logical1

Good post Elder.

I think the Bush administration has been far too weak in dealing with terrorists and far too compromising to the international community by lacking the courage to publically identify Islamic Fundamentalism as America's true enemy and my boss feels the same way about it. The West is fighting an entire ideology that is diametrically opposed to our values. The specific terrorist groups are merely products of a bigger problem. Our leadership hasn't been strong enough to state that publically so I feel that the potential may exist for them to bend to the concerns of Saddam sympathizers if things aren't handled correctly. My ideal scenario would have been if someone would have pulled the pin and dropped a grenade into that hole but it didn't happen. Now we have the former Iraqi president in custody to be tried on an international stage by folks who have the capacity to screw the whole thing up by cowering to international concerns. I have a sincere interest in the details of the prosecution's case. I'd like to know that a clear legitimate charge exists under Iraqi law and that the number of appeals will be fewer than the number of UN resolutions that we tolerated. By the way, what exactly is "universal" law.

Rightturnonred, I usually don't respond to posts like yours but apparently I owe everyone on the board an apology for not recognizing that there was such an informed authority and confident advocate of Iraqi law as yourself posting regularly here. Funny, I hadn't guessed you an expert on anything from your previous posts. Bush did say clearly that Saddam would be tried under Iraqi law by Iraqis. I don't think that Saddam's actions have been any secret to the Iraqi people before now do you ? How exactly has Saddam and his sons been able to dodge such a sound judicial system for this many decades having committed so many atrocities so openly so often ? Is it simply a difference in human resource management philosophy that keeps president Bush from shooting his underlings in the head like Saddam does whenever he feels like it or might there be some major differences in our legal systems ? My boss may in fact think that the Iraqi's at present are "too stupid" to put together their own tribunal. I don't exactly think there are too many Thomas Jefferson or James Madison types in the Iraqi political landscape just yet. Don't get me wrong. An old fashioned lynching, as you seem to be unopposed to wouldn't exactly break my heart either. However, I think we all know that Saddam's trial will be carefully overseen by the international community wherever it takes place so that's probably not going to happen. I would just like to be confident that Saddam will be viewed to have been tried justly and found guilty in the eyes of the Arab community and given what he deserves without an Iraqi court being seen as a U.S led puppet show subsequently giving Arabs reason to view Saddam as a martyr. Until then my "idiot" boss and I will watch carefully as the events unfold.

I think the problem lies in the premise that "serving the people" has to somehow be separate from serving one's self. There really is no such entity as "the people". There are only individual people. In our present culture, bureaucrats can and do use the motive of doing something for "the people" to get away with nearly anything they want. The fact that a certain number of "the people" may be opposed to contributing to partial birth abortions, subsidizing philosophies in public schools that they are opposed to, perpetuating the dependancy of entire segments of our society etc. etc. under threat of imprisonment is overlooked by liberals and conservatives as the lesser of evils. The argument for a collective mentality is always that nothing would be accomplished if we didn't allow the government the latitude to trample the individual rights of "the minority"(an individual is the smallest minority of all). This is an enormous falsehood that has been allowed to remain prevalent by both liberals and conservatives. The liberals tend to lean toward a socialist type thinking where the ideal of "the greater good" is the people or the state (sound familiar). The conservatives "greater good" is God (which has been around a bit longer but produces the same result). Both motives have proven to be extremely dangerous throughout history. The fact is, government produces nothing. Everything is produced by private industry which can remain regulated by a free market economy without government interference. If you don't think that things would get done without the government, take a look at the skyline in New York City. That was an endeavor funded by private citizens for their own profit which employs a countless number of people and benefits everyone. The government never has and never will do anything even remotely as significant for "the people". Politicians both liberal and conservative have lost sight of the only proper purpose of a government which is the protection of individual rights. The axioms of what both parties stand for can be reduced to how they "feel" about any particular issue. "Feelings" are an irrational non-objective standard. With that standard in place and accepted as valid, our individual rights and liberties will continue to be whittled away by a bureacrats "feelings" until either God or "the people" makes slaves of us all.

Here's a question my boss posed to me the other day. Maybe some of you have the answer. I'm sure it's been considered (I hope) but I haven't heard the answer. If Saddam is tried in Iraq under Iraqi law, is there a specific law that he broke? Is it illegal in Iraq for the president to have people executed ? Is it illegal in Iraq for the president to do anything ? I don't believe they can charge him with crimes against humanity because that is international law not Iraqi law. I hope it's something that the Bush administration has considered carefully. It would be embarrassing if a law had to be quickly put on the books before the trial or if he had to be tried in international court to get a conviction after a ridiculous display of Iraqi justice (or lack of). I think people take it for granted that the things that he did are illegal. In some parts of the world for a person in power they aren't. I think people take it for granted that justice in a case like this would prevail. In a large portion of the world it doesn't. Any thoughts ?

