Just an FYI;
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.
Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed,...
Let's begin with the accusation of current racism. I presume you base that attack on this quote from the Salon article.
"In the Speaker's Lobby, Paul describes the federal airline security system as an extra-constitutional affront to civil liberties, and thinks security should be handled by the private sector. Then he takes a rather un-presidential jab at the appearance of many TSA screeners, a workforce heavily populated by minorities and immigrants. "We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked," he says. "Most of them are, well, you know, they just don't look very American to me. If I'd have been looking, they look suspicious ... I mean, a lot of them can't even speak English, hardly. Not that I'm accusing them of anything, but it's sort of ironic." "
Is that your only basis?
Maybe my Catholic upbringing is shading my understanding of mutually exclusive? That might have been a better way to posit my comment. Or, the reconciliation of differences. ??? *scratches head*Actually it does. That is sort of the explicit point. Now you can believe in God and Evolution at the same time - its actually fairly easy and, officially speaking, all Catholics do - God is the cause of all causes being their official line.
'Believing' in ID does not equal dismissing evolution.
There is a difference between what ID contends is the case and what the Pope contends is the case. The Papal position, God is the cause of all causes, contends that whatever science finds there will always be a God that came before that and set it in motion. Hence Evolution by natural selection is perfectly possible - its just that God may well have caused the first life form to spring up...and if Science shows how that is done then, well, no problem. God caused the Big Bang, and if Science figures out what caused the Big Bang...well again not an issue - God caused whatever caused the Big Bang, etc.
On the other hand ID makes a very specific contention and this contention is explicitly counter to Evolution - A Creator created each individual species in a unique act of creation and no species can transit from this divinely created form to another species. In other words species are rigid.
This explicitly stands in juxtaposition to Evolution which holds that species evolve from other species. In other words species are fluid.
|
I wouldn't classify a person as an insane bigot until you've met the person. There's absolutely no way that you can judge a person until you meet them and have spoken with them yourself. Asking questions as necessary.
Personally I've had the chance to do so, and I feel that a number of issues which you have brought up in this post have to do with the Good Doctor wanting to make sure that the Federal Government does not overstep its boundaries. He is not opposed to gay marriage. I know this because I asked him personally, and he has claimed multiple times that the President does not have the authority to regulate marriage, or anyone's personal moral decisions. The Constitution says that All powers not specifically granted to the federal or national government are granted to the States. Gay marriage, abortion, drug control should not (in my humble opinion, which I believe to be shared by the Good Doctor) be regulated at the federal level. These are to be determined by the States.
|
|
Ron Paul on Same-Sex Relationships
Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages." He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage. Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense. Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."
On Don't Ask, Don't Tell:
"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."
Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google, stating that he would not discharge troops for being homosexual if their behavior was not disruptive.
If the Declaration of Independence has no legal ramifications for the USA, then we are still a protectorate of the United Kingdom, and the Revolutionary War meant nothing. The Declaration of Independence has always been, at least so I was taught, the charter of principles for the foundation of this country.
The declaration was a declaration of war. We had at least 2 governments between said declaration and the formation of the USA. Also the declaration has nothing to do with actual formation of government, rule of law, or binding legal status for the USA. If it did then the Bill of Rights would have looked much different.
The Declaration of Independence is a historical document -- nice, important for its history but of no value legally speaking.
Of course, that same government is justified in its existence because it protects rights that come from God, according to the Declaration.
Deist God set the stage for men to have rights thereafter =/= nation is founded on some God.
There's a huge gulf there; watch your step crossing it.
|
|
Just because there are three governments based on the principles in the founding document, that doesn't invalidate the founding principles of the document. Yes, it did include a declaration of war and the reasons for such, but it has always been viewed (as far as I am aware) as the first document agreed to by representatives of the 13 Colonies (with New York abstaining, if I remember correctly). The document was unprecedented in that regard, and established the baseline for what the 13 colonies valued. In this way, it became a charter, even if it is an unofficial one. I thought it was universally recognized as such. Apparently I was mistaken.
I thought it was universally recognized as such. Apparently I was mistaken.
It's some of the "as suches" you're reaching for that I disagree with -- namely, reading into it all kinds of crap that the author's (Jefferson's) letters specifically and in detail spell out that it didn't mean.
|
|
By 'as such', I meant as a charter. Perhaps more specifically, a unifying document, and the binding causes.
But if your claim is that the philosophical statements in the Declaration of Independence are not universally applicable, and only applies to those who choose to agree to it, and that it was agreed to in name only because that is what the Continental Congress needed to do as they were running out of time, I hadn't thought of that.
While it was a time of duress, I had thought that the representatives from the colonies had pored over every word in the document so that it did in fact reveal a shared conscience and awakening personality of what would eventually become known as the United States of America. Down to its last detail.
