In the name of democracy, let us all unite!

a reply to: grandmakdw

Disgust is a better moral compass than religion, for the simple reason religion gets nothing right.

originally posted by: skyblueworld
I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be an emperor. That’s not my business. I don’t want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone - if possible - Jew, Gentile - black man - white. We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each other’s happiness - not by each other’s misery. We don’t want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way.

Greed has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost....

The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men - cries out for universal brotherhood - for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world - millions of despairing men, women, and little children - victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people.

To those who can hear me, I say - do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed - the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish. .....

Soldiers! don’t give yourselves to brutes - men who despise you - enslave you - who regiment your lives - tell you what to do - what to think and what to feel! Who drill you - diet you - treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men - machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts! You don’t hate! Only the unloved hate - the unloved and the unnatural! Soldiers! Don’t fight for slavery! Fight for liberty!

In the 17th Chapter of St Luke it is written: “the Kingdom of God is within man” - not one man nor a group of men, but in all men! In you! You, the people have the power - the power to create machines. The power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure.

Then - in the name of democracy - let us use that power - let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world - a decent world that will give men a chance to work - that will give youth a future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfil that promise. They never will!

Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people! Now let us fight to fulfil that promise! Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!



75 years on, and that speech made by the greatest silent actor in the world, has never rang more true.

It gives me a shiver everytime I read it, or watch it on youtube.

It's the most powerful message to humanity i've ever heard.

Sorry to the people who've already heard it before, but today is a new day, and it's a message that will never get old.

Enjoy the coming weekend ATS!

And remember this, don't give yourselves to unnatural men!

Who was the silent actor?

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: HUMBLEONE

Utopia is what the OP wants

We will never have utopia until
everyone is allowed to think freely
believe as they wish freely
speak freely
and do freely
without government constraints
as long as what they do - their actions
harm no one physically
and harm no one elses property

Mankind has flourished most with the least constraints
Live and let live has proved to be the best utopia
Not forcing everyone to have the same thoughts, speak carefully so as to not offend, and highly regulated action (as in tight regulations and controls on work and property and production).

The places where utopia through uniting people has been tried
(Russia under Stalin, China under Mao, Venezuela under Chavez, Cuba under Castro)
what has resulted is mass murder, mass incarceration for wrong thinking,
shortages of even the most basic supplies
like the people who stand in line in Venezuela for toilet paper.

That libertarian pipe dream of yours has never happened and never will.

There has to be some kind of power able to stop, regulate, and put in check those people or organizations who DO harm either other people or the environment. Without that power, people have proven across history that many of them will exploit/harm other people or the environment for personal gain. Hell, people and corporations are trying to do that right now!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: grandmakdw

Disgust is a better moral compass than religion, for the simple reason religion gets nothing right.

But what one is disgusted at changes like a feather in the wind with society.

One day something is disgusting and the next day it is a fad to do it and not only acceptable but people are encourage to copy the once disgusting behavior.

One sees it all the time in our current culture.

Many climate deniers are not disgusted at all by the idea of killing or jailing people who disagree with them, check it out on google. Even Al Gore has suggested we jail all global warming deniers. When in the 1970's we were all being warned of the coming ice age due to fluorocarbons and we had to give up freon the best air conditioning we ever had. It is no longer disgusting to suggest killing or jailing people for simply disagreeing with you.

Many people today find post birth abortion (killing the newly born who are unwanted) acceptable behavior. Even Pres O supports post birth abortion when an abortion results in a live birth. Just 30 years ago that would have been unthinkable. It is no longer disgusting to kill a live newborn if the parents don't want it. (please no one launch into a morality discussion on this, it is simply an example of a radical change in societal consensus morality over a short period of time)

I could go on and on.

I am not saying people need to accept
religious texts, I am simply saying
that having them gives us a launching
platform for deciding what is moral
and what isn't.

Disgust is a moving target. What is disgusting today
in our society, or all societies really,
easily becomes common consensus for
correct behavior practically overnight.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: HUMBLEONE

Doing away with religion will not create utopia.

