I think I’ve brought this up before; we tend to look at society as class-types. Uber-rich, rich, medium-rich, under-rich, upper-class, middle-class, lower-class, poor and impoverished. Then we break these into minorities and majorities class. What escapes those who ‘think’ they are minorities, are only minorities because of social status; and not by color, creed, sexual preference, or nationality.

Listening to a Conservative Radio station the other day, the host asked some folks standing in a line, hoping to get some $3500 in stimulus money; Why are you here?. .. To get the money .. .What money?. . .. .Obama money. . . ..Where did he get it?. . .. .I don’t know, maybe his stash, but we are here to get some money. Obama. .Obama. .Obama. . .

Completely clueless; it grows on trees? Someone has got to wake up the people who want handouts, that when it’s gone, it’s gone. Yep, personal responsibility has taken a back seat to government. As long as it’s got ‘FREE’ attached to it, there will always be those who are willing to take it.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

This also explains, historically, why racism and progressivism thrived together for so long — Woodrow Wilson being a primary example. Also, as late as the 40s, FDR had little trouble interning the Japanese unjustly and the nation did not object like it should have.

Report comment to moderator

It wasn’t written that way, and it wasn’t the founder’s intention that it be interpreted that way. Nor is the Bible a manual dictated directly by a deity that spells out how to act with precise and unambiguous interpretation.

It is a flaw of weak and sheepish minds to want to adhere to a book or document that spells everything out and obviates the need to actually have to think responsibly about complex circumstances.

Report comment to moderator

“Social Darwinism” is a legacy of conservatives like Ronald Reagan
who believed that free market competition works by the power of “natural selection” to optimize economic advantage to society as a whole. If you think it’s optimum to have an uber-rich class exploiting poor people, you will like this idea.

Anti-Darwinists before “social darwinism,” like William Jennings Bryan, were extemely progressive politically and opposed uber-
capitalism as being darwinist.

I get the impression that Bradley Watson (and more conservatives) needs to read Charles Dickens. Scrooge is the prototypical social darwinist conservative (which, as I say, has little to do with biological Darwinism).

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Interesting.

I do agree with those who hold that life is continually evolving. To me, this is strong evidence of the creative nature of God – that he is, through this mechanism, continuously involved in the creative act.

As for jurisprudence, how can it not be evolving? Basic principles and frameworks certainly may be fixed, certainly, but there are cases that need to be decided which the founding fathers never could have anticipated. And our understanding as a society of how those principles in the Constitution apply in a practical way to our everyday lives, certainly does change over time, as laws are passed and as cases are decided by courts.

More, there are parts where the Constitution is, for want of a better word, vague. I don’t believe that’s by accident. The framers were smart, many (most?) of them lawyers, and had they had a clear consensus and intent, they could have written that clearly. So where it is deliberately vague, then there are two possibilities – either there was no consensus, so there is no original intent there to appeal to, or else there is intent for future generations to struggle and find the meaning there for themselves and their unique circumstances.

Report comment to moderator

Dawkins thread got over 300 hits.
Will this thread surpass that number?

Report comment to moderator

“I’m pretty sure there is no there there…”

Report comment to moderator