By 'as such', I meant as a charter. Perhaps more specifically, a unifying document, and the binding causes.
If your "binding causes" count any religion at all more active than ceremonial Deism, you lost me. You realize the same guy who wrote the Declaration also took a pair of scissors to the Bible and removed all the miracles and all references to the supernatural, right?
|
|
Oh, I was editing... lol.
Umm, "more than ceremonial Deism"... Hmm... Well, as I mentioned before, a Creator need not even imply a deity. If it were written today, I would have chosen Creative Force, as it avoids the anthropormorphist speculations on a deity, allowing for Entropy, Divine Circumstance, the Old Ones, or a Deity, in collective allowance as most religious framings in government are written today.
Also, in not being a Christian, I don't care what he did with the Bible, as long as it was in standing with his own principles.
By 'as such', I meant as a charter. Perhaps more specifically, a unifying document, and the binding causes.If your "binding causes" count any religion at all more active than ceremonial Deism, you lost me. You realize the same guy who wrote the Declaration also took a pair of scissors to the Bible and removed all the miracles and all references to the supernatural, right?
I really don't think Stardust is making the Christian nation case if that's your concern.
EDIT: ninja'd
I don't see a lot of relevance to Paul believing human rights are divine in origin. I certainly don't think he wants to impose his religious beliefs on anyone by force of law.
|
|
By 'as such', I meant as a charter. Perhaps more specifically, a unifying document, and the binding causes.If your "binding causes" count any religion at all more active than ceremonial Deism, you lost me. You realize the same guy who wrote the Declaration also took a pair of scissors to the Bible and removed all the miracles and all references to the supernatural, right?I really don't think Stardust is making the Christian nation case if that's your concern.
EDIT: ninja'd
I don't see a lot of relevance to Paul believing human rights are divine in origin. I certainly don't think he wants to impose his religious beliefs on anyone by force of law.
He doesn't want to impose his religious beliefs on anyone. I don't want to impose mine either. But I feel like we do need to come out of some of the liberal/democrat beliefs (as expressed by Senators and the like) that it is the government that grants us our rights. That type of thinking is frightening, and individual liberties will suffer greatly if we begin thinking that as a collective. That which the government giveth, the government taketh away.
The government's duty is to protect rights, those which are naturally endowed.
On the other hand ID makes a very specific contention and this contention is explicitly counter to Evolution - A Creator created each individual species in a unique act of creation and no species can transit from this divinely created form to another species. In other words species are rigid.
This explicitly stands in juxtaposition to Evolution which holds that species evolve from other species. In other words species are fluid.
I was not aware of that distinction.
|
|
I was not aware of that distinction.On the other hand ID makes a very specific contention and this contention is explicitly counter to Evolution - A Creator created each individual species in a unique act of creation and no species can transit from this divinely created form to another species. In other words species are rigid.
This explicitly stands in juxtaposition to Evolution which holds that species evolve from other species. In other words species are fluid.
I believe there are several different forms of Intelligent Design philosophy. An excellent book to read is Pierre Tielhard De Chardin's Evolution and Christianity, which implies that evolution is possible as there is a natural order which guides cellular development. So, in theory, Evolution is possible. Where Theistic Evolutionists and Intelligent Design Scientists differ is, I think, the driving force behind the design (or evolutionary changes).
I personally, believe in Theistic Evolution. But there's no way that any of it can be proven until we observe it happening, not in a lab experiment, but in nature. Natural Sciences are based in observation of nature, not in the creation of it. Laboratory experiments on evolutionary principles have only proven that cellular transformation can be guided by human intervention, so again, an intelligence is at work in the process (albeit a human one).
I've just got to say that anyone who wants to issue letters of marque in the 21st century has got my full support.
Just because there are three governments based on the principles in the founding document, that doesn't invalidate the founding principles of the document. Yes, it did include a declaration of war and the reasons for such, but it has always been viewed (as far as I am aware) as the first document agreed to by representatives of the 13 Colonies (with New York abstaining, if I remember correctly). The document was unprecedented in that regard, and established the baseline for what the 13 colonies valued. In this way, it became a charter, even if it is an unofficial one. I thought it was universally recognized as such. Apparently I was mistaken.
Again -- historical? Yes. Legal documentation? No. It was signed by men representing the colonies of the United Kingdoms in rebellion. Which was well before there was a United States. The Declaration of Independence lacks any legal clauses, and was never ratified by the USA.
Yes it is historical and unprecedented, but then so is anything when it is new -- that doesn't mean it has legal standing.
When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything — you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.
That is the source of your 'inalienable rights' -- free will. So long as you have free will no matter what anyone else does you still can exercise your basic freedoms and rights.