Religion is a moral compass for mankind.

Mankind does not have a built in moral compass that
all agree on, that is a fallacy.

Maybe you're correct about not all agreeing upon the same built-in moral compass, but before mass religion came about, humans lived just as peacefully, if not more peacefully, than we do now in a modern world with such a great religious moral compass.

My argument will be that religion's moral compass came from the moral compass already extant within the humans who create religion and not the other way around.

No they did not, archeological evidence shows that people were quite murderous.

History is replete with nations with no moral compass, conquering, taking slaves, raping at will, mass murder of entire tribes and villages. Early historical times were quite brutal.

If one tribe wanted what another had, they simply went in and killed as many men and boys as they could, took the women as slaves and raped them; or killed the women also; raised the children as slaves (sexual and otherwise)

The world without religious texts was far far more brutal.

Even Indian tribes would massacre other tribes and rape and pillage.

There was no time in pre-religious text history that wasn't as brutal as ISIS is today.

HIstory is also replete with ostensibly religious countries and societies murdering, conquering, taking slaves, etc.

If you forgot, the Hebrews in the Old Testament were charged by "God" with committing genocide on all of the Canaanites, you know.. as you said "mass murder of whole tribes."

Should we be using the "moral compass" of the Old Testament? I mean, maybe Hitler was when he said that the Germans were the chosen people and had to wipe out the Jews who were polluting the purity of the German race. I hope that you realize that this is the same argument both Jewish and Christian apologists use to justify the genocide of the Canaanites. I have had probably no fewer than 20 Christians tell me "The Hebrews were God's chosen people. The land belonged to them. God ordered the death of the Canaanites because they were impure and wicked and Satan wanted to use them to pollute the line of David so Jesus could not be born." Starting to sound familiar?

Then in Christian Europe we have the oppression, torture, and murder of non-Christians or non-orthodox for almost 1000 years, not to mention the Crusades, again ostensibly based on religion. Women were tortured by the Inquisition for being "witches."

Then you have the Muslims, in the name of religion, sweeping across the ME and North Africa, spreading Islam at the point of a sword. And some modern day Muslim extremists using Islam to justify militancy.

Tell me again how mass religion has produced a moral guideline for societies and how it made things better than before?

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: grandmakdw

Disgust is a better moral compass than religion, for the simple reason religion gets nothing right.

But what one is disgusted at changes like a feather in the wind with society.

One day something is disgusting and the next day it is a fad to do it and not only acceptable but people are encourage to copy the once disgusting behavior.

One sees it all the time in our current culture.

Many climate deniers are not disgusted at all by the idea of killing or jailing people who disagree with them, check it out on google. Even Al Gore has suggested we jail all global warming deniers. When in the 1970's we were all being warned of the coming ice age due to fluorocarbons and we had to give up freon the best air conditioning we ever had. It is no longer disgusting to suggest killing or jailing people for simply disagreeing with you.

Many people today find post birth abortion (killing the newly born who are unwanted) acceptable behavior. Even Pres O supports post birth abortion when an abortion results in a live birth. Just 30 years ago that would have been unthinkable. It is no longer disgusting to kill a live newborn if the parents don't want it. (please no one launch into a morality discussion on this, it is simply an example of a radical change in societal consensus morality over a short period of time)

I could go on and on.

I am not saying people need to accept
religious texts, I am simply saying
that having them gives us a launching
platform for deciding what is moral
and what isn't.

Disgust is a moving target. What is disgusting today
in our society, or all societies really,
easily becomes common consensus for
correct behavior practically overnight.

Ah, so happy to see your fallacious anti-liberal statements.

Can I talk for a minute about the religious right? While the religious right, which I assume you belong to, has been clamoring about Jesus and how the US is a Christian nation, the right was supporting George Bush in torturing people, not giving them due process, and holding them without trial. Moreover, the religious right also GLADLY supported Bush in preemptively invading Iraq, which is a war crime of aggression, was based on lies, and resulted in the deaths of up to 200,000 civilians. CIVILIANS.

