Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

HB v. AB: Is collectivism the greater evil?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Well if you are that's fine, because really want to get at the nuance that I think really exists...

Not all S is P. Those 'nuances' you often favor are really the fine distinctions between identities, I think. The "grey areas" in a sense. Greys - moral and conceptual - which when you look closely into are composed of an intricate mixture of blacks and whites, and aren't actually grey.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is much more integration (not just coherence, but mutual reinforcement and support) between modern conservatism and Marxism and postmodernism, than there is between Marxism and postmodernism.

People interested in how a leading religious (Jewish) conservative thinks can watch Dennis Prager chat with Craig Biddle. They cover some hard topics and find common ground. I hope more Objectivists g

Has anyone come up with a more precise characterization of who or what is or is not being suppressed than "rightist" or "leftist"?

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

which when you look closely into are composed of an intricate mixture of blacks and whites, and aren't actually grey.

I went over earlier how your attempts at definition or analysis were conceptually messy and ineffective according to Rand's standards. Nuance would be to say that there are more facts to consider when trying to come up with an essential.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I went over earlier how your attempts at definition or analysis were conceptually messy and ineffective according to Rand's standards. Nuance would be to say that there are more facts to consider when trying to come up with an essential.

The Leftists are pure subjectivists, see? They, and each one, variably, are by definition all over the place at any given instance. Feelings dominate, not reason. So they are not one thing at the same time, while they absorb from one another and attack the exact same targets.

The hodgepodge of Leftism has specific essentials and commonalities which I believe I covered quite well. You can infer many of those characteristics by seeing/hearing for yourself, e.g. people you know, the leftist politicians, publications - etc, etc.

You want provided a single nice and easy definition and can pretend leftism doesn't exist, if it's not forthcoming. You have to see, think, identify for yourself, to accumulate a conceptual vision of the totality of leftism.

Rand's standards? This is as far as she is on record in the Lexicon about the political left, outside of her "mystics of muscle" allegory (and further insights into plainly obvious Leftists are in her novels):

Rightists vs. Leftists

Since, today, there are no clear definitions of political terms, I use the word “rightist” to denote the views of those who are predominantly in favor of individual freedom and capitalism—and the word “leftist” to denote the views of those who are predominantly in favor of government controls and socialism. As to the middle or “center,” I take it to mean “zero,” i.e., no dominant position, i.e., a pendulum swinging from side to side, moment by moment.

“The Disfranchisement of the Right,”

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

First your test results, Professor.

People were complaining about suppression in a way that seemed vague to me, so I asked a reasonable question about proportions.  Some people think this obligates me to do tests; I disagree.

In any case, isn't it premature to do tests without a clear identification of what we are testing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Well if you are that's fine, because really want to get at the nuance that I think really exists among Leftists.

In America I think the left-right political dichotomy identifies a divide between people revolting against the American system and those still loyal to it. During the French Revolution loyalists sat on the king's right and those in favor of revolution sat on his left. Applied to America today, those who express gratitude and loyalty to the American Founders and the Constitution (our authority figures) are considered the right, while those expressing contempt and disloyalty (or outright anti-American revolution) are considered the left. Of course many people have had (and do have) a mixed opinion, finding themselves mostly loyal or mostly disloyal but also a little disloyal or a little loyal. But when the seriously disloyal challenge something considered sacrosanct to Americanism, that dividing line becomes more and more distinct and set in stone. Battle lines form. The right's loyalty turns to patriotic leaders who represent groups who embody the basic values of applied Americanism, while the left's disloyalty turns into tolerance of and obedience to whatever anti-American force can herd them into organized action against the loyalists. And that's what we're seeing now. Battle lines are being solidified because the left has gone racist again. You want examples of the left? Look for people who wear their skin color on their sleeves. And as Rand argued, racism is a form of collectivism. So that's why, politically, I equate the left in America with collectivism.

Take a look at the Democrat Party and tell me if it's not thoroughly infested with racism. Then look at the Republican Party and tell me if it is. I think the difference is night and day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as "defining Leftism," Peikoff gives a hint in The DIM Hypothesis. He provides a long passage in "Basic Consistency of the Big Three." It's a good lesson in thinking in essentials -- which is to say, identifying which facts are essential to a concept and which are non-essential.

