Atheist and Christians should both be AGAINST the Constitution (right or wrong?)
Assuming that most Atheist on DP are Ayn Rand type Atheists (Individualist and Moralists -- not necessarily objectivist). Wouldn't Moralist-Atheist be against Slavery, a Voting Class (only Wealthy WASP Men), Land Theft / Reservationism, and Gov't Enumerated Freedoms (Wealthy WASP Enumerated Freedoms)?
Assuming Christians are pro-Jesus New Testament'ers: Wouldn't Moralist-Christians be against Slavery, a Voting Class (only Wealthy WASP Men), Land Theft / Reservationism, and Gov't Enumerated Freedoms (Wealthy WASP Enumerated Freedoms)?
Christians (originally were all separation of Church and State -- while the ink was drying) -- so that "theory" is condusive to liberty and atheism.
If Atheist and Chrsitians agree fundementally against the abuses of Gov't (listed above) and if they agree on religious freedom and the freedom to abstain -- then wouldn't they both agree that the Constitution is an anti-liberty document and can never evolve into one?
Would you get married with the premise "we'll try to 'have and to hold' one another?" Of course not -- it's Un-Conditional Love or it's not Love at All. True Liberty (Consumer-Individualism) is the only Absolute in all Creation -- in fact it is the first requirement of Love.
By Consumer I don't mean shopper (alone), but free-choice.
Consumption Meaning: 1) In Use, 2) Waste or Diminish, and 3) To Transform -- Of; resources, air, water, knowledge, love, relationships, products, services, nutrients, tools, means of production - etc.
Octobox
Signers not Christians?...
And I agree with many, this post serves just to stir the pot...
Samuel Adams
Father of the American Revolution, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.
Will of Samuel Adams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Carroll
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.
From an autographed letter in our possession written by Charles Carroll to Charles W. Wharton, Esq., on September 27, 1825, from Doughoragen, Maryland.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Cushing
First Associate Justice Appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court
Sensible of my mortality, but being of sound mind, after recommending my soul to Almighty God through the merits of my Redeemer and my body to the earth . . .
Will of William Cushing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Dickinson
Signer of the Constitution
Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.
Will of John Dickinson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Hancock
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
I John Hancock, . . . being advanced in years and being of perfect mind and memory-thanks be given to God-therefore calling to mind the mortality of my body and knowing it is appointed for all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make and ordain this my last will and testament…Principally and first of all, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it: and my body I recommend to the earth . . . nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mercy and power of God. . .
Will of John Hancock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Henry
Governor of Virginia, Patriot
This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.
Will of Patrick Henry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Jay
First Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court
Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved son. He has been pleased to bless me with excellent parents, with a virtuous wife, and with worthy children. His protection has companied me through many eventful years, faithfully employed in the service of my country; His providence has not only conducted me to this tranquil situation but also given me abundant reason to be contented and thankful. Blessed be His holy name!
Will of John Jay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer
Signer of the Constitution
In the name of God, Amen. I, Daniel of Saint Thomas Jenifer . . . of dispossing mind and memory, commend my soul to my blessed Redeemer. . .
Will of Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Knox
Revolutionary War General, Secretary of War
First, I think it proper to express my unshaken opinion of the immortality of my soul or mind; and to dedicate and devote the same to the supreme head of the Universe – to that great and tremendous Jehovah, – Who created the universal frame of nature, worlds, and systems in number infinite . . . To this awfully sublime Being do I resign my spirit with unlimited confidence of His mercy and protection . . .
Will of Henry Knox
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Langdon
Signer of the Constitution
In the name of God, Amen. I, John Langdon, . . . considering the uncertainty of life and that it is appointed unto all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make, ordain and publish this my last will and testament in manner following, that is to say-First: I commend my soul to the infinite mercies of God in Christ Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who died and rose again that He might be the Lord of the dead and of the living . . . professing to believe and hope in the joyful Scripture doctrine of a resurrection to eternal life . . .
Will of John Langdon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Morton
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
With an awful reverence to the great Almighty God, Creator of all mankind, I, John Morton . . . being sick and weak in body but of sound mind and memory-thanks be given to Almighty God for the same, for all His mercies and favors-and considering the certainty of death and the uncertainty of the times thereof, do, for the settling of such temporal estate as it hath pleased God to bless me with in this life . . .
