Originally Posted by RIJIMMY (Post 965709)

But why him, All elected officials have the ability to try to impose their beliefs on us, no?
Fact Bry, think about this. If Obama is elected the estate tax will go to 55%. That means if you slave all your life, when you die, the government will SEIZE your property, from your children. If your children dont pay, they will come with guns to seize your property. The government will impose its will to seize your property.

Originally Posted by likwid (Post 965667)

Doesn't mean their poo don't smell.
Shall we go into cults and what they have done in the name of "God"?
They're present day!

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND (Post 965733)

And that is a bit misleading, as it is for estates worth over 1 million and is back to early 2000 rates where it was 55% over 675,000 and 50% over 1,000,00 or so.... not some unprecedented level

.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 965728)

OK, I am talking abuot the times we live in. If you can find any victims of those crimes, I will apologize.

Christians are humans, which mean swe are all far from perfect. But we are not, in any way, the moral equivalent of the Taliban. We don't hurt thousands of people in the name of our religion.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 965659)

This reminds me of a line by Christopher Marlowe in his play "The Jew of Malta.": "Thou hast committed fornication: but that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead."

Beating the dead horse of the past is not a remedy for redemption. I believe Jim in CT is referring to present day Christianity.

Originally Posted by JackK (Post 965804)

And that reminds me of George Santayana's famous quote:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

I admire Santayana's writings very much. I especially am in tune with his views on nature. Not the syruppy isn't it all beautiful and scenic and lets take a picture view, but on nature being the foundation through which we experience life.

As for the quote of which you are reminded, it has become a truism. We now apply it to the horrors and wars of the past. But Santayana was not referring only to destructive events, he was talking about the destruction of the past itself. There is much in history that he loves. He is very much a traditionalist and a believer that much of the past is good and we would not be "condemned" to repeat but would be blessed to retain.

A fuller quote which includes what immediately is written before the famous passage is: "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

This so much applies to what has happened in the history of our country. The Founders searched the past, and retained that which previous experience from classical history to their present day would best secure natural liberty. They weren't about absolute change. They were about improving history and the liberty of the beings that populate it. Then, a movement, progressivism, sprung from cataclysmic 19th century thinkers who wanted to reject the past as a means to improve the lot of the common man. Their "theories" were not based in nature as a foundation, but nature to be tamed and molded to fit what they considered good. That movement spread to "intellectuals" here, ironically, as an administrative method copied from Prussia which was instituted there to keep the masses from overthrowing the monarchy. The Progressives considered the Constitution "outdated," irrelevant, and an obstruction to their goal of an all-powerful system of central government which could more efficiently deliver and administer an "effective" freedom to the people rather than a merely legal freedom garanteed by the Constitution. It is this administrative system based on "modern" thinkers rather than past experience which we have today. Actually that "modern" system has been applied in recent history from WWI to the present in the West and, in a more severe form, in the East. It is no longer modern and the experience of effective liberty has not been as beneficial to freedom as was legal liberty. Actually the trajectory has been to benefit collective groups at the expense of the individual.

To that point, you might consider another Santayana quote: "individualism is in one sense the only possible ideal; for whatever social order may be most valuable can be valuable only for its effect on conscious individuals."

Another quote by him that I find more interesting than the rest: "There is eternal war in nature . . . War is but resisted change; and change must needs be resisted so long as the organism it would destroy retains any vitality." This can not only apply, again, to the Constitution and the war being waged on it and the resistance to that change if there is enough vitality left in the resistance. It also gives the lie to the quest for peace without victory. We are the product of war. Every molecule of our being is at war to survive and flourish against constant invasions of microbes and forces of nature. It is a war which we, as individuals will eventually lose. But we live on with the progeny who survive natural deaths and unnatural abortions and who will continue the battle. Our universal, material, biological inheritance is composed of this battle and every fiber of our being is informed by it. It is our natural mode. We must win to survive. We cannot compromise in this battle, not only with the forces of nature, but against the human forces that wish to enslave or destroy us. Santayana also said "Only the dead have seen the end of war." Peace will come with victory, either by those who wish to enslave or those who wish to be free. And that peace will last only until the next battle.


If one is willing to live life by the tenets set forth in a two thousand year old book, then they shouldn't conveniently ignore all of the events that occurred afterwards (as a direct result of said book). That goes for christianity, islam, judaism, etc, etc.

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 965901)

I would also venture a guess that history would reveal more deaths in the name of Ghristianity than all other religions combined.