Sounds pretty Christian and Jesus-like to me aye? Good to see that good ol' Bible moral compass in action in dem folks.

Who would Jesus bomb?

a reply to: grandmakdw

Early historical times had religion.

Native Americans had religion.

ISIS has religion.

There was no time in pre-religious text history that wasn't as brutal as ISIS is today.

I'm sorry, but this is just incorrect.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Charlie Chaplin.

originally posted by: skyblueworld
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Charlie Chaplin.

Thanks.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: grandmakdw

Early historical times had religion.

Native Americans had religion.

ISIS has religion.

There was no time in pre-religious text history that wasn't as brutal as ISIS is today.

I'm sorry, but this is just incorrect.

Yeah, have to love Grandmakdw's assertion that Native Americans didn't have religion. Sounds like ye olde ultra-conservative "why the Native Americans were savages and needed to be civilized."

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: HUMBLEONE

Utopia is what the OP wants

We will never have utopia until
everyone is allowed to think freely
believe as they wish freely
speak freely
and do freely
without government constraints
as long as what they do - their actions
harm no one physically
and harm no one elses property

Mankind has flourished most with the least constraints
Live and let live has proved to be the best utopia
Not forcing everyone to have the same thoughts, speak carefully so as to not offend, and highly regulated action (as in tight regulations and controls on work and property and production).

The places where utopia through uniting people has been tried
(Russia under Stalin, China under Mao, Venezuela under Chavez, Cuba under Castro)
what has resulted is mass murder, mass incarceration for wrong thinking,
shortages of even the most basic supplies
like the people who stand in line in Venezuela for toilet paper.

Are you suggesting that we follow this moral compass?

www.evilbible.com...

"This web site is designed to spread the vicious truth about the Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called “God” of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children. I have included references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow along. You can also follow along with on-line Bibles such as BibleStudyTools.net or SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com.

It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”. For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person. Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by saying that some god says it’s OK. If more people would actually sit down and read the Bible there would be a lot more atheists like myself."

a reply to: grandmakdw

People don't know thier history.

I remember when George Bush was so proud of his "Shock and Awe" Massacre. Shouldn't this saying alone frighten everyone?

I don't want a leader who gets excited for war, personally I think this is a bit psychopathic. I want a leader that understands that all war is tragedy and must be avoided if and when possible.

I think Bush imagined himself as one of the great Roman leaders who ruled with fear and force. But Bush and his cohorts have no understanding of history.

People didn't submit to Roman Rule and taxation because they were afraid of war. The people were afraid of what happens after the war.

All of your men and boys would be killed and your wives and daughters would be abused by the troops.

People were afraid of being Impaled, not afraid of dying in battle.

I imagine if our tyrannical, possibly psychopathic leaders who get excited by drone strikes, could still persuade with torture they would. And one has to look no further than the recent CIA torture revelations to know that they indeed are willing to torture to win.

Machine men with machine minds.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: grandmakdw

Disgust is a better moral compass than religion, for the simple reason religion gets nothing right.

But what one is disgusted at changes like a feather in the wind with society.

One day something is disgusting and the next day it is a fad to do it and not only acceptable but people are encourage to copy the once disgusting behavior.

One sees it all the time in our current culture.

Many climate deniers are not disgusted at all by the idea of killing or jailing people who disagree with them, check it out on google. Even Al Gore has suggested we jail all global warming deniers. When in the 1970's we were all being warned of the coming ice age due to fluorocarbons and we had to give up freon the best air conditioning we ever had. It is no longer disgusting to suggest killing or jailing people for simply disagreeing with you.

Many people today find post birth abortion (killing the newly born who are unwanted) acceptable behavior. Even Pres O supports post birth abortion when an abortion results in a live birth. Just 30 years ago that would have been unthinkable. It is no longer disgusting to kill a live newborn if the parents don't want it. (please no one launch into a morality discussion on this, it is simply an example of a radical change in societal consensus morality over a short period of time)

I could go on and on.

