The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

[Raz]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

I surmise that you fellows are some sort of theists; I hope I'm not being overly presumptive with that.

As far as I know, all theistic beliefs are based on faith, maybe Moses, Abraham, or Joseph Smith, were they here, would argue differently, but I take it as a fact that all theistic religions are based on faith, and if one can find or develop such faith and benefit in someway from such religions that is fine by me.

However, it is my opinion that some, who are so wrapped up in their beliefs, would translate their faith-based beliefs into the laws of the land so that their (the faith-based believers) exercise of religious freedom is believed to be best for everyone, even those who do not share it, despite such infringement upon the religious (or non-religious) rights of others, are wrong in their desires to impose their beliefs. There is some contradiction in there in believing in religious freedom while wishing to impose one group's beliefs on everyone and believing that this is necessarily the right thing to be done.

Apparently the framers of the US Constitution believed ("held") that their perception of "truths" were "self-evident." That they believed whatever did not and does not in itself make it a fact. It might be their beliefs were generally "good," which I happen to believe they generally were, but nevertheless it was and is still the opinion of what they thought things would best be in the mid-18th century.

The second part Raz, and those long before him, put forth: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." could be/is true if there is a theistic being which I believe in this case was/is the Christian God. But what if the actuality is that there is no god, no superior being? Is the statement then valid? Its sentiments to some degree may be good, but that is a human judgement and not a divine dictum of some sort that a group figured out as the will of the god they chose to believe existed. That it is a written opinion in the Constitution does not make a statement factually valid.

Not all people are in fact "created" equal, which to me means "developed" equally after an woman's egg is successfully attacked by a sperm cell. Those with mongolism are not equal to the normal of human development, nor are those with spina bifida, or craniofacial anomalies, or congential heart defects, or those with anencephaly.

If there is some question of the actuality of a god (and for all intelligent minds there is a question), then things deemed as "unalienable rights" are also subject to question, like it or not.

Do I have a right to life if I go out and start killing others, or raping young or old girls, or blowing up innocent people in a federal building? Of course not. Since this is the "land of liberty" can I rightfully rip off everyone who is a doofus with a Ponzi scheme as did Madoff? Or in this land of liberty if I am elected to high offices by waving the flag for the religious right, is it okay for me to sell my votes and decisions to the bidder giving me the biggest kickback? If my pursuit of happiness if only fulfilled by being a pedophile, is that okay? The Constitution suggests all these are unalienable rights.

That there may be things on which many, even 50.0001% in a democracy agree does not in fact make it right or correct under all circumstances for the other 49.9999%, especially in issues pertaining to religious views.

I don't generally consider myself evil, but perhaps I am just that. One thing I enjoy on the rare ocassion it presents itself, and if my time permits, is to "bait" to some mild degree the 20-ish year old Morman missionaries who ride their bikes up and down my street at times. I've nothing particular against Morman missionaries, it is that they are just the ones most likely to show up. I invite them onto the porch, offer them some ice water, and say "Shoot." When they, usually within minutes, put some Biblical truth on me, I interrupt and ask "How do you know that is a fact." Whatever they answer, it is never anything approaching recognition that their beliefs are based on faith. Last conversation I happened to have about religion was with a man, not a missionary, who happened also to be a Morman. I asked him did he know there was a god? He spat back immediately a positive reply, but was wise enough to consider his answer and replied, "No, I don't know it, but I do believe it."

For theists to make that small step in differentiating "faith" from "actuality" in my opinion is one giant step in getting along with all mankind.

If my surmise, Raz and Vinoveri, that you are theists is wrong I meant no offense and apologize if that is needed.

Jim you are correct in surmising that I'm a theist. Wasn't born one, though. I was an agnostic until the age of thirty (I was really an atheist but didn't want to argue with my family so I allowed the possibility of god's existence, I just pretended that it didn't matter).
No offence taken and no apology is necessary.

When I applied critical thinking to the creation I was forced to conclude that it's not likely that such order as we observe in the universe randomly appeared out of total chaos. Intelligent design made more sense to me than did random evolution. It wasn't what I wanted to believe because it left open the likelihood that the designer was also the creator and therefore had a moral claim against my free will, but after several years of reading and considering the irreducible complexities within nature, it was my conclusion that it was mathematically impossible to explain by random development. Sort of like not believing that Mt. Rushmore was the accidental product of South Dakota climate, only to an exponential degree.

Now I don't believe that random evolution is a settled fact, and it seems to me that an honest evolutionist would admit that there is some degree of faith on his part, however small, in his attestation to the truth of it. Notice that I said random evolution.
There are two creation narratives in Genesis and they most certainly do not say that the earth and our universe were created in six, twenty-four hour days. There is a great deal of imagery in the narratives, and it is clear that since the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, the entire creation did not span a period of 144 hours! Those who believe this should stick to comic books and not read material intended for grownups.

Many atheists and skeptics believe that theists are intellectually simple and/or emotionally weak people who need a "crutch" in order to face the struggles of life, and that belief in god as espoused by most monotheists is the product of blind faith. Perhaps for some it is, but for me it is a reasonable faith. And it was for men like Blaise Pascal as well. My objections were more volitional that intellectual.

