Yesterday, 09:42 PM
Well, it's not just another religious debate. There has never been a discusion like this on the board that I can recall whereas the fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy was discussed appropriately. So often people see religious speak and default to minimizing it of their own accord. Generally, I understand why. But not in this particular discussion. A critical agreement in terms of this primary fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy, I think, must be met. After all, it's the primary fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy. :)
But I'm afraid that I cannot agree with your premise here. Seems like you're offering a worldly perspective to the primary fundamental principle. And that's very dangerous. To be clear, it's your premise that I cannot accept. But that's me personally. As an Individual. I can't accept that the end justifies contratictory means.
Now, I understand why you take this approach. As it is, people are merely people. And easily led most often. But coercion is aggression no matter who participates in its process. Any idea of attempting to do "good" by force (Leave men free to slay and otherwise punish those who trespass upon them...) is contradictory to the primary fundamental principle of American philosophy. There are monumental consequences to where we choose to be led.