Tarzan's been on this forum and the other one for awhile. Like any right-thinking person, I'm disgusted and appalled by the things he says and his attitude toward life. I'm sick of reading the atheist race-mixing commie crap he smears on this forum and I think I've found a way to finally get him to shut up. Let's out Tarzan!

Think of it. All we have to do is find out where he lives, works, and his name. We can call his boss and tell him that Tarzan is a faggot defending, nigger loving, abortion supporting piece of shit. We can call Jane and tell her what a psychotic commie asshole shes trying to marry. Then we can give his name and personal information to the guy who hosts the Nurumberg web pages so that the whole world can tell where he lives. Maybe someone will even do a retroactive abortion on him!

Someone on this forum knows who Tarzan is. Surely he's exchanged e-mail with one of you. Maybe Unk will even tell us what IP Tarzan posts from in the middle of the day. Won't you spare a few minutes to ruin Tarzan's life and shut him up forever?

-- Together We Can Stop Tarzan (visualize@tarzan.on.trial), April 16, 2001

Answers

To the top!

-- Together We Can Stop Tarzan (visualize@tarzan.on.trial), April 16, 2001.

Hey asshole:

You will have to include me with Tarzan, since I am a faggot- defending, nigger-loving, pro-choice person.

The smallest person in the world is an individual like you who would "kill" somebody simply because they disagree with them. Your kind is the lowest form of slime, an embarassment to the human race and the US Constitution. It is YOU that will end up on trial, dickweed, if you even attempt to harass anyone on this board.

-- --Together (you're@an.idiot), April 16, 2001.

My,my Mr. Together, it looks like you have found some good trolling in these waters today. No telling what you might catch with that bait but by the looks of the post above, you have hooked an Eastern Carp or a Western Big-Mouth. Keep your bait fresh and give that line just a little slack.

-- So (cr@t.es), April 16, 2001.

Sure, Tarzan is a smug, self-satisfied, psuedointellectual asshole with an inflated sense of his worth. You are the bigger asshole for advocating violence or interfering with his life. Furthermore, you're stupid.

Why do you think Tarzan is here? He couldn't cut it for a minute debating ideas in the real world, a world where the serious thinkers are not glorified code jockeys carving some time out of a work day. This is a hobby for him and it makes him warm and fuzzy to get a redneck idiot like you hot under the collar. Why? It proves he's "right" and that behind every conservative, white, religious face is a stupid, racist, homophobe.

Tarzan can have a black boyfriend for all I care. Hey, he can go the route of "Black Like Me" and change races... I'm sure he'd be happier as a person of colour. He can advocate abortion as a form of birth control and wear "God is Dead" t-shirts. He can march in support of NMBLA and worship Gaia. The price of a free cyberspace is having to tolerate unpleasant people and ideas.

(Hey, maybe this is Tarzan writing? Maybe he's defacing his own temple?)

Well, whoever wrote this, get a life and get lost.

-- The Shadow (knows@gain.com), April 16, 2001.

Sure, Tarzan is a smug, self-satisfied, psuedointellectual asshole with an inflated sense of his worth.

No, actually, that would be me.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 16, 2001.

"Sure, Tarzan is a smug, self-satisfied, psuedointellectual asshole with an inflated sense of his worth."

No, actually, that would be me. -- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 16, 2001.

I beg to differ, Unk - it's me. My smugness is even more inflated lately, because my Twins have the best record in baseball.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), April 16, 2001.

Tarzan = Unk

-- (dudesy@37.com), April 16, 2001.

"Sure, Tarzan is a smug, self-satisfied, psuedointellectual asshole with an inflated sense of his worth." No, actually, that would be me. -- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 16, 2001.

I beg to differ, Unk - it's me. My smugness is even more inflated lately, because my Twins have the best record in baseball.

Actually to be telling the truth, its me!

-- Tony Baloney (Leave Tarzan@alone.com), April 16, 2001.

"Why do you think Tarzan is here? He couldn't cut it for a minute debating ideas in the real world, a world where the serious thinkers are not glorified code jockeys carving some time out of a work day."

He sure kicked your butt on two threads.

"This is a hobby for him and it makes him warm and fuzzy to get a redneck idiot like you hot under the collar. Why? It proves he's "right" and that behind every conservative, white, religious face is a stupid, racist, homophobe."

