US ambassador killed over a film

[kandrathe]

The problem Eppie, is that there is a large portion of the population of the United States of America that believes the same way.

1st and most important, the "House of Representatives" is supposed to be a Congress of the peoples representatives acting on behalf of the district they represent. They may be debating and drafting all kinds of seemingly odd legislation -- the Senate, was originally made to represent the States interests and was meant to be a more contemplative (slow) deliberative body. If they operated correctly as in our republican origins, they wouldn't even be considered a part of the Federal Government, but rather the peoples (and States) protection against federal power. Only because of the creep of Federal power have we allowed police powers and oversight of internal affairs to be moved from the local and State level to a federal level. All these types of concerns should be local, and Rep. Broan work would be limited to interstate, and international concerns. What we should be asking is why our Federal government has a Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Constitutionally, all those things are outside their job description. At least until we make contact with extra-terrestrials.

Second, even if he was a Frisbeetarian, our Constitution protects us (through the 1st amendment) and guarantees the federal government shall not interfere in our religious beliefs by imposing upon us things to which we cannot morally support (due to our religious beliefs or lack of them).

Third, the basis for these ideas of "limited government" formed over thousands of years, from Aristostle, Plato, Cicero, Sidney, Livy, Harrington. Namely;

• government should govern for the good of the people, not for the good of those in power;
• there is a natural aristocracy, and skilled statecraft arranges things so that this element acquires authority, or, failing that, blends democratic and oligarchic influences in society to approximate to that outcome;
• mixed regimes are better than pure regimes, because they are more stable;
• the best form of government in nearly all circumstances involves the balancing of aspects of all three pure regimes (kingship, aristocracy, and timocracy);
• a pure democracy can easily turn into a tyranny of the majority.

If we do this right, even a large population (majority) of flat earthers would not impact us in the slightest way. Only when we surrender our individual powers to the state can a state dominated by jack booted cretins impact us. Again, we can focus the government role on three age old principles; 1&2) Criminal and Civil Torts -- how have you harmed me? and 3) Contracts -- have you kept your word?

Based upon that then, I'd reject that the problem is too many people believe one way, and say that "the problem" is that we've bastardized our system of government to the point that "people like that" can do something that affects you, or more likely how you are allowed to educate your children.

I find it incredibly silly to discount science because of Faith, and vice versa.

In Summa Theologica, on faith and the existence of God, St. Thomas Aquinus references Hebrews 11:1-3 - "1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." There is clearly a separation between the observable, and the unknowable. Faith does not compel Christians to be literal and dogmatic, but to be called to a relationship with their creator. Their faith as expressed this way threatens no one.

An MD is not a PhD and an undergraduate degree also doesn't make you a scientist. But I will not be childish about this one he probably came into contact with more science than many of his peers.

He does. Most of them had some non-science undergrad degree like history, art, or poli-sci -- then went for law.

Still it is a mystery to me how someone with such views can study chemistry. Because yes, everything you learn during a chemistry undergrad course goes against religious beliefs.

Not everywhere, and even then he maybe just tuned out those discussions. Then again, what was the chemistry department like at University of Georgia in 1967? Look here --> http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/A...?id=h-2622 Anti-evolutionists had dominated Georgian politics (and thereby how it was taught in education at all levels from 1930's through till 1978).

How can a country allow people with such views to have so much power.

But, again, you have it backwards. It's not "what our government let's us do", but "what we let our government do". Rep. Braun has only individual power, and the right to speak. His election as a representative only gives him a voice and a vote in the House, and that power was given to him by the people of his district. It is counter-balanced by the hundreds of people from all the other districts, and even then legislatively must pass the Senate, and be signed by the President. If the government starts to put "rules" in place on who can believe what for whatever reason, then we are all in trouble. They might just start burning up Branch Davidians, or locking up Atheists.

The Church is evolving -- see here --> http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/rel_evol_sun.htm