All I know is.....

[SteveA]

Quote by: LetThereBe ...violating the first amendment a small price to pay for the species survival?

Do you see the hypocracy in exercising your own free speech to suggest others be denied it? If you were to set an example for others to follow, you'd be silent on the subject. That's on par with someone suggesting everyone else give them their arms so they could enforce a law restricting 2nd Amendment rights.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The word God for instance, should be nowhere in our pledge.

Indeed, and I don't choose to pledge allegiance to the USA, but to the Kingdom of God in Christ Jesus...

[Osborn F Enready]

I pledge allegiance anymore to the REPUBLIC for which it STOOD, before it was crushed under the boots of federalist progressives.

Our time will come again my friend where we can live in peace side by side, with mutual respect thanks to the removal of these laws that work against society, and individual rights to freedom of belief and expression, and economic freedom.

It can be ours again Patrick, every American could enjoy it again if they just stood together and demanded it.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready EXACTLY where I wanted this thread to go. Excellent replies so far, and I have little to add or contest so far except to clarify exactly where I stand here. I believe and respect the idea and action of all men to have their own beliefs to whatever religion they so choose, new or old, popular or rare. I abhor the thought of ANY religion being forced (or even recognized officially) by any tentacle or extension of government. The word God for instance, should be nowhere in our pledge. As long as a person does not infringe anothers rights, I don't care what they do. However, when their actions infringe the rights of another, justice must be sought to find the person who was infringed rectified to HIS, or HIS PEERS satisfaction. This concept is true to me for every single enumerated right, and many not enumerated due to self evidence. (such as I am free to consume what I choose as long as I accept the responsibility of my actions, sober or intoxicated)

Osborne Bravo

[Jack]

It's not who invented the gun, it's who fires it.

Nonsense. In the context we're discussing here, if there were no gun in the first place, no one would ever die by the gun. The gun's existence allows for its use and misuse. No gun, no misuse possible. (You do understand the "gun" is a metaphor for religion, correct? I'm not making a comment on gun rights.)

[Osborn F Enready]

Isherwood said: Nonsense. In the context we're discussing here, if there were no gun in the first place, no one would ever die by the gun. The gun's existence allows for its use and misuse. No gun, no misuse possible. (You do understand the "gun" is a metaphor for religion, correct? I'm not making a comment on gun rights.)

I say:
Please, please Ish, don't start the gun debate in this thread and derail it. Self defense has existed since man has existed, and the gun is just another perfection over the hand, the club, the stone, the sling, the bow, the sword, the spear, etc...... As long as man exists, self defense will be needed, and the gun is the most economical, logical, empowering solution.

[Sonart]

.


There you go again, Osborn. Please note the well emphasized qualifier at the end of Isherwood's post...

--"No gun, no misuse possible. (You do understand the "gun" is a metaphor for religion, correct? I'm not making a comment on gun rights.)"--

However much coffee you're having in the morning, Osborn, maybe you should cut it by half.

-------------------------------------------------------------

As to shooting off the gun of religion, (calm down, Ozzie... metaphor, remember?) once again, everyone believes God says they're absolutely right to do so, and if they can support their position by spouting off the appropriate scripture in the Bible or the Qu'ran or the Vyakhyana, who's to say they're wrong?

From that point it simply becomes an arguement of the most forcefully reasoned interpretation of that particular scripture... the religion becomes the gun.
.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: SteveA Do you see the hypocracy in exercising your own free speech to suggest others be denied it? If you were to set an example for others to follow, you'd be silent on the subject. That's on par with someone suggesting everyone else give them their arms so they could enforce a law restricting 2nd Amendment rights.

Did I suggest that is what I supported? Because if that is what it seemed to you, I apologise for the misunderstanding. Isherwood had intoned that for man to survive in this age of atomic warfare religion must go the way of the dinosaur. I said that was impossible without violating the first amendment. I was in essence asking the age old question: what is more important, our life? Or our liberty?

[another day]

Quote by: Isherwood Nonsense. In the context we're discussing here, if there were no gun in the first place, no one would ever die by the gun. The gun's existence allows for its use and misuse. No gun, no misuse possible. (You do understand the "gun" is a metaphor for religion, correct? I'm not making a comment on gun rights.)

Dude you just missed the whole point of that gun metaphor...Yes, if there was no gun, no one could die by it, but it goes the other way too. If there was no one to shoot the gun no one would die either right?. Thats the whole point of the gun metaphor. Just because something bad as been invented doesn't excuse people from using it. In the end responsibility has to come to the people who are alive right now today who still follow religion not the people thousands of years ago who started it.

[Jack]

In the end responsibility has to come to the people who are alive right now today who still follow religion not the people thousands of years ago who started it.