But they don't count cuz it was long ago.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 965898)

We humans have this wonderful capacity to misread. Often we do so intentionally. If we have a purpose that may be a direct contradiction to a bible, or a Constitution, but knowing the influence of quoting or adhering to that bible or constitution, we may with malice "interpret" those binding documents in a way that makes it easy to impose other than what is in them. Such is the unfortunate and malicious way that good books and constitutions are corrupted and thus lead to "events that occur afterwards," and which can erroneously be seen "as a direct result" of those documents.

As for The Bible, the "New Testament" version, much is blamed on it, such as inquisitions and conquests, which are not professed in the book. Certainly there have been those who seemed to read the words in ways not intended and twisted them to aid in horrific events. Blaming the Bible would assume, since you consider it the direct cause, that such horrific events would not have occurred if there was no Bible. Nonsense. The Bible was an excuse. Something else would have been the cause if there was no Bible. Remember the quote about those who cannot remember the past. The original history of Christianity was one of suffering and persecution and poverty and enslavement. Christ was a redeemer of the unfortunate, not a torturer. Those that forgot that message were the cause of being condemned to repeat the horrors that original Christians wanted us to escape.

Originally Posted by JackK (Post 965931)

Excellent points. What a great discussion. Thank you for expanding upon Santayana's message. I particularly like the "eternal war" segment- Could you source that for me? I'd like to read it in its fullest.

The quote is from an essay "tipperary" found in a collection of essays (he calls them soliloquies) entitled "Soliloquies in England and Later Soliloquies." If you can't get the book at the library, you can probably find the essay (or the entire book) on line. It is elusive and sometimes hard to track down. It was, for me, one of the most influential essays I have ever read. Read it a long time ago in my college days when I was more impressionable. But rereading it impresses me as much or more than it did then. Only that which is in quotes in my post is Santayana's. The rest is my extrapolation from what he says. Though it was written in 1922, I think, it is timeless and relevant today. If you can't find it, let me know.

While I agree with you that the bible was used as an excuse, the fact remains that it was the direct cause.

I have to respectfully disagree. If I knowingly twist something you say as an excuse or a cause to commit a murder or other mayhem, especially if what you say directs me to do the opposite, the direct cause would be my personal motives, not your words. If a sympathetic jury was persuaded that you didn't maliciously twist words and was erroneously inspired by them to do harm, they might let you off with a lesser sentence depending on the severity of the crime, but could not condemn the words whose meaning was the opposite of what you interpreted. The direct cause would not be the words but your misinterpretation of them. Otherwise, since good can be so easily corrupted and then be the cause of evil, why do good?

It doesn't matter that someone could have found a different excuse if there was no bible.

It matters because it demonstrates that the bible was not needed. Therefor it was not the cause.

My point (and vaguely relating to SD's original topic) is simply that religious extremism is present in both religions. Obviously there's nothing identical to the Taliban in modern day (<50 years) christianity (unless you consider the catholic church and altar boys), but the history of both religions is stained with blood.

Sure, it makes sense to believe that extremism exists, not only in both, or all, religions, but the same sense would lead you to believe that extremism exists in all things human. The problem with making anything useful of that sense is that those you consider to be extreme believe that they are not, and, perhaps, that you are. If by extreme you simply mean out of step with the majority of a group, that could "mean" innumerable things. It could be a pejorative difference to those who have collectivist mentalities, or it could be a desirable trait to individualists. Being extreme, in itself, says very little other than a severe difference. Extremities can be simply functional with no connotation of "good" or "bad." On the other hand, they can be descriptive moral or social qualities. You can be extremely good or extremely good at something. Or extremely bad. But, again, the good or bad can be a matter of opinion.

As for Mourdock's supposedly "extreme" view, there are obviously differing opinions whether his belief is good or proper or correct. If the extreme is merely that his views are a minority opinion, there is no quality to that other than numbers.

And so much of history, whether it be religious, political, economical, social, whatever, is, as you say, "stained in blood." That is part of nature's eternal war. Those that think that the blood staining will stop if we could all just get along and all think the same way,and that clashes among differing tribes will melt by a universal peace treaty (without victory) don't have a very clear picture of what drives humanity.

And it's still worth noting that while I'm not religious, I do feel that overall the Bible (and other religious tomes- the Quran, Torah, etc) have contributed to more good than evil in this world. They are all a simple collection of guidelines, intended to be interpreted loosely in order to promote fellowship. Like you said- it's the zealots and crazies that give the religions a bad name. I'm not a subscriber to blind faith- while I consider myself extremely spiritual, I don't get organized religion. I've seen too many people profess themselves as "good christians", yet they lie, cheat, steal, and are quite generally abominable. But for some people, religion is their answer, and it really helps them turn their life around. I can respect that.

