> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> and lots, of time undermining education
>
> I have never understood what the goal is with that. What possible good can
> it do to anybody to limit education?
>

"From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear 
to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore 
to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared.  If the machine 
were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy 
and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. ... But it was 
also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the 
destruction - indeed, in some sense was the destruction - of a 
hierarchical society.  ... the most obvious and perhaps the most 
important form of inequality would already have disappeared.  If it once 
became general, wealth would confer no distinction. ... But in practice 
such a society could not long remain stable.  For if leisure and 
security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who 
are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn 
to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would 
sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, 
and they would sweep it away.   In the long run, a hierarchical society 
was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.  ... Ignorance is 
Strength"

- G. Orwell. 1984.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > How could I even follow a constitutional law that doesn't even explain
> > what it means?
> >
> lol Well, the point of the above is that this is precisely how "Biblical 
> law" seems to work. So, given the reason some of them object to liberal 
> interpretations of the constitution, I can only assume its how they 
> think "it" should work too. ;)

If you think about it, that constitutional law not defining what it means
by "Almighty God" could hypothetically create an even worse situation than
just accepting anybody regardless of their world view, including atheists.

Let's assume for a moment that not only is Christianity true, but that
particular view is also true that only those who have the Christian faith
should be leaders, as electing a non-believer into power would make God
angry and could potentially cause misfortune to the country. Now, in this
context, which one of these is potentially more "dangerous"?

a) Accepting into office someone who does not have belief in gods (iow. an
   atheist), or

b) accepting into office someone who does believe in an "Almighty God",
   which happens to be the "wrong" god?

After all, someone on category b) could well proclaim something like
"yes, I believe in the existence of Almighty God, the creator of the
universe and everything", but that "god" would be, for example, Brahma,
the creator god of Hinduism.

So which would make the Christian god angrier, someone who has no belief
in gods, or someone who worships an idol, the god of the wrong religion?

Since "Almight God" is not defined, it could be anything.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:40:06 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Now, in this context, which one of these is potentially more
> "dangerous"?
> 
> a) Accepting into office someone who does not have belief in gods (iow.
> an
>    atheist), or
> 
> b) accepting into office someone who does believe in an "Almighty God",
>    which happens to be the "wrong" god?

Neither would be "more" dangerous to someone who holds a particular 
belief - because one who believes in the wrong deity might as well be an 
atheist for all a believer in the "right" god thinks.  Both are 
heretical, and getting it wrong by believing in a god that "doesn't 
exist" or just not believing are functionally equivalent to that mindset.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 17/12/2012 3:40 PM, Warp wrote:
> If you think about it, that constitutional law not defining what it means
> by "Almighty God" could hypothetically create an even worse situation than
> just accepting anybody regardless of their world view, including atheists.

Strange how the Pilgrim Fathers fled England to The Netherlands then 
North America in search of religious tolerance. They certainly found it 
and their descendants are as tolerant as their persecutors were.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.12.2012 22:08, schrieb Stephen:
> On 17/12/2012 3:40 PM, Warp wrote:
>> If you think about it, that constitutional law not defining what it means
>> by "Almighty God" could hypothetically create an even worse situation
>> than
>> just accepting anybody regardless of their world view, including
>> atheists.
>
> Strange how the Pilgrim Fathers fled England to The Netherlands then
> North America in search of religious tolerance. They certainly found it
> and their descendants are as tolerant as their persecutors were.

The truth is that they never sought religious tolerance in the first 
place - they had always strived for their own rules to be law. 
Unfortunately for them those rules contradicted the Church of England's, 
so they did suffer from religiously-motivated oppression, and this 
indeed happened to be the one factor that drove them to America. But 
that's about it.

It's an all too common misconception that every person subject to 
oppression and fighting against it is automatically a warrior for tolerance.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:08:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 17/12/2012 3:40 PM, Warp wrote:
>> If you think about it, that constitutional law not defining what it
>> means by "Almighty God" could hypothetically create an even worse
>> situation than just accepting anybody regardless of their world view,
>> including atheists.
> 
> Strange how the Pilgrim Fathers fled England to The Netherlands then
> North America in search of religious tolerance. They certainly found it
> and their descendants are as tolerant as their persecutors were.

Indeed, that's an irony that isn't lost on many of us over here.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 17/12/2012 9:52 PM, clipka wrote:
>
> The truth is that they never sought religious tolerance in the first
> place - they had always strived for their own rules to be law.
> Unfortunately for them those rules contradicted the Church of England's,
> so they did suffer from religiously-motivated oppression, and this
> indeed happened to be the one factor that drove them to America. But
> that's about it.
>

You are correct of course but it is received wisdom that it is true. And 
IMNSHO England was well rid of them. I only wish that they had taken the 
Scottish Presbyterians with them.

> It's an all too common misconception that every person subject to
> oppression and fighting against it is automatically a warrior for
> tolerance.

Now that is very true. For an example you only have to look at a certain 
state in the middle East, founded after WWII.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:40:06 -0500, Warp wrote:

> > Now, in this context, which one of these is potentially more
> > "dangerous"?
> > 
> > a) Accepting into office someone who does not have belief in gods (iow.
> > an
> >    atheist), or
> > 
> > b) accepting into office someone who does believe in an "Almighty God",
> >    which happens to be the "wrong" god?

> Neither would be "more" dangerous to someone who holds a particular 
> belief - because one who believes in the wrong deity might as well be an 
> atheist for all a believer in the "right" god thinks.  Both are 
> heretical, and getting it wrong by believing in a god that "doesn't 
> exist" or just not believing are functionally equivalent to that mindset.

But worshipping idols and false gods is specifically stated in the Bible
as an abhorrent thing in the eyes of God.

An atheist is committing only one major "sin": Not believing in the One
True God. A hinduist is committing two: Not only does he not believe in
the One True God, in addition he worships false gods, which is abhorrent.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:12:29 -0500, Warp wrote:

>> Neither would be "more" dangerous to someone who holds a particular
>> belief - because one who believes in the wrong deity might as well be
>> an atheist for all a believer in the "right" god thinks.  Both are
>> heretical, and getting it wrong by believing in a god that "doesn't
>> exist" or just not believing are functionally equivalent to that
>> mindset.
> 
> But worshipping idols and false gods is specifically stated in the Bible
> as an abhorrent thing in the eyes of God.

That's only relevant to those who believe that particular mythology is 
true.

> An atheist is committing only one major "sin": Not believing in the One
> True God. A hinduist is committing two: Not only does he not believe in
> the One True God, in addition he worships false gods, which is
> abhorrent.

And for the majority of mainstream Christianity, both are "punished" in 
the same way - so I don't see that you could say one is worse than the 
other....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > An atheist is committing only one major "sin": Not believing in the One
> > True God. A hinduist is committing two: Not only does he not believe in
> > the One True God, in addition he worships false gods, which is
> > abhorrent.

> And for the majority of mainstream Christianity, both are "punished" in 
> the same way - so I don't see that you could say one is worse than the 
> other....

Well, there's this widespread theology among many Christians (especially
the evangelical ones) that if a nation commits enough sin and wickedness
against God, then God will punish that nation. Therefore the less sin that
the nation commits, the better.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message