From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Apr 27 2005 - 17:16:33 BST
Arlo,
Platt (previously)
> > Your assumption is that all governments, whether Christian or secular,
> > are guilty of initiating brutality on a scale equal to modern secular
> > communism. That's patently false.
> Again, you patently continue to amaze me. "Patently false" in your
> distorted "need-to-believe" world, maybe. But I won't argue, I'll let
> anyone who stumbles on this pick up "The Columbia History of the World" and
> judge for themseves.
Yes, let them count the numbers murdered under auspices of communism and
compare to any other government, secular or Christian, in history.
> > I have admitted to the brutalities of Christianity in the Middle Ages.
> > You have yet to show how Christianity initiated mass murder before or
> > after that. In fact, Christianity was instrumental in bringing down the
> > brutal Roman Empire.
> And maybe you should read some history on how this was accomplished. It was
> not through charity work and alms for the poor.
Are you suggesting it's immoral for Christians to fight to defend
themselves and to insure liberty for themselves and their children?
> But let's not argue any longer. Let's just say that anyone who reads this,
> who may be wondering "who is right", should pick up a book, any old book,
> on history, read it, and decide for themselves. Agreed?
Agreed.
> > Oh my God. You compare Bush to Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot?
> > That's worse than DMB lumping Pat Robertson with Hitler. Have you no
> > understanding of the checks and balances that prevent any American
> > president from attaining unbridled power? Can you not grasp the reality
> > that in order to attain Marx's goal of eliminating economic inequalities
> > that a concentration of political power is necessary, providing an open
> > invitation to dictators?
> Checks and balances??? Oooohhhh... you mean dismantling that stupid liberal
> judiciary, and supporting the attacks on liberal judges.... oh yes, I
> see... You mean wanting to pass laws to abolish fillibustering, now that
> they are not the ones who want to do it??? Ohhhh.... right.....
Are you really clueless how liberals bash conservative judges? Does the
name Bork mean anything to you? And are you so bereft of history that you
don't know that the filibuster has never been used in the U.S. to block
judicial nominees until the last Congress? Your assertion that "wanting to
pass laws to abolish filibustering" is typical of leftist propaganda of
which I've spoken of many times.
> > What is about terrorists that you don't fear? And what, pray tell, is
> > "actual morality?" Maybe we ought to start a new thread on that!
> I fear anyone who uses terror tactics against unwitting civilians. Whether
> flying planes into buildings, or dropping napalm on crowded civilian
> streets. My "fear" is governed by intellectual reason and a belief in
> people, not governments. And my allegiance is certainly not to "the state",
> but to the principles it is supposed to be based on.
You fear being killed. Exactly what dictators rely on to gain and maintain
power. You would not fight for freedom I take it. You'll willingly let
others die fighting totalitarianism so that you can continue criticize
your government. Talk about morality!
> What is "actual morality"? I dunno. But if everyone who "claimed to be
> acting in the name of morality" was in fact doing so, we'd have no use for
> the word "morals", would we.
Sure we would. The question is about "in fact doing so." What "in fact" is
moral and why is the whole enchilada of this site, in case you were
wondering. I have yet to hear from you what standards of morality you
believe the world should follow until the MOQ is universally known and
accepted. I say the morality as codified in the Bible and the common law.
What say you?
> > Because men are "endowed by their Creator with liberty" puts God right at
> > the center of freedom.
> And where was this principle during the 1500 years of church power? You
> continue to avoid that question. Although I understand why.
I assumed those who read and understood the MOQ were aware of "evolution
towards betterness." Christianity has evolved too, you know.
> > Well, suppose you spell out for us what "being moral" is. Would part of
> > it be to abolish private property as Marx recommends?
> Ask the Amish. They find it quite moral. Or do you think the Amish are
> immoral?
They are immoral to the extent that they smother individuality for the
sake of the collective.
> > So your do favor abolishing private property?
> No, as I've said before (and you know it), I don't. I favor restructuring
> the dialogue to put rampant consumerism as less important than human
> concerns. I own a Harley. How much more evidence of "private property" do
> you want?
Delighted to hear that you reject Marx's central prerequisite for a better
world. I take it then that you would not want the government to take away
your Harley to give it to someone more deserving, like a poor person
needing transportation to a job?
Incidentally, does your Harley have a muffler that meets the same sound
standards required for my Buick?. If not, why not?
> Why is it (democracy)a "greek" term? Why did Franklin use the Iroquios
> as the only real world example of such a system????
Please quote Franklin to that effect.
> > Your statement "without thought" reflects the leftist view that Americans
> > are too stupid to know what's good for them
> Which is why we have a mutlibillion dollar advertising system in this
> country, Platt. Because people need to be told what to buy, and how buying
> things will make them attractive, popular, cool people. Or do you think
> advertising is not deceptive and manipulative, but merely "informative"?
When those on your side stop using advertising to influence voters, I'll
agree with you that it's evil.
> > which of course by your lights was the reason the majority reelected
> > George Bush.
> Not stupidity, no. I am friends with many people back home who are Bush
> supporters, and in every case its out of xenophobic distortions of
> right-wing propaganda. Fear of muslims, fear of blacks, and fear that my
> guns will be taken away. You can toss in some other things, like "liberals
> are commies" (which is xenophobic as well, but more deliberately
> distortive), but these were the big three among people I know.
>
> Hate terrorists. Hate welfare (which is nothing but "blacks" living off
> other people's money). The liberals will take my guns away.
>
> Stupidity? No. Fear? Absolutely.
Are you trying to tell me that liberals don't fear conservative judges and
the religious right? And that they don't hate Bush? Give me a break!
> > it's little wonder the left is losing ground among the electorate
> > and that your dream of a great collectivist Utopia where everybody in the
> > neighborhood willingly shares a snowblower will never happen, unless by
> > dictatorial fiat.
> You are actually happy that noboby willingly shares a snowblower.... Why
> how Christian and utterly materialistic of you. Jesus would be proud, he'd
> hate if people willingly shared things with one another. In fact, didn't
> Jesus condemn Paul for suggesting that they share? Saying, "And ye shall
> not share, for thy father in heaven wants though to acquire material
> possessions and keep them from thy commie neighbors."
Jesus would hate forcing people to share their wealth at the point of a
gun, or give up their freedom, which you seem to have no qualms about
whatsoever.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 27 2005 - 17:41:55 BST