Why the Progressives are Making us a God-free Nation

AJ76 12 months ago

I am just shocked by this hub. I am a progressive with a high moral code, which has nothing to do with religion. I as a parent have every right to choose to have my children not be forced to say or do anything in public school. If you want god involved in your children's education put your children in private school. You make it seem like progressives are evil, trying to destroy the world. Nothing could be further from the truth!

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

Well done. An entire hub without a shread of evidence to support your claims, just baseless shouting in the wilderness.

Progressives don't want to be god any more than conservatives do. They want to continually attempt to improve, to realize the potential of a country that promises to treat people as equals. Progressives don't want people to live off the government, but rather to care for those that the American Dream eluded. Gay rights are not an attempt to eliminate heterosexuals, but to give gay people respect. Removing god from our official pronouncements is an attempt to show respect to those that don't share the prevailing wind, not restrict people from believing.

This hub is hilarious in its sweeping paranoia. Progressives and conservatives have been arm wrestling since the time of the founding fathers. You trying to make a demon out of your opposition is the sign that you can't really stand up to them in a fair exchange of ideas.

There are plenty of progressives in the church and find the justification for their liberal views in scripture and are empowered by their view of Christ. Your premise that progressives are godless is naive and uninformed. We have learned nothing from your hub regarding the topic, but a great deal about the author.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

While I believe in free moral agency, the right of a person to determine their own personal beliefs, it is indeed a failing of the progressive movement to recognize that our foundational basis of law (the DOI and Constiution) was by framer intent based on Christian moral theology. Accordingly, all law, and interpretation of all law, must be based on that fact. It is certainly permissable to "feel" that such a decision by the founders was a mistake (I presonally feel the founders were right), but substituting one's feelings for framer intent is illegal activism. Sadly, such activism goes much farther than the general public; it has infiltrated all three branches of the federal government to such a degree that the intended meaning of our legal foundation is all but ignored by the federal government.

AJ76 12 months ago

You keep repeating the same thing with no facts to back up any of your accusations. I am a progressive. Stop forcing religion into my government and daily life. Then, I won't have to keep trying to stop you! :-)

Your accusations are unfounded. If anything as I read your comments. The word Hypocrite comes screaming to me lips!

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

@stu

There are at least six commandments that would be outright illegal based on the constitution. Does that sound like Founders dedicated to the faith?

The gift of America is the freedom to believe the way you do, not the freedom to require anyone else to, and that is what the Founders supplied. You don't even get to decide how I interpret the COTUS. You get an equal voice in the competition of ideas, and nothing more.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

There is nothing in the Ten Commandments that conflicts with the Constitution. It's simply a matter that certain commandments are enshrined in secular law ("Thou shalt not kill"), and other commandments are simply things that are not part of secular law, but are still morally wrong to violate.

The gift of America IS the freedom to believe the way you wish to, in terms of what you think the law and anything else SHOULD be. But don't confuse SHOULD and IS. While you are free to DISAGREE with framer intent for a law (i.e., feel that framer intent should have been different), you still are obligated to OBEY that intent. And that applies every bit as much to the federal government as it does to individuals. The feds don't have a right to assign meaning to laws "on the fly" to achieve some desired end result (even though they do it every day). The law is strictly anti-Machiavellian - the means ALWAYS justifies the ends. You merely apply framer intent regarding applicable law to a set of facts, and that decides the implemented legal result. Period. Application of law is an exercise in logic, not social engineering.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

The COTUS IS secular law. That's the point. What god I worship or false idol, or what day I hold as the sabbath if any or if I use god's name in vain are all protected under the First Amendment. If you eliminate coveting our economy will collapse. LOL!

You think intent is written law, but it is simply imagination. The actual law IS written and intent is interpretive. We could argue for days about the intent of Hamilton and Jefferson and Franklin and Adams, but it won't make it the law. We are not obligated to your vision of imagined intent or what you think the law SHOULD be. They wrote it down and the courts interpret. That's thesystem they wrote, and they seemed to do it intentionally.

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

@imjustmusing,

mariatalks.com is nothing more than basic sex ed.

Progressives don't care if you are like them, as long as you respect who they might be. Gay, straight, secular, religious,whatever.

The "Great Society" led to the 40's, 50's and 60's and the greatest expansion of the U.S. economy in our history and the very creation of the middle class. It was the most widely prosperous time in our history. It came to a screeching halt in the 80's with the implementation of the shell game called "Trickle down", and we have been going downhill ever since. You might enjoy my hub called "Class Warfare - The American Way". You might just learn something.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

You certainly have the First Amendment right to say and believe what you wish. My point was that by Founder intent, all US law, including the Constitution, must comport with Christian moral principle. You're free to feel that the Founders erred in this regard, but it doesn't change what the "rules of the game" actually are.

The intent of law is interpretive, but only in the strict sense that it is the judicary's job to infer that intent. The intent of the framers is all-controlling; the judge's personal ideology is totally irrelevant. The founders, by implementing horizontal separation of powers, gave Congress and Congress alone the power to inure intent onto law. The judiciary's job is simply to infer what that intent was, from all available evidence (debate records, letters between framers, etc.). This is the concept of "constructionism," the ONLY proper way to interpret law. You are advocating judicial activism ("legislating from the bench" according to the judge's personal ideology), which though rampant, is illegal.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

@stu,

Jefferson flatly disagreed with your position, and thought that each generation should look back at its predecessors like a foreign country. He had a much more humble view of us being imprisoned by the Founders thoughts, and preferred we follow the law they set up.

Intent can never be determined in a final form, and is great fodder for conversation and debate, and does inform judicial minds, but does not paralyze them.

Christian moral principle is not mentioned, legislated or encouraged by the COTUS. That is what a man brings to legislating if he chooses, not the law. The law simply does not allow for it in the First Amendment. Your faith is your compass, and I appreciate and support that, but insisting it has to be anyone elses is just bad history.

If we institute a Christian legal ethic, if Muslims become the country's majority, shall we institute Sharia? Both are against the will of the Founders, and against the written law of the land.

@imjustmusing,

You have no freedom to be free from anyone, except as they directly impact you. If your personal bigotry was toward Muslims, would you have a right to be free of them? How about blacks, or children, or lefthanded people? Should you have some defense from these people? Some legal recourse to protect you from them?

mariatalks.com does not advocate any illegal activity. It is strictly a resource for educating young people about sexual activity and consequences. It strongly advocates not being sexually active as a choice that will prevent disease and pregnancy. Much ado about nothing.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

There is nothing in what you're saying that implies any difference between Jefferson and myself. While Jefferson was a man of great humility, he certainly didn't buy into the notion of "textualism," meaning that law should be interpreted by verbatim wording. The wording of laws can differ from framer intent, due to poor drafting of the wording. I agree that Jefferson did not view the Founder's thoughts as a prison. He understood that law, even the Constitution itself, required change from time to time. But not via "activism," mini-dictators in government construing law to mean whatever they want "on-the-fly." Law should be changed by legal means (Congressional action, and where necessary, amending the Constitution). In all cases, extant (inforce) law should be interpreted "constructionistly;" i.e., solely per framer intent of the law in question.

Framer intent does properly "paralyze" the judiciary. The judicial system is charged with inferring framer intent and applying it, AND NOTHING ELSE. Judges are NEVER to allow their personal ideology to substitute for framer intent (even though they do it all the time).

Christian moral principle is enshrined in the DOI via inalienable rights, granted by God, not by men (i.e., they may not be legislated away). Further, a plethora of Founder quotes proves conclusively that the Founders intended our entire system of law to be founded on a bedrock of Christian moral principle.