I agree that there have been terrible episodes of religious people forcing their beliefs on an entire population. That's something I can't quite understand since it would seem to me that a "forced conversion" is not blind or reasonable, but entirely worthless, and likely to create a most counterproductive blowback. Yet to me at least, it seems that in our present society it's a matter of near scorn for people to hold a traditionalist or orthodox view about the Christian faith. And the media doesn’t bombard us with the terrible periods in human history where atheists forced their religion of dialectic materialism onto whole populations, bringing about mass murders that would make Thomas Torquemada look like a Cub Scout.

All law is the attempt to force someone's morality on a given population. I believe that the best basis for law is the Judeo-Christian foundation, but it must be adopted by the majority of the population, while allowing freedom of religion and maintaining the rights of the minority within that population - pretty much what Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Washington had in mind. That's the reason I am unalterably opposed to an activist judiciary, because it attempts to supercede the legislative function and force rulings upon society that can eventuate in judicial tyranny.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

[COLOR=navy][FONT=Verdana]When I applied critical thinking to the creation I was forced to conclude that it's not likely that such order as we observe in the universe randomly appeared out of total chaos.

Raz - you might enjoy Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion, by Stuart Kauffman.

It develops a sensible explanation for how life could have arisen. He seems well informed in a variety of areas of mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. At least in the areas of mathematics where his exposition overlapped my training, he had a deep and accurate understanding, presented with deceptive ease and clarity.

I was raised as an Episcopalian, before spending many decades as an atheist of sorts (though I denounce the antics of the more outspoken atheists of the day.) I was convinced there was no Creative God, convinced there was a Moral Order to the universe, and convinced I had no particular clue how that came to be.

I never found either Intelligent Design or ordinary random creation to be worth more than a few minutes consideration. Neither appealed to me.

The first serious philosophy book I read (a half century ago now) was Spinoza's Ethics. I read the entire book cover to cover, almost unable to put it down. To this day, I couldn't coherently explain what he said. Something he was saying made sense to the (rather large) portion of my mind that is non-lingual.

Kauffman follows in the footsteps of Spinoza, though in a modern day presentation that displays a wide grasp of many disciplines and without the ancient Geometric Theorem form of Spinoza, translated from Latin.

The only other philosopher I've found in this vein was Susanne K. Langer, author of Mind: An Essay on Human Feeling. This work is her three volume magnum opus. Only the third and final volume seems to be still in print. She started her career as a mathematician at Harvard in the 1930's.

I am only half-way through Kauffman at this moment (guess I spend too much time on iTulip ;).) So I can only personally vouch for half the book.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

Jim you are correct in surmising that I'm a theist. Wasn't born one, though. I was an agnostic until the age of thirty (I was really an atheist but didn't want to argue with my family so I allowed the possibility of god's existence, I just pretended that it didn't matter).
No offence taken and no apology is necessary.

When I applied critical thinking to the creation I was forced to conclude that it's not likely that such order as we observe in the universe randomly appeared out of total chaos. Intelligent design made more sense to me than did random evolution. It wasn't what I wanted to believe because it left open the likelihood that the designer was also the creator and therefore had a moral claim against my free will, but after several years of reading and considering the irreducible complexities within nature, it was my conclusion that it was mathematically impossible to explain by random development. Sort of like not believing that Mt. Rushmore was the accidental product of South Dakota climate, only to an exponential degree.

Now I don't believe that random evolution is a settled fact, and it seems to me that an honest evolutionist would admit that there is some degree of faith on his part, however small, in his attestation to the truth of it. Notice that I said random evolution.
There are two creation narratives in Genesis and they most certainly do not say that the earth and our universe were created in six, twenty-four hour days. There is a great deal of imagery in the narratives, and it is clear that since the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, the entire creation did not span a period of 144 hours! Those who believe this should stick to comic books and not read material intended for grownups.

Many atheists and skeptics believe that theists are intellectually simple and/or emotionally weak people who need a "crutch" in order to face the struggles of life, and that belief in god as espoused by most monotheists is the product of blind faith. Perhaps for some it is, but for me it is a reasonable faith. And it was for men like Blaise Pascal as well. My objections were more volitional that intellectual.

I agree that there have been terrible episodes of religious people forcing their beliefs on an entire population. That's something I can't quite understand since it would seem to me that a "forced conversion" is not blind or reasonable, but entirely worthless, and likely to create a most counterproductive blowback. Yet to me at least, it seems that in our present society it's a matter of near scorn for people to hold a traditionalist or orthodox view about the Christian faith. And the media doesn’t bombard us with the terrible periods in human history where atheists forced their religion of dialectic materialism onto whole populations, bringing about mass murders that would make Thomas Torquemada look like a Cub Scout.

All law is the attempt to force someone's morality on a given population. I believe that the best basis for law is the Judeo-Christian foundation, but it must be adopted by the majority of the population, while allowing freedom of religion and maintaining the rights of the minority within that population - pretty much what Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Washington had in mind. That's the reason I am unalterably opposed to an activist judiciary, because it attempts to supercede the legislative function and force rulings upon society that can eventuate in judicial tyranny.

