Compartmentalizing

[Diogenes]

Pray tell, what form would this "Christian Fascism" take? Since most of them simply want things to be the way they were before the Left started tampering with them, "Christian Fascism" at worst would simply be American Culture of the 1950s, minus the Racism.

Having been a victim of Christian Fascism in the 50s I can tell you I didn't enjoy it. It has made me suspicious of Christians ever since.

They mean well but they are not very savvy about human nature.

I really don't think being excessively annoying and insensitive comes close to fascism. The people you are referring to probably suffered from the dominant herd mentality, and had no inkling of any other way of looking at things. Nowadays, most people are at least aware that there ARE differences.

I find the attitude : "I love Jesus. Doesn't Everybody? And if you don't you should." Nauseating in the extreme. And please. Spare me the latest moral panic. I don't panic worth a danm any more.

Yes, Hari Krishners can be annoying. Don't have a clue what you mean about panic.

Misguided Christian love is an old story. They are taught to love their fellow man, and in their own minds the most loving thing they can do is secure their fellow man's place in heaven for eternity. (both being things they believe in.) Therefore, they often consider it imperative that they do everything they reasonably can to "save" their friend from a horrible fate. The idea that their beliefs might be wrong doesn't even occur to them.

You happened to have been in an annoying place at an annoying time, and had to deal with these people's proselytizing. However, that is no reason to make common cause with their enemies and reject everything they stand for, for that IS the direction of Fascism.

I did run into some pro-lifers at a T-Party who absolutely didn't want the government involved - pro or con. I wonder if they will still feel that way once they get the upper hand.

I've met some kooky pro-lifers, but i've also met some kooky Gun rights people, and some kooky fiscal people, etc.
The pro-life position has always been to overturn Roe V. Wade, and then abolish the procedure at the individual state level. (I.E. the way things were before the Activist Federal Courts got involved. )

New England/Left Coast would keep it legal, Most of "Red State" America would severely restrict it.

My experience leads me to believe that even in the restrictive states, the procedure would always be allowed for a danger to the mothers health,(Physical health, not mental health) would probably be allowed for the cases of rape and incest, but completely banned for reasons of convenience. (99% of all abortions.)
People would end up having to travel to the East or West coast for convenience abortions.


Basically, the Feds out! The States In!

[Skipjack]

They are taught to love their fellow man, and in their own minds the most loving thing they can do is secure their fellow man's place in heaven for eternity.

Actually every religion and ideology has the as its biggest goal to "spread the happy news". You know to "go tell it to the mountains" (I wished they did and left me allone). So that is just a problem with religion in general.

for reasons of convenience. (99% of all abortions.)

Citation please.

[Diogenes]

Having been a victim of Christian Fascism in the 50s I can tell you I didn't enjoy it. It has made me suspicious of Christians ever since.

And it made me extremely suspicious of the Reps.

Reps? Republicans? Huh?

They mean well but they are not very savvy about human nature.

Same can be said about every religion/ideology.
That is why I am an atheist.

You do know that "Atheist" means Anti-Theist? It doesn't mean someone who doesn't believe in God, it means someone who is Against God(s), and against the People who worship\believe in God(s).

It's my personal opinion that Christianity, and especially the protestant reformation, is what created the relatively benign and technologically advanced environment we currently find ourselves in.

Roe V. Wade is bad law based on false claims and testimony, and needs to be overturned.

Wrong! I am very, very much against abortion. My personal reasoning is that we are dying out and that we need to ensure that this does not happen. Also, we should be taking responsibility for our actions. However, there are many, many good examples when abortions are reasonable and when they make sense.

Okay, I don't mean to be obnoxious, but here's how it works.

1. I make a statement which you claim is wrong.

2. You provide evidence why it is wrong.


The part you are trying to disprove is "Bad Law, based on False Testimony."


Whether or not many, there are "many good examples when abortions are reasonable and when they make sense." is irrelevant to whether or not it is bad law.

I say it is Bad Law because the legal principles on which it is based (according to the Warren court that made this idiot ruling) do not apply to the case which was before them. If your point does not address this issue, it is irrelevant.

According to dissenting Justice Byron White

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

I say that it is based on False Testimony due to the Fact that Norma L. McCorvey (Roe in Roe V Wade) claimed to have been raped, because Texas Law allowed an abortion in the case of rape. She was not. In fact, she was impregnated by her boyfriend.

The child was NOT aborted.

Rapes, e.g. or when the life and well being of the mother is at stake. I am also considering an abortion in case of severe illness of the child as an acceptable cause for abortion, even though I myself would not be able to go ahead with it.

The Texas Law in question, allowed abortion in the case of rape.

The VAST MAJORITY of abortions are for convenience.

The Warren Court through Roe V Wade proclaimed "Abortion Macht Frei!" and opened the door to a "Murder Factory." Nothing more.