I do think Tarzan would get a kick out of this but only because it would feed his ego. Tarzan can be an ass but he's not stupid enough to stereotype people like that.

"Tarzan can have a black boyfriend for all I care. Hey, he can go the route of "Black Like Me" and change races... I'm sure he'd be happier as a person of colour."

Did you miss the Patricia thread? he already is a person of color.

"(Hey, maybe this is Tarzan writing? Maybe he's defacing his own temple?)"

I thought that too at first but Tarzan would have been more over the top.

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), April 16, 2001.

I would also like to do that smug Maria! I bet that tight assed right wing pussy is good! (is that vinegar I smell?)

-- Tony Baloney (Fuck the@repugs.com), April 16, 2001.

Looks like Richard again. I knew it was only a matter of time before he moved from Cherri to Patricia to Tarzan. BACK BUTTON works for the posts that disgust you. Jeez...if I had to shut up everyone who disagreed with me, I'd be talkin' to MYSELF.

Reminds me of a humorous E-mail I received from SO this morning, however. It's been hard to find temporary housing in D.C. for this contract. Most folks want long-term leases. He moved weekend before last into a big house where a bunch of other guys rent rooms. One guy who rents a room on the second floor is gay.

SO's weekend was spent sight-seeing in Washington, since the weather there finally accommodated that. He said he had a great time except for Mike. He said, "I feel uncomfortable with him. It's not due to his sexual preference. I could give a damn about that. I feel uncomfortable because HE feels so comfortable around me." I had to laugh when I read that.

We never know what other folks are thinking when they stare at us or touch us. I've gone to a jazz club with SO, frequented by many homosexuals, but not really considered a "gay" club. I averted my eyes when I noticed one woman staring at me. She could have been thinking, "That necklace she's wearing looks just like the one my grandmother gave me", but she could have been thinking, "I wonder if she's gay like me. I'll wait and see if she stares back." I interviewed with a recruiter at a restaurant within walking distance of my home once. By the time we'd finished the interview, we were laughing at something and he put his hand on my shoulder. I left the restaurant while he paid and started the walk towards home. He followed me in his car down the alley and stopped me to ask if he'd offended me. He said, "We were laughing, and I touched your shoulder. I sure hope you didn't think I meant anything "bad" in that." Real life has replaced the comic strips for the laugh of the day. Thanks for the laugh, Richard, or "Together", or whoever you are.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 16, 2001.

You have a sense of humor; Tarzan doesn't. This whole thread is his wet dream. He has some illiterate hick calling for his execution. This is the same kind of gold-plated vindication he gets from the frothing at the mouth abortion protestors. Sorry, Deedah, but you are just a likeable asshole.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), April 16, 2001.

Uh, excuse me, Anita. That was not me. Like "Together you're an idiot", I am a faggot-defending, nigger-liking, pro-choice person. I appreciate Tarzan's views (as I do others) on abortion and religion. I also think the original poster has the right to show his stupidity by calling for a tar and feathering.

-- (Richard@richardjackamo.con), April 16, 2001.

Kiss my ass, Alice. Tarzan "wins" a thread by throwing off a few glib comments and then doing a victory dance. His comments are almost hundred percent content-free. The only thing Tarzan does well is sneer at anyone who doesn't agree with him. Intellectual lightweights like you only know that you agree him, and you fail to notice he never produces anything resembling a coherent position. But hey, don't let me interupt what's obviously a deep insight for you.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), April 16, 2001.

Did you miss the Patricia thread? he already is a person of color.

HHmmm, no he never said that. But then, we are all people of some color.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 16, 2001.

Wow talk about a few glib comments some sneering and a victory dance!

Tarzan backed you into a corner and you know it and that's why you continue to make backhanded attacks. Its not like Tarzans my hero but I think its funny as hell that you keep accusing him of stuff that you are actually doing.

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), April 16, 2001.

"my father and my mother are of different races themselves"

Tarzan said this in the Patricia thread.

Cherri, don't you ever have anything better to do? You are so stupid you make my head hurt!

-- (Richard@richardjackamo.con), April 16, 2001.

