Thoughts or at least a poll on political posts on this site?

[AbsoluteZer0]

Just curious DD and I respect your POV. You appear to be very well informed. My guess is that you are a left leaner.

How do you objectively define, in your mind, a conservative/right winger? After that, how 'bout your objective definition of a liberal/left winger (progressive, as they prefer)? Who is your favorite President - in your lifetime - and why?

Thanks, in advance, for bearing with me and my questions.

Boomer Sooner

Going slightly further, are you as a conservative allowed to have a middle of the road view on social issues and be very conservative fiscally? Does that make you a bigot/homophobe/racist and whatever label is automatically applied? Should I think that if you are a democrat that you are automatically a communist who wants to ruin the country economically so that they can take over politically permanently?

Why are there always labels? Because the government wants you to label each other and fight with each other. Everyone needs to wake up to that. The enemy isn't the guy who disagrees with you on something, it's the elitist government officials holding onto and gaining more power through ignorance of what is really going on.

 

[fortworth4ou2]

Sybarite,

Nice and interesting post. I'm fascinated by your understanding and articulation of government especially as it pertains to your analysis of political tendencies. Depending on one's personal/biased leanings, maintaining the status quo can often be viewed as a blessing while seeking constant and unilateral improvements (some might call a utopia) is often a can of significantly mixed nuts.

Government, undoubtedly, provides the essential framework needed for a civil/any society to function - hopefully fairly and competently. As such, it is a necessity and, therefore, is difficult - but not impossible - to pin as evil. Governance (politics), however, is an eye of the beholder issue and IS the potential inherent evil and corrosive factor. Once the structure has been established, governance - for better or worse - becomes the ongoing behavioral aspect of the equation. I don't put much stock in governance today.

I know this was not an element to your post but, as an interjection of my own personal beliefs, neither government nor governance will ultimately save anyone. Nor will religion itself. They are created by man, an imperfect being, and, therefore, subject to significant imperfection.

I believe one's Salvation, instead, lies within their commitment and personal relationship with the Lord, not in their self-ascribed religious/political/economical/social/behavioral affiliation(s).

Just my thoughts.

 

[sybarite]

Government is the only control that the people have. As with anything, there are flaws. People do err. But, it is more likely that an entity other than the people gains power that prevents government from being for the the people.

Democracy is hard work. But, it is the only way that the common man has in achieving justice and equity. Democracy requires that the people monitor their representatives and vote those who act in someone's interest other than their own out of office. A lobbyist for an economic power should never have power over a representative. But, unless the people monitor that, they will find ways to get the money without being detected.

But, government is the only entity that has the welfare of the people at heart. Business has profit as a goal. Various entities have their own agendas as their goals. Government is the only thing representing the people.

General Motors would never make a car for the welfare of the people. They make it for profit. They may withhold details about their own tests that demonstrate that he gas tank might explode or that a door springs open while cornering. It reduces their profits to keep that from happening. They don't get their jobs from the people, but from the stockholders. Their loyalty is to their stockholders. What stands between them and the welfare of the people? Those diet pills were profitable. Tapeworm cysts are cheap. You can sell them for a profit easily, and you will. What stops you?

 

[WhyNotaSooner]

Just an observation as I plan to sit this one out.... but when sybarite posted, I noticed others scattered.

 

[CTOkie]

Government is the only control that the people have. As with anything, there are flaws. People do err. But, it is more likely that an entity other than the people gains power that prevents government from being for the the people.

Democracy is hard work. But, it is the only way that the common man has in achieving justice and equity. Democracy requires that the people monitor their representatives and vote those who act in someone's interest other than their own out of office. A lobbyist for an economic power should never have power over a representative. But, unless the people monitor that, they will find ways to get the money without being detected.

But, government is the only entity that has the welfare of the people at heart. Business has profit as a goal. Various entities have their own agendas as their goals. Government is the only thing representing the people.

General Motors would never make a car for the welfare of the people. They make it for profit. They may withhold details about their own tests that demonstrate that he gas tank might explode or that a door springs open while cornering. It reduces their profits to keep that from happening. They don't get their jobs from the people, but from the stockholders. Their loyalty is to their stockholders. What stands between them and the welfare of the people? Those diet pills were profitable. Tapeworm cysts are cheap. You can sell them for a profit easily, and you will. What stops you?

"Government is the only entity that has the welfare of the people at heart"....and "is the only thing representing the people" ?
Really ?

 

[hOUston...]

Yes, Rodney King did so much that was admirable.

Plaino, Sheila Jackson Lee is to Houston as Eddie Bernice Johnson is to Dallas. Thus the Rodney King quote by SJL.

 

[fortworth4ou2]

Government is the only control that the people have. As with anything, there are flaws. People do err. But, it is more likely that an entity other than the people gains power that prevents government from being for the the people.

Democracy is hard work. But, it is the only way that the common man has in achieving justice and equity. Democracy requires that the people monitor their representatives and vote those who act in someone's interest other than their own out of office. A lobbyist for an economic power should never have power over a representative. But, unless the people monitor that, they will find ways to get the money without being detected.

But, government is the only entity that has the welfare of the people at heart. Business has profit as a goal. Various entities have their own agendas as their goals. Government is the only thing representing the people.

General Motors would never make a car for the welfare of the people. They make it for profit. They may withhold details about their own tests that demonstrate that he gas tank might explode or that a door springs open while cornering. It reduces their profits to keep that from happening. They don't get their jobs from the people, but from the stockholders. Their loyalty is to their stockholders. What stands between them and the welfare of the people? Those diet pills were profitable. Tapeworm cysts are cheap. You can sell them for a profit easily, and you will. What stops you?

sybarite,

I'm going to dissent somewhat with the above post.

Your response is, imho, too idyllic and textbook. I believe it contains a glaring omission. I'll discuss this in a moment.

I'm not sure I understand or agree fully with your "Government is the only control that the people have". I believe all too often we may be given the illusion of control. I know we have the opportunity to vote in various campaigns in which representatives are elected. But, I also believe too many of those voters are being cunningly manipulated and select instead a canned or default option. Thus, a potentially wasted vote. I know. Sounds a little cryptic, conspiratorial, and perhaps an overreach but I don't believe so. I believe many allow themselves to be conned out of a great deal of that individual control.

