WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Blatham,

The founders didn't establish a 'wall of separation' between church and state in the constitution. That phrase was from Jefferson's private correspondence. What they did was to explicitly prohibit the new Federal government from taking any action to establish any particular religion. As to what evils they likely had in mind, I believe it was the avoidance of the religious sectarian disputes that had plagued Europe since the early 16th century, and the early governance of some of the colonies as well.

I believe both the placing of the Ten Commandments statuary in the Alabama courthouse and its subsequent defense, were deliberately inflammatory, and therefore not desirable. However, noting that statuary with religious overtones abounds in Washington, and that the proceedings of both the Congress and the Supreme Court begin with explicit references to God, I do not believe that there should be a blanket proscription of such things.

The fact is that Islam, whether fundamentalist or otherwise, is already a fast growing religion in the United States and immigration is the reason for it. I believe that the degree to which immigrant groups adapt and, in their own way, reinforce the common culture here is a valid criterion for future immigration policy, now, just as it has been in the past.

While I do believe that Christianity is the true faith I have never believed, nor was I ever encouraged to believe it was the only way to salvation. Indeed the message of Christ is replete with references to the importance of substance over form, and in behaving well as opposed to merely believing well.

No, I don't restrict morality to theistic belief systems, and I'm not aware of ever avoiding this point. What often results though is a relativistic jumble that is neither edifying nor particularly useful. The Stoics of classical times did a fairly good job of it though.

0 Replies

Deleted - duplicate post.

0 Replies

Tartarin,

Did I ever comment on your paintings? Until now I didn't know you were an artist.

Since you have proposed it, I would like to know how you would go about proscribing bad behavior on the part of corporations, both for profit and non-profit. What legal restrictions would you advocate? Would they apply to all non-profits, or just the ones you don't like? How would you enforce these proscriptions, keeping in mind Aesop's fable about the mice belling the cat?

0 Replies

george.

Can you tell us more about what you mean by this?

Quote:

I believe that the degree to which immigrant groups adapt and, in their own way, reinforce the common culture here is a valid criterion for future immigration policy, now, just as it has been in the past.

If we have the Ten Commandments in governmental buildings, don't we have to have some statue representing Islamic law? Or some statue representing those of who doubt the existence of God?

For instance, take me as an example. If I don't "adapt and, in my own way, reinforce the common culture of Christianity," that should be the criteria for.......... what? My loss of the right for a government that doesn't impose Christianity on me or on my children? Government is secular, or IMO should be. Religion is religious.

If everyone had your version of Christianity, then you flaunting it in my face (with public school prayer, etc.) and behaving as if it's the only true way to view life might be tolerable to me. It would be benign enough. It wouldn't be fair, but I could manage it. And so could my children. But your party is in bed with the devil. Because they don't believe as you do that:

Quote:

the message of Christ is replete with references to the importance of substance over form, and in behaving well as opposed to merely believing well.

as you said you believe. They believe their Christ offers the only way to salvation. And it's not only belief in "Christ" they want to impose. They believe I and others should live as they believe we should live to be moral, i.e. heterosexuality; imposing unwanted or uncared for children on the weak, poor, and starving; women submitting to their husbands; capital punishment, etc. And further, they believe it's their duty, God given, to impose that belief on everyone, willing or not.

If you believe as you say you do, that substance is more important than form, then you should be fighting, doing whatever you can to defeat this particular brand of "Christianity". Because they do not practice your form of self sustaining religion. They are against your form of religion. They see it as heresy, no joke. Have you visited their web sites, read their literature? You can't have it both ways. If their doctrine is extreme and dangerous to personal freedom (and it is) you say that it's not important because they're a small portion of the members of your party, just the nutters. If they are in large numbers (and they are) you say why shouldn't they be in control? They are in control and they intent to take more. And once in power, you and your form of religion, will be their victim along with the rest of us.

Do you really not see, george how dangerous it is to let this group control your party and our government?

I've been accused of hysteria (on another thread) because I liken these Christian fundamentalists to the Islamic fundamentalists. But those who say it's hysteria simply do not know, or will not see. And we will all see, but will it be too late? I'm afraid it will.

