Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Secular Ten Commandments?

Zerubbabel Wrote: Oct 31, 2013 12:59 PM
Feurebach was right that we created God as the repository of our highest principles. In return God made our principles sacred. Marx and the new atheists take the idea that man created God and conclude that we don't need God, and jettison him - leaving our principles unprotected with bad results as Newcombe notes. The monumental problem is (the problem which drove Nietzsche ["God is Dead and we have killed him"] mad): When we no-longer find the Biblical myths believable, how will we then make our principles sacred?
Here is a real life situation- young, angry, promiscuous, drug using mother of 3, will not work, find a responsible guy, steals from everybody including family, in and out of jail. The 3 kids are bounced all around and the family is stressed to no end. If the grandmother adopts these kids, whats to stop this young woman from pumping out 10 kids for the grandmother to care for? The answer that pro-choice offers is that these 3 kids should have been killed before being born. The answer is always the sacrifice of the innocent beautiful children while the irresponsible adults go on without consequence.
In response to:

Has the Bell Begun to Toll for China?

Zerubbabel Wrote: Mar 03, 2013 12:15 PM
neither entry buttresses your definition: "A republic is a government under a Constitution preventing the violation of the rights of the individual." See: "elected by its populace" and "contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary." Not the important qualifier "DIRECT democracy"
re·pub·lic [ri-puhb-lik] noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens ... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic?s=t republic (n.) c.1600, "state in which supreme power rests in the people," http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=republic&searchmode=none
"A republic is a government under a Constitution preventing the violation of the rights of the individual." Is this what Ben Franklin mean't when he told that woman in Philly after the ratification of the Constitution, that "we have given you a Republic, if you can keep it"? Is that what the Constitution means when it promises the States "a republican form of government"? In 1787 there were no Constitutional protection of individual rights. That didn't come until 1791 with the first 10 amendments. I don't know what Ben meant, but I know your historical revision is wrong.
I doubt you could define 'republicism' any better than you could 'nationaism.' Meanwhile our first 10 amendments make us 'liberal' as in 'liberty.' And the mechanisms of voting spelled out in detail make us 'democratic' of the representative type. That these things are written down in a supreme law of the land also makes us a 'Constitutional liberal democracy.'
"national identity, something all nations have" The first example I gave you was the Civil War. The South no longer shared the same national identity. The US lacked a "national identity. As well as desiring to nationalize/socialize corporate assets would you also remove their liberty to operate globally? You need to analyse what "globalism" actually means.
A 100 ya no one fly to Europe, no one drove cross-country. If you analyze it accurately you will see that the technology and your "problems" coincide in time. That South American people and agricultural produce both began to arrive here in quantities at the same time is no coincidence.
Now you have clarified the problem. It isn't our changing demographics. It is the Mexicans that you see as one of the three big problems ... actually the biggest because you have lost the other two in your zeal for this one. I like Mexicans, although I do admit I don't live in or near a big-city urban area. But the rural Mexicans I know are genuinely happy, hard working, family-oriented and moral. I don't see the problem.
> lack of morals, changing demographics ...and globalism. < Morality should not be the concern of the state. In a liberal democracy it is a cultural issue, not a political one. Changing demographics and globalism are the inevitable result of technology. If we want to solve these "problems" then we need to get rid of ships, trains, planes and automobiles and to dismantle our communication systems. No internet for us because it leads to multiculturalism.
You have a strong sense of nationalism. You have internalized a romanticized "hardcore blood and soil ideology" which I think Pat would approve of and which could be very useful to a government ready to start steam-rolling dissenters (human obstacles). But I think you were born 80 years too late. 1930's Germany would have been your ideal milieu. Thanks for the dialog.
Previous 11 - 20 Next