Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Impenitent · Nov 9, 2003, 04:00 am

from another thread:

"disgusting assertions? like what? the fact that humans are animals and will behave as such? nothing disgusting about that... this world is the will to power and nothing besides... the powerful are doing their business and the weak shall perish... that is basic evolution and basic Nietzsche..."

does someone care to object to these premises?

fedfem · Nov 9, 2003, 06:20 pm

Nietzsche was not saying this was acceptable. He had no use for religion, nationalism or racism. Nature is the will to power. He believed humans would evolve to an even higher state--the overman.

Nietzsche would not have agreed with the present war and especially the present US administration.

Why do you support the US actions and propoganda and use Nietzsche??? I do not believe you have ever studied him at all.

As far as Islam, Nietzshe says in The Antichrist--

Hidden vengefulness, petty envy, became master! Everything wretched, intrinsically ailing, and invaded by bad feelings, the whole ghetto-world of the soul, was at once on top!--One needs but read any of the Christian agitators, for example, St. Augustine, in order to realize, in order to smell, what filthy fellows came to the top. It would be an error, however, to assume that there was any lack of understanding in the leaders of the Christian movement:--ah, but they were clever, clever to the point of holiness, these fathers of the church! What they lacked was something quite different. Nature neglected--perhaps forgot--to give them even the most modest endowment of respectable, of upright, of cleanly instincts. . . Between ourselves, they are not even men. . . . If Islam despises Christianity, it has a thousandfold right to do so: Islam at least assumes that it is dealing with men. . . .

And he also said--

Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (--I do not say by what sort of feet--) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin--because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life! . . .

And to close--

This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found--I have letters that even the blind will be able to see. . . . I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,--I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race. . . .

http://www.fns.org.uk/ac.htm

Impenitent · Nov 10, 2003, 03:40 am

ff

-Nietzsche was not saying this was acceptable.

that the strong would dominate the weak? not acceptable? re-read the antichrist, twilight of the idols and the will to power again, and don't forget to re-examine the genealogy of morals...

-He had no use for religion, nationalism or racism.

he most certainly did... he differentiated them as tools for the aristocracy or ruling class to use to manipulate the herd... if one was to exist with the herd that is... but that's another question of conscience...

-He believed humans would evolve to an even higher state--the overman.

no, the nazi's believed in that... Nietzsche set the ubermensch up as a goal at which to shoot when the other ideas of christian perfect being etc were demolished...

-Nietzsche would not have agreed with the present war and especially the present US administration.

wrong, Nietzsche would have loved the current war and any and every war, man's natural state according to Nietzsche is to conquer and fight constantly... that which does not kill me makes me stronger... Nietzsche abhored democracy in every form so his opinion of american government would be beside the point... and I never claimed that Nietzsche would embrase the government of the united states in this or any other administration...

-Why do you support the US actions and propoganda and use Nietzsche??? I do not believe you have ever studied him at all.

the current us actions are war... Nietzsche's entire philosophy was concerned with the conquering of the self and doing away with the frivolities and decadence of the metaphysical and the herd... Nietzsche understood the human need for war all too well... you need to re-read Zarathustra... I think your interpretation of Nietzsche's work is incorrect.

and why have you decided to post quotes from the antichrist? do you think I am christian? what does Impenitent mean? if you really wanted to post about a religion that Nietzsche would have tolerated you would have posted something about Buddhism... and you accuse me of not knowing Nietzsche?

and by the way, what was Zarathustra's final "sin"?
hint: it's the thing Nietzsche despised most about christians

p.s. if you had actually read from the link you posted, you would have seen section 2... I suggest you read it...

and for the home players here it is:
"2.
What is good?--Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.
What is evil?--Whatever springs from weakness.
What is happiness?--The feeling that power increases--that resistance is overcome.
Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, virtue free of moral acid).
The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.
What is more harmful than any vice?--Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak--Christianity... "

fedfem · Nov 10, 2003, 06:26 pm

Perhaps you are interpreting power as violence, which is not what Nietzsche means, although violence is indeed a way to power for a short time.

I know you are not a christian, but you are debating from "the herd" perspective which is a christian perspective. I was just using the Antichrist as a source against the racist(anti-arab) views you have asserted.

In the so-called war on terror you seem think the "terrorists" are the weak using Nietzche's definitions when the opposite is the case.

As far as the Nazis, like you, they interpreted his words through a lens that fit their worldview and of course with a little help from his sister.

I still do not see how Nietzche would have supported this travesty in Iraq. He would be rooting for the Iraqis to fight against the US for freedom.

BTW--It has been a while and I am enjoying rereading Nietzche.

Impenitent · Nov 10, 2003, 06:51 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fedfem,)
Perhaps you are interpreting power as violence, which is not what Nietzsche means, although violence is indeed a way to power for a short time.

I know you are not a christian, but you are debating from "the herd" perspective which is a christian perspective. I was just using the Antichrist as a source against the racist(anti-arab) views you have asserted.

In the so-called war on terror you seem think the "terrorists" are the weak using Nietzche's definitions when the opposite is the case.

As far as the Nazis, like you, they interpreted his words through a lens that fit their worldview and of course with a little help from his sister.

I still do not see how Nietzche would have supported this travesty in Iraq. He would be rooting for the Iraqis to fight against the US for freedom.

BTW--It has been a while and I am enjoying rereading Nietzche.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

1. I am not interpreting power as violence at all... violence is a natural result of some uses of power...

2. no, I am explaining what the herd (and the herd is not necessarily christian) is doing. I have not advanced racist anything, I say kill those that would kill us regardless of race, religion or politics...

3. the "weak" are those who cannot stand against the strong...

4. "As far as the Nazis, like you, they interpreted his words through a lens that fit their worldview and of course with a little help from his sister."

like me? another ad homenium and insult... that's 4... and no, I am anything but a national socialist... but that still doesn't address your error about claiming that the ubermensch was an actual end as opposed to being the ideal goal.