0 Replies

George, You'd have to find a mighty big bucket to contain all I don't know about corporate law. As a shareholder, I know some. As someone who ran a 501-c-3, I know about non-profit corporations (or did). I'm hoping someone in these pages will make some interesting suggestions. I start with a cutback (preferably to zero) of corporate contributions to campaigns.

0 Replies

Tartarin,

Would your restrictions on political contributions also apply to Labor Unions? (They are corporations too.) How about non-profit corporations such as the National Education Association, the Sierra Club and the various Natural resources Conservancies - would you restrict their political actions too?

0 Replies

This is a good discussion . If I can get the articles read, I'll join you. That is if it's not over by that time.

0 Replies

Selling Free Enterprise
What follows is a sort of addendum to Tart's comment on limiting the contributions of corporations.

There is a book titled "Selling Free Enterprise--The Business assault on Labor and Liberalism 1945-60" by Elizabeth A. Fones-Wolf, published by the University of Illinois Press. This book points out that business corporations, business associations, business clubs, organizations, and individuals committed to business, in reaction to the New Deal and the ideas of the Roosevelt administration, which they saw as socialism, committed funds in previously unimaginable amounts to mount a massive PR campaign the goal of which was to turn the tide of American opinion away from Liberal ideals and also against the unions. [Fones-Wolf's book contains a huge amount of documentation of how much money was spent and on what.]

One of their greatest triumphs was convince the public that labor unions had too much power. Of course much of that early effort has been taken over by the many conservative foundations that now channel money into all manner of publishing, think tanks, broadcasting, and other means of controlling the drift of public thought. Included in this would be such things as the clustering of TV outlets in the hands of a few giant conservative corporations. In my opinion, they have created the most effective machine for mind control that the world has ever seen.

I find it ludicrous that they cry about the contributions of labor unions to political parties.

0 Replies

Yes -- across the board. There may be footnotes to this I don't anticipate, but it makes sense to me that campaign contributions come from individual voters, not from organizations of voters in which the organization may support a cause it's individual member doesn't go along with. Of course the main issue is the discrepancy between what the average individual voter can give and what the average corporation can give. And of course there's nothing to prevent (not should be) 400 individual IBM employees and/or shareholders agreeing they'll all click into Joe Blow Candidate's website and give contribute up to their limit.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

george.

Can you tell us more about what you mean by this?

Quote:
I believe that the degree to which immigrant groups adapt and, in their own way, reinforce the common culture here is a valid criterion for future immigration policy, now, just as it has been in the past.

If we have the Ten Commandments in governmental buildings, don't we have to have some statue representing Islamic law? Or some statue representing those of who doubt the existence of God?

For instance, take me as an example. If I don't "adapt and, in my own way, reinforce the common culture of Christianity," that should be the criteria for.......... what?
...

Do you really not see, george how dangerous it is to let this group control your party and our government?

Lola,

I simply pointed out that we have had various models for restrictions on immigration in the past, but all centered generally on the likelihood that the group in question would assimilate well into the general culture here. No religious test was applied in the past and none is needed in the future.

I don't believe we should ape the petty ratios of the PC police and count the number of statues representing various people, races, cultural traditions or religions in our public buildings. Emerson's phrase is apt -- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

I just don't believe ''this group'' is in control of either the Republican party or of the government. Indeed one could make the case that the various liberal single issue groups exercise far more control over judicial appointments than does this or any other group.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Yes -- across the board. .

Then your position is self-consistent and I would not oppose it - except perhaps on free speech grounds. I believe you would have a very hard time getting Democrat support for limitations on the political activities of labor unions, the NEA, NOW, the ACLU, the American Association of Trial Lawyers, and so on. The issue would also very quickly move to caps on the political contributions of individuals and various kinds of soft money contributions. Both parties have already figured out how to get around McCain Feingold for 'Son of Soft Money" contributions. Interestingly the top 10 or 20 largest single contributors are usually Democrats.

All things considered it may be much like our experiment with prohibition. The only thing worse than no regulation is regulation.

0 Replies

I've lived in some nations where there is the exact rule Tartarin describes, no political contributions are legally allowed. In the nations I describe the effect is more corruption in government.

0 Replies

Hazlitt,

The membership of non-government labor unions has dropped precipitously over the last 20 years. This is a result of the choices of individual workers and groups of them in NLRA elections in innumerable plants across the country. Only government service unions with government-mandated monopolies on their workers have been growing.

