quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Samp: The commerce clause, nor the general welfare clause can be used as a justification for "anything that strikes our fancy" without rendering the entire constitution meaningless.
No matter how the courts have been packed.
The confusing grammar of this aside, I think I'm reading what you tried to say. My response is: what does this have to do with what I'm telling you? The ruling for the constitutionality was not based on but was in response to a challenge based on the commerce clause. The commerce clause was not used as a vetting in favor of the bill.
Do you have a degree of understanding about what claims to the bill's constitutionality were actually made? Or is the claim of 'obvious unconstitutionality' made reflexively, without regard to precedent?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Strider: That's the same reason I'll never vote for democrats. One must have economic freedom before the other freedoms even matter. To control our wallet is to control our life.
There are plenty of ways to control our lives sans wallet. But more fundamentally, I'd ask exactly what you mean by economic freedom and how it is attained.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
So you can stomach pixiest the republicans legislating how every day people conduct their lives in and out of the bedroom but cant stomach or bear being taxes 2% of your gross income to subsidize public schools?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: One must have economic freedom before the other freedoms even matter. To control our wallet is to control our life.
Does this mean that a child who has an allowance and is dependent on her parents for money has no freedom that matters?
Are you saying such a child would be no less free if she were being brainwashed or forced into slave labor?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I believe someone above mentioned that she was taking issue with concept that the first amendment builds a wall of separation between church and state. I disagree with that assessment but that doesn't mean she doesn't know what's in the constitution.
If you're referring to what I said, that's not what I meant. It's clear from the video that she didn't know the 1st Amendment contained the line, "Congress shall make no establishment of religion."
What I was saying was, her ignorance is no worse in practice than the views of those who think there is no separation of church and state implied by the amendment.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Her opponent couldn't name the five freedoms guaranteed by the first amendement.
The constitution doesn't say anything about separation of church and state. Factually, Odonnel was correct. The very same people that prevented the "estableshment of religion" opened congress with prayer. At the time, "god" was a neutral term. Even the atheist has a "god".
The founders thought that "God" was neutral. All religions have a "god". They escaped religious theocracies. A mention of God by a public figure is not the "establishment of religion".
A football coach praying for the safety of his athletes might be considered illegal today due to the "separation of church and state" idea. No where in the constitution or in any amendment is there a "separation of church and state" clause.
The constitution limits government not people. The constitution gives powers to individuals and states and very clearly defines (limits) federal powers. The government cannot establish a national religion...this is not the same as a separation of church and state. Federally mandated Anglacanism isn't the same as a football coach saying "god". Even the atheist football player has a god.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: At the time, "god" was a neutral term. Even the atheist has a "god".
The amount of extreme mental contortion required to offer this as a lame explanation is impressive, even for you. No. This is completely false. Nothing it purports to excuse is excused by it. 'The atheist' does not have a God. s/he has a lack of belief in any gods.
quote:The government cannot establish a national religion...this is not the same as a separation of church and state.
If this were true, a judge could park the ten commandments and a monument to jesus in the middle of a courtroom, simply because it wasn't an established national religion. And we know all too well it turned out when something like this was committed.
quote:Even the atheist football player has a god.
No, they don't. And if you are incapable of understanding otherwise, you've accomplished a feat impressive for one of your ilk: you don't have a clue what 'god' means.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
god is universal, even for an atheist. God can be money or biceps,...what leads your life.
2nd point:
In fact, ..... the ten commandments are in the supreme court building and the dollar in your wallet says "in god we trust". Jesus implies the christian religion and the ten commandments implies: christian jewish and muslim, as they predate and source all three. Which religion is established?
What rules your life? Perhaps your god is your own desires. "Have no god before me" is the commandment that makes this concept clear. We all have a god - is your god pleasure, money, flesh? Of course, even the christian, muslim, native, and jew can agree on one thing...god.
Maybe the football players god is the letter on his jacket. Our ancestors lives were lead by god....what leads your life? Is money your god? In "what" do you trust?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Not an incomprehensible idea that something inspires all people's lives. Why do some people work 16 hours a day and ignore their children? Why do some people strap explosives to themselves? God is your motivation. We all have a god. god is what leads your life. "In God we trust" is a universal statement. Even the atheist trusts the money with that phrase written on. What you have faith in is your god. Faith in nothing except yourself? You are your own god....you only have faith in yourself. To what end? The paper that says "in god we trust" on it.
quote:Not an incomprehensible idea that something inspires all people's lives.