Shadow, don't bother. You have to wonder about a person with a handle like Alice. I'm sure it's tongue in cheek, but definitely gives the impression of a low intellect and her posts don't actually counter that impression.

Tony, ooh baby baby.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 16, 2001.

The cornerstone of Tarzan's brilliant argument was the Titanic had nothing in common with his uncle's fishing boat. In response, I detailed how the Titanic (a faith in particular political values) was like a fishing boat (a religious faith). Flint and I actually argued about this long after Tarzan had claimed victory and moved on. Say what you will about Flint, but at least the guy is willing to go through the motions of having an argument.

My dislike of Tarzan is not about his convictions. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about his colour, the colour of his girlfriend or of his politics. No, the dislike is purely personal, a low opinion of him as a thinker and as a person. He's intellectually lazy, capable of criticism but not creation. There's nothing subtle or backhanded about this opinion.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), April 16, 2001.

Maria, if you don't like my name why don't you just accuse me of being willing to go down on whatever world leader you dislike this week? This brillant strategy won you many friends on the Cherri thread. As for your dislike of tarzan I think youv just been beaten once too many times to be anything but bitter.

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), April 16, 2001.

He's intellectually lazy, capable of criticism but not creation..

Not so. I've found Tarzan's posts to be insightful, well written, usually funny, and very intelligent. I feel the same way about Flint's postings, even though his political views are seemingly opposed to mine. Methinks you should try to open your mind a bit, shadow.

Good handle, by the way. I's say you're a shadow of Tarzan, ethically and intellectually.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), April 16, 2001.

Alice, seems like I hit a nerve there. Are you the scorekeeper? You've recorded that Shadow lost in two rounds with Tar and that I didn't win any friends on Cherri's thread. Any other accounts you can give me, in our little Wild Wild West community? I'd just like to keep up with the gossip. Thanks for taking the minutes.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 16, 2001.

I can tell you that you're a loser, how's that for score keeping?

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), April 16, 2001.

What a response! I rest my case. That's too funny! LOL :)

OOH OW that hurt especially coming from Alice in a Wonder Bra, the intellect with little tits and cleavage. Frankly you could be a guy for all I know, maybe a transexual.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 16, 2001.

Well, for what it's worth, I've disagreed with Tarzan on lots of issues, and while he can get somewhat rude at times, from what I've seen he appears to be a nice guy overall, and usually stays on track with respect to the issues at hand. And most times he defends his positions very well.

In any case, thank God neither he, nor most others I've ever seen in this forum (obvious trolls aside) have dropped off to the level of the truly psychotic (ok, ok - instant armchair analysis; whatever), as the initial poster in this thread has so clearly shown him/herself to be.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 16, 2001.

Bemused is this the kind of response from Tarzan that you find "insightful, well written, usually funny, [or] very intelligent":

They are the type of people who see veterans as a symbol to be used however they like and then shoved back in their wheelchairs when they open their mouths. Vets that can't stand up for themselves are noble and patriotic. Live vets that can complain and contradict the people who would use them so cynically are stupid communists who deserve to be spit on. Not to put too fine a point on it, but to geniuses like these, your sacrifice is only as good as your willingness to accept their party line. . . These people cynically use the bodies of dead veterans to make their points; live ones who object to being used in this way are ridiculed.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 12, 2001.

Sorry I can't find any of those qualities in this quote.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 16, 2001.

I thought the quote on the attitudes of some towards veterans was insightful and right-on-the-mark and anyone who's ever had to deal with the VA will agree. They weren't funny but then again they weren't meant to be. Contrast that with what Maria said.

"OOH OW that hurt especially coming from Alice in a Wonder Bra, the intellect with little tits and cleavage. Frankly you could be a guy for all I know, maybe a transexual."

One step away from a hair pulling cat fight. Are you sure you aren't the one who called Patricia fat? The mentality is the same.

-- A Fan of The Ape Man (afan@of.theape.man), April 16, 2001.

All I can say is that Maria needs to be rode really hard. Hard enough to make her legs feel like rubber. Maybe then she will appreciate a different viewpoint. Maria, you gotta be tired of all the repugs with the short dick problem.

-- Tony Baloney (Take this you@repug.com), April 16, 2001.

Well I can see that this thread really brought out the worst in people.

