Posted on 07/20/2007 8:27:02 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
SirJohnBarleycorn is a strange name for a speed-freak hooker, but by all means have fun girl-friend.
I am far to old for this party.
"The Bible should always remain the principle text book in America's classrooms. Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble…the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith."
Excellent quotes, EV. The Founders had it right. It’s a shame that so many in our day are not uneducated enough in Constitutional, Declarationist, or religious principles to see the merit of these words. Is it because they’re too immoral or too flippant to take these words seriously?
The immoral tend to flippancy.
I think the Bible calls them “scorners.”
Oh, and “fools”...
Hey, lighten up, Jorge, I’ve got a joke for ya, bud!
********************
A man walked into a very high-tech bar. As he sat down on a stool he noticed that the bartender was a robot. The robot clicked to attention and asked, “Sir, what will you have?”
The man thought a moment then replied, “A martini please.”
The robot clicked a couple of times and mixed the best martini the man had ever had.
The robot then asked, “Sir, what is your IQ?”
The man answered, “Oh, about 164.”
The robot then proceeded to discuss the theory of relativity, the possibility of interstellar space travel, the latest medical breakthroughs, etc. The man was most impressed.
He left the bar but thought he would try a different tack. He returned and took a seat. Again the robot clicked and asked what he would have. “A martini please.” Again it was superb!
The robot again asked, “What is your IQ, sir?”
This time the man answered, “Oh, about 100.”
So the robot started discussing the weather, the latest basketball scores, and what to expect the Yankees to do this weekend.
The guy had to try it one more time. So he left, returned and took a stool... Again a martini, and the question: “What is your IQ?”
This time the man drawled out “Uh... ‘bout 50.”
The robot clicked, then leaned close and very slowly said,
“Jorge, ya ever think ‘bout posting on DU instead of FR? Might be more your speed...”
Here is what I quoted from Keyes' paragraph:
It's about the true starting point of moral deliberation — the principles of moral judgment, the standards, ideas and ideals of what is to be praised, what is to be blamed, what is to be honored, what is to be condemned.
Do you notice the bold that is kept intact from the original quote I posted? Good, that's a start. The true starting point of moral deliberation begins with the principle of not initiating force/harm against any person or their property.
If I'm wrong perhaps you can answer these: Perhaps initiating force by kidnapping you, molesting you, robbing you, extorting money from you, jailing you for exercising free speech, imprisoning you because you carried a gun to protect yourself in Washington DC... all are examples of the initiation of force. Which initiation of force, threat of force or fraud do you want inflicted on you?
Or is it that you don't want force/harm initiated against yourself, but rather, you want to initiate force/harm against other people, or perhaps you want to enlist government agents to be your muscle to inflict initiation of force/harm on other people on your behalf? I think it's that last one.
I bet you even vote for the lesser of evils, believing like every other voter that your candidate is the lesser of evils.
With each person saying their candidate is the lesser of evils, how can they all be right--especially since it begets evil? They cannot. Like religion. For each follower, their religion is the only true path to enlightenment. But how can every religion the only true path to enlightenment? They cannot.
As far as I'm concerned a person can follow any religion they want so long as they do not initiate force, thereat of force or fraud against any person or their property nor enlist any person, organization or government to initiate force/harm on their behalf.
White is black. Good is bad. Left is right...
Federal government alone creates about 3,000 new laws and regulations each year. Most of them in one way or another burden and or deprive persons and businesses full use of life and property.
These aren't your penny ante common thieves that rob a house or two a week. These are master criminals that rob tens of millions of people with nothing more than a vote and stroke of the pen. Facilitated by an incompetent main-stream media and academia.
Organized crime by the criminals for the criminals. And people continue voting for it.
When instead, every able bodied person should be screaming from the roof tops for someone in congress to stand up and expose the massive criminality, fraud and parasitizing they inflict on honest value producing citizens.
Honest hard working taxpayers repeatedly abused by their servant employees.
Parasitical elites aren't worthy of even the lowest minimum wage job. They're not value creators. They're value destroyers. Can you imagine if corporate boardrooms functioned like congress.
Still, herds of true believers heard off to the polls to cast their votes.
But my guy -- my candidate -- is the lesser of evils. Least wise that's what every person thinks about their favorite candidate.
People hoodwinked into believing the ends justify the means. But what are the ends when the means -- voting for the lesser of evils -- leads to an evil end?
Voting for the lesser of evils always begets evil. The ends don't justify the means. (Those two sentences can't be honestly reconciled.) The ends justify the means only when the ends are intended to be evil. But somehow I don't think voters really intend an evil end to come from their vote. They just don't know any better.
Something to the effect of, doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result is a sign of insanity. I call it voters' collective delusion.
Politics is not the solution. Politics is the problem.
Begin the transition with voting each and every incumbent out of office. Shine the spotlight of honesty on them with the shamnesty immigration bill. Like what's happening to the global warming hoax.
Value Destroyers
versus
Value Producers
How right you are, EV.
That's a beautiful quote. I love the Bible.
But in a pluralistic society we can't force Christianity on unbelievers through our classrooms.
"The only foundation for…a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."
The goal of the founders was not “a pluralistic society.” It was a free republic. And the quotes I’m offering from those great men demonstrate their correct understooding of the only practical basis for self-government and true liberty.
“But in a pluralistic society we can’t force Christianity on unbelievers through our classrooms.”
Meaning: pluralistic = immoral, godless
“SirJohnBarleycorn, you ever think of how stupid and long-winded your jokes are on FR?
And Robot said shut the hell up. And everybody was happy.
Right. So we're going to outlaw every religion but that of the majority.
“Right. So we’re going to outlaw every religion but that of the majority.”
Wrong. The Founders didn’t have that in mind.
Wow. You have to have quite an inventive imagination to come up with straw men like that.
If you’re not already a fiction writer, you perhaps should be.
In the entire history of humanity man has never been offered a choice in government of absolute good. Even the best government is the least evil, it is not and cannot be truly good. That concept is the very basis of the Constitution, it's why it is built on a balance of powers. A truly good government shouldn't have its ability to do good limited by restrictions.
The ends don't justify the means.
Some ends justify some means. This is so obvious that it shouldn't even require argument, but I guess it does.
A terrorist holds 50 people hostage, with them wired to be blown up if the police attempt to rescue them. A sniper can take him out and save the 50 people. But we can't do that, because the end of saving 50 innocent people's lives does not justify the means of blowing the terrorist's head off.
It seems to me that this whole ends and means discussion tends to descent into idiotic positions on both sides. A Commie, for instance, will argue that all means are justified to advance humanity towards Communism. A pacifist or libertarian may argue that no ends justify the slightest deviation towards unpleasant means.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, this argument just diverts us from the true issue: What means are justified by a particular end?
Wow. You have to have quite an inventive imagination to come up with straw men like that.
Oh, so you DON'T think we should OUTLAW Islam?
I didn't "invent" anything.
You should try reading the posts I'm responding to and THEN get back to me!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.