5. keep reading and you will see that Nietzsche would not pick sides in the conflict, but he would rejoice in the fact that conflict occurs... the stronger will dominate and the weak shall be erradicated...

any guess on Zarathustra's final "sin"?

fedfem · Nov 10, 2003, 07:07 pm

[quote=Impenitent

1. I am not interpreting power as violence at all... violence is a natural result of some uses of power...

2. no, I am explaining what the herd (and the herd is not necessarily christian) is doing. I have not advanced racist anything, I say kill those that would kill us regardless of race, religion or politics...

3. the "weak" are those who cannot stand against the strong...

4. "As far as the Nazis, like you, they interpreted his words through a lens that fit their worldview and of course with a little help from his sister."

like me? another ad homenium and insult... that's 4... and no, I am anything but a national socialist... but that still doesn't address your error about claiming that the ubermensch was an actual end as opposed to being the ideal goal.

5. keep reading and you will see that Nietzsche would not pick sides in the conflict, but he would rejoice in the fact that conflict occurs... the stronger will dominate and the weak shall be erradicated...

any guess on Zarathustra's final "sin"?[/QUOTE]

I was not accusing you of being a nazi--just saying you were interpreting through a lens. I am probably doing the same. I also did not mean the ubermensch was an end, only that it is part of evolution that we attain such.

I still think he would see the US power as the weak one in these days.

Nietzsche was not a nihilist and would not just sit back and watch.

As far as my guess--I will throw out PRIDE as a wild guess.

Impenitent · Nov 10, 2003, 11:51 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fedfem,)

I was not accusing you of being a nazi--just saying you were interpreting through a lens. I am probably doing the same. I also did not mean the ubermensch was an end, only that it is part of evolution that we attain such.

I still think he would see the US power as the weak one in these days.

Nietzsche was not a nihilist and would not just sit back and watch.

As far as my guess--I will throw out PRIDE as a wild guess.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

1. no, not attained through evolution, willed by the herd... that sounds contradictory but it isn't because humans are herd animals and one starts as a human

2. the weak one? no he'd see the masses screaming for peace at any cost as the weak ones... he'd see the us military as doing what good humans do...

3. yes I know he wasn't a nihilist but the destroyer of values...

4. not pride at all... the last "sin" of Zarathustra was pity... pity for other humans... that is what Nietzsche despised, pity... christianity, the religon of pity

makes you see Nietzsche in a new light doesn't it? not pro herd, not pro society, not pro communalism...

Zarathustra book 3, section 55 "the spirit of gravity", part 29...

"Why so hard!"—said to the diamond one day the charcoal; "are we then not near relatives?"—Why so soft? O my brethren; thus do I ask you: are ye then not—my brethren?

Why so soft, so submissive and yielding? Why is there so much negation and abnegation in your hearts? Why is there so little fate in your looks?

And if ye will not be fates and inexorable ones, how can ye one day—conquer with me?

And if your hardness will not glance and cut and chip to pieces, how can ye one day—create with me?

For the creators are hard. And blessedness must it seem to you to press your hand upon millenniums as upon wax,—

Blessedness to write upon the will of millenniums as upon brass,—harder than brass, nobler than brass. Entirely hard is only the noblest.

This new table, O my brethren, put I up over you: Become hard!—"

fedfem · Nov 11, 2003, 12:58 am

makes you see Nietzsche in a new light doesn't it? not pro herd, not pro society, not pro communalism...

Not at all, I never thought of him being any of those. And that comes back to the reason I question you on your use of Nietzsche when you seem to be what Nietzsche would call part of the herd.

I am referring to the Iraq debacle. There is more than one herd of course but the herd pushed by fear is no different that the herd crying for peace. This is a crusade that uses fear and religion and hatred as tools of support. You would not support this if you were not in fear. Now they are using terrorism in Iraq to put fear into the people so they will comply. It worked for the american populace but will not work for the iraqis. They will fight for their freedom and will eventually win. Like viet nam, the pentagon has underestimated the "weak"

You have used the term "we" and "us" instead of "me" or "I" in your opinions. My argument is that you are adopting your reasoning in order to fit into a group that you perceive is strong because they tell you they are strong. You are not using any of your own individuality. These are not insults just observations. I as an individual do not see the world as black and white.

Impenitent · Nov 11, 2003, 01:53 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fedfem,)
makes you see Nietzsche in a new light doesn't it? not pro herd, not pro society, not pro communalism...

Not at all, I never thought of him being any of those. And that comes back to the reason I question you on your use of Nietzsche when you seem to be what Nietzsche would call part of the herd.

I am referring to the Iraq debacle. There is more than one herd of course but the herd pushed by fear is no different that the herd crying for peace. This is a crusade that uses fear and religion and hatred as tools of support. You would not support this if you were not in fear. Now they are using terrorism in Iraq to put fear into the people so they will comply. It worked for the american populace but will not work for the iraqis. They will fight for their freedom and will eventually win. Like viet nam, the pentagon has underestimated the "weak"

You have used the term "we" and "us" instead of "me" or "I" in your opinions. My argument is that you are adopting your reasoning in order to fit into a group that you perceive is strong because they tell you they are strong. You are not using any of your own individuality. These are not insults just observations. I as an individual do not see the world as black and white.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

1- You would not support this if you were not in fear.
no, I am not in fear... this is an exersize in culling the herd... humans do this in every generation in one part of the world or another...

2- They will fight for their freedom and will eventually win. Like viet nam, the pentagon has underestimated the "weak"
not at all... the terrorists are not fighting for freedom, they are fighting for a new taliban style regime... no matter how many times the democrats yell quagmire and vietnam, iraq is not even close... you forget for what we and they are fighting...