Will of John Morton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Treat Paine
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
I desire to bless and praise the name of God most high for appointing me my birth in a land of Gospel Light where the glorious tidings of a Savior and of pardon and salvation through Him have been continually sounding in mine ears.
Robert Treat Paine, The Papers of Robert Treat Paine, Stephen Riley and Edward Hanson, editors (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1992), Vol. I, p. 48, March/April, 1749.
[W]hen I consider that this instrument contemplates my departure from this life and all earthly enjoyments and my entrance on another state of existence, I am constrained to express my adoration of the Supreme Being, the Author of my existence, in full belief of his providential goodness and his forgiving mercy revealed to the world through Jesus Christ, through whom I hope for never ending happiness in a future state, acknowledging with grateful remembrance the happiness I have enjoyed in my passage through a long life. . .
Will of Robert Treat Paine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Signer of the Constitution
To the eternal, immutable, and only true God be all honor and glory, now and forever, Amen!. . .
Will of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rufus Putnam
Revolutionary War General, First Surveyor General of the United States
[F]irst, I give my soul to a holy, sovereign God Who gave it in humble hope of a blessed immortality through the atonement and righteousness of Jesus Christ and the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. My body I commit to the earth to be buried in a decent Christian manner. I fully believe that this body shall, by the mighty power of God, be raised to life at the last day; 'for this corruptable (sic) must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.' [I Corinthians 15:53]
Will of Rufus Putnam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!
Benjamin Rush, The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, George Corner, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press for the American Philosophical Society, 1948), p. 166, Travels Through Life, An Account of Sundry Incidents & Events in the Life of Benjamin Rush.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Sherman
Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Signer of the Constitution
I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer.
Lewis Henry Boutell, The Life of Roger Sherman (Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Company, 1896), pp. 272-273.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Stockton
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
I think it proper here not only to subscribe to the entire belief of the great and leading doctrines of the Christian religion, such as the Being of God, the universal defection and depravity of human nature, the divinity of the person and the completeness of the redemption purchased by the blessed Savior, the necessity of the operations of the Divine Spirit, of Divine Faith, accompanied with an habitual virtuous life, and the universality of the divine Providence, but also . . . that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom; that the way of life held up in the Christian system is calculated for the most complete happiness that can be enjoyed in this mortal state; that all occasions of vice and immorality is injurious either immediately or consequentially, even in this life; that as Almighty God hath not been pleased in the Holy Scriptures to prescribe any precise mode in which He is to be publicly worshiped, all contention about it generally arises from want of knowledge or want of virtue.
Will of Richard Stockton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Trumbull Sr.
Governor of Connecticut, Patriot
Principally and first of all, I bequeath my soul to God the Creator and Giver thereof, and body to the Earth . . . nothing doubting but that I shall receive the same again at the General Resurrection thro the power of Almighty God; believing and hoping for eternal life thro the merits of my dear, exalted Redeemer Jesus Christ.
Will of Jonathan Trumbull
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Witherspoon
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for there is no salvation in any other [Acts 4:12]. . . . [I]f you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish.
John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, pp. 276, 278, The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ, January 2, 1758.
"There are only two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by sword, the other is by debt." - John Adams
I said Christian-Individualist -- Not Christian-Collectivist
Collectivism en-slaves
Individualism demands that all be "free" and "responsible"
The Founder's regardless their prayers or biblical quotes were "collectivist" in thinking.
They created a "voting class" consolidating power to those who are "wealthy WASP men" who directly or indirectly benefit from the OPPOSITE of Moses' and Jesus' teachings.
The EXACT opposite -- Though I wouldn't call them this individually I will say that Christ Work was liberating and the Founder's work was Anti-Christ.
It might be that in a higher sense "God" brought slavery here to die -- however, as Ron Paul has said slavery could have died without massive War. But the "higher sense" can't be proven.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Separation of church & state
Separation of church & state ? Yes, keep the state out of any church business , but there is NO way to keep an accepted belief system out of an individuals daily dealings ..It becomes part of the individual ..Beliefs ARE the individual ..So whoever says keep the church out of politics or out of the state business is not a rational thinker ..Keeping the church out of a persons action would require good people to deny themselves, in all their dealings with others ..EVERY person has a belief system, including atheists, that is revealed in their actions & dealing with other people ..To keep these individuals out of state business requires another form of human belief system (take overtake)...Something fills the void ..
This seems to be where we are headed as people want their selfish desires place upon everyone else's pocketbook....This ideal comes out of the stricktly human belief system,that is a failure...Hense you have the need for intervention....