I do believe in your "But, it is more likely that an entity other than the people gains power that prevents government from being for the people. But, as for your, "But, it is the only way that the common man has in achieving justice and equity", what is "justice and equity" nowadays? Justice and equity for whom and at what price? Are we simply taking it away from some in order to give it to others? Are we creating a deeper and a potentially more nefarious chasm of injustice as a result?.

Democracy does not "require" (perhaps it expects or suggests) "that the people monitor their representatives and vote those who act in someone's interest other than their own out of office". Really? I submit a substantial amount of the populace doesn't get politically involved enough to even know who their representatives are much less what they do or what they really stand for. I'm silly enough to even believe people vote for a litany of reasons other than perhaps the candidates meaningful qualifications or accurate resume. Perhaps they superficially vote sex appeal, family tradition, are overly influenced by media or other entities of bias (I would think these voters would include the misinformed/low-information people), are academically disenfranchised/brainwashed/deceived, or simply vote for the perceived spoils they expect from an overpromising candidate. Maybe they just do the eenie, meenie, minee mo method.

Now for the perceived flaw in your post that I alluded to above.

It has been said that the candidate/entity who controls public opinion has ALL the power and control. In order to gain this support, "political propaganda" (the aforementioned omission), IMHO, is used to promote the agenda and the ideals behind it. It's psychological warfare. It can be used to slowly and skillfully influence and manipulate people to believe (here's where they lose their individual control) a certain ideology whether that ideology is right or wrong. It's done worldwide and all the time.

Mass media (becoming more opinionated than factually newsworthy), as well as academia, has long been considered left leaning and, with the help of social media, are perceived to often present, on a large scale, a believable false narrative (also perceived as being done on the right) that many will accept without question. This is run amok propaganda. The problem is that the Left holds the advantage of vastly outnumbering the Right's ability to influence in this way. Thus, Conservatives are portrayed negatively far greater than their counterparts. Daily, Conservatives are vilified and characterized repeatedly by the Left as racists, bullies, liars, and generally scurrilous. They are against anything of value. The uninformed may actually believe this rhetoric.

For example, regarding the potential for media bias,consider who owns CBS (Sumner Redstone, a long-time Democratic supporter going back to the Kennedy's), ABC (Disney whose CEO, Robert Iger, supports Democratic causes), and NBC/MSNBC (Comcast which is the Roberts family who have close business and ideology ties to Obama). They have underreported or even failed to report on many perceived scandals within the Obama administration yet they excoriate a Conservative for every triviality including traffic tickets. Obama has blamed every slight on the Conservatives in Congress even when his party held the majority. The mainstream media simply yawned. Mass media demonizes Conservatives while advancing and promoting the PC culture. Their constant attacks on the Pope and the Church views are an attempt to divide and conquer people of faith who may not be strong in the Word.

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, "The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own rights, always and unflinchingly".

I believe the sheep are being led to slaughter and it's being choreographed. JMHO.

Boomer Sooner

 

[JConXtsy]

Now,let's deal with all of the people who insist that this country was founded for Christianity, capitalism, free enterprise, etc. We actually have a very definitive purpose for which this country was founded. Our forefathers spelled it out exactly.

"We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
Establish Justice,
insure Domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

bless·ing
ˈblesiNG/
noun

1. God's favor and protection.
   "may God continue to give us his blessing"
   synonyms: protection, favor
   "may God give us his blessing"
   • a prayer asking for God's favor and protection.
     "a priest gave a blessing as the ship was launched"
   • grace said before or after a meal.
     synonyms: benediction, invocation, prayer, intercession;
     grace
     "a special blessing from the priest"

I don't think they just slipped when they used "blessing" in the preamble to the Constitution.


Capitalism and free enterprise are similar concepts but distinctly different. Capitalism is the system of individual ownership of enterprises and does not regard the presence or lack thereof of government regulation. Free enterprise is the lack of government regulation over enterprises.

"Blessings of Liberty" - Liberty is a very philosophical word without exact definition. It's not unreasonable for one to believe that the blessings of liberty would, could or should include the rights to capitalism or even free enterprise.


I don't know what your "etc" includes.

I realize that some think that regulations are evil. Well, you have been taught very carefully to believe that. Regulations are nothing more than a traffic sign for the business community. It says what is not acceptable. Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism, realized that capitalism requires ethical behavior. But, money tend to counter ethics. So, you erect road signs, called regulations.

You seem to back the wholesale purpose of regulations, but in your previous posts you attack posters on this board for their discussions of politics and social matters by way of their lack of education. So which do you hold in higher regard, regulations or education, because I would suggest that regulations have never protected people better than education and a people's ability to protect themselves.

Regulations may always start as a well-to-do effort, but they can never foresee or adapt as quickly as society. Regulations become loopholes and entry points for corruption and manipulation. Education followed by free choice is always a better solution than regulation.

 

[Jaaa]

You must think that Obama literally paving the way for the Iranian terrorists to acquire the means for building nuclear bombs and turning over literally billions of dollars to them is a really great thing, right?

I'm literally certain you are uncertain of the literal meaning of the word literally.

 

[Medic007]

I'm literally certain you are uncertain of the literal meaning of the word literally.

Made me laugh.

 

[sybarite]

sybarite,

I'm going to dissent somewhat with the above post.

Your response is, imho, too idyllic and textbook. I believe it contains a glaring omission. I'll discuss this in a moment.

I'm not sure I understand or agree fully with your "Government is the only control that the people have". I believe all too often we may be given the illusion of control. I know we have the opportunity to vote in various campaigns in which representatives are elected. But, I also believe too many of those voters are being cunningly manipulated and select instead a canned or default option. Thus, a potentially wasted vote. I know. Sounds a little cryptic, conspiratorial, and perhaps an overreach but I don't believe so. I believe many allow themselves to be conned out of a great deal of that individual control.