3- I use the term we and us because I am american and I am reporting what we as americans are doing in our foreign policy. the american group is strong because we have the military might... look at what the military is doing, that is strength... bending over for the terrorists or anyone in the name of peace is not strength and it is exactly what would make Nietzsche vomit with disgust...

not using any of my own individuality? how can I do anything but be an individual? just because I find the military option more than plausible, but the effecient and preferred way to control the herd? that is practicality... I see altruism and liberal socialist herd society as nothing more than christian pity in another skin... how can you accuse me of being part of the herd? the herd is nothing but the means to an end... the herd will extinguish itself...

seeing shades of gray is fine as well, but when you argue logically, it is black or white, right or wrong, valid or invalid, sound or unsound...

fedfem · Nov 11, 2003, 09:52 am

1- You would not support this if you were not in fear.
no, I am not in fear... this is an exersize in culling the herd... humans do this in every generation in one part of the world or another...

2- They will fight for their freedom and will eventually win. Like viet nam, the pentagon has underestimated the "weak"
not at all... the terrorists are not fighting for freedom, they are fighting for a new taliban style regime... no matter how many times the democrats yell quagmire and vietnam, iraq is not even close... you forget for what we and they are fighting...
**************************************************

Point 1) Is that not what Saddam was doing to the fundamentalist "herd"?

Point 2) I am not talking about terrorists, I am talking about the Iraqi people. They sure as hell do not want a "Taliban like regime" Iraq was secular before we put our nose in there.(in the 80's and the 90's as well as recent times)

You label the "democrats" the yellers but that is not entirely true. It goes beyond politics.

I know what they are fighting for but I know for a fact that what we are fighting for has nothing to do what the US citizens are told we(U.S) are fighting for. You seem to think that Iraq and the war on terror are related and they were not until we invaded.

What in your opinion is the reason the US invaded?

Impenitent · Nov 11, 2003, 01:53 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fedfem,)

Point 1) Is that not what Saddam was doing to the fundamentalist "herd"?

Point 2) I am not talking about terrorists, I am talking about the Iraqi people. They sure as hell do not want a "Taliban like regime" Iraq was secular before we put our nose in there.(in the 80's and the 90's as well as recent times)

You label the "democrats" the yellers but that is not entirely true. It goes beyond politics.

I know what they are fighting for but I know for a fact that what we are fighting for has nothing to do what the US citizens are told we(U.S) are fighting for. You seem to think that Iraq and the war on terror are related and they were not until we invaded.

What in your opinion is the reason the US invaded?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

1. sure, and hitler and stalin and pol pot and many other dictators as well...

2. the terrorists are fighting to install a taliban like regime... secular? no, it was never secular, it wasn't christian but it wasn't without religious/cultural influence... ask the kurds and the non baathists... was nazi germany secular before we put our nose in there?

the democrats are the ones yelling, not the republicans... nothing is beyond politics

the war on terror and the iraq war are related

the war on terror and the soon to behold iran war are related... as well as the soon to behold syria, lebanon, and saudi arabia wars... and not to be accused of racism, throw n korea in as well...

why are we fighting? greed, insecurity, revenge...

it is what humans do...

fedfem · Nov 11, 2003, 03:31 pm

Iraq was secular. Why do you think Osama hated him so much? The Nazis were not secular. The US is secular but our current administration is not.

Why do you think we should go to war with the Arabs? The US would not dare go to war with N Korea. The US only attacks small countries that have been disarmed.

Can you list any war we engaged in where the country was not already war torn or at the end of its power?

Some Republicans are yelling too--don't kid yourself. They know the party has been taken by this neo-con ideal.

regarding your last statement:

"why are we fighting? greed, insecurity, revenge...

it is what humans do..."

Don't you think we should evolve from that?

We are now in a "cool war" with Europe and Latin America whether it is in the media or not. The Euro is the biggest weapon that will be used against the US in the coming years. Latin America and Europe will no longer be the allies of the past 50 years. Russia and China are building alliances while we are "busy". It is sad and only democratic ideals can save us now. We(US) are leaving ourselves vulnerable by our focus on the middle east. The Distraction afforded by the "war on terror" will all come to light someday. This is WW3 or 4(depending who you ask) and we(US) started it.

I suggest you start reading some other sources besides Faux and Freeper news. Not all is how it is presented to you.

It is in your self-interest to do so.

Impenitent · Nov 11, 2003, 04:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fedfem,)
Iraq was secular. Why do you think Osama hated him so much? The Nazis were not secular. The US is secular but our current administration is not.

Why do you think we should go to war with the Arabs? The US would not dare go to war with N Korea. The US only attacks small countries that have been disarmed.

Can you list any war we engaged in where the country was not already war torn or at the end of its power?

Some Republicans are yelling too--don't kid yourself. They know the party has been taken by this neo-con ideal.

regarding your last statement:

"why are we fighting? greed, insecurity, revenge...

it is what humans do..."

Don't you think we should evolve from that?

We are now in a "cool war" with Europe and Latin America whether it is in the media or not. The Euro is the biggest weapon that will be used against the US in the coming years. Latin America and Europe will no longer be the allies of the past 50 years. Russia and China are building alliances while we are "busy". It is sad and only democratic ideals can save us now. We(US) are leaving ourselves vulnerable by our focus on the middle east. The Distraction afforded by the "war on terror" will all come to light someday. This is WW3 or 4(depending who you ask) and we(US) started it.

I suggest you start reading some other sources besides Faux and Freeper news. Not all is how it is presented to you.

