Discussion:
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
(too old to reply)
Mattb.
2017-06-11 02:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/09/bernie-sanders-testing-boundaries-religious-test.html

Muslim groups, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, have
sided with Sanders. But critics have held up Article VI of the United
States Constitution which says there should be no religious test to
hold political office. And they accused Sanders of doing just that.


Does this man know how many people have been murdered just for not
being Muslim in the last year by Muslims. Guess Bernie needs to suck
up to the terrorist?

Maybe if Bernie has his way only atheist will be allowed in government
or maybe vote?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Jeanne Douglas
2017-06-11 09:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really really serious.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
2017-06-11 10:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really
really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
http://www.atheistgoddess.com/
"You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."
-- George Bush Jr. (February 21, 2001)
Mattb.
2017-06-11 12:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really
really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
2017-06-11 18:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
...and if Bernie Sanders hadn't run in the recent USA election, then
the Democrats would likely be running the USA right now and still be
committed to protecting the environment without a President who seems
to enjoy bragging about grabbing parts of certain human female anatomy.

I'm not blaming Bernie for the loss, but his timing was problematic
because after there was no way he could have beat Hillary Clinton he
didn't stop campaigning, and I suspect that did a disservice to the
Democratic Party because it continued to divide their supporters.

Even though, in the end, the Democrats won the popular vote, there
were a number of people who abstained from voting or voted for the
Republican Party instead because they were angry that Bernie Sanders
did not beat Hillary Clinton. Add Gerrymandering to that toxic
mixture of events, and it becomes clear that the Republican Party's
choice to promote a famous person - bigoted and dumb as he obviously
is - to the most important political position in the USA, and it
becomes obvious that the Republican Party was more interested in
winning at any cost than they are about the state of the nation.

The complete and utter lack of tact and class, and diplomacy, and
thoughtfulness in the President of the USA is an international
disgrace that has very likely irreparably stained the white house
with a disgusting hue that makes the dilapidated outhouse seem high
class, comparatively.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
http://www.atheistgoddess.com/
"If people are determined to be offended, if they will climb up on the ladder, balancing precariously on their own toilet system, to be upset by what they see through the neighbour's bathroom window, there's nothing you can do about that."
-- Christopher Hitchens
Don Martin
2017-06-11 20:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:13:38 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
...and if Bernie Sanders hadn't run in the recent USA election, then
the Democrats would likely be running the USA right now and still be
committed to protecting the environment without a President who seems
to enjoy bragging about grabbing parts of certain human female anatomy.
Bill Maher pointed out recently, "If you saw a pussy about to fall off
a cliff, it ought to be OK to grab it without worrying about PC," and
I have personally found that, with the owner's participation, pussies
do not mind at all a bit of grabbing, but Our President seems to have
had neither pussy endangerment nor lady willingness in mind with his
exploits in this area.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
I'm not blaming Bernie for the loss, but his timing was problematic
because after there was no way he could have beat Hillary Clinton he
didn't stop campaigning, and I suspect that did a disservice to the
Democratic Party because it continued to divide their supporters.
He played the same role as that pompous asshole, Ralph Nader, did
against Al Gore to give us George W. Bush. In time, Sanders may come
to realize why he ought to be ashamed of what he has done for his
country.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Even though, in the end, the Democrats won the popular vote, there
were a number of people who abstained from voting or voted for the
Republican Party instead because they were angry that Bernie Sanders
did not beat Hillary Clinton. Add Gerrymandering to that toxic
mixture of events, and it becomes clear that the Republican Party's
choice to promote a famous person - bigoted and dumb as he obviously
is - to the most important political position in the USA, and it
becomes obvious that the Republican Party was more interested in
winning at any cost than they are about the state of the nation.
The complete and utter lack of tact and class, and diplomacy, and
thoughtfulness in the President of the USA is an international
disgrace that has very likely irreparably stained the white house
with a disgusting hue that makes the dilapidated outhouse seem high
class, comparatively.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Kevrob
2017-06-11 22:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
He played the same role as that pompous asshole, Ralph Nader, did
against Al Gore to give us George W. Bush. In time, Sanders may come
to realize why he ought to be ashamed of what he has done for his
country.
Sanders didn't go 3rd party, like /N/a/d/i/r/ Nader did.
He was more like Ted Kennedy in 1980 v Carter, except he
didn't run against an incumbent, just the "anointed one"
of the party apparatchiks.

Kevin R
Mattb.
2017-06-11 12:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really
really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
Kevrob
2017-06-11 14:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam doesn't
matter. What policies the nominee would seek to implement does.

The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public policy
is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to making his
religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.

Kevin R
Mattb.
2017-06-11 19:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam doesn't
matter. What policies the nominee would seek to implement does.
The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public policy
is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to making his
religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in government.
We have History to show us that doesn't work.
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
2017-06-11 19:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam doesn't
matter. What policies the nominee would seek to implement does.
The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public policy
is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to making his
religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in government.
How can a government be both? In the absence of religion, atheism is
what remains.

Official definition of "atheism": http://www.define-atheism.com/
Post by Mattb.
We have History to show us that doesn't work.
Islamic Sharia Law and the Nazi Party both serve as historic examples
of religion not working in the best interests of populations in
government and also in society in general.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
http://www.atheistgoddess.com/
"Christianity and any god concept based belief need to back off our kids, our schools, our bodies, and our government, etc. This is a violation of our human rights and must stop."
-- Kathy Massey (July 22, 2013)
Mattb.
2017-06-11 20:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:48:31 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam doesn't
matter. What policies the nominee would seek to implement does.
The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public policy
is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to making his
religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in government.
How can a government be both? In the absence of religion, atheism is
what remains.
Yes and we saw the result in Stalin and Lenin millions dead. No I
want government religion natural. Look how some atheist reply on A.A.
to see my point.

Only agnostics maybe? ;-)))
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Official definition of "atheism": http://www.define-atheism.com/
Post by Mattb.
We have History to show us that doesn't work.
Islamic Sharia Law and the Nazi Party both serve as historic examples
of religion not working in the best interests of populations in
government and also in society in general.
Nazi? After Berkeley riots I think liberal socialism might be such a
religion.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
2017-06-12 00:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:48:31 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really
really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam doesn't
matter. What policies the nominee would seek to implement does.
The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public policy
is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to making his
religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in government.
How can a government be both? In the absence of religion, atheism is
what remains.
Yes and we saw the result in Stalin and Lenin millions dead. No I
want government religion natural. Look how some atheist reply on A.A.
to see my point.
They were not informed by atheism, because atheism has no doctrine. So,
if you want to make the claim that atheism promotes the killing of large
numbers of people based on any criteria, you will first have to produce
evidence in the form of a doctrine of atheism (much like how religions
have their doctrines, many of which do advocate for the killing of
infidels -- for example, Islam and Christianity both present edicts to
kill infidels, and I can easily cite the sections if you need them).
Post by Mattb.
Only agnostics maybe? ;-)))
Categorically, every agnostic qualifies as an atheist for the simple
reason that they don't believe that any deities exist (on account of
not having the necessary knowledge to justify said belief).
Post by Mattb.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Official definition of "atheism": http://www.define-atheism.com/
Post by Mattb.
We have History to show us that doesn't work.
Islamic Sharia Law and the Nazi Party both serve as historic examples
of religion not working in the best interests of populations in
government and also in society in general.
Nazi?
Yes, the Nazi Party, and particularly its most important leader - Adolf
Hitler - had the blessings of the Catholic Church (who even sent Catholic
Clergy to deliver a birthday greeting to Adolf Hitler each year).
Post by Mattb.
After Berkeley riots I think liberal socialism might be such a religion.
If "liberal socialism" happens to have an atheistic characteristic (or
even an anti-theist one), then so be it, but it doesn't change the fact
that atheism is merely the classification of "absence of belief in
deities."