No, but apparently an incomprehensible idea to you that because something inspires you, it doesn't automatically make it 'your god.' I'm entertained. You've taken a terrible, mealy, contorting excuse for the disempowering misinterpretation of the establishment clause — 'God isn't religious, you see!' — and snow-jobbed yourself into looking utterly clueless even by your own notorious standards.
This is ridiculous. I'm massively amused. Keep going. And, for the love of God (which to me right now is apparently 'a pomegranate rum sling'), donate your brain to science.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes of course, you are obviously a godless person. I apologize for suggesting otherwise. Trust in yourself.
In "WHAT" do you trust.
A simple phrase on our money, well thought out. If you are offended by "god" and my insinuation, replace "god" with the term of your choice:
"In MYSELF I trust"....to fill your wallet with that paper. That's fine. An athiest is his own god. He trusts himself...
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I'd be happy with someone who voted against anything unconstitutional no matter how loony she otherwise was.
Someone who votes against things are just a roadblock. Not someone who uses the force of law to coerce others to live by their own wild socio-political schemes.
That being said, I figure O'Donnell has her pick and choose approach to the constitution just like every other politician. She's still a better pick than Coons or Castle. Just like McLame was a better choice than Obama. One still should bring a motion sickness bag into the polling place.
Whether you approve of odonnell as a candidate more for her percieved 'lesser potential failings' or because you want to fill government with clowns to have it be torn down by incompetence for the sake of libertarian ideals, it is so a way of showing how your sense in candidate quality is toxically flawed.
However the way you frame politicians with cartoon insult names (like McLame and sKerry) gives me the impression that you aren't very mature when it comes to politics anyway.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Yes of course, you are obviously a godless person.
Strange that nothing has been said to this effect, and that it's irrelevant to anything that's being talked about. Horray!
I guess if the word is such a nonreligious generic term, you would have no problem changing it to "Allah" on our money. After all, if it's objectionable to you, just think it's whatever else you want, right?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
god is universal, even for an atheist. God can be money or biceps,...what leads your life.
I love it when someone asserts universal truths for other people. Please, do continue... I'm terribly interested in finding out the motivations behind the rest of my deeply held beliefs.
quote: 2nd point:
In fact, ..... the ten commandments are in the supreme court building and the dollar in your wallet says "in god we trust".
Seriously Hatrack...? How has no one jumped on this one?
Let's address this in parts:
1. As to the assertion that the ten commandments are in the Supreme Court, please read this:
It nicely summarizes exactly what's wrong with your assertion.
2. Our currency says in god we trust, but this didn't occur until almost 100 years after our nation was founded. Again, a nice summary of why it appears can be found here:
I personally would prefer that our government didn't explicitly or implicitly endorse a religious belief, but unfortunately any attempt to have this removed would be seen as an "attack" on Christianity as opposed to a reversion to it's correct form.
quote:
What rules your life? Perhaps your god is your own desires. "Have no god before me" is the commandment that makes this concept clear. We all have a god - is your god pleasure, money, flesh? Of course, even the christian, muslim, native, and jew can agree on one thing...god.
Without delving too deeply into discussions of faith, I'd like to say one thing: A common acceptance or belief held by large groups of people can be just as erroneous as one held by a single person. Simply pointing at "christian, muslim, native, and jews" as an evidence for belief is ineffective.
quote: In "what" do you trust?
Myself, my family, my community. In that order.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Malanthrop has proved so impervious to correction and is generally incoherent enough that only rarely do people who aren't entertained by his ignorance (like me) even bother reading, much less responding to, his posts.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can't really control whether people are going to be posting in bad faith, but we can control our reactions to these people. If Hatrack could learn how to effectively deal with posters like mal in a way that minimizes their effect and discourages them from posting here while maintaining a generally respectful atmosphere, I think that it could, in some respects, be said to be a better forum than one that doesn't have trolls on it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the way it has worked out for years.
