Ron Paul is Right About America's Religious Heritage

[Mike Griffith]

Ron Paul is on solid ground in his view on America's religious heritage and the separation of church and state. For those who would like a brilliant, thoroughly documented introduction to America's godly heritage, you'll want to watch this video online:

"Rediscovering God in America"
http://www.webcastgroup.com/client/start.asp?wid=0820929073668

Written sources include the following:

"The Founding Fathers and Public Religious Expression"
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=121

"The Separation of Church and State"
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123

The 1892 Supreme Court Decision Holy Trinity v. U.S.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinityOp1-2.htm

One worthwhile excerpt from that decision, which was unanimous:

"Even the constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the first amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., - and also provides in article 1, § 7, (a provision common to many constitutions,) that the executive shall have 10 days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.

"There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Comm., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; * * * not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: "The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of those doctrines in not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. * * * The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious [143 U.S. 457, 471] subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors." And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. 127, 198, this court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provisions for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: "it is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."

"If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

Mike Griffith
Real Issues Home Page
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/

[nike]

Wallbuilders are a history revisionist group attempting to make the United States a "Christian" nation based on biblical principals. This is absolutely untrue.

[Ncturnal]

Wallbuilders are a history revisionist group attempting to make the United States a "Christian" nation based on biblical principals. This is absolutely untrue.

Thank you! The last thing I want is for our country to be considered a "christian nation".

[jmarinara]

Thank you! The last thing I want is for our country to be considered a "christian nation".

Yes that would be horrible.

Why oh why would we want our nation to be associated with the religion that built up most societies with hospitals and orphanages and other things ministering to those who the secular world forgot? Yes I agree, being a Christian Nation would be awful.

Yes, why would we want to be a part of a religion that actually thinks human life has value and should be defended and enriched? Why would we want to associate ourselves with the religion that did the most to advance science and philosophy? Why would we want to be a part of the religion that invented capitalism (even if it wasn't articulated that way at first) or representative government?

And why, and boy howdy is this the big one, why, DEAR GOD WHY??!!! would we want to be a nation of people who followed the religion of Patrick Henry, George Washington, and Noah Webster? Those evil stupid men, they knew nothing!!! Why would we want to even come close to resembling them??

. . . . . . . . oh, wait a minute. . . . . .

[SeanEdwards]

Yes that would be horrible.

Why oh why would we want our nation to be associated with the religion that built up most societies with hospitals and orphanages and other things ministering to those who the secular world forgot? Yes I agree, being a Christian Nation would be awful.

Yes, why would we want to be a part of a religion that actually thinks human life has value and should be defended and enriched? Why would we want to associate ourselves with the religion that did the most to advance science and philosophy? Why would we want to be a part of the religion that invented capitalism (even if it wasn't articulated that way at first) or representative government?

And why, and boy howdy is this the big one, why, DEAR GOD WHY??!!! would we want to be a nation of people who followed the religion of Patrick Henry, George Washington, and Noah Webster? Those evil stupid men, they knew nothing!!! Why would we want to even come close to resembling them??

. . . . . . . . oh, wait a minute. . . . . .

You left out the part about doing the most to introduce altar boys to the joys of sodomy.

[tonyr1988]

You left out the part about doing the most to introduce altar boys to the joys of sodomy.
That same attitude (using a small subset of individuals to project a opinion upon an entire group) is the same one the MSM uses to call us kooks.

[AlexK]

Yes that would be horrible.

Why oh why would we want our nation to be associated with the religion that built up most societies with hospitals and orphanages and other things ministering to those who the secular world forgot? Yes I agree, being a Christian Nation would be awful.

Yes, why would we want to be a part of a religion that actually thinks human life has value and should be defended and enriched? Why would we want to associate ourselves with the religion that did the most to advance science and philosophy? Why would we want to be a part of the religion that invented capitalism (even if it wasn't articulated that way at first) or representative government?

And why, and boy howdy is this the big one, why, DEAR GOD WHY??!!! would we want to be a nation of people who followed the religion of Patrick Henry, George Washington, and Noah Webster? Those evil stupid men, they knew nothing!!! Why would we want to even come close to resembling them??

. . . . . . . . oh, wait a minute. . . . . .


Well, I could argue your points one by one and then add a bunch of reasons why religion hurts us, but for now I'll go the easier route and simply say that superstition shouldn't be the foundation of any government. The Bible is nothing more than a bunch of fables, compiled over a long period of time, thousands of years ago. It would be pretty silly to base any decisions on a book. And those who use it for good (like some Christian charities) would've done their good deeds without it. The reason they help people is not because of the Bible but because they just happen to be good people.

[CelestialRender]

"Yes that would be horrible.

Why oh why would we want our nation to be associated with the religion that built up most societies with hospitals and orphanages and other things ministering to those who the secular world forgot? Yes I agree, being a Christian Nation would be awful."

You seem to have forgotten the Crusades, the Inquisition, the mistreatment of Jews, etc.

Saying that Christianity did the most to advance science and philosophy is flat-out wrong. During the 1000 years between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance, when Christianity had control of Europe, civilization came to a screeching halt. The standards of living in 600 AD and 1300 AD are virtually identical.

Christianity is your thing? Or any other religion? Or none? Fine. Don't tread on me.

[Hope]

Oh, come on, you guys. We all know that Christians have a trademark on charity, morality, et al. Right? Riiight.



Oh, and jmarinara? If any single religion is going to get the prize for contributing the most to math, science and philosophy, it would be the Greeks. I'll quote C.S. Lewis on this one, speaking to Christians about Pagans, "Crouch and know your betters, dogs."

[jmarinara]

Well, I could argue your points one by one and then add a bunch of reasons why religion hurts us, but for now I'll go the easier route and simply say that superstition shouldn't be the foundation of any government. The Bible is nothing more than a bunch of fables, compiled over a long period of time, thousands of years ago. It would be pretty silly to base any decisions on a book. And those who use it for good (like some Christian charities) would've done their good deeds without it. The reason they help people is not because of the Bible but because they just happen to be good people.

Please define good.