Elder, please read your last paragraph. It sounds like the stated motives of just about every liberal politician out there. I'll take those that wish to claw, thank you. My paycheck can not withstand anymore selfless consideration for "the greater good". I feel far more comfortable with a policy maker who's primary concern is their own political ambition as opposed to a policy maker with an "agenda". Watch your back when a politician says he's in office to "make a difference and serve the people". You Christians really need to teach these guys the "collection plate" rules. They seem to think it's mandatory. Politicians that are only concerned with re-election tend to avoid any significant action lest that action be judged by the voters. Subsequently, they do less damage. Since when has a bureaucrat been the solution to anything anyway ? I don't need one to fix my life. Do you ? Laissez faire is the only government policy that I subscribe to.

Elder, conscience as a guide is no more or less so for an Atheist than it is for a Christian. A Christian has free will just as well as an Atheist. Some Christians experience no guilt for doing things that other Christians might feel very guilty about doing. Thus an individuals conscience, regardless of their philosophy, serves as their guide. The difference is the standard that the conscience adheres to and to what degree. An Atheist may have no standard whatsoever in which case he'd be better off being a Christian because than he would at least have some source of philosophical guidance which is essential for long term survival. There is in fact something that you don't know about or recognize. It is a moral guide based on reason and individual rights. It is what I try to adhere to with the same dedication as the most devoted of Christians. Here are some examples. I do not sacrifice myself to others or accept the sacrifice of others to myself. Therefore, I do not steal and I do not kill or exercise physical force against others except, of course, in self defense. I recognize that everyone must rely on their accurate perception of reality for survival therefore I do not lie as it is an attempt to distort the facts of reality. I recognize that if I violate the rights of another individual, I must sacrifice those same rights myself which I will not do. I do not do drugs etc. as it is not in my own rational self interest to do so. It is a moral guide that holds that one's own happiness is the moral purpose of one's life and recognizes the right of the same to every individual. It is not pragmatic. It is not "anything goes". It is a "value for value" philosophy. It holds that one's own life and rational (rational being a key word) self interest are the highest of values. It acknowledges the "ownership" of one's own life. It recognizes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as essential, demonstrable principles born out of the facts of reality pertaining to human nature. It is consistent with the system of capitalism which has been the single most powerful component in the prosperity of humanity in the history of the world. It is an objective standard that can be supported by reason. It does not acknowledge the subjective or the unknown as factual. You would be hard pressed to present a moral issue that I am incapable of responding to using this standard.

You have the right idea Elder ! You and I should not be forced to contribute the product of our labor to people that we don't know or endeavours that we perhaps might oppose. We should be obliged to contribute to our own protection and security. Beyond that what we choose to contribute to should be up to each individuals own volition. The problem lies in the fact that when a policy maker makes a decision, they are relying on some philosophical basis for the answer unless they are merely pragmatic (which often times is the case). If the philosophical standard that they utilize is Christianity for instance, they might determine that taking your money to provide for "those in need" is the "right thing to do". (It is either right or it is not, it can't be both. Elder, if it's not right, what philosophical basis are you using to make that determination ? It's not Christianity.) Policy makers take your money in the name of Democracy (which is only tyranny by majority if not based on valid principles) in order to justify the argument that it hasn't been "forced" on "the people". In fact, it has indeed been forced on those who oppose it. This process is used by religiously inclined conservatives to impose moral standards on those who oppose those standards and is hijacked by non-religious liberals to take money for things we are opposed to. Their is no objective standard being used to reconcile these differences and so continues the never ending "battle of opinions" between liberals and conservatives. It has progressed to a nightmarish state where a Baptist minister who is vehemently opposed to abortion must make a regular involuntary contribution to the federal partial birth abortion fund. If you think that things can't get worse, ask an older Jew or a Russian. Keep in mind, pre-nazi Germany was an advanced, educated culture and was known as "the land of poets and philosophers". Religion and mystic, subjective philosophy was rampid. A good book on this subject is "The Ominous Parallels" by Dr. Leonard Peikoff. One of the ongoing arguments that has been center stage in our culture has been whether or not abortion is proper. The correct argument should be whether or not we should be forced to contribute to things which we are opposed to. As long as our policy makers rely on subjective philosophies as their guide, we will continue down the road to "working for the collective" and all the horrors that go along with that kind of thinking. It is inevitable. A reversal can not occur without a philosophical reversal occuring. Ironically, it appears that religious individuals have been and will continue to lose the most by refusing to reject their own subjective standards in the realm of government policy. It seems that adopting an objective standard based on individual rights as opposed to a subjective standard like Christianity in matters of policy is their only possible real "savior".