respectful replies to malanthrop: behavior unchanged disrespectful replies to malanthrop: behavior unchanged few replies to malanthrop: behavior unchanged many replies to malanthrop: behavior unchanged attempting to help or politely guide malanthrop, which people really, really, really went out of their way to do here, more than I would have expected from just about anywhere: behavior unchanged impolitely telling malanthrop to shut up and stop spewing falsehoods: behavior unchanged
As someone else said, all other things being what they're going to be, I'd rather stand up to and not leave malanthrop's more egregious falsehoods sitting around unchallenged where someone else might step on them. If someone steps up and trolls up some noxious falsehoods that are actively harmful, like how the gays should be sad that DADT was unconstitutional because it was there for them and 'protected' them from questioning, I will always challenge them with all the respect they deserve.
If the amount of respect they deserve is, by now, incredibly low, then, welp!
MEANWHILE IN OTHER NEWS
O'Donnell had walked off stage thinking she had trumped her opponent.
"After that debate my team and I we were literally high fiving each other thinking that we had exposed he doesn't know the First Amendment, and then when we read the reports that said the opposite we were all like 'what?'"
posted
Mal, do you know why the coach of the football team can't say a prayer to start the game?
Because too many coaches used that prayer to force students in their care to either convert to their Faith, or be ostracized from the team, and perhaps dropped from the team because, God wins football games and if you can't pray to the same God we are praying to, then you are off the team.
Sure, that's just Anecdotal evidence, from a friends High School days in the 80's. But its the possibility, and the inevitability that some person representing the state, the school, the government, who introduces their faith into that position, has "state" leverage to force someone to convert.
That is bad for the individual forced to convert.
That is bad for the faith gaining such reluctant conversions.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Yes of course, you are obviously a godless person.
Strange that nothing has been said to this effect, and that it's irrelevant to anything that's being talked about. Horray!
I guess if the word is such a nonreligious generic term, you would have no problem changing it to "Allah" on our money. After all, if it's objectionable to you, just think it's whatever else you want, right?
Objecting to the idea that everyone has a god indicates that you don't have a god. "Allah" on the money would be fine with me, if we spoke that language here. Don't want to shock you with this,...people that speak other languages have a different word for god. Allah is God. Jews, Christians and Muslims fight over the same holy land. They have the same God. They deviate with those that came later...messiah, Jesus, Muhammed....
Same "God", same "Allah"....dysfunctional family. Jews, Christians and Muslims are followers of the same god. I'm a follower of Allah. There is only one god and his name is Allah in Arabic.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Allah" on the money would be fine with me, if we spoke that language here.
would be fine with you? but according to you, the term is completely interchangable. it's still god, it doesn't matter if its in arabic, riiiiiight?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it doesn't matter. I care about the meaning of a word, not the PC connotation of the day. Negro is black is African American. Allah is god.
What happened to the "Best Actress" Oscar? All actors now. It must really suck to be a PC slave in a Spanish speaking country.
Everyone has a god, even if their god isn't the concept of a divine being. In god we trust. What you trust is your god. Everyone has faith in something...even if it's money. Full faith and credit in the US govt, could be your god.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Constantly repeating your thesis on how God is a nonreligious and universal concept unless you specifically make it religious via your own theism is not going to make it correct.
quote:What happened to the "Best Actress" Oscar? All actors now. It must really suck to be a PC slave in a Spanish speaking country.
quote:I think this shows how fundamentally unfit libertarians are to discuss politics.
Maybe in Blayne's Maoist Canada. Fortunately I live in the People's Republic of California where, for now, we still have free speech and can vote without going to the gulag for flipping the wrong switch.
quote: You can't say "you figure" and other 'from the gut' style truthiness to discuss this at the sametime as state with complete conviction about what the text/meaning of the constitution actually is.
So your problem is the way she speaks, not the content of what she's saying?
I believe someone above mentioned that she was taking issue with concept that the first amendment builds a wall of separation between church and state. I disagree with that assessment but that doesn't mean she doesn't know what's in the constitution.
quote: Miss "Peggy Hill" #2 there is ignorant of the constitution, why would you support or figure her the "lesser" of two evils when almost your entire paradigm is practically based on the specific idea of determining the correct meaning, wording, and content of the constitution?