Of course, I noticed that you don't seem to be disagreeing with what I
stated earlier about atheism, which leaves me with the sole option of
accepting your response as an indication that you have no objections to
the official definition: http://www.define-atheism.com/
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
http://www.atheistgoddess.com/
"The true history of the world is a history of conversations in elegant rooms."
-- Tyrion Lannister (Game of Thrones, Season 6, Episode 3)
Kevrob
2017-06-12 01:20:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:48:31 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really
really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam doesn't
matter. What policies the nominee would seek to implement does.
The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public policy
is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to making his
religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in government.
How can a government be both? In the absence of religion, atheism is
what remains.
Yes and we saw the result in Stalin and Lenin millions dead. No I
want government religion natural. Look how some atheist reply on A.A.
to see my point.
They were not informed by atheism, because atheism has no doctrine.
Marxist-Leninist Communism did, though. The "scientific" doctrine
of dialectical materialism is barely distinguishable from religious
doctrines of fate, with about as much basis in actual science.
M-L state socialism, complete with its official campaign against
religion, was a pseudo-religion, itself. The "saints" of the
movement were treated as ghod-kings, complete with a "cult of
personality." To the extent that the Nazis wanted to replace
Christianity, or rewrite it, with their Fuhrer-cult and racial
doctrines, they exhibited the same tendencies.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
So,
if you want to make the claim that atheism promotes the killing of large
numbers of people based on any criteria, you will first have to produce
evidence in the form of a doctrine of atheism (much like how religions
have their doctrines, many of which do advocate for the killing of
infidels -- for example, Islam and Christianity both present edicts to
kill infidels, and I can easily cite the sections if you need them).
Atheism qua atheism doesn't do that. Political ideologies that
just happen to adopt atheism can. Other atheist would have no
part of it. Then again, some Christians promoted unity of church
and state, while others eschewed political power, or were strict
separations. Medieval Catholics v the Amish, for example.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Only agnostics maybe? ;-)))
Categorically, every agnostic qualifies as an atheist for the simple
reason that they don't believe that any deities exist (on account of
not having the necessary knowledge to justify said belief).
Post by Mattb.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Official definition of "atheism": http://www.define-atheism.com/
Post by Mattb.
We have History to show us that doesn't work.
Islamic Sharia Law and the Nazi Party both serve as historic examples
of religion not working in the best interests of populations in
government and also in society in general.
Nazi?
Yes, the Nazi Party, and particularly its most important leader - Adolf
Hitler - had the blessings of the Catholic Church (who even sent Catholic
Clergy to deliver a birthday greeting to Adolf Hitler each year).
Eventually, the pope figured out he and his cardinals had backed the
wrong horse, too damned late.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
After Berkeley riots I think liberal socialism might be such a religion.
Not every secular ideology nor philosophical system is a pseudo-
religion.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
If "liberal socialism" happens to have an atheistic characteristic (or
even an anti-theist one), then so be it, but it doesn't change the fact
that atheism is merely the classification of "absence of belief in
deities."
Of course, I noticed that you don't seem to be disagreeing with what I
stated earlier about atheism, which leaves me with the sole option of
accepting your response as an indication that you have no objections to
the official definition: http://www.define-atheism.com/
Kevin R
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
2017-06-12 04:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:48:31 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really
really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam doesn't
matter. What policies the nominee would seek to implement does.
The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public policy
is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to making his
religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in government.
How can a government be both? In the absence of religion, atheism is
what remains.
Yes and we saw the result in Stalin and Lenin millions dead. No I
want government religion natural. Look how some atheist reply on A.A.
to see my point.
They were not informed by atheism, because atheism has no doctrine.
Marxist-Leninist Communism did, though.
The doctrine of Marxist-Leninist Communism is unique to the political
ideology called "Marxist-Leninist Communism." Again, atheism is without
a doctrine (probably in part because it is merely a classification, and
perhaps also because it is not an ideology, etc.).
Post by Kevrob
The "scientific" doctrine
of dialectical materialism is barely distinguishable from religious
doctrines of fate, with about as much basis in actual science.
Okay. How is atheism connected to science? (In real life I've met some
highly superstitious atheists who are not educated in science, and who
don't seem to have any interest in science. They don't believe in any
deities, but they do believe in things like karma, reincarnation, mental
telepathy, telekinesis, astrology, Chinese Feng Shui, luck, etc.)
Post by Kevrob
M-L state socialism, complete with its official campaign against
religion, was a pseudo-religion, itself. The "saints" of the
movement were treated as ghod-kings, complete with a "cult of
personality." To the extent that the Nazis wanted to replace
Christianity, or rewrite it, with their Fuhrer-cult and racial
doctrines, they exhibited the same tendencies.
So, they were anti-theistic. It's important to note that atheism is
without bias for or against religion, for it is without a position on
religion (or anything else).
Post by Kevrob
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
So,
if you want to make the claim that atheism promotes the killing of large
numbers of people based on any criteria, you will first have to produce
evidence in the form of a doctrine of atheism (much like how religions
have their doctrines, many of which do advocate for the killing of
infidels -- for example, Islam and Christianity both present edicts to
kill infidels, and I can easily cite the sections if you need them).
Atheism qua atheism doesn't do that. Political ideologies that
just happen to adopt atheism can.
I agree.
Post by Kevrob
Other atheist would have no
part of it.
I believe that depends on each individual atheist, so I don't know
whether other atheists would partake in it.
Post by Kevrob
Then again, some Christians promoted unity of church
and state, while others eschewed political power, or were strict
separations. Medieval Catholics v the Amish, for example.
That's an interesting thing about ideologies -- individuals oft adhere
to them selectively (and as an advocate for freedom, I support that).
Post by Kevrob
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Only agnostics maybe? ;-)))
Categorically, every agnostic qualifies as an atheist for the simple
reason that they don't believe that any deities exist (on account of
not having the necessary knowledge to justify said belief).
Post by Mattb.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Official definition of "atheism": http://www.define-atheism.com/
Post by Mattb.
We have History to show us that doesn't work.
Islamic Sharia Law and the Nazi Party both serve as historic examples
of religion not working in the best interests of populations in
government and also in society in general.
Nazi?
Yes, the Nazi Party, and particularly its most important leader - Adolf
Hitler - had the blessings of the Catholic Church (who even sent Catholic
Clergy to deliver a birthday greeting to Adolf Hitler each year).
Eventually, the pope figured out he and his cardinals had backed the
wrong horse, too damned late.
I don't buy that. I suspect that The Pope likely recognized the Nazis as
having a common enemy with them in the Jews (although for the Catholic
Church, Judaism was probably regarded more accurately as "the competition")
and was probably delighted that Adolf Hitler was effectively "doing all the
dirty work" so that they could maintain a much cleaner image.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
After Berkeley riots I think liberal socialism might be such a religion.
Not every secular ideology nor philosophical system is a pseudo-
religion.
I agree.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
If "liberal socialism" happens to have an atheistic characteristic (or
even an anti-theist one), then so be it, but it doesn't change the fact
that atheism is merely the classification of "absence of belief in
deities."
Of course, I noticed that you don't seem to be disagreeing with what I
stated earlier about atheism, which leaves me with the sole option of
accepting your response as an indication that you have no objections to
the official definition: http://www.define-atheism.com/
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
http://www.atheistgoddess.com/
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
-- Adolf Hitler
Mattb.
2017-06-12 07:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:48:31 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really
really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam doesn't
matter. What policies the nominee would seek to implement does.
The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public policy
is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to making his
religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in government.
How can a government be both? In the absence of religion, atheism is
what remains.
Yes and we saw the result in Stalin and Lenin millions dead. No I
want government religion natural. Look how some atheist reply on A.A.
to see my point.
They were not informed by atheism, because atheism has no doctrine.
Marxist-Leninist Communism did, though. The "scientific" doctrine
of dialectical materialism is barely distinguishable from religious
doctrines of fate, with about as much basis in actual science.
M-L state socialism, complete with its official campaign against
religion, was a pseudo-religion, itself. The "saints" of the
movement were treated as ghod-kings, complete with a "cult of
personality." To the extent that the Nazis wanted to replace
Christianity, or rewrite it, with their Fuhrer-cult and racial
doctrines, they exhibited the same tendencies.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
So,
if you want to make the claim that atheism promotes the killing of large
numbers of people based on any criteria, you will first have to produce
evidence in the form of a doctrine of atheism (much like how religions
have their doctrines, many of which do advocate for the killing of
infidels -- for example, Islam and Christianity both present edicts to
kill infidels, and I can easily cite the sections if you need them).
Atheism qua atheism doesn't do that. Political ideologies that
just happen to adopt atheism can. Other atheist would have no
part of it. Then again, some Christians promoted unity of church
and state, while others eschewed political power, or were strict
separations. Medieval Catholics v the Amish, for example.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Only agnostics maybe? ;-)))
Categorically, every agnostic qualifies as an atheist for the simple
reason that they don't believe that any deities exist (on account of
not having the necessary knowledge to justify said belief).
Post by Mattb.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Official definition of "atheism": http://www.define-atheism.com/
Post by Mattb.
We have History to show us that doesn't work.
Islamic Sharia Law and the Nazi Party both serve as historic examples
of religion not working in the best interests of populations in
government and also in society in general.
Nazi?
Yes, the Nazi Party, and particularly its most important leader - Adolf
Hitler - had the blessings of the Catholic Church (who even sent Catholic
Clergy to deliver a birthday greeting to Adolf Hitler each year).
Eventually, the pope figured out he and his cardinals had backed the
wrong horse, too damned late.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
After Berkeley riots I think liberal socialism might be such a religion.
Not every secular ideology nor philosophical system is a pseudo-
religion.
Very true. To me the level of force or intimidation or maybe just
emotion one applies to it is the difference.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
If "liberal socialism" happens to have an atheistic characteristic (or
even an anti-theist one), then so be it, but it doesn't change the fact
that atheism is merely the classification of "absence of belief in
deities."
Of course, I noticed that you don't seem to be disagreeing with what I
stated earlier about atheism, which leaves me with the sole option of
accepting your response as an indication that you have no objections to
the official definition: http://www.define-atheism.com/
Kevin R
ernobe
2017-06-16 16:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
They were not informed by atheism, because atheism has no doctrine.
Marxist-Leninist Communism did, though. The "scientific" doctrine
of dialectical materialism is barely distinguishable from religious
doctrines of fate, with about as much basis in actual science.
M-L state socialism, complete with its official campaign against
religion, was a pseudo-religion, itself. The "saints" of the
movement were treated as ghod-kings, complete with a "cult of
personality." To the extent that the Nazis wanted to replace
Christianity, or rewrite it, with their Fuhrer-cult and racial
doctrines, they exhibited the same tendencies.
Thankfully, the internet community has no doctrine, because there are no
material assets to administer. Yet, if you ask atheists in alt.atheism
what they want to replace Christianity, and you will get no rational
response. They get too much of a kick out of Bible bashing to want
anything that makes it unnecessary for their emotional survival.
--
https://archive.org/services/purl/bahai
Olrik
2017-06-17 05:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ernobe
Post by Kevrob
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
They were not informed by atheism, because atheism has no doctrine.
Marxist-Leninist Communism did, though. The "scientific" doctrine
of dialectical materialism is barely distinguishable from religious
doctrines of fate, with about as much basis in actual science.
M-L state socialism, complete with its official campaign against
religion, was a pseudo-religion, itself. The "saints" of the
movement were treated as ghod-kings, complete with a "cult of
personality." To the extent that the Nazis wanted to replace
Christianity, or rewrite it, with their Fuhrer-cult and racial
doctrines, they exhibited the same tendencies.
Thankfully, the internet community has no doctrine, because there are no
material assets to administer. Yet, if you ask atheists in alt.atheism
what they want to replace Christianity, and you will get no rational
response.
The modern, western world replaced "christianity" (any versions...) with
secular institutions. Rational laws replaced horrendous dictates from
old deviant books transmitted by ignorant goat fuckers.
Post by ernobe
They get too much of a kick out of Bible bashing
You have to admit that bible bashing is nice, fun, instructive and,
frankly, a necessity.
Post by ernobe
to want anything that makes it unnecessary for their emotional survival.
Ditching the bible/torah/koran is the first step towards a moral,
ethical and human way of life. Try it!
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Christopher A. Lee
2017-06-17 05:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Olrik
Post by ernobe
Post by Kevrob
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
They were not informed by atheism, because atheism has no doctrine.
Marxist-Leninist Communism did, though. The "scientific" doctrine
of dialectical materialism is barely distinguishable from religious
doctrines of fate, with about as much basis in actual science.
M-L state socialism, complete with its official campaign against
religion, was a pseudo-religion, itself. The "saints" of the
movement were treated as ghod-kings, complete with a "cult of
personality." To the extent that the Nazis wanted to replace
Christianity, or rewrite it, with their Fuhrer-cult and racial
doctrines, they exhibited the same tendencies.
The usual paranoid Christian lie.
Post by Olrik
Post by ernobe
Thankfully, the internet community has no doctrine, because there are no
material assets to administer. Yet, if you ask atheists in alt.atheism
what they want to replace Christianity, and you will get no rational
response.
The modern, western world replaced "christianity" (any versions...) with
secular institutions. Rational laws replaced horrendous dictates from
old deviant books transmitted by ignorant goat fuckers.
Post by ernobe
They get too much of a kick out of Bible bashing
The usual paranoid Christian lie when they reap what they sow.
Post by Olrik
You have to admit that bible bashing is nice, fun, instructive and,
frankly, a necessity.
And it wouldn't even happen if Christians had the commonsense and
courtesy to keep their beliefs inside their religion and their
religion where itbeongs.
Post by Olrik
Post by ernobe
to want anything that makes it unnecessary for their emotional survival.
Ditching the bible/torah/koran is the first step towards a moral,
ethical and human way of life. Try it!
Kevrob
2017-06-17 08:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Olrik
Post by ernobe
Post by Kevrob
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
They were not informed by atheism, because atheism has no doctrine.
Marxist-Leninist Communism did, though. The "scientific" doctrine
of dialectical materialism is barely distinguishable from religious
doctrines of fate, with about as much basis in actual science.
M-L state socialism, complete with its official campaign against
religion, was a pseudo-religion, itself. The "saints" of the
movement were treated as ghod-kings, complete with a "cult of
personality." To the extent that the Nazis wanted to replace
Christianity, or rewrite it, with their Fuhrer-cult and racial
doctrines, they exhibited the same tendencies.
The usual paranoid Christian lie.
Huh!!!!!!!??????????

I'm an ex-Catholic, atheist, libertarian. watch who you are calling
a Christian. Not every atheist is a sucker for Marxism, or other
systems of state socialism. And, from a sociological standpoint,
in doctrinaire Communist states, The Party took on the functions that
The Church had performed in Western countries for centuries. It even
had its own Inquisition.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Olrik
Post by ernobe
Thankfully, the internet community has no doctrine, because there are no
material assets to administer. Yet, if you ask atheists in alt.atheism
what they want to replace Christianity, and you will get no rational
response.
The modern, western world replaced "christianity" (any versions...) with
secular institutions. Rational laws replaced horrendous dictates from
old deviant books transmitted by ignorant goat fuckers.
Post by ernobe
They get too much of a kick out of Bible bashing
The usual paranoid Christian lie when they reap what they sow.
Post by Olrik
You have to admit that bible bashing is nice, fun, instructive and,
frankly, a necessity.
And it wouldn't even happen if Christians had the commonsense and
courtesy to keep their beliefs inside their religion and their
religion where itbeongs.
Post by Olrik
Post by ernobe
to want anything that makes it unnecessary for their emotional survival.
Ditching the bible/torah/koran is the first step towards a moral,
ethical and human way of life. Try it!
I agree with that last, though you and I might disagree about
subsequent steps.