Quote

The writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Kant are not always consistent. Sometimes, even in regard to fundamental issues, they endorse contradictory ideas. Plato frequently writes as though he agrees with his contemporaries that the achievement of personal happiness on earth is man's proper goal, and also that knowledge is a product not of conformity to the transcendant, but of the individual's unaided exercise of his own mind. Ideas like these indicate a partial embrace by Plato of pagan worldliness and individualism, an embrace that contradicts his view that Nature, including individuality, is but a shadow from which men should flee.

Aristotle's books offer a greater number of contradictions. He describes the pinnacle of reality, for example, as a God that is form without matter; he seems to uphold some kind of (impersonal) immortality for a non-material aspect of man's soul; and even his theory of concepts, as we have seen, has Platonic implications. Ideas like these indicate a partial embrace by Aristotle of his longtime teacher's supernaturalism and rationalism, an embrace that is antithetic to his own fundemantals.

Kant affirms that his purpose is to defend faith by clipping the wings of reason. By limiting knowledge to appearance, he says, he makes religion invulnerable to scientific attack in regard to such ideas as the Christian moral code, along with the "God, freedom, and immortality" which, he says, a moral code presupposes. This embrace of religion is incompatible with his Copernican revolution, which tells us that reality, including its transcendent entities and attributes, if any, is inconceivable by any means, whether reason or faith.

Despite all this, however, Platonism is not paganism or even a mixture of paganism and idealism; just as Aristotle is not science plus Plato, or Kant the Critique plus Pietism. By its nature as a philosophy, even a nihilist one, is not a potpourri of isolated ideas, like the fortunes pulled from Chinese cookies; it is not a juxtaposition, but a whole, an integration of ideas -- specifically, of the fundamental ideas on which all its other ideas depend. Within a philosophy, its metaphysics implies its epistemology and vice versa, and it is this unity that implies its ethics (and thence its politics and aesthetics).

What makes the Big Three great philosophers is that they are the only men in our history who have defined, whether validly or not, a new integration of fundamentals. The cultural and historical power they have had derives from this root. Plato, Aristotle, and Kant, each in his own way, tell us how to use our minds. Lesser thinkers then elaborate.

The above gives us one means by which to interpret contradictory statements in the books of the Big Three. If a tenet upheld in any of their writings is necessary to the author's system -- that is, to his integration of fundamentals -- then it is essential to his philosophy. By contrast, if a tenet, however prominent and even cherished in his writings, contradicts such integration, then it is worse than non-essential to his viewpoint; it is anti-essential. (A tenet with no effect on fundamental integration is irrelevant in this context.)

As one example, consider Aristotle's Platonic element. However extensive in his pages, it cannot be integrated with his own system; in fact, if accepted, it destroys his integration, because it clashes with every one of his fundamentals. Rejecting the Platonic element leaves Aristotle's integration intact, whereas rejecting even a single one of Aristotle's non-Platonic fundamentals destroys it. Take away Aristotle's notion of the Immovable Mover, for example, or his Platonic over-reliance on deduction, and he is still Aristotle, and even a better Aristotle for it. But take away his championing of Nature or the senses, and he is gone. The same principle is clear in the other two cases.

Taken line by line, the Big Three are not free of contradictions; in a deeper sense, however, they are free, because their contradictions are irrelevant to their integration of fundamentals. A consistent set of fundamentals, I should add, may very well imply contradictions in derivative questions. Indeed, this is the fate of all systems reached invalidly, since it is impossible in any field to be consistently wrong. But this liability to error does not imply that invalid philosophies in regard to fundamentals are necessary contradictory.

Of course, Peikoff here is concentrating on his specific purpose, which is to identify the greatest philosophers and the nature of their influence. But what he's doing here is the same thing anyone would have to do to integrate any concept, particularly concerning a concept that describes someone's ideas.

