In response to the Civil War Thread: Would it be so bad if the US was split in 2?

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: RandomCoil
Oh that's just dandy.... if only the US could be one of thosel intolerant countries like, oh, China, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Germany ca. 1939...

did you notice all those countries you listed are one runs by socialism\communism?(except the taliban) it is the leftists who hold the same ideals who want out country to be like that.

Originally posted by: RandomCoil
How about this for an idea: you take your intolerance, wedge it down into a small part in the back of you head (should be room there) and try to remember that your petty annoyances with your fellow citizens don't supersede their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

do the same with your own first.

it is interesting you used the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

i first read it here, ina little thing called the declaration of independence.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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.

hmmm, i wonder which "laws of nature AND nature's God" are being referenced to? many founding fathers were deists, many were christians. deists believe that if there is a god he is not intimately involved with or concerned for man and the world, and that he does not interfere with the laws of the universe. proclaiming that laws of nature AND nature's God" hardly sounds like the deistic view, and a set of laws put forth by "nature's God" is probobly a reference to another group...and the set of laws put forth by God they recognize.

Thomas Jefferson was a deist, and others had input as to what the DoI should say, he was not representing merely himself or his view.

 

[RandomCoil]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: RandomCoil
Oh that's just dandy.... if only the US could be one of thosel intolerant countries like, oh, China, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Germany ca. 1939...

did you notice all those countries you listed are one runs by socialism\communism?(except the taliban) it is the leftists who hold the same ideals who want out country to be like that.

I'm not sure Iran falls into that category either, but the bigger point is that all were/are rather 'intolerant'. The 'socialists' are also in control of most of Europe and Genesys threw them into the tolerant category, so I don't think I follow your point.

hmmm, i wonder which "laws of nature AND nature's God" are being referenced to? many founding fathers were deists, many were christians. deists believe that if there is a god he is not intimately involved with or concerned for man and the world, and that he does not interfere with the laws of the universe. proclaiming that laws of nature AND nature's God" hardly sounds like the deistic view, and a set of laws put forth by "nature's God" is probobly a reference to another group...and the set of laws put forth by God they recognize.

Thomas Jefferson was a deist, and others had input as to what the DoI should say, he was not representing merely himself or his view.

I have no idea what your point is. I was countering Genesys's question of why he should be "forced" to tolerate what he termed 'immorality' and 'things against the natural order of things'. Immorality is a religious construct that changes depending on your beliefs, and the term 'natural order of things' has been so often abused that its lost its meaning. If there's one thing the world's melting pot should have in great quantity, it's tolerance.

And as for your Deism comments, my understanding of Deism is that it is a philosophy based on discovery and understanding of God through reason and the observation of nature, which is considered God's creation. And that dovetails quite nicely with the wording in the DoI.

 

[Genesys]

Oh that's just dandy.... if only the US could be one of thosel intolerant countries like, oh, China, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Germany ca. 1939...

ok, lets let the libs get into a position of power again and then we can let them transfor the US into a socialist state like they want! they may be tolerant of gays and minorities, but theyll have a field day with white christian conservative males, perhaps theyll revive the idea of goulags! oh joy, since im a white conservative male, i get to be sent to a goulag, my lifes dream!

Nice Rhetoric Why should people be forced to adhere to your religious dogma and rules?

lets first assume im speaking in a religious context. then yeah, why not? are you saying the Ten Commandments arent a good example of good :rules" to follow? hmmmm...lets see
*thou shalt not kill....right thats gotta go, it invades on my pursuit to happiness
*thou shalt not commit adultry....oops, its intruding on my pursuit to happiness, i want to be a man whore and sleep around as much as possible and facilitate the spread of diseases!
*thou shalt not steal
*thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbour

so, because those rules are religious, you wish to defy them? you may as well start killing, rapeing, and pilliging becasuse the US was founded on these rules. but, i was speaking from a philosophic point of view, not a religious point of view. im not really sure why when someone uses a word like morality they are imeadietly labeled as religious, perhaps you dont have moral values? you can be a moral person with good values without being religious you know.

Damn straight Genesys - so get your clothes off, get outside and start living off the raw food you catch with your bare hands. Tools are against the natural order of things!