Kevin R
Kevrob
2017-06-17 07:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ernobe
Post by Kevrob
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
They were not informed by atheism, because atheism has no doctrine.
Marxist-Leninist Communism did, though. The "scientific" doctrine
of dialectical materialism is barely distinguishable from religious
doctrines of fate, with about as much basis in actual science.
M-L state socialism, complete with its official campaign against
religion, was a pseudo-religion, itself. The "saints" of the
movement were treated as ghod-kings, complete with a "cult of
personality." To the extent that the Nazis wanted to replace
Christianity, or rewrite it, with their Fuhrer-cult and racial
doctrines, they exhibited the same tendencies.
Thankfully, the internet community has no doctrine,
...but this group has a charter,

[quote]

The Cat-Herding Rules and Regulations of alt.atheism and Some Information

1. All are welcome in the newsgroup, whether they're atheists or not.
2. Proselytizing of ANY religion is NOT welcome! (Those guilty of
this bad nettiquette will be treated as they deserve!)

[/quote]

{continues @}

http://web.archive.org/web/20050227001657/alt-atheism.org/article_view.php?c=&id=1

.... which you regularly transgress against, deprecating proselytizing.
You push your creepy Baha'ism.
Post by ernobe
because there are no
material assets to administer. Yet, if you ask atheists in alt.atheism
what they want to replace Christianity, and you will get no rational
response. They get too much of a kick out of Bible bashing to want
anything that makes it unnecessary for their emotional survival.
The reason you don't get a response to "what would you replace
Christianity with" is that you don't seem to think that "a diversity
of secular philosophies" is an answer.

I have a personal moral philosophy that guides me, with roots that
go back to Democritus and Aristotle. It isn't a "religion," because
I haven't formally codified it and tried to preach it to the rest
of the world. Others might disagree and have a philosophy totally
opposed to mine, save that we agree that there are insufficient reasons
to believe in any ghodz.

Now, be a good little earlobe and stop trolling the group.

Kevin R
ernobe
2017-06-18 02:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
The reason you don't get a response to "what would you replace
Christianity with" is that you don't seem to think that "a diversity
of secular philosophies" is an answer.
I have a personal moral philosophy that guides me, with roots that
go back to Democritus and Aristotle. It isn't a "religion," because
I haven't formally codified it and tried to preach it to the rest
of the world. Others might disagree and have a philosophy totally
opposed to mine, save that we agree that there are insufficient reasons
to believe in any ghodz.
Now, be a good little earlobe and stop trolling the group.
If everyone had only their own personal philosophy to rely on, the
result would be chaos and anarchy in society. So that has to be
rejected as an answer to the question of what will replace Christianity.
Irreligious doctrines have been formally codified and they've tried to
preach them to the rest of the world. Where are they? You can't see
any of them around because they failed. In fact, even I am having a
hard time trying to understand what "group" you think I should stop
"trolling".
--
https://archive.org/services/purl/bahai
Kevrob
2017-06-19 10:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ernobe
Post by Kevrob
The reason you don't get a response to "what would you replace
Christianity with" is that you don't seem to think that "a diversity
of secular philosophies" is an answer.
I have a personal moral philosophy that guides me, with roots that
go back to Democritus and Aristotle. It isn't a "religion," because
I haven't formally codified it and tried to preach it to the rest
of the world. Others might disagree and have a philosophy totally
opposed to mine, save that we agree that there are insufficient reasons
to believe in any ghodz.
Now, be a good little earlobe and stop trolling the group.
If everyone had only their own personal philosophy to rely on, the
result would be chaos
Religions and their pet governments have presided over plenty
of chaos throughout history, and also massive amounts of slavery,
oppression and genocide. These things really happened, as
opposed to any theoretical chaos resulting from a "free market"
approach to moral philosophy.
Post by ernobe
and anarchy in society.
Just naming something "anarchy' is not a criticism. I'm a
minarchist myself, and if we ever get close enough to dismantling
all government to give it a test, i'd be interested in the results.
Post by ernobe
So that has to be
rejected as an answer to the question of what will replace Christianity.
No real argument mmade, sorry.
Post by ernobe
Irreligious doctrines have been formally codified and they've tried to
preach them to the rest of the world. Where are they? You can't see
any of them around because they failed.
One big one was tried and failed: Marxism-Leninism, and it was
a doozy of a failure, as bad as or worse than any religion-
backed tyranny. Nazism/Fascism played footsie with religion and
had its own mythology that was a parallel religion.
Post by ernobe
In fact, even I am having a
hard time trying to understand what "group" you think I should stop
"trolling".
You are posting in "alt.atheism" which has a group charter
denigrating proselytizing. You pushing your Ba'hai nonsense
here violates that charter. Nobody wants your "Ba'hai Teaching"
here. Are you really that dense that you don't know this?

Kevin R
ernobe
2017-06-19 15:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Religions and their pet governments have presided over plenty
of chaos throughout history, and also massive amounts of slavery,
oppression and genocide. These things really happened, as
opposed to any theoretical chaos resulting from a "free market"
approach to moral philosophy.
Anyone who knows anything about history knows that conditions were
improved by the adoption of religious beliefs, and the corresponding
actions. Conditions were also improved by the adoption of science.
No one should be prejudiced against one or the other.

The theoretical chaos resulting from absence of moderation on
alt.atheism is better than what really happens in moderated groups.
There is a reason why these groups are referred to primarily as
newsgroups and not discussion groups. No one gets to choose and decide
what is or is not the news, because no one is God but God Himself.

If you choose to act like Him, I've got news for you.
--
https://archive.org/services/purl/bahai
Mattb.
2017-06-12 07:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 17:28:10 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:48:31 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really
really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam doesn't
matter. What policies the nominee would seek to implement does.
The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public policy
is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to making his
religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in government.
How can a government be both? In the absence of religion, atheism is
what remains.
Yes and we saw the result in Stalin and Lenin millions dead. No I
want government religion natural. Look how some atheist reply on A.A.
to see my point.
They were not informed by atheism, because atheism has no doctrine. So,
if you want to make the claim that atheism promotes the killing of large
numbers of people based on any criteria, you will first have to produce
evidence in the form of a doctrine of atheism (much like how religions
have their doctrines, many of which do advocate for the killing of
infidels -- for example, Islam and Christianity both present edicts to
kill infidels, and I can easily cite the sections if you need them).
Sounds like something Duke would say about the RCC.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Only agnostics maybe? ;-)))
Categorically, every agnostic qualifies as an atheist for the simple
reason that they don't believe that any deities exist (on account of
not having the necessary knowledge to justify said belief).
No not if the more common Atheist poster on A.A. is a example.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Official definition of "atheism": http://www.define-atheism.com/
Post by Mattb.
We have History to show us that doesn't work.
Islamic Sharia Law and the Nazi Party both serve as historic examples
of religion not working in the best interests of populations in
government and also in society in general.
Nazi?
Yes, the Nazi Party, and particularly its most important leader - Adolf
Hitler - had the blessings of the Catholic Church (who even sent Catholic
Clergy to deliver a birthday greeting to Adolf Hitler each year).
Post by Mattb.
After Berkeley riots I think liberal socialism might be such a religion.
If "liberal socialism" happens to have an atheistic characteristic (or
even an anti-theist one), then so be it, but it doesn't change the fact
that atheism is merely the classification of "absence of belief in
deities."
That IMO some act as if it were a religious belief. If you are
willing to use force, indoctrination or kill to promote your belief it
is if not a religion then like a religion.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Of course, I noticed that you don't seem to be disagreeing with what I
stated earlier about atheism, which leaves me with the sole option of
accepting your response as an indication that you have no objections to
the official definition: http://www.define-atheism.com/
To a degree it might be correct but also like the definition theist
give themselves limited to only a few. For example if Atheist gets
angry when a stranger says "God Bless" or when passing a yard with a
religious symbol then to me that atheist treats atheism as religion to
a point. Why would a atheist get angry over words from a fictional
book or symbols from fiction. They must throw a fit when they visit
Harry Potter world.


Atheism might have a definition as you describe but when you apply the
anger, hate and intimidation to it, it becomes much like a religion.
Siri Cruise
2017-06-12 07:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in government.
How can a government be both? In the absence of religion, atheism is
what remains.
No, idiot. What remains is the government not telling you what to believe. You
want to believe no god effects your life? The government is not there to tell
you yes or no.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
They were not informed by atheism, because atheism has no doctrine. So,
if you want to make the claim that atheism promotes the killing of large
numbers of people based on any criteria, you will first have to produce
Sorry, idiot, but you've already been pointed to the Library of Congress
collection of Soviet Union letters. Your refusal to acknowledge their existence
proves your close minded dogma.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Jeanne Douglas
2017-06-12 05:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
Nazi? After Berkeley riots I think liberal socialism might be such a
religion.
What do right-wing terrorist provocateurs have to do with liberals? Or socialists?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Mattb.
2017-06-12 07:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 00:43:09 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Nazi? After Berkeley riots I think liberal socialism might be such a
religion.
What do right-wing terrorist provocateurs have to do with liberals? Or socialists?
You believe the Berkeley rioter that burned parts of the school,
hunted and attacked people were "right-wing terrorist provocateurs"

How so???
Jeanne Douglas
2017-06-13 03:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 00:43:09 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Nazi? After Berkeley riots I think liberal socialism might be such a
religion.
What do right-wing terrorist provocateurs have to do with liberals? Or socialists?
You believe the Berkeley rioter that burned parts of the school,
hunted and attacked people were "right-wing terrorist provocateurs"
How so???
Facts.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Mattb.
2017-06-13 08:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 22:25:57 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 00:43:09 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Nazi? After Berkeley riots I think liberal socialism might be such a
religion.
What do right-wing terrorist provocateurs have to do with liberals? Or socialists?
You believe the Berkeley rioter that burned parts of the school,
hunted and attacked people were "right-wing terrorist provocateurs"
How so???
Facts.
You know Jeanne Douglas you are remarkably similar to Patrick and Duke
in how you reply. Now throw in a hail troll or two.

Again I ask how so??
Mattb.
2017-06-13 19:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 22:25:57 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 00:43:09 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Nazi? After Berkeley riots I think liberal socialism might be such a
religion.
What do right-wing terrorist provocateurs have to do with liberals? Or socialists?
You believe the Berkeley rioter that burned parts of the school,
hunted and attacked people were "right-wing terrorist provocateurs"
How so???
Facts.
You know Jeanne Douglas you are remarkably similar to Patrick and Duke
in how you reply. Now throw in a hail troll or two.
Again I ask how so??
Still no answer..

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Alex W.
2017-06-12 01:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam doesn't
matter. What policies the nominee would seek to implement does.
The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public policy
is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to making his
religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in government.
How can a government be both? In the absence of religion, atheism is
what remains.
A government can be overall secular but still have specific policies
rooted in religion. Think abortion, or right to die....

A government can also be quite secular but still ground its guiding
principles in more or less vague deism.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Official definition of "atheism": http://www.define-atheism.com/
Post by Mattb.
We have History to show us that doesn't work.
Islamic Sharia Law and the Nazi Party both serve as historic examples
of religion not working in the best interests of populations in
government and also in society in general.
Not disagreeing with you (at least not yet), but how do you define the
"best interests" of a population? How would you square the "best
interests" argument with a popular decision via the ballot box to
implement a dictatorship or religious laws? Either the people are
sovereign and their will be done, or we have to argue that the
population does not really know what is good for them so we should not
let them decide these matters ... which is in itself a dictatorship.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
2017-06-12 05:24:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam doesn't
matter. What policies the nominee would seek to implement does.
The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public policy
is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to making his
religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in government.
How can a government be both? In the absence of religion, atheism is
what remains.
A government can be overall secular but still have specific policies
rooted in religion. Think abortion, or right to die....
Indeed, although my point was in response to not wanting religion or
atheism mixed in government -- it's not possible to eliminate the "absence
of belief in deities" (atheism) where a "belief in deities" (religion) has
been eliminated.
Post by Alex W.
A government can also be quite secular but still ground its guiding
principles in more or less vague deism.
That's true.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Official definition of "atheism": http://www.define-atheism.com/
Post by Mattb.
We have History to show us that doesn't work.
Islamic Sharia Law and the Nazi Party both serve as historic examples
of religion not working in the best interests of populations in
government and also in society in general.
Not disagreeing with you (at least not yet),
It's okay with me if you do disagree, for an idea unchallenged can be an
opportunity for progress missed.
Post by Alex W.
but how do you define the
"best interests" of a population?
I defer to "moral relativism" and 20/20 hindsight -- from the perspective
of historic understanding, for example, it may be possible to assess the
aftermath of various political decisions as a means to discern whether
said decisions were beneficial to a society (but even that can be based
on incomplete information, so it often boils down to a "best effort").