Every individual has a right to worhip as he pleases, but in promulgating, interpreting, and enforcing law, Christian moral principle is the guidepost which must be followed.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

Unfortunately, stu, you have no legal basis on which to form your opinion. Founder quotes are not law, and neither is the DOI. I can quote exact opposite statements by the Founders. Intent can never be perfectly discerned, so we make our best judgments based on the law, which is the COTUS. The written law is tangible. Intent is not. Constructionism is a philosophy, not a dictum. It's something you believe in. It's not the law or even mentioned by the Founders, unless you count my Jefferson quote where he thinks it's nonsense.

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

The only belief that aj is trying to force on you is a belief in freedom. What belief do you see that is being advocated by aj that you have a problem with?

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

So if two straight people have sex and get AIDS you should cut them off too, right? What does their sexual orientation have to do with it? Perhaps we could outlaw football for kids since the risk for injury is high? How about smokers or fat folks? Maybe make abortion illegal so we can have more unwanted pregnancies go to term and not support them either and create a really huge underclass of desperate people who are unwanted. Sound good?

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

You are right that Founder quotes are not law, but they are invaluable in helping to discern framer intent with regard to the Constitution.

The DOI absolutely is law. In fact, it is higher in precedence than the Constitution. The DOI is our national charter, our highest body of law, and immutable.

The SCOTUS, and all other courts, are only as reliable determinants of framer intent as the intellect and the constructionism of the judges. The judiciary, for the past 100 years or more, has been an abysmal guardian of framer intent. Look at all the court cases where you get different judgments with same set of facts. The judiciary has become a hotbed of activism, social engineering, and pandering to the executive branch.

The written law is not tangible, because wording is subject to human error. The Second Amendment, taken literally, says in effect that private citizens must have the right to bear arms because militias (state guards), which didn't even exist at the time, required non-militia members to be armed in order for militias to function (a completely rediculous concept). If you refer to framer quotes, you will see clearly that the intended meaning of the Second Amendment was to support the DOI's grant of power to the people to take down central government by force if central government becomes excessively tyrannical and all peaceful means of redress fail.

Constructionism IS a dictum, not a "philosophy." Activism and textualism are flat out wrong. Since ONLY Congress is granted the power to promulgate law, strict constructionism by the courts is MANDATORY.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

Stu, then show us the law that makes constructionism mandatory.

I'll save you some time.

The law is tangible. It's also fallible, which is what you mean. Intent is extremely fallible and subject to the interpretation of the researcher. Youare wrog about the DOI though. It specifies no laws for the new state. It simply declares our intent to become something autonomous, but doesn't specify what that something will be or how it will operate. That is the job of the COTUS.

When you can bring us section and article that shows constructionism is dictated by law, stop by again. Until then, understand you simply think it's your way or the highway.

We are no longer a male dominated, white, agrarian society. Even if you could accurately discover original intent, which was not honmogenous among the founders, it wouldn't apply to our modern world.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

You really just don't get it. You know there is no law that specifically mentions constructionism. Were textualism allowed, then any mistake, such as a transcription error, would become operative law. And if activism were allowed, then the administrative and judicial branches could legally usurp the role of Congress (sadly, this is commonplace). I can't believe you can't see this.

You are correct that judicial research into framer intent is not an exact science, and it is true that sometimes framers have differing intents, but as Lord Keynes said: "It is better to be approximately correct than precisely wrong."

Again, the function of the judiciary is to infer framer intent, nothing more, nothing less. The Constitution provides for horizontal separation of powers to prevent tyranny. Each of the three major branches have uniquely assigned roles, so there are checks and balances.

I understand that we are no longer a male dominated, white, agrarian society. But this is no excuse for activsm in any branch of government. Laws can be changed to keep pace with the times, but this must done via legal means, such as passing bills in Congress, or amending the Constitution. We can't have a zoo of federal "fiat dictators" deciding as individuals what the law means after an issue comes up; under such condition, how would any citizen even know what the law is before they take an action? It would depend on the ideology of the judge assigned to your case (because the judge advises the jury on the meaning of applicable laws), and judges are chosen for cases by random lot. As a citizen, you have the right to EXACTLY the same jury instructions from 1,000,000 randomly picked judges.

While I personally believe that most of Founder intent in the Constitution does properly apply to our modern world, the few areas where it doesn't have been amended (such as unequal rights for women and minorities) via PROPER methods (2/3 supermajority votes in both houses of Congress, plus ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures). No ONE PERSON made these decisions by personal fiat.

Your whole problem is that you view having a big central government with unlimited, arbitrary powers as a shield against imaginary enemies in the general public (the wealthy, corporations, conservative groups, etc.). Big central government is not a shield, it's a tyrant. Our founders DIED to prevent that from happening here, and people like you have trashed our blood-won legacy of ordered liberty for the very substantive equivalent of the fat, royal, dictatorial central power that so many gave their lives to protect you from. The notion that big central government is a shield is nothing more than a lie to dupe the lower classes into putting a cult dictator in power. Once that power is assumed, you and your fellow "useful idiots" are not "empowered," but enslaved by unlimited federal incursion into your life. In the end, you and your fellow sheep do in fact achieve your cherished dream of equality - you are each free to have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - NO MONEY, NO POWER, NO FREEDOM. Take a look at living standards and levels of personal freedom in Communist/Socialist nations. Look at China, Russia, North Korea, etc. Without realizing it, that's what you are fighting for HERE.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

Silly stretch argument. At least you have admitted that constructionism is nothing more than a judicial philosophy. We made a little progress before you went off the deep end.

Other socialist countries such as Sweden, Norway, and so on are some of the most successful on the planet. Just like Founder's quotes, you find what you look for. You begin with an agenda, which your diatribe against me on an unrelated issue from judicial philosophy has clearly revealed, and you will always find exactly what you expect.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/constructionist

that's just in case there is any confusion left.

As for class warfare, I hope you read my hub on the subject. It describes the ebb and flow of the war, that there are two sides and they are both fighting like rabid dogs.

Thanks for the admission of the relativity of your position. It is a position, not the law of the land. It is merely how you see it.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

I never admitted that constructionism is "nothing more than a judicial philosophy." I logically concluded that it is the only proper way to interpret law.

The northern European countries are not socialist states, even though they call themselves that. They are mainstream liberal nany-states. Socialism is cult dictatorship plus "corporatism" (forcing businesses and other private groups to comport their activities to state goals). Nazi Germany was a socialist state (it was also fascist, meaning expansionist by war and possessing fierce national pride).

My position is relative, YOUR'S IS. YOU'RE the one who sees law as being relative (in the eyes of the beholder, rather than set in stone in meaning by the framers until THEY, and nobody else, changes it).

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

stu,

socialism and fascism are diametrically opposed to each other. Fascism doesn't mean "expansionist". Socialism is not "corporatism". Where have you done your intro political education? These are far from the definitions of these things.

At least you didn't try to say the Northern European countries were failures. You have agreed that these "mainstream liberal nany(sic)-states" are some of the most successful countries on the globe.

The framers understood they couldn't anticipate what the future would hold, and set the government up so that the judiciary was in the position to make considered judgments based on constitutional principles in view of the needs of the people. Nine justices would have to vote to avoid having a single rogue adjudicator from being able to twist the intent too far from home. Constructionism seeks to eliminate the updating of judgment over time and freeze it in a time capsule, unless activism becomes convenient for the right, like in the Citizens United case. Activist judges come in all stripes.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

As stated, socialism is an ideology that espouses strict top-down cult dictatorship with corporatism, meaning forcing businesses and other private groups to comport their activities to state goals. Communism takes this a step further, eliminating all private groups (the central government owns the means of production and all collective groups).