You have the right idea Elder ! You and I should not be forced to contribute the product of our labor to people that we don't know or endeavours that we perhaps might oppose. We should be obliged to contribute to our own protection and security. Beyond that what we choose to contribute to should be up to each individuals own volition. The problem lies in the fact that when a policy maker makes a decision, they are relying on some philosophical basis for the answer unless they are merely pragmatic (which often times is the case). If the philosophical standard that they utilize is Christianity for instance, they might determine that taking your money to provide for "those in need" is the "right thing to do". (It is either right or it is not, it can't be both. Elder, if it's not right, what philosophical basis are you using to make that determination ? It's not Christianity.) Policy makers take your money in the name of Democracy (which is only tyranny by majority if not based on valid principles) in order to justify the argument that it hasn't been "forced" on "the people". In fact, it has indeed been forced on those who oppose it. This process is used by religiously inclined conservatives to impose moral standards on those who oppose those standards and is hijacked by non-religious liberals to take money for things we are opposed to. Their is no objective standard being used to reconcile these differences and so continues the never ending "battle of opinions" between liberals and conservatives. It has progressed to a nightmarish state where a Baptist minister who is vehemently opposed to abortion must make a regular involuntary contribution to the federal partial birth abortion fund. If you think that things can't get worse, ask an older Jew or a Russian. Keep in mind, pre-nazi Germany was an advanced, educated culture and was known as "the land of poets and philosophers". Religion and mystic, subjective philosophy was rampid. One of the ongoing arguments that has been center stage in our culture has been whether or not abortion is proper. The correct argument should be whether or not we should be forced to contribute to things which we are opposed to. As long as our policy makers rely on subjective philosophies as their guide, we will continue down the road to "working for the collective" and all the horrors that go along with that kind of thinking. It is inevitable. A reversal can not occur without a philosophical reversal occuring. Ironically, it appears that religious individuals have been and will continue to lose the most by refusing to reject their own subjective standards in the realm of government policy. It seems that adopting an objective standard based on individual rights as opposed to a subjective standard like Christianity in matters of policy is their only possible real "savior".

Ah, Mr. Farrius you have hit on the root of the issue. "The standard that people can be held accountable to", should be a standard that can be proven to be rational and demonstrable. It should be an objective standard not a religious one.

Elder, are you going to make me engage in a scripture debate ? EEK !! Can we discuss Cat in the Hat instead ? (just kidding) I will oblige you if you insist but surely you can see where an economic system that does not advocate "sharing with your brother" was not born out of Christian doctrine. I have read the new testament cover to cover and I certainly didn't walk away with the impression that serving my own rational self interest on earth was a priority as opposed to "helping my brother" (a philosophy that is more consistent with communism or socialism).

Elder, although I am opposed to religious doctrine as the basis for policy, I am also strongly opposed to an individual being prohibited from holding and expressing personal beliefs. Generally, it is not the individual being sworn in that writes God into the text of a swearing in ceremony. If it were, I would support the gesture. The fact that it is the standard text implies that the individual is expected to be committed to serve a God. Every God that I am aware of is connected to a religious doctrine of some sort. Every religious doctrine that I am aware of is endlessly irrational and contains numerous contradictions that are to be overlooked and accepted on the basis of faith. Will a policy maker, once having made this committment, be inclined to reject an essential endeavor or action simply because it does not appear to coincide with the doctrine associated with the God that the official has sworn to serve ? Will a socialist guilt the official into redistributing the wealth of his constituents to "those in need" as they have been doing for decades due to the fact that such an act is consistent with God's doctrine ? This is what I am opposed to. This is what must end. Conservatives, religious or otherwise must adopt reason as their only guide in matters of policy if they ever intend to fend off socialist agendas and preserve freedom. God in government has done and will continue to do far more harm than good.

Mr Farrius, all men are in fact not created equal but none should be born indebted or to be sacrificed to another. Nobody needed God to establish that concept. The founding fathers had religious upbringings as did most during the period but the truly successful principles that they implemented were not primarily of Christian origin. The founding fathers were also followers or "students" if you will of the philosophy of John Locke which was in line with the philosophy of his predecessor Thomas Aquinas which was in line with the philosophy of his predecessor Aristotle. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness did not come out of the bible. These concepts are based on individual human rights. These are the things which we require for our existence as human beings. The things which we require for our existence as human beings are governed by our nature. No one needs God to establish a bird's right to fly nor do they need God to establish man's right to pursue the things that man requires to exist. It is self evident. Thus the phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident". God is not and never has been a necessary component in government.

Krusty, "the golden rule" is not a standard that can be objectively defined. It is subjective not objective. It is obviously "interpreted" differently by mormons and sado-masochists. Using an objective standard based on proven, demonstrable principles to govern the lives of human beings rather than conclusively flawed mystic doctrine is essential. This is not an example of my "befuddled" logic. I am well aware of the "purpose" of religion. I am also well aware of the harm in it. I would never advocate the prohibition of it's practice. This would be in conflict with the paramount necessity of the protection of individual rights. However, it should never be used as a basis in legal or economic policy particularly when the doctrine advocates the violation of individual rights and suppresses the conditions that must exist for the progression and prosperity of mankind. The stake is far too great to be left to the "supernatural". Try to find a religious doctrine that has a philosophical basis that is not in stark contrast to the principles of capitalism. You will be looking for a long time. However, the economic system of capitalism is the force that began the industrial revolution and continues to transform the world forever. It is ridiculous to continue to hold with doctrine that is counterproductive to the principles and systems that are directly responsible for our prosperity.