Each population seems to have a unique set of needs that are dependent on
a wide variety of factors (not limited to cultural-psychological, terrain
in which they live, behaviour of neighbouring states, economy, etc.), so
I do not have a "hard and fast rule" to work from.

(You asked an excellent question, by the way.)
Post by Alex W.
How would you square the "best
interests" argument with a popular decision via the ballot box to
implement a dictatorship or religious laws? Either the people are
sovereign and their will be done, or we have to argue that the
population does not really know what is good for them so we should not
let them decide these matters ... which is in itself a dictatorship.
You make very interesting points, which reminds me of a certain irony:

"In a democracy, people get the government they deserve."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville

One of the challenges with democracy is the juxtaposition of followers
choosing leaders. It seems to me to be a juxtaposition because the
selection of members of a team or individuals who are well-suited to a
particular task (or tasks) fits more naturally in a leadership role.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
http://www.atheistgoddess.com/
"A true leader leads by example, not by force."
-- Sun Zi
Alex W.
2017-06-12 23:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam doesn't
matter. What policies the nominee would seek to implement does.
The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public policy
is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to making his
religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in government.
How can a government be both? In the absence of religion, atheism is
what remains.
A government can be overall secular but still have specific policies
rooted in religion. Think abortion, or right to die....
Indeed, although my point was in response to not wanting religion or
atheism mixed in government -- it's not possible to eliminate the "absence
of belief in deities" (atheism) where a "belief in deities" (religion) has
been eliminated.
Which is quite correct in principle; I do not believe this can ever be
achieved, though. As long as there are believers, they will bring their
convictions and beliefs into government.

Your statement above also allows for a far more pernicious
interpretation: of a government not merely atheist by default -- by
virtue of an absence of religion -- but actively atheist, choosing to
push and legislate and enforce atheism as a sort of state ideology.
This, I would have a great deal of trouble with.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
A government can also be quite secular but still ground its guiding
principles in more or less vague deism.
That's true.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Official definition of "atheism": http://www.define-atheism.com/
Post by Mattb.
We have History to show us that doesn't work.
Islamic Sharia Law and the Nazi Party both serve as historic examples
of religion not working in the best interests of populations in
government and also in society in general.
Not disagreeing with you (at least not yet),
It's okay with me if you do disagree, for an idea unchallenged can be an
opportunity for progress missed.
You are far too wise for Usenet...

;-)
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
but how do you define the
"best interests" of a population?
I defer to "moral relativism" and 20/20 hindsight -- from the perspective
of historic understanding, for example, it may be possible to assess the
aftermath of various political decisions as a means to discern whether
said decisions were beneficial to a society (but even that can be based
on incomplete information, so it often boils down to a "best effort").
I am not sure that "best effort" is a good yardstick by which to measure
such things. To me, "best" is a value judgment and a crude one at that.
For instance, one could argue that China's "One Child" policy was in
the best interests of the Chinese population, and that the best efforts
of the government to enforce this were thus justifiable. But were they?

Or take the case of a concerted push in Europe for "bio-fuel", where
governments, in the firm belief that protecting the environment and
stopping climate change was in the "best interest of the people",
actively tried to foster the use of ethanol derived from renewable
resources as an alternative to traditional hydrocarbons. The result was
an explosion in diesel engines on the street which in turn created a
massive pollution problem that actively harms many people. More, the
financial incentives used directly led to increased deforestation in
emerging nations as they cut down rain forest for sugar cane and oil
palm plantations to satisfy the demand. Possibly worst of all, it also
led to price rises and even shortages as farmers sold food crops to
ethanol refineries rather than on the markets, to feed the people.

"Best interests", to me, is nebulous to the point of incoherence. It
sounds good, and hence is popular with politicians, activists and
philosophers/ideologues. But in truth, it is no more precise than the
equally popular concept of "fairness" (in everything from taxation to
access to healthcare to salaries). Thinking about it, for me it boils
down to several points:

- that we cannot begin to know until well after the event(s) what was
in our best interest;

- what a people need is quite often not what the people *want*;

- that those who profess to know what the people need, what is in their
"best interest", are to be avoided like the plague;

- that the least damaging course of action is to allow the people to
make their own decision on such issues, in concert with a system that
limits the damage caused by the people if and when their decisions turn
out to be wrong.

In other words, the least bad response to the quest for the people's
"best interest" should be a democracy with suitable checks and balances,
enacted and enforced by a robust civil service.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Each population seems to have a unique set of needs that are dependent on
a wide variety of factors (not limited to cultural-psychological, terrain
in which they live, behaviour of neighbouring states, economy, etc.), so
I do not have a "hard and fast rule" to work from.
That statement should be tattooed onto the foreheads of every elected
politician, civil servant and policy wonk -- in particular those who are
dealing with foreign policy.

By way of example: what never ceases to surprise me is not that the
countries in the Middle East will vote for religious parties when given
the opportunity, but that our leaders and pundits are always surprised
and dismayed by such election results. Culture and socio-demographics
mandate such a vote, and anyone who spends five minutes reading up on
those countries should be fully aware of this.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
(You asked an excellent question, by the way.)
Thank you; I have my moments.

:-)
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
How would you square the "best
interests" argument with a popular decision via the ballot box to
implement a dictatorship or religious laws? Either the people are
sovereign and their will be done, or we have to argue that the
population does not really know what is good for them so we should not
let them decide these matters ... which is in itself a dictatorship.
"In a democracy, people get the government they deserve."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville
One of the challenges with democracy is the juxtaposition of followers
choosing leaders. It seems to me to be a juxtaposition because the
selection of members of a team or individuals who are well-suited to a
particular task (or tasks) fits more naturally in a leadership role.
This is one of the reasons why I admire the system of government in
Switzerland (however impossible it is to replicate elsewhere). Not only
do the Swiss people have a very direct control over government policy,
via frequent nationwide referendums and direct voting on specific
policies on a cantonal level, but the Swiss government itself is a
coalition of the four major parties and competencies are regularly
rotated. In short, they do everything possible to prevent the emergence
of a single leader or a single party with a singular vision.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
2017-06-14 05:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really
really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam doesn't
matter. What policies the nominee would seek to implement does.
The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public policy
is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to making his
religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in government.
How can a government be both? In the absence of religion, atheism is
what remains.
A government can be overall secular but still have specific policies
rooted in religion. Think abortion, or right to die....
Indeed, although my point was in response to not wanting religion or
atheism mixed in government -- it's not possible to eliminate the "absence
of belief in deities" (atheism) where a "belief in deities" (religion) has
been eliminated.
Which is quite correct in principle; I do not believe this can ever be
achieved, though. As long as there are believers, they will bring their
convictions and beliefs into government.
I agree.
Post by Alex W.
Your statement above also allows for a far more pernicious
interpretation: of a government not merely atheist by default -- by
virtue of an absence of religion -- but actively atheist, choosing to
push and legislate and enforce atheism as a sort of state ideology.
This, I would have a great deal of trouble with.
The thrust becomes "anti-theistic" in that case, and is not specifically
"atheistic" even though atheism is a side-effect of anti-theism. In a
genuinely objective atheistic government, any "anti-" attitude should be
on a level playing field with a "pro-" attitude.

I do agree with you that an anti-theistic government is, indeed,
troubling, and probably as much as a theistic government, albeit in some
distinctly different ways (in addition to many similar ways) because of
the "ideological" aspects (at least in part) that you alluded to.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
A government can also be quite secular but still ground its guiding
principles in more or less vague deism.
That's true.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Official definition of "atheism": http://www.define-atheism.com/
Post by Mattb.
We have History to show us that doesn't work.
Islamic Sharia Law and the Nazi Party both serve as historic examples
of religion not working in the best interests of populations in
government and also in society in general.
Not disagreeing with you (at least not yet),
It's okay with me if you do disagree, for an idea unchallenged can be an
opportunity for progress missed.
You are far too wise for Usenet...
;-)
Thank you, although it wasn't on purpose. (Ha ha!)
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
but how do you define the
"best interests" of a population?
I defer to "moral relativism" and 20/20 hindsight -- from the perspective
of historic understanding, for example, it may be possible to assess the
aftermath of various political decisions as a means to discern whether
said decisions were beneficial to a society (but even that can be based
on incomplete information, so it often boils down to a "best effort").
I am not sure that "best effort" is a good yardstick by which to measure
such things. To me, "best" is a value judgment and a crude one at that.
That's where "moral relativism" plays a role -- I meant that literally, by
the way, with perspective and context also being relevant factors.
Post by Alex W.
For instance, one could argue that China's "One Child" policy was in
the best interests of the Chinese population, and that the best efforts
of the government to enforce this were thus justifiable. But were they?
That's an excellent example of the subjectivity of moral relativism, and I
extend it to include the "interests of the population of the whole world."
Post by Alex W.
Or take the case of a concerted push in Europe for "bio-fuel", where
governments, in the firm belief that protecting the environment and
stopping climate change was in the "best interest of the people",
actively tried to foster the use of ethanol derived from renewable
resources as an alternative to traditional hydrocarbons. The result was
an explosion in diesel engines on the street which in turn created a
massive pollution problem that actively harms many people. More, the
financial incentives used directly led to increased deforestation in
emerging nations as they cut down rain forest for sugar cane and oil
palm plantations to satisfy the demand. Possibly worst of all, it also
led to price rises and even shortages as farmers sold food crops to
ethanol refineries rather than on the markets, to feed the people.
"Best interests", to me, is nebulous to the point of incoherence. It
sounds good, and hence is popular with politicians, activists and
philosophers/ideologues. But in truth, it is no more precise than the
equally popular concept of "fairness" (in everything from taxation to
access to healthcare to salaries). Thinking about it, for me it boils
- that we cannot begin to know until well after the event(s) what was
in our best interest;
- what a people need is quite often not what the people *want*;
- that those who profess to know what the people need, what is in their
"best interest", are to be avoided like the plague;
- that the least damaging course of action is to allow the people to
make their own decision on such issues, in concert with a system that
limits the damage caused by the people if and when their decisions turn
out to be wrong.
In other words, the least bad response to the quest for the people's
"best interest" should be a democracy with suitable checks and balances,
enacted and enforced by a robust civil service.
While I generally agree, I also can't ignore the problems with democracy,
and not only from a scalability aspect (as it seems to have more problems
in larger populations) but also the problems with the infusion of
political parties (which serve lobbyists better than constituents). And
another problem inherent in democracy is that charismatic individuals
often receive more votes than their more competent/qualified competitors.