Decent reply IMO, Raz. My strongest thought, which was observed by someone along time before I was ever thought about, is that theistic religions are the result of fear and ignorance or vice versa. On most days if I think about that, I have no problem in accepting it. Interestingly, here on iTulip, ye old Lukester, somewhere put forth a rather good essay on agnosticism, which I found hard to reject whatever were all his points. I suppose it boiled down to the fact that no one truly knows if there are any supreme beings some call gods; so the most intellectually honest admission I believe he argued very well was we should all admit to being agnostics. In geological time, we'll all find out soon enough just what is correct, or we won't.

There is possibly a bit more credibility to anyone who comes to accepting a theistic religion at a time well past their formative years, those years being when so many kids in this world are "brain-washed" as I choose to look upon their indoctrination into most religions. But coming to it in later life, as you know, doesn't make it any more a sure thing, than if one was spoon fed it from the beginning of one's bedtime prayer lessons.

I no longer remember if "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" came from the Bible, but I suppose it must have. Regardless of where it came from, it to me expresses a sentiment with which it is impossible to argue as regards coexistence of us all on this planet. I would suppose something similar exists in Islam and the Koran. Sort of like a "universal code," but maybe it isn't part of the Koran.

I do not agree that all laws are attempts to enforce one group's sense of morality on everyone. Whether getting drunk is immoral or not, I won't engage the argument, but to get drunk and to drive and to kill someone because of the drunkeness is wrong--if one believes that people have equal rights and one of those rights is not to be killed by some drunk or other useless self-indulgent behavior. Heard last night something to the effect, people (idiots) texting while driving are more dangerous than drunk drivers.

Speeding in a school zone does not qualify as codifying some group's sense of morality when laws are passed to prohibit it and punish it for failure to be observed, or to me it does not appear as such, and I'd welcome an enlightened argument.

I hope I was not unclear in writing my opinion about groups who would in a blink impose their sense of morality on the whole population, that it seemed I was arguing against a group trying to impose its religion on an entire population. The latter ain't gonna happen except as some facade as it might have been of atheism being the "religion" of the USSR. But it is clear to me with the issues of abortion, euthanasia, illicit mind altering drugs, and stem cell research, that the Christian coalition, or whatever it is best called, would in a millisecond force its opinion on these issues to become the law of this land. That I am against making abortion unlawful, am for making currently illicit drugs lawful, am for making euthanasia lawful and stem cell research lawful, does not mean that I believe every pregnant woman/girl should have to have an abortion if they are not married, that our world would be a better place if most people are "stoned," that all old folks and those with terrible lethal diseases of all ages should be put out of their misery, or that if one who is against whatever develops from stem cell research would have to subject themselves to some therapy if so derived. These to me are all issues of choice, that should not be controlled in whether or not they exist as choices by some group which apparently thinks it has a strangle-hold on what might be right or wrong. EDIT: homosexuals should have the same marriage rights as boys and girls. If marriage is some sort of a "sacred" institution, divorce rates suggest not much is "sacred." People can enter into civil marriages that have nothing to do with sacrements.

The world and the US were vastly different places when those constitution guys were thinking about what was good or bad with regard to a constitution. Could they for a moment have imagined today, just as can we today imagine what might exist 240 years from now if we have not succeeded in wiping out human life by then? I am a believer in laws and their enforcement, but over time some laws do and have become outmoded. The biggest problem with laws is in their failure to achieve the apparent desired end point either because of disregard or failure to be enforced.

Laws will continue to evolve because new ways by which some individuals will arrive at impinging on the rights of others will evolve. Just as last night, I watched a few minutes of Bill O'Reilly and they debated whether or not two senators, Dodd and one from the Dakotas, had broken any laws with accepting mortgage deals, which they apparently knew were political favors, from Countrywide Financial. (Don't normally watch O'Reilly unless I ate some bad chitlin's I need to purge).

If you care to do so, give me two examples of an activist judicary attempting "to supercede the legislative function and force rulings upon society that can eventuate in judicial tyranny," and don't ask me to provide two laws that have become outmoded because I'll have to google it, and I am not a good googler.

[Sharky]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

Violence is a fact of life and human nature. It has always been with us. The idea of eliminating violence is merely utopian. The real issue is how to limit or control violence so that it does not dominate social interaction. The theory is that you give government a monopoly on violence, then try to control government by non-violent means. Neat trick!

If government has a monopoly on violence, then where do you think people who are predisposed to violence will want to be? The idea that government can, over the long term, protect its citizens from violence through the use of violence is an illusion. Anyone who has been around kids should know that; you can't teach a kid to be non-violent by responding to violence with more violence.

I'm fine with user pays tax.

I just think that trusting free markets is too abstract, proponents are always saying if only the markets were more free everything would be great; but its the desire for wealth that means the markets are never going to be free.

Why do you think that a desire for wealth is incompatible with free markets? Are you saying that the only way to become wealthy is through fraud and other forms of violence? If so, I strongly disagree. In fact, the wealthiest people I know are also among the most honest, kind and charitable.

A true free market is really the ultimate democracy, where every financial action you take is a form of voting. Modern society is simply too complex to control centrally.

The real problems with would-be-free markets happen when business colludes with government. It is government's imposition of things like taxes, penalties, fees, monopolies, regulatory barriers to entry, etc, that destroy competition and freedom of choice -- not a desire for wealth.