Fascism and transnationalism are optional "bolt-on" attributes to socialism and communism. They are diametric opposites (i.e., one or none can be present, but not both). Fascism espouses intense national pride, warlike expansionism, and racism. Nazi Grermany and Russia under Stalin were fascist states. Transnationalism is a form of dictatorship that suppresses national borders for an international codex of law. Obama is a transnational socialist.

It is true that the framers understood they couldn't anticipate what the future would hold. But they expressly forbid the judiciary from "updating law;" this role was reserved solely to Congress. Constructionism DOES seek to eliminate the updating of judgment over time and freeze it in a time capsule, UNTIL CONGRESS, AND CONGRESS ALONE, DOES THE UPDATING.

The CU case was hardly conservative activism. This was a proper constructionist judgment. Any other judgment in this case would have violated the First Amendment.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

Spoken like a true water carrier. You believe the Founder's intent was to make corporations into citizens? To treat them as people? Really? Show me where they say that? Break out your quote mining skills. It was an abomination of a decision. They would have been revolted (except maybe Hamilton).

Socialism has absolutely nothing to do with dictatorship. Nothing. That is one of the things that separates socialism from fascism. Your characterization of socialism is simply definitionally false.

The judiciary doesn't "update" law per se, but rather interprets it based on constitutional law and contemporary realities. They maintain the constitution's relevance. You would like to keep it an archaic artifact. It won't happen. Neither side of the political debate has any real interest in that position. They simply want to advance their own.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

Corporations represent the collective interests of their shareholders, i.e., human beings. How can you say a corporate manager has no First Amendment rights, when he himself is a human being, hired by other human beings as their fiduciary representative.

Socialism has EVERYTHING to do with dictatorship. Dictatorship is a defining characteristic of socialism. Fascism is simply war driven expansion and racism, which may or may not apply to a given socialist or communist nation.

Sadly, you are correct that the judiciary DOES interpret law according to "contemporary realities," but the point is they shouldn't. It is the job of Congress and state legislatures alone to maintain the Constitution's relevance. As stated before, I have no issue with occaisional amendments to the Constitution, as long as they are performed legally. You are correct that both sides of the aisle advance their own agenda in violation of the Constitution; this is not only illegal, but is the primary reason we are in the moral, financial, and political crisis we are in.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

Stu,

That's your opinion, but there is no mandate to support it. It's just the way you wish it would be. It's a way of viewing judicial decisions, not an addendum to the COTUS.

Dictators have nothing to do with socialism. If you think they do, find a source to back your assertion, a definition from a credible source. You won't find it. Report back to us. I sourced three different dictionaries.

We are not talking about the rights of a corporate manager. He has the same rights you and I do. We are talking about rights given to an entity that has been created on paper, not the individual rights of the people within it. You are conflating two things that are unique and discussing them as if they are the same thing, and that is very poor argument. We are talking about individual rights granted to organizations. If you give the corporation the rights of the individual, then you are giving each of the people in the corporation that agree with it double representation and you are cancelling out the rights of those that disagree. We are not talking about the rights of a given manager within the firm. His rights were already established. Your argument for the manager's rights are not relevant to our discussion.

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

So a helmet is good enogh for football. I assume you think a condom is good enough for sex, then, and not banning the behavior? Then you would pay for health care?

Actually, murder is a legal term and abortion is not murder in the U.S. That is factually in error.

LRCBlogger 12 months ago

Wonder if you ever considered that progressives are honoring the pledge of allegiance by removing 'under god'. This sentence was never in the pledge but was added many many many years later in 1950s. It was decided to insert God on our money, in our pledge, into our schools to combat the growing 'red scare' of godless communists.

Just a thought, perhaps removing 'under god' honors the original pledge as it was created and intended to be recited?

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

It's not the way I "wish it would be." It's the way the Constitution demands (implicitly), even though our courts violate it all the time. As stated ad nauseum, judicial activism violates horizontal separation of powers. If you can't see it, I explain it to you.

Dictators have EVERYTHING to do with socialism. Name any socialist country that is not a dictorship.

The rights of managers are not irrelevant to the discussion. Corporations are not animate. Only their employees or owners can speak. And it is these very people you are denying First Amendment rights to, just because they have a parochial interest. Don't you think that when individuals exercise their free speech rights, it is often for their own parochial interests too?

Stu

Stu From VT 12 months ago

LRCBlogger,

You can't really believe that?

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

@stu,

You mistake judicial activism for people not deciding cases the way you want them to. All jurors are trying to honor the COTUS.

As I have asked of you before, and you religiously refuse to do, if you want to make a claim about something, back it up. Show me a credible source that shows a definition of socialism that includes dictatorship. Just saying it over and over doesn't make your case.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

That's how it works. Back up your assertions with some kind of evidence, like I have.

I will give you credit on the last bit. You are absolutely right. Corporations are NOT animate. The real people inside them are. The manager's rights are not impacted by not allowing him to use the resources of the firm to make unlimited contributions to a candidate. The firm is restricted. The manager is free to do as he likes. What he shouldn't be allowed to do is speak for everyone else that works there and may not agree with the positions of those that hold the purse strings of the company. The theory, as you have now made it abundantly clear, is that this inanimate object should have the same rights you and I, and the manager, do. Giving rights to the corporation does not impact the rights of the manager, nor does taking them away. The manager is free to use his personal resources any way he likes. His rights are not in question. It is the new rights invented for inanimate objects that are being discussed. Talk about class warfare. The Citizens United decision was a full frontal assault on every working man and woman in this country. What about the rights of a worker for the corporation who is deeply opposed to the candidate the company is supporting with millions of advertising dollars? Aren't his rights being stepped on? The whole point of the decision was to invent a new, independent "person" that has rights separate from the managers.

By the way, why shouldn't LRCBlogger believe what he said? He simply recited well know facts that are available to anyone without an agenda to look up. It doesn't take faith to believe established facts. Just integrity.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

I want all judges to decide cases based on framer intent, even if I don't like that intent. My only exception is when the law in question itself is illegal (violates parallel or higher law), in which case the judge should vacate the illegal law, and hold harmless the person who violated it.

The definition of socialism you referenced is flat out wrong. It cites collectivised (government) ownership of the means of production, which is an aspect of communism, not socialism.

The manager in a corporation is not speaking for "everyone who works there." He is a fiduciary representative of the shareowners, and is speaking for them only. No new rights are being invented for the corporation; the SCOTUS simply affirmed in CU that they always existed in the first place. The worker, just like the manager, is a fiduciary representative of the shareowners, because his salary comes from shareholder funds. If the worker can't carry out this obligation faithfully, he should resign.

It is rediculous to assume that only natural persons have the right of free speech. Unions, advocacy groups, etc. have these rights. You don't lose this right just because you exist to make money for your owners. The purpose for a group's existence is irrelevant to the topic. The point is that anyone, sole individual or person representing a group, has full free speech rights as long as nobody is slandered and no incitement to criminality occurs.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

You call the definition of socialism that I provided from three different sources wrong but you can't provide anything to corroborate your opinion.

That pretty much says it all.

No evidence, no proof, no credibility.

Rant as much as you like, but until you back up you silliness with credible sources you are proving only that you are extremely silly.

