrate Christian (or Jewish, or muslim, or hindu or whathaveyou) holidays ?

If so do you have qualms about doing it ?

I celebrate them, but with no religion to them. Also I fully know that Christians Hijacked them from Pagans ...and Jesus was not born on dec 25th or even in Dec. And I don't celabrate all of them...Mostly all they are to me is a day off from work as we are closed so I can hang out with Family. And as a note, if I am at work and say happy hollidays to you, and you act like a bitch because I did not say merry christamas...I am thinking go fuck yourself and I hope your holiday sucks. Since I have no idea what religion you are or what you celibration you are going to have. No there is not war on chrsistmas your 3 month holiday where evryplace you go is light up for christmas with christmas music... I am sorry thats just not enough for you. Please go die.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You seem to be trying to make me guilty of something that I don't believe in. Jesus was a great prophet and there is a world-wide celebration of his birthday and, as far as I'm concerned the occasion is about Jesus and not God.

don't worry its not even his birthday...

 

[Lagboltz]

don't worry its not even his birthday...

Actually I think it's more about Santa than Jesus. I wonder when St. Nick's birthday is.