[c1ue]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

The real problems with would-be-free markets happen when business colludes with government. It is government's imposition of things like taxes, penalties, fees, monopolies, regulatory barriers to entry, etc, that destroy competition and freedom of choice -- not a desire for wealth.

The real problems with would-be-free markets are the desires of monopolists becoming reality.

If I were to invent a serum that guaranteed 10 extra years of life to any living person, patented it, then charged $1M/dose, is that altruism, good business, or a desire for wealth?

Or a real world example: Microsoft - that tollbooth on to the Computer Age. They collude so strongly with government on their monopoly, and their actions are surely not a mere 'desire for wealth'.

Saying that capitalism/greed is good is exactly a '4 legs good/2 legs bad' type of argument.

Greed balanced by more or less equal players is acceptable; greed in a monopolist is not.

Government can hinder or advance the monopolist's agenda but is not itself inherently one or the other.

[Willette]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

Sharky wrote:

The idea that government can, over the long term, protect its citizens from violence through the use of violence is an illusion.

Maybe you prefer vendetta and clan warfare as a means to avenge wrongs committed? It's not about teaching anyone to "be non violent", as you put it. As I said, a propensity to violence is inherent in human nature, as witness the whole of history. Nonviolence is a chimera, a utopian fantasy. But violent behavior can be suppressed - that is the best we can do here on earth. I'm saying it's better for the state to enforce agreed upon law with the ultimate sanction of violence, than for every person or family to settle their own scores.

[Raz]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

Decent reply IMO, Raz. My strongest thought, which was observed by someone along time before I was ever thought about, is that theistic religions are the result of fear and ignorance or vice versa. On most days if I think about that, I have no problem in accepting it. Interestingly, here on iTulip, ye old Lukester, somewhere put forth a rather good essay on agnosticism, which I found hard to reject whatever were all his points. I suppose it boiled down to the fact that no one truly knows if there are any supreme beings some call gods; so the most intellectually honest admission I believe he argued very well was we should all admit to being agnostics. In geological time, we'll all find out soon enough just what is correct, or we won't.

There is possibly a bit more credibility to anyone who comes to accepting a theistic religion at a time well past their formative years, those years being when so many kids in this world are "brain-washed" as I choose to look upon their indoctrination into most religions. But coming to it in later life, as you know, doesn't make it any more a sure thing, than if one was spoon fed it from the beginning of one's bedtime prayer lessons.

I no longer remember if "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" came from the Bible, but I suppose it must have. Regardless of where it came from, it to me expresses a sentiment with which it is impossible to argue as regards coexistence of us all on this planet. I would suppose something similar exists in Islam and the Koran. Sort of like a "universal code," but maybe it isn't part of the Koran.

I do not agree that all laws are attempts to enforce one group's sense of morality on everyone. Whether getting drunk is immoral or not, I won't engage the argument, but to get drunk and to drive and to kill someone because of the drunkeness is wrong--if one believes that people have equal rights and one of those rights is not to be killed by some drunk or other useless self-indulgent behavior. Heard last night something to the effect, people (idiots) texting while driving are more dangerous than drunk drivers.

Speeding in a school zone does not qualify as codifying some group's sense of morality when laws are passed to prohibit it and punish it for failure to be observed, or to me it does not appear as such, and I'd welcome an enlightened argument.

I hope I was not unclear in writing my opinion about groups who would in a blink impose their sense of morality on the whole population, that it seemed I was arguing against a group trying to impose its religion on an entire population. The latter ain't gonna happen except as some facade as it might have been of atheism being the "religion" of the USSR. But it is clear to me with the issues of abortion, euthanasia, illicit mind altering drugs, and stem cell research, that the Christian coalition, or whatever it is best called, would in a millisecond force its opinion on these issues to become the law of this land. That I am against making abortion unlawful, am for making currently illicit drugs lawful, am for making euthanasia lawful and stem cell research lawful, does not mean that I believe every pregnant woman/girl should have to have an abortion if they are not married, that our world would be a better place if most people are "stoned," that all old folks and those with terrible lethal diseases of all ages should be put out of their misery, or that if one who is against whatever develops from stem cell research would have to subject themselves to some therapy if so derived. These to me are all issues of choice, that should not be controlled in whether or not they exist as choices by some group which apparently thinks it has a strangle-hold on what might be right or wrong. EDIT: homosexuals should have the same marriage rights as boys and girls. If marriage is some sort of a "sacred" institution, divorce rates suggest not much is "sacred." People can enter into civil marriages that have nothing to do with sacrements.

The world and the US were vastly different places when those constitution guys were thinking about what was good or bad with regard to a constitution. Could they for a moment have imagined today, just as can we today imagine what might exist 240 years from now if we have not succeeded in wiping out human life by then? I am a believer in laws and their enforcement, but over time some laws do and have become outmoded. The biggest problem with laws is in their failure to achieve the apparent desired end point either because of disregard or failure to be enforced.

Laws will continue to evolve because new ways by which some individuals will arrive at impinging on the rights of others will evolve. Just as last night, I watched a few minutes of Bill O'Reilly and they debated whether or not two senators, Dodd and one from the Dakotas, had broken any laws with accepting mortgage deals, which they apparently knew were political favors, from Countrywide Financial. (Don't normally watch O'Reilly unless I ate some bad chitlin's I need to purge).