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

It's the law. Whatever you want to call it.

LRCBlogger 12 months ago

Stu lol, that is the facts. Spend 30 seconds on history and you will learn that 'under god' was inserted into our lives and certainly was not originally intended to be on our money, in our pledge, etc.

By the way, just curios, are you still holding onto your birther beliefs?

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

I'll just have to keep ranting. I checked the top 5-6 hits in Google on socialism, and they are all wrong. They inure syndicalism (government ownership of business) to socialism, which is actually a communist trait. Socialist states control businesses for the purpose of achieving state goals (corporatism), but they don't actually own the businesses.

Stu

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

"It's the law. Whatever you want to call it."

True enough, but laws can be changed, and they will. Unless Oblabber declares marshal law and suspends elections, 2012 will be another GOP landslide, in particular due to the weak job market. If we get enough TPM candidates in Congress, the hideous four year experiment in transnational socialism will be rolled back. We really need to roll things back to about 1890; alot of federal laws on the books, as well as inforce EO's, violate the Constitution. We've had 120 years of galluping progressivsm and creeping socialism (the fault of both parties). I know the loss of freedom doesn't bother you, because you have no regard for inalienable individual rights (big gov will make everything OK if you just trust them to run your life). But what about the crushing debt? What about the loss of American competitiveness? What about the loss of American jobs? All these things can be traced, at root, to illegal/improper federal interference in state and individual powers (over regulation, tariff policy that favors other nations over our own, federal support of monopoly unionization, federal overspending, printing fiat money at too fast a pace, etc.).

We need to reawaken the spirit of Jefferson and Madison, and be guided by the great men who though came long before us, are far wiser than most of us are.

Stu

Stu From VT 12 months ago

LRCBlogger,

The DOI, and a plethora of Founder quotes, prove conclusively that the Founders intended that our law be based on Christian moral doctrine.

And yes, I am a die hard, inveterate Birther, and believe Obama is not eligible to serve.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

Using words like "Oblabber" and making the claim to still be birther make any further adult conversation with you a waste of bandwidth. It's like talking to a fifth grader.

Good luck with your hubbing.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

That's one of the nicer things I call him.

Stu

Stu From VT 12 months ago

IJM - keep striking!!

Dilnashi 12 months ago

Wow great hub indeed. keep carry on your good writing.

Cheers...

Stu From VT 12 months ago

IJM - just shot you a big PayPal. :)

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

@stu,

"Unless Oblabber declares marshal law and suspends elections, 2012 will be another GOP landslide..."

So you say.

I would love to have you read my hub regarding indoctrination, because you are a virtual poster boy for the phenomenon.

Be honest. If I gave you the following choices, how many of them would you claim as sources for your opinions:

Rush, Hannity, Boertz, Beck, Savage, World Net Daily, Fox and Newsmax. You don't have to say which ones, just the number of them.

How often do you listen to the BBC, NPR, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, the networks? If you don't, why not?

Noone can be educated by single source materials, only indoctrinated. I listen to and read the right wing position on a daily basis. I travel a great deal in my work, and listen to Rush, Boertz and Savage almost every day, but because I expose myself to other ways of thinking, their flights from logic and abuse of truth jumps out at me when it occurs, because I have perspective to draw from.

Your belief that the right wing assault of 2010 will continue after the horrendous stumbling out of the gate they have perpetrated doesn't show a close watch on the direction that the independents are moving. It's a fantasy that is based in agenda driven news gathering. There is still a lot of time before the election, so anything could happen, but your belief there is some windfall in the works doesn't align with the current information that is available.

You are a product, not a position. You are someone else's creation.

One of my favorite writers, George Bernard Shaw, once wrote, "You can tell a man or woman's breeding by how they behave in argumentation". Proudly announcing that you are a name caller and have many such childish monickers for another man speaks volumes to your character, and the stubborn holding of irrational beliefs like birtherism in the face of overwhelming factual evidence is a veritable announcement of the completeness of your indoctrination into a belief system, regardless of how it is discredited.

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

@stu,

"I checked the top 5-6 hits in Google on socialism, and they are all wrong."

So the world has one definition of socialism that is unchallenged by you, and you have another and declare the rest wrong. No sources, no verification, no reason, just a stubborn refusal to admit to the conventional wisdom that is universal if your counter-support or lack thereof is to be the judge.

You are not making a credible argument. You are sharing a wish for how you would like things to be. I have empathy for you, but no sympathy. We all wish we could mold the world into what we would like it to be. But words have meaning. What the word means and how it is applied in the real world can be different, and that can lead to definitional confusion. So can agenda driven people who prey on those that choose not to vet the information they are shoveled.

You don't care what the world says. We are to adopt your views and definitions instead. Well argued. I'm sure a hord of followers will crush down your door.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

I'm a regular follower of Beck, WND, and FOX, but not the others you mentioned.

I listen to the BBC occaisionally; it's quite good. MSNBC is a liberal rag.

Al Jazeera started out as very factual, but it has become biased over time.

Centrists will be key to 2012, as they are to all elections. A TPM primary winner may scare them, but four more years of Oblabber may scare them more (centrists focus mainly on jobs).

Being a Birther is hardly an irrational position. What would you say if Jim DeMint or Michele Bachmann were President, and questions came up about their natural born status? Their "response" was to hide their records, spend almost $2 million of their own money fighting the issue in multiple court cases, and then produce what is clearly a fake long form BC (I've examined it at high zoom in Photoshop, and the center portion with the data was digitally superimposed onto the middle; I can tell by the difference in background tile around the perimeter). What say you?

Stu

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

I'm not saying the top 5-6 hits in Google are totally wrong in their definitions. I'm simply saying they are confusing socialism with communism.

They attribute to socialism central government ownership of the means of production, which is simply not true. In no cases of socialism that I'm aware of, even the fascict versions during WWII (Germany, Italy, Austria, Spain, and Vichy France), was this attribute present.

But communist countries DO possess this factor (Russia under Breshnev, China under Mao, etc.).

Regardless of what some web sites say, history proves otherwise. Socialist nations do in fact exercise great control over businesses and private groups, but the key point is that they don't own them. This is the core distinction between socialism and communism.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

Your definition is flawed, and you provide not one single source to support your personal decision as to the definition of the word.

Nothing has changed.

As for your stunning birther discovery regarding the long form, since it is so obvious it will soon be accepted by all that this is a forgery, right?

WND would be enough to create an absurd comic book character like the one you're playing.

tony0724 12 months ago

imjustmusing I just wanted to say BRAVO ! In spite of the liberal claim that we are not a Christian nation that is a patently false lie. And a Gallup poll I read awhile back which was the most recent claim backs my argument.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124793/This-Christmas-7

What is happening these days is that for the longest time the majority of Americans would not stand up and be heard because of groups like the ACLU and other liberal organizations labeling them racists,bigots and insert any other adjective you want. And now the majority has said enough and is standing up and being heard so the Libs are attacking with every nasty campaign they can. And of course they will blame Bush, Palin and the Koch Brothers ! Kinda like the ones here at Hubpages !

By the way I gave the hub a thumbs up !

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

Here's a quote from the Gallup poll results.

"The percentage of Americans who identify as Catholic, Protestant, or some other non-Catholic Christian faith has been concomitantly decreasing over the years. This suggests that one of the major patterns of religious transition in America in recent decades has been the shift from identification as Christian to the status of having no specific religious identification."

Interesting results when put in the context of the same poll taken in the past, isn't it?