[Diogenes]

They are taught to love their fellow man, and in their own minds the most loving thing they can do is secure their fellow man's place in heaven for eternity.

Actually every religion and ideology has the as its biggest goal to "spread the happy news". You know to "go tell it to the mountains" (I wished they did and left me allone). So that is just a problem with religion in general.

for reasons of convenience. (99% of all abortions.)

Citation please.

Didn't include one on purpose. Thought anyone wishing to contest it might find out more about the subject by looking it up themselves.


This IS a subject that I have done extensive research on years ago. Here are a few bits and pieces that most people don't know:

The Folks that Abolished Slavery also Abolished abortion. The Religious Abolitionists. Susan B. Anthony, was one prominent figure.

The Foremost promoter of abortion was Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, and girl friend of Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU. (Communists both.) A thoroughly debauched girl who not only committed numerous perverted offenses against the public, but advocated abortion to control the breeding of Minorities whom she regarded as inferior. (eugenics promoter)

Dr. Joseph Mengele (Auschwitz Angel of Death) made his living after the war by providing illegal abortions. He was an abortionist.

[Skipjack]

Reps? Republicans? Huh?

Yes, Republicans, oh my...
I find that question/objection coming from someone who calles the Democrats "Dems" quite amusing.

You do know that "Atheist" means Anti-Theist? It doesn't mean someone who doesn't believe in God, it means someone who is Against God(s), and against the People who worship\believe in God(s).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]
The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods",

It's my personal opinion that Christianity, and especially the protestant reformation, is what created the relatively benign and technologically advanced environment we currently find ourselves in.

You are aware of the fact that Martin Luther himself was very much for witch hunts right? Quite a few witches were burned by reformed christians. Also, most Germans are protestants. Hitler himself promoted protestantism and used the "the jews killed baby Jesus" idea to get the christian mob to commit atroceous acts against jewish people.

[Diogenes]

Reps? Republicans? Huh?

Yes, Republicans, oh my...
I find that question/objection coming from someone who calles the Democrats "Dems" quite amusing.

My "Huh" had nothing to do with understanding what "Reps" meant, as you can see, I figured that out. It had to do with what the h3ll you were trying to say about them.

You do know that "Atheist" means Anti-Theist? It doesn't mean someone who doesn't believe in God, it means someone who is Against God(s), and against the People who worship\believe in God(s).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]
The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods",

A Distinction without a difference.

It's my personal opinion that Christianity, and especially the protestant reformation, is what created the relatively benign and technologically advanced environment we currently find ourselves in.

You are aware of the fact that Martin Luther himself was very much for witch hunts right? Quite a few witches were burned by reformed christians. Also, most Germans are protestants. Hitler himself promoted protestantism and used the "the jews killed baby Jesus" idea to get the christian mob to commit atroceous acts against jewish people.

As George Will pointed out, if you believe that Witches are the servants of Satan, and they will do something evil to you if they are tolerated, then killing them is indeed a reasonable thing to do.

The fault lies not in the logic of what to do with witches, but that there are any such things.


In other words, if witches are real, then killing them is the correct thing to do. However, since we have discovered that "witches" (with supernatural powers to hurt others) do not in fact exist, we realize that a lot of people were killed because people didn't know this at the time.


The killing of witches, et al, never amounted to a large portion of the overall population. When balanced against the good that was done, society came out far ahead. Modern notions of justice find this idea appalling, however the facts speak for themselves.

[MSimon]

Well, first of all, it didn't get censored, and Secondly, it's not speech or an idea, so the concept of censorship doesn't even apply.

I guess words on paper are not speech. They could have been speech. They may yet be speech. They could even now be speech. But marks on paper? Obviously a visual representation. And Chinese ideographs are just pictures. And use pictures to express ideas? I dunno. It doesn't seem possible.

Are you nuts?

BTW I happened to see at least part of the Maplethorpe exhibit. I liked his style. Not all of his work appealed to me.

I must say if the government is going to waste money on art they could have and usually do a lot worse than Maplethorpe. The usual is to prefer talentless hacks. Less chance of losing the funding.

[IntLibber]

They are taught to love their fellow man, and in their own minds the most loving thing they can do is secure their fellow man's place in heaven for eternity.

Actually every religion and ideology has the as its biggest goal to "spread the happy news". You know to "go tell it to the mountains" (I wished they did and left me allone). So that is just a problem with religion in general.

for reasons of convenience. (99% of all abortions.)

Citation please.

http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archi ... 35350.aspx

http://open.salon.com/blog/kc_mo/2008/0 ... _of_choice

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Given a majority of the US believes abortion should only be permitted in instances of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, this clearly demonstrates that 93-99% of current day abortions would be illegal if it were left up to a popular vote, because they are nothing more than lifestyle choices.

The primary benefit of allowing convenience abortions is that it reduces the incident of false reporting of rape in order to obtain an abortion.

