I wasn't speaking of the estate tax with the term "wealth transference." Good 'ol income taxes which historically have soared during Democrat Congress's and been cut by Republicans. Do you truly think there's a trickle down effect to the poor from higher taxes? None that I've seen.
falwell is dead
- Thread starter hellrider
- Start date
There hasn't been a real trickle down under Bush, the middle class being squeezed, and the rising poverty can attest to that.
Disagreement about issues is democracy in action. The problem arises when people try to stifle debate. Unfortunately, that is a trait that is linked almost exclusively to the Left, whether it is through speech codes, hate crimes legislation, shouting down speakers on college campuses or attacking them or declaring entire issues off limits to debate via political correctness.
Falwell's critics, who imagine themselves to be so morally superior, hate him because he was not intimidated in articulating concepts of sin that are clearly set forth in the Bible. It's not like he invented them personally as a method to persecute homosexuals,etc. So really his critics hate him for his Christian beliefs. That is religious bigotry, and you can try to dress it up with PC notions of intolerance as much as you want. It doesn't change a thing.
Falwell's death, and the appalling celebration by the kook left, shows not only their hatred and intolerance but their fundamental contempt for our Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees religious freedom. Every major religion considers homosexual conduct to be sinful and prohibits it. Believing homosexual conduct to be morally wrong and sinful is clearly constitutionally protected, yet saying that will get you fired from your job, expelled from most universities and sent to reeducation camp, even if you are a successful black actor. That is not tolerance; it is repression.
Rush Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. encourage debate?
Funny...
You can stop with your fundamentalist stuff.
If people want that, they can seek it out, not to hard to find a Bible.
It is the politicizing of it that is the problem, something the Framers were damn concerned about.
Those people who have been fired for their hate speech, can sue all the way up to the Catholic Supreme Court...
Actually the only reeducation camp I heard of recently was when the preacher dude from Colorado was caught with the gay guy, he was sent to reorientation camp, so to speak.
Now he says he is cured.
Too ridiculous.
Our laws are secular, in case you hadn't noticed, and when it is found that religious influence has trumped basic human rights, the court has sought for the most part to protect the rights of the individuals and their freedom...not the rights of the religious people to force their beliefs on others.
Funny...
You can stop with your fundamentalist stuff.
If people want that, they can seek it out, not to hard to find a Bible.
It is the politicizing of it that is the problem, something the Framers were damn concerned about.
Those people who have been fired for their hate speech, can sue all the way up to the Catholic Supreme Court...
Actually the only reeducation camp I heard of recently was when the preacher dude from Colorado was caught with the gay guy, he was sent to reorientation camp, so to speak.
Now he says he is cured.
Too ridiculous.
Our laws are secular, in case you hadn't noticed, and when it is found that religious influence has trumped basic human rights, the court has sought for the most part to protect the rights of the individuals and their freedom...not the rights of the religious people to force their beliefs on others.
I can understand the desire for a deity. I just cannot understand a conviction in the existence of one. That is my opinion based on my interpretation of the evidence on hand. That is my answer to your question.
As an aside, if people would only refrain from expressing their faith onto the will of others I would then also be much more at peace with it. However, religion does not seem to work that way in the aggregate. That is why you have action-reaction, and I am certainly not immune to it.
Let us agree that there is only one objective reality as a starting point. However, we all live much of our lives internally. Indeed, the Greek philosopher, Epictetus, observed almost 2,000 years ago that our lives are affected more by our interpretation of events than by the events themselves. I think that a belief in a deity is very much a personal interpretation (shared by many although not necessarily in exactly the same way). However, my own interpretation is that there is no sufficient, defining evidence to objectively support such a belief, quite apart from the desire that such a belief be true. I think that my view is more closely aligned to an external, objective reality based on the senses we have to interpret such reality. (Of course, you may find my view to be biased. But I don't think so. And so it goes.)
Faith in a deity, or the absence of faith in a deity, is a personal thing. However, I think we can agree that such faith in a deity extends beyond human comprehension by definition, since it is a matter of faith rather than actual knowledge. Therefore, let us endeavor to keep our internal lives internal. Let us live among one another with the senses and understanding that we do have and keep our internal "reality," whatever it may be, indoors where it belongs.
Except for the purposes of debate, of course.
===========================
Excellant points,Jem
And that was probably another reason some hated Dr.Falwell;
fundamentalist support for Israel!!!!
And he had Ann Coulter on Old Time Gospel Hour with her book
And DR.Falwell took the other/truthful side of algore/global warming swindle;
see, today Susan Solomon, scientific study climate change ed itorial,investors.com
Some of you youths may come to find out ;
easier to stay slim, when youre a youth
[+] Plus he just seemed to enrage some people like Hillary Clinton;
especially on tax cuts & conservative judges.