Good people do Good deeds
Good people make it happen
Christian Indivdiualism and Randian Moralism does not support
the Constitution fundementally -- even if Chrsitians and Rand herself say they do.
This argument is easy to make and prove.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
No purpose
This thread really serves no positive purpose.
With Freedom Comes Responsibility
Troy in Texas: 95% of the Country Claims Religious Affiliation
Most of the people showing up to 912 Rally's are "christians" and with Gem Beck at their helm he is suggesting "he" and "they" are Constitutionalists, yet most of them owing to association with (Bush, Beck, Savage, Limbaugh, Hedgecock, Levin, O'Reilly, or Hannity) believe "war is just."
All that being said -- this thread is very relevant.
Either for the Ron Paul Constitutional Side (which Beck and 912 are not "fully" Aboard) or to my argument (that the Constitution is not a document of peace or liberty and thus should abhor no affiliation from Atheist-Moralist or Christian Individualist).
I'd take the Ron Paul stance on it -- however, I think the Constitution is un-defendable from a historic perspective.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
I'm a catfish on this one...
This post is a nice stinky chunk of bloodbait absolutely grabbing my attention.....on the other hand catfish love evan williams and jones cola too...
Talk to you guys tomorrow. :O)
A Christian wouldn't take an oath.
It's not really difficult to figure out. You know Christians by their actions, just as you know a tree by it's fruit. And a Christian would not take an oath to uphold the Constitution by swearing to God, or swear on a bible in the first place. So when it comes to the Constitution, being that it requires that the president take an oath, demonstrates that it was not written by Christians, so why would it be something held up by Christians.
Swearing is something a Jew does being under Mosaic Law, not a Christian.
"For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation."
Hebrews 6:16
If you are a Christian, then act like a Christian.
“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.
Matthew 5:33-37
As for an Atheist, it is not difficult for an Atheist to take an oath to God, or claim a belief in a higher being, because they do not fear God. An oath for an Atheist has no meaning whatsoever, it is just legal mumble jumble...
grant
This entire
paradox I think stems from mans inability to grasp perfection, for all of our intellect, love, and imagination perfection still barely exists even as a concept in the infinitely fallible mind of man.
____________________________________________________
The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare
The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare
Unconditional Love?
Do you love everything, everywhere all the time?
If not, then you practice conditional love.
Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine
Not all things seem like
Not all things seem like love ..But keeping order is a demonstration of love if it isdone to everyone's best interests, to avoid chaos that brings harm to the individual.
Good people do Good deeds
Good people make it happen
Meistersinger: I agree with your sentiment
One must "practice" un-conditional love (like anything else) 'till he has it (is at-one-ment with it or atoned)
"Practice" is intentional -- I know I do not "practice" conditional love.
I manifest conditional love and un-conditional love as I move in predominance one direction or the other, smile.
*curtsy*
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Why Would One Want to Give or Receive Unconditional Love?
I love Ron Paul because he's smart and brave and fights for my freedom as well as his own.
I do not love Dick Cheney for all the obvious reasons.
Without conditions there is no love, just bland sentimentality and ultimately the death of the soul.
Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine
As a Christian you need to
As a Christian you need to love Cheny but HATE his actions..This is what Christ taught ..It is not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out of a man's heart..Hense , heart conversion...Of course not all people follow the teaching & some, followers, do not impliment the teaching..
Anyother teaching would be counter productive to the good of man..
This is why we have wars that do not make sense..People try to help GOD do HIS job & mess things up..There is a correct time for some waring but war is used for too many personal ambitions..
Good people do Good deeds
Good people make it happen
Meistersinger: This is turning into a Hallmark Card - hahahaha
The world could use more love -- regardless the flavor.
The "problem" with conditional love is "perception and expectation"
Wars always come out of conditional love and never un-conditional love.
Could you imagine Mother Teresa or Gandhi starting a War of Agression?
The "root" of Individualism is un-conditional love for Self -- which is then given to others without the need for return. It's never a miserable thing.
Now -- I think there are very few people that actually have universal un-conditional love; if there are any they are always dead and un-examineable.
For me un-conditional love is something to strive for -- to "practice."
According to Gandhi's Guru (Spritual Teacher), Paramahansa Yogananda (died 1952) there is nothing wrong with righteous anger and it does not negate un-conditional love. Emotions are a "display" and are not the "root" of the energy the suppose to represent.