I am not saying people need to accept
religious texts, I am simply saying
that having them gives us a launching
platform for deciding what is moral
and what isn't.

Disgust is a moving target. What is disgusting today
in our society, or all societies really,
easily becomes common consensus for
correct behavior practically overnight.

Ah, so happy to see your fallacious anti-liberal statements.

Can I talk for a minute about the religious right? While the religious right, which I assume you belong to, has been clamoring about Jesus and how the US is a Christian nation, the right was supporting George Bush in torturing people, not giving them due process, and holding them without trial. Moreover, the religious right also GLADLY supported Bush in preemptively invading Iraq, which is a war crime of aggression, was based on lies, and resulted in the deaths of up to 200,000 civilians. CIVILIANS.

Sounds pretty Christian and Jesus-like to me aye? Good to see that good ol' Bible moral compass in action in dem folks.

Who would Jesus bomb?

Christian bashing is a favorite sport of some people here on ATS.

The person I was responding to about a moral compass said that before there were religious texts that the world was utopia with everyone happy and getting along.

I was responding to that.

While you focused on what appears to be your agenda of Christian bashing for fun, you missed the point I was making entirely.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: grandmakdw

Early historical times had religion.

Native Americans had religion.

ISIS has religion.

There was no time in pre-religious text history that wasn't as brutal as ISIS is today.

I'm sorry, but this is just incorrect.

Yeah, have to love Grandmakdw's assertion that Native Americans didn't have religion. Sounds like ye olde ultra-conservative "why the Native Americans were savages and needed to be civilized."

What an ugly stereotype you are making of me.
Your reading into what I wrote and "mind reading"
what you thought were my implications
are astounding ugly and bigoted and prejudiced to say the least.

Get your head out of the let's bash everyone we don't agree with
and make them sound evil.

The Native Americans were what they were.
The religion that I was responding to was textual religions.
Native Americans did not have textual religion. The person
said that pre textual religion everyone was peaceful
and sharing, etc. I was pointing out that was not true.

The Native Americans were just like every other human
on the planet. They did not live in peaceful utopia.
Just like the people in Europe and Asia and Africa
in pre religious text times; they simply did what humans do.
The wanted something (territory etc) someone else had,
they organized their cultural group and went and took it,
they went in and killed off as many as possible,
raped women and forced them to bear children
for them and/or enslaved the people left alive.
I simply used Native Americans as an example
because they are the most frequently
mis-cited as peaceful and living in harmony
with everyone because they lacked a
textual religion. That is a fantasy and fallacy.
They were like every other human during the
pre religious and post religious text times.

The point I was making was missed entirely
because you were focused on what upset you
rather than the point I was making.

That is ALL mankind can be quite vicious to each other,
and to say that if (as the person I responded to did)
that getting rid of all religion will restore mankind
to the peaceful people they were before textual religion.
Well that is just a fallacy, a fantasy.

I never denied that post religious text people could be cruel.
I said that religious texts give us a starting point for morality.
Get that - a starting point.

I also said that without textual religions there is no starting point,
no baseline, because morality changes like the wind in a very short
time and gave many examples.
If you thought my examples were liberal bashing, then
that is your interpretation. They were simply modern
and well known examples.

Your obvious hostility toward me because of what I think,
has blinded your objectivity to the point I was making
and you took off in some weird direction.

I still assert that the very best utopia
is one where the philosophy is
live and let live
let people believe as they wish
let people do what they wish
let people think what they wish
let people say what they wish
UNLESS
(and many of you respondents missed this point entirely)
ones actions (not words, actions)
harm others
or harm others property
Where is your grievance with this philosophy?
Please don't deviate your answer into what you think I'm thinking,
but stick to what is said, not what you think is implied,
there is no implication there
except government should not intervene unless ones ACTIONS
harm others or other's property.

If you claim that this philosophy is a religious right philosophy, then
explain to me how each of these things is wrong in your eyes?
Not what it can lead to, but what specifically is wrong with
allowing people the freedom to believe as they wish, think
as they wish, speak as they wish, do as they wish, as long
as they don't hurt others in the process?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: grandmakdw

Early historical times had religion.