I still think I follow the George Carlin tenets though.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 965586)

Basswipe, what if you were conceived via rape? Would you rather be aborted, or brought into the world?

The 'Gods will' argument doesn't mean that anything immoral is acceptable. It just implies that things happen for a reason, even though that reason often isn't clear in the here and now. That's where 'faith' comes in. The fact that events are God's will doesn't mean that we don't have free will, and it doesn't mean that certain things are wrong.

This post says as much about you as Murdoch's statement says about him.

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 965583)

Are you saying a child conceived through rape does not deserve a chance at life?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by basswipe (Post 965950)

Yes I would rather be aborted.

As to the rest of your post it is completely meaningless to me as I have no "faith" and I do not believe in god,I'm a realist.

And I don't really care what my statement says about me in your mind.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 965644)

Does that mean I think rape is no big deal? Hell, no. But I don't see the subsequent miracle of life as morally equivalent to the repugnant violation that preceded it.

Originally Posted by likwid (Post 965970)

Lets address this with a satirical piece a friend just happened to link:

A Fan Letter to Certain Conservative Politicians ? Whatever

Dear certain conservative politicians:

Hi! I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually. The details of how I do this are not particularly important at the moment — although I love when you try to make distinctions about “forcible rape” or “legitimate rape” because that gives me all sorts of wiggle room — but I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have. There’s just something about making the point to a woman that her consent and her control of her own body is not relevant against the need for a man to possess that body and control it that just plain gets me off. A guy’s got needs, you know? And my need is for control. Sweet, sweet control.

Dear lowly esteemed and evil rapist: my allegience is to the Constitution, not your perverted need. One individual's unconsented control over another is as repugnant to me as a government's unconsented control over the individual. I believe government, that which governs least, is necessary, and that the people must consent to it. I believe that the government and the people must be governed by the rule of law to which they have consented. Tyrants like you are as odious to me as is a tyrannical government.

So I want to take time out of my schedule to thank you for supporting my right to control a woman’s life, not just when I’m raping her, but for all the rest of her life as well.
Ah, I see by your surprised face that you at the very least claim to have no idea what I’m talking about. Well, here’s the thing. Every time you say “I oppose a woman’s right to abortion, even in cases of rape,” what you’re also saying is “I believe that a man who rapes a woman has more of a right to control a woman’s body and life than that woman does.”

I do not support your right to control anybody but yourself, which you apparently are not capable of doing. I support the people's right to choose on the legality of abortion. I do not support the Federal Government dictating that right. It is not granted that power in the Constitution. I am not surprised by the weasely words of a control freak. I have seen the words of progressive politicians and judges that twist the words of the Constitution to allow them to control us in ways that Constitution would not allow. I am very familiar and not surprised by this tactic.

Oh, look. That surprised face again. All right, then. On the chance that you’re not giving me that surprised face just for the sake of public appearances, let me explain it to you, because it’s important for me that you know just how much I appreciate everything you’re doing for me.

So, let’s say I’ve raped a woman, as I do, because it’s my thing. I’ve had my fun, reminding that woman where she stands on the whole “being able to control things about her life” thing. But wait! There’s more. Since I didn’t use a condom (maybe I’m confident I can get other people to believe it was consensual, you see, or maybe I just like it that way), one thing has led to another and I’ve gotten this woman pregnant.

Now, remember how I said the thing I really like about raping a woman is the control it gives me over her? Well, getting a woman pregnant is even better. Because long after I’m gone, she still has to deal with me and what I’ve done to her. She has to deal with what’s happening to her body. She has to deal with doctor visits. She has to deal with the choice whether to have an abortion or not — which means she has to deal with everyone in the country, including you, having an opinion about it and giving her crap about it. And if she does have an abortion, she has to deal with all the hassle of that, too, because folks like you, of course, have gone out of your way to make it a hassle, which I appreciate. Thank you.

Every moment of that process, she has to be thinking of me, and how I’ve forced all of this on her — exercised my ability to bend her life away from what it was to what I’ve made of it. Me exercising my control.

I gotta tell you, it feels awesome.

But! You know what would feel even more awesome? The knowledge that, if you get your way and abortion is outlawed even in cases of rape, that my control of her will continue through all the rest of her life.

