I kept saying this and the Libs, here, denied it.

[2minkey]

Being a Christian nation and declaring to be a Christian nation are two different things.

By the way, Obama declared the U.S. "no longer a Christian nation". But by doing so, he admits we once were a Christian nation.

who cares what obama declared? this "admission" is nothing of the sort. he's talking about populations of various religious groups.

that has nothing to do with the ideas behind the founding of our nation, and if you don't understand what was novel about the founding of the US, vs. something that happened to be there and was not new at all, well, carry on, christian soldier.

i suppose the british empire was a christian one, right? really had nothing to do with new ideas about markets, economics, and the maxim gun. oh, and right, they happened to be christian.

it's really not that hard to separate the real signal from the ambient noise. well, unless you've stopped learning.

 

[spike]

Being a Christian nation and declaring to be a Christian nation are two different things.

You can't seem to come up with any real differences for what you're arguing for. I guess what you're saying is it makes no difference one way or the other so it doesn't matter in the least if people want to consider us a christian nation or not.

 

[2minkey]

how about adam smith? do any of us think his ideas are important to 'merica?

Adam Smith (baptised 16 June 1723 – died 17 July 1790 [OS: 5 June 1723 – 17 July 1790]) was a Scottish moral philosopher and a pioneer of political economics. One of the key figures of the Scottish Enlightenment, Smith is the author of The Theory of Moral Sentiments and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. The latter, usually abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations, is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work of economics. Smith is widely cited as the father of modern economics.

 

[2minkey]

hmmmm.... what's this?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Fucking great man! Another liberal Wiki-education.

Locke held the belief of Agnosticism (God can't be proven) and felt that no specific christian belief system could be held above another. He understood the political ramification that would result from a 'battle of faiths' and firmly believed that there should be no religion to rule from a pulpit of government. that doesn't change his belief that the influence from the many faiths must guide a nations value system.

Economic philosophy doesn't translate well into the philosophy of human nature. Econ guys are always trying to gain the edge by understanding the latter. Problem is that the nature of the two philosophy's conflict in the manner of thought processing. mechanical vs moral (Frank Loyd Wright vs Pablo Picasso)

 

[2minkey]

Fucking great man! Another liberal Wiki-education.

do you want a formal bibliography? right, i thought not.

can you decribe in detail how those wiki articles are wrong? they are generally consistent with what i've read in books and scholarly journals.

Locke held the belief of Agnosticism (God can't be proven) and felt that no specific christian belief system could be held above another. He understood the political ramification that would result from a 'battle of faiths' and firmly believed that there should be no religion to rule from a pulpit of government. that doesn't change his belief that the influence from the many faiths must guide a nations value system.

that's nice. i'm sure he had a lot of personal beliefs. he may have liked dogs, too. so, then, the declaration of independence is about dogs, right?

Economic philosophy doesn't translate well into the philosophy of human nature. Econ guys are always trying to gain the edge by understanding the latter. Problem is that the nature of the two philosophy's conflict in the manner of thought processing. mechanical vs moral (Frank Loyd Wright vs Pablo Picasso)

um, right. so what specific mistakes are econ guys making when they speculate about human nature? they're too stiff? stiffer than the rationalist tradition? please, do tell.

...and if you don't see the morality in frank lloyd wright or the mechanical in picasso (fucking cubism rooted in early 20th century modernity for chrissakes...)... well, yeah...

 

[ResearchMonkey]

LOL, Wiki, the liberals bible.

Furthermore, although Locke stops short of claiming that the existence of the Judaeo-Christian God is demonstrable, Book II is also a systematic argument for the existence of an intelligent being: "Thus, from the consideration of ourselves, and what we infallibly find in our own constitutions, our reason leads us to the knowledge of this certain and evident truth, that there is an eternal, most powerful, and most knowing being; which whether any one will please to call God, it matters not." Locke argues in the book that it is irrational to conclude otherwise.


Wiki-Wiki-Wiki

Really Minx, you have look beyond the simpler text on the page (Pablo Picasso).

Again, Locke didn't believe that any specific religion should be endorsed by state. Yet he believed that all human enlightenment comes from reflecting on life experiences against the JudeoChristian family of values/teachings (in his case). -- why do suppose that there are so many parables in the bible? (Pablo Picasso)

BTW, my hammock experience seems to have went better than your drinking, although i too am still recovering from my long naps.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

You know that's it only been during the last ~50 years that the SCOTUS has been declining the JudeoChristian values being system displayed by public entity's', right?

Prior to that the SCOTUS embraced the judeoChristian values being a part of our national identity.

Why do you suppose that the Bible was the mainstay used for swearing-in officers of the gov't? -- I wonder how much longer that will be tolerated?

 

[2minkey]

yes, the liberal's bible. so of course you don;t want that bibliography. or to answer the relevant questions. you'll just keep on blathering about how locke was a christian.