This does not however guarantee you the right to do so in safety or comfort -- those are luxuries that are never guaranteed, and honestly of little value.
What do you mean by 'United States'?
Again -- historical? Yes. Legal documentation? No. It was signed by men representing the colonies of the United Kingdoms in rebellion. Which was well before there was a United States. The Declaration of Independence lacks any legal clauses, and was never ratified by the USA.Yes it is historical and unprecedented, but then so is anything when it is new -- that doesn't mean it has legal standing.
Meaning the actual current government as established by the Constitution of the United States of America. As previously mentioned there were governments before the current, however they too only recognized the declaration as a historical document and statement of purpose as opposed to a legally binding legal manfesto on how the government was to be set up, ran, or for what purpose. The Declaration only states why the colonies were choosing to rebel, and that they were doing so together, to fulfill their grievances with the United Kingdom.
Funny, I don't remember studying Heinlein in any of my political philosophy classes as an undergrad. I must have fallen asleep that day. ;)
Jefferson, on the other hand...
Well, I get that you REALLY, REALLY like Heinlein.
:)You've quoted him about a gazillion times in this thread.
Yup it's just a convenient way to not have to waste time on postulating similar ideas in my own words. Mentally lazy in some ways but time is of more value to me than not using someone else's words.
Funny, I don't remember studying Heinlein in any of my political philosophy classes as an undergrad. I must have fallen asleep that day. ;)
Jefferson, on the other hand...
And that somehow changes the validity of the statements?
The USA hasn't ratified English Common Law, either. And yet they are fortunately still used for legal precedents in the USA. Thank god for Jury Nullification.
Which still doesn't give the Declaration legal precedence of any type. Indeed I'm curious to what legal standings you would ascribe to the document in the first place.
|
|
Which still doesn't give the Declaration legal precedence of any type. Indeed I'm curious to what legal standings you would ascribe to the document in the first place.The USA hasn't ratified English Common Law, either. And yet they are fortunately still used for legal precedents in the USA. Thank god for Jury Nullification.
I never ascribed any legal standings to it. It's not a legal document, except as a declaration of war and a statement of separation. Someone said they didn't understand why Ron Paul would be into Intelligent Design, and I explained that the Declaration claimed Inalienable Rights came from a Creator, which might be why he believes that.
Of course, my understanding of Intelligent Design is flawed, and I may be thinking more of Theistic Evolution.
Where does free will come from?
It needs a source? I find that an irony.
I am not trying to be flip -- the full answer is I don't rightly know -- and honestly I don't rightly care. As a point of trivia it would be interesting, but as far as it goes the theory behind it matters less than the fact that it is.
If there is a God I will not subvert myself in order to follow his will -- especially if he choose to give me my own will to follow. That would defeat both the point and ultimate wonderful nature of the gift.
To have been given the give of self determination and then to expect one to subvert that give for another person's will is the ultimate in hypocrisy, and is a great way to take a priceless treasure and waste it.
If God wants to blame anyone for not following his ways the only person such responsibility could ultimately lie with would be himself. At least if he is honestly the creator, possessing a omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent nature. If he doesn't possess those three traits then why even bother with him as he is then unworthy of the very worship he would claim?
|
|
And I found some of the Heinleinian quotes offensive to the loving nature of humanity. But that's not relevant.
If free will does not have a source, then it is the primary force of the universe. The genesis of life, all human actions and inactions, and potentially the big bang itself are caused by Free Will. Looks like we found another Creative Force. :)
Where does free will come from?It needs a source? I find that an irony.Why is it ironic?
Because you cannot imagine a source, or because you don't see the need for one to exist?
In either case, I fail to see the irony.
Neither honestly. See the rest of my post that I edited after your C&P -- it might help, let me know if it doesn't and I'll try to explain better.
And I found some of the Heinleinian quotes offensive to the loving nature of humanity. But that's not relevant.
If free will does not have a source, then it is the primary force of the universe. The genesis of life, all human actions and inactions, and potentially the big bang itself are caused by Free Will. Looks like we found another Creative Force. :)
Well let me share some more with you:
Love is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.
Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
If tempted by something that feels "altruistic," examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still want to do it, wallow in it!
If the universe has any purpose more important than topping a woman you love and making a baby with her hearty help, I've never heard of it.
Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense.
The more you love, the more you can love — and the more intensely you love. Nor is there any limit on how many you can love. If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just.
Of course, my understanding of Intelligent Design is flawed
Mine too.
Who designed the Intelligent Designer?
Who designed the thing that designed the Intelligent Designer?
Who designed the thing that designed the thing that designed the Intelligent Designer?
Who designed the thing that designed the thing that designed the thing that designed the Intelligent Designer?
