Something to bash on

[kandrathe]

And when the kids bring a Mexican flag to school?

Occhi

We remember the Alamo? Perhaps readopt "Manifest Destiny" and annex a new territory south of the Rio Grande, and north of the Panama Canal? ;) I hear there are vast off shore oil reserves...

Since you poked the camel's nose into this tent, and I'd rather discuss the Mexican border problem than yet another thread on pedophiles...

<thread hijack #2>
My view in our current border dispute is that we should make it as near impossible to cross as we can, then offer guest workers a very easy way to work here for up to 5 years (with renewal possible). We should make aiding illegals to gain entrance (coyotes) a felony, and make it a misdemeanor for any US citizen to not report a known illegal. Go ahead and give the illegals humane food, water, and shelter, but require citizens to call the INS to come pick them up as well. We should focus on the Mexico's problems (poverty, over-population, poor economy) which make the greener pastures in the USA so tempting that they risk death to get to them. Also, I think it would be very important in border States, to require a valid Id for almost every service offering access only to citizens and documented non-citizens. I would think the States should discourage giving illegals drivers licenses, US Bank Accounts or ATM cards, US issued credit cards, license plates, or the abilities to gain titles to property (cars, boats, houses). So, also make the process of wiring money back to Mexico very difficult for illegals as well.

That said, all of the illegals I've met have been very nice people (father's mostly) who've come north to earn a fortune, then return to their village as rich men.
</thread hijack #2>

I do think the "the Flag of the United States of America" is an important distinction, otherwise "My Flag" could mean just about any flag. Woohoo! Hook em' Horns!

[Occhidiangela]

But you emphasized him, and you're lecturing me.

Yes. He didn't base his comment on a careless falsehood. (See below for expanded thought on that.)

If our system of laws is based on reading something stuff dead people wrote in an attempt to try and interpret what it means, then we're doing no better than Christian denominations when it comes to interpreting the Bible and trying to find common ground. (Think "Evangelical Christian vs most-other-types-of-Christians" here.) Having to go back and interpret means those old farts weren't specific enough! When it comes to "separation of church and state," to me the question shouldn't be "What did the founding fathers really mean? What was the intent of that clause?" but "Is the notion of 'separation of church and state' a good idea?"

May I quote you on that? Well said.:)

It seems that everyone's already made up their minds on whether SoC&A good/bad, and they're simply left debating whether it's constitutional.

I take a third approach, which is "where is the balance point between freedom of religion and freedom from mandatory religion?" A simple digital answer, Jefferson's wall, strikes me as too simplistic. To every complex (social in this case) problem, there are simple, and wrong (or incomplete) solutions. The question any Christian can have is the same an Agnostic would have about the "slippery slope" of variation on "the Jeffersonian Wall." How often will the line be redrawn? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? The rhetoric and the sentiments behind the arguments don't always match.

But if folks prefer reading books of deadmen in hopes of reading their minds (necrobibliopsychomancy?)... well, have at it.

Neologism for fifty, Alex. :D

But luckily, I have a topuee for your "no touchee" zone. It's made from quail feathers that I found in a French drain.

The dog will end up eating that, so I'll just go thin, and then bald, with such grace I as can mange.

the exposition: You stated "There is no movement "to excoriate all religiosity from the public's view."

That is false. What you see is the tip of the iceberg. The tree has deep roots.

The deliberate assault on Christianity, in the war oif ideas at least, is well established. You could trace it back to the Saul of Tarsus and his persecution of the nascent Christian community (before he had "that experience" and became the Apostle Paul.) It waxes and wanes over the centuries. That for a while the Christian norms held ascendency as a common cultural assumption in much of "The West" did not result in the elimination of other strands of belief and thought, or of violent opposition to Christianity. That ebbed and flowed. Christians have been in a war of ideas, both internal and external, for a long time. Ferdinand, The King of Spain was not called "The Defender of the Faith" for nothing.

The explicit Enlightenment era assault which continues to this day, in the current public wrangling, is in part athiest based (note that I don't say the position of all Athiests) in that the root position taken is that Christianity is not only held to be a flawed belief, it is proposed as fraudulent (Da Vinci Code as a recent example of popularizing that theme) and is held to be injurious to society as a whole. I find that last bit ironic, given that the cultural unification Christianity provided coributed to why you and I aren't writing this in Arabic script today, while Persian Farsi speakers would be.

An example of that strain of thought, though not the only one, is the Communist position that religion is to be removed from society. The agrument is a variation on that theme, not that theme in total, as I soak in the current rhetoric. The presumption is that Christian norms, for all that they have been interwoven in to language, culture, and mixed with other (Germanic Pagan, Celtic, etc) custom over two millenia, should be selectively removed from the formal culture and the society in which they exist, and forced to the margins, or sent underground (where they started two millenia ago), yet many and any other Faiths and philosophies shold be tolerated for the inherent virtue of not being Christian. That level of hypocrisy would make even the Pope blush.