Craig, ancient religious doctrines are worthy of admiration in the sense that they are man's early attempts at crafting philosophies to guide our lives. That is truly an admirable endeavor with totally good intentions but it is blatently flawed and ultimately harmful to those unable to recognize the flaws. You stated that you support religion because it can teach moral and ethical behavior. However, by what standard are these morals and ethics established ? They most often are not established by an objective standard that lends itself to demonstrating the value of the "rules" to the person adopting them. They are generally edicts that exist with little or no logical, reasonable explanation as to their value. This leaves a large portion of mankind with a complete inability to measure the value of the "rules". Thus mankind has been plagued with irreconcileable disagreements that have lead to bloodshed around the world throughout history. It has been a long standing misconception that you can not have a rational standard of morality based entirely on reason and logic. This of course would render ancient religious doctrines obsolete. You can do it and it in fact has already been done. Here is an example and a comparison: If asked why it is wrong to lie, a religious person might be inclined to respond "because God says so". This is in fact very ineffective in teaching morals and ethics and its ineffectiveness is evident all around us. However, if you tell the person that to lie is wrong because it is an intentional attempt to distort the facts of reality and people must rely on their accurate perception of reality for survival, it clearly demonstrates the harm in lying and the value of truth. It bases the value of not distorting the truth on the objective standard of individual rights. All "rules" can be objectively established and proven by this same standard. It is an extension of Aristotelian logic that is as real and demonstrable as the laws that govern science. It is a far cry from "because God says so". It is the answer to the never ending political-religious "My God is better than your God" type disagreements that we find ourselves in even to this day. Look at what type of problems this presents even for our world leaders today. The American President is unable to identify our enemy in the Middle East. He knows, as does everyone, that our enemy is Fundamentalist Islam. You nor I nor the rest of the world will ever hear him make that statement. This is because he is publically of Christian faith and has thus compromised his ability to be forthcoming in identifying the lack of value in the teachings of Fundamentalist Islam. He can not and will not ever publically present the argument "My God is better than your God" and condemn Fundamentalist Islam although it is an absolute certainty he does so in private. He must continue to tiptoe around the matter at hand instead of attacking it's philosphical roots which is absolutely necessary to correct the problem. He can not openly identify the problem and he subsequently will not be able to openly solve the problem. His faith is not judged by an objective standard so he knows he has no right to judge another faith by an objective standard. Quite a problem isn't it ? The real problem is not merely Fundamentalist Islam however, it is subjective, abstract, mystic, supernatural, obsolete, religious doctrines of all faiths all around the world and mankind's failure to reject them and adopt an objective standard of morality that applies to the existence of all human beings in this life here on this earth.

I really don't know how to respond to RB so I'm not going to try. Mr Farrius, life as an end in itself is exactly what I am implying. This life is all that there is. It truly is worth living if you're not brought up to believe you're a wretched being living in a wretched world biding your time until death at which point you'll be given an existence where you'll want for nothing. I would not wish such an existence on an enemy. Rational desires and the ability to satisfy them through one's own productive effort is the essence of life. The purpose of life is life. We can not objectively establish that there is anything else. It is an end in itself. When I wrote of blaming and thanking supernatural powers for misfortune and prosperity, I was not merely speaking of Christianity but of mysticism in general. Of course Christians can't blame God for anything evil because God is incapable of doing evil. Oh but wait, God is omnipotent meaning God is capable of doing anything meaning God is capable of doing evil. This is just one of the thousands of contradictions in not only Christian doctrine but numerous other mystic doctrines as well. Religious leaders have unsuccessfully grasped at every available straw throughout history to try to explain and defend things like that. Much to their dismay, they've ended up with no other choice but to accept the contradictions which of course do not exist.

