addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1linklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo
A former member
Post #: 128
The Rev Jerry Falwell is dead. He represented everything that is opposed to that which is held high in the US Constitution, namely that every individual has a right to their life.

America was founded on reason - a man such as Falwell rejects logic.

America was founded on individual rights - a man such as Falwell embraces slavery through sacrifice.

America was only possible through the separation of religion and law - a man such as Falwell wants religious doctrine to become law.

Liberty is opposed by every single religion and almost every single philosophy.

The greatest idea, the only just idea, the idea that saved Man, the idea of individual liberty which is concomitant with the right of the individual to their life, is opposed by so many and frightens even so many more.
A former member
Post #: 275
Liberty is opposed by every single religion and almost every single philosophy. (quote)


That's not true about the religion part because then they'd be condemning the very item that gives religion it's existence.

I'm talking about in a democracy where a person has freedom of religion to worship whatever they want that also extends to the religious institutions.
A former member
Post #: 129
Liberty is opposed by every single religion and almost every single philosophy. (quote)


That's not true about the religion part because then they'd be condemning the very item that gives religion it's existence.

I'm talking about in a democracy where a person has freedom of religion to worship whatever they want that also extends to the religious institutions.

Liberty is the freedom to think and decide - all actions are the result thereof. No religion does that, all tell you what to think regardless whether it is ridiculous or not and regardless whether the outcome is good or bad for you.
A former member
Post #: 281
I'm talking about in a democracy where a person has freedom of religion to worship whatever they want that also extends to the religious institutions.
Liberty is the freedom to think and decide - all actions are the result thereof. No religion does that, all tell you what to think regardless whether it is ridiculous or not and regardless whether the outcome is good or bad for you.
You misunderstood what I said. I meant why would religion condemn liberty when liberty gives it the permission to live?

In a democracy it is stated that there is freedom of religion to worship whatever you want and that statement also gives religious institutions the right to exist.
A former member
Post #: 131
I'm talking about in a democracy where a person has freedom of religion to worship whatever they want that also extends to the religious institutions.

Liberty is the freedom to think and decide - all actions are the result thereof. No religion does that, all tell you what to think regardless whether it is ridiculous or not and regardless whether the outcome is good or bad for you.
You misunderstood what I said. I meant why would religion condemn liberty when liberty gives it the permission to live?

D-J:
Religion does not view it that way because each religion believes that IT represents direction from G-d.

Religion has always been political but this began to change when Cromwell defeated Charles I and was finally decided when the United States Constitution was implemented.

In a democracy it is stated that there is freedom of religion to worship whatever you want and that statement also gives religious institutions the right to exist.
Hopefully, but it was not until the US Constitution, American not being a democracy, where religious freedom was first given right.
A former member
Post #: 282
D-J:
Religion does not view it that way because each religion believes that IT represents direction from G-d. (quote)


Most are very realistic.
A former member
Post #: 9
Hopefully, but it was not until the US Constitution, American not being a democracy, where religious freedom was first given right.

Evidently, you are not aware of the Warsaw Confederation, Edict of Nantes, or the Act of Toleration, all of which were before the US constitution.
A former member
Post #: 135
Hopefully, but it was not until the US Constitution, American not being a democracy, where religious freedom was first given right.

Evidently, you are not aware of the Warsaw Confederation, Edict of Nantes, or the Act of Toleration, all of which were before the US constitution.

There is an essential difference between these documents and the US Constitution besides the explicit.

And this that the US Constitution RECOGNIZES the rights of individuals and does not grant, bestow or allow.

Further it entrenches this by being based on the recognition that rights are unalienable.

The fundamental right upon which all others so-called are corrollaries or consequences, is the right of the INDIVIDUAL to their life.

The right of an individual to their life is through the Aristotlean Law of Identity - because we exist and because of who we are, Man. The Right cannot alienated because it is granted or given or whatever by nobody or nothing - it is.

This fundamental issue was recognized by the Framers and illustrates that they were philosphically well schooled brilliant men.

As tribute as far as I am concerned there ought to be an Aristotle Monument in Washington DC because there is no doubt that he is the philosophical cornerstone of the United States of America as well as the West, despite the best efforts of the Vatican and Kant to degrade, erode and destroy this.