-end-

 

[ResearchMonkey]

i'm not surprised you miss the context, it goes against everything you desire. as you stated earlier; your desire to support your beliefs is blinding you. Common misgiving among those who believe they are teh smarterests evah'est.

If you applied your heretic ways of thinking in his day, you would be burned at the stake.

Enjoy your metrosexual moral compass.

 

[valkyrie]

Being a Christian nation and declaring to be a Christian nation are two different things.

By the way, Obama declared the U.S. "no longer a Christian nation". But by doing so, he admits we once were a Christian nation.

I found your statement very interesting in that you are holding Prez. B. Obama as the expert on this subject.

 

[valkyrie]

i'm not surprised you miss the context, it goes against everything you desire. as you stated earlier; your desire to support your beliefs is blinding you. Common misgiving among those who believe they are teh smarterests evah'est.

If you applied your heretic ways of thinking in his day, you would be burned at the stake.

Enjoy your metrosexual moral compass.

LOL! Jesus was a liberal.

 

[2minkey]

i'm not surprised you miss the context, it goes against everything you desire. as you stated earlier; your desire to support your beliefs is blinding you. Common misgiving among those who believe they are teh smarterests evah'est.

If you applied your heretic ways of thinking in his day, you would be burned at the stake.

Enjoy your metrosexual moral compass.

you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. part of the whole idea of that age was NOT BURNING PEOPLE AT THE STAKE for having different ideas. in fact locke's own words reflect the idea of tolerance of different views, religions, etc.

seriously, maybe stick to what you're good at. like just go make some more babies or something.

 

[valkyrie]

you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. part of the whole idea of that age was NOT BURNING PEOPLE AT THE STAKE for having different ideas. in fact locke's own words reflect the idea of tolerance of different views, religions, etc.

seriously, maybe stick to what you're good at. like just go make some more babies or something.

Meh... let him have his fantasies. He's obviously mixed up The Spanish Inquisition with the founding of this country. It's OK, his fit will end soon and he'll not know where he's at for a while but he'll be OK with proper medication.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. part of the whole idea of that age was NOT BURNING PEOPLE AT THE STAKE for having different ideas. in fact locke's own words reflect the idea of tolerance of different views, religions, etc.

seriously, maybe stick to what you're good at. like just go make some more babies or something.

I'll give you the stake bit, it was kind of a joke Mr Wright.

So shallow there minx, you don't have a very good grasp as to who the writer was and when. Locke was very careful about the words he wrote in his day. He's making an argument for separation of church and state in a world where that was the status quo..

I'll agree that I'm far more qualified to raise children than you or Spike and his genetically defective. Enjoy your self-indulgent lonely world, I'll stick to creating the future and enjoy the glorious benefits of having a loving family.

sincerely, Pablo

inB4conservativeincestjokes

 

[spike]

You know that's it only been during the last ~50 years that the SCOTUS has been declining the JudeoChristian values being system displayed by public entity's', right?

Yes, people are getting smarter about allowing not allowing public entities any stuff from any religion. That doesn't do much to prove your point.

Prior to that the SCOTUS embraced the judeoChristian values being a part of our national identity.

Enlightenment values.

Why do you suppose that the Bible was the mainstay used for swearing-in officers of the gov't? -- I wonder how much longer that will be tolerated?

People have been allowed to use religious or non-religious texts to swear in. A lot of christians chose the bible.

 

[spike]

i'm not surprised you miss the context, it goes against everything you desire. as you stated earlier; your desire to support your beliefs is blinding you.

That seems to describe what you're doing.

I'll agree that I'm far more qualified to raise children than you or Spike and his genetically defective.

You appear to be the least qualified.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Funny, my kids are fantastic and genetically well put together.

How's your family coming along, any extra arms or legs?

 

[spike]

Funny, my kids are fantastic and genetically well put together.

Right, didn't you say something about being a little worried that your wife's inferior non-Northern European genes would make them not "normal". Are you sure non of that crept in?

How's your family coming along, any extra arms or legs?

Everyone in my family is great. Thanks for asking.

 

[2minkey]

So shallow there minx, you don't have a very good grasp as to who the writer was and when. Locke was very careful about the words he wrote in his day. He's making an argument for separation of church and state in a world where that was the status quo..

i'm amazed at how you are calling me shallow when you're the one who refuses to understand locke's ideas in the larger context of the enlightenment. you do realize that locke became what is essentially a unitarian (the people that don't actually believe in anything), right?

why would such a devoted christian as locke want to separate church and state. i mean, golly, lots of devoted christians in the US want to go the other way! what's the difference. oh, right, locke's not a superstitious fucking moron. you know, the kind of superstitious moron that gathered around to burn the heretics in the century before locke was born? you know, the kind of superstitious nonsense from the middle ages that the enlightenment offered up reason in place of? oh right, it was his calling as a christian!!! jebus to the maxxxx!!!


but, then, this isn't a serious discussion, since you're just throwing out random garbage at this point.