First, when you're talking about Leftism, a Leftist is a sort of person, and that provides the "genus" of the definition, but also raises the problem where, when you're talking about people, they can embrace all sorts of ideas, some of which can be mutually contradictory. You can define Leftism as such-and-such set of ideas, and then you can identify somebody as a Leftist, as a person who has fundamentally embraced Leftist beliefs, and then you can often find a place where that particular Leftist has spoken out against some facet of Leftism. (Noam Chomsky was referenced previously as being a Leftist who opposes some Leftist views.) There are Democrats who have occasionally spoken out (and even ruled or voted) in favor of freedom instead of taking what you might think would be the more consistently Leftist course.

However, this does not invalidate the definition of Leftism as such, just like Aristotle's own contradictions don't invalidate or weaken the real definition of Aristotelianism.

So what is Leftism? What is distinctive about it? It's not as broad as a philosophy; it's more narrow; it pertains only to politics. By etymology, a "Leftist" is merely somebody whose party sits on the left side of the chamber. But what kinds of ideas typify the political beliefs of those people? I think what's distinctive about Leftism is its particular view of the role of government -- namely, that the government should maintain controls over people, in order to make sure that society is altruistic. (By that definition, a person can be a Leftist without supporting dictatorship, and that seems correct. However, dictatorship is the most consistent implementation of Leftism...)

A related question is, what is Rightism? What is distinctive about that? (Here I'll look at "Rightists" meaning "Republicans.") Far too often, Rightists tend to embrace Leftist ideas and cave in to the demands of the Left, usually because of altruism. But in some ways that's like Aristotle's Platonic element. I'd say that, if you set that aside, Rightism believes that a free economy will make society more prosperous for everyone. However, Rightists also believe that government has a role in enforcing morality, and that morality cannot be justified by facts, but only by the supernatural. In fact, I think this is the deeper reason they cave to the Left: their supernaturally-justified morality is fundamentally altruistic and therefore in agreement with the Left -- but they oppose dictatorship as antithetical to a free economy. So they have an unresolved contradiction.

One way out of this contradiction for the Rightists is to move to the Left. The other way would probably be to embrace Objectivism, but that requires tossing out the supernatural.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Rand's standards? This is as far as she is on record in the Lexicon about the political left,

Epistemological standards of defining terms... 

22 minutes ago, necrovore said:

You can define Leftism as such-and-such set of ideas, and then you can identify somebody as a Leftist, as a person who has fundamentally embraced Leftist beliefs

I think this definition is fine. I disagree still, because I don't think it's about necessarily making sure societies altruistic as much as being against market capitalism. If you want the more broad definition of seeking to maintain controls over people, then we more broadly capture also people we don't traditionally consider Leftists, such as Christian fundamentalists who would want a theocracy. If that's okay with you, then you are being consistent. 

Still, if a category is broad enough, you can't make comparisons to concepts that are not as narrowly defined. We can't compare religious conservatives to Leftists because they are different levels of abstructions, like comparing giraffes to birds.

23 minutes ago, necrovore said:

Rightists tend to embrace Leftist ideas and cave in to the demands of the Left, usually because of altruism. But in some ways that's like Aristotle's Platonic element. I'd say that, if you set that aside,

I mean yeah, if you set aside Leftist ideas, what else would you be left with... In which case you're just arguing about to what degree they are Leftist, rather than if they are Leftist. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The Leftists are pure subjectivists, see? They, and each one, variably, are by definition all over the place at any given instance. Feelings dominate, not reason. So they are not one thing at the same time, while they absorb from one another and attack the exact same targets.

This makes it sound like we need to distinguish between crazy "leftists" and "liberals" who are reason-oriented but are led astray by mistaken ethics and/or a lack of understanding of the fundamental nature of government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Andrew Bernstein: Excerpt

"The collectivists, influenced by the German philosopher, G.W.F. Hegel,  consider individuality a splintered fragment of the whole; only the State is real.[lxvi] We must serve the State; we must perforce obey. Freedom of conscience and choice is banned. Individualism is a crime. Independent judgment is a cardinal sin.   Anyone who does not obey is gassed or shot or enslaved; members of the White Rose were guillotined.[lxvii]  The mind is silenced and shackled. Society is pushed into economic collapse or war or both. The regressive mind-oppression of Anthem is an accurate depiction of a fully collectivized world. “It is a sin to write this,” says the hero of Anthem.  “It is a sin to write words no others think.”[lxviii]    For collectivism, one thinks what the State decrees. There is no glorification of the individual to contradict totalitarianism.