Within the limits of available political systems at the present time, I
do prefer democracy, but I've also wondered what other types of political
systems could work better than democracy which have not been invented yet.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Each population seems to have a unique set of needs that are dependent on
a wide variety of factors (not limited to cultural-psychological, terrain
in which they live, behaviour of neighbouring states, economy, etc.), so
I do not have a "hard and fast rule" to work from.
That statement should be tattooed onto the foreheads of every elected
politician, civil servant and policy wonk -- in particular those who are
dealing with foreign policy.
Objectivity is something that most politicians lack, unfortunately.
Post by Alex W.
By way of example: what never ceases to surprise me is not that the
countries in the Middle East will vote for religious parties when given
the opportunity, but that our leaders and pundits are always surprised
and dismayed by such election results. Culture and socio-demographics
mandate such a vote, and anyone who spends five minutes reading up on
those countries should be fully aware of this.
Democracies tend to be less dysfunctional when the masses are educated in
critical thinking skills (along with the other usual subjects), but most
politicians don't like an educated public who think independently due to
demands for greater degrees of accountability and transparency.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
(You asked an excellent question, by the way.)
Thank you; I have my moments.
:-)
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
How would you square the "best
interests" argument with a popular decision via the ballot box to
implement a dictatorship or religious laws? Either the people are
sovereign and their will be done, or we have to argue that the
population does not really know what is good for them so we should not
let them decide these matters ... which is in itself a dictatorship.
"In a democracy, people get the government they deserve."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville
One of the challenges with democracy is the juxtaposition of followers
choosing leaders. It seems to me to be a juxtaposition because the
selection of members of a team or individuals who are well-suited to a
particular task (or tasks) fits more naturally in a leadership role.
This is one of the reasons why I admire the system of government in
Switzerland (however impossible it is to replicate elsewhere). Not only
do the Swiss people have a very direct control over government policy,
via frequent nationwide referendums and direct voting on specific
policies on a cantonal level, but the Swiss government itself is a
coalition of the four major parties and competencies are regularly
rotated. In short, they do everything possible to prevent the emergence
of a single leader or a single party with a singular vision.
I did not know that about the Swiss government. That's very interesting,
but I wonder if that could be sustainable should the number of political
parties become reduced (e.g., by way of a merger, as has happened in some
other democratic regimes including here in Canada) -- the USA has a major
problem with polarization because there are two major political parties,
and that very sadly is used in a divisive manner by many as a criteria
for friendships, who to hire, where to shop, etc.

At any rate, at present the Swiss government has a system that seems to
be working quite well, and you've certainly piqued my interest in it.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
http://www.atheistgoddess.com/
"I was really too honest a man to be a politician and live."
-- Socrates of Athens
Mattb.
2017-06-14 05:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:15:55 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really
really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam doesn't
matter. What policies the nominee would seek to implement does.
The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public policy
is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to making his
religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in government.
How can a government be both? In the absence of religion, atheism is
what remains.
A government can be overall secular but still have specific policies
rooted in religion. Think abortion, or right to die....
Indeed, although my point was in response to not wanting religion or
atheism mixed in government -- it's not possible to eliminate the "absence
of belief in deities" (atheism) where a "belief in deities" (religion) has
been eliminated.
Which is quite correct in principle; I do not believe this can ever be
achieved, though. As long as there are believers, they will bring their
convictions and beliefs into government.
I agree.
Post by Alex W.
Your statement above also allows for a far more pernicious
interpretation: of a government not merely atheist by default -- by
virtue of an absence of religion -- but actively atheist, choosing to
push and legislate and enforce atheism as a sort of state ideology.
This, I would have a great deal of trouble with.
The thrust becomes "anti-theistic" in that case, and is not specifically
"atheistic" even though atheism is a side-effect of anti-theism. In a
genuinely objective atheistic government, any "anti-" attitude should be
on a level playing field with a "pro-" attitude.
I do agree with you that an anti-theistic government is, indeed,
troubling, and probably as much as a theistic government, albeit in some
distinctly different ways (in addition to many similar ways) because of
the "ideological" aspects (at least in part) that you alluded to.
I have to say I agree with you on this.
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
A government can also be quite secular but still ground its guiding
principles in more or less vague deism.
That's true.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Official definition of "atheism": http://www.define-atheism.com/
Post by Mattb.
We have History to show us that doesn't work.
Islamic Sharia Law and the Nazi Party both serve as historic examples
of religion not working in the best interests of populations in
government and also in society in general.
Not disagreeing with you (at least not yet),
It's okay with me if you do disagree, for an idea unchallenged can be an
opportunity for progress missed.
You are far too wise for Usenet...
;-)
Thank you, although it wasn't on purpose. (Ha ha!)
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
but how do you define the
"best interests" of a population?
I defer to "moral relativism" and 20/20 hindsight -- from the perspective
of historic understanding, for example, it may be possible to assess the
aftermath of various political decisions as a means to discern whether
said decisions were beneficial to a society (but even that can be based
on incomplete information, so it often boils down to a "best effort").
I am not sure that "best effort" is a good yardstick by which to measure
such things. To me, "best" is a value judgment and a crude one at that.
That's where "moral relativism" plays a role -- I meant that literally, by
the way, with perspective and context also being relevant factors.
Post by Alex W.
For instance, one could argue that China's "One Child" policy was in
the best interests of the Chinese population, and that the best efforts
of the government to enforce this were thus justifiable. But were they?
That's an excellent example of the subjectivity of moral relativism, and I
extend it to include the "interests of the population of the whole world."
Post by Alex W.
Or take the case of a concerted push in Europe for "bio-fuel", where
governments, in the firm belief that protecting the environment and
stopping climate change was in the "best interest of the people",
actively tried to foster the use of ethanol derived from renewable
resources as an alternative to traditional hydrocarbons. The result was
an explosion in diesel engines on the street which in turn created a
massive pollution problem that actively harms many people. More, the
financial incentives used directly led to increased deforestation in
emerging nations as they cut down rain forest for sugar cane and oil
palm plantations to satisfy the demand. Possibly worst of all, it also
led to price rises and even shortages as farmers sold food crops to
ethanol refineries rather than on the markets, to feed the people.
"Best interests", to me, is nebulous to the point of incoherence. It
sounds good, and hence is popular with politicians, activists and
philosophers/ideologues. But in truth, it is no more precise than the
equally popular concept of "fairness" (in everything from taxation to
access to healthcare to salaries). Thinking about it, for me it boils
- that we cannot begin to know until well after the event(s) what was
in our best interest;
- what a people need is quite often not what the people *want*;
- that those who profess to know what the people need, what is in their
"best interest", are to be avoided like the plague;
- that the least damaging course of action is to allow the people to
make their own decision on such issues, in concert with a system that
limits the damage caused by the people if and when their decisions turn
out to be wrong.
In other words, the least bad response to the quest for the people's
"best interest" should be a democracy with suitable checks and balances,
enacted and enforced by a robust civil service.
While I generally agree, I also can't ignore the problems with democracy,
and not only from a scalability aspect (as it seems to have more problems
in larger populations) but also the problems with the infusion of
political parties (which serve lobbyists better than constituents). And
another problem inherent in democracy is that charismatic individuals
often receive more votes than their more competent/qualified competitors.
Within the limits of available political systems at the present time, I
do prefer democracy, but I've also wondered what other types of political
systems could work better than democracy which have not been invented yet.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Each population seems to have a unique set of needs that are dependent on
a wide variety of factors (not limited to cultural-psychological, terrain
in which they live, behaviour of neighbouring states, economy, etc.), so
I do not have a "hard and fast rule" to work from.
That statement should be tattooed onto the foreheads of every elected
politician, civil servant and policy wonk -- in particular those who are
dealing with foreign policy.
Objectivity is something that most politicians lack, unfortunately.
Post by Alex W.
By way of example: what never ceases to surprise me is not that the
countries in the Middle East will vote for religious parties when given
the opportunity, but that our leaders and pundits are always surprised
and dismayed by such election results. Culture and socio-demographics
mandate such a vote, and anyone who spends five minutes reading up on
those countries should be fully aware of this.
Democracies tend to be less dysfunctional when the masses are educated in
critical thinking skills (along with the other usual subjects), but most
politicians don't like an educated public who think independently due to
demands for greater degrees of accountability and transparency.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
(You asked an excellent question, by the way.)
Thank you; I have my moments.
:-)
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
How would you square the "best
interests" argument with a popular decision via the ballot box to
implement a dictatorship or religious laws? Either the people are
sovereign and their will be done, or we have to argue that the
population does not really know what is good for them so we should not
let them decide these matters ... which is in itself a dictatorship.
"In a democracy, people get the government they deserve."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville
One of the challenges with democracy is the juxtaposition of followers
choosing leaders. It seems to me to be a juxtaposition because the
selection of members of a team or individuals who are well-suited to a
particular task (or tasks) fits more naturally in a leadership role.
This is one of the reasons why I admire the system of government in
Switzerland (however impossible it is to replicate elsewhere). Not only
do the Swiss people have a very direct control over government policy,
via frequent nationwide referendums and direct voting on specific
policies on a cantonal level, but the Swiss government itself is a
coalition of the four major parties and competencies are regularly
rotated. In short, they do everything possible to prevent the emergence
of a single leader or a single party with a singular vision.
I did not know that about the Swiss government. That's very interesting,
but I wonder if that could be sustainable should the number of political
parties become reduced (e.g., by way of a merger, as has happened in some
other democratic regimes including here in Canada) -- the USA has a major
problem with polarization because there are two major political parties,
and that very sadly is used in a divisive manner by many as a criteria
for friendships, who to hire, where to shop, etc.
At any rate, at present the Swiss government has a system that seems to
be working quite well, and you've certainly piqued my interest in it.
%
2017-06-14 17:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 07:58:15 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
Post by Kevrob
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really
really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam
doesn't matter. What policies the nominee would seek to
implement does.
The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public
policy is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to
making his religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in
government.
How can a government be both? In the absence of religion,
atheism is what remains.
A government can be overall secular but still have specific
policies rooted in religion. Think abortion, or right to die....
Indeed, although my point was in response to not wanting religion or
atheism mixed in government -- it's not possible to eliminate the
"absence of belief in deities" (atheism) where a "belief in
deities" (religion) has been eliminated.
Which is quite correct in principle; I do not believe this can ever
be achieved, though. As long as there are believers, they will
bring their convictions and beliefs into government.
I agree.
Post by Alex W.
Your statement above also allows for a far more pernicious
interpretation: of a government not merely atheist by default -- by
virtue of an absence of religion -- but actively atheist, choosing to
push and legislate and enforce atheism as a sort of state ideology.
This, I would have a great deal of trouble with.
The thrust becomes "anti-theistic" in that case, and is not
specifically "atheistic" even though atheism is a side-effect of
anti-theism. In a genuinely objective atheistic government, any
"anti-" attitude should be on a level playing field with a "pro-"
attitude.
I do agree with you that an anti-theistic government is, indeed,
troubling, and probably as much as a theistic government, albeit in
some distinctly different ways (in addition to many similar ways)
because of the "ideological" aspects (at least in part) that you
alluded to.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
A government can also be quite secular but still ground its guiding
principles in more or less vague deism.
That's true.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Official definition of "atheism": http://www.define-atheism.com/
We have History to show us that doesn't work.
Islamic Sharia Law and the Nazi Party both serve as historic
examples of religion not working in the best interests of
populations in government and also in society in general.
Not disagreeing with you (at least not yet),
It's okay with me if you do disagree, for an idea unchallenged can
be an opportunity for progress missed.
You are far too wise for Usenet...
;-)
Thank you, although it wasn't on purpose. (Ha ha!)
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
but how do you
define the "best interests" of a population?
I defer to "moral relativism" and 20/20 hindsight -- from the
perspective of historic understanding, for example, it may be
possible to assess the aftermath of various political decisions as
a means to discern whether said decisions were beneficial to a
society (but even that can be based on incomplete information, so
it often boils down to a "best effort").
I am not sure that "best effort" is a good yardstick by which to
measure such things. To me, "best" is a value judgment and a crude
one at that.
That's where "moral relativism" plays a role -- I meant that
literally, by the way, with perspective and context also being
relevant factors.
Post by Alex W.
For instance, one could argue that China's "One Child" policy was in
the best interests of the Chinese population, and that the best efforts
of the government to enforce this were thus justifiable. But were they?
That's an excellent example of the subjectivity of moral relativism,
and I extend it to include the "interests of the population of the
whole world."
Post by Alex W.
Or take the case of a concerted push in Europe for "bio-fuel", where
governments, in the firm belief that protecting the environment and
stopping climate change was in the "best interest of the people",
actively tried to foster the use of ethanol derived from renewable
resources as an alternative to traditional hydrocarbons. The result
was an explosion in diesel engines on the street which in turn
created a massive pollution problem that actively harms many people.
More, the financial incentives used directly led to increased
deforestation in emerging nations as they cut down rain forest for
sugar cane and oil
palm plantations to satisfy the demand. Possibly worst of all, it
also led to price rises and even shortages as farmers sold food
crops to ethanol refineries rather than on the markets, to feed the
people.
"Best interests", to me, is nebulous to the point of incoherence. It
sounds good, and hence is popular with politicians, activists and
philosophers/ideologues. But in truth, it is no more precise than
the equally popular concept of "fairness" (in everything from
taxation to access to healthcare to salaries). Thinking about it,
- that we cannot begin to know until well after the event(s) what was
in our best interest;
- what a people need is quite often not what the people *want*;
- that those who profess to know what the people need, what is in
their "best interest", are to be avoided like the plague;
- that the least damaging course of action is to allow the people to
make their own decision on such issues, in concert with a system that
limits the damage caused by the people if and when their decisions
turn out to be wrong.
In other words, the least bad response to the quest for the people's
"best interest" should be a democracy with suitable checks and
balances, enacted and enforced by a robust civil service.
While I generally agree, I also can't ignore the problems with
democracy, and not only from a scalability aspect (as it seems to
have more problems in larger populations) but also the problems with
the infusion of political parties (which serve lobbyists better than
constituents). And another problem inherent in democracy is that
charismatic individuals often receive more votes than their more
competent/qualified competitors.
Within the limits of available political systems at the present time,
I do prefer democracy, but I've also wondered what other types of
political systems could work better than democracy which have not
been invented yet.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Each population seems to have a unique set of needs that are
dependent on a wide variety of factors (not limited to
cultural-psychological, terrain in which they live, behaviour of
neighbouring states, economy, etc.), so I do not have a "hard and
fast rule" to work from.
That statement should be tattooed onto the foreheads of every elected
politician, civil servant and policy wonk -- in particular those who
are dealing with foreign policy.
Objectivity is something that most politicians lack, unfortunately.
Post by Alex W.
By way of example: what never ceases to surprise me is not that the
countries in the Middle East will vote for religious parties when
given the opportunity, but that our leaders and pundits are always
surprised
and dismayed by such election results. Culture and
socio-demographics mandate such a vote, and anyone who spends five
minutes reading up on those countries should be fully aware of this.
Democracies tend to be less dysfunctional when the masses are
educated in critical thinking skills (along with the other usual
subjects), but most politicians don't like an educated public who
think independently due to demands for greater degrees of
accountability and transparency.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
(You asked an excellent question, by the way.)
Thank you; I have my moments.
:-)
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
How would you square the "best
interests" argument with a popular decision via the ballot box to
implement a dictatorship or religious laws? Either the people are
sovereign and their will be done, or we have to argue that the
population does not really know what is good for them so we should not
let them decide these matters ... which is in itself a
dictatorship.
"In a democracy, people get the government they deserve."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville
One of the challenges with democracy is the juxtaposition of
followers choosing leaders. It seems to me to be a juxtaposition
because the selection of members of a team or individuals who are
well-suited to a particular task (or tasks) fits more naturally in
a leadership role.
This is one of the reasons why I admire the system of government in
Switzerland (however impossible it is to replicate elsewhere). Not
only do the Swiss people have a very direct control over government
policy,
via frequent nationwide referendums and direct voting on specific
policies on a cantonal level, but the Swiss government itself is a
coalition of the four major parties and competencies are regularly
rotated. In short, they do everything possible to prevent the
emergence of a single leader or a single party with a singular
vision.
I did not know that about the Swiss government. That's very
interesting, but I wonder if that could be sustainable should the
number of political parties become reduced (e.g., by way of a merger,
as has happened in some other democratic regimes including here in
Canada) -- the USA has a major problem with polarization because
there are two major political parties, and that very sadly is used in
a divisive manner by many as a criteria for friendships, who to hire,
where to shop, etc.
At any rate, at present the Swiss government has a system that seems
to be working quite well, and you've certainly piqued my interest in
it.
more guns at ball games , yay
Kevrob
2017-06-14 17:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by %
more guns at ball games , yay
Don't tell the lone nut Sanders supporter where the GOP
congresscritters are practicing.

Kevin R
%
2017-06-14 18:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by %
more guns at ball games , yay
Don't tell the lone nut Sanders supporter where the GOP
congresscritters are practicing.
Kevin R
will that matter they'll just start picking them off everywhere
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
2017-06-15 05:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by %
Post by Kevrob
Post by %
more guns at ball games , yay
Don't tell the lone nut Sanders supporter where the GOP
congresscritters are practicing.
Kevin R
will that matter they'll just start picking them off everywhere
Hopefully not (there's already too much tragedy in the world).
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
http://www.atheistgoddess.com/
"Shooting the messenger isn't going to change the science."
-- Bill Nye the Science Guy (September 2012)
Mattb.
2017-06-15 21:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 22:39:01 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by %
Post by Kevrob
Post by %
more guns at ball games , yay
Don't tell the lone nut Sanders supporter where the GOP
congresscritters are practicing.
Kevin R
will that matter they'll just start picking them off everywhere
Hopefully not (there's already too much tragedy in the world).
True and stupidity.

Then again the conservatives are better armed, trained and financed if
this were to become like a religious war it would be scary. they
could tell the Conservatives to leave the inner city and stop all
trucks and trains entering the city. It would be like the Hunger
games with the Deplorable for the cities.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
2017-06-16 04:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 22:39:01 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by %
Post by Kevrob
Post by %
more guns at ball games , yay
Don't tell the lone nut Sanders supporter where the GOP
congresscritters are practicing.
Kevin R
will that matter they'll just start picking them off everywhere
Hopefully not (there's already too much tragedy in the world).
True and stupidity.
Then again the conservatives are better armed, trained and financed if
this were to become like a religious war it would be scary. they
could tell the Conservatives to leave the inner city and stop all
trucks and trains entering the city. It would be like the Hunger
games with the Deplorable for the cities.
An interest in small arms combined with regular practice does account
for a lot, indeed. It's not difficult to learn how to use automatic
weapons that can be carried conveniently on a belt, and with a common
enemy on the outside I suspect it very likely that anyone willing to
protect the nation from invaders will be welcomed to join the fight.

I don't believe it would be as terrible as a Hunger Games scenario,
but it wouldn't be surprising to me if some major elements of
lawlessness took hold and a variety of militias quickly emerged.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
http://www.atheistgoddess.com/
"People are willing to kill and die for [these] bad ideas, and we're supposed to be careful not to offend anyone when we talk about why these people will die for these ideas? Seriously? If they can blow themselves up and we can't talk about why they're blowing themselves up, we've already lost this fight. Bad ideas must be identified in society, they must be discussed, they must be documented properly, and quickly discarded. As an evolved global society, we must be able to discuss the unpleasant things in life in order to make life better."
-- Scott Albany (November 29, 2015)
Mattb.
2017-06-16 08:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 21:29:21 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 22:39:01 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by %
Post by Kevrob
Post by %
more guns at ball games , yay
Don't tell the lone nut Sanders supporter where the GOP
congresscritters are practicing.
Kevin R
will that matter they'll just start picking them off everywhere
Hopefully not (there's already too much tragedy in the world).
True and stupidity.
Then again the conservatives are better armed, trained and financed if
this were to become like a religious war it would be scary. they
could tell the Conservatives to leave the inner city and stop all
trucks and trains entering the city. It would be like the Hunger
games with the Deplorable for the cities.
An interest in small arms combined with regular practice does account
for a lot, indeed. It's not difficult to learn how to use automatic
weapons that can be carried conveniently on a belt, and with a common
enemy on the outside I suspect it very likely that anyone willing to
protect the nation from invaders will be welcomed to join the fight.
Depends on the auto weapon. Give a new user a auto weapon and then
stand back. Then again Auto weapons are in most States illegal to
own. Now people trained as a sniper.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
I don't believe it would be as terrible as a Hunger Games scenario,
but it wouldn't be surprising to me if some major elements of
lawlessness took hold and a variety of militias quickly emerged.
Well when I saw Berkeley I wondered when liberals would take the next
step and murder just because of politics. I'm a moderate depending on
topic. I'm in trouble.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Alex W.
2017-06-16 01:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really
really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam doesn't
matter. What policies the nominee would seek to implement does.
The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public policy
is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to making his
religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in government.
How can a government be both? In the absence of religion, atheism is
what remains.
A government can be overall secular but still have specific policies
rooted in religion. Think abortion, or right to die....
Indeed, although my point was in response to not wanting religion or
atheism mixed in government -- it's not possible to eliminate the "absence
of belief in deities" (atheism) where a "belief in deities" (religion) has
been eliminated.
Which is quite correct in principle; I do not believe this can ever be
achieved, though. As long as there are believers, they will bring their
convictions and beliefs into government.
I agree.
Just to expand a little: what I find pernicious about religion in public
life is the "subliminal creep", the little phrases and regulations here
and there that do not amount to headline-grabbing
administration-defining policy on such issues as abortion or the right
to die, but that can and do have a massive impact on the frontline where
government and private citizens interact. This may be a guideline for
adoption agencies to give preference to church-going would-be parents,
or a requirement for those who wish to enlist int he armed forces to
make a commitment "so help me god". This is far harder to detect and
oppose than defending ourselves from a loudmouth bible-basher elected to
Congress.
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
Your statement above also allows for a far more pernicious
interpretation: of a government not merely atheist by default -- by
virtue of an absence of religion -- but actively atheist, choosing to
push and legislate and enforce atheism as a sort of state ideology.
This, I would have a great deal of trouble with.
The thrust becomes "anti-theistic" in that case, and is not specifically
"atheistic" even though atheism is a side-effect of anti-theism. In a
genuinely objective atheistic government, any "anti-" attitude should be
on a level playing field with a "pro-" attitude.
Personally, I would prefer the term "anti-religious". Many governments
and regimes view any sort of organisation not their own as a threat (and
probably rightly so) and thus oppress and persecute them all. Take for
instance the hardline policy of the Chinese regime towards Falun Gong
which is popular and organized but in no way theistic.
Post by Mattb.
I do agree with you that an anti-theistic government is, indeed,
troubling, and probably as much as a theistic government, albeit in some
distinctly different ways (in addition to many similar ways) because of
the "ideological" aspects (at least in part) that you alluded to.
... although the differences may well appear trifling to those being
persecuted. Muslims being persecuted and massacred in Myanmar (Burma)
by the military junta may justifiably fail to see this important nuance...
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
A government can also be quite secular but still ground its guiding
principles in more or less vague deism.
That's true.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Official definition of "atheism": http://www.define-atheism.com/
Post by Mattb.
We have History to show us that doesn't work.
Islamic Sharia Law and the Nazi Party both serve as historic examples
of religion not working in the best interests of populations in
government and also in society in general.
Not disagreeing with you (at least not yet),
It's okay with me if you do disagree, for an idea unchallenged can be an
opportunity for progress missed.
You are far too wise for Usenet...
;-)
Thank you, although it wasn't on purpose. (Ha ha!)
Let's agree to fail to do better in future....
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
but how do you define the
"best interests" of a population?
I defer to "moral relativism" and 20/20 hindsight -- from the perspective
of historic understanding, for example, it may be possible to assess the
aftermath of various political decisions as a means to discern whether
said decisions were beneficial to a society (but even that can be based
on incomplete information, so it often boils down to a "best effort").
I am not sure that "best effort" is a good yardstick by which to measure
such things. To me, "best" is a value judgment and a crude one at that.
That's where "moral relativism" plays a role -- I meant that literally, by
the way, with perspective and context also being relevant factors.
Which is a sensible approach for historians, but it offers little
guidance for policy-makers and communities today.
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
For instance, one could argue that China's "One Child" policy was in
the best interests of the Chinese population, and that the best efforts
of the government to enforce this were thus justifiable. But were they?
That's an excellent example of the subjectivity of moral relativism, and I
extend it to include the "interests of the population of the whole world."
Post by Alex W.
Or take the case of a concerted push in Europe for "bio-fuel", where
governments, in the firm belief that protecting the environment and
stopping climate change was in the "best interest of the people",
actively tried to foster the use of ethanol derived from renewable
resources as an alternative to traditional hydrocarbons. The result was
an explosion in diesel engines on the street which in turn created a
massive pollution problem that actively harms many people. More, the
financial incentives used directly led to increased deforestation in
emerging nations as they cut down rain forest for sugar cane and oil
palm plantations to satisfy the demand. Possibly worst of all, it also
led to price rises and even shortages as farmers sold food crops to
ethanol refineries rather than on the markets, to feed the people.
"Best interests", to me, is nebulous to the point of incoherence. It
sounds good, and hence is popular with politicians, activists and
philosophers/ideologues. But in truth, it is no more precise than the
equally popular concept of "fairness" (in everything from taxation to
access to healthcare to salaries). Thinking about it, for me it boils
- that we cannot begin to know until well after the event(s) what was
in our best interest;
- what a people need is quite often not what the people *want*;
- that those who profess to know what the people need, what is in their
"best interest", are to be avoided like the plague;
- that the least damaging course of action is to allow the people to
make their own decision on such issues, in concert with a system that
limits the damage caused by the people if and when their decisions turn
out to be wrong.
In other words, the least bad response to the quest for the people's
"best interest" should be a democracy with suitable checks and balances,
enacted and enforced by a robust civil service.
While I generally agree, I also can't ignore the problems with democracy,
and not only from a scalability aspect (as it seems to have more problems
in larger populations) but also the problems with the infusion of
political parties (which serve lobbyists better than constituents). And
another problem inherent in democracy is that charismatic individuals
often receive more votes than their more competent/qualified competitors.
Political systems without parties have been tried and have failed. I am
not sure that any system could succeed where individuals have to
organise and fund a nationwide campaign.

Note also the human urge to form tribes and associations. If you put a
dozen people with roughly the same views and goals together, chances are
they will form a single party rather than fight individually.

The above is also one major reason why I always preferred "first past
the post" forms of electoral systems -- coupled with distinct
constituencies -- where, party affiliation aside, one person is elected
by one specific electorate, is known to all and is held directly
accountable by that electorate. This direct link between voter and
office-holder is vital, in my opinion. It does not eliminate cronyism,
nepotism, lobbyism or corruption in general, but it is an effective
control mechanism to keep excesses in check.
Post by Mattb.
Within the limits of available political systems at the present time, I
do prefer democracy, but I've also wondered what other types of political
systems could work better than democracy which have not been invented yet.
I suspect very strongly that nothing will. There is a central paradox
at play here: any system needs to be flexible and permissible enough to
permit human nature with its fears, desires and preoccupations to be
expressed and lived, while at the same time robust and restrictive
enough to curtail that very same free expression of our nature and
instincts.

This is why the muddle of compromises that is democracy is the lest bad
option, in my humble opinion ... particularly when buttressed with a
well developed civil service that can even out and stabilise mistakes
and uncertainty at the political level. IOW, the fallout of a
collective fit of madness that sees a corrupt or incompetent leader
elected will be mitigated when there are institutions strong enough to
resist the vagaries of incompetence and ignorance.
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Each population seems to have a unique set of needs that are dependent on
a wide variety of factors (not limited to cultural-psychological, terrain
in which they live, behaviour of neighbouring states, economy, etc.), so
I do not have a "hard and fast rule" to work from.
That statement should be tattooed onto the foreheads of every elected
politician, civil servant and policy wonk -- in particular those who are
dealing with foreign policy.
Objectivity is something that most politicians lack, unfortunately.
Not surprising; objectivity is not a vote winner. Candidates are
elected on the strength of their convictions and the ability to sell
themselves, not on their rational and objective approach to the issues
of the day. Voters do not want to hear that crime rates are down, they
want to hear promises of how they are being kept safe in their homes.
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
By way of example: what never ceases to surprise me is not that the
countries in the Middle East will vote for religious parties when given
the opportunity, but that our leaders and pundits are always surprised
and dismayed by such election results. Culture and socio-demographics
mandate such a vote, and anyone who spends five minutes reading up on
those countries should be fully aware of this.
Democracies tend to be less dysfunctional when the masses are educated in
critical thinking skills (along with the other usual subjects), but most
politicians don't like an educated public who think independently due to
demands for greater degrees of accountability and transparency.
I tend to be more pessimistic than that. I believe that the average
intelligence of individuals decreases in relation to the size of the
group they are part of. An individual may stop to think and ask for
evidence, but a mob will quite happily string up any convenient suspect
by the nearest tree.

In politics, there are a number of websites and schemes where interested
voters can inform themselves about the policies, truthfulness and
accuracy of any candidate or party at an election. There are sites that
will offer you questionnaires on the biggest issues and then match your
answers to the best candidate. But how many people actually bother to
do such research? It is ever so much easier to go with the flow, to
vote what we or our families have always voted, to respond to appeals to
our emotions, fears and greed...
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
How would you square the "best
interests" argument with a popular decision via the ballot box to
implement a dictatorship or religious laws? Either the people are
sovereign and their will be done, or we have to argue that the
population does not really know what is good for them so we should not
let them decide these matters ... which is in itself a dictatorship.
"In a democracy, people get the government they deserve."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville
One of the challenges with democracy is the juxtaposition of followers
choosing leaders. It seems to me to be a juxtaposition because the
selection of members of a team or individuals who are well-suited to a
particular task (or tasks) fits more naturally in a leadership role.
This is one of the reasons why I admire the system of government in
Switzerland (however impossible it is to replicate elsewhere). Not only
do the Swiss people have a very direct control over government policy,
via frequent nationwide referendums and direct voting on specific
policies on a cantonal level, but the Swiss government itself is a
coalition of the four major parties and competencies are regularly
rotated. In short, they do everything possible to prevent the emergence
of a single leader or a single party with a singular vision.
I did not know that about the Swiss government. That's very interesting,
but I wonder if that could be sustainable should the number of political
parties become reduced (e.g., by way of a merger, as has happened in some
other democratic regimes including here in Canada) -- the USA has a major
problem with polarization because there are two major political parties,
and that very sadly is used in a divisive manner by many as a criteria
for friendships, who to hire, where to shop, etc.
As in so many other ways, the US is an outlier in this regard. In most
democracies, there tends to be an increase of parties over time, rather
than a reduction. Strong and charismatic individuals may form parties
as vehicles for their personal ambitions. Parties may spring up around
single issues (environmentalism, for example) or as a result of changes
in society. Or there may be new parties arising at the fringes of the
spectrum as the big established parties gravitate to the centre.
Post by Mattb.
At any rate, at present the Swiss government has a system that seems to
be working quite well, and you've certainly piqued my interest in it.
It certainly is an interesting place. They are constitutionally
multi-lingual and multi-cultural. They have very independent cantons.
And yet, it is by a long shot the best-governed nation I have ever
visited, from rubbish collection right up to national policies.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
2017-06-16 05:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Mattb.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really
really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
What the nominee or his denomination believes about Islam doesn't
matter. What policies the nominee would seek to implement does.
The phenomenon of "Catholic" politicians who say they accept
the Vatican's position on abortion and contraception in their
personal lives, but wouldn't write those views into public policy
is instructive. As long as Vought isn't committed to making his
religious opinion policy, Sanders should lay off.
I agree. I also don't want religion or atheism mixed in government.
How can a government be both? In the absence of religion, atheism is
what remains.
A government can be overall secular but still have specific policies
rooted in religion. Think abortion, or right to die....
Indeed, although my point was in response to not wanting religion or
atheism mixed in government -- it's not possible to eliminate the "absence
of belief in deities" (atheism) where a "belief in deities" (religion) has
been eliminated.
Which is quite correct in principle; I do not believe this can ever be
achieved, though. As long as there are believers, they will bring their
convictions and beliefs into government.
I agree.
Just to expand a little: what I find pernicious about religion in public
life is the "subliminal creep", the little phrases and regulations here
and there that do not amount to headline-grabbing
administration-defining policy on such issues as abortion or the right
to die, but that can and do have a massive impact on the frontline where
government and private citizens interact. This may be a guideline for
adoption agencies to give preference to church-going would-be parents,
or a requirement for those who wish to enlist int he armed forces to
make a commitment "so help me god". This is far harder to detect and
oppose than defending ourselves from a loudmouth bible-basher elected to
Congress.
...and the moderates happily give a free pass to the extremists, because
extremists find it innately easy to act in moderation when needed.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
Your statement above also allows for a far more pernicious
interpretation: of a government not merely atheist by default -- by
virtue of an absence of religion -- but actively atheist, choosing to
push and legislate and enforce atheism as a sort of state ideology.
This, I would have a great deal of trouble with.
The thrust becomes "anti-theistic" in that case, and is not specifically
"atheistic" even though atheism is a side-effect of anti-theism. In a
genuinely objective atheistic government, any "anti-" attitude should be
on a level playing field with a "pro-" attitude.
Personally, I would prefer the term "anti-religious". Many governments
and regimes view any sort of organisation not their own as a threat (and
probably rightly so) and thus oppress and persecute them all. Take for
You make a reasonable, interesting, and valid argument for using the term
"anti-religious" instead of "anti-theistic" in various circumstances. I do
use this term occasionally, and because of what you wrote I will consider
its appropriateness as an alternative to "anti-theistic" in the future.
Post by Alex W.
instance the hardline policy of the Chinese regime towards Falun Gong
which is popular and organized but in no way theistic.
I agree with China's response to Fa Long Gong (a.k.a., Fa Lun Da Fa) in
those instances where the group's members have been torturing friends and
family members based on their religious beliefs that the afterlife places
at a higher level those who suffered more in real life. Unfortunately,
the media in North America don't report on this violent characteristic of
the Fa Long Gong cult, and paint an incomplete picture of them practicing
Tai Chi and Qi Gong (which is also one of their traditions which draws
many people in).