If you care to do so, give me two examples of an activist judicary attempting "to supercede the legislative function and force rulings upon society that can eventuate in judicial tyranny," and don't ask me to provide two laws that have become outmoded because I'll have to google it, and I am not a good googler.

Well, Jim,you certainly covered a lot of ground. I spent almost fifteen minutes reading and rereading your thoughts before I realized that in the very first paragraph you clearly insulted me: "My strongest thought, which was observed by someone along time before I was ever thought about, is that theistic religions are the result of fear and ignorance or vice versa. On most days if I think about that, I have no problem in accepting it."


So I'm either fearful or ignorant, or in the alternative, I'm ignorant and fearful due to the fact that I adhere to Orthodox Christianity?
I also find it mind-boggling that you don't believe that all law is based upon someone or some group's idea of right and wrong. I suppose that if one agrees with Nietzsche - that law eminates from the will to power - then any sense of moral behavior has little to do with it. But even that tortured soul once wrote: "I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.)" Unfortunately he cut himself off from that One who is the only source of peace.

There's really no point in you and I continuing such a conversation so I'll cut to the chase: I partially or totally disagree with every thought you expressed, the only exceptions being your view of the Golden Rule (St. Matthew 7:12) as an excellent basis for peaceful coexistence within a given society, and that of the Christian Coalition and their desire to force a biblical moral code into our system of law. You are likely correct in that assumption as well.

Thankfully we live in a country where at present we are both entitled to our opinions and are free to express them publicly, for how much longer I don't know, considering the infiltration of political correctness and the advent of "hate crimes" where people are not simply punished for their illegal acts, but for "illegal thoughts" as well.

But if given only these two bad choices: the Christian Coalition’s morality or Jim Nickerson’s amoral utilitarianism, I would hold my nose, and with some trepidation, go with theirs.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

Well, Jim,you certainly covered a lot of ground. I spent almost fifteen minutes reading and rereading your thoughts before I realized that in the very first paragraph you clearly insulted me: "My strongest thought, which was observed by someone along time before I was ever thought about, is that theistic religions are the result of fear and ignorance or vice versa. On most days if I think about that, I have no problem in accepting it."


So I'm either fearful or ignorant, or in the alternative, I'm ignorant and fearful due to the fact that I adhere to Orthodox Christianity?
I also find it mind-boggling that you don't believe that all law is based upon someone or some group's idea of right and wrong. I suppose that if one agrees with Nietzsche - that law eminates from the will to power - then any sense of moral behavior has little to do with it. But even that tortured soul once wrote: "I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.)" Unfortunately he cut himself off from that One who is the only source of peace.

There's really no point in you and I continuing such a conversation so I'll cut to the chase: I partially or totally disagree with every thought you expressed, the only exceptions being your view of the Golden Rule (St. Matthew 7:12) as an excellent basis for peaceful coexistence within a given society, and that of the Christian Coalition and their desire to force a biblical moral code into our system of law. You are likely correct in that assumption as well.

Thankfully we live in a country where at present we are both entitled to our opinions and are free to express them publicly, for how much longer I don't know, considering the infiltration of political correctness and the advent of "hate crimes" where people are not simply punished for their illegal acts, but for "illegal thoughts" as well.

But if given only these two bad choices: the Christian Coalition’s morality or Jim Nickerson’s amoral utilitarianism, I would hold my nose, and with some trepidation, go with theirs.

Raz, my reiteration with regard to gods and fear and ignorance is just my assessment of it as it has been of no telling how many others, i.e. certainly not even close to an original thought by me, and on most every single day what I think doesn't count much if at all in the world. I did not express my opinion to offend or to insult you or anyone else.

In having thought about it, for my own purposes of thought and not to assail anyone, I suppose there are at least three or four "types" of Christians (as I have thought about Americans mostly, which I assume is mostly Christian at least when it comes to making admissions by ticking off boxes on surveys).

One is a group in which I would ascribe ignorance has been brought up with only the indoctrination that there is God, the Christian one, and that is it. No alternative consideration was ever introduced and this group never develops any reason to doubt what their elders taught them in their formative years, and they have no difficulty in most places in this country of finding seemingly like minded people in all the various churches for ongoing reinforcement of their beliefs. I would think perhaps most in this group doesn't understand the word "faith" in its formal sense. I surmise it is members of this group who wish anything to do with Darwinian biological thought to be removed from school curricula and want "Creationism" (if that is the correct word) installed or at least taught as an alternative. When I was in the eighth grade, a classmate asked me if I believed in God (the Christian one was the only one I ever heard mentioned up til then)? He said he didn't, and that was definitely the most incredulous thing I ever encountered up to that point in my life. At one time in my life I was in this ignorance group.

Another group may be one in which something(s) bad occurred in their life and they were to their thinking bailed out of what they perceived as an inescapable predicament(s) by something (a god? or just as well luck?). Some, I believe, think it was devine intervention. Ask veterans who have lived through fire-fights, mortar and rocket attacks, plane crashes when others didn't, and it is easy for me to see where one could readily believe that something in way of devine intervention is the only reason they remained alive. Fear in a situation, and a favorable outcome for the individual could make one believe there must be a god and on the side of the individual to boot. Several times in my life I have been in this group.

