Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [FSP] Working with non-pure libertarians

Expand Messages
  • GaryT
    Oh? I got the Gee treatment. Hmmm. I did not deem to typify Christianity here, rather its instrumentality in forming the new govt of the United States.
    Message 1 of 56 , Dec 11 10:29 PM
      Oh? I got the "Gee" treatment. Hmmm.

      I did not deem to typify Christianity here, rather its instrumentality in forming the new govt of the United States.
      Christianity itself is a whole 'nother analysis. I am a student of Christianity, so I love jabbering about it with anyone who wants to.

      And, it is not a logical error to state that IF Christianity was crucial to the forming the of the U.S., AND IF there were no Judaism, there would be no Christianity, THEN Judaism was as tautologically crucial to the forming of the U.S.

      You speak of logical errors, and you commit the most classical one, correllation does not prove causation, i.e. the enlightenment philosophers.
      Your logic:
      "Because the Enlightenment philosophers came from Europe, and because Christianity was the incumbent ruling religion, then Enlightenment philosophy must come from Christianity."
      (. . . but of course, what else could it be? :^/ jeesh.)

      Of course that ignores mutually exclusive examples that show otherwise, namely the ossified state of philosophy, under Christian rule which affirmatively criminalized heresy (defined as anything challenging the Church's construction of the world and universe).
      for 2000 years Aristotle was the beginning and end all of anything science or cosmic. There was no philosophical growth or improvement, almost by edict. It was only when science became so obvious and existentially powerful that philosphers were compelled to question, then challenge Christian cosmology and governmental philosophy, that we had the age of englightenment.
      It wasn't because of Christianity, it was in spite of it.

      And of course the founding fathers, given the circumstance and environs, would be forced to pay lip service to Christianity; the proof in what they really believed is in how much constitutional power they gave Christianity in the forming of the U.S. - and you know the answer to that one.


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Tim Condon
      To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:18 PM
      Subject: Re: [FSP] Working with non-pure libertarians



      Gee Gary. Multiple logical errors in that one posting. I don't really think
      it logically follows that "we must thank Judaism for the U.S...." etc. I
      also don't think that was what Rothbard had in mind, nor do I think he'd
      agree with that kind of solipsism. And where did the Enlightenment
      philosophers come from? The same places as the Enlightenment philosophers
      that sprang up in central Africa and in the Islamic world in the 17th and
      18th centuries, right? Ahem. If you think that Christianity is just a group
      with a holy book with "an amalgam of parables and moral stores that say just
      about everything at once," I'm afraid you're a *little* bit
      misinformed...not to mention placing yourself at odds with virtually every
      one of the Founding Fathers. But big deal, right? What did they do anyway?
      ---Tim Condon

      On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:09 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@...> wrote:

      > And of course we must thank Judaism for the United States, for without that
      > there would have been no Christianity.
      >
      > I tend to think that Christianity just happened to be there; the original
      > principles that America was founded upon came about from Enlightenment
      > Philosophers, like Locke, Bacon, etc.
      > Christianity was there for the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, and
      > pogroms and the invasion of South America. Christianity has as its holy
      > book, an amalgam of parables and moral stories that say just about
      > everything at once, there isn't much there that isn't also contradicted or
      > marginalized logically somewhere else within the same book.
      >
      > The point is, Christianity as a moral or political force can be anything
      > and has been, from monarchiesa, to dictatorships, to benign friendly
      > nations, to whatever. It is a slippery definition, because it has so many.
      >
      > Gary T
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Tim Condon
      > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:31 AM
      > Subject: Re: [FSP] Working with non-pure libertarians
      >
      >
      >
      > At the first annual PorcFest, NH state Rep. Henry McElroy gave a speech in
      > which he said exactly that (he even had a Bible as a teaching aid). I'm
      > not
      > much of a Christian (it's hard to get there), but I don't see anything
      > wrong
      > with recognizing the historical reality that all our freedoms, and Western
      > Civilization itself, would never have come about about but for
      > Christianity.
      > Don't attack me. I'm just quoting anarchist libertarian hero Dr. Murray
      > Rothbard.
      >
      > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:02 AM, wolzybk <phil@...> wrote:
      >
      > > The big "if" is the "if it will move the goal forward". Someone might be
      > > 80%, or 90%, or 99.44% libertarian in his ideas, but if he's actively
      > > pursuing the *other* ideas, then it may not be enough. Conversely,
      > someone
      > > might be 5% libertarian, but if he is most active on that one
      > > freedom-related idea he does have, then he might well advance the goal.
      > > It's not necessarily about "purity", but about what it is that person is
      > > really trying to accomplish.
      > >
      > > A good example of this for me is the Constitution Party. They call
      > > themselves that, and they sometimes talk a good game of respecting the
      > > Constitution. If you issued them a libertarian questionnaire, they'd
      > score
      > > quite highly on it as a percentage. But if you get down to what they
      > really
      > > believe and work for, they believe as a party that the Constitution (and
      > > everything else) is subordinate to the Bible, and that America is a
      > > Christian country and should be governed that way. Which is a profoundly
      > > NON-libertarian idea, yet is the rock-bottom basis for their belief
      > system.
      > >
      > > So while I am perfectly happy to work with that party and the members of
      > it
      > > on common interests, I am very leery of helping them to have enough
      > power
      > > and influence to pursue their full agenda.
      > >
      > > These are the sorts of considerations that must be addressed to see if
      > > someone is an asset or a barrier to "moving the goal forward", in a
      > > practical real-world sense. Not just "what do they say?", or even "what
      > do
      > > they believe?", but "what are they trying to actually do?"
      > >
      > > PhilB
      > >
      > > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "GaryT" <garyonthenet@...>
      > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Well then, I guess you will be able to work with 100% of the people
      > and
      > > politicians, since almost everyone in America is at least 80%
      > libertarian.
      > > >
      > > > I would work with anyone who would help move the libertarian cause
      > > forward, the question is, are the 80%'ers willing to work with
      > libertarians
      > > - mostly I don't think so.
      > > >
      > > > Gary T
      > > >
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: Chris Lawless
      > > > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:28 AM
      > > > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non
      > > FSP posts
      > > >
      > > > ... I would rather an active 80% ally then a purist who is not active
      > > if it will move the goal forward.
      > > >
      > > > ****************************************
      > > >
      > > > I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no
      > vice!
      > > And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is
      > no
      > > virtue!
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • GaryT
      I have read some of CS Lewis philosophical works, and works similar to it. They are full on one-sided arguments, and just-so justifications for their
      Message 56 of 56 , Dec 11 10:46 PM
        I have read some of CS Lewis philosophical works, and works similar to it.
        They are full on one-sided arguments, and "just-so" justifications for their religious opinions.

        I find it quite frustrating to be spoon fed dribble masquerading as profound truth, from adults who cling to their childhood envisioned cosmologies, never having the courage to nip off from themselves what is most obviously redigested pagan creation myths.

        It is like an adult who refuses to affirm that human beings are physically just as much animal/mammal as other animals, 'because we are special'. Yet all the evidence smacks them in the face, they just affirmatively refuse to acknowledge it, because it deflates their worldview and their specialness in it.

        And speaking of 'just-so' stories, Judeo-Christianity an inspiration for most scientists, philosophers and libertarians?
        (Poets are another animal, so I don't comment on them here.)

        To the contrary, most contemporary scientists, philosophers and libertarians are agnostics or atheists. And those who are not, rigorously compartmentalize their two belief systems (in order to remain sane of course).

        Gary T


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Jon Isaac
        To: freestateproject
        Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 7:30 AM
        Subject: Re: [FSP] Working with non-pure libertarians



        Judeo-christianity is a mess, it is an excuse for incredible travesties. And
        yet it is the inspiration for most scientists, philosophers, poets, and
        libertarians throughout history. Shifting from our myopic little present and
        taking a much longer view of existence, the last century may turn out to be
        the most violent, atheist, oppressive century in history, and not more than
        a blip in a very religious experience. It's the fashion these days to take
        Dawkin's art as "Bible-truth," but truly open-minded people will step
        outside that little cocoon and wonder if it was just historic delusion that
        inspired the greatest minds throughout history to be fervently religious, or
        if it could have been a long-acknowledged wellspring for abolition, art and
        scientific investigation.

        Gary, if you are ever inclined to read about religion-- a real, robust
        religion -- as Dawkins and Hitchens don't dare discuss, pick up Mere
        Christianity by C.S. Lewis or Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton.

        Jon Isaac

        MCG School of Medicine, 2012
        404-550-5903 jisaac@...

        "...all that has been is but a slight intimation of what is to be." Neuhaus

        On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:09 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@...> wrote:

        >
        >
        > And of course we must thank Judaism for the United States, for without that
        > there would have been no Christianity.
        >
        > I tend to think that Christianity just happened to be there; the original
        > principles that America was founded upon came about from Enlightenment
        > Philosophers, like Locke, Bacon, etc.
        > Christianity was there for the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, and
        > pogroms and the invasion of South America. Christianity has as its holy
        > book, an amalgam of parables and moral stories that say just about
        > everything at once, there isn't much there that isn't also contradicted or
        > marginalized logically somewhere else within the same book.
        >
        > The point is, Christianity as a moral or political force can be anything
        > and has been, from monarchiesa, to dictatorships, to benign friendly
        > nations, to whatever. It is a slippery definition, because it has so many.
        >
        > Gary T
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Tim Condon
        > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com <freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:31 AM
        > Subject: Re: [FSP] Working with non-pure libertarians
        >
        > At the first annual PorcFest, NH state Rep. Henry McElroy gave a speech in
        > which he said exactly that (he even had a Bible as a teaching aid). I'm not
        > much of a Christian (it's hard to get there), but I don't see anything
        > wrong
        > with recognizing the historical reality that all our freedoms, and Western
        > Civilization itself, would never have come about about but for
        > Christianity.
        > Don't attack me. I'm just quoting anarchist libertarian hero Dr. Murray
        > Rothbard.
        >
        > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:02 AM, wolzybk <phil@...<phil%40boncer.com>>
        > wrote:
        >
        > > The big "if" is the "if it will move the goal forward". Someone might be
        > > 80%, or 90%, or 99.44% libertarian in his ideas, but if he's actively
        > > pursuing the *other* ideas, then it may not be enough. Conversely,
        > someone
        > > might be 5% libertarian, but if he is most active on that one
        > > freedom-related idea he does have, then he might well advance the goal.
        > > It's not necessarily about "purity", but about what it is that person is
        > > really trying to accomplish.
        > >
        > > A good example of this for me is the Constitution Party. They call
        > > themselves that, and they sometimes talk a good game of respecting the
        > > Constitution. If you issued them a libertarian questionnaire, they'd
        > score
        > > quite highly on it as a percentage. But if you get down to what they
        > really
        > > believe and work for, they believe as a party that the Constitution (and
        > > everything else) is subordinate to the Bible, and that America is a
        > > Christian country and should be governed that way. Which is a profoundly
        > > NON-libertarian idea, yet is the rock-bottom basis for their belief
        > system.
        > >
        > > So while I am perfectly happy to work with that party and the members of
        > it
        > > on common interests, I am very leery of helping them to have enough power
        > > and influence to pursue their full agenda.
        > >
        > > These are the sorts of considerations that must be addressed to see if
        > > someone is an asset or a barrier to "moving the goal forward", in a
        > > practical real-world sense. Not just "what do they say?", or even "what
        > do
        > > they believe?", but "what are they trying to actually do?"
        > >
        > > PhilB
        > >
        > > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com<freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>,
        > "GaryT" <garyonthenet@...> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Well then, I guess you will be able to work with 100% of the people and
        > > politicians, since almost everyone in America is at least 80%
        > libertarian.
        > > >
        > > > I would work with anyone who would help move the libertarian cause
        > > forward, the question is, are the 80%'ers willing to work with
        > libertarians
        > > - mostly I don't think so.
        > > >
        > > > Gary T
        > > >
        > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > From: Chris Lawless
        > > > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com<freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>
        > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:28 AM
        > > > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non
        > > FSP posts
        > > >
        > > > ... I would rather an active 80% ally then a purist who is not active
        > > if it will move the goal forward.
        > > >
        > > > ****************************************
        > > >
        > > > I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!
        > > And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is
        > no
        > > virtue!
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ------------------------------------
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.