The worst of Christianity was the Dark Ages. Its best was the Medieval Renaissance. The worst  of collectivism was Auschwitz, gulags, and 120 million civilians murdered in a century.  There is no best.

Collectivism is more evil than Christianity. But US conservatives move toward Nationalism, a form of collectivism. If Nationalism approaches jingoist fervor, it leads to imperialism and war. If it unites with socialism, it forms National Socialism. American conservatives currently approximate neither. Let’s hope they never do".

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The one slight disagreement I have with Andrew Bernstein is to raise even as a possibility the bogeyman (which Journo took further in his essay as a present reality):

The fear of Nationalist Conservatives uniting with socialism, et voila - National Socialism. Never gonna happen. Keep context. America and Americans are not Germany and the Nazis. One needs to observe the national character, and the particularly unique variants of Christianity there (not only historical antecedents).

US Conservatives have a deep loathing for the Left and won't compromise, adapt, nor ever unite. The socialists likewise.

I think that Ominous Parallels and a US theocracy is at fault in this regard.

History is known to repeat itself, but not in the same manner. It's rationalistic simplifying to predict that people with the topmost regard for Americanism, the Constitution and being left alone to live their lives their way, would either a. seek "imperialism and war" when the main body of them have wanted for a long while to pull out of all foreign conflicts - or b. sell out to and unite with their mortal enemy, the Left. I'm not fond of jingoism, but I view this supposed increasing "nationalism" as actually heightened patriotism, the response to the Left's anti-Americanism. Unfortunate, and without enough intellectual support and moral clarity, an all too-human reaction by the conservatives who can see the country being taken from them.

This surge of patriotism is an attempt at renewed -self-assertion- by the conservatives in the face of a new and virulent enemy from within.

That so-called "Nationalism" is not the cause it's the consequence. The height of injustice and sophistry is to blame the conservatives solely for the aggressive actions of the Leftists.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

This makes it sound like we need to distinguish between crazy "leftists" and "liberals" who are reason-oriented but are led astray by mistaken ethics and/or a lack of understanding of the fundamental nature of government.

The starting point: Leftism is a Faith. A belief system. Dogma.

Any reason-orientation has to be thrown away for an individual to accommodate faith - the secular sort, as bad and worse (for its extreme collectivism).

(You didn't think that it was only the religious version of faith that Rand railed against?)

"Faith and force . . . are corollaries: every period of history dominated by mysticism, was a period of statism, of dictatorship, of tyranny. [Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World]"

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

People were complaining about suppression in a way that seemed vague to me, so I asked a reasonable question about proportions.  Some people think this obligates me to do tests; I disagree.

In any case, isn't it premature to do tests without a clear identification of what we are testing?

We are testing for bias. What type of content is predominantly searched for by the algorithms? Which and whose facts and opinions are automatically deleted, suspended (etc.).

If you need to prove for your satisfaction what is inductively apparent (from casual observation) no one's stopping you.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Epistemological standards of defining terms... 

I think this definition is fine. I disagree still, because I don't think it's about necessarily making sure societies altruistic . 

I strongly oppose any hint of Leftism today, as being no more than a political dispensation. Around its earlier manifestations it has evolved (devolved) into a far larger aggregate, taking in newer elements. It's now a loose, undefined, metaphysical-ethical-social-political 'system'.

E.g. "Oh, it is only politics as usual...nothing to worry about." From there comes denial, excuses and equivocation.

The Leftists fervently - *believe*. Everyone must be forced to believe too.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The starting point: Leftism is a Faith. A belief system. Dogma.

Okay, and ultimately a choice between the Religious Right vs. "Leftism" becomes a choice between one set of the arbitrary vs. another set of the arbitrary. The two philosophical directions do not determine how it will be implemented, this is faith, contradictions, randomness, the personality of the leaders, the state of the culture, availability of resources etc. play into the assessment of which is better.

We have nations that have no separation of religion and state, some of them very authoritarian like Iran, Saudi Arabia and then Israel which seems pretty functional. The dogma does not determine if it will be interpreted and implemented in a way that works.

