Liberalism is Dead and Evangelicals Don't Deserve It Anyway

[ClimateSanity]

Rights without a state, to describe and support those rights in terms of enforceable rights, are just so much whistling in the wind. What rights do you think you'd have without anyone to coerce the rest of the population into recognising those rights? Nature doesn't provide anything - society does.

The Constitution states we are endowed unalienable rights from our Creator..... Not the state. That was a deliberate distinction.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Society is also something that we should never depend upon for our rights. Our rights are outlined in the Constitution and no society should ever be entrusted with maintaining those rights. Society is fickle and made of flawed people.

 

[Right Divider]

The frightening thing is that Nazi leaders weren't agnostics and atheists - most considered themselves to be good Christians!

:juggle:

 

[gcthomas]

The Constitution states we are endowed unalienable rights from our Creator..... Not the state. That was a deliberate distinction.

So you are saying that your inalienable rights are guaranteed by the Constitution?

 

[chair]

But white nations need to accept racial and ethnic diversity!

The Jews in Israel don't...

What part of ethnic diversity don't we accept?

I think you need to visit here. A few days visiting the sites in Jerusalem, followed by a couple of days on the beach in Tel Aviv, may cure you.

 

[Right Divider]

So you are saying that your inalienable rights are guaranteed by the Constitution?

No, it was just pointing out what was self-evident. Not to you, of course.

 

[gcthomas]

No, it was just pointing out what was self-evident. Not to you, of course.

It is not self evident of course, since you need a society of people around you who will agree to respect those claimed 'rights' in exchange for you respecting theirs, or else it is all must hot air. The 'self evident' argument is just a fig leaf to cover up the lack of a decent argument.

:carryon:

 

[Right Divider]

It is not self evident of course, since you need a society of people around you who will agree to respect those claimed 'rights' in exchange for you respecting theirs, or else it is all must hot air. The 'self evident' argument is just a fig leaf to cover up the lack of a decent argument.

:carryon:

The writing of the Constitution was based on the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence. They believed these principles were self-evident. I know you don't, but that's too bad.

 

[Traditio]

What part of ethnic diversity don't we accept?

Does Israel allow mass immigration from Islamic countries in the way that European countries have?

How many Syrian refugees has Israel accepted?

 

[Town Heretic]

The Constitution states we are endowed unalienable rights from our Creator..... Not the state. That was a deliberate distinction.

Sure. Kings could and frequently did alienate people from their essential equality as human beings. Our Republic was an attempt to stop that from happening again, to redistribute power and make the government the servant of the people, instead of the other way around.

 

[chair]

Does Israel allow mass immigration from Islamic countries in the way that European countries have?

How many Syrian refugees has Israel accepted?

"Ethnic diversity" means completely open borders?

So it's either completely open borders- or Hitler-style bigotry and genocide? nothing in the middle?

 

[Town Heretic]

I would be deeply reticent to call Hitler a bad guy.

Then I could not in good conscience call you a moral being, let alone a Christian...or even attest to the quality of your reason, given what hampers it.

I think that he is an understandable guy

It's not difficult to understand evil.

given his time and circumstances.

No, plenty of people in his time and with worse circumstances were decent people aspiring to serve the moral good.

My only point is that Hitler's version of Naziism is not Naziism absolute.

Yeeeeaah, it pretty much is. He owns the brand, the symbols, etc. When you invest in the trappings you carry his bags.

When I use the term "Nazi" as a self-descriptor, I use it in this precise sense:

How you use it doesn't signify. You have no cache. No one will qualify, seeing you.

"an anti-marxist counter-reactionary movement which sought a middle way between communism and capitalism...an awareness of the Jewish problem...the recognition of a need for a white ethnostate."

Would you were aware of your problem and the cancer that perverts and distorts your rationality.

 

[kmoney]

A wanna be Hitler? Really? Just because he blames Jews for everything doesn't mean he seeks to exterminate them.

I gave a spectrum and that was the worst of it. Having seen that he isn't willing to call Hitler a bad guy makes me think he leans toward one of those sides. :think:

So a person's reason for posting an objectionable symbol is the deciding factor on whether a moderator chooses to allow it or not?