For me, good is ripping the heads off of every single person that I meet and don't like, manipulating those I meet and could use, and being a parasite to those I meet and find pleasing.

Yep, in my heart of hearts, that's my definition of good. You see how evil I really am? (I'm not being sarcastic in any way here) And the truth is you are just like me. (Click the good person link in my signature)

My point is that if it wasn't for the saving grace of Christ Jesus and the desire He put in me to be like Him, I would be a wretch. But oh how he saved me from the pit I truly deserve! (Bless His holy name)

For you and atheists like you, you have the privilege of borrowing from a Holy God and His just law, and the audacity to say that in your wickedness you thought it up yourself.

May you soon repent.

[jmarinara]

You seem to have forgotten the Crusades, the Inquisition, the mistreatment of Jews, etc.

All from the roman papal church, not christianity. I'm defining Christianity as those who follow, or attempt to follow the Bible. These times you refer to are from a time when Christians were few and far between

In fairness, it's not like those who have believed and do follow or attempt to follow the Bible haven't done some awful things. Indeed my religion has it's share of mistakes. But, I'll take Christianity over paganism (and all it's impostors) any day.


Saying that Christianity did the most to advance science and philosophy is flat-out wrong. During the 1000 years between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance, when Christianity had control of Europe, civilization came to a screeching halt. The standards of living in 600 AD and 1300 AD are virtually identical.

Well I suppose you could argue on this one, sure. I mean after all Plato and Aristotle weren't Christian, neither are any of the Post-Modernists. I could have overstepped on this comment I suppose. However, that's not to take away from the plethora of Scientists (Pascal, Newton, Bacon, etc.) or Philosophers (Augustine, Aquinas, Locke, Kant, etc.) who were indeed Christians.

But I'll concede that perhaps I overstepped a bit on this comment.

The standard of living thing is another issue though. Please do not hold the papal church of Rome against Christianity. From the Reformation onward, standards of living exploded (not all because of Christians, but at least the fake Christians weren't holding society back anymore) Great societies have been founded by protestant reformed folks, and none greater than the United States.



Christianity is your thing? Or any other religion? Or none? Fine. Don't tread on me.

No problem. I take the Patrick Henry approach. " . . . It is because of Christianity that we allow others asylum here. . . "

God Bless you, and thanks for the PLEASANT conversation. :-)

[DRV45N05]

To respond to this thread...

I hear some libertarians and liberals going apeshit over Ron saying "There's no such thing as a Separation of Church and State guaranteed by the Constitution." They interpret this as some type of pro-theocratic statement, which it is anything but. The First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law" that establishes an official religion or prohibits free exercise of religion. It doesn't specify, for instance, what powers states have in this regard, or that the Ten Commandments can't be posted on government property, or that government employees can't have religions items in their offices, or that Congress can't hold prayer before sessions, or that students can't pray in schools, or that governments can't work with religious organizations, etc.. Strictly adhering to the Constitution, Ron's right on this. I'm sure he would never support states establishing religion or inhibiting free exercise thereof, but these are decisions up to the people of the individual states, and the Supreme Court is wrong to rule against them on these grounds.

Furthermore, he is also right to state that religion having an influence on lawmakers' decisions is perfectly legit. Nothing libertarian about this, unless the actions establish a religion or inhibit free exercise of religion. Furthermore, he's correct to note that the Church should eclipse the State in its influence in society, as should pretty much every other private entity.

Nothing really un-libertarian about Ron's stance. Sure, it's not Rand's objectivist atheism, but I'm personally offended by that, because I do consider myself to be both religious and a libertarian.

[jmarinara]

Oh, come on, you guys. We all know that Christians have a trademark on charity, morality, et al. Right? Riiight.

Again, I say: Define what is good. Now define what is good without borrowing from Christianity.

Case Closed.






Oh, and jmarinara? If any single religion is going to get the prize for contributing the most to math, science and philosophy, it would be the Greeks. I'll quote C.S. Lewis on this one, speaking to Christians about Pagans, "Crouch and know your betters, dogs."


Thanks for teeing that one up (C.S. Lewis was my specialty as a Philosophy student)

Yes, as I said before, I could have over stepped on the Philosophy/Science comment. I apologize, I'll do my best to better think through my thoughts.

However, you take Lewis out of context. Lewis was simply saying that in the limited earthly and finite disciplines of Science, mathematics, philosophy, etc. yes, those folks in greece have a leg up on anyone. But Lewis' conclusion was: "So what?" In the end, it won't do them much good because all the knowledge in the world is meaningless to a God who gave that knowledge to begin with. In the Great Divorce he commented on how futile it was to pursue the details (earthly wisdom) and miss the big picture (godly wisdom). If you want a true idea of what Lewis really thinks of earthly thinkers (particularly Aristotle and Nietzsche) , read "The Great Divorce".

"I know Christianity is true as I know the sun is true. Not because I see it, but because BY IT, I see everything." -C.S. Lewis

[Ncturnal]

Please define good.

For me, good is ripping the heads off of every single person that I meet and don't like, manipulating those I meet and could use, and being a parasite to those I meet and find pleasing.

Sadly religions of many flavors (including christianity) have been used very often to justify such actions.


My point is that if it wasn't for the saving grace of Christ Jesus and the desire He put in me to be like Him, I would be a wretch. But oh how he saved me from the pit I truly deserve! (Bless His holy name)

For you and atheists like you, you have the privilege of borrowing from a Holy God and His just law, and the audacity to say that in your wickedness you thought it up yourself.

May you soon repent.

:rolleyes: Ya, I'm an atheist. So what? I'm able to admit I don't believe in something there is no actual proof of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYNKin0wXZc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THDamlNsuuA

[jmarinara]

Sadly religions of many flavors (including christianity) have been used very often to justify such actions.

Oh yes, I agree. Many people use religion to assuage their guilt and simply make themselves feel better for being evil. And yes, even Christianity has been used in this way. It's sad.

But, as you can see from the rest of my post, I don't agree with that and I don't preach following Christ in that way.




:rolleyes: Ya, I'm an atheist. So what? I'm able to admit I don't believe in something there is no actual proof of.