Anyway, it's sort of irrelevant either way. We aren't talking about who is in the majority. We are talking about laws that give equal protection to the minority, aren't we?

Have a great Sunday.

By the way, Tony, the ACLU has been a great defender of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. You can check out some of the examples given earlier in this thread. Dozens of times they have come to the defense of people who only wanted to worship in freedom. You can look it up, or you can drink the Kool-aid regarding the ACLU. It's up to you, but the truth will set you free.

hottopics 12 months ago

You are all right and you are all wrong. I do not believe in God or religion. Does that mean I am a bad person? I hope not I was a NY firefighter who would gladly have laid down my life at anytime to help someone. There was no God to help me do my job, it was me. Now havong said that, I have many religous people in my family, several different religions. I give them ALL equal respect for their beliefs and faith. I celebtate them with respect whether it is Passover or Easter. WHo am I to tell them different. But it is funny when someone finds out do not believe, they try to ram it down my throat. I give them the courtesy to present their case, but why cannot they respect my beliefs as I respect theirs? I do not want "God" removed from the Pledge or from the courthouses. It was what our founding fathers based all of this on. We as Americans, especially peoud Americans like me, have to respect it. Otherwise, there may not have been a USA. Eceryone needs to respect each others beliefs, if you cannot just SHUTUP! Mom always said if you do not have something nice to say, do not say it!!!

LRCBlogger 12 months ago

Thebrucebeat - you got a new follower

STU- you are hilarious. I like how you examined the Birth certificate with photoshop and were able to claim it was fake despite the fact that numerous experts (many of them conservatives) have examined it and determined it was authentic. Not sure if you read much actual news but the other points you make have all been proven false. Most of them were simply made up. Please don't post a bunch of links to a bunch of conservative blogs that verify your claims.

ImJustmusing- I have to say you inspired a good debate and I think that is something that would make our founding fathers proud. I will agree that many of them were religious (some were not) but few were christian and fewer wanted religion involved with govt. This was made crystal clear when they framed the constitution, the jefferson letter to the danbury baptist, numerous quotes by Madison, Franklin, etc.

No where in the constitution does it say we are a christian nation and that religion and politics should be intertwined...in fact, quite the opposite. Religion is a great thing for many people but it has it's place and that place is not in our government.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

Name one single socialist country where the central government owns the means of production. Just one.

My own observations about the long form BC are confirmed by forensic clips at YouTube. Also, what about the fact that there is a Kenyan BC out there with a toe print? I know Obie gets around, but was he really born in two places?

Stu

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Tony,

Right on. The tide is turning. Conservatives are no longer afraid of all the "PC" crap. And a few brave souls in Congress are talking about the crucial need to cut government operating expenses, boost the tax base by replacing the FIT with a national sales tax, and phase out SS/Medicare/Medicaid because we can never liquefy the off balance sheet debt. Also, many Obama bills have been crushed due to citizen petitions and emails to Congress. It's a tough slog, and nothing will come fast or easy, but assuming Oblabber doesn't declare marshal law and suspend elections, I think we're going to have another landslide in 2012. I just hope we get alot of real conservatives, and not replace the losers with RINO's.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

@stu,

There have been several BC's from other countries, all having been discovered to be forgeries by desperate, sad people like yourself who's hatred has made them irrational and in some cases pushed them to commit crimes to push their agenda.

If a legitimate source debunks his long form, we will all be hearing about it. Until then, you barking up trees is hardly compelling. Do you have the capacity for embarrassment? I'm sure you were supporting all the other BC's when they came out and were declaring the evidence incontrovertible. What did you do when they were discovered to be frauds?

As was asked of McCarthy, have you no shame, sir?

Rhetorical question. The answer is plain.

Marshal law? Suspension of elections? What fantasy land are you and your Green Mountain militia living in?

I honestly feel sorry for you. You have invested yourself in some narrative that is so absurd that you are willing to allow yourself to be a Saturday Night Live skit. You are becoming the crazy lady that told McCain that Obama was an Arab, willing to swallow anything if it feeds their hatred.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

LRCBlogger,

Wrong on both counts.

Numerous NON-POLITICAL Photoshop expert sites have examined the Obama Hawaii long form, and determined it is fake. And please explain why Obama ALSO has a Kenyan birth certificate (with a toe print)? Did Ann Dunham begin to give birth in Kenya, get bored, and spend 15 hours in the air with the baby half hanging out and finish up in Hawaii to go sightseeeing?

The DOI refers to inalienable rights granted to men by God, not government. And a plethora of Founder quotes indicate it was Founder intent that our system of law be based on Christian moral doctrine (even though individual freedom of worship would be guaranteed).

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

Why aren't serious news organizations reporting this abomination about the BC? Not even your pals at Fox are hot on the trail of this story.

No news organization would ignore this if it was a real story. It would be too explosive to ignore. You are led around by the nose in your desire, no, desperation to discredit this man.

You never answered my question before. Did you go screaming about all the other BC's that all turned out to be forgeries? Were you convinced they were genuine as well? Did you feel stupid when they were found out, or did you figure out some kind of protective mechanism to avoid the humiliation of looking in the mirror? What has convinced you of the veracity of this newest Kenyan documentation? Why do you believe it, after seeing repeated attempts at faking this before?

In short, what's wrong with you?

Please post your sources for these photoshop expert opinions so we can vet them for seriousness. If you are proud of your information, your data gathering, share it with us so we can start to try to remove all the egg on our faces.

Or admit you are an impossibly easy mark for any blow hard with a story.

Go ahead. Paint me in a corner. Make me have no choice but to acknowledge your research and results.

Or wake up. You are a tool, and you are being abused.

As for Founder quotes, we can all quote mine those guys and prove our own positions. They were varied and inconsistent. If you don't know that, it's easy to find out. Just google founder quotes, liberal and see what you find. You can make any case you want. You can't be a sychophant to the Founders. You have to have an active mind. You are starting at a disadvantage.

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

No, ijm, it hasn't been proven to be a lie.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

imjustmusing,

Exactly right. Separation of church and state, as a practical matter, is to protect the church from the state, not the other way around. Thus, claims that government and law must be void of a religious underpinning are void. The Founders by their own words intended that US law be based on Christian moral doctrine.

Stu

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

Just a guess, but the BC is off limits to the MSM ("talk about it, lose your broadcast license").

So far, I've never had any reason to believe any of the released BC's are real except the Kenyan one.

You are correct that the Founder quotes are inconsistent on the relation between religion and government. But having read so many of them, I find that the weight of the evidence is that almost all of the Founders were themselves Christian (two were Deists, none were atheists), the DOI contains numerous references to inalienable rights derived from God and not men, and the Founder quotes arguing against the connection between religion and government were aimed at preventing sanctionable failure to observe religious ritual in codified law (i.e., prevent the creation of a mandatory national religion). The Founders did, however, intend that the spirit of codified law comport with Christian moral doctrine.

Regarding proof of the Hawaiian long form BC being fake, do your own research. Otherwise you'll accuse me of cherry-picking the sources.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

You honestly believe the Fed controls Fox News?

Obviously you have no credible sources regarding the long form or you would have provided them. Why you believe this new Kenyan fake is anyones guess, as you provide no reasons at all.

The body of knowledge that is available regarding the Founders thoughts is both vast and amazingly varied. If you start your research with an agenda, you will find what you are looking for, no matter what it is.

