Absolutely good versus absolutely evil

[Elijah]

Dear Sandy,

I assume you are a democrat. Of course you think Bush is Evil.

Sincerely,
Elijah


I think Bush is the best man for our country. Our country was founded under christian principles. Religious freedom being one of them, but to remove the christian principles, you would remove the cornerstone from the entire system. If it keeps up, America Will crumble.

[mrmufin]

Originally posted by Automatic Nate, 2) Should avoidance of anything Christian or resembling Christianity be an goal for secular government? For instance, care for the poor is arguably a Christian ethical norm, but it also seems to be a good end for a government to pursue.

Yes. Religions don't get trademarks on things like "care for the poor", or politeness, or team spirit, or shoving in line. Is "a good end for a government to pursue" not enough?

What particular parts of Christian (or Jewish or Islamic or Hindu etc. etc.) ethics and ways of life might still be compatible with federal government?

Any part that is both worth my tax dollars and stands on its own inherent merit. Better yet, what parts of Christian (or Jewish or Islamic or Hindu, etc) ethics and ways of life, if any, should be integrated into government affairs?

Regards,
mrmufin

[mrmufin]

Originally posted by mlingley, I find this kind of absolute good vs. absolute evil mentallity very dangerous. When president Bush says stuff like "This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil" and talks about an "axis of evil" it makes me wonder.

Dangerous, at times, but more generally, pathetic. For an extra twenty rhetorical points, does evil exist independent of an observer with a coherent values system?

Regards,
mrmufin

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

If Sandy is who I think she is, she is not a Democrat. But if she is she does not represent the party she claims to either. If I am wrong, my apologies.

[Elijah]

Whatever she is, she obviously has "W-Phobia"

My point is, it's like trying to take education out of the school system. Removing it makes the institution worthless.

[Occam]

The object of a discussion is to examine a statement or premise, not to attack the people involved in the discussion. I neither know nor care who or what Sandy is, and it's not germane. So, please let's avoid attempting to pin labels, be they "Democrat" "Republican" etc. on the posters.

And the U.S.A. was not founded on Christian principles as so many are fond of claiming. First, many of the framers of the Constitution and the subsequent laws were deists who beleived in a central unifying power but rejected any god including the Christian one. Second, one of the main driving forces was from those who had beliefs different from the majority and who had suffered discrimination, including governmental, because of their beliefs. They wanted to build a complete wall of separation betweem state and church because they feared that if the majority had the power they would impose their religious beliefs on the various minority groups.

They very carefully crafted our government structure and foundations on the ideas of European political philosophers and some of the ideas of Aristotle and Plato. Much of political philosophy is fairly self-evident and universal so it's to be expected that parts of this would also be found in the Bible as well as in many secular writings. That does not equate with any mythological statements claiming that the U.S. is a Christian nation. It is not, and it should not be, no matter how much our present administration wants to impose those beliefs on our citizens.

Occam

[Ken Carman]

Those who believe in absolutes often commit the most evil. (Hence, Bin Laden, Hitler...)

[peace_hawk]

Amen Occam!

[Cadre]

There are no absolutes(aside from change). Everything is subjective and relative to it's own context.

The idea of absolutes are reminiscent of;

-cult disposition
-bias
-indoctrination
-manipulation
-belief(somewhat)

On the other hand, our lives and decisions are adjudicated by these absolutes, which have developed through are unique journeys of socialization and intergration(into society, and to accept its norms).

One of those 'can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em' phrases.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Occam, please let's avoid attempting to pin labels, And the U.S.A. was not founded on Christian principles as so many are fond of claiming. First, many of the framers of the Constitution and the subsequent laws were deists who beleived in a central unifying power but rejected any god including the Christian one. Second, one of the main driving forces was from those who had beliefs different from the majority and who had suffered discrimination, including governmental, because of their beliefs. They wanted to build a complete wall of separation betweem state and church because they feared that if the majority had the power they would impose their religious beliefs on the various minority groups. They very carefully crafted our government structure and foundations on the ideas of European political philosophers and some of the ideas of Aristotle and Plato. Much of political philosophy is fairly self-evident and universal so it's to be expected that parts of this would also be found in the Bible as well as in many secular writings. That does not equate with any mythological statements claiming that the U.S. is a Christian nation. It is not, and it should not be, no matter how much our present administration wants to impose those beliefs on our citizens.