The reason I take the lesser of 3 evils approach with her is because the other two have demonstrated their exuberance to vote for bills that will destroy the American economy. Cap and Trade and Health Care. DE can vote this crazy puta out of office once those issues are repealed/stopped.
quote: It's partisan thats what it is, youll ignore or downplay her very obvious record just so you won't have to risk the other guy who you disagree with on principle from winning.
Why, yes, I vote against people who support collectivism. I often vote for lesser collectivists to stop greater collectivists. I have voted for religious nutjobs to keep collectivists out of office.
Is that partisan or voting strategically? What good would it do me to vote Libertarian every election when they can't win? I voted for Bush twice to stop a much greater evil! Can you imagine if Gore or sKerry had won? If you fervently disagree with everything I say and get excited dreaming about that what-if, then you understand why I'm happy about taking that bullet in the shoulder instead of the forehead.
There simply are NOT any good candidates. If someone believes in freedom they're probably off exercising it instead of working night and day to Control Other People's Lives through force of the ballot box. For those of us who believe in both social and economic freedom, we have to take a big bite out of a turd sandwich no matter WHO we vote for.
And Blayne, I would appreciate not being told that I am unfit to discuss politics in my own damn country.
I love you, Pix. Just wanted you to know that. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Constantly repeating your thesis on how God is a nonreligious and universal concept unless you specifically make it religious via your own theism is not going to make it correct.
quote:What happened to the "Best Actress" Oscar? All actors now. It must really suck to be a PC slave in a Spanish speaking country.
[url=http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=actress#q=actress&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn&fp=b321fbc89a59e17b]Actress. Current Gnews.
Fail. [/QUOTE]
I stand corrected...they still have the award...for now. Are there stewardesses?
2.5% of the world population is atheist. God is a universal term. Of course, progressives are always "progressing" to new acceptable terms. "Creator" was once acceptable.
I doubt I can help you make the mental leap... Your god is what you trust. "In God we trust" The atheist trusts something....most likely the paper that says "In God We Trust" on it. I'm not saying this in a disparaging manner. There is a god of all of our lives.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think you could be helped to understand why linking to the wikipedia page on the demographics of atheism doesn't make the case that God is a universal, secular term?
Do you think you could be helped to understand that not all religions have a God (taoism, buddhism, confucianism, to name three) and so God isn't a universal religious constant, either?
Constantly repeating your thesis on how God is a nonreligious and universal concept unless you specifically make it religious via your own theism is not going to make it correct.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: There simply are NOT any good candidates.
I've been looking over my sample ballot trying to decide who to vote for, and I'd just like to second this. I don't hate Sink for governor, but the rest of them I'm just not sure on.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
god is universal, even for an atheist. God can be money or biceps,...what leads your life.
2nd point:
In fact, ..... the ten commandments are in the supreme court building and the dollar in your wallet says "in god we trust". Jesus implies the christian religion and the ten commandments implies: christian jewish and muslim, as they predate and source all three. Which religion is established?
What rules your life? Perhaps your god is your own desires. "Have no god before me" is the commandment that makes this concept clear. We all have a god - is your god pleasure, money, flesh? Of course, even the christian, muslim, native, and jew can agree on one thing...god.
Maybe the football players god is the letter on his jacket. Our ancestors lives were lead by god....what leads your life? Is money your god? In "what" do you trust?
I have no god.
I don't care what you think.
Please stop trying to make decisions for other people.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:And Blayne, I would appreciate not being told that I am unfit to discuss politics in my own damn country.
Well said. I also liked your perspective on strategic voting.
While I don't think she's unfit, I can understand questioning her fitness when she says things like this:
quote:One must have economic freedom before the other freedoms even matter. To control our wallet is to control our life.
There can't be meaningful freedom of any sort without economic freedom? Come on. Don't tell me you didn't think up a dozen counterexamples to that statement in the time it took you to read it.
Perhaps it's rhetorical hyperbole, but if so I'm having a hard time thinking of what the un-exaggerated, believable version of it could even be.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Everyone has a god, even if their god isn't the concept of a divine being. In god we trust. What you trust is your god. Everyone has faith in something...even if it's money. Full faith and credit in the US govt, could be your god.