I pretty much agree with that particular statement, since those that "started it" most likely never envisioned what it would become.
The weakness of the gun metaphor (which I'm surprised no one has called me on yet) is that we don't worship guns, we don't deify guns, we don't expect guns to grant us everlasting life. Religion actively promotes sectarian thinking and sectarian violence. For that reason I believe the world would have been better off had religion never been invented.
If anyone has read my other writings, you'll know I'm not opposed to spirituality in a non-religious context. Spirituality, at least as I use the term, encompasses love, empathy, philosophy, compassion...things that can't be dealt with logically or scientifically. It can exist devoid of supernatural causes and unrealistic rewards. It doesn't give any excuse for suicide bombings or genocide.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: There you go again, Osborn. Please note the well emphasized qualifier at the end of Isherwood's post... --"No gun, no misuse possible. (You do understand the "gun" is a metaphor for religion, correct? I'm not making a comment on gun rights.)"-- However much coffee you're having in the morning, Osborn, maybe you should cut it by half.

I say:
Point taken, my bad.

Sorry Isherwood, and thanks for the correction Sonart.

(Wiping egg off my face)

Maybe I should make a morning persona named "scrappy"?

[Amuse]

Religion is a method by which power and influence is gained by the few at the sacrifice of many. If anyone looks at history it becomes evident that governments and religions wage war not the common man/ woman.

You gain power over another in one of two ways: by winning his heart or by breaking his spirit.

If power is what you want and you think you want it for the service of humanity, don't trust your thinking too much... Fritz Kunkel

[Osborn F Enready]

(removed due to lack of coffee)

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Indeed, and I don't choose to pledge allegiance to the USA, but to the Kingdom of God in Christ Jesus...

Agree totally. I'm actually against the pledge for that reason.

[phoenix_fire]

And as far as guns go (as a brief aside), if we were to apply the same standard to the proliferation of arms as we do to safe sex programs, clean needle programs, and abortion laws, then we should provide everyone who asks with the best and most efficient guns possible. The logos is that since they will be killing people anyhow, we might as well provide for their victims having as humane a death as possible. :rolleyes:

[Osborn F Enready]

Phoenix Fire said: And as far as guns go (as a brief aside), if we were to apply the same standard to the proliferation of arms as we do to safe sex programs, clean needle programs, and abortion laws, then we should provide everyone who asks with the best and most efficient guns possible. The logos is that since they will be killing people anyhow, we might as well provide for their victims having as humane a death as possible

I say:
That is not as silly as you seem to think.

Guns empower the individual, and I can guarantee you that if all Chinese had a weapon right now, Chinas government would be MUCH different.

The only U.S. aid program we should be supplying to other nations is small arms. All of these third world countries that are tired of being oppressed need to arm up, and DE-oppress THEMSELVES of oppressive government.

Liberty has always come FROM the people, when they CLAIM IT, not by government legislating them freedom!

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: phoenix_fire And as far as guns go (as a brief aside), if we were to apply the same standard to the proliferation of arms as we do to safe sex programs, clean needle programs, and abortion laws, then we should provide everyone who asks with the best and most efficient guns possible. The logos is that since they will be killing people anyhow, we might as well provide for their victims having as humane a death as possible. :rolleyes:

That made my day. Thank you.

[Osborn F Enready]

Let it there be said: That made my day. Thank you.

I say:
But you conveniently ignore what those police, military, armed protection, bodyguards, secret service, National Guard, Coast Guard, Park Rangers use to execute their jobs. The gun, in the hands of individuals. The difference is the groups of individuals are under a "entity of power", and that power is sometimes, and sometimes not transparent, open to the public, and verifiable in its actions toward the public.

Since machine-guns have been outlawed in the 1930's for "general sale" without a "premium tax" there has been only 1 LEGALLY purchased machine-gun death, and that death was at the hands of a police officer. The citizen can still own a machine-gun, IF they have the money to pay the ridiculous fees for a license, and are DEEMED suitable by the licensing bureau. There are thousands upon thousands of machine guns out in this nation right now, in the hands of private owners, and AMAZINGLY THERE ARE NO DEATHS being attributed to them because they aren't KILLING ANYONE. As people have been saying for years......... People who purchase guns legally DONT USE THEM TO COMMIT CRIMES in an overwhelming majority percentage, hence there is no reason to BAN LEGAL OWNERSHIP, or OVERTAX IT to where the common man can't own ADEQUATE defense.

Anti-Gunners are Anti-Freedom, Anti-Liberty and Anti-American.

[Amuse]

All too many americans forget that this country is free today (termed loosly) because it's citizenry had guns and finally tired of an oppresive government. There was a disconnection between the colonies and GB. Seperated by an ocean, thats understandable but today the seperation between government and it citizenry seems further and no ocean to be seen.