Carpathian and ilk vs. the First Amendment to the US Constitution

kairosfocus:

kairosfocus: Let me clip my annotated cite from you as appeared in and is linked from the OP; so the onlooker at least can be clear — and BTW your attempt to imply how dare you clip, cite and comment on clearly distinguished annotations is itself revealing:

From the following, the onlooker can be clear that you make things up. The onlooker can also be clear you don't have a very strong message, since you are spending more time discrediting the messenger. The onlooker can also be clear that your behavior is that of someone losing an argument.

Carpathian: >>Religious activities should all be private. kairosfocus: [–> locked away in a ghetto labelled religion, in a context where the main forms of religious expression are Christian]

Carpathian: Any prospects for religious conversion kairosfocus: [–> A specifically Christian emphasis, especially for evangelicals] Carpathian: should be invited to listen to the message from that faith but the message itself should be a private affair. kairosfocus: [–> as in, once labelled religion or faith by the secularist elites, to be then silenced and censored in public backed up presumably by the radically secularised state, bye bye to freedom of expression in the public square] Carpathian: There are parents who may not want their children exposed to certain religions or religious teachings kairosfocus: [–> in short we radical secularists don’t want to see, hear or deal with especially the Christian gospel (as in, code words and dog whistles and newspeak that informs the in group but is deniable to the outgroups . . . ), so for instance Christian TV channels or radio would be blocked from the public airwaves or from cable save for barriers similar to those designed to protect children from hard core porn, with implications for the Internet, newspapers etc also, never mind censoring out the Judaeo-Christian heritage from education, already largely done] Carpathian: and that barrier to religion kairosfocus: [–> ghettoising and silencing again] Carpathian: should be considered a fundamental right and honored by all faiths. kairosfocus: [–> as opposed to “Science” which presumes to be “knowledge”]>>

kairosfocus: Until you get this straight, there is no point in trying to disentangle further problems.

Until you get it straight that you can't actually read my mind or anybody else's, you should respond to what people actually say and not make things up.Carpathian

August 4, 2015

August

08

Aug

4

04

2015

08:25 AM

8

08

25

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Carpathian, it is obvious that you are blind to the implications of what you have stated about "religion." (And BTW, you CANNOT be ignorant of the strawman you have set up, in constitutional democratic states elected parliaments legislate [and sometimes the people at large by referendum], not churches etc. Your whole remark pivots on a loaded misrepresentation.) Let me clip my annotated cite from you as appeared in and is linked from the OP; so the onlooker at least can be clear -- and BTW your attempt to imply how dare you clip, cite and comment on clearly distinguished annotations is itself revealing:

>>Religious activities should all be private. [–> locked away in a ghetto labelled religion, in a context where the main forms of religious expression are Christian] Any prospects for religious conversion [–> A specifically Christian emphasis, especially for evangelicals] should be invited to listen to the message from that faith but the message itself should be a private affair. [–> as in, once labelled religion or faith by the secularist elites, to be then silenced and censored in public backed up presumably by the radically secularised state, bye bye to freedom of expression in the public square] There are parents who may not want their children exposed to certain religions or religious teachings [–> in short we radical secularists don’t want to see, hear or deal with especially the Christian gospel (as in, code words and dog whistles and newspeak that informs the in group but is deniable to the outgroups . . . ), so for instance Christian TV channels or radio would be blocked from the public airwaves or from cable save for barriers similar to those designed to protect children from hard core porn, with implications for the Internet, newspapers etc also, never mind censoring out the Judaeo-Christian heritage from education, already largely done] and that barrier to religion [–> ghettoising and silencing again] should be considered a fundamental right and honored by all faiths. [–> as opposed to “Science” which presumes to be “knowledge”]>>

Until you get this straight, there is no point in trying to disentangle further problems. KFkairosfocus

July 31, 2015

July

07

Jul

31

31

2015

03:24 PM

3

03

24

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus:

kairosfocus: Carpathian, Pardon, but there you go again: Carpathian: If you allow one church to enact legislation, you have to allow all of them . . .

What is wrong with that? Are you saying only Roman Catholics should be visible in government but not Protestants? Did that work well in Northern Ireland? What about Sunnis and Shites? Should only one be allowed to be represented in government? How well does this work in countries that contain these groups?

>>Religious activities should all be private. Added by kairosfocus: [–> locked away in a ghetto labelled religion, in a context where the main forms of religious expression are Christian]

Any prospects for religious conversion Added by kairosfocus: [–> A specifically Christian emphasis, especially for evangelicals] should be invited to listen to the message from that faith but the message itself should be a private affair. Added by kairosfocus: [–> as in, once labelled religion or faith by the secularist elites, to be then silenced and censored in public backed up presumably by the radically secularised state, bye bye to freedom of expression in the public square] There are parents who may not want their children exposed to certain religions or religious teachings Added by kairosfocus: [–> in short we radical secularists don’t want to see, hear or deal with especially the Christian gospel (as in, code words and dog whistles and newspeak that informs the in group but is deniable to the outgroups . . . ), so for instance Christian TV channels or radio would be blocked from the public airwaves or from cable save for barriers similar to those designed to protect children from hard core porn, with implications for the Internet, newspapers etc also, never mind censoring out the Judaeo-Christian heritage from education, already largely done] and that barrier to religion Added by kairosfocus: [–> ghettoising and silencing again] should be considered a fundamental right and honored by all faiths. Added by kairosfocus: [–> as opposed to “Science” which presumes to be “knowledge”]>>

You're making things up. I say something, you claim I said something else, and then you attack what you said. I think that's called a strawman .

kairosfocus: The pattern of clear hostile intent and domineering continues. Beginning to mount up into a long train of abuses and usurpations. It is time for it to stop.