I do believe in your "But, it is more likely that an entity other than the people gains power that prevents government from being for the people. But, as for your, "But, it is the only way that the common man has in achieving justice and equity", what is "justice and equity" nowadays? Justice and equity for whom and at what price? Are we simply taking it away from some in order to give it to others? Are we creating a deeper and a potentially more nefarious chasm of injustice as a result?.

Democracy does not "require" (perhaps it expects or suggests) "that the people monitor their representatives and vote those who act in someone's interest other than their own out of office". Really? I submit a substantial amount of the populace doesn't get politically involved enough to even know who their representatives are much less what they do or what they really stand for. I'm silly enough to even believe people vote for a litany of reasons other than perhaps the candidates meaningful qualifications or accurate resume. Perhaps they superficially vote sex appeal, family tradition, are overly influenced by media or other entities of bias (I would think these voters would include the misinformed/low-information people), are academically disenfranchised/brainwashed/deceived, or simply vote for the perceived spoils they expect from an overpromising candidate. Maybe they just do the eenie, meenie, minee mo method.

Now for the perceived flaw in your post that I alluded to above.

It has been said that the candidate/entity who controls public opinion has ALL the power and control. In order to gain this support, "political propaganda" (the aforementioned omission), IMHO, is used to promote the agenda and the ideals behind it. It's psychological warfare. It can be used to slowly and skillfully influence and manipulate people to believe (here's where they lose their individual control) a certain ideology whether that ideology is right or wrong. It's done worldwide and all the time.

Mass media (becoming more opinionated than factually newsworthy), as well as academia, has long been considered left leaning and, with the help of social media, are perceived to often present, on a large scale, a believable false narrative (also perceived as being done on the right) that many will accept without question. This is run amok propaganda. The problem is that the Left holds the advantage of vastly outnumbering the Right's ability to influence in this way. Thus, Conservatives are portrayed negatively far greater than their counterparts. Daily, Conservatives are vilified and characterized repeatedly by the Left as racists, bullies, liars, and generally scurrilous. They are against anything of value. The uninformed may actually believe this rhetoric.

For example, regarding the potential for media bias,consider who owns CBS (Sumner Redstone, a long-time Democratic supporter going back to the Kennedy's), ABC (Disney whose CEO, Robert Iger, supports Democratic causes), and NBC/MSNBC (Comcast which is the Roberts family who have close business and ideology ties to Obama). They have underreported or even failed to report on many perceived scandals within the Obama administration yet they excoriate a Conservative for every triviality including traffic tickets. Obama has blamed every slight on the Conservatives in Congress even when his party held the majority. The mainstream media simply yawned. Mass media demonizes Conservatives while advancing and promoting the PC culture. Their constant attacks on the Pope and the Church views are an attempt to divide and conquer people of faith who may not be strong in the Word.

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, "The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own rights, always and unflinchingly".

I believe the sheep are being led to slaughter and it's being choreographed. JMHO.

Boomer Sooner

It seems that you think that nothing will work. It is as simple as I stated. The Constitution established a platform on which to build. I think that even those who wrote it were aware that there would be various ways to corrupt it.

For it to work, the pubic must work at it. Since the dawn of man, there have been those who have sought to obtain power illegitimately. I think you are correct in that we have let ourselves be bewitched by those who would promise us anything. But, mostly, we have allowed those who would corrupt the system to take advantage of our own prejudices and ignorance to misdirect us as they picked our pockets for the power that they now enjoy. But, this does not mean that the principle is invalid. IT means that we have work to do to make the principle work. The Constitution is a platform, but it has no measures of enforcement within it. We make laws and regulations to guide our system. Sometimes, we make invalid laws, and we have to revise them.

The media has no long-term goals such as liberalism or conservatism (as much as I despise FOX). The media is a business, which, in one sense, is contradictory to its stated purpose. It seeks to create a story that will attract viewers or readers, with little regard as to the validity of he story. It seeks controversy. When it appears to be going against you, you see it as a conservative or liberal lean or plot. It's simply where the story is. That, in itself, can be a problem when there are facts that need to get out. When they come out, they tend to be seen with political filters.

We use a lot of comparisons to Hitler or Nazis. In reality, many "causes" seek to discredit those entities that would discredit them. That should be the first tip off that this may not be legitimate. When something attacks science or education, that has historically been invalid. It remains true today.

 

[fortworth4ou2]

It seems that you think that nothing will work. It is as simple as I stated. The Constitution established a platform on which to build. I think that even those who wrote it were aware that there would be various ways to corrupt it.

For it to work, the pubic must work at it. Since the dawn of man, there have been those who have sought to obtain power illegitimately. I think you are correct in that we have let ourselves be bewitched by those who would promise us anything. But, mostly, we have allowed those who would corrupt the system to take advantage of our own prejudices and ignorance to misdirect us as they picked our pockets for the power that they now enjoy. But, this does not mean that the principle is invalid. IT means that we have work to do to make the principle work. The Constitution is a platform, but it has no measures of enforcement within it. We make laws and regulations to guide our system. Sometimes, we make invalid laws, and we have to revise them.

The media has no long-term goals such as liberalism or conservatism (as much as I despise FOX). The media is a business, which, in one sense, is contradictory to its stated purpose. It seeks to create a story that will attract viewers or readers, with little regard as to the validity of he story. It seeks controversy. When it appears to be going against you, you see it as a conservative or liberal lean or plot. It's simply where the story is. That, in itself, can be a problem when there are facts that need to get out. When they come out, they tend to be seen with political filters.

We use a lot of comparisons to Hitler or Nazis. In reality, many "causes" seek to discredit those entities that would discredit them. That should be the first tip off that this may not be legitimate. When something attacks science or education, that has historically been invalid. It remains true today.

Sybarite,

Thanks for the continuing dialog. Your perspective is appreciated and I like and respect your willingness to engage. We, however, appear to be polar opposites on some of our takes. Nothing wrong there. And, I admire your civility.

It's not that I think that nothing will work. Government works. Governance is more the issue with me. Thus, I seek counsel from a higher entity in all matters including those of governance. I see the world through a prism of faith.