The fundamental problem with most of your arguments is your inclination to predict simply based on dogma. But interpretation and application of dogma randomly changes.

A good analysis should be the state of Israel. A religious state that was set up by communists. Not that communism works as it was abandoned in Israel, but it did not destroy the nation and it seemed to contribute the way it was implemented by simply holding it together until better systems became available. One could possibly make that same analysis for China or Vietnam in the last 20 years. Mao interpreted it one way and caused a disaster while the new guys did something different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The starting point: Leftism is a Faith. A belief system. Dogma.

Peikoff actually discusses an example of how this is wrong, because it fails to take into account conceptual hierarchy. This is intended for anyone reading, because I think it helps to have understanding about how best to think about these topics in the first place.

https://courses.aynrand.org/campus-courses/the-art-of-thinking/hierarchy/

1:05:00 - 1:11:00

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Peikoff actually discusses an example of how this is wrong, because it fails to take into account conceptual hierarchy. This is intended for anyone reading, because I think it helps to have understanding about how best to think about these topics in the first place.

https://courses.aynrand.org/campus-courses/the-art-of-thinking/hierarchy/

1:05:00 - 1:11:00

 

Whoa. Completely irrelevant. Leftists aren't objective thinkers. The Postmodernist influence has many viewing reason with suspicion, as the European males' construct used to gain power over their victims. 

How would Peikoff account for what the Leftists ¬themselves¬ believe they believe? In hierarchical concepts, perhaps? Ha, sorry man.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Okay, and ultimately a choice between the Religious Right vs. "Leftism" becomes a choice between one set of the arbitrary vs. another set of the arbitrary. The two philosophical directions do not determine how it will be implemented, this is faith, contradictions, randomness, the personality of the leaders, the state of the culture, availability of resources etc. play into the assessment of which is better.

The fundamental problem with most of your arguments is your inclination to predict simply based on dogma. But interpretation and application of dogma randomly changes.

 

There is primacy of consciousness in both, that I have reiterated. Subjective, mutable "dogma" also, which can have a person in either camp reinventing their belief system, at will.

So what is one left with, but to review what has been a permanent fixture (in the last century at least) for both the Right and the Left, in the USA and abroad:

Their attitudes to and treatment of the individual.

An "imperfect", pre-moral, individualism, I've admitted, by the US religious conservatives; but - a non-existent individualism by the secular Left.

I could go into all that again, and I think it's not insignificant, how the religious have an immutable belief in the Soul. Their own and others. Coupled with their conviction in the Constitution. These will not randomly change. Which is why many, I think are confused, bemused or horrified at Leftists lately who 'group' people, to then, lift and empower one group above another - the sacrifice of one tribe/race/etc. to the other. I credit their good sense and values to pick that up and oppose this "altruism-collectivism" (in our terms) while usually doing so poorly and without philosophical principles.

There is apparently a fine line between (mystical) belief and (rational) conviction. They both hold power for a person, arising by completely different methods. The Christians may believe in the individual and his sovereignty for all the wrong reasons, but - and in politics, where this limited alliance with them is being considered - their outward actions might not differ. Especially if under advisement by Objectivist philosophers.

It is not as though I "predict simply based on dogma", I made an assessment based on the articulated, observable convictions/beliefs (of people with a dogma).

By contrast: What connection can O'ists possibly have with the collectivist Left - aside from one, their secularism?

I am running the risk of pragmatism in looking for political commonality with the religious Right. But I do see the situation serious enough to be any port in a storm.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

I could go into all that again, and I think it's not insignificant, how the religious have an immutable belief in the Soul. Their own and others.

That does not amount to anything. Most altruists believe others come first ... before them self!

35 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Coupled with their conviction in the Constitution. These will not randomly change.

Of course they will. The primary resistance to Caesar has frequently been religion. There is no reason to think that the bible, any bible, supports the American constitution. This is fabricated nonsense. Why not start talking about angels who know better. That's what this is sounding like.

39 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Which is why many, I think are confused, bemused or horrified at Leftists lately who 'group' people, to then, lift and empower one group above another

As if you are not doing that. Again, it does not indicate anything special.