No proof eh? Let's start at the begining and move on from there:

How did this world come into existence? Is it designed? Must their be a designer for everything that is designed? We can move this conversation to private if you'd like, just PM me and I'll get you my e-mail address.

[Ncturnal]

No proof eh? Let's start at the begining and move on from there:

How did this world come into existence? Is it designed? Must their be a designer for everything that is designed? We can move this conversation to private if you'd like, just PM me and I'll get you my e-mail address.

I don't really care to debate it. I've debated it many times and I won't be changing my mind as I'm certain you won't either. I don't know how everything came into existence (I wasn't around at the time) but you can bet your ass it didn't happen 6000 years ago. If the world has a creator, who created the creator? Was the creator designed? Must their be a designer for everything that is designed? Who was the creator's creator? Who/what was the creator of the creator's creator? What was around before everything was created?

Like I said, the debate would be pointless, but if you really want to debate it, www.iidb.org will welcome you.

[AlexK]

No proof eh? Let's start at the begining and move on from there:

How did this world come into existence? Is it designed?



Oh god, here we go again. Just because one can't explain/understand something, doesn't mean that it automatically proves the other "theory". No one knows how the world started. That doesn't mean that creationism makes any more sense.

[SeanEdwards]

To respond to this thread...

I hear some libertarians and liberals going apeshit over Ron saying "There's no such thing as a Separation of Church and State guaranteed by the Constitution." They interpret this as some type of pro-theocratic statement, which it is anything but. The First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law" that establishes an official religion or prohibits free exercise of religion. It doesn't specify, for instance, what powers states have in this regard, or that the Ten Commandments can't be posted on government property, or that government employees can't have religions items in their offices, or that Congress can't hold prayer before sessions, or that students can't pray in schools, or that governments can't work with religious organizations, etc.. Strictly adhering to the Constitution, Ron's right on this. I'm sure he would never support states establishing religion or inhibiting free exercise thereof, but these are decisions up to the people of the individual states, and the Supreme Court is wrong to rule against them on these grounds.

Furthermore, he is also right to state that religion having an influence on lawmakers' decisions is perfectly legit. Nothing libertarian about this, unless the actions establish a religion or inhibit free exercise of religion. Furthermore, he's correct to note that the Church should eclipse the State in its influence in society, as should pretty much every other private entity.

Nothing really un-libertarian about Ron's stance. Sure, it's not Rand's objectivist atheism, but I'm personally offended by that, because I do consider myself to be both religious and a libertarian.

Won't argue with any of that, but I will suggest that there is a basis to object to governmental display of religious bias on the basis of equal protection under the law. I know that personally, if I was called before the 10 commandment judge (Roy Moore?) I'd be uncomfortable revealing my lack of Christian belief while standing before his bench. The courts must be more than just in action, they must also be just in perception. The obvious counter-factual argument is to ask the Christian individuals who endorse the courts displaying the 10 commandments if they would be comfortable in a court that prominently displayed an idol of some pagan deity.

Erect a ten story cross on your front lawn if you want, it's your property, but the courts are the property of us all.

[ConstitutionGal]

That same attitude (using a small subset of individuals to project a opinion upon an entire group) is the same one the MSM uses to call us kooks.


+2

[genrlfuzzywuzzy]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5216975979627863972&q=zeitgeist&total=1985&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

I was born and raised in a Christian home, I have heard all the Christian crap, Ive read the bible.

But....I woke up

This video was the final straw for me. I had already seriously started doubting religion.

[ladyliberty]

You know - now that we have a full thread of Christian bashing, why do we just not create a whole new bashing forum? why stop? I can see all the traffic we could create with this, can't you?

We can Have Ron Paul Athiests bash the Ron Paul Christians.

We can have Ron Paul Pro-Choice Supporters bash the Ron Paul Pro-Lifers.

We can have the Ron Paul WASPs bash the Ron Paul Minorities.

We can have the Ron Paul (insert group of choice) bash the Ron Paul (group of choice).

All this bashing will only make the other laughing hyiena campaigns giggle (cackle?) with glee at the thought of us turning against ourself and nullifying our grassroots campaign.

So don't stop bashing each other at every opportunity - let the other guy win.

Perhaps that is the precise reasoning for this thread ?? A troll or two perhaps to stir the pot??? We are the most successful grassroots campaing and we did not get that way by fighting each other!

my 2 cents

[Ncturnal]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5216975979627863972&q=zeitgeist&total=1985&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

I was born and raised in a Christian home, I have heard all the Christian crap, Ive read the bible.

But....I woke up

This video was the final straw for me. I had already seriously started doubting religion.

Zeitgeist was awesome. It recently won the top award from the Artivist Film Festival. I definitely recommend it.

[CelestialRender]

"Again, I say: Define what is good. Now define what is good without borrowing from Christianity.

Case Closed."

That which comes from man's independent rational cognition.

And if a standard for "good" does not exist without Christianity, what are Mos Maiorum?


That said, this is my last post in this thread, since most seem bent on making it the Christian States of America vs the Secular States of America.

Let's just get Ron Paul elected, please.

[Sandy]

"Yes that would be horrible.

Why oh why would we want our nation to be associated with the religion that built up most societies with hospitals and orphanages and other things ministering to those who the secular world forgot? Yes I agree, being a Christian Nation would be awful."

You seem to have forgotten the Crusades, the Inquisition, the mistreatment of Jews, etc.

Saying that Christianity did the most to advance science and philosophy is flat-out wrong. During the 1000 years between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance, when Christianity had control of Europe, civilization came to a screeching halt. The standards of living in 600 AD and 1300 AD are virtually identical.

Christianity is your thing? Or any other religion? Or none? Fine. Don't tread on me.


You seem to forget or not be aware of the atheists (Lenin, Stalin and gang, Mao, both Kims, Pol Pot, etc.) who took over countries, slaughtered millions of Christians as well as other dissenters, etc. They had evolution/abortion/euthanasia taught in schools and promoted to the public. They kidnapped children and taught them atheism. As you can see, many beliefs/ideas can be used to oppress.