Not to nitpick but, there is nothing "simple" in my mind regarding the crafting of a government, its development, and its diversity of governance. With today's apparent activist Court and the propaganda machines on both sides that are cranked up full bore, the Constitution, much like revisionist textbook history and science, is being irreverently reinvented right before our eyes. That constitutional platform you mention is becoming a shaky foundation. I believe our forefathers intended the Constitution to be protection from political tyranny and abuse, not the emasculation of our proud heritage and divine soul. That's just me.

I agree that greed is the basis for all sin/corruption. My point in my responses is that the "principle", at present, is becoming blurred a little more each day and is on a wrongful course It's no longer in my mind whether it may become invalid but rather how long will it take to become invalid? Again, that's just me. I tend to see the Left as attempting to create a new and destructive world theology.

I strongly disagree with your, "The media has no long-term goals such as liberalism or conservatism.." Today's media power brokers are predominantly on the Left and, in my opinion, that's the direction they want to manipulate our society. One party, one thought ideology. They want to spread their message loud and proud They virtually had their media and propaganda monopoly prior to the '90's. Then FOX was created to provide a conservative and counter POV.

I would've guessed from your previous postings that you would probably despise FOX. Nothing wrong there. To me, FOX presents the other side of the coin in many ways. Its not that I am so enamored with FOX. I just prefer and enjoy a counter take to what had become and remains mainstream reporting. I am thankful for Rupert Murdoch's creation. Until him, there was only the one filter.

Boomer Sooner

.

 

[Soonersincefitty]

Dang, good stuff there fellers, both Syb and Worth.

I liked it so much I read it thrice.

 

[Senior Sooner]

Dang, good stuff there fellers, both Syb and Worth.

I liked it so much I read it thrice.

Never would have guessed that you were a Slow Study, fitty...Hope you finally 'Got It'...

 

[K2C Sooner]

Never would have guessed that you were a Slow Study, fitty...Hope you finally 'Got It'...

HA! HA!

 

[Soonersincefitty]

Actually SS, I was grading it maybe...you know, run on sentences, syntax, like that.

 

[Soonersincefitty]

What cho laughing at chuckles, K2C?

That's OK, revenge, like calamari is best served cold.

 

[K2C Sooner]

What cho laughing at chuckles, K2C?

That's OK, revenge, like calamari is best served cold.

You have to admit it was pretty funny for such as serious thread. I'm still laughing............

 

[Soonersincefitty]

Oh yeah, these days especially, we all need some comic relief.

Otherwise you want to deep throat the old 12 gauge. :-(

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

And what's wrong with "Slow Studies"? Why do Republicans seek to stop us from voting?

I didn't think fitty was a Slow Study.

I'm too stupid to obtain a photo voter ID card. Just ask Eric Holder.

 

[K2C Sooner]

And what's wrong with "Slow Studies"? Why do Republicans seek to stop us from voting?

I didn't think fitty was a Slow Study.

I'm too stupid to obtain a photo voter ID card. Just ask Eric Holder.

Well if Senior thinks fitty is a "slow study",I just can't see how any of us can disagree......

 

[Soonersincefitty]

No no no...Sunburnt Indian has established himself as an intuitive, perceptive fellow long before this exchange...this just locks it down for eternity.

Besides, I like that deal where Indians are known to be the stewards of wise souls that preceded them.
That rocks.

 

[sybarite]

Sybarite,

Thanks for the continuing dialog. Your perspective is appreciated and I like and respect your willingness to engage. We, however, appear to be polar opposites on some of our takes. Nothing wrong there. And, I admire your civility.

It's not that I think that nothing will work. Government works. Governance is more the issue with me. Thus, I seek counsel from a higher entity in all matters including those of governance. I see the world through a prism of faith.

Not to nitpick but, there is nothing "simple" in my mind regarding the crafting of a government, its development, and its diversity of governance. With today's apparent activist Court and the propaganda machines on both sides that are cranked up full bore, the Constitution, much like revisionist textbook history and science, is being irreverently reinvented right before our eyes. That constitutional platform you mention is becoming a shaky foundation. I believe our forefathers intended the Constitution to be protection from political tyranny and abuse, not the emasculation of our proud heritage and divine soul. That's just me.

I agree that greed is the basis for all sin/corruption. My point in my responses is that the "principle", at present, is becoming blurred a little more each day and is on a wrongful course It's no longer in my mind whether it may become invalid but rather how long will it take to become invalid? Again, that's just me. I tend to see the Left as attempting to create a new and destructive world theology.

I strongly disagree with your, "The media has no long-term goals such as liberalism or conservatism.." Today's media power brokers are predominantly on the Left and, in my opinion, that's the direction they want to manipulate our society. One party, one thought ideology. They want to spread their message loud and proud They virtually had their media and propaganda monopoly prior to the '90's. Then FOX was created to provide a conservative and counter POV.

I would've guessed from your previous postings that you would probably despise FOX. Nothing wrong there. To me, FOX presents the other side of the coin in many ways. Its not that I am so enamored with FOX. I just prefer and enjoy a counter take to what had become and remains mainstream reporting. I am thankful for Rupert Murdoch's creation. Until him, there was only the one filter.

Boomer Sooner

.

As an atheist, we definitely see things very differently. But, you see the platform as deteriorating. I see it as solid.

When the Constitution was signed, it was far superior than the society in which it was signed. Adams, Jefferson, and Monroe were staunch in their beliefs that slavery should not be tolerated (for different reasons). Minorities were three-fifths of a person for tax purposes. Women couldn't vote. Indeed, since the definition of an eligible voter was left up to the states, often you had to be a landowner to vote.. We were nothing like an ideal society, despite the wistful rhetoric of those who wish to return.

But, it was provided with a system to address these problems---amendments. The platform was good, but could be improved. It was a hundred thirty years before women could vote.

Even at the outset of the nation, they were aware of the influence of power over the electorate. There just wasn't much of a way to stop it. For most of them, they were the rich and powerful. It wasn't written by the rabble. It was still a nation in which few could read, and only the wealthy were schooled.