Yes, you should stop your hostility and you should stop putting words into other people's mouths. Once you do that, people should be able to ask you questions and get answers to the questions actually asked.Carpathian

July 31, 2015

July

07

Jul

31

31

2015

08:13 AM

8

08

13

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Carpathian, Pardon, but there you go again:

If you allow one church to enact legislation, you have to allow all of them . . .

And, I add, as for where do I attack Christianity, I draw your attention to your words cited in the OP and linked from it, in which you propose censorship by way of public silencing, stereotyping and by implication scapegoating and confinement to a ghetto labelled "religion" in the teeth of the issues of freedom of conscience, expression, association, the press and more . . . discussed at length in the same OP you have so studiously ignored:

>>Religious activities should all be private. [--> locked away in a ghetto labelled religion, in a context where the main forms of religious expression are Christian] Any prospects for religious conversion [--> A specifically Christian emphasis, especially for evangelicals] should be invited to listen to the message from that faith but the message itself should be a private affair. [--> as in, once labelled religion or faith by the secularist elites, to be then silenced and censored in public backed up presumably by the radically secularised state, bye bye to freedom of expression in the public square] There are parents who may not want their children exposed to certain religions or religious teachings

[--> in short we radical secularists don't want to see, hear or deal with especially the Christian gospel (as in, code words and dog whistles and newspeak that informs the in group but is deniable to the outgroups . . . ), so for instance Christian TV channels or radio would be blocked from the public airwaves or from cable save for barriers similar to those designed to protect children from hard core porn, with implications for the Internet, newspapers etc also, never mind censoring out the Judaeo-Christian heritage from education, already largely done]

and that barrier to religion [--> ghettoising and silencing again] should be considered a fundamental right and honored by all faiths. [--> as opposed to "Science" which presumes to be "knowledge"]>>

FYI, Civics 101, in constitutional, limited government, rights respecting democracies across the world for centuries now LAWS ARE ENACTED BY LEGISLATURES, period. Legislatures that are elected by popular vote, hopefully informed by a free and reasonably diverse press. (And, FYFI, the current practice of unaccountable legislation from the judicial bench driven by an elitist secularist agenda is both inherently exceedingly dangerous and a de facto instance of establishment of the anti-church of evolutionary materialist scientism and radical secularism allied with fellow travellers and what Lenin termed useful fools. In short, simply by injecting the contrast-term "religion" you have implied priviliging the anti-church of evolutionary materialism, scientism and secularism, leading to the already exposed agenda of hostility, marginalisation, censorship, silencing in public, stereotyping, scapegoating and ghettoisation; all without realising the implications of what you have advocated, cf the clip in the op above on confining religious speech to the private, and the parallel thread on civil justice that highlights how you leaped from Anthropic's support for the state administering justice per Rom 12 - 13 to assertions about how frightening that was and comparisons with presumed fundy religious fanatics and terrorists similar to islamIST terrorism; a tellingly disproportionate and revealing over-reaction. I will draw out on the problem below.) Your invidious caricature of some imaginary church "enacting legislation" is a case of a red herring led away to a strawman set up and soaked in a slander and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. Let me restructure to clarify: which church, when in any relevant current context of a constitutional, lawful democracy functions as a parliament? Patently, exactly nil so this is made up out of whole cloth . . . I suspect this is not original to you, but you are responsible to think before you repeat a toxic, slanderous talking-point. The obvious propagandistic theme here is the right wing fundy Christo-fascist theocracy bogeyman, probably blended with a projection of the Iranian Islamic Republic with its guardian council etc, or the like. Possibly, your declared concern may have been relevant back to medieval days when the Papacy was a powerful monarchy, or earlier in the post-476 years when there was a church-horseback warrior class alliance and establishment as the result of the dangerous and chaotic impacts of the collapse of the W Roman empire. In those days, the church was the last remaining pan-european institution with some continuity and capacity so had to step in and ally itself with the heavy cavalry armoured warrior class. (Mostly chain mail or scale or segment armour, the full plate armour came much later. After a major Roman defeat c 400 AD, infantry went into decline.) But in those times it was the clerics and the armoured horsemen or nothing. In the face of barbarian raiders, disease, famine, desperation. And in Britain things were so bad that the Saxons etc -- they had been serving with the Romans for years -- were invited in to defend from the Scots and Irish raiders. Of course, they took over. They were gradually Christianised through missions like those of Augustine the less, and the Irish were famously Christianised by Patrick. And tellingly, this was an infantry based backwater -- eventually decisively defeated by horseback based Viking descendants from Normandy and their allies at Hastings in 1066 who also used archers to soften the shield wall. Notice, the Saxon king was said to have been felled by an arrow to the eye. As the case of the Normans suggests, after the Saxons, then came the Vikings and the Danish-Norwegian invasions and settlements of England, Scotland and Ireland. (The Swedes seem to have mostly gone East.) Just remember, no peasant could afford the time, cost and effort to become a knight; you had to have a warrior class with privileges sufficient to make them effective. There is nothing so useless as a second-best army, it costs the earth to create but will go down to defeat, and in those days, if you thought being a peasant or serf under a warlord was bad, wait till you face say Viking raiders who have just slaughtered the warriors and are now about to plunder, rape, enslave and murder to their hearts' content. Democratisation could only seriously begin when infantry through the longbow, pike and then the musket, rebalanced forces on the battlefield. I add, backed by the invention of printing and rising tide of literacy and widespread elementary education thus the emergence of the general literate public at the heart of modern democracy. Now, under the sort of establishment you have in Iran or the like, you do have mullahs controlling law, but that is something where you do not have anything like a constitutional democracy, never mind some trappings. British history from the wars of the roses to the glorious revolution of 1688 suffices to illustrate the path to democratisation. 1688 was the pivotal point of democratisation, and on the bloody lessons of nigh on 300 years of civil conflict, the past will not be revisited. Indeed, a pivotal issue in 1832 - 33 in Britain was that in a time of internal instability where dissenter dominated districts held the decisive vote, word reached the UK and was backed up by a Governor's report, on the Baptist war slave uprising in Jamaica. Particularly, on attempts to try and hang dissenter missionaries as instigators and the linked burning of 15 dissenter chapels by the Anglican-linked Colonial Church Union. This triggered the final discredit of the West India Interest, as Britain was not going back to the bloody instability of the past. Period. The emancipation act passed in 1833, and came into effect Aug 1, 1834. In short you have set up and burned a toxically loaded strawman, led up to with talking points over not favouring one religion over another. That is already an inadvertent indicator of the real problem: worldviews, ideologies and cultural agendas dressed up in a lab coat and falsely claiming an effective monopoly on serious or even all knowledge. That is, evolutionary materialist scientism, radical secularism and its fellow travellers. On fair comment, such is functionally an anti-church and it seeks de facto establishment, by disproportionately dominating key institutions of influence and power. So on further fair comment when language on "equal" treatment -- marginalisation and contempt laced tolerance -- of "religions" is used, and we see associated misleading ill-informed or outright intentionally false talk about churches "enacting" law, there is a patent fallacy of projection at work. Lewontin's notorious 1997 review of Sagan's last book, Billions and billions of demons, is a classic of unintentional self-exposure:

. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]

and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

In short, this is a case of distractive projection, prejudice driven caricatured stereotyping verging on implied slander, scapegoating and targetting. The pattern of clear hostile intent and domineering continues. Beginning to mount up into a long train of abuses and usurpations. It is time for it to stop. KFkairosfocus

July 31, 2015

July

07

Jul

31

31

2015

04:19 AM

4

04

19

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus: Please try to retain focus. Is there a reason you can't reply directly to a comment? Read the following:

I have always said all religions, every single one, should be equal in stature as far as the government and legislation is concerned. If you allow one church to enact legislation, you have to allow all of them.

Please comment on the above, not statements I haven't made. Questions: 1) Where do I favor one religion over another? 2) Where do I attack Christianity? 3) If you believe that my statements that I don't favor any religion actually mean I do favor one religion over another, please provide me an example of the proper grammar constructs to use so that my message that I don't favor any religion over another actually gets transmitted to you.Carpathian

July 30, 2015

July

07

Jul

30

30

2015

11:42 AM

11

11

42

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: Let me clip a discussion of the 2nd paragraph of the US DoI which I have put into a discussion draft for a charter of good government, as part of its rationale (to show something live):

Noting also, as a balancing premise, the global historic significance of the July 4th 1776 American Declaration of Independence as the charter of modern democracy; Pondering therefore, the force of the following epochal assertion that a people have a right to liberty and legitimate government that recognises their unalienable, God-given rights and which is reformed by them from time to time, to respect and guard such rights (especially by means of the ballot box) . . . [cite follows]

. . . and let me add an explanatory exposition I have made in the past few days in response to a query:

>>We hold these truths to be self-evident,>> 1 --> cf Rom 1:18 – 21, 2:14 – 15, 13:1 – 10 . . . one we understand what is at stake in our being morally governed beings of equal nature and worth, there is no excuse of ignorance regarding core rights, the attempt to deny such lands instantly in patent absurdity >>that all men are created equal,>> 2 --> The pivot of all else, and on this cf Locke in his 2nd treatise on civil govt ch 2, citing 'the judicious [Anglican canon Richard] Hooker [in his Ecclesiastical Polity, which onward uses Moshe, Jesus and Paul on the Golden Rule and Aristotle, with echoes of Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis and Blackstone in his Commentaries]":

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]

3 --> Blackstone on the laws of nature and of nature's God referenced in the 1st paragraph is also well worth the citing:

Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being . . . consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker’s will. This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws . . . These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly [NB: cf. Exod. 20:15 – 16], should hurt nobody [NB: cf. Rom 13:8 – 10], and should render to every one his due [NB: cf. Rom 13:6 – 7 & Exod. 20:15]; to which three general precepts Justinian[1: a Juris praecepta sunt hace, honeste vivere. alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. Inst, 1. 1. 3] has reduced the whole doctrine of law [and, Corpus Juris, Justinian’s Christianised precis and pruning of perhaps 1,000 years of Roman jurisprudence, in turn is the foundation of law for much of Europe].