It is true that man is not omniscient and (thankfully) the discoveries of the universe are most likely infinite. However, it is not only possible but essential for survival that man correctly perceive the universe through the use of his senses which are his only source of perception. Man has demonstrated the truth in the conclusions about his world which result from this perception with an endless and ever growing list of magnificent achievements. This is a tangible, demonstrable, indisputable fact. The logic in subjective, abstract religious doctrine is blatently flawed. It is a logic that says if something is not "A" than it must be "B". When in fact it may not be either. It is a significant flaw to refuse to correctly identify what is unknown as being unknown. It is a potentially fatal flaw to use the unknown, which has not been proved, as the foundation of an endeavor such as was done in science centuries ago and is still being done today in political and economic systems of government. For instance, a chemist must correctly identify and understand the properties of the chemicals he is working with. If not, he may fall victim to the results. I stated earlier that the mystical and supernatural (as opposed to the proven and perceivable) has produced absolutely nothing tangible in thousands of years. Mr. Farrius stated that my use of the term "tangible" was ambiguous so I will clarify what I meant. No one on earth past or present can currently or has ever been able to show a single solitary product of or produce even a shred of evidence to objectively support anything supernatural. This fact leaves the concept of mysticism and the supernatural not even worthy of the most limited consideration in any capacity. Meanwhile, the world all around you is full of the achievements of logic and man's ability to reason and the progress of technology continues along at lightning speed. The fact that religion and mysticism is used as a foundation for human endeavor is utterly and fantastically absurd. It has impeded mankind throughout history. When examining historical periods, it is a fact that the most subjective and religious periods in history have been mankind's darkest. One period was even known as the "dark ages". Even now we see it's effects in many parts of the world. When man summons the courage to reject the subjective and break free from those who impose it, the resulting periods and achievements are astonishing as demonstrated by the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution. In the 21st century, in the face of extensively conclusive evidence, we still refuse to recognize the laws of identity and causality. We still have people who attribute events (few of which are even very uncommon, contrary to what you would like to think) to prayer and luck and wish and whim. They do not understand, even to this day that everything has a cause. There is a legitimate, real, objective (most often even perceivable) cause to everything that happens. How a coin lands is not luck (there is no such thing). It is the result of very real controllable forces such as trajectory and velocity. You can build a precision machine that causes a coin to land on the same side every time. Some of us will continue to live with a muted sense of purpose and little hope of achieving a level of self esteem proper to human existence, continuing to place blame and give thanks to mystical powers for our prosperity or misfortune. Others of us will eagerly face the universe as noble creatures, recognizing things for what they are, shaping our own existence with a passion for life and the courage to live it.

I voted Libertarian (of course). Although most of them can not successfully argue the philosophical basis for their positions and as a result may stray occassionally, they are the closest to advocating an existence proper to a human being. They correctly recognize individual rights as paramount and recognize the protection of those rights as the only proper purpose of a government. That of course, bothers the liberals who if the libertarians were running the show would not be able to further their socialist agenda of forcing us all to work for the collective instead of for ourselves. It also bothers the conservatives who could not live with the thought of being unable to impose their mystical, supernatural doctrine on the rest of us. This includes their wish to impose their inability to make a proper distinction between the rights of a conscious independent human being and a fetus.

If Jesus existed but was not who he is celebrated to have been and did not do what it is claimed that he did than proof of his existence proves nothing. The proof of the existence of someone named St. Nicholas does not lend itself at all to proving that he flew around the world led by magical reindeer. Like it or not, we do not live in a chaotic universe governed by the supernatural, completely unpredictable where anything is possible and wishes and whims are granted without action. The concept of such a universe is the result of a parasitic mentality that despises rational judgement and conscious effort. It is the result of a desire of those who truly do not wish to be held accountable for their own judgement and actions. It is the result of a mentality that yearns for "forgiveness" and a sedentary existence. The concept of such a universe is the result of beings that are more comfortable considering humanity to be a crawling mass of depraved, pathetic, incapable creatures born indebted for their own existence and redeemable only by an omniscient, omnipotent, mystical creator thus attempting to justify their own shortcomings and excuse them from exercising rational judgement about the world around them. Men of reason choose to bravely face the universe as cognitive, capable beings willing to accept the rewards or consequences of their own effort and judgement. They recognize humans to be free at birth indebted to noone that must be allowed to exercise their own judgement and act in their own rational self interest for their own survival. They perceive their universe by their only means of perception and demonstrate the truth in their conclusions about the world around them through their achievements in science, medicine, technology etc. etc. Meanwhile, the mystical and supernatural has produced nothing tangible in the entire history of mankind. It has produced absolutely nothing in thousands of years. How many prayers is that ? We do not live in a universe that allows us to apply abstract, manufactured explanations unrooted in reality in lieu of real understanding without paying a high price. We have been paying that price throughout history. Rather than accepting reason as the ultimate arbitrator, mankind has abandoned reason and chosen faith. When a dispute arises without reason as the guide for reconciliation, force is the only remaining arbitrator. My religion is better than your religion has never been argued successfully has it ? The final outcome of these disputes is the use of force. However, mankind is nearing a day when courageous men like the men of science who defied supernatural doctrines centuries ago in the area of science under threat of torture and death will reject those same subjective, mystical doctrines in the areas of politics, economics and the humanities as well. Unprecedented prosperity will then finally become established in the areas of government and economics as it did in science and technology. My guess is that there won't be as much interest in debating whether or not Jesus existed accept among those of you lacking the courage or sense to object to a notion that a bicycle can knock over a train. The fundamental moral choice of a human being is not choosing between sin and salvation. It is choosing to think or not to think.