Although some see the situation as deteriorating, it has been a rather consistent line of improvement. Gradually, more and more people are accepted as citizens. We may yet become the nation that we have always claimed to be, the home of the free, where all men (and women) are equal under the law. For now, that only exists if you have the money to pay the lawyers.

Sometime, look at why Stephen F. Austin spent so much time trying to get Mexico to accept Texas as a part of Mexico, although independent of Mexico City. It is an interesting study in why English law was feared. Not many people are aware, but it was illegal to be a lawyer in many colonial states.

 

[fortworth4ou2]

Interesting stuff Sybarite. Regarding Stephen F. Austin, I will.

Boomer Sooner

 

[fortworth4ou2]

As an atheist, we definitely see things very differently. But, you see the platform as deteriorating. I see it as solid.

When the Constitution was signed, it was far superior than the society in which it was signed. Adams, Jefferson, and Monroe were staunch in their beliefs that slavery should not be tolerated (for different reasons). Minorities were three-fifths of a person for tax purposes. Women couldn't vote. Indeed, since the definition of an eligible voter was left up to the states, often you had to be a landowner to vote.. We were nothing like an ideal society, despite the wistful rhetoric of those who wish to return.

But, it was provided with a system to address these problems---amendments. The platform was good, but could be improved. It was a hundred thirty years before women could vote.

Even at the outset of the nation, they were aware of the influence of power over the electorate. There just wasn't much of a way to stop it. For most of them, they were the rich and powerful. It wasn't written by the rabble. It was still a nation in which few could read, and only the wealthy were schooled.

Although some see the situation as deteriorating, it has been a rather consistent line of improvement. Gradually, more and more people are accepted as citizens. We may yet become the nation that we have always claimed to be, the home of the free, where all men (and women) are equal under the law. For now, that only exists if you have the money to pay the lawyers.

Sometime, look at why Stephen F. Austin spent so much time trying to get Mexico to accept Texas as a part of Mexico, although independent of Mexico City. It is an interesting study in why English law was feared. Not many people are aware, but it was illegal to be a lawyer in many colonial states.

Sybarite,

I'm still working on the Stephen F. Austin thing so am unable at this time to address it. But, I will comment on your commentary regarding the U.S. Constitution.

I agree it was "superior than the society in which it was signed".

Our country was in its infancy. This document was, as well, superior to any in the known world (primarily the European world) at the time and the worldly - including most definitely religious - experiences of our forefathers were factored in to include past and present slights, as well as future considerations. As such, it was a document created, designed, and implemented through the prism of Judeo-Christian values. To this, there is no doubt. They wanted to protect this new country from the known and experienced European abuses

Thomas Jefferson wrote, ..."all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." These rights were God inspired and given.

He would also later write, "God who gave us Life gave us Liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secured when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" He then added, "Almighty God hath created the mind free...All attempts to influence it by temporal (secular or worldly, not clerical or sacred -- MY insertion) punishments or burthens (burdens -- MY clarification)...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion..."

Amendments are based on a combination of Judeo-Christian (biblical) or common sense (non-biblical) values. Regarding the former, our Founding Fathers wrote in the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religions, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Women given the right to vote (a most worthy and long overdue change) is a common sense or non-biblical example of the latter.

George Washington wrote, "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God..."

John Adams added, "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people..."

In formulating our government structure, it appears our Founding fathers separated church from state. But, not God from state. They clearly acknowledged God as the source of our rights and were careful to place biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture. This was their "American Exceptionalism" It was established precisely to prevent, in my opinion, an authoritarian or totalitarian future inherent within Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, or Islamic Sharia Law. They obviously realized the dangers of such subversive infiltrations metastasizing into a culture rooted in Judeo-Christian values.

What is happening in the present is an anti-Judeo-Christian movement created by those who defile it through their secular views, PC advocacy, and an activist Court.

The irony in all this is that our Founding Fathers were considered the "liberals" of their time for deciding that our political and human rights derive from a power superior to any human government. But, they were "conservative" to biblical morality. As such, they acknowledged God is the author of Liberty. What we are seeing now are Liberals turning a blind eye to the required connection between God and Liberty.

Yes, the Constitution is subject to change through the amendment process. But are those amendments adherent to the declarations of our forefathers (biblical) or through secular values - the antithesis of our founding vision?

I do not understand your comment above, "Gradually, more and more people are accepted as citizens". Does this include those who violate our laws by illegally crossing our borders and subsequently granted amnesty or citizenship by those political narcissists wishing to secure their present and future votes at the expense of our values, needs, and well-being?

Yes, I see our founding liberties and values not only being corrupted and compromised but deteriorating as well. It might just be me but I can hear that political toilet flushing more and more of our heritage away each day. And, there are those who see such occurrences as progress?

I don't know what to make of your, "We may yet become the nation that we have always claimed to be". Huh? We were founded upon Judeo-Christian principles and that is our nation's claim. Those principles are being perverted and have been for the past 60 or so years.

As an expressed atheist (certainly allowed by the First Amendment), you do not believe in the existence of God as is your right. A natural conclusion might be that you would view faith based documents almost exclusively via secular eyes and would look to "improve" upon the Judeo-Christian interests in a worldly manner to make this an "ideal" nation. Would this include such historically recent secular "improvements" as abortion (the intentional termination of an innocent life for the purpose primarily of expediency) and same sex marriages? I believe the next anti-Judeo-Christian domino to fall, if it hasn't already, will be polygamy - another proposed/secured secular "improvement".

This is just speculation on my part but, I believe we will someday see the perversion of the First Amendment. Perhaps this is just "Grins and Giggles" stuff but the Left's rapidly spreading PC movement may be preparing us for an eventual State endorsed theology. Two major purported proponents of this movement include President Obama (and his administration - past and present) and his close friend, Oprah Winfrey.

