Thoughts, Theories and Ponderables

Walkinghairball · Post by **Walkinghairball** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:52 am

Works for me Owlie, but I'm still gonna be fat and not weight challenged.

Good points.

CygnusX1 · Post by **CygnusX1** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:13 am

Walkinghairball wrote:Works for me Owlie, but I'm still gonna be fat and not weight challenged.

Me too Hairy. Hey what's for lunch bruthaman?

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:23 am

Big Blue Owl wrote: After all, just because my experience varies from this other guy, doesn't mean I'm right and he's wrong.

No, it doesn't. It means HE'S right and YOU'RE wrong!!!

Joking aside, thanks for the thoughtful and heart-felt post, BBO.

Big Blue Owl · Post by **Big Blue Owl** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:36 am

Thanks for accepting it for what it is...burble/babble/bru-ha-ha

awip2062 · Post by **awip2062** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:31 pm

I would be concerned that many of my rights would be taken if we were to "remove those things from an open public that only some or half of the people are passionate about."

Big Blue Owl · Post by **Big Blue Owl** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:43 am

I know, me too. And I strongly respect and defend your right to your rights. But as I said, it has been done with things like drinking, smoking, sexual preference (Don't Ask, Don't Tell and no marriage for gays in most states) public nudity and so on. I am guessing that most of these laws have to do with preserving rights. The right to not be affected by citizens who find something desirable that others don't. It's the thin end of the wedge on some ways, but there is not enough tolerance on the planet to allow everyone to do whatever they want at any time. We don't want to go to the grocery with our kids and shop with naked, smoking, gay, drunken, gambling people screaming FIRE in the crowded Wal-Mart. And I guess I'm saying that if some of these things that people love to do that do not affect others if done in private can be banned from doing them outside of their own domain, then it stands to reason that other personal human desires shouldn't be forced onto the public.
For example, if on our currency it said, "In Satan we trust" or if instead of a manger scene at Christmas we had to walk by a statue of the Kiss Of Shame being performed on Ol' Nick (not St. Nick, either) some would be repulsed and not understand why they have to be subjected to that kind of thing when it is most repugnant to our sensibilities. Well, we are not all the same, and there are those that feel this way about any religious sayings or statuary in their everyday lives. One might say, "Well they are wrong and should think rightly, the way I do." But as far as I can tell, that is the opposite of the intended American way. That mode of thinking is one of the reasons that our ancestors, right or wrong, left our homelands, conquered this continent and made it our own.

So whose rights do we infringe upon? Who gets the privilege to walk about with all of their rights intact and who must be the ones who walk with their heads down, wondering where they fit in?

There is no perfect answer. What I am suggesting is that if we all used a bit more empathy with those that differ (even sharply) from ourselves, we may see reciprocation, and a fair compromise might be gleaned.

Soup4Rush · Post by **Soup4Rush** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:06 am

^^^ pretty deep stuff there bro^^^

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:34 am

The only thought I'm willing to share here on this topic...
I hold our founding fathers in the very highest esteem. I think they had it exactly right the way they set things up and wrote our Constitution. With that in mind, John Adams once said,

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

If we cease to be the kind of people he describes in the name of freedom, we face serious consequences.

Please don't interpret that to mean that I think religion of any kind should be forced upon anyone. One of my religion's articles of faith states,

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Walkinghairball · Post by **Walkinghairball** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:50 am

I like my freedoms, and my bendings of the rules I do partake in, at no risk to others mind you.

I wouldn't want to see a lawless anarchy to unfold by giving all freedoms to all. That would be like a modern day Sodom and Ghpsihsaouhaora. (sp)

Yeah, I'm being a goof a little too.

Seriously.

Big Blue Owl · Post by **Big Blue Owl** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:59 am

ElfDude wrote:The only thought I'm willing to share here on this topic...
I hold our founding fathers in the very highest esteem. I think they had it exactly right the way they set things up and wrote our Constitution. With that in mind, John Adams once said,
?Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.?
If we cease to be the kind of people he describes in the name of freedom, we face serious consequences.

Please don't interpret that to mean that I think religion of any kind should be forced upon anyone. One of my religion's articles of faith states,
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Whoa, I can't believe Adams said that. And he lived much closer to the time when we stole this country to escape religious and personal persecution than we do. You'd think that these issues would have been much closer to the surface than to be able to exclude anyone who is not necessarily religious. Moral, I understand and completely agree with. I don't think the two go automatically together, though. There are plenty of secular folks who have strong morals and plenty of religious folks who do not.
Adam's statement directly contradicts the more sensible and intelligent article of your religion's faith.
Thanks for posting that, Matt!

I like my freedoms, and my bendings of the rules I do partake in, at no risk to others mind you.

You said a mind-full, Leon.

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:15 am

I don't see the contradiction in the way I read his words. I see it as, "Since the Constitution basically let's this people govern themselves, corruption will ruin everything."

Big Blue Owl · Post by **Big Blue Owl** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:18 am

The contradiction I see is the comparison of his words and your faith's words.

"made only for a moral and religious people"

"allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may"

If I worship a fig tree is the constitution inadequate to govern me?

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:23 am

Big Blue Owl wrote: If I worship a fig tree is the constitution inadequate to govern me?

At the moment, I can only think of gag answers!

Big Blue Owl · Post by **Big Blue Owl** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:36 am

Those are, very often, my favorite kind

Big Blue Owl · Post by **Big Blue Owl** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:54 am

ElfDude wrote:I don't see the contradiction in the way I read his words. I see it as, "Since the Constitution basically let's this people govern themselves, corruption will ruin everything."

Oh, and we see almost as much corruption in religious leaders and followers as in politics, so with Adam's theory in mind, we're seemingly hosed.