It is in your self-interest to do so.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

the iraqis under saddam were just as secular as the germans under hitler

-The US is secular but our current administration is not.
no, the us is not secular... some left wingers would like you to believe the lie that the us is secular, but it never has been... read the federalist papers

-Why do you think we should go to war with the Arabs? The US would not dare go to war with N Korea.
I never said we should, I said we will... why? that's what humans do... as far as n korea, the us and china will go to war and n korea will surrender

-The US only attacks small countries that have been disarmed.
how soon we forget 1941

-Can you list any war we engaged in where the country was not already war torn or at the end of its power?
nor can you, thus amplifying the point about the warlike nature of humans

-Some Republicans are yelling too--don't kid yourself. They know the party has been taken by this neo-con ideal.
and some democrats are more gung ho than bush-- don't kid yourself

-Don't you think we should evolve from that?

not really, besides, in the millenia it takes for actual evolution to occur, the race of humans will have been long gone... forced evolution?

-Latin America and Europe will no longer be the allies of the past 50 years.

and we will stop feeding them... the trade game goes both way and we have far more resources than the rest of the planet

-It is sad and only democratic ideals can save us now.
which democratic ideals are those? communalism? sorry, it isn't going to happen... the strong will rule as they always have... the new god of democracy will die as the christian god did

- We(US) are leaving ourselves vulnerable by our focus on the middle east. The Distraction afforded by the "war on terror" will all come to light someday.
vulnerable to whom? what distraction?

-I suggest you start reading some other sources besides Faux and Freeper news. Not all is how it is presented to you.

I am well aware of the propaganda being spun on msnbc and cnn... I have better judgement on who is telling me the truth... your spelling of fox reveals your prejudice and bias...

fedfem · Nov 11, 2003, 09:36 pm

no, the us is not secular... some left wingers would like you to believe the lie that the us is secular, but it never has been... read the federalist papers

I have read the Federalist papers and the Constitution and other founding documents. Show where in the Federalist papers it states we are not secular.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm

I agree with you as far as the democrats go--there is not much difference between the parties.

How are we feeding Europe and Latin America?

I am well aware of the propaganda being spun on msnbc and cnn... I have better judgement on who is telling me the truth... your spelling of fox reveals your prejudice and bias...

I for one do not defend MSNBC or CNN. It is all US media that is limited. Damn right I am prejudiced against it. I do watch Fox regularly.

Impenitent · Nov 12, 2003, 11:16 am

federalist #31, 43, and 51...
as well as the declaration of independence... all our rights are founded upon a "creator"... a secular society has no spiritual connection, we clearly do (and no, it isn't the far right christians) have a spiritual foundation

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

we feed the world... if latin america and europe want to stop trading with us, we'll return the favor and see who cries mercy first...

G. Adams · Nov 12, 2003, 12:13 pm

Hmm, well lets see, Argentina produces 20x the food needed for its own population. I'm sure others in Latin America can do similar if they simply stop producing coffee for the US. Western Europe has literally mountains of food bought by the EU that goes nowhere, if those producing it turned it into useful crops, we could feed ourself. GB can actually feed itself totally as it has one of the most techonologically advanced agricultural industries, despite not having a huge amount of arable land left.

In reality, most of the world can feed itself (Japan being a notable exception), its just the farms produce cash crops that end up in western markets instead, meaning there isn't enough food for their own population. if the US tried to dry up the world, as you think it could, the rest of the world would call a crisis, nationalise those lands and get producing useful stuff.

Impenitent · Nov 12, 2003, 12:39 pm

..."we could feed ourself."

..."meaning there isn't enough food for their own population."

as I said, we feed the world

" if the US tried to dry up the world, as you think it could, { so do you as you stated above } the rest of the world would call a crisis, nationalise those lands and get producing useful stuff."

the us could if pressed into it by the eu and latin america...

the rest of the world would riot and the governments would steal lands and start growing edible crop? and in the months it takes to grow what will you eat? do you understand what you have suggested? we want to get the us so in order to do that we have to stop trade... and when you stop trade you go into crisis mode... talk about chopping off your nose to spite your face...

fedfem · Nov 12, 2003, 02:52 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
federalist #31, 43, and 51...
as well as the declaration of independence... all our rights are founded upon a "creator"... a secular society has no spiritual connection, we clearly do (and no, it isn't the far right christians) have a spiritual foundation

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

we feed the world... if latin america and europe want to stop trading with us, we'll return the favor and see who cries mercy first...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Secular does not mean Atheistic. We are not a Christian Nation by founding. Every religion has a Creator. Nature is my creator and Nature's god is not a god based on organized religion it is a principle. The Federalist Papers you cited do not mention christianity as having anything to do with our Government.

The world is technologically advanced enough to produce its own food. With a united Europe they can trade amongst themselves as can Latin America if they unite.

Impenitent · Nov 12, 2003, 03:12 pm

I never said we were a christian nation; I said we were not secular.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=secular

sec·u·lar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sky-lr)
adj.
Worldly rather than spiritual.
Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
Relating to or advocating secularism.
Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
Lasting from century to century.

worldly rather than spiritual... the "god" of nature is spiritual regardless of religion... it is metaphysical and not worldly; therefore, it cannot be secular.

the world is technologically advanced enough, but the methods to do so are not in place and that would require time to produce the food... they can trade amongst themselves all they like but I don't think they want to revert to agrarian societies...

fedfem · Nov 12, 2003, 06:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
I never said we were a christian nation; I said we were not secular.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=secular

sec·u·lar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sky-lr)
adj.
Worldly rather than spiritual.
Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
Relating to or advocating secularism.
Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
Lasting from century to century.

worldly rather than spiritual... the "god" of nature is spiritual regardless of religion... it is metaphysical and not worldly; therefore, it cannot be secular.

the world is technologically advanced enough, but the methods to do so are not in place and that would require time to produce the food... they can trade amongst themselves all they like but I don't think they want to revert to agrarian societies...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The United States is a Secular nation. Even using your definition it matches. Webster's has:

3 entries found for secular.
To select an entry, click on it.
secular[1,adjective]secular[2,noun]secular humanism

Main Entry: 1sec·u·lar
Pronunciation: 'se-ky&-l&r
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
Date: 14th century
1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>
2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest>
3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration
- sec·u·lar·i·ty /"se-ky&-'lar-&-tE/ noun
- sec·u·lar·ly /'se-ky&-l&r-lE/ adverb
http://www.m-w.com/home.htm

Notice secular priest????? Is Webster a liberal-biased dictionary?