Luis Farrakhan, identified leader of the Nation of Islam, in an address to his congregation, proclaimed Obama as the New Messiah. Obama identifies himself as a Christian though his elementary school records reveal him to be Muslim. When, in recent memory, has a Muslim leader so strongly supported a Christian this way? The two faiths are extreme opposites. Obama seemingly goes out of his way to defend Islam while being overly critical of Christianity. Is he really Christian? With the Left gnawing away at Catholicism and Christianity in general coupled with Obama's apparent pro-Islamic views, could the current support for Islam and the simultaneous denunciation of Christian values be cause for concern? Are we in danger of straying from our Judeo-Christian roots and values? Or, am I just over-reaching?

Winfrey, a highly influential billionaire, television personality, actress, and also a proclaimed Christian, has recently abandoned God's Word (the Bible) by starting up the New Earth Church. It's depicted as one of the fasting growing churches in the world and uses the internet to reach out to its worldwide congregation. Her demographic TV audience started out to - and succeeded in - attracting middle-class caucasian women but her sphere of influence is widening every day. It's a PC, denominationally all-inclusive, anti-Bible faith preaching there are literally millions of ways to receive salvation (to accommodate all religions). Sounds wonderful - and convenient - on the surface (virtual one stop shopping and from the comfy confines of your own home/communal arrangement) but, its deceptive. The Bible - I believe to be the Word of God - says there is only one way to receive this gift. Again, is there a legitimate concern here?

Our Founding Fathers would be shocked and disapproving of these "improvements" and occurrences.

 

[sybarite]

Your version of the principles of our founding fathers has been accepted and broadcasted by those who seek to have religion as a foundation for the nation. But, it takes a few sentences meant only for public consumption without examining what the ideas of the founding fathers actually were.

Did you know that Jefferson wrote his own Bible? He, if anything, was a Diest. But, he really did not believe in a supernatural being. In his version of the Bible, he removed all references to miracles, dieties, or the supernatural. I think he called it The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. He accepted no version of religion that called for a supernatural being. His opening to the Declaration was a compromise with those at the convention who did believe in God. He didn't believe in it any more than he believed in slavery. But, he had to compromise in order to get anything signed by anyone.

Adams and Monroe both have made clear statements that they had no intention of having religion have anything to do with the state. Both were less than enamored by religion. At the time, few educated men were religious as we would know it today. They thought of it as a possibility, but it wasn't something that was a part of their daily lives. Nearly all were very distrustful of organized religion. They had recently (within a couple hundred years) been through the religious wars of Europe, the fierce battles of the Inquisition, the vicious wars between Ireland and England which had a lot to do with the Anglican vs Catholic Churches, the Cromwell Regime. It caused a lot of suspicion. Adams openly hated organized religion.

Even today as we look through Europe, it is interesting that they spend a great deal of money on their cathedrals. In Germany, nearly everyone pays Kirchensteuer, a voluntary tax of a couple of dollars per year to maintain the churches. Yet, almost nobody goes to church. While living there, I don't think I ever saw anyone go to church except on Christmas and Easter, both of which are treated with a great deal more reverence than they are here. Christmas is a very solemn day. Yet, religion is not a part of their lives, and they think we are nuts for our emphasis on religion. You have to look at the fact that even in Italy, the home of the Vatican, the church has lost its influence over every day life and the state.

Even within Christianity, there is a very marked division in philosophy. Some churches have a lot of things that they are against. The more moderate churches seem to be more accepting. The Pope is fascinating in that his philosophy seems to characterize Christianity more than most in recent history. But, there is a lot of difference, and there is no settled theology. The loudest voices tend to be the from groups that tend to represent only about twenty-eight percent of American Christians and few other nations.

I realize that there is a desire to say that we were founded on religion. But, you have to go back and read what the founders actually wrote. It isn't that they intended to prevent religion from existing. It was exactly what it said it was, the freedom to practice your own religion. Of course, as with all "rights," we have seen that there are limitations. You have the right to swing your arms, but that stops at your neighbors nose. Religion is the same. You have the right to practice your faith, but not to have in forced upon others.

It is interesting that I met a law student who was about forty years old (about four years ago). He was being sent to law school by his church denomination. He was an employee of the denomination. They had decided that the threat of extreme religions was becoming a potential threat to their rights to practice their religion. This is interesting because they are not exactly a moderate religion. But, they feel that they need their own lawyers to protect themselves from other churches. He was in the OKC Law School.

I am an atheist. But, here is the curious part. I probably have more respect for the principles of Christianity than do most religious people. Of course, these principles exist in most religions. The basic rule of Christianity is the Golden Rule. But, this existed in other religions before Christianity. Sometime, look at the story of Rabbi Hileel who was asked to define Judaism while standing on one foot (time restraint). See what he said.

If you wish to practice the principles of Christianity, I am all for it. If you wish to state that they were defined in the history of this nation---nice try.

 

[sybarite]

Since I don't think you will find it easily, I'll give you some background for Stephen F. Austin's desire to remain a Mexican state, although independent. Texas was a part of a state under Mexico and Austin wished to remain so.

Austin had watched the progress of the pioneers as they proceeded west from the East coast. At each point, they would take what had been Indian land and build farms, towns, etc. But, as soon as they built a community, the "capitalists and shysters" moved in and stole everything (Austin's attitude). The "capitalists and shysters" were bankers and lawyers. Under English law, it was rather easy to take someone's property from them via loans, fees, fines, taxes, etc. This is one reason that many colonies had made the practice of law illegal in the colonies. Austin wanted no part of English law in Texas. He wanted a legal system in which it is difficult to take property away from the owners.

Have you ever noticed which states are community property states? Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada are the eight states with community property. I think that all had been a part of Mexico or the Spanish territories. One of the differences in community property states is that the law offers more protection to property owners. Hence, what Austin wanted was Mexican law in Texas, but with Texas control. They had already been having conflicts with Mexico for being a slave-owning territory which was forbidden under Mexican law. Texas ended up making them indentured servants for life instead of slaves, not that Mexico really accepted this.

 

[fortworth4ou2]

Your version of the principles of our founding fathers has been accepted and broadcasted by those who seek to have religion as a foundation for the nation. But, it takes a few sentences meant only for public consumption without examining what the ideas of the founding fathers actually were.