As for our inalienable rights, it seems god trusts us with more rights than you would. The COTUS would make most of the commandments illegal. You have the right to obey them, but not the compulsion.

hottopics 12 months ago

IM,

Thanks for the response. It was very kind

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

You bet I believe the feds have control over the MSM. The FCC can pull a TV or radio license at annual renewal if it finds that the station is not "acting in the public interest," meaning whatever the FCC wants it to mean. And since most big newspapers are are owned by the same companies that own the broadcast channels, the newspapers have to tow the line too.

I have an absolutely credible source for the Obama Hawaii long form - ME. Would you be convinced if:

(1) I provided actual background tiles from the center (the part with the data) that under high magnification differ from those of the perimeter (showing that the center was in fact Photoshopped onto the main form), AND

(2) Proof that ALL THREE signatures on the data form were rotated to PERFECT horizontals?

If yes, say so and I'll provide my email address; just reply and I'll send you the proof using screen captures taken directly from the downloaded PDF at the WH web site.

As stated earlier, I have no reason to believe the Kenyan BC is fake. Of course if it is real, then ANY US long form BC by definition HAS to be a fake.

You have to an extent a point regarding research into Founder thought. Founder comments are frought with contradictions; some Founders even contradict themselves. Although I admit I do have an agenda, I still think the weight of the evidence is on my side though.

The issue here is not about the precise wording of the Ten Commandments, or any other SPECIFIC requirements or proscriptions in the Bible. The basic idea is that the Founders intended the GENERAL MORAL SPIRIT of Christianity to UNDERGIRD codified law in the US, without making codified law intertwined with any specific sect of Christianity, or forcing codified law to adhere to Biblical commands that died on the cross (such as the Levitical crime and punishment list, Levitical laws regarding ritual cleansing and burnt offerings, etc.). The Ten Commandments, and other Biblical spiritual doctrine, were intended by the Founders as a MORAL GUIDE to what laws are necessary and proscribed, not a laundry list of specific do's and dont's.

Stu

Texasbeta 12 months ago

I started to write about this hub, realized there was a huge list of comments, and what is at the end of it...the dog guy spouting junk about the BC being fake, as of course, he is an forensic expert based upon a picture, and in 1960s Hawaiian birth certificates, and everyone who has certified it is lying, the birth announcements in the newspapers within 3 days of his birth, lies...the people who were either there or recall it, lies...Yeah buddy. Land of the crazies, very sad.

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

@stu,

you have every reason to believe the Kenyan BC is fake. The previous three that have tried to be passed off have all been fake. Where has it been all this time?

Sorry, your expertise is not credible, as you admit you have an agenda, for one, and secondly I have no reason to think you have the least bit of expertise in this matter. Not good enough. Sorry, stu.

Who was the last station to lose its license due to content? You are the perfect mark for cynical political operatives who use you like a vessel to be poured out on the unsuspecting. You have bought the silliness of the Beck's and the Savage's, finding conspiracy behind every door.

The biblical moral law emphasizes the evil nature of greed. Hundreds of verses, hundreds, speak on the evil of greed, yet our system rewards it, encourages it, encourages coveting, stiving, never being satisfied. Where is greed discouraged in the COTUS?

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Texasbeta,

If the US long form is real, then how do you explain the Kenyan BC? Was Ann Dunham taking a world tour while giving birth?

The Dog Guy

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

I'll punt on the Kenyan BC. I really have no way of knowing whether it's real or fake. I just trust it more than the US BC because Obama has no vested interest in proving he was born in Kenya.

While I am not a forensics expert, I have ten years of Photoshop experience, and am an expert with the software. I am very surprised you are unwilling to even look at my evidence and judge it. It shows you want to deal in suppositions rather than facts. If you can get past this very common liberal trait, let me know and I'll provide absolutely conclusive proof the PDF is a scan of a forgery.

No station has lost its license; they are all playing the game to keep it.

Beck and Savage are not "silly" just because you don't agree with them. Savage can be a bit cruel with his guests, but he's honest. Beck is brilliant, and a real patriot.

Greed is a human attribute. There is no way to codify what a person's motives must be.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

You're right. Beck and Savage aren't silly because I don't agree with them. They are silly on their own merits. Neither has ever seen a conspiracy theory they haven't liked. Beck isn't a patriot. He's a user and a manipulator, and he has found his perfect constituency in you. You even admit it! You accept the Kenyan bs BC because you WANT to, not because it has any plausibility. It helps to make your case, so that's really all you need.

If you can't codify people's motives, how do you base the COTUS on Christian values? That is specifically the process of codifying motives.

The level of your expertise in Photoshop is irrelevant. I have been around the software just as long, but I have no way of parsing your expertise, and you have no way of parsing mine. The fact is the media would pounce on this if there was a shred of credibility to your argument. If this scam was going to be perpetrated, do you think it would be done in such an amateur way that stu from vt. would be able to unravel the whole thing in his basement? If it was that easy, the legitimate experts would blow it up in an instant, and the media would report the biggest story they had ever gotten their hands on.

Another question. If the media is so controlled by the administration, when the administration changes does the media suddenly become conservative? Since they are simply the maleable minions for whoever is in power, why didn't they become republican bullhorns when all three parts of our government were controlled by the republicans?

Texasbeta 12 months ago

Dog guy, the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot made it, but they got the ink from the aliens. Good grief.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Hi Bruce,

You are completely wrong about Beck and Savage. I do have my own mind, and I like them because they reflect my own very conservative ideology. I was actually an Ayn Rand libertarian from about age 20-40, and moved left to mainstream conservatism after that. Nobody is controlling my mind.

You can clearly infer the motives of the Founders. They were religious, but believed in religious freedom. Many of the Founders made the voyage specifically to escape persecution from the Anglican Church (other Protestant sects and Roman Catholocism were not treated well in 18th century England). While some colonial settlers remained loyal to the crown (the tories), most did not. The republicans (the Jefferson/Madison camp) and the federalists (the Hamilton camp) were highly secessionary. Both groups embraced Christianity as a moral foundation for US law, but insisted that the state not interfere with personal worship. The key thing to remember is that "separation of church and state" is to protect the church, not the state. Thus the error in thinking "we are not a Christian nation." We ARE a Christian nation from the standpoint of the spirit by which laws must conform, but at the same time we recognize no official church (the latter of course being an imperative based on the Founders' experience with religious persecution under the Church of England).

The media won't pounce on anything they are afraid of covering, no matter how important. The Birther issue, Islamic massacres of Christians in the Far East, Obama's Marxist past in Chicago, the BATFE Gunwalker scandal, cozy relations between the WH and front men for radical Islamic groups, etc. are all off limits. As mentioned, the threat of broadcast license revocation is overriding. I still extend my offer of showing you my proof regarding the long from, if you're willing to examine it.

Good question about the MSM during the Republican years. Most of the MSM is left leaning to begin with, with the exception of FOX News and political talk radio. I'm not saying the MSM is in general as batty as MSNBC, but there is a distinct liberal bias in TV and print news reporting.

Stu

Stu From VT 12 months ago

TB,

Your theory about how the BC was made is more plausible than any Oblabber has offered.

Dog Guy

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

"You are correct that the Founder quotes are inconsistent on the relation between religion and government."

"You can clearly infer the motives of the Founders."

Make up your mind, stu.

The fact is that no matter what you may guess their motives to have been, they crafted the law so that it protects people of any faith or no faith at all. Now you have to live with it.

Listen to Beck and Savage. Absolutely everything devolves into a conspiracy of one kind or another. Everything. Broken records.