Yes, this country has a large Christian heritage, the majority of the founders were Orthodox Christians, and a few were deists, they were all Creationists. In the Decl of Independence (written by Jefferson as you know) there are a bunch of references to Our Creator and the Lord our God. Go back and read it. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is based on God given rights/Christian principles.

The real Revisionists are the ones trying to say the above is not true, the ones that want to destroy the memory of our heritage, the Constitution, and the rights endeared to us.

I guess the Christian founders shouldn't have fought the Revolution, and developed the documents we hold so dear. I guess none of them who became President should have done so, as one person on this forum stated that no Creationist should be allowed to be President. I think anyone that thinks Washington, Jefferson, or Adams shouldn't have been President needs their head examined. Adams, that Christian who kept us out of war with France, nope, he shouldn't have been President. They were such awful, vile, and stupid people how could they have possibly come up with the Bill of Rights? James Madison, devout Christian and known as the Father of the Constitution.....how dare he tread his Christian beliefs on us!

Was Christianity distorted and twisted and then used an excuse for the Crusades and Inquisition, etc. Yes. When people fight over power, they justify themselves in whatever way they can. If they have no religion, they pick secular labels (such as socialism, communism, fascism, environmentalism, atheism, etc). To think getting rid of religion will give people nothing to use to kill or mistreat people with, is as someone said 'a mark of gross historical amnesia.'

A few quotes:

John Q. Adams: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Thomas Jefferson: "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others..."

Thomas Jefferson: "I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invented..."

George Washington: "The thing that separates the American Christian from every other person on earth is the fact that he would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!"

Daniel Webster: "Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary."

Noah Webster: "The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government."

[Kade]

You seem to forget or not be aware of the atheists (Lenin, Stalin and gang, Mao, both Kims, Pol Pot, etc.) who took over countries, slaughtered millions of Christians as well as other dissenters, etc. They had evolution/abortion/euthanasia taught in schools and promoted to the public. They kidnapped children and taught them atheism. As you can see, many beliefs/ideas can be used to oppress.

Yes, this country has a large Christian heritage, the majority of the founders were Orthodox Christians, and a few were deists, they were all Creationists. In the Decl of Independence (written by Jefferson as you know) there are a bunch of references to Our Creator and the Lord our God. Go back and read it. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is based on God given rights/Christian principles.

The real Revisionists are the ones trying to say the above is not true, the ones that want to destroy the memory of our heritage, the Constitution, and the rights endeared to us.

I guess the Christian founders shouldn't have fought the Revolution, and developed the documents we hold so dear. I guess none of them who became President should have done so, as one person on this forum stated that no Creationist should be allowed to be President. I think anyone that thinks Washington, Jefferson, or Adams shouldn't have been President needs their head examined. Adams, that Christian who kept us out of war with France, nope, he shouldn't have been President. They were such awful, vile, and stupid people how could they have possibly come up with the Bill of Rights? James Madison, devout Christian and known as the Father of the Constitution.....how dare he tread his Christian beliefs on us!

Was Christianity distorted and twisted and then used an excuse for the Crusades and Inquisition, etc. Yes. When people fight over power, they justify themselves in whatever way they can. If they have no religion, they pick secular labels (such as socialism, communism, fascism, environmentalism, atheism, etc). To think getting rid of religion will give people nothing to use to kill or mistreat people with, is as someone said 'a mark of gross historical amnesia.'

A few quotes:

John Q. Adams: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Thomas Jefferson: "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others..."

Thomas Jefferson: "I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invented..."

George Washington: "The thing that separates the American Christian from every other person on earth is the fact that he would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!"

Daniel Webster: "Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary."

Noah Webster: "The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government."


I've read through this whole thread, and again I'm in a state of shock and dismay.

I'm not going to go into another rant... I'm not going to try and help you understand the difference between dogmatic regime and atheism, and I'm not to point out the various moral failings of your precious delusion.

What I am going to do is claim that the heritage of this country was undeniably secular, leftist, heathen, and progressively liberal for every period of it's existence.

You have nothing to refute it. America was always on the forefront of religious freedom and thought, and Jefferson, Madison, and most the founding father's would be deemed radical if their equivalents in the societal zeitgeist were alive today.

In this day in age, we are again fighting for the idea that it is good to untangle religion from the government sphere. America is no longer on the progressive side of this battle, we are slipping, and we are more aligned with the dangerous ideologies of theocracies than anything envisioned by the founder's who rebelled and fought for this country.

To shame with all of you.

[Kade]

"Again, I say: Define what is good. Now define what is good without borrowing from Christianity.

Case Closed."

That which comes from man's independent rational cognition.

And if a standard for "good" does not exist without Christianity, what are Mos Maiorum?


That said, this is my last post in this thread, since most seem bent on making it the Christian States of America vs the Secular States of America.

Let's just get Ron Paul elected, please.


Mos Maiorum Awesome point. Guaranteed about 99% of this forum doesn't have a clue what you mean.

Excellent CR, where were you earlier when I needed help in the Separation of Church and State Thread? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=17370

[driller80545]

I feel really good that you recognize the saving Grace of Christ Jesus, and through your desire to be like Him, you are not a wretch. For me it was my parents teaching me the difference between right and wrong and my desire to do what's right and not do whats wrong. I don't believe as you do and I don't need the saving Grace that keeps you from being a wretch. So you do what works for you and your family, and I will do the same for me and my family. But most importantly, keep the government out of it. I will revolt against anyone trying to force me to believe what I consider to be nonsense.

[bomybomy]

You left out the part about doing the most to introduce altar boys to the joys of sodomy.

Catholocism is a different religion than Bible-Believing Christianity, or protestantism, which was what was referenced in the opening post.

[bomybomy]

And those who use it for good (like some Christian charities) would've done their good deeds without it. The reason they help people is not because of the Bible but because they just happen to be good people.

You only say this because you have not known many true Christians from the time they were lost until the time they found Life, and were transformed.

Some of the most amazing missionaries and men and women of faith, who did great things in the name of Christ, were wretched filthy sinners - even by the secular world's definition.