A third group as I assess things are people who are capable of recognizing their existence up to some point has been truly miserable, and somehow or someone put them into contact with a religious group where no doubt support from it enables the person "by acceptance of God" to move on to a lifestyle they find less contemptible to themselves and perhaps to others, so afterwards they go forward on what, to outward observers, appears to be a better tract, and maybe it is. Nothing wrong with living a better life in a moral sense however one gets to that point. Question is could the person never have achieved the same outcome otherwise, and to me the answer has to be yes, but maybe the human support was the difference, but it could come from AA type groups as well and no doubt other groups. No way to know if such a change might have been the hand of a god--back to the truth of agnosticism.

A fourth group I believe gets into theistic religion in one of above ways of possibilities, but questions whether or not there really is a god. For social, business, political, marital and possibly other reasons finds it easier to live under the guise of being a Christian than it would be not to do so. If you ask them casually do you believe in God, they would always answer yes, and certainly if asked by a congregation member would reply affirmatively, but they aren't convinced and take an easy path and say Yes.

Another group is as atheistic as hell and probably mostly dishonest according to any set of morals, but nevertheless professes to be a Christian or a member of some other theistic group. My bias is a lot of politicians are in this group simply as a vote-getting ploy. Their main gain from claiming a religious affiliation is to aid them in duping observers.

So perhaps not all people who profess acceptance of a theistic religion do so because of fear or ignorance, but for other reasons which if such reasons were to meet the light of day would fall short of an absolute belief in a supreme being.

I want to emphasize my opinion that there is nothing wrong with religion as it exists between an individual and whatever he perceives as his supreme being. I think there is plenty wrong with organized religion when it feels mandated to promote its belief onto the rest of the world, or an many of them as it can reach. It is this latter aspect, as I perceive things in the US, that I find untenable as it regards making laws for over 300M people of different or no religious beliefs.

I feel I gave you two commom simple examples of laws the ultility of which have nothing to do that I can imagine with morality as I see it. Getting drunk may or may not be immoral, but getting drunk and running over and killing an innocent bystander is wrong with regard to that person's rights. A law against drunk driving and punishment if caught doing it is a law against infringement upon the well being of others, but such a rule would only develop in a society that assumes and enforces a responsibility for its members, which for the most part it seems to me is the basis of the laws of the US, until you get into abortion, drug legalization, euthanasia, stem cell research, or the rights of those who are homosexuals.

Raz, I think you overstep clear thinking with considering my opinions as amoral (which I took not to mean being neither moral or immoral); remember, judge not that you be not judged, or has that become passe?

Would have liked some examples on judicial tyranny, and I appreciate your thinking.

[Raz]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

Raz, my reiteration with regard to gods and fear and ignorance is just my assessment of it as it has been of no telling how many others, i.e. certainly not even close to an original thought by me, and on most every single day what I think doesn't count much if at all in the world. I did not express my opinion to offend or to insult you or anyone else.

In having thought about it, for my own purposes of thought and not to assail anyone, I suppose there are at least three or four "types" of Christians (as I have thought about Americans mostly, which I assume is mostly Christian at least when it comes to making admissions by ticking off boxes on surveys).

One is a group in which I would ascribe ignorance has been brought up with only the indoctrination that there is God, the Christian one, and that is it. No alternative consideration was ever introduced and this group never develops any reason to doubt what their elders taught them in their formative years, and they have no difficulty in most places in this country of finding seemingly like minded people in all the various churches for ongoing reinforcement of their beliefs. I would think perhaps most in this group doesn't understand the word "faith" in its formal sense. I surmise it is members of this group who wish anything to do with Darwinian biological thought to be removed from school curricula and want "Creationism" (if that is the correct word) installed or at least taught as an alternative. When I was in the eighth grade, a classmate asked me if I believed in God (the Christian one was the only one I ever heard mentioned up til then)? He said he didn't, and that was definitely the most incredulous thing I ever encountered up to that point in my life. At one time in my life I was in this ignorance group.

Another group may be one in which something(s) bad occurred in their life and they were to their thinking bailed out of what they perceived as an inescapable predicament(s) by something (a god? or just as well luck?). Some, I believe, think it was devine intervention. Ask veterans who have lived through fire-fights, mortar and rocket attacks, plane crashes when others didn't, and it is easy for me to see where one could readily believe that something in way of devine intervention is the only reason they remained alive. Fear in a situation, and a favorable outcome for the individual could make one believe there must be a god and on the side of the individual to boot. Several times in my life I have been in this group.

A third group as I assess things are people who are capable of recognizing their existence up to some point has been truly miserable, and somehow or someone put them into contact with a religious group where no doubt support from it enables the person "by acceptance of God" to move on to a lifestyle they find less contemptible to themselves and perhaps to others, so afterwards they go forward on what, to outward observers, appears to be a better tract, and maybe it is. Nothing wrong with living a better life in a moral sense however one gets to that point. Question is could the person never have achieved the same outcome otherwise, and to me the answer has to be yes, but maybe the human support was the difference, but it could come from AA type groups as well and no doubt other groups. No way to know if such a change might have been the hand of a god--back to the truth of agnosticism.