I wasn't talking about TOL specifically, but maybe. If I was making decisions then intention would be a factor.

Should the site allow or deny something based on context? Why?

Why not? I think context generally helps give a clearer picture of what's happening which can assist in making decisions. It would partially depend on what the goal is.

Does a person who wishes not to be around certain people in their home, hate that person ?

We weren't talking about a person.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Sure. Kings could and frequently did alienate people from their essential equality as human beings. Our Republic was an attempt to stop that from happening again, to redistribute power and make the government the servant of the people, instead of the other way around.

Then you are agreeing with me?

 

[Lon]

Liberalism is dead. Nobody actually believes in it.

Just saw a bumper sticker yesterday "Liberal and proud of it!" The votes in this liberal North West are celebrated highly. Perhaps it is dead in some other areas.

The core doctrine of liberalism, in the classical sense, is laissez faire (let it be). Liberalism is tolerance. Liberalism is the political doctrine that, though I may find what other people think, say, and, to a real extent, do, to be abhorrent, nonetheless, I shouldn't intervene, because it could well be the case that people who think differently may think the same about me.

Yet, we shouldn't always be rocking the boat. I shouldn't stand in the Yacht club and yell "Sailboats are a waste of money!" I may be right, but they may be equally right to ask me to say it outside instead of in their hall. It'd only be by invitation, thus privilege I'd be there in the first place. Manners would suggest I curtail my tongue, not forever, not whenever else I want to talk about such, but certainly there, then here on TOL if you follow as well. It is clearly neither your nor my stance on a good bit of theology.

My tolerance of others gives me, in turn, a right to be tolerated. Not endorsed. Not accepted. But certainly tolerated.

Somewhat. If it is against a TOL rule, then we should keep our end of agreement as we post here. You shouldn't use four-letter words in a public school either. It doesn't matter that such doesn't bother you, it is about what is appropriate discussion material. For instance, we are not supposed to have offensive monikers on TOL. I 'think' your current moniker is political and nothing about you at all. It is, if I'm understanding you, posted for the sake of offense itself. While I may say a football player 'can' take a knee or sit on his behind during the anthem, he will surely face consequences. Paul Romans 12:18 :think:

The old cliches come to mind: "Swing your umbrella as much as you like, so long as you don't strike my nose," and again, "I may disagree with what you say, I should defend to my death your right to say it."

But maybe not any place to say it... Yelling and cussing outside of an elementary school?

Of course, liberty has clear boundaries and restrictions. The right to free speech should be absolute...save where that speech constitutes a clear and present infringement against the rights of another. Direct incitements to violence must be forbidden, and it is for good reason that libel and slander, strictly construed, are civilly actionable.

So speaking freely isn't absolute? Does that mean, if we go against our agreement on TOL, we shouldn't be held accountable because we have unalienable rights, but then, if it infringes on something like, say, rules, we shouldn't say it? :think:

When, however, speech does not constitute infringement upon the rights of others, it must be permitted, and this, for a multitude of reasons. First, if you deny me the right to express my opinions, then you have no grounds upon which to object when you yourself are denied the right to express yours. Second, if my opinions are so obviously incorrect, then allowing me to express them is actually a service to your own cause, since I am providing you a chance to refute obviously false opinions. Denying me a right to speak is an active disservice to your own cause.

So you are all for teaching sex ed to kindergarteners? :think: How about on TOL? Should we have inalienable bashing of our Savior by the nonChristian? No hold barred? :think:

If anything, the opposite is true: the fact that you had to deny me the right to speak is, in a sense, a proof of the weakness of your own beliefs.

Or that it was inappropriate? I have never received an infraction. I received one (1) warning on TOL, which I'm kind of proud of, because I responded in good humor. It was a misunderstanding. I didn't complain, just avoided the appearance of infraction. 1 Thessalonians 5:22. Would you want to rethink the swastika by the same verse token? :think:

Shutting me down means that your own views aren't strong enough to stand on their own merits in the free marketplace of ideas.