I applaud the call for reasoned debate, however I believe these are your opinions, not supported by sources in your post. They should be labeled "opinions" or supported with documentation.
1. U.S.A. was not founded on Christian principles. Support?
2. the framers of the Constitution and the subsequent laws were deists. Support?
3. They wanted to build a complete wall of separation betweem state and church. Support?
4. mythological statements claiming that the U.S. is a Christian nation. Support?

[BlackVelvet]

Originally posted by Occam, The object of a discussion is to examine a statement or premise, not to attack the people involved in the discussion. I neither know nor care who or what Sandy is, and it's not germane. So, please let's avoid attempting to pin labels, be they "Democrat" "Republican" etc. on the posters. And the U.S.A. was not founded on Christian principles as so many are fond of claiming. First, many of the framers of the Constitution and the subsequent laws were deists who beleived in a central unifying power but rejected any god including the Christian one. Second, one of the main driving forces was from those who had beliefs different from the majority and who had suffered discrimination, including governmental, because of their beliefs. They wanted to build a complete wall of separation betweem state and church because they feared that if the majority had the power they would impose their religious beliefs on the various minority groups. They very carefully crafted our government structure and foundations on the ideas of European political philosophers and some of the ideas of Aristotle and Plato. Much of political philosophy is fairly self-evident and universal so it's to be expected that parts of this would also be found in the Bible as well as in many secular writings. That does not equate with any mythological statements claiming that the U.S. is a Christian nation. It is not, and it should not be, no matter how much our present administration wants to impose those beliefs on our citizens. Occam

Bravo! Thank you. I get so tired of hearing that this is a nation founded on Christian principles.

Christianity is a religion that is not based on laws, not based on deeds but rather based on belief and grace. One cannot legislate belief and grace.

The New Testament makes it clear that we as Christians should not expect to be comfortable in this world, that we are in fact not of this world. When Christians try to legislate their principles they are in fact persecuting the non-believer for not acting in a manner consistent with Christian beliefs. Now, how stupid is that? That's like persecuting a cat for meowing.

[commonsense]

There are absolutes, there are constants. There's two:

Our Constitution is founded upon the understanding of them:

1)All institutionalized power corrupts, which is why our government was supposed to be strictly circumscribed as to what areas it could request taxes for...the source of its power.

2) Human nature does not change; it does not evolve.
This is why individual rights are sacred, as is the right to arm and defend one's self against other individuals as well as agents, see #1 above.

[Occam]

I'm sorry but I can't agree with your two universals. I do agree that institutionalized power often leads people to be corrupt, but I don't believe it always has to be the case.

Second, while I believe self-interest (personal or genetic survival) is inherent, it is sort of like our capability to use language. We all have it, but each of us modifies it dependent on our early enviroment. So, no, I do not believe human nature is unchanging. Our primitive self-interest can be changed to enlightened self-interest by our early training. And, enlightened self-interest is another way of indicating ethics.

Occam

[commonsense]

Human nature on the societal scale is what I was referring to, which is what must be considered when ascribing power to governments.
Individuals, are just that: individuals.

[Elijah]

Tell me,cadre(or anyone else who believes the no absolutes stuff),

Are there absolutely no absolutes? makes it all sounds stupid, doesn't it.

[Impenitent]

absolutely no absolutes

[Elijah]

Paradoxes. all of them.

[Impenitent]

and your holy lie doesn't solve anything

[Elijah]

holy lie. even if it was, it would be better than your ignorant argument. wait, sorry . arguments have to have a point.

[Impenitent]

absolutely no absolutes... your holy lie doesn't work...

calling me ignorant doesn't make your fairy tale come true...