4 --> This then leads into a definition of rights and the state's purpose as guarding the civil peace of justice through properly balancing rights, freedoms and responsibilities or duties [which brings out how moral government is the key balance to the tendency of democracy to abusive mob rule, the notion that the might of the -- typically manipulated and angry -- crowd makes 'right.'] >> that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.>> 5 --> The Creator grounds the right and rights. 6 --> This reflects that absent resort to dismissing the testimony of our interior life that we are under the government of a law of ought (and thus implying grand delusion so fatally undermining mind and responsible freedom), we face the binding nature of ought especially through the premise that rights imply correlative duties of respect and care. 7 --> This then leads to the Humean Guillotine and the is-ought gap, thence the only sound answer, there is a world-foundational IS that inherently and adequately grounds OUGHT. 8 --> For such, there is precisely one serious candidate, after centuries of disputes and debates: the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, the root of reality who is worthy of ultimate respect and loyalty, then of service by doing the good in accord with our evident nature. 9 --> And yes, I know there is a whole world of serious philosophy and linked theology behind that, starting with the modern modal ontological argument and moral arguments multiplied by the argument from transformative experience of encounter with God. 10 --> That is not our main concern, the national vision that we are a God-fearing society captures the essence. 11 --> From this we ground a deeper understanding of Law rooted in our nature as responsibly and rationally free morally governed creatures charged with the stewardship of Creation and the principle of neighbour love. Down that road lies a world of thought tied to the Categorical Imperative and the sustainability principle insofar as that is valid. And all of that is relevant too. >> –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,>> 13 --> Govt is established through human collective community action, ideally and by force of ought towards justice, which requires guarding and defence, hence the issue of the sword of justice legitimately used in defence of the civil peace of justice. 14 --> And, I insist on the importance of that understanding of the term, civil peace. >> deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,>> 15 --> Thus, democracy enters, in the context of justice, rights, the right, our created equality and endowments of a common value and dignity that must be respected down to the least individual, and guarded with the sword of justice. 16 --> And of course, how that consent is expressed is a pivotal issue of good government and governance. >> –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,>> 17 --> The problem of finite, fallible, morally struggling and corruptible, to often foolish or incompetent or abusive people, including in government and its offices of great trust and power. 18 --> In reply, the people who give consent and legitimate government towards justice, have a collective right to reform and change government >> laying its foundation on such principles>> 19 --> As already given in outline with deep allusions, and this then becomes a classic historically pivotal statement of sound principles in a powerful nutshell well worth learning, memorising and pondering. >> and organizing its powers in such form,>> 20 --> Reformation towards good government >> as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.>> 21 --> The people must be properly and justly educated, trained, habituated, experienced through civil society, supported by transparency and accountability and a free, strong, sound and fair press 22 --> And yes, modern democracy is not feasible absent literacy on a widespread basis and absent means of publication and dissemination of information >> Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.>> 23 --> This is serious business, not to be taken up on a whim or on an ill informed basis, especially when radical reform is the issue >> But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,>> 24 --> Agendas always have more and more built in, often hidden, the issue is where the direction and trend points, especially as morally evaluated in light of the given principles. >> it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . .>> 25 --> The right of in the end revolution to answer to stubborn destructive power agendas and their champions. 26 --> here, we see that the general election is an institutionalised solemn assembly and audit of government on a regular basis, with peaceful means of reformation and if necessary revolution. 27 --> Hence, BTW the references as cited above to referendum to change constitutions.

That is the real case to be answered to, or at least a material part of it. KFkairosfocus

July 28, 2015

July

07

Jul

28

28

2015

04:37 PM

4

04

37

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Carpathian, your attempts to well-poison, stigmatise, censor, publicly silence and ghettoise Christians and the like are a matter now of repeated and headlined record here at UD. Bland declarations that "I am all for liberty, yours and mine. If those liberties come into conflict, we have to compromise" therefore have utterly no effect. As you have made it quite plain just what you mean by compromise; a pattern that is increasingly and dangerously, even menacingly common. When two statements contradict on a matter of rights, where there is no retraction and explanation for the adverse one, we must act with prudence. This BTW extends to your attempt to suggest that you have no objection to peaceful assembly, which is not true when put in parallel with the already headlined. And so forth, e.g. the notion you put up of churches enacting legislation is a toxically loaded strawman and red herring. I just note that popularly elected legislatures enact legislation, towards the civil peace of justice, and constrained by constitutional provisions designed to ensure protection of core rights evident in our common morally governed nature as responsibly free and rational beings -- the US DoI 1776 classically puts that as unalienable, Creator endowed rights integral to the laws of Nature and nature's God. Which, you know or should know but instead found it oh so rhetorically convenient and clever to distort into a pretence and invidious projection of theocratic establishment. There is a reason why ordinary dissenting Christians c 1787 insisted on explicit recognitions of rights, and your pattern of behaviour underscores their wisdom. KFkairosfocus

July 28, 2015

July

07

Jul

28

28

2015

04:02 PM

4

04

02

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus:

Carpathian, This thread began several days ago, because you said the following regarding themes addressed by the first amdt US Const:

Religious activities should all be private. Any prospects for religious conversion should be invited to listen to the message from that faith but the message itself should be a private affair. There are parents who may not want their children exposed to certain religions or religious teachings and that barrier to religion should be considered a fundamental right and honored by all faiths.