Yogananda said un-conditional love for self comes first -- which is an Individualism argument, but that while developing that we should "practice" un-conditional love for others.
I started practicing this for my wife around 3 years ago (we been married 16 years now). One day I woke up and realized that I wasn't "really" practicing it.
The Bible says, "with all thy getting get understanding" -- I think that is one key to un-conditional love.
Another would be "listening" (active-listening -- too listen as if the topic is irrelevant, just an excuse your love one came up with to "connect" with you over). Active-Listening is irresistable to the human heart -- everyone wants to be heard; voila "Daily Paul."
Forgiveness is not important once you have "understanding" -- however, until that kicks in you better have forgiveness on tap.
Never speaking harshly -- holding ones tongue; is very important. Respond with consideration, listening, and truth or not at all.
Lastly, humility. The "real" kind.
Humility is the ability and speed by which you can recognize and submit to truth.
Un-Conditional Love is not something that replaces Impatience or Anger or Disappointment -- It is always there and always on, it is perpetual.
Love is Liberty and Liberty is Voluntary (un-conditional)
----Therefore there can never be "force" in Love or Liberty.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Conditions are a worldly consideration
How about loving all in a conditional manner? The key maybe the loving spirit within.
Well, until I get me a
Well, until I get me a spaceship I'm pretty much constrained by worldly considerations which is OK by me. The world is actually a very nice place.
I do respect others place in the world and recognize that liberty is not possible for me if it isn't possible for all.
Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine
Government holds the
Government holds the Constitution up with one hand, while it steals your wallet with the other.
I would like to see what kind of constitution we would have if we were to have one today. We've had two already, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.
Are we at liberty to do so, or are we enslaved by the Constitution?
Good question Octobox.
grant
The Gov't steals your wallet thru holes in the Constitution
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Here's a wrinkle in your sweeping generalizations and false
characterizations:
I have been voting for 17 years. Until recently I did not own property. I am not wealthy, nor am I an Anglo-Saxon Protestant. My heritage is Acadian. My religion is Roman Catholic. My philosophy is Objectivism. I believe in inalienable rights. I recognize that the Constitution only seeks to protect those rights, it does NOT enumerate them. Nor is there any provision in the Constitution which only allows wealthy WASP males to vote. On the contrary, there are specific amendments which prohibit voter denial on the basis of race, sex, and wealth, as well as a prohibition of laws respecting any religion.
Sounds like you are talking out of your ass.
Have you ever actually read the Constitution?
Samadamscw: Of course the Constitution has been "amended"
What a rediculous argument -- hahahaha.
Yes of course I've read it.
When the CONSTITUTION was originally written the only men voting were Wealthy WASP men -- that's it.
No Women
No Blacks
No American Indians
I'm just saying we should "move on" from the harkening back principle -- What the Founders "intended" or the "greatness" of the Founders yadda yadda. "Oh, the sacrifices they made for our liberty."
How absurd that type of rationale is -- It's the same reason why now that we all have the vote we are perplexed over why politicians don't 'adhere' to the "principles of the Fathers."
Actually they are -- completely. The Founders allowed for Slavery (3/5ths vote) -- The Founders allowed for past Indian Land Grab and Future Indian Land Grab (over the next 100 years or so). The Constitution allowed for Reservationism -- because whatever the Constitution does NOT enumerate what the Gov't can or can't do -- they just do it.
The Constitution is like a red light -- it stops no one save those who honor the system.
Voting is 100% Abdication of Self-Rule and/or the Theft of someone elses Self-Rule.
Lobbying is the 100% Selling of Self-Rule and/or the Theft of someone elses Self-Rule.
"Inalienable rights" -- You believe in those and you only vote for those? Why do you have to vote for them? Because people can lobby or vote away those things. Perpetual War - Perpetual Revolution - Trotskyism / Marxism? Yes!
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Man you are just all over the place aren't you?
Look, I prefer the Articles of Confederation myself. But notice that you didn't specify the "original" Constitution in your post. So don't jump on me as if I don't get it. You weren't clear in your post.
And I don't "vote" for my rights. Where are you getting this?
I'm also not an either/or statist or anarchist.
I understand the Constitution has many flaws. I know it isn't the best safeguard for our Liberty. But I think first we need to actually follow it rather than just do whatever the hell we damned well please.