And frankly, I think this new-fangled bipedalism is ungodly and unnatural too! Lets all crawl back into the sea, where we belong!

tools are a natural progression in the order of things, homosexual "rights" is however not. tools make it easier for us to catch and kill and eat our prey, and tools benefit humanity as a whole. giving homosexuals "rights" only benefits homosexuals and only gives that warm fuzzy feeling to those who fought for them, not all of humanity.

ok, you show me how to de-evolve and ill follow you back into the sea!

 

[RandomCoil]

Originally posted by: Genesys

ok, lets let the libs get into a position of power again and then we can let them transfor the US into a socialist state like they want! they may be tolerant of gays and minorities, but theyll have a field day with white christian conservative males, perhaps theyll revive the idea of goulags! oh joy, since im a white conservative male, i get to be sent to a goulag, my lifes dream!

Yes, that seems quite likely. I fully expect all white christian males to be dragged off to work camps in North Dakota should Dean get elected. Do you actually believe this, or is being taken to a goulag what you equate to having homosexual neighbors raising a kid?

lets first assume im speaking in a religious context. then yeah, why not? are you saying the Ten Commandments arent a good example of good :rules" to follow? hmmmm...lets see
*thou shalt not kill....right thats gotta go, it invades on my pursuit to happiness
*thou shalt not commit adultry....oops, its intruding on my pursuit to happiness, i want to be a man whore and sleep around as much as possible and facilitate the spread of diseases!
*thou shalt not steal
*thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbour

so, because those rules are religious, you wish to defy them? you may as well start killing, rapeing, and pilliging becasuse the US was founded on these rules. but, i was speaking from a philosophic point of view, not a religious point of view. im not really sure why when someone uses a word like morality they are imeadietly labeled as religious, perhaps you dont have moral values? you can be a moral person with good values without being religious you know.

Religious rules also include not coveting my neighbor's wife, not working on Sundays, not eating fish on Fridays, not allowing women to go out in public uncovered and without a male family escort, not allowing divorce, not eating pork, and not touching cows. The majority of the rules you mention are required to maintain our society and have been in place in any number of human civilizations without requiring the wording provided by the God of Abraham.

tools are a natural progression in the order of things, homosexual "rights" is however not. tools make it easier for us to catch and kill and eat our prey, and tools benefit humanity as a whole. giving homosexuals "rights" only benefits homosexuals and only gives that warm fuzzy feeling to those who fought for them, not all of humanity.

Human rights are in a natural progression and have every reason to evolve in the same way that tools do. Consider the following modifications to your quote, which all no-doubt seemed perfectly reasonable to someon at some point:

tools are a natural progression in the order of things, women's "rights" is however not. tools make it easier for us to catch and kill and eat our prey, and tools benefit humanity as a whole. giving women "rights" only benefits women and only gives that warm fuzzy feeling to those who fought for them, not all of humanity.

tools are a natural progression in the order of things, slave's "rights" is however not. tools make it easier for us to catch and kill and eat our prey, and tools benefit humanity as a whole. giving slaves "rights" only benefits slaves and only gives that warm fuzzy feeling to those who fought for them, not all of humanity.

 

[Genesys]

Dean is not going to get elected so I have no worries there. But I do believe that the Dems [with their current ideologies] are going to try and drive the US to a socialist nation rather than democratic nation we are now.

actually the commandment says for you to not covet your neighbors wife and possessions. so is that a bad thing? i wouldnt mind not working on sundays [and notice how sunday is a day on the weekend and most people with real jobs (read not a retail job, but an actual career) have weekends off, think thats coincedence?]. not allowing for divorce isnt such a bad thing, when you get married, you say the words TILL DEATH DO US PART. that doesnt include "or if i get really mad at her/him"
i dont seem to remember anything about a woman not being able to go outside unless shes covered and with a male family member in christianity [which is where i drew my set of rules from, and that is the set of rules this country is founded on]

and you cannot compare the plight of enslaved and oppressed peoples with the "plight" of gays. black people were enslaved, beaten, and not allowed to vote or hold property. women were not allowed to vote or hold property. gays are not enslaved, beathen, are allowed to vote, and can buy property.

property=house, land, etc..