Dr Jerry delivered what he received,
how Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures,
was buried
rose again the third day according to the scriptures.Thats gospel
The religious experience may extend beyond the intellect's ability to frame it so that others can understand it and relate to it, but that doesn't negate the reality of it to the person experiencing it, nor the possibility that the experience is Real and obtainable by everyone though faith.
This is not to say that people are right to push their faith on others, as you are not right to push your atheism on others.
It is enough for you to say I am content with my beliefs, and I don't need to compare and contrast them with a theist and their beliefs, and vice versa.
I don't see that happening on ET much from either side.
The majority of outspoken atheists rage against the theists here, that is an objective reality. Some of the theists rage back, but neither side is right when they rage or try to silence someone who has a different point of view, nor is someone right to say that the experiences someone has, the personal experiences are false, and can only be made true by the application of human reason, human intellect, and human senses.
If you think you are limited to just these three tools, that is your reality, but it is not the reality of others...and this is where I see you floundering.
It is logically possible that both sides are correct, from their point of view, and until someone has the ultimate point of view, there is little to be gained, and certainly nothing approaching debate, to spend time denegrating a person for their personal belief system.
I have said repeatedly, that I have no concern for the personal beliefs of others, as long as they don't try to force those beliefs, through whatever means, including science, onto others.
That is where the line should be drawn, and as a non Christian theist, I detest when religious or non religious people tell others how to live their lives, and what they should be doing in their personal lives and personal beliefs.
The problem I had with Fallwell and others like him, is that it was not enough for him to speak to his flock, he thought it was his job to tell the non flock how they should live, that his morality was correct solely because it was based on his religion, which then eventually leads to nothing but non acceptance of the nature of people to pick their own beliefs.
A country founded on freedom from religious persecution, I don't think benefits from religious people trying to persecute in their own way other Americans for their religious or non religious experiences.
This is not to say that people are right to push their faith on others, as you are not right to push your atheism on others.
It is enough for you to say I am content with my beliefs, and I don't need to compare and contrast them with a theist and their beliefs, and vice versa.
I don't see that happening on ET much from either side.
The majority of outspoken atheists rage against the theists here, that is an objective reality. Some of the theists rage back, but neither side is right when they rage or try to silence someone who has a different point of view, nor is someone right to say that the experiences someone has, the personal experiences are false, and can only be made true by the application of human reason, human intellect, and human senses.
If you think you are limited to just these three tools, that is your reality, but it is not the reality of others...and this is where I see you floundering.
It is logically possible that both sides are correct, from their point of view, and until someone has the ultimate point of view, there is little to be gained, and certainly nothing approaching debate, to spend time denegrating a person for their personal belief system.
I have said repeatedly, that I have no concern for the personal beliefs of others, as long as they don't try to force those beliefs, through whatever means, including science, onto others.
That is where the line should be drawn, and as a non Christian theist, I detest when religious or non religious people tell others how to live their lives, and what they should be doing in their personal lives and personal beliefs.
The problem I had with Fallwell and others like him, is that it was not enough for him to speak to his flock, he thought it was his job to tell the non flock how they should live, that his morality was correct solely because it was based on his religion, which then eventually leads to nothing but non acceptance of the nature of people to pick their own beliefs.
A country founded on freedom from religious persecution, I don't think benefits from religious people trying to persecute in their own way other Americans for their religious or non religious experiences.
Quote from Thunderdog:
I can understand the desire for a deity. I just cannot understand a conviction in the existence of one. That is my opinion based on my interpretation of the evidence on hand. That is my answer to your question.
As an aside, if people would only refrain from expressing their faith onto the will of others I would then also be much more at peace with it. However, religion does not seem to work that way in the aggregate. That is why you have action-reaction, and I am certainly not immune to it.
Let us agree that there is only one objective reality as a starting point. However, we all live much of our lives internally. Indeed, the Greek philosopher, Epictetus, observed almost 2,000 years ago that our lives are affected more by our interpretation of events than by the events themselves. I think that a belief in a deity is very much a personal interpretation (shared by many although not necessarily in exactly the same way). However, my own interpretation is that there is no sufficient, defining evidence to objectively support such a belief, quite apart from the desire that such a belief be true. I think that my view is more closely aligned to an external, objective reality based on the senses we have to interpret such reality. (Of course, you may find my view to be biased. But I don't think so. And so it goes.)
Faith in a deity, or the absence of faith in a deity, is a personal thing. However, I think we can agree that such faith in a deity extends beyond human comprehension by definition, since it is a matter of faith rather than actual knowledge. Therefore, let us endeavor to keep our internal lives internal. Let us live among one another with the senses and understanding that we do have and keep our internal "reality," whatever it may be, indoors where it belongs.
Except for the purposes of debate, of course.
there is no evidence of anything..there is nothing that proves u right or me right or wrong...the conviction comes from everything you see around you and the absurd odds of it all falling into a perfect place for us to flourish..notice i didnt say i know for sure..all i am saying is thats where the conviction may come from...where does urs come from?
u can understand no?
Finally, capitulation. Religious experience is wholly subjective.