In short, you quite plainly advocated censorship, ghettoisation and silencing of Christians.

Where did I mention Christians? I have always said all religions, every single one, should be equal in stature as far as the government and legislation is concerned. If you allow one church to enact legislation, you have to allow all of them. That is democratic and fair.Carpathian

July 28, 2015

July

07

Jul

28

28

2015

11:57 AM

11

11

57

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus:

5 –> In our time, where evolutionary materialist, scientism based secular humanism and its fellow travellers constitute a de facto anti-church cartel, American Dissenting Christians face precisely that kind of interference that this clause was intended to be a bulwark against. >>or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;>>

Would you be open to allowing other religions the ability to see their teachings put into legislation?Carpathian

July 28, 2015

July

07

Jul

28

28

2015

11:45 AM

11

11

45

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus:

10 –> Peaceful assembly implies in homes, in houses of worship, in public spaces, on the streets so long as the assembly be not riotous or a mob seeking to threaten.

I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with governments promoting any one religion as in putting The Ten Commandments in front of Courthouses. I also have a problem with governments passing legislation to appease a church that I don't belong to. If I choose not to belong to a church, why should I have to put up with their church rulings via politicians?Carpathian

July 28, 2015

July

07

Jul

28

28

2015

11:40 AM

11

11

40

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus:

The conclusion we are left with, on grounds of your repeated tripping of warning flags, is that your motivation is a deep-seated hostility and intent to silence that makes you a poster-child on the dangerous hostility of too many radical secularists and fellow travellers today.

Here is a repost from earlier. Please point out my hostility and intent to silence.

I am all for liberty, yours and mine. If those liberties come into conflict, we have to compromise. As an example, if you open a school day with a prayer, the only proper way to ensure free religious expression is to allow all religions the same freedom to start that day with prayer. That means on day 1, we could have a Jewish prayer, day 2 a Christian one, day 3 a Muslim one, day 4 a Hindu one, day 6 a Buddhist one, etc. Once a round is complete, an atheist should be allowed to start the day with a presentation that religions tend not to be literally true and that no one will actually die in hell for not accepting a particular prophet’s teachings. This of course would only be allowed with the consent of the parents whose “consent” allows government the power to govern. Is that fair?

Carpathian

July 28, 2015

July

07

Jul

28

28

2015

11:26 AM

11

11

26

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Carpathian, This thread began several days ago, because you said the following regarding themes addressed by the first amdt US Const:

Religious activities should all be private. Any prospects for religious conversion should be invited to listen to the message from that faith but the message itself should be a private affair. There are parents who may not want their children exposed to certain religions or religious teachings and that barrier to religion should be considered a fundamental right and honored by all faiths.

In short, you quite plainly advocated censorship, ghettoisation and silencing of Christians. I cannot recall how you have ever reconciled this with the context and themes of the core freedoms of civil society, and indeed it is patent that this cannot be done. A scan through the thread and others reveals, instead of second thoughts and a return to civility, a steadfast insistent well and atmosphere poisoning, projection of a one sided litany of blame and more, but nowhere do we find a serious resolving of what you have said, given -- and I now clip the OP on those classical core freedoms . . . an amdt that historically traced exactly to the influence of specifically Christian "religious thinking" on law making:

>>Article the third… [= 1st Amdt US Const] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;>> 1 –> Congress resolves and submits to the people for their ratification. 2 –> There shall be no grand federal landeskirk of the united states, building on the principle of Westphalia 1648 of locality in religion, adjusted to republican circumstances and with better protection of dissenters. 3 –> at this time of course something like nine of the thirteen states had established local state churches, the free exercise clause specifically protected freikirke. 4 –> Thus the letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, is properly to be understood as affirming that Jefferson respected this as setting up a wall of protection for freedom of conscience, worship and religion from interference by the state, especially the state in alliance with a grand landeskirk or some unholy cartel of such at state level. 5 –> In our time, where evolutionary materialist, scientism based secular humanism and its fellow travellers constitute a de facto anti-church cartel, American Dissenting Christians face precisely that kind of interference that this clause was intended to be a bulwark against. >>or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;>> 6 –> Notice, freedom to speak and to publish through media are protected in exactly the context of freedom of faith and its expression. 7 –> Yes, the primary sort of speech and publication being protected is just what Carpathian and others of like ilk would trammel, stigmatise, ghettoise and censor in the name of protecting their ears and eyes from being reminded of Him who they are fain to forget and dismiss. 8 –> The irony of this is itself a rebuke to such a radical secularism. >> or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,>> 9 –> This is of course, again in the direct context of religious expression with application to general expression. 10 –> Peaceful assembly implies in homes, in houses of worship, in public spaces, on the streets so long as the assembly be not riotous or a mob seeking to threaten. 11 –> And, again, Carpathian and ilk are found in the lists as enemies of freedom. A sad but not unexpected irony. >> and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances>> 12 –> As in, it was a grievance that the Constitution did not sufficiently and explicitly protect Dissenters from encroachment by potentially hostile establishments that led these to champion a bill of amendments culminating in this one as first in the list. 13 –> So, again, we find the despised evangelicals helping to build liberty. 14 –> And, the power to petition challenges the Laodicean, self-satisfied mentality of power elites that tend to lock out unwelcome voices and views. (As in, Jesus at the church door, knocking and asking to be let in . . . instead of simply forcing his way in while posing on his authority as Lord of the church; as strong a statement of Divine respect for human freedom as one can ever find, even freedom to follow a march of folly.)