 

[Lonyo]

lets first assume im speaking in a religious context. then yeah, why not? are you saying the Ten Commandments arent a good example of good :rules" to follow? hmmmm...lets see
*thou shalt not kill....right thats gotta go, it invades on my pursuit to happiness
*thou shalt not commit adultry....oops, its intruding on my pursuit to happiness, i want to be a man whore and sleep around as much as possible and facilitate the spread of diseases!
*thou shalt not steal
*thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbour

so, because those rules are religious, you wish to defy them? you may as well start killing, rapeing, and pilliging becasuse the US was founded on these rules. but, i was speaking from a philosophic point of view, not a religious point of view. im not really sure why when someone uses a word like morality they are imeadietly labeled as religious, perhaps you dont have moral values? you can be a moral person with good values without being religious you know.

Lets just point out that you are putting words into his mouth.

He did not say all rules, and, as was pointed out, those "rules" you point out, are not religion specific rules, they are generally accepted social standards that have been incorporated into religion, and modern society, in the western world.

Oh, and it's adultery.

And then Ten Commandments are sensible rules to follow, in the main.
But you are rather selective, looking at ones that relate to general society, missing off, for some reason, the ones that are most probably being written about, such as "worship no other God before me". This is a religious rule, in the Ten Commandments that is not necessarily a good rule to follow.
Remember, Ten Commandments, there are ten of them, oyu only listed four, that leaves 6 which could be useless (to have a good society). I don't know what all 10 are, I'm not religious, but at least one is not necessarily a good rule.

 

[RandomCoil]

Originally posted by: Genesys
Dean is not going to get elected so I have no worries there. But I do believe that the Dems [with their current ideologies] are going to try and drive the US to a socialist nation rather than democratic nation we are now.

Socialism, democracy, and terms of that ilk are used rather poorly, so I'd just ask you to clarify what you mean. The US is not really a democracy so much as a republic, which is essentially what most of the european nations are. As for socialism, I tend to think of it as the counter to capitalism rather than to democracy. For example, two countries governed by the populace in the same way may choose different solutions to health care, one in which it's the government's responsibility, and one in which it's the individual's -- I'd call the former "more socialist" than the latter, but that doesn't pass judgement on the ability of that government to reflect it's citizen's wishes. This is not a direct response to your post, nor a criticism of your diction, I simply want to make sure I understand what you mean.

actually the commandment says for you to not covet your neighbors wife and possessions. so is that a bad thing? i wouldnt mind not working on sundays [and notice how sunday is a day on the weekend and most people with real jobs (read not a retail job, but an actual career) have weekends off, think thats coincedence?]. not allowing for divorce isnt such a bad thing, when you get married, you say the words TILL DEATH DO US PART. that doesnt include "or if i get really mad at her/him"
i dont seem to remember anything about a woman not being able to go outside unless shes covered and with a male family member in christianity [which is where i drew my set of rules from, and that is the set of rules this country is founded on]

The 'covered woman and male family member' is obviously taken from fundamentalist Islam and is simply an example of a non-Christian religious rule that I wouldn not care for. As for the Sundays and covetting, they are among the ten commandments, actually have lower numbers than 'thou shalt not kill' and yet didn't make it onto the US law books. And on that note, what is the federal punishment for saying "God damn' or making a graven image? Noting the similarity of "Thou shalt not kill" and the US laws against murder is not sufficient to establish that the US was founded as a nation whose purpose was to forever espouse Christianity.

and you cannot compare the plight of enslaved and oppressed peoples with the "plight" of gays. black people were enslaved, beaten, and not allowed to vote or hold property. women were not allowed to vote or hold property. gays are not enslaved, beathen, are allowed to vote, and can buy property.

property=house, land, etc..

Homosexuals have been oppressed and they have certainly been beaten. Their right to assembly has in the pass routinely been denied. And what I consider the right of devoted homosexual couples to enjoy the privileges granted by the government to even the most useless heterosexual pairings has certainly been blocked. As for these being smaller plights than those endured by previous oppressed groups, that says nothing about whether the oppression itself is right or wrong.

 

[daniel1113]

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

- George Washington's Farewell Address (September 17, 1796)

I think that sums it up, and it makes a nice 500th post

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

- George Washington's Farewell Address (September 17, 1796)

I think that sums it up, and it makes a nice 500th post

Excellent 500th post DC.

"they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments"

Well so much for that as it went out the Window with the first Civil War.

We're lucky to still have a Country left after that first one, not so sure there would be one left with the next one.