As far as food, most countries are self-staining and would trade with those who aren't. If you want stats, go to the USDA site. We are now importing more than we export overall.

Nov 9, 2003, 04:00 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	from another thread: "disgusting assertions? like what? the fact that humans are animals and will behave as such? nothing disgusting about that... this world is the will to power and nothing besides... the powerful are doing their business and the weak shall perish... that is basic evolution and basic Nietzsche..." does someone care to object to these premises? "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 10, 2003, 03:40 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	ff -Nietzsche was not saying this was acceptable. that the strong would dominate the weak? not acceptable? re-read the antichrist, twilight of the idols and the will to power again, and don't forget to re-examine the genealogy of morals... -He had no use for religion, nationalism or racism. he most certainly did... he differentiated them as tools for the aristocracy or ruling class to use to manipulate the herd... if one was to exist with the herd that is... but that's another question of conscience... -He believed humans would evolve to an even higher state--the overman. no, the nazi's believed in that... Nietzsche set the ubermensch up as a goal at which to shoot when the other ideas of christian perfect being etc were demolished... -Nietzsche would not have agreed with the present war and especially the present US administration. wrong, Nietzsche would have loved the current war and any and every war, man's natural state according to Nietzsche is to conquer and fight constantly... that which does not kill me makes me stronger... Nietzsche abhored democracy in every form so his opinion of american government would be beside the point... and I never claimed that Nietzsche would embrase the government of the united states in this or any other administration... -Why do you support the US actions and propoganda and use Nietzsche??? I do not believe you have ever studied him at all. the current us actions are war... Nietzsche's entire philosophy was concerned with the conquering of the self and doing away with the frivolities and decadence of the metaphysical and the herd... Nietzsche understood the human need for war all too well... you need to re-read Zarathustra... I think your interpretation of Nietzsche's work is incorrect. and why have you decided to post quotes from the antichrist? do you think I am christian? what does Impenitent mean? if you really wanted to post about a religion that Nietzsche would have tolerated you would have posted something about Buddhism... and you accuse me of not knowing Nietzsche? and by the way, what was Zarathustra's final "sin"? hint: it's the thing Nietzsche despised most about christians p.s. if you had actually read from the link you posted, you would have seen section 2... I suggest you read it... and for the home players here it is: "2. What is good?--Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man. What is evil?--Whatever springs from weakness. What is happiness?--The feeling that power increases--that resistance is overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, virtue free of moral acid). The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it. What is more harmful than any vice?--Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak--Christianity... " "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 10, 2003, 06:51 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fedfem,) Perhaps you are interpreting power as violence, which is not what Nietzsche means, although violence is indeed a way to power for a short time. I know you are not a christian, but you are debating from "the herd" perspective which is a christian perspective. I was just using the Antichrist as a source against the racist(anti-arab) views you have asserted. In the so-called war on terror you seem think the "terrorists" are the weak using Nietzche's definitions when the opposite is the case. As far as the Nazis, like you, they interpreted his words through a lens that fit their worldview and of course with a little help from his sister. I still do not see how Nietzche would have supported this travesty in Iraq. He would be rooting for the Iraqis to fight against the US for freedom. BTW--It has been a while and I am enjoying rereading Nietzche.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> 1. I am not interpreting power as violence at all... violence is a natural result of some uses of power... 2. no, I am explaining what the herd (and the herd is not necessarily christian) is doing. I have not advanced racist anything, I say kill those that would kill us regardless of race, religion or politics... 3. the "weak" are those who cannot stand against the strong... 4. "As far as the Nazis, like you, they interpreted his words through a lens that fit their worldview and of course with a little help from his sister." like me? another ad homenium and insult... that's 4... and no, I am anything but a national socialist... but that still doesn't address your error about claiming that the ubermensch was an actual end as opposed to being the ideal goal. 5. keep reading and you will see that Nietzsche would not pick sides in the conflict, but he would rejoice in the fact that conflict occurs... the stronger will dominate and the weak shall be erradicated... any guess on Zarathustra's final "sin"? "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 10, 2003, 11:51 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fedfem,) I was not accusing you of being a nazi--just saying you were interpreting through a lens. I am probably doing the same. I also did not mean the ubermensch was an end, only that it is part of evolution that we attain such. I still think he would see the US power as the weak one in these days. Nietzsche was not a nihilist and would not just sit back and watch. As far as my guess--I will throw out PRIDE as a wild guess.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> 1. no, not attained through evolution, willed by the herd... that sounds contradictory but it isn't because humans are herd animals and one starts as a human 2. the weak one? no he'd see the masses screaming for peace at any cost as the weak ones... he'd see the us military as doing what good humans do... 3. yes I know he wasn't a nihilist but the destroyer of values... 4. not pride at all... the last "sin" of Zarathustra was pity... pity for other humans... that is what Nietzsche despised, pity... christianity, the religon of pity makes you see Nietzsche in a new light doesn't it? not pro herd, not pro society, not pro communalism... Zarathustra book 3, section 55 "the spirit of gravity", part 29... "Why so hard!"—said to the diamond one day the charcoal; "are we then not near relatives?"—Why so soft? O my brethren; thus do I ask you: are ye then not—my brethren? Why so soft, so submissive and yielding? Why is there so much negation and abnegation in your hearts? Why is there so little fate in your looks? And if ye will not be fates and inexorable ones, how can ye one day—conquer with me? And if your hardness will not glance and cut and chip to pieces, how can ye one day—create with me? For the creators are hard. And blessedness must it seem to you to press your hand upon millenniums as upon wax,— Blessedness to write upon the will of millenniums as upon brass,—harder than brass, nobler than brass. Entirely hard is only the noblest. This new table, O my brethren, put I up over you: Become hard!—" "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 11, 2003, 01:53 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fedfem,) makes you see Nietzsche in a new light doesn't it? not pro herd, not pro society, not pro communalism... Not at all, I never thought of him being any of those. And that comes back to the reason I question you on your use of Nietzsche when you seem to be what Nietzsche would call part of the herd. I am referring to the Iraq debacle. There is more than one herd of course but the herd pushed by fear is no different that the herd crying for peace. This is a crusade that uses fear and religion and hatred as tools of support. You would not support this if you were not in fear. Now they are using terrorism in Iraq to put fear into the people so they will comply. It worked for the american populace but will not work for the iraqis. They will fight for their freedom and will eventually win. Like viet nam, the pentagon has underestimated the "weak" You have used the term "we" and "us" instead of "me" or "I" in your opinions. My argument is that you are adopting your reasoning in order to fit into a group that you perceive is strong because they tell you they are strong. You are not using any of your own individuality. These are not insults just observations. I as an individual do not see the world as black and white.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> 1- You would not support this if you were not in fear. no, I am not in fear... this is an exersize in culling the herd... humans do this in every generation in one part of the world or another... 2- They will fight for their freedom and will eventually win. Like viet nam, the pentagon has underestimated the "weak" not at all... the terrorists are not fighting for freedom, they are fighting for a new taliban style regime... no matter how many times the democrats yell quagmire and vietnam, iraq is not even close... you forget for what we and they are fighting... 3- I use the term we and us because I am american and I am reporting what we as americans are doing in our foreign policy. the american group is strong because we have the military might... look at what the military is doing, that is strength... bending over for the terrorists or anyone in the name of peace is not strength and it is exactly what would make Nietzsche vomit with disgust... not using any of my own individuality? how can I do anything but be an individual? just because I find the military option more than plausible, but the effecient and preferred way to control the herd? that is practicality... I see altruism and liberal socialist herd society as nothing more than christian pity in another skin... how can you accuse me of being part of the herd? the herd is nothing but the means to an end... the herd will extinguish itself... seeing shades of gray is fine as well, but when you argue logically, it is black or white, right or wrong, valid or invalid, sound or unsound... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 9, 2003, 06:20 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	Nietzsche was not saying this was acceptable. He had no use for religion, nationalism or racism. Nature is the will to power. He believed humans would evolve to an even higher state--the overman. Nietzsche would not have agreed with the present war and especially the present US administration. Why do you support the US actions and propoganda and use Nietzsche??? I do not believe you have ever studied him at all. As far as Islam, Nietzshe says in The Antichrist-- Hidden vengefulness, petty envy, became master! Everything wretched, intrinsically ailing, and invaded by bad feelings, the whole ghetto-world of the soul, was at once on top!--One needs but read any of the Christian agitators, for example, St. Augustine, in order to realize, in order to smell, what filthy fellows came to the top. It would be an error, however, to assume that there was any lack of understanding in the leaders of the Christian movement:--ah, but they were clever, clever to the point of holiness, these fathers of the church! What they lacked was something quite different. Nature neglected--perhaps forgot--to give them even the most modest endowment of respectable, of upright, of cleanly instincts. . . Between ourselves, they are not even men. . . . If Islam despises Christianity, it has a thousandfold right to do so: Islam at least assumes that it is dealing with men. . . . And he also said-- Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (--I do not say by what sort of feet--) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin--because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life! . . . And to close-- This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found--I have letters that even the blind will be able to see. . . . I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,--I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race. . . . http://www.fns.org.uk/ac.htm