The real question at hand, I would guess is not whether Jesus simply existed or not but rather what occurred during his existence. I think the debate over his existence is an unimportant debate that has no bearing on his actual significance. The reason that there are debates like these at all is because we are not taught (as we should be) that contradictions do not exist. Things can not be what they are and what they are not at the same time in the same context. It is impossible. The laws of identity and causality govern our existence and make contradictions an impossibility. Everything you have accepted as truth about the world around you tells you that certain things are not possible. For instance, if you come across a freight train laying on its side and someone tells you it was the result of a collision with a bicycle, you do not believe this based on what you know to be true about bicycles and trains. However, if for some reason you accept what the person has told you as factual and you integrate that into your range of knowledge, it will ultimately be a source for endless errors in judgement about all sorts of things. This continues until you reconcile the contradiction that bicycles are not capable of knocking over trains but this bicycle knocked over a train. The answer is simple as long as you know that contradictions do not exist for any reason at any time ever. The actual metaphysical evidence of the feats described in the bible (which is really what is responsible for its significance) does not exist and has never existed. The stories conflict with the laws of identity and causality. To accept the stories, you must abandon reason and accept the contradictions. The existence of someone named Jesus would not be a contradiction but that's not really what people need to know is it?

Here I sit on September 11, 2003 after reviewing the horror that occurred 2 years ago and reading in the paper that another 15 people died in Israel the other day (not that it is anything unusual) as the result of two separate bombings which subsequently led to hundreds of people pouring out into the streets in Palestine to celebrate. Then I turn on my computer and read Nova and Sir Riff's comments and I am nauseated. I'm left saddened at hearing that Nova is only 17 and is not surviving her "education". Unfortunately, it happens to far too many young people when they are not taught sound principles or that there is any such thing. Notice the foundationless, collective mentality when she makes statements about the correctness of something based on a "poll" as if the majority of like responses mystically makes them correct. She has no regard for the knowledge or disposition of the responders. It doesn't matter, it's the magic of collectivism, right ? Notice how she has been so easily persuaded to believe that it was "slave labor" that built the most prosperous nation in history with no regard as to why slave labor did nothing of the kind in any other country in any other period in history (her kind of thinking would probably equate the pyramids in Egypt to the skyline in New York city). It doesn't matter, it's her opinion which is as valid as anyone else's, right? Notice how she views that our country has an obligation to other countries not based on their virtues but on their "needs". It doesn't matter, there are no prerequisites for helping those in need, right ?(Sir Riff thinks we owe them for assisting thugs in overthrowing what were apparently worse thugs at the time and acting, heaven forbid, in our own self interest). Notice how she apparently has no remaining sense of self worth (and doesn't believe anyone else should either) and can only grasp that we should be fearful of what retaliation might follow if we continue to oppose our enemies. This is what you get when you have liberal ivy league types teaching children that they live in a subjective world where nobody can really know anything for sure and that rights and principles are not demonstrable (because of course nothing can be, right?) and are merely things that people invent. I could go on forever but I won't. It literally makes me sick when I think about what they do to young minds (often times knowingly). By the way Nova, I'm no defender of Christianity but it wasn't Christianity that was to blame for Hitler's twisted state of mind. That was the doing of your philosophy professor's good buddies Immanuel Kant and Hegel. I'm sure he taught you lots about these two dirtbags and probably adores them guessing by the state of your unconsciousness. I have to say a couple of things about the specifics of the issues being discussed before I go. Islamic fundamentalists don't have to be mullah's and there are lots in Saudi Arabia (sorry). The reason they hate the West is the same reason you hate alot of these people here on this board. It's because reality doesn't ever seem to jive with your outlook and it's frustrating for you. Know why? Because things actually are what they are, that's why. The world really is knowable and you mistake it for arrogance when someone is sure of themselves. Americans figured out that the world really is knowable and adopted some really valuable principles and implemented them in their political and economic systems in addition to using the same logic in business and science which resulted in rapid advancement and prosperity unlike the world has ever known. Oh, I'm sorry, it was some free cotton harvesting that changed the world, right? (come on kid don't let them do that to you). What you or your polls or an ivy league professor or Allah says things are doesn't change what they actually are and when it becomes painfully obvious that you're wrong about them, it burns you up. The world is getting smaller and the evidence of the values of Western ideals over Islamic fundamentalism is so demonstrable and undeniable that Islamic fundamentalism as a way of life in the arab world is on it's way out ( The fundamentalists know this. They're crazy, they're not stupid). Instead of choosing to get with the program, they've chosen to kill people for not thinking like them. It would have worked as it always has except this time they targeted people who know better and are better. Quit being angry and wake up kid before you end up leaving a keg party or a coffee house with a bunch of twisted little ivy leaguers to set fire to some evil, uneconomical SUVs. ( Remember, jail is jail no matter what your professors tell you it is ). You may not like what we're doing over in the middle east but consider this. Iraq had previously disclosed posession of VX and other fun stuff that they weren't supposed to have to the U.N per the U.N mandate. We didn't make that up. They disclosed it ! When we asked them to show us what they did with what they said they posessed, they wouldn't. It would be nice to find it but whether we do or not is irrelevant in the matter of whether or not is was ever there. In addition, terrorists used to move pretty freely around the globe unhindered by countries they did not threaten. Now hunting them down and handing them over has nearly become a national past time in some of those same countries. America has once again taken the point in leading the world to freedom. This was the intent and this is what has happened. We are proud of ourselves. We are sure of ourselves. And we owe noone.

