Slashdot Mirror
Search
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
Godless Communism is dead...
Godless Capitalism is also dead.
The problem is that Godly Capitalism is rather inefficient when compared to what it could be without worrying about other people.
The solution seems to have been to change what constitutes Godly.
"If you're not a corporate statist, you're a God-hating communist."
What died when the Berlin Wall fell, is a horribly anti-Democratic state. America's economy has been partially socialist in nature since the 1930's, and the last time it wasn't - in the 1920's - it resulted in a Great Depression.
The facts clearly say that while Godless Communism died in the 1980s, Godless Capitalism died in 1929.
Get over it, neither are never coming back.
Well, welcome to the 21st century when the question is no longer "What sect of Christian are you?" but "What is your religion of choice?" Heritage is great, but what we're talking about is preferential treatment. I've given examples of high government officials advocating the removal of protections from one specific religion and government organizations designed to equitably support charitable faith-based organizations denying claims solely due to groups being non-Christian. Perhaps I'm assuming the worst, but this isn't fantasy. These are documented cases of honest abuse of government power, not just conspiracy theories.
I'm not asking for government to push atheism. I don't even think that a godless future is a good future. I just think that the government should get out of the business of favoring one religion over the others, and that since it's clearly not possible to elect representatives who can act equitably, we are forced to look to protection from private advocacy groups like the ACLU. There's a big step between "I acknowledge that the Founding Fathers were predominantly Christian" to "Your religion isn't a real religion and shouldn't be treated the same way we treat real religions like mine."
You still haven't really answered my question. Is it OK for an executive to simply declare a religion "not real" and advocate that it not receive treatment commensurate with his own preferred religion? Does the Constitution only apply to freedom of Christianity? Simply put, is Mr. Bush wrong? Likewise, is it acceptable for a government program designed to fund faith based charities deny funding to non-Christian groups for no reason other then non-Christianity? If you answered no to either one, how then is it a problem when private advocacy organizations step up to fight those types of abuses when elected officials have clearly failed to do so?
To me, freedom of speech is freedom to say anything at all, whether popular or not with very few restrictions. The current restrictions involving libel, incitement to violence, fraud, etc. are all quite reasonable. My point about speech was simply that the test of whether or not rules protecting freedoms really matter is whether or not the majority only applies them when convenient to them. "We'll have freedom of speech when we agree with the speech, but not when we don't like the speech" the same hypocritical garbage as, "We'll forbid the government from favoring one religion unless they're favoring our religion." If we apply the rules like that, why having the rules at all?
Perhaps you're arguing that because there are exceptions to free speech, there should be exceptions to the establishment clause. If so, that's sensible. We don't allow speech that incites violence. We don't allow disclosure of classified information. We don't allow libel. Fair enough. Religions can't perform human sacrifice. You can't steal stuff just because your religion says you should. But these are cases of a compelling state interest. The examples I give are really just arbitrary favoritsm and a blatant disregard for responsible treatment of religion in a pluralistic society.
My examples we
No, but it's clear that you're assuming the worst of religion! The preferential treatment you speak of is called heritage! It's obvious that your idea of Utopia is obviously a godless one. That's fine, but I think your expectations are unrealistic.
Madison was just one out of 89 signers of the Constitution and/or the Decleration of Indepence of which a dozen studied theology, were ordained ministers, were chaplains to a militia unit, or were officers of National Bible Societies. Although Madison played a very important role, it's important to point out that he was also one of the least religious. When we see Madison as president there's evidence that Madison feared that government would corrupt religion, but even though his early supporters were Baptists, we see his hesitation in amending the Constitution. Madison is more difficult to be exact about, but it's no secret that Jefferson was outlier among the Founders.
Perhaps you missed the question mark. I was fishing for your opinion of what freedom-of-speech means to you. You see, I hate it when someone superimposes their own characterization of who they're debating by putting words in their mouth. I'm sure the accuser is just as guilty, but at least I called it. *Why not* then just debate our imaginary opponents?
Well, I think you've done a fine job of exaggerating the dangers and negatives of religion throughout your examples too. Like I said before, I think your expecatations of perfection are unrealistic and neglegent to what history has taught us.