Nov 10, 2003, 06:26 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	Perhaps you are interpreting power as violence, which is not what Nietzsche means, although violence is indeed a way to power for a short time. I know you are not a christian, but you are debating from "the herd" perspective which is a christian perspective. I was just using the Antichrist as a source against the racist(anti-arab) views you have asserted. In the so-called war on terror you seem think the "terrorists" are the weak using Nietzche's definitions when the opposite is the case. As far as the Nazis, like you, they interpreted his words through a lens that fit their worldview and of course with a little help from his sister. I still do not see how Nietzche would have supported this travesty in Iraq. He would be rooting for the Iraqis to fight against the US for freedom. BTW--It has been a while and I am enjoying rereading Nietzche.

Nov 10, 2003, 07:07 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	[quote=Impenitent 1. I am not interpreting power as violence at all... violence is a natural result of some uses of power... 2. no, I am explaining what the herd (and the herd is not necessarily christian) is doing. I have not advanced racist anything, I say kill those that would kill us regardless of race, religion or politics... 3. the "weak" are those who cannot stand against the strong... 4. "As far as the Nazis, like you, they interpreted his words through a lens that fit their worldview and of course with a little help from his sister." like me? another ad homenium and insult... that's 4... and no, I am anything but a national socialist... but that still doesn't address your error about claiming that the ubermensch was an actual end as opposed to being the ideal goal. 5. keep reading and you will see that Nietzsche would not pick sides in the conflict, but he would rejoice in the fact that conflict occurs... the stronger will dominate and the weak shall be erradicated... any guess on Zarathustra's final "sin"?[/QUOTE] I was not accusing you of being a nazi--just saying you were interpreting through a lens. I am probably doing the same. I also did not mean the ubermensch was an end, only that it is part of evolution that we attain such. I still think he would see the US power as the weak one in these days. Nietzsche was not a nihilist and would not just sit back and watch. As far as my guess--I will throw out PRIDE as a wild guess.