I recommend the reading of Aristotles work "The Politics". It reads like a blueprint for the US, including that Athenian invention [by Solon the Lawgiver] namely the Supreme Court.
John
broughton
New York, NY
Post #: 169

The Rev Jerry Falwell is dead. He represented everything that is opposed to that which is held high in the US Constitution, namely that every individual has a right to their life.

He certainly believes in that, moreso than secularists/atheists.


America was founded on reason - a man such as Falwell rejects logic.

America was founded on a rational basis, but with an appreciation for diverse viewpoints and a belief in a higher calling of some sort. What about the phrase "that they are endowed by their Creator"? Doesn't sound too 'rational' to me.


America was founded on individual rights - a man such as Falwell embraces slavery through sacrifice.
Darn those people who are not enlightened Objectivists, those who believe sacrifice may be a good thing (and not slavery). BTW - this was a *main* point of the Natural Origins of Morality event - that sacrifice toward the greater good can be rationally justified as a good thing.


America was only possible through the separation of religion and law - a man such as Falwell wants religious doctrine to become law.

I agree, which is why this man (like many others) should be challenged, not vilified.


Liberty is opposed by every single religion and almost every single philosophy. The greatest idea, the only just idea, the idea that saved Man, the idea of individual liberty which is concomitant with the right of the individual to their life, is opposed by so many and frightens even so many more.

Liberty is a good thing. Agreed.
A former member
Post #: 142

The Rev Jerry Falwell is dead. He represented everything that is opposed to that which is held high in the US Constitution, namely that every individual has a right to their life.

He certainly believes in that, moreso than secularists/atheists.

Falwell rejected that. He believed first of all. A secularist is someone that rejects any form of mysticism or religion or anything "supernatural" and relies on reason-logic. Therefore there is no room for belief because that is arbitrary.

Fallwell rejected the individual has a right to their life because he believed and this means that God is the owner of the life, not the individual. Hence he believes in free will not individual rights.

Man does not have free will. He has to obey the reason-logic equation in every facet of his life otherwise problems arise.

Certainly there is no greater illustration that Falwell rejected the individual's right to their life given his anti-choice stand.

One cannot claim to stand for individual rights when one opposes the right of a woman to choose. Only individuals have rights and have to be born to become individuals.


America was founded on reason - a man such as Falwell rejects logic.

America was founded on a rational basis, but with an appreciation for diverse viewpoints and a belief in a higher calling of some sort. What about the phrase "that they are endowed by their Creator"? Doesn't sound too 'rational' to me.

The US Constitution is what the US is based on and there is no mention of any deity or creator.

Framers such as Jefferson and Madison were explicitly hostile to all religion and openly stated so. They were particularly hostile to Christianity.

The terms Creator still does not declare God. Given that Einstein for example too spoke euphamistically about a God, the term Creator impresses me as being a compromise - the Framers were also mostly deists.

Given that the Creation of the United States was earth shattering it is clear that the Framers, men schooled in philosophy - Aristotlean clearly - were products of The Enlightenment.


America was founded on individual rights - a man such as Falwell embraces slavery through sacrifice.
Darn those people who are not enlightened Objectivists, those who believe sacrifice may be a good thing (and not slavery). BTW - this was a *main* point of the Natural Origins of Morality event - that sacrifice toward the greater good can be rationally justified as a good thing.

If sacrifice is a good thing, then what is wrong with suicide? Surely it ought to be classified as virtue?

Sacrifice is mentioned when Abraham is called upon to sacrifice his most beloved and treasured Isaac. God stops him. Man as a sacrificial animal is rejected.

It was the rise of Christianity that gave self-sacrifice life and in order to carry that ethic on after the Renaissance and neutralize reason-logic, Immanuel Kant undermined reason and religion was also saved.

Sacrifice is the giving up of value, and therefore hurts Mankind. It requires obediance and duty and it is the ethic upon which every tyrrany explicitly rests.

The most well known to us being socialism, communism, nazism and islamism. These could not happen without the ethic of self-sacrifice, aka altruism.


America was only possible through the separation of religion and law - a man such as Falwell wants religious doctrine to become law.

I agree, which is why this man (like many others) should be challenged, not vilified.

Falwell should be villified because he was an evil man who preached hate and bigotry.


Liberty is opposed by every single religion and almost every single philosophy. The greatest idea, the only just idea, the idea that saved Man, the idea of individual liberty which is concomitant with the right of the individual to their life, is opposed by so many and frightens even so many more.

Liberty is a good thing. Agreed.

Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy