The Death of our Liberty. (Discussion Thread)

[Lord Sovereign]

Given that runaway liberalism seems to have become more tyrannical and destructive to man’s soul than anything the “stop doing that you degenerate” crowd can muster, should speak to the fact that there is a discussion to be had.

Liberty is a bit like creativity: it thrives in constraint.

 

[Simonbob]

I see that trying to point out the over reaches of religious authoritarians will fall on deaf ears, because if you two think our only objection to the religious conservative definition of 'liberty' regards 'pleasure and vices'.

Because religious authoritarianism in the guise of 'religiously defined liberty' doesn't seem to be something that you two are at all worried about preventing (in fact that seems to be what you want), where as the rest of us do not want to trade progressive authoritarians for religious authoritarians.

And I doubt pointing out there are more religions active in the US than Christianity, that have different morals, is why liberty is defined in secular terms for US law, not religious terms, would get through why trying to force this discussion into the framework of 'Christian morality" is useless for any larger discussion that cross faith/creed/ideological boundaries.

I know that historicaly, there's been some serious horror shows along that path, and current Islamics have done so truly monsterous stuff.


But...... I've never seen any of it. I don't even know anybody who goes to church. I've never been condesended by anybody of any faith. Unless you consider the Left a faith, of course.


The Left, the athiest Left are pretty much the only people I've ever been attacked by, in that kinda way.



Seperate note.

There is a simple fact, the current laws of the US came from Christian morals. It's wandered off in the last 50+ years, but that's where it came from.

 

[Captain X]

You're right.

But, being human makes you capeable of seriously screwing up. We NEED limits. And, unless you want people able to, say, rape small kids, you agree too.


It's just where that line is, and why.

There's a lot of space between the alphabet people trying to groom kids and the kind of stuff some of the people in this thread are talking about banning while claiming it represents a form of "liberty."

I completely disagree with the "no limits or you're a authoritarian" school of thought.

It's almost like there's space in between those two extremes or something.

Given that runaway liberalism seems to have become more tyrannical and destructive to man’s soul than anything the “stop doing that you degenerate” crowd can muster, should speak to the fact that there is a discussion to be had.

Do not make the mistake of conflating modern "progressivism" with liberalism. It is yet another thing the Left likes to do. Liberalism is about the individual, they are about the collective.

Liberty is a bit like creativity: it thrives in constraint.

Yeah, liberty really was thriving under all those authoritarian regimes throughout history that were constraining it. Good one.

But...... I've never seen any of it. I don't even know anybody who goes to church. I've never been condesended by anybody of any faith. Unless you consider the Left a faith, of course.

Okay, but I have. Even back when I was still religious there were still other Christians who were smug and condescending to me about matters of faith.

The Left, the athiest Left are pretty much the only people I've ever been attacked by, in that kinda way.

Funny thing - when I started seeing that kind of shit from atheists, my reference for comparison were Christians. Used to be pretty fun pointing that out to them, actually, because they hated the comparison. These days they either ignore it or have basically embraced it.

 

[Simonbob]

There's a lot of space between the alphabet people trying to groom kids and the kind of stuff some of the people in this thread are talking about banning while claiming it represents a form of "liberty."

Agreed.

I'm not sure where the line should be, but I lean more and more toward "Protect and teach people, and that takes limits." I'm ever more certain most people are not capable, nor willing, to deal with the kind of liberty you want.


It might be the thousands of years where at least a third of the population were slaves, or a lack of imagination, or, well, a heap of things. To some degree, it doesn't matter. Most people can't manage much more than their own lives, and if given to much freedom, not even their own lives.

Note, I'm including myself in that. My life sucks, after all.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Do not make the mistake of conflating modern "progressivism" with liberalism. It is yet another thing the Left likes to do. Liberalism is about the individual, they are about the collective.

Progressivism grew from within the ideological inconsistencies of liberalism I fear (and therein is another downfall. The “ism” at the end of the word that turns it into a semi-religion). That’s not to say baby out with the bath water, but to ignore these weaknesses of the ideology is to invite disaster.

 

[Captain X]

Progressivism grew from within the ideological inconsistencies of liberalism I fear (and therein is another downfall. The “ism” at the end of the word that turns it into a semi-religion). That’s not to say baby out with the bath water, but to ignore these weaknesses of the ideology is to invite disaster.

They're literally incompatible with each other. The only resemblance Progressivism has to Liberalism is that the former likes to cosplay as the latter in an attempt to fool stupid people.

 

[Bacle]

I know that historicaly, there's been some serious horror shows along that path, and current Islamics have done so truly monsterous stuff.


But...... I've never seen any of it. I don't even know anybody who goes to church. I've never been condesended by anybody of any faith. Unless you consider the Left a faith, of course.


The Left, the athiest Left are pretty much the only people I've ever been attacked by, in that kinda way.



Seperate note.

There is a simple fact, the current laws of the US came from Christian morals. It's wandered off in the last 50+ years, but that's where it came from.

I know what religious authoritarians are like because I've had/have family along those lines, who think the biggest problem with US schools is that they don't teach the Bible as part of the curriculum and that 'Taking god out of schools was where America went wrong'.

One of my own grandmothers a former Baptist Sunday school teacher and treated me and my sister like we were bad for not being baptized and not acting like servants for her while visiting.

And religious schools do plenty of damage to kids, if they are needing help with learning disabilities and instead the religious teachers just think they are being lazy or not listening enough. But I'm sure ignoring and belittling kids with learning disabilities, who struggle through life and end up dying of suicide, is perfectly kosher under religiously defined 'liberty'.

Of course @S'task already knew about my family and personal history with religious authoritarians, yet he thinks my only objection to allowing religiously defined 'liberty' has to do with porn, because admitting allowing religious groups to define things just means another set of authoritarians gets power would undercut his argument against secularly defined liberty.

Also, the morals that drive the US are as much Christian as they are Mesopotamian (since most of the Bible's moral dictates predate the Bible and go back to Hammurabi or earlier), Iroquis (people forget the Iroquis Federation's government inspired a lot of the Founders, not just European govs), and the Magna Carta for limits on gov power. Trying to pretend the morals the US operates on are only sourced from Christian society is ignoring a far more complex history of where law and the structure of the US Constitution came from.

Agreed.

I'm not sure where the line should be, but I lean more and more toward "Protect and teach people, and that takes limits." I'm ever more certain most people are not capable, nor willing, to deal with the kind of liberty you want.


It might be the thousands of years where at least a third of the population were slaves, or a lack of imagination, or, well, a heap of things. To some degree, it doesn't matter. Most people can't manage much more than their own lives, and if given to much freedom, not even their own lives.

Note, I'm including myself in that. My life sucks, after all.

Societal paternalism will never change the nature of the human animal, not worth being upset or depressed that it cannot.

Progressivism grew from within the ideological inconsistencies of liberalism I fear (and therein is another downfall. The “ism” at the end of the word that turns it into a semi-religion). That’s not to say baby out with the bath water, but to ignore these weaknesses of the ideology is to invite disaster.

No, progressivism is/was a Soviet psy-op that coopt'ed a lot of liberal culture because the Soviets could not beat us on the ground.

Classical liberalism didn't spawn progressivism, Stalin's agents did.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

I know what religious authoritarians are like because I've had/have family along those lines, who think the biggest problem with US schools is that they don't teach the Bible as part of the curriculum and that 'Taking god out of schools was where America went wrong'.

Certainly a fair conclusion considering what God has been replaced with. Whether or not that was the only outcome possible the "Soviet psy-op" as you dub it long march eating away at our institutions and culture was facilitated in part by the removal of an objective right and wrong morality.

Of course @S'task already knew about my family and personal history with religious authoritarians, yet he thinks my only objection to allowing religiously defined 'liberty' has to do with porn, because admitting allowing religious groups to define things just means another set of authoritarians gets power would undercut his argument against secularly defined liberty.

John Adams would most certainly disagree with you.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams

And Washington seemed to argue against it in his Farewell Address.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness-these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them." ~ George Washington

Which isn't to say the Founders had no qualms with organized religion, after Britain's bloody strife between Catholics and Protestants how could they not, but even from its earliest days the idea that American liberty required a religious and by extension Christian component was circulating.

 

[Bacle]

Certainly a fair conclusion considering what God has been replaced with. Whether or not that was the only outcome possible the "Soviet psy-op" as you dub it long march eating away at our institutions and culture was facilitated in part by the removal of an objective right and wrong morality.



John Adams would most certainly disagree with you.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams

And Washington seemed to argue against it in his Farewell Address.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness-these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them." ~ George Washington

Which isn't to say the Founders had no qualms with organized religion, after Britain's bloody strife between Catholics and Protestants how could they not, but even from its earliest days the idea that American liberty required a religious and by extension Christian component was circulating.

Judge Holmes's definition is much more relevant to the modern day, and there is a reason that religion got the boot from public schools after the fight against evolutionary theory and the legacy of what they did to early scientists who challenged church dogma.

The difference between the tradcons/tradCaths and the rest of the nation is they view liberty through the lens of 'Christian morality' rather than 'harm reduction/who is harmed' as the rest of the population does.

Adams was also an idealist who wanted to pretend the US would never have any significant population that was not Christian, which was never in the cards.

Christian dogma is likely reskinned/absorbed tales from multiple cultures that were coopted from other cultures of the era who's history the Church likes to pretend does poke holes in a lot of Biblical stories and show a different history than the Judeo-Christian version of events back then.

The US Constitution as a secular document, in the words of the document itself, is the closest to 'moral' anyone is likely to find in this world, and the safeguards in it against religious power and authority are there for a damn good reason.

The Founders knew of the many religious wars in Europe over the centuries, and did not want a repeat of that; Separation of Church and State exists for a reason.

 

[Bigking321]

Separation of Church and State exists for a reason.

Yes. But not in the way it is currently practiced.

It was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson as I recall and not in any founding documents.

The context intended was to protect religion from government. So the government couldn't adopt a official religion and discriminate against others. The practice and adherence to a religion in public spaces was never a issue.

This of course got flipped on its head and now people have misinterpreted it so much that it means that religion is to be actively excluded from the public sphere.

The founding fathers would be horrified by this as it spits in the face of the first ammendment and the culture of religious liberty they were trying to encourage.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

Judge Holmes's definition is much more relevant to the modern day,

I feel that's a backwards view on matters. If we can't understand our heritage we are destined to lose it.

The difference between the tradcons/tradCaths and the rest of the nation is they view liberty through the lens of 'Christian morality' rather than 'harm reduction/who is harmed' as the rest of the population does.

We all view things through the lens of *some* morality whether admittedly or not. A Conservative, a Libertarian and an SJW can all follow a code of "harm no man" and have very different outcomes. It is the values themselves which matter.

Adams was also an idealist who wanted to pretend the US would never have any significant population that was not Christian, which was never in the cards.

Well the fact Washington echoed much of that quote suggests Adams view was hardly unique to himself. Now you are certainly free to argue for a secular liberty but it would be a fiction to imply that is without question how this nation was founded.

Christian dogma is likely reskinned/absorbed tales from multiple cultures that were coopted from other cultures of the era who's history the Church likes to pretend does poke holes in a lot of Biblical stories and show a different history than the Judeo-Christian version of events back then.

"Christian dogma" is a value system. Maybe better than some, maybe worse. In that sense its no different than the value system you argue for as simply another answer to the question "what is moral?".

The Founders knew of the many religious wars in Europe over the centuries, and did not want a repeat of that; Separation of Church and State exists for a reason.

Yes. The Founders wanted a division between religion and the secular government due to, as I mentioned, knowing first hand how badly comingling religion with a head of state can go. But that has nothing to do with the importance of religion for matters of morality or liberty. Indeed, perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think any of the Founders ever expressed views along those lines and at least in some cases took an exact 180 view on the subject.

Indeed the very phrase "Separation of Church and State" derives not from our constitution but from a letter written by Jefferson explaining why he couldn't/wouldn't have the government give funds to them.

"
Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

Now I fully agree we should not legally enshrine favoritism of one religion or denomination but it is quite another to say the institutions of this country can operate in a vacuum regardless of the culture which surrounds it.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

It's becoming agonisingly obvious that you can't have a functioning society without religion. Man is an irrational animal and needs this supernatural belief to help make sense of himself and his world. Only a belief system such as that can do this, for material "freedoms" cannot provide that sort of sustenance for the soul.

That aside, to reject a God that loves you is the height of foolishness to my mind.

 

[Agent23]

It's becoming agonisingly obvious that you can't have a functioning society without religion. Man is an irrational animal and needs this supernatural belief to help make sense of himself and his world. Only a belief system such as that can do this, for material "freedoms" cannot provide that sort of sustenance for the soul.

That aside, to reject a God that loves you is the height of foolishness to my mind.

Yeah, Dutton had a few videos as to why we are evolutionarily pre-disposed to having one.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Yeah, Dutton had a few videos as to why we are evolutionarily pre-disposed to having one.

It’s obvious. Every culture has a concept of the supernatural, deities, and an afterlife.

 

[King Arts]

It’s obvious. Every culture has a concept of the supernatural, deities, and an afterlife.

Yup I agree. With no religion, with no afterlife then all that is left is nihilism and hedonism. And then why not let tranny globohomo win and let them have their drag queen story hour and all of the other things.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

How did this thread derail into a discussion about Religion in Schools? If you want my honest opinion both evolution and religious should be taught in schools as electives only because for 99.9% of us, they have no bearing on our future career paths.

Literally the problem was never God being taught or not taught in schools, the problem was that one belief in universal origin was replaced by another, it's hard to teach your kids religion these days when they are taught by the all-powerful, all-knowing government who never ever lies the opposite and then have the schools say you as a parent are just wrong or stupid for being religious.

Evolution is just a theory formulated by scientist for how the earth was created based on the evidence they have, my response to that as a Christian was to acknowledge it but still believe in God's existence all the same because if an omnipotent such as God exist it opens a bunch of existential questions that throw all the evidence for evolution out the window.

The problem however is that I never faced the 'stigma' and social isolation of being peer pressured by a public school, faith is about faith to me and without opposition there is no true conviction in the face of adversity, but that being said religion isn't suffering because the theory of evolution exists, it's suffering because the structure of public schools discourages any and all free thinking of any subjects they teach.

Evolution is a theory that nominally would just be taught to a few individuals where it would be relevant in their prospective fields of work, they are planning on moving into not really relevant for the vast majority of us and yet it's being taught as a virtual religion coast to coast for the masses to consume and since public school over church is mandatory and a vast majority of a kids friends are taught in that same atmosphere we are naturally becoming a society that not just discourages religion but in some cases scorns it.

They literally swapped one form of alleged indoctrination for another.

+++

Moving on can we all get back to the subject of the thread rather than this religious derail?

 

[King Arts]

How did this thread derail into a discussion about Religion in Schools? If you want my honest opinion both evolution and religious should be taught in schools as electives only because for 99.9% of us, they have no bearing on our future career paths.

Literally the problem was never God being taught or not taught in schools, the problem was that one belief in universal origin was replaced by another, it's hard to teach your kids religion these days when they are taught by the all-powerful, all-knowing government who never ever lies the opposite and then have the schools say you as a parent are just wrong or stupid for being religious.

Evolution is just a theory formulated by scientist for how the earth was created based on the evidence they have, my response to that as a Christian was to acknowledge it but still believe in God's existence all the same because if an omnipotent such as God exist it opens a bunch of existential questions that throw all the evidence for evolution out the window.

The problem however is that I never faced the 'stigma' and social isolation of being peer pressured by a public school, faith is about faith to me and without opposition there is no true conviction in the face of adversity, but that being said religion isn't suffering because the theory of evolution exists, it's suffering because the structure of public schools discourages any and all free thinking of any subjects they teach.