So the MSM has to fear the feds will close them down, but for some reason they weren't afraid of it when the republicans held the reigns. The stories that you use as examples of being "off limits" are things that most rational people never took seriously. You remain a birther to this day. It is truly amazing that you can hold this position in light of all that we know. You will believe anything that will undergird your predetermined position.

There is no risk of loss of license due to content. That is Beck and Savage talking. You have zero evidence that that is a reasonable concern. None. If you do, post it.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

Again, I agree the Founders absolutely intended that we have freedom in personal worship. What I'm trying to get you to see is that they were not trying to leave religion out of law, they were trying to leave law out of religion. They clearly intended that US law be based on Christian moral underpinnings.

I've only heard Savage one or twice, so I can't say very much about him. I found him to be a bit obnoxious, but accurate in what he was saying. I've heard Beck countless times, and I don't see any conspiracy fixation. Beck's overriding thesis is that we have strayed from Founder principles, and suffered greatly for it. And I agree with him 100%.

I totally disagree that "most rational people" don't think the issues I brought up are important. They are VERY important to the right wing. All the center cares about is jobs (they have no ideology, so nothing else matters to them). The left just gives Obama a pass on anything bad in his background because they like his ideology, and are not introspective enough to understand that Obama's policies are taking the crises he inherited and turning them into catastrophes.

Yes, I am a Birther to this day. I really have no idea where he was born, and if he was born in the US, which "natural born" definition is applicable to children born of a one American parent (because I have no reliable birth date, and hence don't know what definition to reference). I am not a Birther because I can prove he is ineligible to be president; I'm a Birther because Obama has gone to such lengths to hide his pre-Chicago history. If one acts suspicious, it's natural to be suspicious of him.

All TV and radio stations must reapply to renew their broadcast licenses annually. These applications are made to the FCC. The FCC makes a judgment based on whether the station is "serving the public interest," whatever that means. I think you can see the implication. Obama has already tried to muffle conservative free speech via the failed Disclose bill, and wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine (to shut down conservative talk radio). Any MSM executive can see the implications of not towing the line on sensitive matters (license non-renewal); it doesn't take a verbalized threat from the FCC to read between the lines.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

So you didn't post any evidence of any kind whatsoever.

I didn't think you would.

Speculative conspiracy theories of threats against the media outlets. It's crap, stu.

You have believed this stuff because you want to, not because you have the first shred of credible evidence that what you think is actually true. Can't you see that? This is a story that Beck and his ilk have fed you and you think they have some expertise that is valid and you swallow it, but there is ZERO reason to take this seriously.

Not even the right wing takes most of what you talk about seriously. It's a tiny ultra right wing sect that has cost the republicans dearly in reputation and in elections. Maryland, Nevada and New York had major defeats that were shocking because of the extreme nature of the candidates that were offered to the public. People like yourself are a big part of the reason that Obama most likely will be reelected, and I thank you. You are a great asset to the cause.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

Your blind. Believe me, I am no conspiracy junkie, and I also admit I can't prove my case regarding the FCC to the "reasonable doubt standard." But this isn't court. We are just trying to determine what is probably true.

As stated, Obama has already tried to muffle conservative free speech via the failed Disclose bill, and wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. He is clearly trying selectively determine who will be allowed to make political speech in public (his supporters). I can't believe you can't see this.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

The fact that you have no proof regarding the suppresion of the media shows you simply like a good conspiracy narrative and need no data to believe what you like. You are th perfect receptacle for the right wing madmen on the radio.

Have you purchased any freeze dried food or overpriced gold yet?

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

No Joer, it doesn't. It simply changes the source for the origins of morality. That's all.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

"The fact that you have no proof regarding the suppresion of the media shows you simply like a good conspiracy narrative and need no data to believe what you like. You are th perfect receptacle for the right wing madmen on the radio." - I admit that right wing radio talk show hosts can be VERY tough, but they are intellectually honest. Tell me what you think of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FvxlyGE_9A

"Have you purchased any freeze dried food or overpriced gold yet?" - No. When the real crisis hits it will be nuclear. I can prove that too, but since I'm sure you reject the word of God, I won't bother.

Stu

Stu From VT 12 months ago

joer,

"Removing God removes moral responsibility." - Exactly. Liberals HATE moral responsibility, because it entails truth. And truth kills the liberal plank. So they resort Alinsky's Rules, essentially ad hominem on steroids - "don't fight for your position with reasoning, just smear the opponent with lies."

Stu

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

And what pray tell is the "source for the origins of morality?" YOU? Are you more moral than God? Shall we substitute God's holy doctrine for your "point of view?"

Stu

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Hi SomeoneWhoKNows,

By law, the government does not sanction or disallow any religion. Religion has no DIRECT say in law. My point is that the Founders intended codified law to comport with general Christian moral underpinnings from a "spirit of the law" perspective.

Stu

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Joer, I know, that's exactly what I was saying, using different words. All libby's ever do is "feel." They think this is LOGIC. REAL logic drives them crazy, because it always proves them wrong.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

Wow. We touched a nerve with you two! LOL!

There are many things people base their morality on. Taoists base theirs on observation of the natural world. Others base it on rational calculation of what will sustain humanity as a whole.

You two are simply saying yours are the one true way, and that is simply another call for the defense of your faith, which is fine, but it's not proof. It's faith. All people operate from a moral code, but the basis for it can vary.

Now, what serial killers have to do with this conversation I have no idea. Is your point that everyone that does not base their morality on what you base yours on is doomed to become a serial killer? A bit unhinged, don't you think?

Stu, if you want to use reasoning and not smear with lies, start now by not ranting and misrepresenting my position. How have I lied or smeared you?

Stu From VT 12 months ago

someonewhoknows,

Morality is not natural to man. He must be taught by a higher authority. The question is which one is right. The Bible is 30% prophesy, and every word of this prophesy has been fulfilled (over than that relating to the time of the Revelation, which hasn't started yet). What other source can make this claim?

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

someonewhoknows,

I don't think they are any different. Everyone bases their morality on something. So do they. Not sure what the point you're making is.

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

stu,

That's really part of your indoctrination. You believe that Revelation is in the future because you have no knowledge of apocalyptic literature in the Hebrew tradition. You believe prophecy was fulfilled because you believe every word of the bible to be accurate history, not embellished myth. But advancing that as fact is a tough sell to those who have researched the actual historical background of scripture and the messy way it has come to be corrupted by men.

joer,

You clearly don't understand this, but you post is almost indecipherable, but when it is unwrapped it contradicts itself.

If I have a moral basis, then I have a similar trait with others regardless of what I "base" it on, but if a basis could vary then there could be no basis at all. These are contradictory statements. Work out what the heck you want to say before you start writing. Here's a better definition of basis:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=definition+basis&src=

A persons basis can vary, and does. Depend on it. It's hard to tell if your post is intellectually dishonest, because it is so logically scrambled. Take some time, reread before you hit send. It'll help, and put you way above most of the crowd.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

joer,

Not sure who you were addressing, but your last post was very good.

My only question would be on "According to your statement we should all have the same morality." Without taking it to extremes, this is pretty much what I believe.

Stu

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

I've been studying eschatology intensely for over ten years. I'm getting sick of being told someone is indoctrinating me. The Revelation is in the future because the Bible explicitly says that Israel will sign a seven year "covenant with death" (military treaty) just before the Revelation begins. Also, the First Seal of the Revelation is proslytizers performing wonders and tricking people to convert to a false church; this hasn't happened yet. I believe prophesy related to past events has been fulfilled because secular history actually proves it. Nobody has corrupted anything. You are making statements about which you know nothing.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

someonewhoknows,

I agree with you completely. That's why I am confused at what your contention with me is.