I too would fall into that category. Before Jesus saved me, I was full of greed, selfishness, pride and had absolutely zero history or desire of "doing good"...

When a man truly is turned from death to life, and is filled with the Love of God in his heart, he truly does become a new creation....totally unlike what existed before.

To validate my point, feel free to PM me and I can send you my testimony, or I can recommend several biographies of men that God has (and still is) using to change this world for Good.

Ron Paul is the best man for president, but he is not the Hope for America.

For those who have ears to hear....

[AlexK]

^ Yeah.. just like he saves people from being gay. I've heard those stories...

[CelestialRender]

Mos Maiorum Awesome point. Guaranteed about 99% of this forum doesn't have a clue what you mean.

Excellent CR, where were you earlier when I needed help in the Separation of Church and State Thread? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=17370

Thanks, I try.

I'm really not trying to Christian-bash here. What I'm against is the idea that ANY religion should ever be tied to ANY state.

At the same time, I acknowledge the slaughters by the Atheists mentioned above. Atheism as a state religion is also a sign of bad things to come. The government shouldn't have a neutral position on religion, it should have NO position on religion.

[nexalacer]

Thanks, I try.

I'm really not trying to Christian-bash here. What I'm against is the idea that ANY religion should ever be tied to ANY state.

At the same time, I acknowledge the slaughters by the Atheists mentioned above. Atheism as a state religion is also a sign of bad things to come. The government shouldn't have a neutral position on religion, it should have NO position on religion.

I got an idea. How about, since its entire existence is dependent on a moral wrong, theft, we just get rid of the government altogether?

[Kade]

I got an idea. How about, since its entire existence is dependent on a moral wrong, theft, we just get rid of the government altogether?

Because then everyone reserves the right to use physical coercion. Do the math.

[nexalacer]

Because then everyone reserves the right to use physical coercion. Do the math.

Is reserving the right to use physical coercion the same as actually using physical coercion? If yes, I have to ask, how do you know?

If you've done the math, can you explain it to me? It seem to me, and of course I could be wrong, that people don't resort to physical violence in their day to day lives, in general.

What would change if there was no government?

[CelestialRender]

"I got an idea. How about, since its entire existence is dependent on a moral wrong, theft, we just get rid of the government altogether?"

This is not an Anarchy forum. This is a forum for an American Presidential candidate.

[nexalacer]

"I got an idea. How about, since its entire existence is dependent on a moral wrong, theft, we just get rid of the government altogether?"

This is not an Anarchy forum. This is a forum for an American Presidential candidate.

And I'm an anarchist supporting said candidate.... your point?

[Kade]

Is reserving the right to use physical coercion the same as actually using physical coercion? If yes, I have to ask, how do you know?

If you've done the math, can you explain it to me? It seem to me, and of course I could be wrong, that people don't resort to physical violence in their day to day lives, in general.

What would change if there was no government?

"The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force.""


noob.

[nexalacer]

"The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force.""


noob.

Ad hominems are a sign of someone who is either afraid of the ideas presented by his opponent or someone who is not confident in their own ideas. Since you are presenting someone else's ideas in the form of a quote, I'll assume the latter.

Your quote, however, has a contradiction in it.

We would agree that wealth is required for an organization to function, right? Well, as Oppenheimer said, there are two means of gaining wealth in society: working in order to create wealth (the economic means) and stealing in order to amass wealth(the political means). Government cannot exist through the economic means because it does not produce anything. Since the only way government can exist is through theft (the initiation of force against an individual in order to take their property), government cannot exist if you believe the idea that no individual or group may initiate force against others.

There is also an unproven assumption in the quote you provided. It says that government protects people from the use of force, but this is a fallacy. If it truly protected people, then there would be a police officer at everyone's home or in everyone's neighborhood, making sure no one could initiate force against others. Obviously, this is not how the world works. The government does not protect people from the initiation of force, it just punishes the initiator ex post facto.

Don't prove yourself to be a lesser man. If my arguments are faulty, break them down with logic and reason. Posting a quote and using an ad hominem makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. Prove to me you do know what you're talking about.

[Kade]

Ad hominems are a sign of someone who is either afraid of the ideas presented by his opponent or someone who is not confident in their own ideas. Since you are presenting someone else's ideas in the form of a quote, I'll assume the latter.

Your quote, however, has a contradiction in it.

We would agree that wealth is required for an organization to function, right? Well, as Oppenheimer said, there are two means of gaining wealth in society: working in order to create wealth (the economic means) and stealing in order to amass wealth(the political means). Government cannot exist through the economic means because it does not produce anything. Since the only way government can exist is through theft (the initiation of force against an individual in order to take their property), government cannot exist if you believe the idea that no individual or group may initiate force against others.

There is also an unproven assumption in the quote you provided. It says that government protects people from the use of force, but this is a fallacy. If it truly protected people, then there would be a police officer at everyone's home or in everyone's neighborhood, making sure no one could initiate force against others. Obviously, this is not how the world works. The government does not protect people from the initiation of force, it just punishes the initiator ex post facto.

Don't prove yourself to be a lesser man. If my arguments are faulty, break them down with logic and reason. Posting a quote and using an ad hominem makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. Prove to me you do know what you're talking about.

Well, I apologize. Honestly, I wasn't accustom to running into anyone with half a brain on these forums.

It wasn't an ad hominem, as it wasn't directed against you.

I agree with your assessment on the governments punishments of the initiator, however the authoritative entity reserves the right to punish. Do you believe that this right should be expressly allowed to all people?

[nexalacer]

Well, I apologize. Honestly, I wasn't accustom to running into anyone with half a brain on these forums.

It wasn't an ad hominem, as it wasn't directed against you.

I agree with your assessment on the governments punishments of the initiator, however the authoritative entity reserves the right to punish. Do you believe that this right should be expressly allowed to all people?

First, what do you define as the authoritative entity? Does this entity exist in the real world or is it merely a concept? For example, a tree exists in the real world, but a forest is a concept we use in order to distinguish a lot of trees from one or two trees.