Granted, there are some denominations of Fa Long Gong, and some are not
violent, but, as far as I'm aware, the Government of China has only
prosecuted Fa Long Gong groups who devised plans to overthrow the
government (which is illegal {to various degrees} in most, if not all,
countries), and also those who have been torturing people against their
will (the Chinese Government doesn't embrace the Fa Long Gong's view of
the afterlife).
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mattb.
I do agree with you that an anti-theistic government is, indeed,
troubling, and probably as much as a theistic government, albeit in some
distinctly different ways (in addition to many similar ways) because of
the "ideological" aspects (at least in part) that you alluded to.
... although the differences may well appear trifling to those being
persecuted. Muslims being persecuted and massacred in Myanmar (Burma)
by the military junta may justifiably fail to see this important nuance...
I agree.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
A government can also be quite secular but still ground its guiding
principles in more or less vague deism.
That's true.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Official definition of "atheism": http://www.define-atheism.com/
Post by Mattb.
We have History to show us that doesn't work.
Islamic Sharia Law and the Nazi Party both serve as historic examples
of religion not working in the best interests of populations in
government and also in society in general.
Not disagreeing with you (at least not yet),
It's okay with me if you do disagree, for an idea unchallenged can be an
opportunity for progress missed.
You are far too wise for Usenet...
;-)
Thank you, although it wasn't on purpose. (Ha ha!)
Let's agree to fail to do better in future....
I'm tempted to praise that as a "good plan," but I don't know if
that might be futile.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
but how do you define the
"best interests" of a population?
I defer to "moral relativism" and 20/20 hindsight -- from the perspective
of historic understanding, for example, it may be possible to assess the
aftermath of various political decisions as a means to discern whether
said decisions were beneficial to a society (but even that can be based
on incomplete information, so it often boils down to a "best effort").
I am not sure that "best effort" is a good yardstick by which to measure
such things. To me, "best" is a value judgment and a crude one at that.
That's where "moral relativism" plays a role -- I meant that literally, by
the way, with perspective and context also being relevant factors.
Which is a sensible approach for historians, but it offers little
guidance for policy-makers and communities today.
Leaders [are supposed to] provide guidance. History provides insight.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
For instance, one could argue that China's "One Child" policy was in
the best interests of the Chinese population, and that the best efforts
of the government to enforce this were thus justifiable. But were they?
That's an excellent example of the subjectivity of moral relativism, and I
extend it to include the "interests of the population of the whole world."
Post by Alex W.
Or take the case of a concerted push in Europe for "bio-fuel", where
governments, in the firm belief that protecting the environment and
stopping climate change was in the "best interest of the people",
actively tried to foster the use of ethanol derived from renewable
resources as an alternative to traditional hydrocarbons. The result was
an explosion in diesel engines on the street which in turn created a
massive pollution problem that actively harms many people. More, the
financial incentives used directly led to increased deforestation in
emerging nations as they cut down rain forest for sugar cane and oil
palm plantations to satisfy the demand. Possibly worst of all, it also
led to price rises and even shortages as farmers sold food crops to
ethanol refineries rather than on the markets, to feed the people.
"Best interests", to me, is nebulous to the point of incoherence. It
sounds good, and hence is popular with politicians, activists and
philosophers/ideologues. But in truth, it is no more precise than the
equally popular concept of "fairness" (in everything from taxation to
access to healthcare to salaries). Thinking about it, for me it boils
- that we cannot begin to know until well after the event(s) what was
in our best interest;
- what a people need is quite often not what the people *want*;
- that those who profess to know what the people need, what is in their
"best interest", are to be avoided like the plague;
- that the least damaging course of action is to allow the people to
make their own decision on such issues, in concert with a system that
limits the damage caused by the people if and when their decisions turn
out to be wrong.
In other words, the least bad response to the quest for the people's
"best interest" should be a democracy with suitable checks and balances,
enacted and enforced by a robust civil service.
While I generally agree, I also can't ignore the problems with democracy,
and not only from a scalability aspect (as it seems to have more problems
in larger populations) but also the problems with the infusion of
political parties (which serve lobbyists better than constituents). And
another problem inherent in democracy is that charismatic individuals
often receive more votes than their more competent/qualified competitors.
Political systems without parties have been tried and have failed. I am
not sure that any system could succeed where individuals have to
organise and fund a nationwide campaign.
Note also the human urge to form tribes and associations. If you put a
dozen people with roughly the same views and goals together, chances are
they will form a single party rather than fight individually.
The above is also one major reason why I always preferred "first past
the post" forms of electoral systems -- coupled with distinct
constituencies -- where, party affiliation aside, one person is elected
by one specific electorate, is known to all and is held directly
accountable by that electorate. This direct link between voter and
office-holder is vital, in my opinion. It does not eliminate cronyism,
nepotism, lobbyism or corruption in general, but it is an effective
control mechanism to keep excesses in check.
Although democracy is far from perfect, it seems to be the best-suited
system for responsible governments.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mattb.
Within the limits of available political systems at the present time, I
do prefer democracy, but I've also wondered what other types of political
systems could work better than democracy which have not been invented yet.
I suspect very strongly that nothing will. There is a central paradox
at play here: any system needs to be flexible and permissible enough to
permit human nature with its fears, desires and preoccupations to be
expressed and lived, while at the same time robust and restrictive
enough to curtail that very same free expression of our nature and
instincts.
Egocentricity and narcissism, which seem to be epidemics in politics,
are, in my estimation, serious threats to freedom.
Post by Alex W.
This is why the muddle of compromises that is democracy is the lest bad
option, in my humble opinion ... particularly when buttressed with a
well developed civil service that can even out and stabilise mistakes
and uncertainty at the political level. IOW, the fallout of a
collective fit of madness that sees a corrupt or incompetent leader
elected will be mitigated when there are institutions strong enough to
resist the vagaries of incompetence and ignorance.
It seems we're generally in agreement. I find it interesting to watch
federal politics in the USA lately because it seems that Donald Trump
is pushing beyond previously accepted limits on many of fronts. Where
that takes the country, while dragging major parts of the world along
with it, will hopefully be a good place in the end, but I worry that a
lot of collateral damage will not be discovered until many decades or
even a century later.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Each population seems to have a unique set of needs that are dependent on
a wide variety of factors (not limited to cultural-psychological, terrain
in which they live, behaviour of neighbouring states, economy, etc.), so
I do not have a "hard and fast rule" to work from.
That statement should be tattooed onto the foreheads of every elected
politician, civil servant and policy wonk -- in particular those who are
dealing with foreign policy.
Objectivity is something that most politicians lack, unfortunately.
Not surprising; objectivity is not a vote winner. Candidates are
elected on the strength of their convictions and the ability to sell
themselves, not on their rational and objective approach to the issues
of the day. Voters do not want to hear that crime rates are down, they
want to hear promises of how they are being kept safe in their homes.
It's probably an intentional misuse of social psychology.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
By way of example: what never ceases to surprise me is not that the
countries in the Middle East will vote for religious parties when given
the opportunity, but that our leaders and pundits are always surprised
and dismayed by such election results. Culture and socio-demographics
mandate such a vote, and anyone who spends five minutes reading up on
those countries should be fully aware of this.
Democracies tend to be less dysfunctional when the masses are educated in
critical thinking skills (along with the other usual subjects), but most
politicians don't like an educated public who think independently due to
demands for greater degrees of accountability and transparency.
I tend to be more pessimistic than that. I believe that the average
intelligence of individuals decreases in relation to the size of the
group they are part of. An individual may stop to think and ask for
evidence, but a mob will quite happily string up any convenient suspect
by the nearest tree.
In politics, there are a number of websites and schemes where interested
voters can inform themselves about the policies, truthfulness and
accuracy of any candidate or party at an election. There are sites that
will offer you questionnaires on the biggest issues and then match your
answers to the best candidate. But how many people actually bother to
do such research? It is ever so much easier to go with the flow, to
vote what we or our families have always voted, to respond to appeals to
our emotions, fears and greed...
And many politicians also make contradictory promises, which defeats
research efforts anyway because it makes it easier for voters to
cherry pick.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mattb.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Alex W.
How would you square the "best
interests" argument with a popular decision via the ballot box to
implement a dictatorship or religious laws? Either the people are
sovereign and their will be done, or we have to argue that the
population does not really know what is good for them so we should not
let them decide these matters ... which is in itself a dictatorship.
"In a democracy, people get the government they deserve."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville
One of the challenges with democracy is the juxtaposition of followers
choosing leaders. It seems to me to be a juxtaposition because the
selection of members of a team or individuals who are well-suited to a
particular task (or tasks) fits more naturally in a leadership role.
This is one of the reasons why I admire the system of government in
Switzerland (however impossible it is to replicate elsewhere). Not only
do the Swiss people have a very direct control over government policy,
via frequent nationwide referendums and direct voting on specific
policies on a cantonal level, but the Swiss government itself is a
coalition of the four major parties and competencies are regularly
rotated. In short, they do everything possible to prevent the emergence
of a single leader or a single party with a singular vision.
I did not know that about the Swiss government. That's very interesting,
but I wonder if that could be sustainable should the number of political
parties become reduced (e.g., by way of a merger, as has happened in some
other democratic regimes including here in Canada) -- the USA has a major
problem with polarization because there are two major political parties,
and that very sadly is used in a divisive manner by many as a criteria
for friendships, who to hire, where to shop, etc.
As in so many other ways, the US is an outlier in this regard. In most
democracies, there tends to be an increase of parties over time, rather
than a reduction. Strong and charismatic individuals may form parties
as vehicles for their personal ambitions. Parties may spring up around
single issues (environmentalism, for example) or as a result of changes
in society. Or there may be new parties arising at the fringes of the
spectrum as the big established parties gravitate to the centre.
I agree.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mattb.
At any rate, at present the Swiss government has a system that seems to
be working quite well, and you've certainly piqued my interest in it.
It certainly is an interesting place. They are constitutionally
multi-lingual and multi-cultural. They have very independent cantons.
And yet, it is by a long shot the best-governed nation I have ever
visited, from rubbish collection right up to national policies.
Thank you for sharing that observation; it's interesting.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
http://www.atheistgoddess.com/
"Republicans have been accused of abandoning the poor, [but] it's the other way around: They never vote for us."
-- Dan Quayle
ernobe
2017-06-17 05:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Political systems without parties have been tried and have failed. I am not
sure that any system could succeed where individuals have to organise and fund a
nationwide campaign.
Note also the human urge to form tribes and associations. If you put a dozen
people with roughly the same views and goals together, chances are they will
form a single party rather than fight individually.
The above is also one major reason why I always preferred "first past the post"
forms of electoral systems -- coupled with distinct constituencies -- where,
party affiliation aside, one person is elected by one specific electorate, is
known to all and is held directly accountable by that electorate. This direct
link between voter and office-holder is vital, in my opinion. It does not
eliminate cronyism, nepotism, lobbyism or corruption in general, but it is an
effective control mechanism to keep excesses in check.
With proper representation at the local, national, and universal levels,
there would be no need for political campaigns.

If there hasn't been proper representation at the local level, it is
because individuals by themselves can't handle all the issues involved.
That could have been the case in a tribal setting thousands of years
ago, but won't do in the modern age. The solution is to elect local
councils, so that decisions are arrived at by consultation, and not by
the whims of individuals. These same local councils send individuals
representing them to the election of national councils, which do the
same for the election of the universal one. So there is a direct link
between office holder and voter, but it is strictly limited to a local
setting, and that's the only way to ensure the system works fairly for
everyone on earth.
--
https://archive.org/services/purl/bahai
Jeanne Douglas
2017-06-11 22:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really
really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
How was he wrong? Be very specific.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
%
2017-06-11 22:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really
really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
How was he wrong? Be very specific.
stop thinking you can order someone how to be ,
now , no matter how he replies you can say , sorry ,
not specific enough
Jeanne Douglas
2017-06-12 05:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by %
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT), "Fidem Turbare, the
Post by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie Sanders testing the boundaries of a religious test
Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Really
really serious.
It's amazing that they can use the internet at all (and that
there are so many of them using the internet).
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
How was he wrong? Be very specific.
stop thinking you can order someone how to be ,
now , no matter how he replies you can say , sorry ,
not specific enough
What the fuck are you babbling?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Siri Cruise
2017-06-12 06:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mattb.
Bernie was wrong no matter your beliefs
How was he wrong? Be very specific.
Sanders was being an asshole. Most christians merely by being christians have
doubts that anyone but jews and christians can be saved, and that is why they
are supposed to inform others of the gospel. Sanders is grousing over something
many christians agree on, so that, yes, that only is applying a religious test.

Now if he thinks Vought is going to apply religious tests, he would have a
point. But the clip I saw so no reason to believe that. All I saw was Sanders
reading a letter from, I guess, moslems who were pissy because Vought felt about
them the same way moslems are taught to feel about christians. And jews.

A lot of hindus, moslems, jews, et cetera, have similar beliefs. Only a fraction
of the population thinks none or all gets satori. Is Sanders testing all
nominees to verify they are in this particular religion category? Americans have
the right to believe whatever they want; it is only our actions that are subject
to lie. What demonstrates Vought would discriminate the way Sanders did?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Loading...