You mean if the people get their way. I am not a control freak like you and dictatorial governments. It will take the people to make that decision, not me. I thoroughly support that at the State level where it consitutionally belongs. And, by the way, whether you get her pregnant or not, she will remember the horror of you the rest of her life. Abortions will not eliminate that memory.

First, because she’ll have no legal choice about whether to have the baby I put in her — sorry, dearie, you have no control at all! You have to have it! That’s nine months of having your body warp and twist and change because I decided that you needed a little lesson on who’s actually running the show. That’s sweet.

She will have the legal choice the people give her. That is rule of law. The only show you run is your own.

Once the baby’s born, the woman will have to decide whether to keep it. Here’s an interesting fact: Of the women who have gotten pregnant from rape who give birth to that baby, most keep the baby, by a ratio of about five to one. So my ability to change the life of the woman just keeps growing, doesn’t it? From the rape, to the nine months of the pregnancy, to the rest of her life dealing with the child I raped into her. Of course, she could put the kid up for adoption, but that’s its own bundle of issues, isn’t it? And even then, she’s dealing with the choices I made for her, when I exercised my control over her life.

Best of all, I get to do all that without much consequence! Oh, sure, theoretically I can get charged with rape and go to prison for it. But you know what? For every hundred men who rape, only three go to prison. Those are pretty good odds for me, especially since — again! — folks like you like to muddy up the issue saying things like “forcible rape.” Keep doing that! It’s working out great for me.

Yes, it's her decision. Just as we all have to decide how we deal with the horrors that crap like you impose on us. If she keeps the child and loves it, it may turn out a blessing and its own joy--one which you will not experience. Like all pitiful control freaks, from individuals to governments, the savor of control is sweeter than life.

As for the kid, well, oddly enough, most women I rape want nothing to do with me afterward, so it’s not like I will have to worry about child support or any other sort of responsibility… unless of course I decide that I haven’t taught that woman a big enough lesson about who’s really in control of her life. Did you know that 31 states in this country don’t keep rapists from seeking custody or visitation rights? How great is that? That’s just one more thing she has to worry about — me crawling out of the woodwork to remind her of what I did, and am continuing to do, to her life.

Look how much control you want to give me over that woman! I really can’t thank you enough for it. It warms my heart to know no matter how much I rape, or how many women I impregnate through my non-consensual sexual battery, you have my back, when it comes to reminding every woman I humiliate who is actually the boss of her. It’s me! It’s always been me! You’ll make sure it’ll always be me. You’ll see to that.

I am totally voting for you this election.

Yours,
Just Another Rapist.

Of course you won't have to "worry" about the kid. Scum like you worry only about yourself. You don't have the ability to freely associate with others, to have the joy of consentual social or personal intercourse. Like a dictator, or dictatorial government, you must suppress free association and control all aspects of anything or anyone you touch. As a "conservative" who wishes to "conserve" the constitutional freedoms of our federal republic, I wish you, and the Federal government would let us decide about our "reproductive rights."

P.S.: I love it when you say that you “stand for innocent life” when it comes to denying abortions in cases of rape! It implicitly suggests that the women I rape are in some way complicit in and guilty of the crimes I commit on top of, and inside of, their bodies! Which works out perfectly for me. Keep it up!

Originally Posted by Swimmer (Post 966018)

I don't belive the idiot said rape was right or that pregnancy from rape was to be welcomed. I think he pointed out though that someone has to speak for the unborn.

Originally Posted by Swimmer (Post 966018)

I don't belive the idiot said rape was right or that pregnancy from rape was to be welcomed. I think he pointed out though that someone has to speak for the unborn.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 966067)

how tainted is a Society(s) that sanctions millions upon millions of lives to likewise be interrupted, in most cases, as a matter of convenience and as an abrogation of responsibility?

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 966067)

how tainted is a Society(s) that sanctions millions upon millions of lives to likewise be interrupted, in most cases, as a matter of convenience and as an abrogation of responsibility?

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 966086)

Another Taliban has spoken.
Go kill a doctor who gives abortions.
That will make it better.

Originally Posted by Piscator (Post 966098)

I would think that rape would be an "inconvenience" to the victim.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Piscator (Post 966098)

I would think that rape would be an "inconvenience" to the victim.

What kind of God would allow rape anyway?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Piscator (Post 966098)

What kind of God would allow rape anyway?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by basswipe (Post 965951)

Yes.

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 966086)

Another Taliban has spoken.
Go kill a doctor who gives abortions.
That will make it better.