[MSimon]

The primary benefit of allowing convenience abortions is that it reduces the incident of false reporting of rape in order to obtain an abortion.

One other thing it does is that it keeps government out of reproductive choices.

The other thing it does is prevent the formation of a black market.

And 95% compliance is not enough if you want to live in a limited government Republic. Mexico (and soon America) is being overrun with violent criminals based on only 5% non-compliance.

Americans are ungovernable simply because they will not obey laws they don't believe in. My kind of people.

For the sake of the rule of law such laws ought not be passed. And when passed they should be quickly repealed. If respect for law is worth anything.

I don't know where the stupid idea of passing laws to fix things caught on. I think the idea was spawned with the progressives. There seems to be a lot of them about these days. In both parties. Social engineers. Very smart people. Too smart by half.

Let me quote a bit from this essay.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/whiteb1.htm

One day -- when's it gonna happen, ten years, fifteen? -- some legislator will get up and, just as though it had never been said before, "You know we gotta solve this smoking problem and I got a solution -- a criminal prohibition against the manufacture, sale, or possession of tobacco cigarettes." And then you know what happens. Then everybody who did want a cigarette here today, if there is anyone here who smokes, you are going to have to hide in the bathroom. And cigarettes are no longer going to be three dollars a pack, they are going to be three dollars a piece. And who's going to sell them to you? Who will always sell them to you? The people who will sell you anything -- organized crime. You got the concept, we will go through the whole darn thing again because I am telling you this country is hooked on the notion of prohibition.

Let me conclude, and again this is my prediction -- I will tell you I don't think it is subject to opinion. Just look at it. Just take a look at what has happened now and what will happen. I will tell you how inexorable it is. If we get together here in the year 2005, I will bet you that it is as likely as not that the possession of marijuana may not be criminal in this state. But the manufacture, sale, and possession of tobacco will be, and why? Because we love this idea of prohibitions, we can't live without them. They are our very favorite thing because we know how to solve difficult, social, economic, and medical problems -- a new criminal law with harsher penalties in every category for everybody.

[IntLibber]

I don't know where the stupid idea of passing laws to fix things caught on.

It caught on in ancient Babylon. It's called the Code of Hammurabi.

Then some Bedouin by the name of Moses hallucinated about a burning bush (must have been some good argot-based LSD in his rice) and he got the funny idea that the big man upstairs having rules to fix things might make men more obedient, if it hinged on whether you got to enjoy paradise after you died.

True progressives are about "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

Neo-moralist progressives are merely deluded atheists who are closeted cheated chiliasts that project the same religious cultism onto their new gaiaist-collectivist religion.
It's really a revival of the old Asherah wife-of-El goddess religion that was suppressed out of the pre-Torah protoisrealite culture, complete with the Maypole (i.e. Asherah Tree) dance on Mayday (now become Earth Day).

[MSimon]

I don't know where the stupid idea of passing laws to fix things caught on.

It caught on in ancient Babylon. It's called the Code of Hammurabi.

Then some Bedouin by the name of Moses hallucinated about a burning bush (must have been some good argot-based LSD in his rice) and he got the funny idea that the big man upstairs having rules to fix things might make men more obedient, if it hinged on whether you got to enjoy paradise after you died.

True progressives are about "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

Neo-moralist progressives are merely deluded atheists who are closeted cheated chiliasts that project the same religious cultism onto their new gaiaist-collectivist religion.
It's really a revival of the old Asherah wife-of-El goddess religion that was suppressed out of the pre-Torah protoisrealite culture, complete with the Maypole (i.e. Asherah Tree) dance on Mayday (now become Earth Day).

Laws only work where 99+% have no beef with the law.

I have been an adherent to the Law of Thelema for a very long time. I'd hardly consider myself a progressive.

Another name for progressive (when they were more unified esp.) is statist.

Now imagine depending on the Post Office or the DMV for moral uplift.

Liberty is generally recognized as a bad thing and rightly so. The only thing worse is the kind of government required to eliminate its bad effects.

[Skipjack]

As George Will pointed out, if you believe that Witches are the servants of Satan, and they will do something evil to you if they are tolerated, then killing them is indeed a reasonable thing to do.

Well believing in the supernatural and satan is a thing christians do. It comes with the believe system (any believe system actually).
So they automatically accept the existance of witches, which means they are all for burning them at the stake.

[JLawson]

Well believing in the supernatural and satan is a thing christians do. It comes with the believe system (any believe system actually).
So they automatically accept the existance of witches, which means they are all for burning them at the stake.

Shouldn't that be more 'past tense' on the belief in witches and witchcraft? Haven't seen much lately on that.

[Betruger]

All this petty bickering reminds me of human behavior when there is no fundamental crisis, no peril at the bottom end of Maslow's pyramid, so that people are milling around aimlessly in made-up conflicts over trivial matters. What the USA seems to need is something to polarize it; to polarize the whole of the USA together, not more self-perpetuating partisan nonsense.