A fourth group I believe gets into theistic religion in one of above ways of possibilities, but questions whether or not there really is a god. For social, business, political, marital and possibly other reasons finds it easier to live under the guise of being a Christian than it would be not to do so. If you ask them casually do you believe in God, they would always answer yes, and certainly if asked by a congregation member would reply affirmatively, but they aren't convinced and take an easy path and say Yes.

Another group is as atheistic as hell and probably mostly dishonest according to any set of morals, but nevertheless professes to be a Christian or a member of some other theistic group. My bias is a lot of politicians are in this group simply as a vote-getting ploy. Their main gain from claiming a religious affiliation is to aid them in duping observers.

So perhaps not all people who profess acceptance of a theistic religion do so because of fear or ignorance, but for other reasons which if such reasons were to meet the light of day would fall short of an absolute belief in a supreme being.

I want to emphasize my opinion that there is nothing wrong with religion as it exists between an individual and whatever he perceives as his supreme being. I think there is plenty wrong with organized religion when it feels mandated to promote its belief onto the rest of the world, or an many of them as it can reach. It is this latter aspect, as I perceive things in the US, that I find untenable as it regards making laws for over 300M people of different or no religious beliefs.

I feel I gave you two commom simple examples of laws the ultility of which have nothing to do that I can imagine with morality as I see it. Getting drunk may or may not be immoral, but getting drunk and running over and killing an innocent bystander is wrong with regard to that person's rights. A law against drunk driving and punishment if caught doing it is a law against infringement upon the well being of others, but such a rule would only develop in a society that assumes and enforces a responsibility for its members, which for the most part it seems to me is the basis of the laws of the US, until you get into abortion, drug legalization, euthanasia, stem cell research, or the rights of those who are homosexuals.

Raz, I think you overstep clear thinking with considering my opinions as amoral (which I took not to mean being neither moral or immoral); remember, judge not that you be not judged, or has that become passe?

Would have liked some examples on judicial tyranny, and I appreciate your thinking.

Jim, I read your post and the four groups or types of Christians as you see it. I fail to see how I fit into any of those four. Perhaps you could design another category in which to place me? If so, let's do it under "Political Abyss" on the Rant and Rave forum where this discussion belongs.

And yes, I will point out two cases where judges have "made" law and clearly usurped the Legislative function of our government.

You start the Thread - and I'll follow.

[Sharky]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

The real problems with would-be-free markets are the desires of monopolists becoming reality.

The legal/non-violent/non-fraudulent desires of monopolists can only be evil if the monopolies are coercive. A non-coercive monopoly actually tends to benefit people in the form of things like lower prices. A coercive monopoly is one where you don't have a choice. They can *only* exist with the approval and backing of government, not in a truly free market. Utility companies are an example.

With a non-coercive monopoly, people are free to compete. If they do, and can produce a better product, then they survive and prosper. If they can't, then who (besides the potential competitor) is damaged? No one.

If I were to invent a serum that guaranteed 10 extra years of life to any living person, patented it, then charged $1M/dose, is that altruism, good business, or a desire for wealth?

Again, patents can only be issued with the cooperation of government -- it's a form of government-granted monopoly.

Maybe you prefer vendetta and clan warfare as a means to avenge wrongs committed? It's not about teaching anyone to "be non violent", as you put it. As I said, a propensity to violence is inherent in human nature, as witness the whole of history. Nonviolence is a chimera, a utopian fantasy. But violent behavior can be suppressed - that is the best we can do here on earth. I'm saying it's better for the state to enforce agreed upon law with the ultimate sanction of violence, than for every person or family to settle their own scores.

Why do you think no government would lead to vendettas and clan warfare? That's absurd. And why is government inherently better than a private alternative? After all, government in the end is really just people. Are they somehow more moral because they're paid from taxes, or because they report to an elected official?

However, in spite of its deficiencies, I do agree that the State should be responsible for protecting people from the use of violence, at least for now. I don't think it works in the long run, but realistically it's probably the best we can do for the moment. The key would be to limit government to just that role, and nothing else.

By allowing government to influence and regulate other aspects of our lives, companies and powerful individuals are strongly encouraged to influence those laws in their favor. The process inevitably devolves into group-against-group, which in turn raises the net level of violence and other forms of immorality around us.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

Jim, I read your post and the four groups or types of Christians as you see it. I fail to see how I fit into any of those four. Perhaps you could design another category in which to place me? If so, let's do it under "Political Abyss" on the Rant and Rave forum where this discussion belongs.

And yes, I will point out two cases where judges have "made" law and clearly usurped the Legislative function of our government.

You start the Thread - and I'll follow.

Perhaps it will help if you both understand that, if my reaction is anything to go by, your "joist" is very entertaining and enjoyable. Why move it?

[Raz]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

Perhaps it will help if you both understand that, if my reaction is anything to go by, your "joist" is very entertaining and enjoyable. Why move it?

Thanks, Chris. Glad to be so entertaining!

I believe that Jim and I can keep the discussion civil, but there are several God-Haters on this forum who most likely won't.
And FRED doesn't want politics or religion discussed on any other forum save Rant and Rave -and he's the boss.

[TheServant]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

Reminds me of an old "80s" song lyric I had not thought about in quite a few years.

"Seven years of power
The corporation claw
The rich control the government, the media the law
To make some kind of difference
Then everyone must know
Eradicate the fascists, revolution will grow"

I'm afraid Jim's probably right. The only question is when will things get bad enough for enough people for this to even be a possibility. We are a long way from that.