Evolution is a theory that nominally would just be taught to a few individuals where it would be relevant in their prospective fields of work, they are planning on moving into not really relevant for the vast majority of us and yet it's being taught as a virtual religion coast to coast for the masses to consume and since public school over church is mandatory and a vast majority of a kids friends are taught in that same atmosphere we are naturally becoming a society that not just discourages religion but in some cases scorns it.

They literally swapped one form of alleged indoctrination for another.

+++

Moving on can we all get back to the subject of the thread rather than this religious derail?

Umm I don't think anyone was talking about religion in schools. What me, Lord Soverign, and Agent were saying was that religion is neccesary for any society but especially one that has liberty so that it does not fall apart.

EDIT: It's not even me being a Christian chauvinist. Islam and Buddhist religions can also hold society together since they have afterlife and judgment after death.

 

[Bacle]

How did this thread derail into a discussion about Religion in Schools? If you want my honest opinion both evolution and religious should be taught in schools as electives only because for 99.9% of us, they have no bearing on our future career paths.

Literally the problem was never God being taught or not taught in schools, the problem was that one belief in universal origin was replaced by another, it's hard to teach your kids religion these days when they are taught by the all-powerful, all-knowing government who never ever lies the opposite and then have the schools say you as a parent are just wrong or stupid for being religious.

Evolution is just a theory formulated by scientist for how the earth was created based on the evidence they have, my response to that as a Christian was to acknowledge it but still believe in God's existence all the same because if an omnipotent such as God exist it opens a bunch of existential questions that throw all the evidence for evolution out the window.

The problem however is that I never faced the 'stigma' and social isolation of being peer pressured by a public school, faith is about faith to me and without opposition there is no true conviction in the face of adversity, but that being said religion isn't suffering because the theory of evolution exists, it's suffering because the structure of public schools discourages any and all free thinking of any subjects they teach.

Evolution is a theory that nominally would just be taught to a few individuals where it would be relevant in their prospective fields of work, they are planning on moving into not really relevant for the vast majority of us and yet it's being taught as a virtual religion coast to coast for the masses to consume and since public school over church is mandatory and a vast majority of a kids friends are taught in that same atmosphere we are naturally becoming a society that not just discourages religion but in some cases scorns it.

They literally swapped one form of alleged indoctrination for another.

+++

Moving on can we all get back to the subject of the thread rather than this religious derail?

The idea evolutionary theory is threat to religion only exist in the heads of people who take the timelines of any holy text or scroll or book or shaman literally.

Instead of, you know, being a massive, multi-millennia game of telephone and retelling of natural events with unknowable details clouding people's view, and where shamanistic/scientific/navigational knowledge ended, gods/demons/dragons began. Plus as survival guides; the Jews didn't know what tricanosis or shellfish poisoning were, but they knew not eating pork or shellfish prevented some ailments others got, for example.

Also, well, need to factor in naturally occuring DMT, mushroom, vapor cave, and cannabanoid experiences on shamanistic rituals/stories. That, and well, the Younger Dryas and Burkle crater impact epochs/events, and things like the Bosphorus opening up, or the Missoula Floods and glacial mass outflow events fucking the ocean's salinity up and slowly may ocean gyres that brought tropical water up to northern climates. It's why even Native Americans have flood myths, independent of European contacts, same with Aboriginal Aussie's too. And it wasn't just 1 flood event either; the Biblical one was likely Burkle crater event fucking everything that faced/lead into the Indian Ocean, while the Younger Dryas is likely Atlantis and pre-Dynastic Egypt was the only thing that kept the records intact via their priests, who said 'modern Egypt is just a fragment of a once much greater civilization during the Time of the Gods'.

Human history is much, much older and more complex than any holy book says.

And that's not a mark against their being a divine, it's just the divine exists on the other side of both death, and maybe the lightspeed/temporal barrier (Accuirbe drives will be an interesting test of at least the lightspeed bit).

Though I disagree that the theory of evolution should not be taught to everyone, regardless of 'need', because it is absolutely applicable to everyday life; anyone who has a garden, or who owns a pet, should understand why those things evolved to the point they have, if they want to care for them correctly.