Nov 11, 2003, 12:58 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	makes you see Nietzsche in a new light doesn't it? not pro herd, not pro society, not pro communalism... Not at all, I never thought of him being any of those. And that comes back to the reason I question you on your use of Nietzsche when you seem to be what Nietzsche would call part of the herd. I am referring to the Iraq debacle. There is more than one herd of course but the herd pushed by fear is no different that the herd crying for peace. This is a crusade that uses fear and religion and hatred as tools of support. You would not support this if you were not in fear. Now they are using terrorism in Iraq to put fear into the people so they will comply. It worked for the american populace but will not work for the iraqis. They will fight for their freedom and will eventually win. Like viet nam, the pentagon has underestimated the "weak" You have used the term "we" and "us" instead of "me" or "I" in your opinions. My argument is that you are adopting your reasoning in order to fit into a group that you perceive is strong because they tell you they are strong. You are not using any of your own individuality. These are not insults just observations. I as an individual do not see the world as black and white.

Nov 11, 2003, 09:52 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	1- You would not support this if you were not in fear. no, I am not in fear... this is an exersize in culling the herd... humans do this in every generation in one part of the world or another... 2- They will fight for their freedom and will eventually win. Like viet nam, the pentagon has underestimated the "weak" not at all... the terrorists are not fighting for freedom, they are fighting for a new taliban style regime... no matter how many times the democrats yell quagmire and vietnam, iraq is not even close... you forget for what we and they are fighting... ************************************************** Point 1) Is that not what Saddam was doing to the fundamentalist "herd"? Point 2) I am not talking about terrorists, I am talking about the Iraqi people. They sure as hell do not want a "Taliban like regime" Iraq was secular before we put our nose in there.(in the 80's and the 90's as well as recent times) You label the "democrats" the yellers but that is not entirely true. It goes beyond politics. I know what they are fighting for but I know for a fact that what we are fighting for has nothing to do what the US citizens are told we(U.S) are fighting for. You seem to think that Iraq and the war on terror are related and they were not until we invaded. What in your opinion is the reason the US invaded?

Nov 11, 2003, 01:53 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fedfem,) Point 1) Is that not what Saddam was doing to the fundamentalist "herd"? Point 2) I am not talking about terrorists, I am talking about the Iraqi people. They sure as hell do not want a "Taliban like regime" Iraq was secular before we put our nose in there.(in the 80's and the 90's as well as recent times) You label the "democrats" the yellers but that is not entirely true. It goes beyond politics. I know what they are fighting for but I know for a fact that what we are fighting for has nothing to do what the US citizens are told we(U.S) are fighting for. You seem to think that Iraq and the war on terror are related and they were not until we invaded. What in your opinion is the reason the US invaded?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> 1. sure, and hitler and stalin and pol pot and many other dictators as well... 2. the terrorists are fighting to install a taliban like regime... secular? no, it was never secular, it wasn't christian but it wasn't without religious/cultural influence... ask the kurds and the non baathists... was nazi germany secular before we put our nose in there? the democrats are the ones yelling, not the republicans... nothing is beyond politics the war on terror and the iraq war are related the war on terror and the soon to behold iran war are related... as well as the soon to behold syria, lebanon, and saudi arabia wars... and not to be accused of racism, throw n korea in as well... why are we fighting? greed, insecurity, revenge... it is what humans do... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 11, 2003, 03:31 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	Iraq was secular. Why do you think Osama hated him so much? The Nazis were not secular. The US is secular but our current administration is not. Why do you think we should go to war with the Arabs? The US would not dare go to war with N Korea. The US only attacks small countries that have been disarmed. Can you list any war we engaged in where the country was not already war torn or at the end of its power? Some Republicans are yelling too--don't kid yourself. They know the party has been taken by this neo-con ideal. regarding your last statement: "why are we fighting? greed, insecurity, revenge... it is what humans do..." Don't you think we should evolve from that? We are now in a "cool war" with Europe and Latin America whether it is in the media or not. The Euro is the biggest weapon that will be used against the US in the coming years. Latin America and Europe will no longer be the allies of the past 50 years. Russia and China are building alliances while we are "busy". It is sad and only democratic ideals can save us now. We(US) are leaving ourselves vulnerable by our focus on the middle east. The Distraction afforded by the "war on terror" will all come to light someday. This is WW3 or 4(depending who you ask) and we(US) started it. I suggest you start reading some other sources besides Faux and Freeper news. Not all is how it is presented to you. It is in your self-interest to do so.

Nov 11, 2003, 04:46 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fedfem,) Iraq was secular. Why do you think Osama hated him so much? The Nazis were not secular. The US is secular but our current administration is not. Why do you think we should go to war with the Arabs? The US would not dare go to war with N Korea. The US only attacks small countries that have been disarmed. Can you list any war we engaged in where the country was not already war torn or at the end of its power? Some Republicans are yelling too--don't kid yourself. They know the party has been taken by this neo-con ideal. regarding your last statement: "why are we fighting? greed, insecurity, revenge... it is what humans do..." Don't you think we should evolve from that? We are now in a "cool war" with Europe and Latin America whether it is in the media or not. The Euro is the biggest weapon that will be used against the US in the coming years. Latin America and Europe will no longer be the allies of the past 50 years. Russia and China are building alliances while we are "busy". It is sad and only democratic ideals can save us now. We(US) are leaving ourselves vulnerable by our focus on the middle east. The Distraction afforded by the "war on terror" will all come to light someday. This is WW3 or 4(depending who you ask) and we(US) started it. I suggest you start reading some other sources besides Faux and Freeper news. Not all is how it is presented to you. It is in your self-interest to do so.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> the iraqis under saddam were just as secular as the germans under hitler -The US is secular but our current administration is not. no, the us is not secular... some left wingers would like you to believe the lie that the us is secular, but it never has been... read the federalist papers -Why do you think we should go to war with the Arabs? The US would not dare go to war with N Korea. I never said we should, I said we will... why? that's what humans do... as far as n korea, the us and china will go to war and n korea will surrender -The US only attacks small countries that have been disarmed. how soon we forget 1941 -Can you list any war we engaged in where the country was not already war torn or at the end of its power? nor can you, thus amplifying the point about the warlike nature of humans -Some Republicans are yelling too--don't kid yourself. They know the party has been taken by this neo-con ideal. and some democrats are more gung ho than bush-- don't kid yourself -Don't you think we should evolve from that? not really, besides, in the millenia it takes for actual evolution to occur, the race of humans will have been long gone... forced evolution? -Latin America and Europe will no longer be the allies of the past 50 years. and we will stop feeding them... the trade game goes both way and we have far more resources than the rest of the planet -It is sad and only democratic ideals can save us now. which democratic ideals are those? communalism? sorry, it isn't going to happen... the strong will rule as they always have... the new god of democracy will die as the christian god did - We(US) are leaving ourselves vulnerable by our focus on the middle east. The Distraction afforded by the "war on terror" will all come to light someday. vulnerable to whom? what distraction? -I suggest you start reading some other sources besides Faux and Freeper news. Not all is how it is presented to you. I am well aware of the propaganda being spun on msnbc and cnn... I have better judgement on who is telling me the truth... your spelling of fox reveals your prejudice and bias... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 11, 2003, 09:36 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	no, the us is not secular... some left wingers would like you to believe the lie that the us is secular, but it never has been... read the federalist papers I have read the Federalist papers and the Constitution and other founding documents. Show where in the Federalist papers it states we are not secular. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm I agree with you as far as the democrats go--there is not much difference between the parties. How are we feeding Europe and Latin America? I am well aware of the propaganda being spun on msnbc and cnn... I have better judgement on who is telling me the truth... your spelling of fox reveals your prejudice and bias... I for one do not defend MSNBC or CNN. It is all US media that is limited. Damn right I am prejudiced against it. I do watch Fox regularly.