FastNed, I was giving Mr. Fleabag the benefit of the doubt in assuming he actually believes what he is saying. Although, his claims are in fact absurd, in my opinion they are no more absurd than the conservatives here who insist on advocating the presence, necessity and intervention of religious doctrines in government and people's lives. The same people who can not grasp that supernatural mysticism is supernatural mysticism by any name. The same people that object to Islamic theocracies (and rightly so) but refuse to recognize the contradictions, falsehoods and destructive values contained in their own religious doctrines and are thus left arguing the impossible position of "our religion is more valid than your religion". The same people who's religious doctrines(Christianity being the most prominant) emphasize self sacrifice as a virtue and advocate it's practice. The same people who allow this to remain as the greatest gift ever to liberals and socialists (which is, evidently the same gift that gave them their philosophical chokehold on our lives). The same people that have had no other choice but to allow the chokehold to remain in place and continue to fumble all over themselves confused about how to philosophically dispute the liberal's professed motive of working for "those in need" when the conservative's own religious principles hold that motive as a prominent virtue. The same people who can't seem to understand that they can never successfully loosen the liberal chokehold until they have adopted reason as their only guide. This is not exclusively aimed at you FastNed. The left is far from having a total monopoly on ignorance (although they are much closer to having one on blatent dishonesty). I have to try and remain at least a little tolerant of both. Believe it or not, I had a devout Baptist upbringing and used to be a very partisan Republican myself, but I refused to continue ignoring the facts of reality and the nature of how things really are and work. "Nature in order to be commanded must be obeyed."

FastNed, Christian faith is indeed of Hebrew and Greek origin. I do not intend to change my position based on the origin of the written doctrine. I would like to respond to you in this post regarding the validity and relevance of Christian law and the ten commandments relative to the current laws that govern us. I am doing this because your contentions, at least in part, seem to relate to their relevance today. I will address them individually. 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (I'm not aware of a single law that even remotely pertains to this.) 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. (It goes on to include other images none of which have any more relevance than the first, which is of no relevance to current law whatsoever). 3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. (I'd be shocked if the judge hadn't done it himself at least once). 4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. (Which day is that again exactly ? ) 5. Honour thy father and thy mother. (I don't know of anyone being prosecuted for this one and there's no shortage of parents who don't deserve to be honored). 6. Thou shalt not kill. (Finally, one that actually has some relevance. I think we can agree though that the ten commandments and the foundation of our laws don't exactly have a monopoly on this one. This one will get you strung up in most places.) 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. (It might cost you in divorce court but it seems most of our public officials even ignore this one.) 8. Thou shalt not steal. (Actually, it's my understanding that the interpretation of this commandment referred to kidnapping another person and selling them into slavery and since slavery was abolished long ago it really doesn't have any relevance today. However, even if I give you the literal English meaning, once again, it's not even slightly exclusive to us. 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness. (Perjury is still a good one. Hardly exclusive though.) 10.Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. (Do I really need to say anymore.) When all is said and done we have only 3 (possibly 4) out of the ten commandments that have any relevance to the laws that govern us whatsoever and those are the same things that are universally prohibited in just about any savage village on the planet. I think this pretty well sums up the lack of the specific legal significance of this monument. The historical significance is far more religious and far more inappropriate. The founding fathers were religious men as were most during the period but the significance of their faith in relation to the implementation of valid principles has the same significance as the Wright brother's religious faith while inventing the airplane. Either could have had no belief in god whatsoever and come to the same objective conclusions about of their principles. One last point. Give this a try. If in fact you actually feel that the judge is acting as a private citizen and merely exercising his right to free speech and not at all using his authority and his office as a public official to erect this monument (which is the primary substance of the entire issue), go down to your local courthouse tomorrow and try to erect a permanent monument in the common area. I'll bet there won't be much of a serious discussion on the "free speech" issue. Why not ?