Native Americans had religion.

ISIS has religion.

There was no time in pre-religious text history that wasn't as brutal as ISIS is today.

I'm sorry, but this is just incorrect.

You also missed the point I was making regarding textual religion, read my above post please.
Thank you.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: grandmakdw

Disgust is a better moral compass than religion, for the simple reason religion gets nothing right.

But what one is disgusted at changes like a feather in the wind with society.

One day something is disgusting and the next day it is a fad to do it and not only acceptable but people are encourage to copy the once disgusting behavior.

One sees it all the time in our current culture.

Many climate deniers are not disgusted at all by the idea of killing or jailing people who disagree with them, check it out on google. Even Al Gore has suggested we jail all global warming deniers. When in the 1970's we were all being warned of the coming ice age due to fluorocarbons and we had to give up freon the best air conditioning we ever had. It is no longer disgusting to suggest killing or jailing people for simply disagreeing with you.

Many people today find post birth abortion (killing the newly born who are unwanted) acceptable behavior. Even Pres O supports post birth abortion when an abortion results in a live birth. Just 30 years ago that would have been unthinkable. It is no longer disgusting to kill a live newborn if the parents don't want it. (please no one launch into a morality discussion on this, it is simply an example of a radical change in societal consensus morality over a short period of time)

I could go on and on.

I am not saying people need to accept
religious texts, I am simply saying
that having them gives us a launching
platform for deciding what is moral
and what isn't.

Disgust is a moving target. What is disgusting today
in our society, or all societies really,
easily becomes common consensus for
correct behavior practically overnight.

Ah, so happy to see your fallacious anti-liberal statements.

Can I talk for a minute about the religious right? While the religious right, which I assume you belong to, has been clamoring about Jesus and how the US is a Christian nation, the right was supporting George Bush in torturing people, not giving them due process, and holding them without trial. Moreover, the religious right also GLADLY supported Bush in preemptively invading Iraq, which is a war crime of aggression, was based on lies, and resulted in the deaths of up to 200,000 civilians. CIVILIANS.

Sounds pretty Christian and Jesus-like to me aye? Good to see that good ol' Bible moral compass in action in dem folks.

Who would Jesus bomb?

Christian bashing is a favorite sport of some people here on ATS.

The person I was responding to about a moral compass said that before there were religious texts that the world was utopia with everyone happy and getting along.

I was responding to that.

While you focused on what appears to be your agenda of Christian bashing for fun, you missed the point I was making entirely.

No, you went on a apparent liberal-bashing tirade, all aimed at asserted liberal evils, from climate change proponents wanting to kill deniers to abortion.

I simply called you out on it, and showed you the mirror about how the religious right has supported a lot of evil.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: grandmakdw

Early historical times had religion.

Native Americans had religion.

ISIS has religion.

There was no time in pre-religious text history that wasn't as brutal as ISIS is today.

I'm sorry, but this is just incorrect.

Yeah, have to love Grandmakdw's assertion that Native Americans didn't have religion. Sounds like ye olde ultra-conservative "why the Native Americans were savages and needed to be civilized."

What an ugly stereotype you are making of me.
Your reading into what I wrote and "mind reading"
what you thought were my implications
are astounding ugly and bigoted and prejudiced to say the least.

Get your head out of the let's bash everyone we don't agree with
and make them sound evil.

The Native Americans were what they were.
The religion that I was responding to was textual religions.
Native Americans did not have textual religion. The person
said that pre textual religion everyone was peaceful
and sharing, etc. I was pointing out that was not true.

The Native Americans were just like every other human
on the planet. They did not live in peaceful utopia.
Just like the people in Europe and Asia and Africa
in pre religious text times; they simply did what humans do.
The wanted something (territory etc) someone else had,
they organized their cultural group and went and took it,
they went in and killed off as many as possible,
raped women and forced them to bear children
for them and/or enslaved the people left alive.
I simply used Native Americans as an example
because they are the most frequently
mis-cited as peaceful and living in harmony
with everyone because they lacked a
textual religion. That is a fantasy and fallacy.
They were like every other human during the
pre religious and post religious text times.