The conclusion we are left with, on grounds of your repeated tripping of warning flags, is that your motivation is a deep-seated hostility and intent to silence that makes you a poster-child on the dangerous hostility of too many radical secularists and fellow travellers today. I suggest to you, that you need to confront the direct import and implications of what you have been saying, portraying and projecting, then do some serious rethinking. KFkairosfocus

July 28, 2015

July

07

Jul

28

28

2015

10:32 AM

10

10

32

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB:

Again, you still do not understand. Secularists kill far more people than Christians kill when they are in power. Why they kill is anybody’s guess. Such a thing would likely be impossible to prove with numbers. Please try to follow the argument.

You are over-simplifying a very serious subject. Though there are many nations that have leaders who are Christians, there is not a single government we could use as an example, that is as religiously controlled by Christians as the Muslims control Saudi Arabia or Iran. I could make the ridiculous case, backed by figures, that show statistically that you are more likely to be murdered by your government if your leader has a mustache, as Hitler and Stalin did. Clearly a mustache is not a cause of murder. The evidence we can see in the Middle East is that governments based on a religion kill more people than those governments that are secular. In our own life-time, we have seen Protestant Christians and Catholic Christians killing each other in Northern Ireland. Whatever the reasons for the oppression and murder of civilians, at its heart will be a struggle for power. You should also be comparing secularist and non-secularist governments, not simply secularist versus Christian. We want to see the effect that religious thinking has when enacting legislation and protecting the government's power base.Carpathian

July 28, 2015

July

07

Jul

28

28

2015

09:26 AM

9

09

26

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Harry, do we ever agree on the issue of the devastating impact of disunity and the Laodicean, lockout spirit that refuses to let in even the Lord of the church standing OUTSIDE the door, knocking and calling. As for listening to what the Spirit says to the churches, we need not say more. Save, that when institutions and leaders fail, the Lord says that if anyone listens and opens he will come in and commune with him . . . the faithful remnant. The wars over religion (in many cases, power seems to be ever so much of the real motive) in C17 clearly alienated and repelled many. When will we learn to soften our hearts and open our doors? What we can do today is live like the remnant of Laodicea. Though, I tend to be pessimistic about our civilisation at its current level of achievements. Chaos, collapse, likely rivers of blood stare us in the face but we seem willfully blind like the wealthy purveyors of eyesalve in C1 Laodicea. Just thinking about what is going on with Iran makes me shake my head. After the crash, looks like. KFkairosfocus

July 28, 2015

July

07

Jul

28

28

2015

09:03 AM

9

09

03

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus @100

While high level contributions as the OP highlights should not be underestimated, neither should the sort of transformations above. Mix in the Wesley-Whitefield awakenings, the antislavery movement, social reformation movements and more and we can see how key contributions that are often underestimated were made.

As a Catholic, if it were up to me, William Wilberforce and Harriet Tubman would be canonized as saints even though they were not Catholics. I say this because I firmly believe that the main reason for the success of godless social engineering in ever increasingly imposing its unnatural, dehumanizing agenda upon humanity is the disunity of Christians -- and one of the main reasons for the disunity of Christians is the failure to acknowledge the Spirit of Christ in each other. Harriet Tubman and William Wilberforce possessed the Spirit of Christ. We have it on good authority that we can judge a tree by its fruit. Wilberforce and Tubman produced spectacularly good fruit of the sort that is only brought forth when one has died to self only to be raised again to new life in Christ, like the grain of wheat that falls into the earth and dies, yet rises again and bears much fruit. Having said that, kairosfocus, I have a few questions for you, but I still have just a little more preparation to do: In every society, there is some institution that is looked to for the answers to the ultimate questions. "Why are we here?" "Where did we come from?" "Where are we going, ultimately?" "What is the meaning of our existence?" "Is there a meaning to our existence?" There was a time when the Church was the institution everyone looked to for the answers to those ultimate questions. As you know, in modern, radically secularized society, this is no longer the case. So, my first question is: Do you agree with me that the disunity of Christians is probably the main reason that the institutions of scientism replaced the Church as the source of the answers to the ultimate questions for society? If so, my friend, how do we begin to repair that disunity? God bless you and all you do here.harry