As far as punishment, I think only the victim of the crime has the right to determine the punishment. We own our own body, thus we have the right to self defense. We also own the property that is the fruit of the labor of our body, so we have the right to restitution if said property is infringed upon. Of course, we would be morally limited to defending/gaining restitution only to the point where the defense/punishment is equal to the level of the original offense, otherwise we are then infringing on the aggressor. Keep in mind that all of these rights are not positive obligations. That is, we don't HAVE to inflict punishment upon anyone, if we choose not too. It is simply that we do have this right because of the fact that we do own our own body.

That said, I do think in a stateless society organizations would arise that would help to resolve disputes between parties and means of punishment would typically involve a third party. However, the difference between a stateless dispute resolution organization (DRO) and a state-run system would be that the former would have to do as their customers demand or risk losing customers, while the latter has no incentive to do as it's customers (citizens) demand because there is no where else for the citizens to go. Also, the primary, and most important difference, is that the stateless system does not require theft at the barrel of a gun (taxes) in order to function.

[Kade]

First, what do you define as the authoritative entity? Does this entity exist in the real world or is it merely a concept? For example, a tree exists in the real world, but a forest is a concept we use in order to distinguish a lot of trees from one or two trees.

As far as punishment, I think only the victim of the crime has the right to determine the punishment. We own our own body, thus we have the right to self defense. We also own the property that is the fruit of the labor of our body, so we have the right to restitution if said property is infringed upon. Of course, we would be morally limited to defending/gaining restitution only to the point where the defense/punishment is equal to the level of the original offense, otherwise we are then infringing on the aggressor. Keep in mind that all of these rights are not positive obligations. That is, we don't HAVE to inflict punishment upon anyone, if we choose not too. It is simply that we do have this right because of the fact that we do own our own body.

That said, I do think in a stateless society organizations would arise that would help to resolve disputes between parties and means of punishment would typically involve a third party. However, the difference between a stateless dispute resolution organization (DRO) and a state-run system would be that the former would have to do as their customers demand or risk losing customers, while the latter has no incentive to do as it's customers (citizens) demand because there is no where else for the citizens to go. Also, the primary, and most important difference, is that the stateless system does not require theft at the barrel of a gun (taxes) in order to function.

I am part of a culture that exemplifies the anarchist mentality, so I am willfully careful in my expression and understanding, as I am often times a sympathizer. Bare with me. I define authority often as a defined entity (physical or non) that has accepted power given by the common acknowledgment of the ability to use coercive physical force (including the removal of property and rights) without repercussions from a stronger non-sovereign force (excluding other states).

An example, what would the President be if we did not simply recognize him as such...? often, power and authority is simply the recognition, and with the recognition the ability to coerce others, military, executive forces, etc, to act on your will.

In situations without this authority, what would be the response to large organizations who intent was to pillage and plunder? A sovereign entity whose only recourse was to steal from others... ?

[Kade]

First, what do you define as the authoritative entity? Does this entity exist in the real world or is it merely a concept? For example, a tree exists in the real world, but a forest is a concept we use in order to distinguish a lot of trees from one or two trees.

As far as punishment, I think only the victim of the crime has the right to determine the punishment. We own our own body, thus we have the right to self defense. We also own the property that is the fruit of the labor of our body, so we have the right to restitution if said property is infringed upon. Of course, we would be morally limited to defending/gaining restitution only to the point where the defense/punishment is equal to the level of the original offense, otherwise we are then infringing on the aggressor. Keep in mind that all of these rights are not positive obligations. That is, we don't HAVE to inflict punishment upon anyone, if we choose not too. It is simply that we do have this right because of the fact that we do own our own body.

That said, I do think in a stateless society organizations would arise that would help to resolve disputes between parties and means of punishment would typically involve a third party. However, the difference between a stateless dispute resolution organization (DRO) and a state-run system would be that the former would have to do as their customers demand or risk losing customers, while the latter has no incentive to do as it's customers (citizens) demand because there is no where else for the citizens to go. Also, the primary, and most important difference, is that the stateless system does not require theft at the barrel of a gun (taxes) in order to function.


Or in other words, is not the handing over of these powers to one authority whose power was delegated by the people a better option then to allow the uncontrolled battle of vying entities for power.

[RickSp]

The Founders were gentlemen of the Enlightenment who viewed religion as a personal matter and not an issue to be enforced by the state.

I get so tired of the Evangelicals making the ridiculous claim that the Founders intended this to be "Christian nation". They intended this to be a free nation, where each individual could make their own choices as to what to believe or not to believe.

[Kade]

The Founders were gentlemen of the Enlightenment who viewed religion as a personal matter and not an issue to be enforced by the state.

I get so tired of the Evangelicals making the ridiculous claim that the Founders intended this to be "Christian nation". They intended this to be a free nation, where each individual could make their own choices as to what to believe or not to believe.

Yes. Thank you.

[Maverick]

The Founders were gentlemen of the Enlightenment who viewed religion as a personal matter and not an issue to be enforced by the state.

I get so tired of the Evangelicals making the ridiculous claim that the Founders intended this to be "Christian nation". They intended this to be a free nation, where each individual could make their own choices as to what to believe or not to believe.

I find it to be a tired concept as well. However, one thing about the argument that I find interesting is that those who say the Founders who intended it to be a "Christian nation" use the references to "God" and "Creator" in the Constitution and and Declaration and other writings as a basis for their argument. However, these terms are rather amorphous and not specifically indicative of a Christian ideology at all. Don't all major religions in the world use terms like these? Christians mainly use these references to frame a "religious vs. secular" argument, but fail to see that it has no bearing on a "Christian vs. other religion" argument.

As such, there is not enough evidence in the Founder's documents to say that they ever specified any one religion. At least, in as much as there are no laws dictating which religion(s) can and/or must be followed by the majority of the population of these United States. What if demographic trends in this country were to change, and at some point in this country's future Christianity was no longer the predominant religion? Would Christians, then, still be so quick to embrace the notion of that this is a religious nation, if it is not their religion in the majority? Would they still be willing to let the predominate religion dictate the morality of this nation even if it were Judaism, Hindu, Shinto, Taoist, or...dare I say, even Islam? I would assume that under those circumstances, even Christians would move to endorse the notion of a secular nation over a religious one.