The point I was making was missed entirely
because you were focused on what upset you
rather than the point I was making.

That is ALL mankind can be quite vicious to each other,
and to say that if (as the person I responded to did)
that getting rid of all religion will restore mankind
to the peaceful people they were before textual religion.
Well that is just a fallacy, a fantasy.

I never denied that post religious text people could be cruel.
I said that religious texts give us a starting point for morality.
Get that - a starting point.

I also said that without textual religions there is no starting point,
no baseline, because morality changes like the wind in a very short
time and gave many examples.
If you thought my examples were liberal bashing, then
that is your interpretation. They were simply modern
and well known examples.

Your obvious hostility toward me because of what I think,
has blinded your objectivity to the point I was making
and you took off in some weird direction.

I still assert that the very best utopia
is one where the philosophy is
live and let live
let people believe as they wish
let people do what they wish
let people think what they wish
let people say what they wish
UNLESS
(and many of you respondents missed this point entirely)
ones actions (not words, actions)
harm others
or harm others property
Where is your grievance with this philosophy?
Please don't deviate your answer into what you think I'm thinking,
but stick to what is said, not what you think is implied,
there is no implication there
except government should not intervene unless ones ACTIONS
harm others or other's property.

If you claim that this philosophy is a religious right philosophy, then
explain to me how each of these things is wrong in your eyes?
Not what it can lead to, but what specifically is wrong with
allowing people the freedom to believe as they wish, think
as they wish, speak as they wish, do as they wish, as long
as they don't hurt others in the process?

This is false. Who do you mean by "Native Americans?" You are showing your ignorance. There most definitely were tribes in the US and Canada who had written language and religion. And "Americas" includes Central America and South America. The Aztecs and Maya most definitely had a written or pictographic language including regarding religion.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I asked a simple question and if you won't answer it
I know you are more interested in proving me evil
because you simply disagree with me
than true give and take on the topic of the thread.

Creating utopia, the OP says through democracy,
I disagree and say democracy is another form of collectivism.

My question:
if you won't reply to this our conversation is done,
I will not participate in personal destruction
because you or I disagree with the other's political ideas.

I still assert that the very best utopia
is one where the philosophy is
live and let live
let people believe as they wish
let people do what they wish
let people think what they wish
let people say what they wish
UNLESS
(THIS IS CRUCIAL and CRITICAL
ONES ACTIONS, not words)
harm others
or harm others property

QUESTION 1: Where is your grievance with this philosophy?
Please don't deviate your answer into what you think I'm thinking,
but stick to what is said, not what you think is implied,
there is no implication there
except government should not intervene unless ones ACTIONS
harm others or other's property.

If you claim that this philosophy is a religious right philosophy, then
QUESTION 2:explain to me how each item you think is steeped in religious right philosophy

By the way, these are libertarian philosophy's. But you have claimed they
are religious right wing so please support your contention.


MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION 3:
how are all of these ideas in bold
the antithesis of liberal philosophy?
Which is the implication I am seeing in your writings.

It seems you have decided I'm a rabid evil right winger
that you must hate because
you disagree with my religious ideas and political ideas me.
MINOR QUESTION 4: How is that consistent with left wing liberalism,
because I will assume from your visceral vitriol toward
me that you are a far left wing liberal,
and I wish to understand
how you think the philosophy of personal destruction of those
you disagree with will bring about utopia or a better country.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I asked a simple question and if you won't answer it
I know you are more interested in proving me evil
because you simply disagree with me
than true give and take on the topic of the thread.

Creating utopia, the OP says through democracy,
I disagree and say democracy is another form of collectivism.

My question:
if you won't reply to this our conversation is done,
I will not participate in personal destruction
because you or I disagree with the other's political ideas.