July 28, 2015

July

07

Jul

28

28

2015

08:41 AM

8

08

41

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

anthropic, prezactly. Do I need to call the name, Pestalozzi? The emphasis on literacy, on reading the scriptures for oneself, on being able to respond to and know God for oneself all made major contributions. Multiply by the dual covenant understanding of nationhood and government under God, and by the call for reform of major institutions then for moral transformation of life through conversion and discipleship, as well as things like temperance, and a mass base for democratic transformation emerged across time. While high level contributions as the OP highlights should not be underestimated, neither should the sort of transformations above. Mix in the Wesley-Whitefield awakenings, the antislavery movement, social reformation movements and more and we can see how key contributions that are often underestimated were made. KFkairosfocus

July 27, 2015

July

07

Jul

27

27

2015

09:25 AM

9

09

25

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

SB: I didn’t “attempt” to do anything. I demonstrated that secularists in power are far more likely to murder people than Christians in power. There is no question about it.

That’s not true at all.

It is obviously true. The numbers don't lie. SB: That’s not the example you want to use. Secularists in the Soviet Union were responsible for the mass murder of tens of millions.

The fact that someone is a secularist is not what makes him a dictator or cold-blooded killer any more than wearing sunglasses like Jimmy Jones did, make someone a mass murderer.

Irrelevant. No one tried to argue anything like that. Please try to follow the argument.

Prove that it was a lack of religion and not a lust for power that caused the deaths in the USSR.

Again, you still do not understand. Secularists kill far more people than Christians kill when they are in power. Why they kill is anybody's guess. Such a thing would likely be impossible to prove with numbers. Please try to follow the argument.StephenB

July 27, 2015

July

07

Jul

27

27

2015

09:23 AM

9

09

23

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Carpathian, I must caution you that it is high time that you show a basic willingness to show even simple acknowledgement of contributions made by Christians and Christian influences to the rise of modern liberty and democracy. One gets the distinct impression from repeated comments when a simple balancing acknowledgement would have made a world of difference, that you are utterly unwilling to acknowledge that Christians have made any significant positive contributions to the progress of our civilisation and world. Given agendas of censorship and ghettoisation you have already repeatedly put on the table, such are very bad indicators. I suggest that it is time for you to take a time-out and reflect on your want of balance. KFkairosfocus

July 27, 2015

July

07

Jul

27

27

2015

09:17 AM

9

09

17

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF 88 "And I think there is a serious overlooking of the fact that until there was widespread literacy and the press, democracy as we know it was infeasible. " A further point in this regard is the Reformation, which emphasized literacy so every believer could read the Bible for themselves. That motivated the American colonists to teach reading on a virtually unprecedented scale; some historians estimate early American literacy rates well above 95 percent. Of course, the Jews also had a literate culture for much the same reason.anthropic

July 27, 2015

July

07

Jul

27

27

2015

09:11 AM

9

09

11

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB:

That’s not the example you want to use. Secularists in the Soviet Union were responsible for the mass murder of tens of millions.

The fact that someone is a secularist is not what makes him a dictator or cold-blooded killer any more than wearing sunglasses like Jimmy Jones did, make someone a mass murderer. Prove that it was a lack of religion and not a lust for power that caused the deaths in the USSR. If I apply your argument to Germany or Italy, then it was the Christians who killed the Jews, which is a ridiculous argument. Was it the Christians who dropped an atomic bomb on Japan or was it a government at war?Carpathian

July 27, 2015

July

07

Jul

27

27

2015

09:07 AM

9

09

07

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB:

I didn’t “attempt” to do anything. I demonstrated that secularists in power are far more likely to murder people than Christians in power. There is no question about it.

That's not true at all. Politicians who want to keep power kill people. Their religion or lack of it is irrelevant. Dictators have an allegiance to no person, organization or religion whether in the Soviet Union, Germany or the United States. They behave as if they were the center of the world. Look at Jimmy Jones in Guyana. Blacks were murdered in the United States under the watchful eyes of governments who quoted God in their constitution. In Northern Ireland, Catholics and Protestants murdered each other. Using politics to prove a religious point just doesn't work. Your claim was that you were three million times more likely to be murdered by an atheist than a Christian. There is absolutely no evidence to support that on a state or personal level. You are making a divisive statement that helps no one.Carpathian

July 27, 2015

July

07

Jul

27

27

2015

08:58 AM

8

08

58

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Carpathian

The same thing happened in the Soviet Union.

That's not the example you want to use. Secularists in the Soviet Union were responsible for the mass murder of tens of millions.StephenB

July 27, 2015

July

07

Jul

27

27

2015

08:49 AM

8

08

49

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Carpathian

I fully understand the argument; Christians are good, atheists are murderers.

No, you do not understand the argument. Please do not repeat your list of irrelevant comments. World War II is irrelevant. Who can or cannot stop a war is irrelevant.

Your attempts to make villains out of a segment of the human race is not acceptable.