If the US weren't a republic in which a majority -- of various fractions -- is used to establish the laws, what the majority cares for wouldn't matter. The cold hard fact is, part of our system is still Jackson's Mobocracy. Majority isn't the only thing that matters, but it matters. The efforts to win the war of ideas, to change perception and belief, are undertaken to convert the majority to a new position, that of marginalising, limiting or rejecting Christianity as part of our cultural weave. (the Why varies, depending on which pit bull has his jaws on the problem at the time.) One battlefield is our college campuses. Another is "in the mass media."

So, why deal with dead men's words? Doctrine. Those dead men's words are the guiding principles of our system, guiding principles that left wiggle room when they couldn't agree on specifics, or could not predict them. The current debate is a disagreement on detail. So, one has to gather the wise heads and determine if On Principle a law is or is not just, and should be your earlier "good idea." Good idea is a subjective criterion. The best argument for amending the "founding language" is the successful amendment that rejected the compromise that allowed lawful slavery. The process required majority agreement, either in Congress, or in a referendum. ON slavery, it was a root cause of a war. So, there you have it, part of the why of this war: to win a referendum, you have to change perception and belief. We are not guaranteed absence of a civil war along sectarian lines by t hose dead men's words, though I sincerely hope we don't devolve in that direction. It's bad enough, all this venemous bickering.

Christianity in America, what De Tocqueville noted as a core characteristic of Americans, has since World War I confronted the problem of Wild Bill Hickock: when you are the top "cultural" gun, there is always someone out there gunning for you. (In the cultural dynamics struggle.) What would be news is the cessation of argument. The export of the Napoleonic era's political byproducts, which had by that time taken the form of both Socialism (Labor Unions were already around in the US before WW I) and Communism, included an imbedded and explicitly anti-Christian strain of thought. "The baby must go out with the bath water." It was termed a "Revolution" not "change to a better idea."

Proponents of that societal model are still around, though they are not ascendant at present. A recent editorial to our local paper suggested that Venezuela needs to export good Chavez style Communism to Bolivia, in order to help them reject the exploitative foreign investment (for example, Brazillian natural gas companies). Like most schools of thought, the "get God out of our society and drive it underground or away" has evolved, but the consistent idea that Christianity is an inappropriate match for the industrial age (and beyond) formal society world has been with us since at least Napoleon's time, if not before. (I suspect Gallileo would have some wry comments on that score. ) The terms of the argument depend on who picks up the torch to run with it, and what brand name of athletic shoes he or she wears. New Balance, I would hope.

Truman: There is very little real news, just the history you don't know yet. FWIW, I spend some of each day discovering yet again how much I don't know.

Occhi

EDIT since I missed the preview on first stroke.
EDIT II: lest you misconstrue the words, I am not calling you, or your argument, Communist. A communist is by definition secularist, a secularist is not necessarily a communist. The two approaches share some themes in common.

[Occhidiangela]

Since you poked the camel's nose into this tent, and I'd rather discuss the Mexican border problem than yet another thread on pedophiles...

<thread hijack #2>
My view in our current border dispute is that we should make it as near impossible to cross as we can,

OK, so we are back to the two divisions deployed to the border, as I described in that "Wall thread" with an RoE of shoot to kill, observed mine fields, a full spectrum reconnaisance and surveillance regimen, and selected free fire zones in a full combined arms effort. That answers your requirement. It of course raises its own problems. Getting political support for that might be as easy as, or much harder than, getting the Irish up in a lot of America over Iraq.

The political will is absent in Washington, and various state capitals, partly due to how repugnant it would be in the board rooms of various concerns, large and small, that an easily exploited labor market would dry up. I also imagine that the public was more easily swayed to go "way over there" and kill foreigners than it would be to "go down the street and kill somewhat irritating neighbors."

Follow the money, and "all politics is local."

Then, consider that the border is one of many avenues of entry. The ports on all three of our coasts, and the airports where the farcical security regimen has devolved into petty harasment.

What you want, kandrathe, when you consider a holistic solution set, is creepiong federalism and federal control of all ports, the border, and airports. And who knows what else?

Seems an odd position, for a Libertarian. :o

Occhi

[LemmingofGlory]

Yes. He didn't base his comment on a careless falsehood.