Did you know that Jefferson wrote his own Bible? He, if anything, was a Diest. But, he really did not believe in a supernatural being. In his version of the Bible, he removed all references to miracles, dieties, or the supernatural. I think he called it The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. He accepted no version of religion that called for a supernatural being. His opening to the Declaration was a compromise with those at the convention who did believe in God. He didn't believe in it any more than he believed in slavery. But, he had to compromise in order to get anything signed by anyone.

Adams and Monroe both have made clear statements that they had no intention of having religion have anything to do with the state. Both were less than enamored by religion. At the time, few educated men were religious as we would know it today. They thought of it as a possibility, but it wasn't something that was a part of their daily lives. Nearly all were very distrustful of organized religion. They had recently (within a couple hundred years) been through the religious wars of Europe, the fierce battles of the Inquisition, the vicious wars between Ireland and England which had a lot to do with the Anglican vs Catholic Churches, the Cromwell Regime. It caused a lot of suspicion. Adams openly hated organized religion.

Even today as we look through Europe, it is interesting that they spend a great deal of money on their cathedrals. In Germany, nearly everyone pays Kirchensteuer, a voluntary tax of a couple of dollars per year to maintain the churches. Yet, almost nobody goes to church. While living there, I don't think I ever saw anyone go to church except on Christmas and Easter, both of which are treated with a great deal more reverence than they are here. Christmas is a very solemn day. Yet, religion is not a part of their lives, and they think we are nuts for our emphasis on religion. You have to look at the fact that even in Italy, the home of the Vatican, the church has lost its influence over every day life and the state.

Even within Christianity, there is a very marked division in philosophy. Some churches have a lot of things that they are against. The more moderate churches seem to be more accepting. The Pope is fascinating in that his philosophy seems to characterize Christianity more than most in recent history. But, there is a lot of difference, and there is no settled theology. The loudest voices tend to be the from groups that tend to represent only about twenty-eight percent of American Christians and few other nations.

I realize that there is a desire to say that we were founded on religion. But, you have to go back and read what the founders actually wrote. It isn't that they intended to prevent religion from existing. It was exactly what it said it was, the freedom to practice your own religion. Of course, as with all "rights," we have seen that there are limitations. You have the right to swing your arms, but that stops at your neighbors nose. Religion is the same. You have the right to practice your faith, but not to have in forced upon others.

It is interesting that I met a law student who was about forty years old (about four years ago). He was being sent to law school by his church denomination. He was an employee of the denomination. They had decided that the threat of extreme religions was becoming a potential threat to their rights to practice their religion. This is interesting because they are not exactly a moderate religion. But, they feel that they need their own lawyers to protect themselves from other churches. He was in the OKC Law School.

I am an atheist. But, here is the curious part. I probably have more respect for the principles of Christianity than do most religious people. Of course, these principles exist in most religions. The basic rule of Christianity is the Golden Rule. But, this existed in other religions before Christianity. Sometime, look at the story of Rabbi Hileel who was asked to define Judaism while standing on one foot (time restraint). See what he said.
Sybarite,

I always enjoy your commentaries including this one. In fact, I found it really fascinating.

Here are my thoughts. Please understand I am not a biblical scholar but I'll give it my best layman's response.

I agree that the practice of religion, any religion, is a "right" and with limitations. I agree that it should not be forced upon another. I also agree that those who don't live the faith should not be allowed to force their will upon those that do. And, therein lies the problem. I don't see evidence of the former but we're seeing it with the latter. The "rights" of the believers are being impinged upon by others who don't share their views. It seems I can practice my faith but I'm now having to question whether I'm aggrieving another through that practice. There's clearly an injustice in that regard.

Religion means to "bind together". Not to separate and divide. It's a choice whether one wants to partake or not. Neither side should encroach upon the other.

This is how religion was explained to me a long, long time ago. There are two religions in this world -- the religion of man, and the religion of God.

In the religion of man, confusion and division reigns supreme. Warring factions and independent sects flourish creating chaos and corruption. What can be more vile than a religion gone bad? In our lifetime, we've seen innumerable religious crooks, cheaters, and charlatans. From the government to the church, the politician and the preacher, some have said that those who have the gold make the rules. They sell Jesus Christ on the cross for the almighty dollar. They're usually not too difficult to spot. Perhaps that is what happened in those European cathedrals you mentioned in your travels. This is NOT the Golden Rule for scripture is clear, "the love of money is the root of all evil". When it comes to God and religion, it is also clear that any intelligent person can see that the bath water is dirty but there is no need to throw the baby out with that dirty water. It's unfortunate but man is infallible and falls off the wagon when the truth is not rightfully pursued.

Conversely, the religion of God is One in that its aim is to unite the hearts of humanity. It raises our souls and results in spirituality that uplifts the human spirit, creates man in the image of God which encompasses love, justice, generosity, peace, fidelity, harmony, and others. It frees the human mind from blind imitation and zealous devotion to false creeds and man-made dogmas. In this light, we can see the TRUTH of the true religion of God woven like a Golden Thread throughout all faiths whose origin is from Him in the form of the Golden Rule.

If all people would practice the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", we would eliminate war, solve our economic problems, and establish a universal and everlasting Kingdom of justice and peace on earth for all mankind. A true Heaven on earth situation. Jesus said, "seek out the truth and the truth shall set you free".

The source, again, for all true religions is One -- the One who has been made known. All peoples of the world and their divergent philosophies have all been guided by the Merciful and Living God. This is what I believe our Founding Fathers truly meant to happen despite what you posted above.

The Rabbi Hileel was undoubtedly a devout man. Did you know he was a Pharisee? He was just before the time of Jesus and it is interesting that the Pharisees, in accord with Pontius Pilate, not only sought Jesus' death but also fulfilled scripture by having him crucified on the cross. The Pharisees led a pompous and lavish lifestyle. Not that this applied to Hileel and there were some Pharisees that followed Jesus. But, they had a misguided zeal for God and a contempt for their brothers angering Jesus. Jesus informed them they were not actually following God at all. The Pharisees then plotted and carried out Jesus' demise.

