Is Christianity responsible for equality and liberty?

[Gipper]

This thread sure has gone off the rails. But, I must put in my two cents.

Natural Law is what the Founders based our rights (individual rights) on. Is that agreed? And, they then institutionalized (if you will) those individual rights or liberties with the Constitution. Agreed?

Now lets fast forward to today. What faction of our political system does not believe in Natural Law? And, what faction of our political system continually ignores the Constitution? I think you know.

On this sad day, which could go down in US history as one of the worst due to the swearing in of Kagan The Commie radical leftist red-diaper doper baby.

Very sad day. God help us.

 

[GenSeneca]

We are currently still a constitutional republic.

In name only... You cannot seriously argue that the Constitution is being upheld and limiting the powers of the federal government.

It is not a pure democracy, where the rule of the majority is the law of the land

It's not a direct democracy, where the population votes directly, but unless there is a filibuster in Congress, it takes only a simple majority to pass just about anything.

Yes, we have a constitution.

Like the Russians, ours is just for show.

Nevertheless, the Constitution is still there, and is still promoting individual liberty.

But that means nothing when it's locked away and ignored by our leaders.

if we insist on it the SCOTUS will strike down those unconstitutional laws.

LOL, that's adorable... I think you should add that to your list of good ideas that will never materialize.

 

[numinus]

Would the peoples who break away from established governments and set to eke out a living in a wilderness cite John Lockes political theory? Would they cite Thomas aquainases' summa Theologica? Would they cite "theological speculation of church fathers in the 4th century"?

Most certainly!

At some point, rational individuals question the REASONS why they do what they do -- especially when what they do is in direct confrontation with other people.

Is that clear?

I really do not think so. They would say something simple (they did not have the education to even be aware of those theories), like: "...need more elbow room", then leave the confines of established government to seek prosperity elsewhere. Unless of course they were pompous, over-educated, and had become submissive to the government in which they lived. And of course, they would not have been the ones that left the established rule of government.

Nonsense.

Your founding fathers crossed an ocean to another continent to escape persecution only to confront the native americans. Had they stated in their declaration of independence 'elbow room' as the reason for separating from the english crown, then no nation would have taken them seriously.

"...It is the height of ignorance to over-simplify 'equality and liberty' as a longing for 'elbow room' or some inherent mistrust of government powers..."
I did not say, "mistrust", I said "... no one likes to be told what to do (governments)..." In other words, government control. In the instance of Daniel Boone, his chief means of income was deer skin. The deer skins were made into clothing. The deer skins needed to be harvested "in the red", which means in the warm season (winter hides are too thick and heavy with hair). Which means he had to shoot them "out of season", and without concern for the numbers harvested. If they had already not done so, Pennsylvania and the other colonies would have enacted limits and seasons on the shooting of deer. Those limits and seasons were in direct conflict with his chosen occupation. Therefore, a move to the western frontier. It had little to do with the theories of over-educated papists sitting on their rear ends philosophizing.

And just for the record -- how exactly is this nonsense pertinent to equality and liberty, hmmmm?

He wanted to do as he please without regard for others. How do you suppose is that a form of equality, eh?

You might think that doing as one pleases is the liberty in question here -- and you couldn't be more WRONG. To do as one pleases would only bring one IN DIRECT CONFRONTATION with another person doing as he pleases. That, in itself, is the essential ingredient to a mutually assured destruction.

So you see, the ignorant sort are almost always the segment of society to become extinct first.

Duh?

 

[dahermit]

Now lets fast forward to today. What faction of our political system does not believe in Natural Law? And, what faction of our political system continually ignores the Constitution? I think you know.

You must be referring to the VIII Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment, ie., the torture as directed by Chaney (and supported by Conservatives), to the detained suspects at Gitmo? The same acts when done to our POWs by the Japanese, N. Koreans, N. Vietnamese, were viewed by us as atrocities.

 

[dahermit]

Duh?

I am not sure what that means. Does it mean, "As a devout Catholic, please forgive me for the sins of not loving you as I love myself as commanded, and the sin of arrogance, etc., in the language of Tagalog"? I am sure that it is not a word indicating contempt inasmuch as your religion would view that as a sin.

 

[Gipper]

You must be referring to the VIII Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment, ie., the torture as directed by Chaney (and supported by Conservatives), to the detained suspects at Gitmo? The same acts when done to our POWs by the Japanese, N. Koreans, N. Vietnamese, were viewed by us as atrocities.

Well its apparent you do not know what Natural Law is.

So, not only do many libs not believe in Natural Law some apparently do not even know what it is.

Is it any wonder our nation is disintegrating before our very eyes.

 

[dahermit]

Well its apparent you do not know what Natural Law is.

So, not only do many libs not believe in Natural Law some apparently do not even know what it is.

Is it any wonder our nation is disintegrating before our very eyes.

Pray...tell me.

 

[numinus]

Pray...tell me.

You need a helluva lot more than prayer to understand -- if you haven't understood it by now.

Duh?

 

[numinus]

This thread sure has gone off the rails. But, I must put in my two cents.

Natural Law is what the Founders based our rights (individual rights) on. Is that agreed? And, they then institutionalized (if you will) those individual rights or liberties with the Constitution. Agreed?

Now lets fast forward to today. What faction of our political system does not believe in Natural Law? And, what faction of our political system continually ignores the Constitution? I think you know.

On this sad day, which could go down in US history as one of the worst due to the swearing in of Kagan The Commie radical leftist red-diaper doper baby.

Very sad day. God help us.

There is a serious misconception here.

Communism and/or socialism, as defined by marx, are modes of production. It is a way a society produces goods and services -- in short, wealth. As a mode of production, it is diametrically opposed to capitalism.