The important issues as I see them are:
I believe in the separation of a particular church and state. Here is the problem, there is a much larger effort to remove religion from life and replace it with filth and pornography. For example, I was recently at a public school in a very conservative area. I was appalled to a milk advertisement of an immodest woman in a suggestive pose. Is this what my tax dollars support? Of they wouldn't allow a picture of the ten commandments in that same school. It seems that one type of belief is endorsed while another is banned from public view. I find it interesting that public education is one of the points on the Communist Manifesto. The problem with Communism is that it is godless. It pretends to allow religion but you are penalized for being religious. Look at the former GDR. You could go to church but it was pretty much guaranteed you wouldn't get a good job if you did. That is what I call an endorsement for atheism. So why does it favor public education? While living in CT the local high school would have a day of silence for gay repression. If you did not participate you were ridiculed by both your peers and teachers. Does this sound like an establishment of religion? As my wife grew up they showed rated R movies in her school and had very graphic descriptions in sex-ed. Endorsement of immorality? Sure it is. My circumstances allow me to home school my children but not all have that opportunity. What are kids learning in public schools? Drugs, sex, bullying, disrespect, cheating, etc. They are not learning values, just the opposite. I think you must admit that people's morals are going downhill quickly and we are fast becoming ungovernable. Read how much the founding fathers knew that we must be a religious and moral people to survive. As we move away from that we lose our freedom.
Hey, keep the facts out of it, buddy! This is about God, country, and godless communists. It has nothing to do with the facts. It's interesting how a story about possibly compromised voting machines with the implication that our elections could be influenced by godless communist America haters makes the front page of the New York Times, isn't it? I guess all the people warning about Diebold -- against which there is far more evidence than against Sequoia -- don't matter, the fact that the CEO of Diebold open favors Bush and directly promised to "deliver Ohio to George Bush" doesn't matter. Shows you where the media's head is, you know? Electronic voting is just another way to funnel countless millions of taxpayer dollars to a few rich guys, anyway. Did you notice that the Smartmatic contract with Venezuela was worth $120 mil? Not bad for a "small software company" apparently run by two guys. Wonder what they get from Uncle Sam. If we had any sense, elections would be decided by good old fashioned ballot boxes monitored by bipartisan committees of actual citizens. One quibble with your sig: Since it's been over five years since 9/11, wouldn't your car be 20 times more dangerous than Bin Laden by now?
WARNING! Link is to film with several exposed breasts and one totally naked girl! DO NOT LOOK IF YOU VALUE YOUR IMMORTAL, Jesus-loving SOUL!
Note to humor impaired: Ah, why bother. Nevermind.
Clippy: It looks like you're trying to write a fatwa declaring Microsoft the agent of godless decadent American imperialist powers. Would you like to denounce Bill Gates as a zionist symphasizer?
Argh! I meant to hit preview on that last post, and obviously it would have been a god idea. Let me try again:
> Too many parents use homeschool as a means to get their kids away from the "godless liberals and queers" in public school and teach them that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church and little else outside of religious dogma.
Wow, talk about throwing around wild assertions and accusations. Where's the documentation for that? I'd really love to see it. No, really, I would.
I was homeschooled all through elementary and high school, and am now into my third year of Bach Sci in Computing from Athabasca University (4-year degree).. I didn't have any trouble at all adjusting to the difficulty level of university courses, so I can only assume that means I had a fairly good education in terms of math and language, at the very least.
Yes, my parents taught me about christianity [protestant/presbyterian, not Roman Catholic, by th way] (and furthermore, even now that I'm old enough and plenty well-educated enough to walk away from it if I so choose, I don't so choose), and yes, I happen to think the theory of evolution is claptrap (and furthermore, I can't understand why scientists support it - it's pure imagination and science fiction, from what I can see), but guess what?
I can still do Calculus, know where the Illium and Sphenoid are located, understand a binary search algorithm, and know three or so programming langues quite well.
All without being a member of the Church of Our Holy Order of St. Darwin, or ever having set foot in a public school except to visit its library or clean it (my sister worked as a janitor for awhile, and I helped out a few times).
If you want to make accusations about weird religious ideas influencing parents to homeschool merely to get their kids away from public schools (and by the way, I can think of a few good reasons to keep kids out of public schools that have *nothing* to do with religion - though many have already been mentioned), please, at least back it up with a little bit of data.