I didn't "attempt" to do anything. I demonstrated that secularists in power are far more likely to murder people than Christians in power. There is no question about it.StephenB

July 27, 2015

July

07

Jul

27

27

2015

08:37 AM

8

08

37

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB:

A spiritual leader cannot stop a war by “forbidding” the war parties to wage war, or by quoting the Ten Commandments, or by warning them about hell.

If you want an example of people power look at the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. The same thing happened in the Soviet Union. The "governed" removed their consent and the governments were powerless to do anything about. Instead of shooting the protesters, the military simply sat on the sidelines. The same could have been accomplished by religious leaders during WW2. Christianity or any other religion is not composed of people who are "better" than atheists. Humans will always be identical in one aspect and that is in our human flaws. Your attempts to make villains out of a segment of the human race is not acceptable.Carpathian

July 27, 2015

July

07

Jul

27

27

2015

08:09 AM

8

08

09

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB:

I don’t think you understand the argument.

I fully understand the argument; Christians are good, atheists are murderers. Of course there is no evidence that points to that at all.

harry “As StephenB eloquently made clear, the mass murder perpetrated upon innocent humanity by the regimes of modern history that were hostile to theism make all the combined crimes of Christians over the centuries look like a petty misdemeanor by comparison.”

The regimes were not hostile to theism as much as they regarded religions as political parties. WW1 Germany was not hostile to theism, WW2 Germany was not hostile to theism, France was not hostile to theism, etc. All these nations full of Christians decided war was an acceptable way of solving problems. WW2 could have been prevented after WW1 with strong church leadership pushing for peace. That didn't happen, so in WW2 Christians on one side again prayed to the one God for the strength to kill those praying on the other side. Not a good track record for Christianity.Carpathian

July 27, 2015

July

07

Jul

27

27

2015

08:00 AM

8

08

00

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF

Nigh on 250 years later many british apparently still resent the US DoI of 1776 and don’t even want to see it!

I'm surprised to hear that, but it does make sense. 1776 was a serious loss to the Empire and it created many new opportunities. It was liberating in the best sense of that word - sadly, some are trading liberty for unbridled license.

If you have a right to life, liberty, innocent reputation etc, it is because we have a duty to respect that and respond to such binding moral expectations as duties.

Well said. When it comes to faith, I think ecumenism between and among Christians is the most difficult, yet important, challenge. Even reduced down to the most basic level of the theistic concept of God's creative power and effects, if there's a radical division there (which there is, sadly) there's little hope in speaking with an undivided voice on moral issues (except perhaps the most basic, which is not sufficient).Silver Asiatic

July 27, 2015

July

07

Jul

27

27

2015

07:57 AM

7

07

57

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus: Though, I will again acknowledge that you have been relatively moderate and have in particular tried to restrain Carpathian. We haven't tried to restrain Carpathian, but disagreed with him on a few points. kairosfocus: I would suggest to you that your fears of theocracy are severely overblown ... We're not overly concerned about theocracy as there are strong balancing institutions to restrain any particular power group, though it can chip away at the edges. That doesn't mean that the balance can't be disrupted, and it's been under considerable strain, but militarism, secrecy and the inordinate influence of money seem to be bigger threats overall.Zachriel

July 27, 2015

July

07

Jul

27

27

2015

07:53 AM

7

07

53

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Z, between you, Seversky and Carpathian, there have been some grievous words that lead to some very serious tripped warning flags. Though, I will again acknowledge that you have been relatively moderate and have in particular tried to restrain Carpathian. I would suggest to you that your fears of theocracy are severely overblown, and that SB etc have very good reason to suggest that a strawman scapegoat has been set up in a context where the problems of evolutionary materialist secularism and its fellow travellers have been underplayed, especially given the issue of foundations of morality. Evident nature pointing to natural moral law is a serious consideration. And I think there is a serious overlooking of the fact that until there was widespread literacy and the press, democracy as we know it was infeasible. That is a constraint on when many of the things we now take for granted were possible. KFkairosfocus

July 27, 2015

July

07

Jul

27

27

2015

07:39 AM

7

07

39

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

SA, ironically I am grappling with many of these issues, connected to a major good governance initiative. Nigh on 250 years later many british apparently still resent the US DoI of 1776 and don't even want to see it! A key point is that a right is one side of a coin, and in fact is inextricable from the flip side. The phrase, rights, freedoms and responsibilities brings out the balance. If you have a right to life, liberty, innocent reputation etc, it is because we have a duty to respect that and respond to such binding moral expectations as duties. Just so, as Fr Francis Ryan, SJ, said way back in my school days, my right to swing my hand ends where your nose begins. Rights directly entail correlative duties. And, as Hooker cited by Locke brought out, my sense and claim that you ought to respect and cherish me in accord with such rights by reciprocity of equals in nature imposes on me the duty to treat my neighbour much the same. KFkairosfocus

July 27, 2015

July

07

Jul

27

27

2015

07:36 AM

7

07

36

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus: (long since accepted as a reality and part of the general challenge of being finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill willed) We suggested that Christians have learned from their history, but no one took that position. If the American experiment is any guide, then it isn't the wisdom of modern Christians that keeps theocracy in check, but strong balancing institutions.Zachriel

July 27, 2015

July

07

Jul

27

27

2015

07:30 AM

7

07

30

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link