... wait I've heard this one before ...
|
|
And I found some of the Heinleinian quotes offensive to the loving nature of humanity. But that's not relevant.
If free will does not have a source, then it is the primary force of the universe. The genesis of life, all human actions and inactions, and potentially the big bang itself are caused by Free Will. Looks like we found another Creative Force. :)
Well let me share some more with you:
Love is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.
Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
If tempted by something that feels "altruistic," examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still want to do it, wallow in it!
If the universe has any purpose more important than topping a woman you love and making a baby with her hearty help, I've never heard of it.
Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense.
The more you love, the more you can love — and the more intensely you love. Nor is there any limit on how many you can love. If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just.
These are basic (not trying to be offensive here, just sharing my beliefs), and don't scratch the surface deeply enough. Altruism is a social creation. And it doesn't hold a flame to a genuine goodness inspired by a mystical union with the loving nature of the universe. Of course, I realize that there are quite a many people who have never experienced that directly, and until one experiences a miracle directly, we are loathe to believe in them. Once again, not relevant.
But if we must get into a war of quotes... :) Might as well bring out the big guns and attempt to answer the very same question I asked you. Where does Free Will come from?
Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In that space lies our freedom and power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and freedom.
But if we must get into a war of quotes... :) Might as well bring out the big guns and attempt to answer the very same question I asked you. Where does Free Will come from?...
Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In that space lies our freedom and power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and freedom.
A nice reply -- but it doesn't provide anything of an answer to the question of where free will comes from, only what it is, and doesn't change the fact that free will is the very basis of our inalienable rights.
It also doesn't leave us beholden to anything either.
The quotes on love (and altruism) I provided not to war, but to spell out Heinlein's positions a bit more clearly. While I agree with a large amount of what he says I wouldn't claim to agree with everything.
Though your mention of miracles does remind me of one very good Heinlein quote I think you will appreciate:
The shamans are forever yacking about their snake-oil "miracles." I prefer the Real McCoy — a pregnant woman.
Honestly the easiest (and therefore probably incorrect) way to describe his over all position (as I understand it) would be as an epicurean stoic.
Is it bad that I read this thread title as RuPaul announces presidential bid..... Then found the whole thread very boring when it wasnt.....?
|
Of course, my understanding of Intelligent Design is flawedMine too.
Who designed the Intelligent Designer?
Who designed the thing that designed the Intelligent Designer?
Who designed the thing that designed the thing that designed the Intelligent Designer?
Who designed the thing that designed the thing that designed the thing that designed the Intelligent Designer?
... wait I've heard this one before ...
|
|
No, its not the best reply, but it is a supportive reply at least. Let's try the replacement method.
"Endowed by his [Free Will], and that among these are Life, Liberty, and [Property]."
Does the Right to Life originate in Free Will?
Does the Right to Liberty originate in Free Will?
Does the Right of Property originate in Free Will?
And secondly, can we break down Free Will, in accordance with the quote from Viktor Frankl, into Freedom and Will (or Personal Power)?
I think we'll see a little clearer how Life, Liberty, and Property are rooted more in a combination of Freedom and Personal Power (which may be summed up as Free Will, but here examined in their constituent parts).
Freedom can be defined as the space (moral, legal, social, or physical) to act. Personal Power might be defined as the ability of an individual to use that space to his or her own advantage, or to the advantage of another, or of humankind in general.
One's right to life is built into the space required to do so, or the opportunity we might say. Liberty, or the freedom of word, movement and action, is also built into opportunity, which can then be taken advantage of by an intrinsic force. Property is the intrinsic right of a human being to sell or exchange voluntarily his or her labor or services for material goods outside himself. It requires, to some degree, a social contract. A person can lay claim, by the Rights of Property, to the fruits of his personal labor, the things he has exchanged services for, and may freely protect them from theft or harm. Once again, this implies opportunity and ability.
It would seem then that Free Will is born of opportunity, which sometimes requires an engaging intellect to recognize. Other times, the life force itself flows unerringly into a nearby opportunity, without intent to do so.
Can we say that Opportunity is the establishing principle of Free Will?
It's interesting what peoples disqualifies are, but it would be nice if this thread doesn't go down the ID rabbit hole.As long as the person the thread is about is firmly ensconced in its camp, then the topic is less a rabbit hole and more of an unavoidable pothole.I understand it as a personal objection like in zombieneighbors' case. That's a personal characteristic that is an automatic deal breaker, but it's not a legitimate policy issue when the candidate has no interest in making it policy.
No interest thus far. However, he could easily change his mind once in office. Obama's done it. Bush has done it. Every president back to the beginning has done it. It's an issue that, while not necessarily make or break for me(I don't plan on voting for him anyway), could very much be one for others.