Stu,

If you are so educated regarding eschatology, tell us what you know about your study of apocalyptic literature. We know you are schooled in 19th century Darbyism, indoctrinated one might say. What do you know about the Hebrew traditions that defined Revelation.

I know a fair amount about the corruption of scripture. What have you studied about it? Share with me.

joer,

I've already answered your question. It can be many things. For Machiavelli it was based on self interest. For Ghandi it was sacrifice. It can be many things. You want it to be about your "thing". But each person determines that for themself, even you.

Mandrake_1975 12 months ago

I don't believe progressives (I define progressives as neo-liberals and neo-conservatives) think they are God, I believe they think all humans are basically good and that if civilization continues to progress and evolve there will be peace on earth and good will toward men.

That said, I think they are borderline insane and hypocritical in that sort of thinking. If people are basically "good" then why would civilization need improved upon and "fixed?" It was men who built civilization after all... Shouldn't civilization be basically good then?

Well then, why do economies necessitate inequality? Why are the resources on which economies and civilization depend the cause of wars? Why did man invent slavery, weapons of war, human sacrifice, etc.? If there is no God then man is responsible for all these things, not God!

I would like to see where the evidence for this basic "good" is, on which the entire progressive philosophy hinges. It appears to me that it is as elusive and abstract as some of them claim God to be.

Human sacrifice disappears in exchange for abortion, slavery is removed in exchange for forced prison labor and the persecution of the homeless, individual living standards are still raised and lowered for the good of the elite and the "whole" (aka the servants of the elite), wars are more destructive, etc. That's not progress, it is the repackaging of the same evils! I'd even venture to say that in some areas it is worse!

Does any of this prove God is the better choice? No, but it does at least prove that the progressive choice is no better -just look at the American expansion of Empire since the New Deal. So what does that mean?

It means that the whole battle is over two opposing philosophies wishing to stick their nose in the business of others as well as keep the noses of others out of their own business. Sounds hypocritical to me... The only real difference is that progressives are trying to alter an already established culture and I don't think most of them know what that means will happen to our culture and our countries.

Civilizations are fragile entities and morality is a major pillar of that entity. To change American or western culture is to essentially knock out one corner of a house, to change the economy is to knock out another, and the only two pillars remaining to hold up that house are government and the arts and sciences (which are being messed with too).

Progressivism means the dismantling and destroying of American culture and civilization in order to make room for a so-called new and improved one so I think we oughta get that straight. They're not just trying to remove God, they are trying to change the whole system.

You want to know why they seem to be removing God from society and why the country is falling apart? Well...this is what happens when you try to massively alter an entire civilization and its culture.

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

"I don't believe progressives (I define progressives as neo-liberals and neo-conservatives) think they are God" Mandrake

"Excellent analysis mandrake, thank you. You are right, progressives are trying to play God" imjustmusing

Good reading skills there, imjustmusing.

Actually, Mandrake, the system is safe and sound. It was designed to reflect the wants and needs of the people, and all the same abilities for the people to influence society are still in place. Voting for representatives that push their agenda and getting the votes that support them in the house and senate are still available for all. It's the culture that has changed, not some minority that has changed the process. People have evolved away from a first century mindset. That is inevitable. It is the history of man. The Dark Ages to the Enlightenment and beyond.

If you take the classical definition of liberal and conservative, it is inevitable that we all become liberal, as the world moves on, changes, evolves, adapts. That is the definition of liberalism; the incorporation of change. Conservatism is the attempt to maintaim the status quo, and it is historically impossible. The world turns, movements come and change the landscape, and a new norm emerges, and then the process repeats itself. Try to stop that phenomenon. You will fail every time. All you can do is try to compete in a free market of ideas and hope you can influence enough people to your way of thinking.

Good luck. We'll see you on the playing fields of intellectual competition.

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

joer,

Coffee as a moral issue? Come on, dude. At least make an effort.

"Morality is nothing you can see or touch. You can't even feel it. Nor can you describe it. It is not intrinsic to the human being. If you had morals you would know it. You would feel it like you feel happiness or sorrow.

So what can possibly vary or be basic to morals or morality?"

So according to your post you can't describe morals, you can't feel them, see them, touch them. But you want to discuss them like you bring some kind of expertise. You then state that they are so clearcut and definitive that they couldn't possibly vary.

Your posts are simply silly joer.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/morals

Here's a start toward a generally accepted idea of what the concept of morals is. You are basing yours on certain religious conceptions. Not everyone shares these, but that doesn't keep them from having morals and developing a moral code. Not sure how many times you want me to answer this question. Not sure why you can't understand the answer. It doesn't seem like a particularly advanced concept to me, but we all have a different intellectual starting point, I suppose.

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

You are hilarious, stu.

Two posts ago you said morals were not intinsic to humans, but this last post you say they are. You simply spew and hope something sticks. Good news. Many will be fooled. But if people are paying attention, you will be revealed as a fraud.

Actually, one doesn't even have to pay that close attention. You trip all over yourself.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

I am hardly "indoctrinated" in Darbyism. While Darby was right on some things (that mainstream Christianity does not follow Biblical doctrine in many areas), he was a pretribulationist, which is completely anti-Biblical.

It's hard to explain what I know about the Revelation in a single post, as the topic is so large. Maybe it would help if you would quote a scripture or two that you don't understand, and I'll try to explain it.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

Sorry joer. You are sort of interchangeable.

No response to your contradictory statements about the intrinsic nature of morals?

I'm making points. You aren't responding. Why is that? Why don't you rspond to the discussion about the definitions of liberal and conservative.

You are hard to take seriously.

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

No offense, stu, but I don't think you have the background to teach me much about Revelation. I've been down the road you're on and found it a dead end.

Since you didn't answer my question about apocalyptic literature, I guess I can assume you have little axposure to it.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Bruce,

"Two posts ago you said morals were not intinsic to humans, but this last post you say they are."

This topic is complex. Perhaps it would make things clearer if I presented my whole point in a single post.

There is a certain level of morality that humans can attain to naturally, assuming they are free of highly fixated psychoneuroses, and are not sociopathic (lacking in conscience). This level of morality will prevent a person from committing most wrong acts of commission, and some wrong acts of omission.

A higher level of morality, where most wrong acts of omission are avoided, cannot be obtained via the human spirit (mind) alone. Such a person needs to be guided by God. Attaining this state is difficult. It requires a person to undergo a very wrenching three step process, and repeat the process over time to stay on the right path:

(1) Genuine Sorrow - Repentence to God the Father for your sins.

(2) Spiritual Death - Baptism, meaning coming to the realization that you are nil in and of yourself, and only have value because God values you.

(3) Obediance - Following the spirit of God, even when your own instincts differ.

Stu

thebrucebeat 12 months ago

Yes, we know you believe this.

Stu From VT 12 months ago

imjustmusing,

"Wondering what the record is for most comments on a hub is" - Are you pray tell saying that Bruce and I are too verbose? :)

Stu

Stu From VT 12 months ago

IJM,

I agree that's the best outcome (rational discussion, without name calling). Sadly, it doesn't always work out that way, as you know.

Stu

Stu From VT 12 months ago

Hi Joer,

You raise alot of good points. Ultimately, I think people of good conscience and spirit can agree (for the most part) on what is morally right and wrong. The great difficulty is getting people to take action when morals call for it (avoid wrongs of omission). This takes alot of maturity and a proactive nature.

Stu