Reconsider. When he says "The intent of the original writing of "Separation of Church and State" was meant to protect these religious minorities from the tyranny of the majority, rather than to excoriate all religiousity from the public's view." he's saying "A xor B." I'm not looking for you to say "There exists position B". I'm trying to see why A xor B is the appropriate statement. Going by what you said, the statement should be closer to A xor (B or C or D or ... or etc.), where B, C, D, etc. are the collection of opposing positions.

May I quote you on that? Well said.:)

Can't imagine why you'd want to.

So, why deal with dead men's words? Doctrine. Those dead men's words are the guiding principles of our system, guiding principles that left wiggle room when they couldn't agree on specifics, or could not predict them. The current debate is a disagreement on detail. (...) So, there you have it, part of the why of this war: to win a referendum, you have to change perception and belief.

Changing perception is exactly why I think it makes more sense to debate the merits of notions like "separation of church and state." When people debate whether T.J. & The Founding Pappas meant one thing or the other, it seems to me that the constitutionality of it takes center stage rather than the merits of the idea. To me, the idea itself is the important thing, and if our constitution supports it, great! But it's possible the constitution neither explicitly supports it nor forbids it. Or maybe it's so vague we can't tell. So if, as written, the constitutionality of the idea cannot be clearly decided from what's written, we should be able to put the brakes on and say, "Let's try another approach." At what point can we say that something is independent of our existing axioms?

-Lemmy

[Occhidiangela]

Can't imagine why you'd want to.
-Lemmy

Because you put, succinctly in a well crafted paragraph, an essential point well worth making amid the noise of the partisan rhetoric typically presented on the topic. Credit where credit is due. :)

Changing perception is exactly why I think it makes more sense to debate the merits of notions like "separation of church and state." When people debate whether T.J. & The Founding Pappas meant one thing or the other, it seems to me that the constitutionality of it takes center stage rather than the merits of the idea. To me, the idea itself is the important thing, and if our constitution supports it, great! But it's possible the constitution neither explicitly supports it nor forbids it. Or maybe it's so vague we can't tell. So if, as written, the constitutionality of the idea cannot be clearly decided from what's written, we should be able to put the brakes on and say, "Let's try another approach." At what point can we say that something is independent of our existing axioms?

My best short answer to your concluding interrogative is: independence is not a necessary condition for improvement. Each "building improvement" on the edifice of values and customs builds on the foundation of what existed before (think levels of Troy) though sometimes the guest bedroom is changed into a Lounge. Little is derived ex nihilo that improves on what was before. Einstein's breakthrough is special for many reasons, its rarity not the least. The best improvements, for an organization or a society, contain critical linkages to what is being adjusted.

Occhi

[Nystul]

I don't want to touch any part of this thread with a 10 foot pole [Child porn is bad, and Lurker Lounge has burn out the subject of separation of church and state about 3 years ago. There, I'm done.], but somehow I found this quip from the linked story too funny to pass up:

The party wants private possession of child pornography to be allowed although it supports the ban on the trade of such materials.

So to recap, the party thinks child pornography is only OK if you hunt down the children and shoot them yourself? We definitely wouldn't want someone to profit off of what should be a personal obsession.

Or perhaps the party is full of old perverts who are willing to sacrifice the happiness of future perverts in order to guarantee continued access to their existing stash. Talk about selfish!

[kandrathe]

... Seems an odd position, for a Libertarian. :o

Occhi

Not really, Congress could fund the security of the borders and ports, but the states can do the work and be in control. I don't think we need to build another Berlin wall, but we can hire a few more border patrol and do a better job with some technology. And, like I said, make it illegal to knowingly conceal the presence of an illegal in the country. If you want to follow the money, then make the fine very stiff for employing anyone without proper documentation.

[Crusader]

You stole my thread! What's all this about US seperation of government and such stuff? this religion stuff? shoo! shoo!

*waves a raw herring menacingly*

Get yer own thread! :shuriken:


Update:
The party spokesman (the one with his lovely relation with his dentist) has gone into hiding and can't be reached any more after the trailer park where he resides received numerous threats.

[kandrathe]

Update:
The party spokesman (the one with his lovely relation with his dentist) has gone into hiding and can't be reached any more after the trailer park where he resides received numerous threats.

I guess his 15 minutes of infamy are over. I wouldn't think he would enjoy now the attention he gets, if he survives.

It's a pretty ugly topic and I'm pretty tired of seeing it come up on the Lounge every few weeks. There are lot's of evil gruesome things happening in the world. Some of them are perpetrated by individuals, but it's scarier are when the individuals represent governments and do evil on a mass scale. As human beings we need to focus attention and action of areas where we can make a huge difference. We should not tolerate genocide in Darfur, or torture Abu Garib, or ...