40 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

I am running the risk of pragmatism in looking for political commonality with the religious Right. But I do see the situation serious enough to be "any port in a storm".

Fair enough. It's a choice in an emergency situation. Let's not throw Objectivist morality into the mix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy Truth, not much to add.

Objectivism and Objectivists will have to wait for good days to come, because as of now we are too noble to come down to earth. 

More than having uncompromising principles is to use them and properly test them against reality. And bring change.

Whatever values (e.g. individualism) remain I believe should not ever be abandoned, and would you believe that the American population probably holds to the last concentration of individualism in the world? Maybe you don't. Else it doesn't worry you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I've never met a Christian who, when knowing of my atheism, tried to persuade me otherwise. Once they understood how boring I found their Biblical texts since a teen, I've had some productive, sometimes challenging, conversations. Listening to friends' experiences with the religious, they seem similarly disposed. While all that righteous certainty creates a kind of cringe factor to their unbelieving audiences, all Christians I've heard of have taken rejection in good spirit, and this illustrates their laissez-faire approach, some belief in man's free will. (Thomas Aquinas: "A man has free choice to the extent he is rational"). The authoritarian Leftists can't allow that: control, a forced 'conversion' by way of statist means will keep everyone in thrall to their religion. But incredibly, confronted by Leftist preachers nobody appears to feel that same "cringe-worthy" reaction. Somehow, socialism, etc. is given more credence by normally sensible, intelligent people who know the history. That same visceral response ought to be equally felt when hearing the illogic, evasions and sanctimonious hypocrisies of leftists.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

 There is no reason to think that the bible, any bible, supports the American constitution. This is fabricated nonsense.

Ha, recalls the ARI article I saw, titled approx: "The US Constitution is a Secularist Document".

My first response was - Duh! You don't say!

Who was the article addressing? Objectivists? Secularists, who already know that? Or Christians who won't accept that? It seemed pointless to me.

I didn't pay attention to theology, and to what rationalizations came from the Bible. I did learn that the early Dutch and Huguenot settlers to South Africa believed they were the Israelites fleeing persecution from Egypt to the promised land. I don't remember if there's a parallel with the Puritans coming to America. 

But you miss the point ("there's no reason to think..") There is no "reason" at all!  Faith IS nonsense. Like I was saying, belief/conviction apparently takes people a long way.

What I have heard from an American was that they believe the Founders were inspired by God to create the Constitution. So, apparently not derived from the Bible. By religious premises, this is at least consistent. Nonsense to others.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

But you miss the point ("there's no reason to think..") There is no "reason" at all!  Faith IS nonsense. But like I was saying, belief/conviction apparently takes people a long way.

As in "belief in the arbitrary", just believing, takes you a long way. Well, sometimes belief in a dictator takes you a long way. Is that morally relevant?

4 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

What I have heard from an American was that the Founders were inspired by God to create the Constitution. By religious premises, this is consistent. Nonsense to others.

Dennis Prager says stuff like that too.

The Bible does not show value based on our own judgement, our own interest is not at the heart of morality. There is no respect of the individual's self esteem. There is no respect for the individual, period. The Constitution is based on respect for our self and our own interest.

The Bible existed for thousands of years of feudal life and a US type Constitution was never created anywhere. If it was the Bible that causes it, it should have sprung up a long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

As in "belief in the arbitrary", just believing, takes you a long way. Well, sometimes belief in a dictator takes you a long way. Is that morally relevant?

 

*Factually* relevant, whether for good or bad.

Let's assume for the hell of it, 90% - of what you see around you are the doings or derived or descended from the doings of religious people. One can argue the quantity but not the effects in actuality. Again, for good or bad.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

of what you see around you are the doings or derived or descended from the doings of religious people.

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were barely religious at all. They are the only founders that really matter for the major content of the Constitution. Everyone else was just along for the ride. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were barely religious at all. They are the only founders that really matter for the major content of the Constitution. Everyone else was just along for the ride. 

I know, deists weren't they? Distinct from theists. But I am on about the multiple deeds by the great many (over 100's of years). Not exclusively the central figures. And that didn't stop Christians from saying something like it was ultimately God's work.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...