Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Glancing through some of it, it's really unsettling that I believed much of that book. It's essentially a Southern talk radio host (Phil Valentine) talking about how great Reagan was, telling the Founding Fathers what they really meant, and characterising those in disagreement with straw men (levelling them with communists). If you're not a conservative, you're wrong.
One of the claims in particular was that 'the government will make no official establishment of religion' actually meant it was left for the states to decide their own state religions, because it'd be difficult to have a federal religion if there were thirteen different state religions. He then goes on to say it wouldn't be a bad idea for them to have state religions. um...what? Notwithstanding the fact he means if they had christian state religions, he's forgetting that people do tend to have different beliefs.
All I can say, is don't pick this book up. I give it 1 out of 14 stars.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later[^][v]#267,785
> One of the claims in particular was that 'the government will make no official establishment of religion' actually meant it was left for the states to decide their own state religions, because it'd be difficult to have a federal religion if there were thirteen different state religions.
This is true, though. Incorporation of the Bill of Rights didn't come about until much later.
Establishment of religion is bad, which is why it was forbidden in the state constitutions.
Reagan was a terrible conservative who started wars and spent big.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^][v]#267,791
@previous (B)
Fair enough point. And it's hard to vocally oppose Reagen from where I live, as he is deified just under Jesus.
One of the arguments presented in that chapter was the 'freedom of religion, not freedom from religion' which, at least to me, sounds like the 'you're free to be any flavour of protestant, as long as you are one' saying I've heard before. A bit like saying you have to get ice cream from the ice cream parlor. You can get any flavour you like, as long as you walk out with something. No ice cream isn't an option.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^][v]#267,797
@previous (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
there should be an establishment of an atheist church. So everything stays nice and legal.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^][v]#267,804
@previous (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
That would be a bit oxymoronic, though. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities, whilst churches are run by theists who do profess belief in God(s). The primary function of churches is to disseminate that message. Atheism is simply the lack of that 'God exists' message. So, a church of it would be somewhat pointless.
If anything were to be a 'church' of atheism, though, it would be the universities and centres of learning and inquiry. Rather than simply giving a sermon, they give facts which can be used to ascertain the truth on the debate of religion.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 19 minutes after the original post[^][v]#267,806
@267,791 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
lol yeah there's kinda two strains of that 'freedom of religion, not freedom from religion' argument. One is the retarded theocrat one that you mentioned, the other is a more sensible one that says displaying the 10 commandments at a court, or a nativity scene on government property doesn't violate one's right to 'freedom of religion', but it would violate a 'freedom from religion' right, which doesn't exist.
I don't really care enough to think about it much.
Anonymous B double-posted this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^][v]#267,809
@267,804 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
Universities are the gift of the Roman Catholic Church.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 minutes after the original post[^][v]#267,815
@267,804 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU) > Rather than simply giving a sermon, they give facts
YES! precicely! I wouldn't go to that service either -it'd be exactly like religion. Nice and legal. We could get tax breaks!
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 24 minutes after the original post[^][v]#267,816
@267,809 (B)
Though birthed in that manner, the more esteemed amongst them have gone away from that birthing on their own path.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[^][v]#267,818
@267,815 (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
Maybe we should go into business together...
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 26 minutes after the original post[^][v]#267,820
@267,816 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
Actually they continued the Catholic worldview of tradition and reason.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 26 minutes after the original post[^][v]#267,821
@267,818 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
we need at least one commandment. how about, "thou shall..."
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^][v]#267,825
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 29 minutes after the original post[^][v]#267,826
@267,820 (B)
I feel like there's some errancy in your statement of the cathollic church having reason with their worldview. their stifling of dissent dates back centuries. It's only later when their views are no longer in vogue that they accept reason in that case (though only somewhat. And as for tradition: simply having tradition doesn't make it right.
@267,821 (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
Thou shall? I am no fan of commands. They take all the fun out of life. How about 'Thou mayest conquer ignorance'? It sets it up as possible, but only if they try for it.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^][v]#267,839
@previous (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
I don't want to sound rude, but I don't think you know what you are talking about. The Catholic Church prevented people who were not qualified to teach from teaching, and prevented views not supported by evidence or reason from being taught. I think you only have a superficial knowledge of history.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^][v]#267,846
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^][v]#267,849
@previous (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
Galileo was prevented from teaching his heliocentric model as fact due to an absence of observed stellar parallax. He was forced to present it as a possibility only.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^][v]#267,851
@previous (B)
He was forced to recant his statements about the heliocentric model as it didn't align with religious dogma at the time.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#267,857
@previous (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU) > I reject your reality, and substitute my own.
Oh, ok. > I think you only have a superficial knowledge of history.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#267,861
@previous (B)
It seems we're both simply making statements, you're providing as much as I am to back up your claims. The difference, of course, being that mine are right.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 55 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#267,905
@previous (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU) > It seems we're both simply making statements
It seems this way to you because you only have a superficial knowledge of history.
How old are you?
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#267,907
@previous (B)
You still haven't backed anything you've said up.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#267,922
@previous (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
Look it up yourself, lol. This is in literally any scholarly work on Galileo (of which I read a few for an essay I did on the history of Christian thought). The wikipedia article would be a good place for you to start.
You obviously don't realize how debatable the science behind Galileo's support of Copernicus' conclusions was, and the state of science at the time, which was not based upon appeals to the Bible, but appeals to Aristotle. It's alright not to know these things, but it is not alright to argue these things without having educated yourself on them.