 

[fortworth4ou2]

Sybarite,

I always enjoy your commentaries including this one. In fact, I found it really fascinating.

Here are my thoughts. Please understand I am not a biblical scholar but I'll give it my best layman's response.

I agree that the practice of religion is a "right" and with limitations. I agree that it should not be forced upon another. I also believe that those who don't live the faith should not be allowed to force their will upon those that do. And, therein lies the problem. I don't see evidence of the former but we're seeing it with the latter. The "rights" of the believer are being impinged upon by others who don't share their views. It seems I can practice my faith but I'm now having to question whether I'm aggrieving another through that practice. There's clearly an injustice in that regard.

Religion means to "bind together". Not to separate and divide. It's a choice whether one wants to partake or not. Neither side should encroach upon the other.

This is how religion was explained to me a long, long time ago. There are two religions in this world - the religion of man and the religion of God.

In the religion of man, confusion and division reigns supreme. Warring factions and independent sects flourish creating chaos and corruption. What can be more vile than a religion gone bad? In our lifetime, we've seen innumerable religious crooks, cheaters, and charlatans. From the government to the church, the politician and the preacher, some have said that those who have the gold make the rules. They sell Jesus Christ on the cross for the almighty dollar. They're usually not too difficult to spot. Perhaps that is what happened in those European cathedrals you mentioned in your travels. This is NOT the Golden Rule for scripture is clear, "the love of money is the root of all evil". When it comes to God and religion, it is also clear that any intelligent person can see when the bath water is dirty but there is no need to throw the baby out with the dirty water. It's unfortunate but man is not infallible and falls off the wagon when the truth is not rightfully pursued.

Conversely, the religion of God is One in that its aim is to unite the hearts of humanity. It raises our souls and results in spirituality that uplifts the human spirit, creates man in the image of God which encompasses love, justice, generosity, peace, fidelity, harmony, and others. It frees the human mind from blind imitation and zealous devotion to false creeds and man-made dogmas. In this light, we can see the TRUTH of the true religion of God woven like a Golden Thread throughout all faiths whose origin is from Him in the form of the Golden Rule.

If all people would practice the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". we could eliminate war, solve our economic problems, and establish a universal and everlasting Kingdom of justice and peace on earth for all mankind. A true Heaven on earth situation. Jesus said, "seek out the truth and the truth shall set you free".

The source, again, for all true religions is One - the One who has been made known. All peoples of the world and their divergent philosophies have all been guided by the Merciful and Living God. This is what I believe our Founding Fathers truly meant to happen despite what you posted above.

The Rabbi Hileel was undoubtedly a devout man. Did you know he was a Pharisee? He was just before the time of Jesus and it is interesting that the Pharisees, in accord with Pontius Pilate, not only sought Jesus' death but also fulfilled scripture by having Him crucified on the cross. The Pharisees led a pompous and lavish lifestyle. Not that this applied to Hileel and there were some Pharisees that followed Jesus. But, they had a misguided zeal for God and a contempt for their brothers angering Jesus. Jesus informed them that they were not actually following God at all. The Pharisees then plotted and carried out Jesus' demise.

 

[sybarite]

Sybarite,

Don't know why my response to your above post was included in your post. You'll have to click on your quote to see my response. Sorry.

I get nothing.

 

[Wood&Rocks]

There is a forum for everything, just not this one, a college sport's one.

Are we still cool with that?

Saved by the clock...
@9:00 CFB... I'm desperate... Cal @ Hawaii

Bye.

 

[CTOkie]

CT, I would love to know what traditional conservative beliefs where you differ.

I suppose you mean you agree with your buddy Obama and Hillary on confiscation of guns, right?

You must think it is ok for Hillary to raise literally Millions of dollars from foreign nationals while she is Secretary of State, right.

You must think it is ok for the Obama Administration to use the IRS to punish their opponents, right?

You must think Obama opening the US borders and allowing unfettered foreign nationals to just walk across the border, right?

You must think it is just fine for illegal immigrants to acquire an automatic drivers license, get tax refunds from the IRS [even though they never paid a dime of tax to the IRS] and to be eligible for Obama medicare all at the expense of the honest US taxpayers etc is a really great think, right?

You must think that Obama literally paving the way for the Iranian terrorists to acquire the means for building nuclear bombs and turning over literally billions of dollars to them is a really great thing, right?

I could add some more elements of the left wing socialist democratic ideology that you likely agree with as well, right?

I'm for dismantling the welfare-warfare state, small government (which is impossible now and will continue to grow under either party), non-intervention abroad, against corporate welfare, a return to the gold standard, eliminating the Federal Reserve, a roll back of the military budget commensurate with the defense of the US (not nation building and empire), and the freedom to pursue "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" without forking out almost half our incomes in taxes of all kinds and regulations that drive up the cost of everything, and for free markets.
What has government done for you without theft of someone's money and/or property ? Government activity has distorted market for everything, debased the currency, built an empire that is not sustainable, and extorts half your income under the threat of incarceration.
So label me anything you want.... but stop with the "you must think" nonsense.

 

[Section22Sooner]

There is a forum for everything, just not this one, a college sport's one.

Are we still cool with that?

I find it odd that you would revive this thread the way you did, a thread that died well over 13 months ago.

 

[Wood&Rocks]

For it is written. There is odd and even numbers. some prime, some not so.
It was thrown atop the threads, and not by me.
I guess that makes it sooner magic.

 

[Wood&Rocks]

I like the AV.

 

[Section22Sooner]

For it is written. There is odd and even numbers. some prime, some not so.
It was thrown atop the threads, and not by me.
I guess that makes it sooner magic.

Nope. Not Sooner Magic. It's Sort-order magic. Click on "Back to Threads / Forum" and at the top of the list of thread topics, click on "Last Message" so that the arrow points downward and you should be good to go.

 

[Wood&Rocks]

You mean my arrow is pointing the wrong way? And I didn't do that either.

 

[Section22Sooner]

Just trying to help, man. I'm out.

 

[Wood&Rocks]

Thanks, the new system's face might have led me to believe that I still had the first down.