The difference here is that, unlike the social contract theories -- which assumes that a society's economic activity follows from a political model -- marx hypothesized the opposite -- that the political model of a society follows from how wealth is produced. Government and its laws are mere manifestations of an on-going class struggle arising from irreconcilable contradictions in the society's mode of production.

Marx' criticism stems from his idea that natural law (as defined in his historical materialism) contradicts capitalism. He said that society naturally progresses from one epoch to another characterized by the relationship between the forces of production. The relationship between the productive forces or classes stems from the ownership of the means of production and the fruits thereof.

In primitive societies, there is communal ownership. In slave societies, ownership is defined by conquest or force. In feudal societies, it is by divine right. In capitalist societies, it is through money or capital. Marx contends that these forms of ownership, legitimized by laws or constitutions imposed by the ruling class, aren't valid. And because they aren't valid to begin with, the inevitable conclusion is for the oppressed class to dismantle these forms of ownership.

 

[Gipper]

Marx and Engles did not advocate JUST and economic system. They advocated for the destruction of the family and religion.

And, today many leftists follow their instructions. Most are useful idiots unaware of the dangers and others are hard core commies.

 

[dahermit]

As for the rest of your post -- who the fck cares what an ignorant, red-neck, bigot thinks anyway?

Uhmmm....duh?

Spoken like a Subic Bay dumpster baby, not a devout Catholic. It would seem that you do not care what everyone who reads your rants think about you as a good Catholic. Also, what damage have you done to your religion and those who have read your posts who might be considering converting to Catholicism? Have you no shame?

 

[numinus]

Marx and Engles did not advocate JUST and economic system.

To them, transferring the ownership of the means of production in favor of the people who are directly involved in the production process is just.

They advocated for the destruction of the family and religion.

Correct. They advocated for the destruction of the family and religious relations that are inherently exploitative -- specifically those that pertain to private ownership. If I remember correctly, that was said in a paper entitled 'the holy family'.

And, today many leftists follow their instructions. Most are useful idiots unaware of the dangers and others are hard core commies.

That may be true but you cannot deny that most of the benefits incorporated in labor laws currently enjoyed by capitalist societies are direct results of the communist philosophy -- mandated minimum wage, prohibitions on child labor, paid holidays and rest, security of tenure, health benefits and social security, etc.

The idea is that the evolution of society's economic epochs is a gradual process punctuated by violent upheavals. Your civil war, in a marxist perspective, is not about altruistic goals of bringing equality to the black man. It is about a worn down and dilapidated mode of production (the slave economy of the south) being replaced by a more efficient industrial economy. The former slaves gave up their bondage to their masters for another form of bondage -- that of a wage worker.

 

[numinus]

Spoken like a Subic Bay dumpster baby, not a devout Catholic. It would seem that you do not care what everyone who reads your rants think about you as a good Catholic. Also, what damage have you done to your religion and those who have read your posts who might be considering converting to Catholicism? Have you no shame?

LOL.

I never said I am a 'good catholic'. I even remember describing myself as a nominal catholic. Whatever my feelings about catholicism is irrelevant to my formal education as one.

For the same reason -- I have no problem studying greek philosophy even if I'm not a pagan. Nor do I have any problem studying marx's dialectical materialism or even hitler's mein kampf without necessarily subscribing entirely to them.

What I find shameful, however, is your BIGOTRY. It wouldn't be half as bad had you the intellectual wattage to go with that bigotry of yours. As it stands, you are nothing but a bigoted ignorant redneck mouthing nonsense and passing them off as arguments.

Duh?

 

[dahermit]

LOL.

I never said I am a 'good catholic'. I even remember describing myself as a nominal catholic. Whatever my feelings about catholicism is irrelevant to my formal education as one.

For the same reason -- I have no problem studying greek philosophy even if I'm not a pagan. Nor do I have any problem studying marx's dialectical materialism or even hitler's mein kampf without necessarily subscribing entirely to them.

What I find shameful, however, is your BIGOTRY. It wouldn't be half as bad had you the intellectual wattage to go with that bigotry of yours. As it stands, you are nothing but a bigoted ignorant redneck mouthing nonsense and passing them off as arguments.

Duh?

A, "...nominal catholic...", A.K.A., typical Catholic, A.K.A., the majority of Catholics, do the rituals, but do not live the life as implied by the "Holy mother church". It is what I have maintained all along. Almost all Catholics (including priests), ignore the tenets of their religion and live a life that would shame the most depraved dregs of society. How could that abomination be responsible for Democracy and Equality!


Other than that, Sob... You hurt me bad, dumpster boy. Sob...

 

[numinus]

A, "...nominal catholic...", A.K.A., typical Catholic, A.K.A., the majority of Catholics, do the rituals, but do not live the life as implied by the "Holy mother church".

I mean NOMINAL -- the dictionary definition of which is 'in name only'.

If I had meant typical, then I would have said 'typical'.

Duh?

It is what I have maintained all along. Almost all Catholics (including priests), ignore the tenets of their religion and live a life that would shame the most depraved dregs of society.

LOL.

How in heavens name is my being a 'nominal' catholic be indicative of all catholics, I wonder?

It is what I have maintained all along -- your stupidity is boundless.

Duh?

How could that abomination be responsible for Democracy and Equality!

Because that is what it is -- A MATTER OF ACTUAL FACT. Your feelings regarding the catholic church is utterly irrelevant to this actual fact.

Liberty and equality, in its present form, came to be known in political science because of what the early church fathers wrote.

Duh?

Other than that, Sob... You hurt me bad, dumpster boy. Sob...

Dumpster boy? I don't know exactly what's going on in that puny mind of yours but I'm almost certain its equally idiotic as the rest of your post.

Duh?