This is simply not true. I don't know how to make it plainer than that. Not everyone trusts and has faith in things as much as you're saying, malanthrop, and even if they did that isn't what is meant by the term 'god' and you know that quite well. This is a transparent attempt to prove that everyone is religious somehow, and it's not fooling anyone so I'm really not sure why you're going about it at all.
You can't read everyone's minds. You can't read the minds of your own ancestors, much less mine. Would you kindly just go back to reading the minds of your conservative Jamaican neighbors, please, in between working heroic hours for vast sums of money?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're going to define "god" as "the most important thing in your life," or "the thing that motivates you," then yes, almost everyone has a "god." However, this is a very stupid definition of the word "god," and not one that would be commonly accepted.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's worst about this definition, besides the fact that it waters down the meaning of god until it's utterly meaningless, is that it's demeaning to any real gods that may exist!
Seriously, a god is simply whatever it is in which you trust?
What does that say about Odin, or Yahweh, or Amaterasu, or Zeus, or Ishtar, or Amon-rah, or Ahura Mazda, or Vishnu, or whatnot?
It seems to me that any of those, and even the Golden Calf, have something more than merely being "trusted." For one thing, they were thought of as actual entities that really existed, were beyond humans, and to whom you were to dedicate yourself, at times like a servant.
These beings are much more than "the thing in which you trust" and to broaden the definition of god as such would no doubt make any of them testy, should you tell them.
Just imagine telling Zeus that, should he be real. I dare you. See how long you live.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mine is David Bowie. And Annie Lennox. I'd gladly worship either of them, given the opportunity.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: While I don't think she's unfit, I can understand questioning her fitness when she says things like this:
quote:One must have economic freedom before the other freedoms even matter. To control our wallet is to control our life.
There can't be meaningful freedom of any sort without economic freedom? Come on. Don't tell me you didn't think up a dozen counterexamples to that statement in the time it took you to read it.
Perhaps it's rhetorical hyperbole, but if so I'm having a hard time thinking of what the un-exaggerated, believable version of it could even be.
She's talking about issues that could conceivably become relevant at, say, the Congressional level in the US.
In that context, the issues that aren't economic, in my opinion (and hers I think) are simply not nearly as important as the economic issues.
If we lived in a horrifically oppressive regime like, say, Iran, where gay people are murdered instead of not being allowed to legally marry on the federal level, then perhaps social issues could take precedence over economic ones.
But... we don't.
Does that help? Sorry to speak for you, Pix. If I'm misrepresenting you just say so. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:She's talking about issues that could conceivably become relevant at, say, the Congressional level in the US.
In that context, the issues that aren't economic, in my opinion (and hers I think) are simply not nearly as important as the economic issues.
I think your reading of her statement is pretty generous. To say that the non-economic freedoms threatened by the US government are less important than the economic ones (as you say) is very different from saying that they are completely unimportant in the absence of economic freedom (which is what she said).
But let's talk about your own view, which I agree isn't obviously wrong at first glance the way hers is.
When I think of the non-economic freedoms at risk in the current American political climate, I don't think gay marriage. I think of our due process rights. There's a list of Americans who our military and intelligence branches have been instructed to assassinate, when no evidence of their wrongdoing has been brought before any court. One of these US citizens (al Awlaki) has been in the news of late, but by all accounts there are several more.
OK, you might say, but this isn't a matter that the US Congress has much say over anyway. It's an executive-branch issue, and our current chief executive isn't even living up to his campaign promises in this regard.
But there's another huge problem with America, that should dwarf economic questions for anyone who has their moral priorities straight. This one is Congress's fault too. Mucus has a great thread up about this right now. We started a bloody war for no good reason.
That's water under the bridge, you may say. (Although in a just country, there would be prison cells awaiting those -- like our last vice president -- who gave illegal orders). Not so, I would say, when the same saber is being rattled in Iran's direction. But Iran is actually a threat, you may say. Well, they certainly are enriching uranium for bombs. But will they actually build bombs, rather than just develop the technology? If they do build them, will they use them, or give them to terrorists?
These are tough questions. I think you'll find that the analysts and pundits who say Iran is a threat are, overwhelmingly, the same ones who said Iraq was a threat. Have these people earned your trust, or your contempt?