[Kade]

I find it to be a tired concept as well. However, one thing about the argument that I find interesting is that those who say the Founders who intended it to be a "Christian nation" use the references to "God" and "Creator" in the Constitution and and Declaration and other writings as a basis for their argument. However, these terms are rather amorphous and not specifically indicative of a Christian ideology at all. Don't all major religions in the world use terms like these? Christians mainly use these references to frame a "religious vs. secular" argument, but fail to see that it has no bearing on a "Christian vs. other religion" argument.

As such, there is not enough evidence in the Founder's documents to say that they ever specified any one religion. At least, in as much as there are no laws dictating which religion(s) can and/or must be followed by the majority of the population of these United States. What if demographic trends in this country were to change, and at some point in this country's future Christianity was no longer the predominant religion? Would Christians, then, still be so quick to embrace the notion of that this is a religious nation, if it is not their religion in the majority? Would they still be willing to let the predominate religion dictate the morality of this nation even if it were Judaism, Hindu, Shinto, Taoist, or...dare I say, even Islam? I would assume that under those circumstances, even Christians would move to endorse the notion of a secular nation over a religious one.

Although I do believe Jefferson and Madison specifically were extremely clear on the point.

Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was just one of many examples of his thoughts on the matter:

"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom

[Maverick]

Although I do believe Jefferson and Madison specifically were extremely clear on the point.

Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was just one of many examples of his thoughts on the matter:

"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom

Right, and I agree with you. I also believe several of the Founders made it perfectly clear that there was to be no state religion. However, I'm trying to get the idea out there to people that are not very receptive to that notion, but believe that the Founder's mention of a handful of religious terms is an endorsement of religion. So then, even looking at it in those terms (whether they be correct or incorrect) I want to make the point that they never restricted it to any specific religion, thereby opening the door for my scenario to occur.

[nexalacer]

Or in other words, is not the handing over of these powers to one authority whose power was delegated by the people a better option then to allow the uncontrolled battle of vying entities for power.

Sorry, your first response was difficult for me to understand, so I decided to go with this response to reply to! If I'm missing any of your major points by doing this, please let me know. Also, I want to try to avoid the word entities as it is very vague. I'll use individuals and groups of individuals instead. I know it's a little wordy, but bear with me please!

By "these powers," what do you mean exactly? What powers do the individuals have that they are handing over to the authority?

When you say delegated by the people, do you mean the majority of the people or each individual?

In a society where no one had a monopoly on the use of force, and every individual had the right of self-defense, including voluntarily hiring another individual or group of individuals as their defender, what individuals or groups of individuals would you expect to see in an uncontrolled battle vying for power?

Thanks!

[Kade]

Sorry, your first response was difficult for me to understand, so I decided to go with this response to reply to! If I'm missing any of your major points by doing this, please let me know. Also, I want to try to avoid the word entities as it is very vague. I'll use individuals and groups of individuals instead. I know it's a little wordy, but bear with me please!

By "these powers," what do you mean exactly? What powers do the individuals have that they are handing over to the authority?

When you say delegated by the people, do you mean the majority of the people or each individual?

In a society where no one had a monopoly on the use of force, and every individual had the right of self-defense, including voluntarily hiring another individual or group of individuals as their defender, what individuals or groups of individuals would you expect to see in an uncontrolled battle vying for power?

Thanks!

I'll answer the most important:

"In a society where no one had a monopoly on the use of force, and every individual had the right of self-defense, including voluntarily hiring another individual or group of individuals as their defender, what individuals or groups of individuals would you expect to see in an uncontrolled battle vying for power?"

I would expect to see large groups of juvenile males vying for sexual reproductive rights. I would expect to see large groups of religious fanatics securing power in central locations. I would expect to see feudal environments where large groups of collectivized manufacturers and service industries came together to form impenetrable buying power and selling power over entire societies. I expect religious, sexual, and resource monopolies.

This of course is only my understanding of human nature and history.

[cjhowe]

It matters not whether the Founders intent on the issue of religion and government was that of deists and your freedoms were granted to you by "the Creator" or if they were Christian and your freedoms are gifted to you through Christ and free will or if they were secularists and your freedoms exists simply because you exist. What matters is that we agree to respect each other's most personal beliefs. What matters is that we agree that government, an entity created by man, does not claim to speak for those personal beliefs and does not exist to promote those personal beliefs. Governments are created for one purpose: to secure rights.

These issues come about and divide people because man looks at his creation of government and sees not the finished product of a tool constructed out of necessity but rather man sits in awe of his creation and allows his imagination to run rampant on the possibilities. Not realizing that the pursuit of each of these possibilities comes at the expense of the individual to determine his own destiny.

[nexalacer]

I'll answer the most important:

"In a society where no one had a monopoly on the use of force, and every individual had the right of self-defense, including voluntarily hiring another individual or group of individuals as their defender, what individuals or groups of individuals would you expect to see in an uncontrolled battle vying for power?"

I would expect to see large groups of juvenile males vying for sexual reproductive rights. I would expect to see large groups of religious fanatics securing power in central locations. I would expect to see feudal environments where large groups of collectivized manufacturers and service industries came together to form impenetrable buying power and selling power over entire societies. I expect religious, sexual, and resource monopolies.

This of course is only my understanding of human nature and history.

First, what incentive would manufacturers and service industries have to collectivize? What would ensure that everyone would stick to the collectivization agreement if there was no monopoly on force?

Second, since the reformation, in Christianity, we've seen more and more splintering of the different sects. We can also see a variety of belief structures within religions in all other major religions, including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Do you expect this trend to continue? If not, why not? If so, how would the groups ever gain enough wealth to secure any sort of centralized power?

Third, how would the juveniles gain the resources required to become roving bands of sexual predators? Why would the other individuals in a society that has rejected the initiation of force stand by and do nothing if such groups came about?