> Too many parents use homeschool as a means to get their kids away from the "godless liberals and queers" in public school and teach them that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church and little else outside of religious dogma. Wow, talk about throwing around wild assertions and accusations. Where's the documentation for that? I'd really love to see it. I was homeschooled all through elementary and high school, and am now into my third year of Bach Sci in Computing from Athabasca University (4-year degree).. I didn't have any trouble at all adjusting to the difficulty level of university courses, so I can only assume that means I had a fairly good education in terms of math and language, at the very least. Yes, my parents taught me about christianity (and furthermore, even now that I'm old enough and plenty well-educated enough to walk away from it if I so choose, I don't so choose), and yes, I happen to think the theory of evolution is claptrap (and furthermore, I can't understand why scientists support it - it's pure imagination and science fiction, from what I can see), but guess what? I can still do Calculus, know where the Illium and Sphenoid are located, understand a binary search algorithm, and know three or so programming langues quite well. All without being a member of the Church of Our Holy Order of St. Darwin, or ever having set foot in a public school except to visit its library or clean it (my sister worked as a janitor for awhile, and I helped out a few times). If you want to make accusations about weird religious ideas influencing parents to homeschool merely to get their kids away from public schools (and by the way, I can think of a few good reasons to keep kids out of public schools that have nothing to do with religion - though many have already ben mentioned), please, at least back it up with a little bit of data.
Look, there are mostly college kids here. Awkward, frustrated, virgins. And they're almost all secular Lefties. I.e godless. But man needs a god. So they make one up, based on the only thing they know or are anywhere near any good at: computers and software. So you get things like Linux/Firefox are good, Windows/IE are evil. Even bizarre things like Google and MS, both powerful bullying corporations, as one being good and one being evil. When you make up your own religion, anything goes! But most importantly, they're just kids. And they're going through a tough time in their lives. Well, actually, since they're losers, they'll always have a tough time, but that's not important right now. What's important to understand is, think about it this way: They're students. They're in school to learn stuff. That's because they don't know stuff. If they knew stuff, they wouldn't be there. So they should be cut some slack on that basis. When they grow up and enter the real world, and are still delusional about what's really important in life, then you can call them all stupid whiny little bitches. (Leave the gay references out.)
I can see homeschool working for parents who dedicate themselves to teaching as best they can, providing a reasonable structure, exposing the kids to a wide variety of subjects and experiences, as well as socializing them with other kids.
Too many parents use homeschool as a means to get their kids away from the "godless liberals and queers" in public school and teach them that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church and little else outside of religious dogma.
You are absolutely right. Too poor to pay for the labeled food? Oh well, just buy the stuff you can afford. Why would we want to let poor people have the benefits that rich people do? Anyone who disagrees is a godless Communist. We all know that poor people are poor because they're bad people, so who cares if they can't afford to buy food with labels. The LAST thing we want is the government protecting people in ways that people can't protect themselves.
In case my previous reply sounded too harsh, let me say I agree with the rest of your post about guns and privacy. I find there to be a great many interesting contradictions like this. People who want to save unborn babies are generally in favor of the death penalty. People against the death penalty are typically in favor of doctor-assisted suicide. The really gung-ho hawks seem to more often than not believe in Jesus, who preached peace, while godless atheists seem more often to be pacifistic. To save trees, some people are willing to hurt people. Animal rights activists often aren't vegetarian.
Then there's the new conservatives... The traditionally pro-individual-freedom, pro-integrity, government-off-my-back Republican party (the one I respect) is now on our backs like white on rice, stripping our rights to privacy and Habeas Corpus, cloaking it's actions in secrecy, opening secret prisons, tourchering people, and spying on all of us. The party of small government, power to the states, and fiscal responsibility has created the biggest government, focused power in Washington, and spent more irresponsibly than at any time in my life. The party of individual power has stripped my vote of meaning, turning our House Representatives into powerless ditto-heads. There's irony everywhere.
What these people seem to forget, is that everything changed after 9-11. If we just allow anyone to go willy-nilly criticizing a President regarding his foreign policy then the terrorists have won. Plainly, you either agree with the policies of the United States, past and present 100%, or you support the godless terrorists. God bless the good people of You Tube for standing up and saying NO to constitutional rights for treasonous statements defaming the good work of the executive branch of our glorious government. We are in a WAR, and in a WAR, you just CAN'T criticize your government, because that is UNAMERICAN and hurts the feelings of our brave men and women fighting to defend our motherland. Besides, think of the children! This kind of thing is sure to confuse and corrupt them. I say, if there's any doubt, then censor first and let God sort out the details.
Somehow I'm quite sceptical at the prospect of a godless communist and a religous fanatic would reach any kind of agreement.
I have noticed a trend since the 60s and 70s to make more "normal" things illegal
I think this time period is very key when thinking about America today. Many changes happened, both within "the system" and outside of it as well.