I still assert that the very best utopia
is one where the philosophy is
live and let live
let people believe as they wish
let people do what they wish
let people think what they wish
let people say what they wish
UNLESS
(and many of you respondents missed this point entirely)
ones actions (not words, actions)
harm others
or harm others property
Where is your grievance with this philosophy?
Please don't deviate your answer into what you think I'm thinking,
but stick to what is said, not what you think is implied,
there is no implication there
except government should not intervene unless ones ACTIONS
harm others or other's property.

If you claim that this philosophy is a religious right philosophy, then
explain to me how each of these things is wrong in your eyes.
And how each item you think is wrong and steeped in religious right philosophy[/]

By the way, these are libertarian philosophy's. But you have claimed they
are religious right wing so please support your contention.

It seems you have decided
I'm a rabid evil right winger that you must hate because you disagree
with me.

How is that consistent with left wing liberalism,
because I will assume from your visceral vitriol toward
me that you are a far left wing liberal.
So also, how are all of these ideas in bold
the antithesis of liberal philosophy?
Which is the implication I am seeing in your writings.

But you are still falling into classic conservative logical fallacies. You guys constantly claim, as you are now, that somehow freedom is some kind of right wing libertarian idea.

The hippies and counterculture have been saying for 5 decades that people should be able to do what they want as long as they do not harm others, EXACTLY what you are claiming is represented by Libertarianism.

I AGREE with your viewpoint above in bold.

Where I disagree with you is your points about liberals and the claim that most religion has actually produced solid morality or especially moral actions.

A side point, however, is that most libertarians fail to recognize how many corporations, governments, and people are harming others through environmental destruction, something that DOES need to be regulated by government. I recognize that your words, taken as written, would agree with me. But so many libertarians in real discussions reject the same regulations regarding environment.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


Libertarians are not against regulations that are done because they have harmed others.
That is part of the philosophy of when it harms others then it must be controlled.

Our current government has just gone way too far with regulations,
they are currently regulating for the idiot in society,
the one that doesn't realize getting on a ladder on an uneven surface
is downright stupid. The one that doesn't realize getting in a bathtub with
a hair dryer is stupid and forces the companies to bend to the stupid
rather than putting the responsibility where it belongs, the idiot
who hurt themselves by being stupid.

The government doesn't need to regulate stupidity, or as they have done now
claimed ownership of all water in the US, even in puddles, because of a
temporary drought in California or because some snail might die. That is
totalitarianism and the antithesis of utopia.

My claim regarding religion is that without it
(as some wish to remove it entirely from our society)
there is no moral compass from which to generate
discussion.
Disgust is fleeting, today something is disgusting to
society, tomorrow it isn't. My examples obviously
set you off, but sorry they are real examples
of how disgust at an activity is very subjective
and changes like a feather blowing in the wind.
Things we used to say everyone agreed were immoral
are no longer agreed upon as immoral
(killing for whatever reason) there are many
in society who used to agree that killing was
always immoral (liberals used to stand vigals
at executions), now some are calling for killing
those who simply disagree with liberal
philosophy (I gave examples earlier)
There is absolutely no moral ground that
everyone in the world agrees on
(see ISIS for example)
and there never will be.
But religious texts do give us starting
places for discussions on morality
(I happen to disagree with much
of the Koran and find it disgusting/
however, it does generate a great
deal of discussion on morality.)
The ten commandments are also a
great starting point for discussion
on morality.
Thou shalt not kill for example.
Thou shalt not steal.
(When is the government stealing from the
people rather than supporting the people
with taxes?)
To say the world must rid itself of all
religion and religious texts is to put everyone
at the mercy of the blowing wind.
Because there is absolutely no moral stance
that everyone in the world agrees on and so
who ever is in power at the moment can decide
what is right or wrong for everyone; again
totalitarianism and fascism.

Also if as I posit,
let people believe as they wish
as long as they don't harm others with their actions -
how is that a danger to society - or something
that must be suppressed?
Suppression of ideas beliefs and thoughts is the ultimate
in totalitarianism and fascism.