Nov 12, 2003, 11:16 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	federalist #31, 43, and 51... as well as the declaration of independence... all our rights are founded upon a "creator"... a secular society has no spiritual connection, we clearly do (and no, it isn't the far right christians) have a spiritual foundation http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html we feed the world... if latin america and europe want to stop trading with us, we'll return the favor and see who cries mercy first... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 12, 2003, 12:13 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Hmm, well lets see, Argentina produces 20x the food needed for its own population. I'm sure others in Latin America can do similar if they simply stop producing coffee for the US. Western Europe has literally mountains of food bought by the EU that goes nowhere, if those producing it turned it into useful crops, we could feed ourself. GB can actually feed itself totally as it has one of the most techonologically advanced agricultural industries, despite not having a huge amount of arable land left. In reality, most of the world can feed itself (Japan being a notable exception), its just the farms produce cash crops that end up in western markets instead, meaning there isn't enough food for their own population. if the US tried to dry up the world, as you think it could, the rest of the world would call a crisis, nationalise those lands and get producing useful stuff. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 12, 2003, 12:39 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	..."we could feed ourself." ..."meaning there isn't enough food for their own population." as I said, we feed the world " if the US tried to dry up the world, as you think it could, { so do you as you stated above } the rest of the world would call a crisis, nationalise those lands and get producing useful stuff." the us could if pressed into it by the eu and latin america... the rest of the world would riot and the governments would steal lands and start growing edible crop? and in the months it takes to grow what will you eat? do you understand what you have suggested? we want to get the us so in order to do that we have to stop trade... and when you stop trade you go into crisis mode... talk about chopping off your nose to spite your face... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 12, 2003, 02:52 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) federalist #31, 43, and 51... as well as the declaration of independence... all our rights are founded upon a "creator"... a secular society has no spiritual connection, we clearly do (and no, it isn't the far right christians) have a spiritual foundation http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html we feed the world... if latin america and europe want to stop trading with us, we'll return the favor and see who cries mercy first...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Secular does not mean Atheistic. We are not a Christian Nation by founding. Every religion has a Creator. Nature is my creator and Nature's god is not a god based on organized religion it is a principle. The Federalist Papers you cited do not mention christianity as having anything to do with our Government. The world is technologically advanced enough to produce its own food. With a united Europe they can trade amongst themselves as can Latin America if they unite.

Nov 12, 2003, 03:12 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	I never said we were a christian nation; I said we were not secular. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=secular sec·u·lar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sky-lr) adj. Worldly rather than spiritual. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music. Relating to or advocating secularism. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy. Occurring or observed once in an age or century. Lasting from century to century. worldly rather than spiritual... the "god" of nature is spiritual regardless of religion... it is metaphysical and not worldly; therefore, it cannot be secular. the world is technologically advanced enough, but the methods to do so are not in place and that would require time to produce the food... they can trade amongst themselves all they like but I don't think they want to revert to agrarian societies... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 12, 2003, 06:09 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) I never said we were a christian nation; I said we were not secular. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=secular sec·u·lar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sky-lr) adj. Worldly rather than spiritual. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music. Relating to or advocating secularism. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy. Occurring or observed once in an age or century. Lasting from century to century. worldly rather than spiritual... the "god" of nature is spiritual regardless of religion... it is metaphysical and not worldly; therefore, it cannot be secular. the world is technologically advanced enough, but the methods to do so are not in place and that would require time to produce the food... they can trade amongst themselves all they like but I don't think they want to revert to agrarian societies...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The United States is a Secular nation. Even using your definition it matches. Webster's has: 3 entries found for secular. To select an entry, click on it. secular[1,adjective]secular[2,noun]secular humanism Main Entry: 1sec·u·lar Pronunciation: 'se-ky&-l&r Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Old French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime Date: 14th century 1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners> 2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest> 3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration - sec·u·lar·i·ty /"se-ky&-'lar-&-tE/ noun - sec·u·lar·ly /'se-ky&-l&r-lE/ adverb http://www.m-w.com/home.htm Notice secular priest????? Is Webster a liberal-biased dictionary? As far as food, most countries are self-staining and would trade with those who aren't. If you want stats, go to the USDA site. We are now importing more than we export overall.