Institutionally, the Civil Rights Movement outlawed (in theory) discrimination based on race. The space program forced people to think about living on a tiny rock hurtling through the universe. Vietnam raised questions about the ethics of war and government. Student movements and the "New Left" created new political debate and questions.
Non-institutionally, lots of other stuff was happening. Women were becoming financially independent. The hippie and counterculture movements were questioning lots of things.
There was the sexual revolution. It challenged the traditional definitions of family and gender roles, as well as the latent Puritan morality of America. Effective birth control also forced people to think about the nature of sex and biology.
Other tradidtional views were challenged. The recreational use of drugs, freedom of speech, etc.
Oh, and Roe v. Wade.
----
In my opinion, a lot of these things scared the hell out of the establishment. Those in power often use things like religion, race, sex, nationalism, and "morality" to try and control the people. A lot of the movements going on during this period in America were challenging all these things.
Of course, they found allies in social conservatives. Most especially, "Christian" conservatives. People like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson. These folks have worked their entire lives to frame all of public debate as a battle between God-fearing Real Americans(tm) and godless, immoral commie liberal dogs.
Unfortunately, the noise these folks create drowns out much of anything resembling real debate, and we've all suffered as a result. Consider:
The Reagan Administration decided that they anti-trust laws weren't that important, and they would only enforce them if a corporation was gouging the consumer.
Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton all gave huge presents to the rich. Taxes were restructured so that corporations and rich people pay much less than they used to. This of course means either deficits or less funding for things, and less funding for the EPA is always good for people like Exxon. The estate tax is also old, we don't need that anymore. Oh and anything that supports "free trade" is awesome.
And of course then there's the "wars" on drugs and terrorism.
Anyway, I'll stop rambling now.
A little flamebaitish language I see? Its not polite to bash someone on their political views.
Not flamebait, simple statement of facts.
It isn't a question of bashing people for their "views" it's bashing people for their willful support for the torture and murder of innocent people among many other crimes and acts of treason and then trying to pretend the he isn't responsible for his own actions which he undertook willingly.
The republican party was not hta bad before Reagan
No, they have gotten progressively and systematically worse as their supporters have continued to support them as they were pissing in the face of the stated platform of their party.
Reagan did open the floodgates, and he is still revered by the people who voted for Bush even though the massive crimes of his administration were simply the stepping stones leading up to the current situation.
I think you are confusing neoconservatives with republicans...Neoconservatives who were once democrats believe it or not make up the current bulk of the republican party.
With doublethinking idiocy like this being treated as rational, it's no surprise we're in the situation we're currently in.
I know who these people are. You apparently know as well as I do that they are the Republican party yet you're claiming that I'm the one being confused? Your two sentences right there are nearly direct contradictions of each other.
They favor government involvement iwth aboritions, strong militiary, war hawking, and are very anti communist. Sounds very Reaganish to me though Reagan was not as extreme in the neocon movement like Cheney or the current administration by a long shot.
That's been the Republican party since WW2 at least. The threat of the "godless communists" is what directly led to the merger between the Republicans and the religious extremists with the obvious and easily predictable results of corrupt religion and oppressive government.
Maybe you should look over that list of Neocons and think about how many of them were in Reagan's administration before you pretend he wasn't neck deep in the shit.
That whole Iran Contra thing?
The best argument you can make for Reagan is that he was a drooling vegetable and hence not responsible for his crimes, but that's pretty damn scary in and of itself.
My advice to the grandposter is to support McCain in the next election and perhaps vote for a democrat in the current one. If your party losses this time the neocon nuts will split from the party and the more moderate old time republicans can take controll. they will be forced to do so if they appear to extreme like now to the American people.
So your advice is to support McCain who actively campaigned for the worst traitor in US history? To allow the same slime to slither back in again?!?
That's just insanity.
McCain long ago gave up any claim to integrity.
He'll pipe up with some meaningless gesture against torture and then go right ahead voting the party line.
Were he moving forward to have Bush impeached, then he would be showing himself to be a patriot, but he is far more interested in loyalty to his party than to his country as he has proven time and time again.
The truly sad thing is that he is the best of the Republicans. Given the fact that he is the best that they have to offer, the solution is not to go with the least sleezy yet still neck deep in filth. The solution is to throw the whole lot of them out, prosecute them for their crimes, and execute most if not all of them for treason.
Anything short of that is telling them that it's business as usual and go full speed ahead with their fascist agenda.