I don't think that any of that is the result of corporate think tanks or any of the other factors you cited.

Increasingly there is a drift between the voting patterns of union workers and the political activities of the unions that claim to represent them. This was particularly evident in the recent California recall election. In general labor unions are excessively infected with criminal activity, graft, and self-promotion. They, not corporations, are the reason for their own decline.

0 Replies

george,

You are a believer in the Christian religion. But there are others who are not. My children live in this country and are citizens. And when they went to school and were bombarded by religious talk about heaven and hell (as they were, repeatedly) etc, they were upset by it. It caused them to worry about their parents "immortal souls." One of my daughters cried every night for weeks because she was convinced I was going to hell because I didn't go to church. (So I took them to the most liberal Christian church I could find and let them attend Sunday School until they asked to never go back again. I thought of it as a vaccination. It has apparently worked.) I have wanted my children to understand that there are many religions. I wanted them to know something about many of them. I want them to be respectful of all religions and I hope they will be wise in the way they put this together for themselves.

Do you not understand that it's hard to raise children and teach them what you want them to be taught about religion, when they are being constantly pressured (subtle as it may or may not be) by those who want to practice or teach their religion as the only one?

Your version of religion is very nice for you, I'm sure. But I don't want my children being exposed to it as if it were the only "true" religion. A religion class is fine, if taught by an objective teacher who can explain the various religions without preference or denigration of any particular one.

0 Replies

george,

Quote:

I just don't believe ''this group'' is in control of either the Republican party or of the government.

Not even the political action groups of the evangelical fundamentalists agree with this.

0 Replies

Here we go. This is not an especially extreme example, it is simply the one I got today on my email, it's the November 4, 2003 Washington Report from the Family Research Council. This is the organization Ralph Reed crafted when he and Karl Rove decided they better be more careful about telling what they really believe. If they tell what they really believe, they will have a very hard time winning an election. But just look at what they don't mind admitting.

Quote:

The Democratic leadership in the Senate isn't opposing Justice Brown because they have a substantive objection to her nomination but, rather, because she is a black conservative that they don't want on the second most powerful court in America. They speak about providing opportunity to minorities at one moment, and then at the next oppose the elevation of qualified minorities to important positions of public service. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has the opportunity to rise above the political ideology and hypocrisy of her colleagues and support Justice Brown, as did 76 percent of California voters in her last election.

Now tell me y'all, does anyone believe this claim?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Here we go. This is not an especially extreme example, it is simply the one I got today on my email, it's the November 4, 2003 Washington Report from the Family Research Council. This is the organization Ralph Reed crafted when he and Karl Rove decided they better be more careful about telling what they really believe. If they tell what they really believe, they will have a very hard time winning an election. But just look at what they don't mind admitting.

Quote:
The Democratic leadership in the Senate isn't opposing Justice Brown because they have a substantive objection to her nomination but, rather, because she is a black conservative that they don't want on the second most powerful court in America. They speak about providing opportunity to minorities at one moment, and then at the next oppose the elevation of qualified minorities to important positions of public service. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has the opportunity to rise above the political ideology and hypocrisy of her colleagues and support Justice Brown, as did 76 percent of California voters in her last election.

Now tell me y'all, does anyone believe this claim?

Obviously you don't believe it ----so what is your idea about why the Senate Democratic leadership opposes Justice Brown?

0 Replies

Lola,

Perhaps I missed your point. I found the quote you offered to be a reasonable and accurate description of the pattern the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have established with respect to well qualified and widely respected jurists of a conservative outlook who have been nominated by this Administration to the Federal Courts. This is a sad, partisan excess that has been getting worse with each succeeding Presidency. Both parties are guilty of this, but the current Democrats have set a new low standard.

0 Replies

george,

Do you believe she is being opposed because she is black and conservative? I don't think so.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Do you not understand that it's hard to raise children and teach them what you want them to be taught about religion, when they are being constantly pressured (subtle as it may or may not be) by those who want to practice or teach their religion as the only one?

Lola, Good point, but it cuts both ways. Religious people are also often dismayed by the increasingly anti religious flavor seeping into public education, mass media and the many influences competing with parents for the attention of their children. It is very difficult to be perfectly neutral on this point, whether one is an entertainer, teacher, parent or preacher.

0 Replies

WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know