I don't believe we can have any meaningful discussions about the clown who is the subject of this thread, nor as an American do I have any good perspective on the social fabric of Holland. I have my perceptions of what Holland is like from the times I've visited and from the news I've seen from there, but I'm sure my perceptions are distorted. Your laws are more relaxed than ours, yet it seems to me that the average Nederlander's morality seems about the same as other Europeans, Canadians, or Americans. I think the same misperceptions happen about different parts of America, or parts of Canada, or where I live in the Midwest. In the breakfast cereal analogy, we have our fair share of flakes and nuts.

[Occhidiangela]

You stole my thread! What's all this about US seperation of government and such stuff? this religion stuff? shoo! shoo!

*waves a raw herring menacingly*

Get yer own thread! :shuriken:
Update:
The party spokesman (the one with his lovely relation with his dentist) has gone into hiding and can't be reached any more after the trailer park where he resides received numerous threats.

:rolleyes:
/wisecrack
Typical Nederlander indolence, thanks to rampant marijuana use. "Ja, we were going to torch his trailer, but we forgot where we left the matches and gasoline. Who has more biscuits? Oh, look, the tulips are beautiful this year!"
/wisecrack.
:rolleyes:
(In case you arent' sure, that was a big J/K, with affection :wub:). :D

In South Texas, the typical posse-aka-lynch-mob would have reacted promptly and torched his trailer before he realized that he had erred in judgment. The local county sheriff or constable would have been paid off to ensure no charges were filed. When the Texas Rangers investigated, they would have doubtless concluded that "some people just need killing." :P NAMBLA and the ACLU would then have flied a Civil Rights lawsuit against the Texas Board of Education, for failure to teach the pedoman not to be a complete moron. The suit would have been laughed out of court, of course, given the current state of public education in the Lone Star State. Not guilty by reason of insane incompetence.

Or not.

This pedoman seems to be LARPING -- playing a real life game of "Whack a Mole!":w00t: Methinks he just realized that he is the mole, and his head popping out of his hole excited the synapses of various hammer wielders. :lol:

Thanks for the update, I think. :blink: If you don't like thread digressions, too bad.:P They happen. It's a Lounge thing, part of our collective madness. :ph34r:

Occhi

[Crusader]

Thanks for the update, I think. :blink: If you don't like thread digressions, too bad.:P They happen. It's a Lounge thing, part of our collective madness. :ph34r:

Occhi

I know, I've been lurking a plenty here... But seriously, the thing is a topic on itself. I want to bash MY country, not the US .Bashing the US is just to easy. I'm proud I can bash my own country for a change and now these mean lurkers are all spoiling my fun! no fair! :(

Small update: people are collecting autographs for a people's petition to our government to have the party banned and forbidden. (people's petition needs 40,000 autograps, when these are collected, the Government HAS to put the object on it's agenda, barring some rules). Something tells me they will have an easy time getting those needed autographs.

[LemmingofGlory]

I know, I've been lurking a plenty here... But seriously, the thing is a topic on itself. I want to bash MY country, not the US .Bashing the US is just to easy. I'm proud I can bash my own country for a change and now these mean lurkers are all spoiling my fun! no fair! :(

What's with your country being called "the Netherlands" when the people are called "Dutch"? Well, we'll have no more of this "The Dutch live in the Netherlands" nonsense! Either you live in Dutchland or the lot of you are Nethers!

And, guys, you aren't fooling anyone by taking the French flag and turning it sideways, alright?

-Lemmy

[SwissMercenary]

What's with your country being called "the Netherlands" when the people are called "Dutch"? Well, we'll have no more of this "The Dutch live in the Netherlands" nonsense! Either you live in Dutchland or the lot of you are Nethers!

And, guys, you aren't fooling anyone by taking the French flag and turning it sideways, alright?

-Lemmy

Nethers? You think it's that simple?

They live in the netherlands, the NETHER LANDS. AKA, hell.

[Crusader]

What's with your country being called "the Netherlands" when the people are called "Dutch"? Well, we'll have no more of this "The Dutch live in the Netherlands" nonsense! Either you live in Dutchland or the lot of you are Nethers!

And, guys, you aren't fooling anyone by taking the French flag and turning it sideways, alright?

-Lemmy

I made a new topic about this.

http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/index...topic=8120

[kandrathe]

Reconsider. When he says "The intent of the original writing of "Separation of Church and State" was meant to protect these religious minorities from the tyranny of the majority, rather than to excoriate all religiousity from the public's view." he's saying ...

Actually what he meant was not black and white (A orB). More like A, not B. But, A+B <> the universe if "Intents". I'm more grousing at the issue of enforced secularism. I don't want the State to enforce Church. I don't want the State to enforce Secularism or anti-Church either. That was my point.