Finally, history has been the story of the fantasies of the government and of gods. With that in mind, how do you define human nature? How do you think this definition has been influenced by these two fantastical entities that are forced onto children from a very young age?

Thanks again!

[Kade]

First, what incentive would manufacturers and service industries have to collectivize? What would ensure that everyone would stick to the collectivization agreement if there was no monopoly on force?

Second, since the reformation, in Christianity, we've seen more and more splintering of the different sects. We can also see a variety of belief structures within religions in all other major religions, including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Do you expect this trend to continue? If not, why not? If so, how would the groups ever gain enough wealth to secure any sort of centralized power?

Third, how would the juveniles gain the resources required to become roving bands of sexual predators? Why would the other individuals in a society that has rejected the initiation of force stand by and do nothing if such groups came about?

Finally, history has been the story of the fantasies of the government and of gods. With that in mind, how do you define human nature? How do you think this definition has been influenced by these two fantastical entities that are forced onto children from a very young age?

Thanks again!

1: Because the acquisition of power is unchecked. All organizations that desire growth, money, resources, and power will only be kept in check by competition. If the competition is eliminated....

2. Go to a stadium event like Battlecry and you tell me.

3. They steal them.

4. Human nature is animal nature with fancy clothes. We can observe what happens without leadership by observing our closest relatives. When the alpha male of a Gorilla troop dies or is killed, there is war, mass destruction of life, and destruction of resources until a new leader emerges and the balance is reset.
I don't know what humans many look like, but I imagine that to the strongest go the spoils, and the desire for power will drive a competition to usurp power from others. I don't trust humanity, and therefore I can't ultimately trust anarchy.

[Ron Paul of Tarsus]

From the OP's use of wallbuilders to all of the Christian and Atheist bashing in this thread, I am almost ashamed to call myself a fellow Ron Paul supporter. We're all in this together guys. Keep the real opponents in our sights (figuratively!) instead of each other. We can have an honest and civil discussion about these issues can we not? This thread looks like your typical establishment political discourse with tired talking points being fired back and forth with no real discussion taking place. People are talking AT each other instead of WITH each other. We can disagree. It's ok. There is no need to get defensive or make personal attacks over disagreements on issues. Let's rise above the typical political discourse and have some good discussions in the spirit of the "LOVE" in Revolution. Please?

[nexalacer]

1: Because the acquisition of power is unchecked. All organizations that desire growth, money, resources, and power will only be kept in check by competition. If the competition is eliminated....

I'm a little confused by these highlighted sections. I see a contradiction, so maybe you could clear it up for me. The acquisition of power will be kept in check by competition, yet in a stateless society, you say the acquisition of power is unchecked. If there is no organization that already has the power to remove competition, i.e. the state, then how would competition be eliminated? I'm not aware of a single instance in history where competition was eliminated by any entity other than the state, but if there is one that you're aware of, I'd love to know about it!


2. Go to a stadium event like Battlecry and you tell me.

I'm not sure what Battlecry is, nor do I think I'll ever go, so I have to ask for you to explain what you mean by this. The question is, if history has shown a constant breakup of religious groups into smaller and smaller sects when there is freedom of religion, in a state of absolute freedom that would exist with the stateless society, how would groups ever gain enough money or resources to secure any sort of centralized power?


3. They steal them.

This doesn't answer the second question. Why would a society that is based on the idea that the initiation of force is morally wrong allow this theft to happen?

Keep in mind, the nonacceptance of the initiation of force does not mean there would be an abolition of the right of self-defense. The property owners in a stateless society would be more involved in the protection of their own property because there would not be the tax-enforced safety net of the incompetent boys in blue. Private security solutions would be a very profitable industry in a stateless society, so surly where there is profit, there would be solutions.

Also, I wonder how effective a group of horny teenagers would be at cat burglary or security infiltration if their only incentive was to become a roving band of rapists. I was pretty damn horny as a teenager, and I'm quite sure the idea of getting together with my fellow horny friends, robbing liquor stores in order to pay for weapons, and roaming around looking for vulnerable girls to rape never occurred to me. How about you or anyone you know?


4. Human nature is animal nature with fancy clothes. We can observe what happens without leadership by observing our closest relatives. When the alpha male of a Gorilla troop dies or is killed, there is war, mass destruction of life, and destruction of resources until a new leader emerges and the balance is reset.
I don't know what humans many look like, but I imagine that to the strongest go the spoils, and the desire for power will drive a competition to usurp power from others. I don't trust humanity, and therefore I can't ultimately trust anarchy.

There are fancy clothes, of course, but what was the cause of the fancy clothes? Perhaps that answers an important question about the fundamental difference between human nature and animal nature.

Also, Gorillas are not the best example of our closest relatives, the best examples would be Chimpanzees and Bonobos. The former, our little Chimp buddies, have been observed in the wild fighting in a way that some anthropologists have called "war," however, I'm quite sure they haven't developed any metal, projectile, or collateral-damage-type weapons, so I'm not so sure if the comparison is valid. Can we honestly compare Chimpanzee war, which kills only a handful of individuals until the balance of power is restored, and human war caused by governments, which in the 20th century alone was responsible for approximately 250 million deaths?

Also, our other little friends, the Bonobos, have actually never been observed to have anything like Chimpanzee "war" in the wild, IIRC. One point that really stuck with me when studying primates in anthropology was that Bonobos are beginning to be considered more like humans for a couple of reasons:

Unlike Chimps, they (and Dolphins!) are the only animals ever observed to have sex for pleasure and not just procreation, like humans.
Unlike Chimps, they have been far more successful in the experiments where primates are attempted to be taught some form of language. One Bonobo who was raised with language even appeared to have an internal dialogue, like humans, as he would cover himself with a blanket while using his communication device so the experimenters could not see what he was saying!

If this is animal nature as human nature, I'm not so worried!

But really, the most outstanding thing here is the last sentence. You don't trust humanity, so you're willing to give some individuals a right that other individuals don't have: the right to use force over other individuals without retribution. I think if you don't trust humanity, then the last thing you'd want to do is give one group of humans the power of death over another. Could you help me understand this point of view?

Thanks!