We need to stop acting like a democracy and once again behave as a republic. Rule of the majority is no rule at all - it is chaos.
Samadamscw: Okay -- I see your point
I didn't specify, because on Daily Paul when people glorify the Constitution they are talking about what the Founders originally intended -- it's a harkening back theology.
When I said "slavery" and who could vote and "consititution" I thought it clear as to the time period.
If we don't like the original document -- because it was NOT based on Atheist Moralism nor Christian Individualism then why do we support it now -OR- act suprised when politicians do not adhere to it?
Which is why I refer to it as a red-light at 3am and no one is around.
I'm not trying to run Windows Vista on a '95 Dell Original. I will upgrade.
Mises makes it clear how to maintain a free-society once you have it. I'm arguing that to get into a free-society is identical to how you maintain it.
Power must be kept locally (this is for obvious reasons)
----Buy Local Under-the-Table (IRS is not Local -- it is Federal) Products and Services
----Buy Local Organic Free-Range Meats (Monsanto is not Local)
----Buy Local Organic Produce
----Work Under-the-Table (as much as possible)
----Hire Under-the-Table (where possible)
The above would destroy tax receipts - destroy the need for voting -- destroy lobbying.
It's called Counter-Economics
To Vote or Lobby -- Is to engage in Perpetual War / Revolution -- It's a Marxian and Trotskyist Axiom.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Constitution works for atheists
In letters of Ayn Rand, there is a letter to a fan of Atlas Shrugged and she askes about the charactors. Ayn Rand says,
There are those who are winners and know they are winners (John Galt)
There are the winners who think themselves as losers
There are losers who think they are winners, and
Losers who know they are losers.
There is what we are, and what we think we are. Baring this in mind, some people desire slavery. Slavery takes many shapes and forms. Slavery is very alive today.
What is important about the constitution is that it enables people to come together and make contracts with each other (Believers and non believers can come together to trade on a "neutral ground".
One of the things I LOVE the most about America is that I was able to freely go to churches and temples, to read scripture and digest, and come to my own conclusion with God, or not. I can wear a burka if my faith calls me to do so. I can get a tatoo of a star of David on my entire back and no one will behead me. I can experience over 300 denominations of faith in Christianity, or shave my head and chant Hare Krishna... and this is why I (and I believe Ayn Rand) appreciates the constitution. It gave me Ayn Rand instead of Allah.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Dunno about that...
Have to preface this be saying I'm not christian or atheist.. so beat me down on that after this thought....
The constitution does not really work for athiests either, imo. The majority of athiests that I know end up being secular humanists, which is a RELIGION that has been pushing for a one world order for a long time.
They just don't know it, which is kinda screwed up because I admire what they are thinking, but they have no clue why they are thinking it.
Christianity is the flipside of the same coin... the coin is called Control.
At the end of the day freedom of religions should be about freedom of ALL religions... the constitution lays that out.
Be nice if we would just follow that.
~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~
I agree with you
The majority of atheists are not objectivists, but "useful idiots" to "evolution", "environmentalism", and I'm sorry to say, ignorant of philosphy. They know about what they are not more than what they are. It takes allot of soul searching to become an Objectivist.
Still, Accepting that some men are better off slaves because they are unable to do for themselves is a fact, and why the constitution does not oppose slavery, by any name, and nor does Ayn Rand to my understanding.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Of Course Ayn Rand Disapproved of Slavery
Granger, sometimes you have a funny way of talking (or I have a funny way of listening) and it seems like I get what you're saying backwards. In any case here's Ayn Rand on slavery:
"The right of “the self-determination of nations” applies only to free societies or to societies seeking to establish freedom; it does not apply to dictatorships. Just as an individual’s right of free action does not include the “right” to commit crimes (that is, to violate the rights of others), so the right of a nation to determine its own form of government does not include the right to establish a slave society (that is, to legalize the enslavement of some men by others). There is no such thing as “the right to enslave.” A nation can do it, just as a man can become a criminal—but neither can do it by right."
-- Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness,
Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine
Granger: This seemed a bit un-characteristic of you, bit harsh.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Oddly enough...
I find her right on the mark.
We can talk all day long about a lot of topics on the DP.. from religion to political stylings to anything else.
What most miss here in thier musings and intellectual hubris is that thing called reality....
~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~
Harsh?
I'm sorry. IMO Lincoln freed blacks to starve and made us all slaves.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")