It 'can' mean that, but more often than not, when I've seen a ban, it is because of skirting or flaunting the rules given. More? Maturity has me not doing those things anyway. I generally think we older men SHOULD know better and have it out of our system. While many on TOL wear their bans like a badge of honor, for me personally, it would mean I don't have self-control (one of the aspects of the Fruit of the Spirit). Galatians 5:21,22

The simple fact, however, is that even though our society is liberal de jure, it is illiberal in practice. Most people are not liberal. 40% of millennial college students believe in hate speech laws. 20% of millennial college students, roughly, think that it's perfectly acceptable to use violence to shut down speech that they deem objectionable. A large percent of Republicans are perfectly fine, even, with legislative crackdowns on the freedom to protest.

So, let's compare that to TOL. 1) These would be banned if they were violent or threatened illegal activity or even suggested it. 2) Some language is a bit inappropriate on TOL for a kindergarten classroom (quite a bit actually) 3) Hate speech? I'm not sure what it means. TOL isn't keeping you from speech of any kind. It is calling for self-policing for TOL specific rules. "If" we cannot keep our agreement obligations that we signed up for 'freely' when joining TOL, mods will be happy (for free even!) to moderate our actions to help us keep in line. It really is as simple as that. This is a HUGE OP for addressing something as simple as holding up to our end of a binding contract. I am WELL aware of TOL rules. I would expect, having an inability for self-control, that others would come behind and correct me for my breach.

Do you think, perhaps, part of this has to do with your and my demeanors? :think:

I would have no sympathy if each and every one of you were forced by the government to bake a gay wedding cake at some point in your life.

Ain't gonna happen. I don't bake cakes for public purchase. Forced? If the U.S. stops being the U.S. I'll figure that out. Likely I'll be crossing a border somewhere and singing "The Hills are Alive."

 

[ClimateSanity]

Sure. Kings could and frequently did alienate people from their essential equality as human beings. Our Republic was an attempt to stop that from happening again, to redistribute power and make the government the servant of the people, instead of the other way around.

Surely you have read this book?

https://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?t=127084

 

[Tambora]

The Constitution states we are endowed unalienable rights from our Creator..... Not the state. That was a deliberate distinction.

This made me think of a case I heard about a while back.

An man was fishing.
He had no fishing license.
So he had to show up in court.
His appearance was that of a bearded mountain man.

He was rather boisterous in his claim that he had the GOD given right to feed his family with the bounty that GOD had freely provided for man.
And that no man had the authority to fine him for providing needed nourishment of GOD's free bounty to his family.
The Judge said he should have just bought a license and he could fish.
He went on to demand that no man had the rightful authority to force him to pay to feed his family with what GOD had freely provided for all men.

He went on and on with this argument and made some very good points.
(I watched the court proceeding on TV or internet, can't remember where I saw it).

Anyway, the Judge was so stunned by the argument made that the Judge ended up standing up from the bench and walking out of the courtroom.
When a Judge does that, the case is dismissed.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I gave a spectrum and that was the worst of it. Having seen that he isn't willing to call Hitler a bad guy makes me think he leans toward one of those sides. :think:


I wasn't talking about TOL specifically, but maybe. If I was making decisions then intention would be a factor.


Why not? I think context generally helps give a clearer picture of what's happening which can assist in making decisions. It would partially depend on what the goal is.


We weren't talking about a person.

What were you talking about?

 

[ClimateSanity]

So you are saying that your inalienable rights are guaranteed by the Constitution?

I'm saying we were endowed with them by out creator. The Constitution bears witness to this fact. The Constitution only guarantees it as long as their are enough people willing to uphold it and faithfully execute and most importantly keep its original intent and never look at it as "living and breathing". That's a loophole designed to give people power to bend it to their agenda.
.

 

[ClimateSanity]

It is not self evident of course, since you need a society of people around you who will agree to respect those claimed 'rights' in exchange for you respecting theirs, or else it is all must hot air. The 'self evident' argument is just a fig leaf to cover up the lack of a decent argument.

:carryon:

You just accused Madison et al of using "self evident" as a fig leaf.