From a more naive standpoint, I figure the best way to start would be to contact every representative in Congress/Senate to let them know that at least some people think both of the current parties are corrupt, and maybe now is a good time to consider organizing a viable 3rd party if you feel the same way. Unfortunately, the question remains, when will things get bad enough for enough people to even make this reality. We obviously are not there yet either.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

Chris, TheServant, I suppose it's good that others besides Raz and me are reading this thread. I note clue et.al are also engaging in some "jousting."

In my early 30's I used to get drunk with a bunch of guys and their wives and usually end up arguing about religion or politics. Decided after a while nothing was ever changed with anyone's thinking after these exchanges, so to me it became a waste of my time.

Listening to BBC last night, tail-end of an interview about what exactly I never knew, one guy from Sri Lanka said "One's freedom is subject to everyone else's freedom." I find a lot of truth in that if one lives in an organized society which we do.

I am poor in history generally and don't qualify as knowing much about religious history and certainly not legal history or better the history of hows laws have evolved. The quoted statement above made me think a bit today about laws and their possible derivations. One category of laws seems to be those that protect innocent members of society from the deleterious actions of others: robbery, murder, rape, incest, contract law?, speeding, drunk driving, enviromental controls, there must be hundreds.

Another group of laws apparently evolved that to my reckoning protect no one, but are rather an attempt to codify some lawmakers' (or perhaps more correctly the lawmakers' contituents') positions on a morality issue, and I think in this country most often "morality issues" have to do with the influence of the Christian community. I always welcome corrections.

Consider so-called sodomy, laws against which existed up until perhaps the past 20 years or less. Assuming consenting adults, it is nobody's business except the two or three consenting participants whether they screw anally or orally as long as they do it in the privacy of their chambers. If one's Christian morality is against acts of sodomy, then the answer is too simple--don't do it. Oh, and the same would go for the lonesome horny shepherd who "loves" his ewe. There is no crime in the acts of sodomy that goes against the welfare of the rest of society.

I believe it is similarly true for abortion, euthanasia, crimminalization of certain drugs, stem cell research and homosexual marriage, the last on which I wish to extend my thinking.

Whatever guided lawmakers' and judges' minds after the abolition of slavery, it was not that all people are equal under the law. I see the situation as identical when it comes to lawmakers and judges denying equality under the law to those who are homosexuals and desire the same legal benefits extended to those heterosexuals in society by the social and legal contract of marriage. Whatever is the history of the origins of marriage, it has evolved til today to have its rights and privileges codified in the laws of the land, and marriage does not require some "devine sanction" in order to establish a legal union. In this society marriage allows two people to benefit from what they see as advantages in marriage. Denial of equal rights of homosexuals to be married is denial of civil rights as it was for decades following abolition of slavery of blacks.

The resistence to legalizing these "hot-button" issues abortion, euthanasia, use of some mind-altering drugs even if addictive, stem cell research and application in humans, and homosexual marriage is simply and wrongly the attempts of some group to codify its sense of morality on the entire population. People who "benefit" from access to the above do so at no detriment to those who don't, except with the drug issue where the same sequellae may follow as it does now with use of alcohol.

Raz, if my types of Christians did not include your pathway into Christianity, it shows the lack of depth to my thinking. I never stated it was an erudite all-inclusive classification; it was just what has occurred in my mind. It really makes no difference how you got to where you are or if I left out five or 10 other ways people end up being or apparently being theistic. The important commonality and end point is that all theistic religions are based on faith, and one group's perception based on their faith of what is right or wrong for the entire society is foolishness and even tyrannical if the group would inflict its sense of right on wrong on society at large.

Just as it is foolish to believe that all people professing a theistic religion are moral within the doctrines of a religion, it is equally foolish to believe that atheists are by definition immoral or amoral. Something I sensed in Raz's comments made me write that.

At last, an anecdote. A professional acquaintance's father who was Christian missionary and life long devotee to whatever was his particular branch of Christianity left a note at his beside apparently written shortly before he died that read "Death is a mystery which follows a lifetime stream of human consciousness.” The son, who by most standards, was very well educated wrote me that the message seemed to him "to be a rather profound statement from a published theologian,” and one which the son did not fully understand despite having contemplated it many times.

Most of the time if in a crowd, I am not the brightest light in the group, but there was nothing profound in the note above by the theologian, except that it reflected a truth, which I surmise went over the head of his son. We go through life learning, working, striving, contending with events, developing belief systems, etc. but when it comes to the end of life if there is time for reflection the intellecual mind must arrive at the same conclusion by asking what is next after life? And a theistic one given to intellectuality must ask "am I correct, is there something next?" No one will ever know unless the Christian's were to turn out to be correct, which they all hope they are.

Remember Revelation 23:1 Ontogeny recapituates phylogeny.

Edit: I'm outa here.

[cjppjc]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

As with the Jefferson Bible thread this may end up in Rant and Rave. It is not easy to think of these larger questions without doubt. For myself the idea of good luck being the reason for existance seems a little unlikely. The laws of math and science are proof of God to me.

In the Sufi teachings God is not appart from the macrocosm, but rather is the totality of it. The belief that God is within all things.