Even if I felt the way you do about our economy and what's best for it, I would be very hesitant to vote my pocketbook when the very same candidates might end up coating my hands with even more Middle Eastern blood.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are non-economic freedoms which are always more important than economic ones. To say that you have to have the requisite economic freedoms (which, in Pixiest's case would probably veer out into 'taxation is theft!' territory — demands on the limitation of government that nearly nobody is interested in in the first place) before our other rights, like that of speech, assembly, religion, the ability to vote, protection from harm, etc, even matter is both on the surface and when dissected, ridiculous.
Nor does it at all even touch on the desperation of vetting clearly unqualified, nutty candidates because their ignorance seems preferable to the libertarian ideal than other candidates which actually know what they are doing and don't spend campaign money on rent.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was once at a Bar Mitzvah, and the Rabbi kept saying "we KNOW God wants" this or "we KNOW God does" that. Despite the fact that we KNOW no such thing, I was quite accepting of the fact that in a place of worship, talking about God in the accepted terms and beliefs of that religion is appropriate, even though I bristled at the level of assumption.
So is there an appropriate venue for atheists to say we KNOW God doesn't exist? Society doesn't seem ready for that.
As for Malanthrop: There either is or isn't a God. If there is a God, then yes, atheists have the same God theists do, even if they don't recognize this. But if there isn't a God (and after all, we KNOW there is no God) then theists don't have one either. So Mal, you don't have a god. Because there isn't one to have. Fair enough?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is also the possibility that there are multiple gods in which case the odds that the atheist and monotheist have the same god would be roughly (1/n)^2 assuming that we *have* to assign an atheist to a god for some bizarre reason.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn Arnold: Well seeing as how you were at a Bar Mitzvah, perhaps if you hosted a similar occasion where you were surrounded by like minded individuals you could be candid about your disbelief in God.
Also, Adam Savage seemed quite capable of finding a venue to make professions of his belief and disbelief. Give the boys at the Harvard Humanist Society a ring.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: What's worst about this definition, besides the fact that it waters down the meaning of god until it's utterly meaningless, is that it's demeaning to any real gods that may exist!
Seriously, a god is simply whatever it is in which you trust?
What does that say about Odin, or Yahweh, or Amaterasu, or Zeus, or Ishtar, or Amon-rah, or Ahura Mazda, or Vishnu, or whatnot?
It seems to me that any of those, and even the Golden Calf, have something more than merely being "trusted." For one thing, they were thought of as actual entities that really existed, were beyond humans, and to whom you were to dedicate yourself, at times like a servant.
These beings are much more than "the thing in which you trust" and to broaden the definition of god as such would no doubt make any of them testy, should you tell them.
Just imagine telling Zeus that, should he be real. I dare you. See how long you live.
posted
Pixiest and Dan, Destineer and Samp have addressed some of the reasons for caring about non-economic freedoms, but I'm also still curious about addressing the question I have above about how economic freedom can be attained and what that would look like.
It seems that these notions of economic freedom providing some sort of deeper more meaningful freedom are somewhat naive, ignoring much of what we understand about human behavior and decision making from the cognitive sciences and behavioral economics. I mean, how difficult is it to think of an example of an economically free decision that actually leads an individual to be qualitatively less free as a result? I feel like this notion you have still assumes the fallacy of the rational decision making agent in all economic matters, when we know this is far from the truth. You are ignoring the myriad of factors that go into an economic decision and I argue that this economic freedom of which you speak would not actually bestow real freedom.
Dan Ariely has a great book called Predictably Irrational which I would highly recommend. He has a few TED talks too. Here's a link to one. He doesn't talk about politics at all, but I don't think you can fail to apply certain facts when thinking about policy decisions.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am also a bit confused by the term Economic Freedom.
Is that the freedom to earn and spend your money as you see fit?
There are a lot of freedoms that trump this. I wouldn't be happy in a place that allowed me economic freedom, but allowed the President to beat me senseless every night. I wouldn't want to live in a country where I could buy anything I want, but someone else controlled the media to the extent that I wasn't offered anything worth buying. I wouldn't want to have that freedom, only to have others starve and die of poverty in its many ugly forms.
On a side note, I think most of us will agree, Mal--you are not allowed to define words for everyone. If your definition of God is The Most Important Thing In Your Life, fine. But you don't get to say that is my definition of God.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