Neal, you are mistaken in your assumption that I am a Libertarian. They may share some of the same ideals but I claim no affiliation to any political party. Truth is, from what little I know of Libertarians, some of the actions that I've seen by individuals within the group have been irrational and absurd (i.e visiting the ghetto at Christmas to hand out toy guns to children). You are apparently very passionate in your views on abortion and drugs. Rightly so. I personally would not choose to abort a child and despise individuals that would even consider perpetuating drug dependancy for a profit. I'm certain that you have reasons for your views that are deeply rooted. Any varying at all from those views might require you to adopt an entirely new philosophy (which only a very small minority of people are even capable of doing let alone want to). This is not an attempt to change your views, it is merely presenting you with a perspective that you will not hear from any political party including the Libertarians (some of their views may be correct but they haven't a clue as to their actual foundation). As I have stated before, I encourage disagreement (as long as it makes a little sense). I am prepared to logically defend and justify any of my views. I will not engage in an intellectual discussion that involves personal attacks or name calling (the name caller is not an intellectual). So here goes. The first thing that you must understand as a conservative (I'm assuming your conservative) is that you can not defend any of your views or successfully oppose any liberal's views unless your's are rooted in rational, demonstrable principles that can be broken down into irreducible primaries, the validity of which can not be argued successfully by anyone. Unless you make this the standard for all of the views that you hold and insist that it be the standard for all of the views being proposed by others, you will never be able to convince anyone of anything without your opposition being able to dismiss you by merely proclaiming "it's a matter of opinion". Nothing is a matter of opinion. Things are what they are (this is the law of identity). Things can not be what they are and what they're not at the same time in the same context (try and name something). Despite what we are taught, contradictions do not exist. If you think you see a contradiction, you are mistaken about one or more of your premises. Everything boils down to being able to identify precisely what things are. In fact, logic is defined as the process of non-contradictory identification. If you never come to this realization, you leave yourself open to the assault of any and all subjective "opinions". This unfortunately, is what good, moral, well intentioned people do and never see the deadly harm in it. This has been the biggest mistake made by conservatives. Not adopting the fundamental principle of the protection of individual rights as the sole purpose of the establishment of government among men, they have opened the door for any and every goofy, collectivist, immoral program that any liberal wishes to draft in the legislation and put to a vote. All they have to cite are the various programs that conservatives propose in order to be able to say "it's just a matter of opinion". Maybe you see this as the lesser of two evils when considering the abortion and drug issues but I do not. Not only is abortion legal but you get to pay for it too. How's that make you feel? Think it can't get worse ? Think again. Ask an elderly Soviet or a German (or just about any one else who wasn't born here for that matter). The absolute, uncompromising sanctity of individual rights only looks good on paper ? Of course it does and it better. Practical application needs to follow soon. Otherwise, don't kid yourself, we're on borrowed time. I don't like abortion or drugs but I can't argue against these evils successfully without advocating the infringement of individual rights. This post is becoming long already but if you wish, I am prepared to elaborate on the exact specifics of why the criminalization of these two evils are violations of the rights of the individuals committing them and the importance of being able to separate moral issues from legal ones and act accordingly in a free society. Remember legal action is not a free society's only recourse in matters that involve morality. In addition, the natural consequences of an individual's actions are an essential mechanism for change and extremely important to the progression of a free civilization.

Mr. Fleabag, thank you once again for your reply to one of my posts. Although I was unsuccessful in my attempt to make any sense of your last one, I haven't given up. So could you please assist me by revealing your apparently exclusive source of information that unfortunately remains hidden from the rest of the world. Primarily, I would be interested in discovering how setting whatever terms we wish relative to trade with countries who produce nothing we could not produce for ourselves and offer nothing of real value for what we provide them would put us at such an extraordinary disadvantage that it would cause the greatest economic system in the world to "collapse". If that were the case, as much as we are despised around the world, don't you think that it would have been a strategy attempted long ago? Yet it appears that countries that would like to destroy us stand in line to beg for an opportunity to be partners in trade with us. Yes, adjustments would have to be made but they would merely be adjustments which we would withstand and adapt to with little inconvenience. (You'd have to buy American made stuff for a change. Geez, how would we ever recover from that ?) However, our withdrawal would be devastating to every dictator on the planet. Initially, our decision would be met with threats, terrorism and extortion from desparate dictators (as is the case today). Then we would see all the shameless appeals to our compassion with media footage of death, civil unrest and starving children in countries unable to feed, medicate or pacify their populations without our assistance (as is the case today). When we finally, consistently and without compromise met each of their appeals to our compassion with silence and each of their attempts at intimidation with utter devastation, then and only then would we see alot of dead dictators and a sincere change of heart around the world. This is the scenario that must eventually unfold to preserve freedom for the future of humanity. The events of 9-11 should remain an awakening for all the rational, free people of the world. By assisting in the rebuilding of countries that force our hand against them, we are merely prolonging the stand that we must eventually take. We did not create the ugliness of poverty, oppression, torture and death but we must have enough courage to turn our backs on it temporarily in the interest of ending it permanently. The clock is ticking.