To "together": Just what I would expect from a bleeding heart. Your probably a commie too.

To Socrates: If you have information on who Tarzan is and where he might live, please share with the rest of us. Otherwise please don't mess up my thread.

To Shadow: I'm greatly disappointed that I don't have your support. It was the way Tarzan humiliated you that convinced me he has to be stopped.

To Unk: Does this mean you won't tell me where Tarzan posts from?

To Alice: Why don't you get a real job so you can get surgery and fix those little titties of yours?

To Anita: Just what I would expect from another race-mixer.

to Richard: I'm not calling for a tar and feathering, I just want Tarzan to stop polluting my forum. If some pro-life hero were to take him out that would be okay too.

-- Together We Can Stop Tarzan (visualize@tarzan.on.trial), April 16, 2001.

Chastisement acknowledged, Richard. If the shoe doesn't fit, by all means, don't wear it. Maybe it's a "copy-cat" poster.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 16, 2001.

People see what they want to see. Alice likes Tarzan; she sees him winning a debate. I'm shocked, stunned, amazed!

Good try, Eve. Tarzan oozes rude. He can't tell you what time it is without a cutting remark. You have civil moments. Deedah has funny moments. Flint has lucid moments. Tarzan is talk radio, all volume, all attitude, all the time.

The remark about veteran's is vintage Tarzan. Where's the content? Who are these "some people" who use veterans? How about some examples? What is Tarzan's expertise in veteran's affairs? Behold the mighty and powerful Oz.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), April 16, 2001.

Tarzan made the veteran's comment because some people were attacking veterans who disagreed with them. On one of the Chinese fighter threads someone said that no real veteran could believe that Cherri had the right to criticize the president (or something like that with a lot of swears). When Cherri said she was a vet, and two other people who supported her said they were vets, the attacking posters flamed the vets out saying they really weren't vets.

I know your have a deep hatred for Tarzan but you have to take his posts in context just like anyone else's or they won't make much sense.

-- A Fan of the Ape Man (afan@of.theape.man), April 16, 2001.

Tarzan was very polite on this thread.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004yxo

Maybe he just doesn't like getting trolled by anonymous posters.

-- A Fan of the Ape Man (afan@of.theape.man), April 16, 2001.

Maria, I see no reason why you need to be this bitter. Tarzan is a nice guy, and so am I. We're not as hard-right as you probably like, but we have other qualities... For example, ethics. Good looks. General economic smarts.

You're lucky you know us!

Now, continue the ranting, if you must....

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), April 16, 2001.

Tarzan could no more humiliate me than he could steal my damn shoes. The guy's just another Internet ghost with no ability to influence my reality even one iota.

Even though I don't like Tarzan, I still think he has the right to his opinions. If you don't like them, tough shit. You're a punk, a racist, homophobic little coward. How about posting your real information here and let us pay you a visit?

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), April 16, 2001.

You're quite insightful Together, that is exactly what that means.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 16, 2001.

Shadow, who are you responding to, and what are you talking about? It seems like you'e obsessed with Tarzan.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), April 16, 2001.

"The cornerstone of Tarzan's brilliant argument was the Titanic had nothing in common with his uncle's fishing boat. In response, I detailed how the Titanic (a faith in particular political values) was like a fishing boat (a religious faith). Flint and I actually argued about this long after Tarzan had claimed victory and moved on. Say what you will about Flint, but at least the guy is willing to go through the motions of having an argument"

Actually the argument ended with Tarzan's post. You are lying when you say it continued long after Tarzan left. Here's the post, you can read it yourself.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004vzU

-- ICU (ICU@yes.you), April 16, 2001.

Bemused, "I see no reason why you need to be this bitter. Tarzan is a nice guy, and so am I." How do you get that I'm bitter? I'm laughing at this thread; I truly think it's funny, more cyber psychobabble, especially from Alice. That's just the fun of it and I don't take any of it seriously. Was I really supposed to take's Tony's comments seriously?

I don't doubt that Tarzan is a nice guy in real life, but I don't know him in real life. All I know of him is what he posts. I didn't see you comment on his quote. What do you think of it? I find that it isn't very intelligent at all. I responded to him on the thread that I didn't think he personally knew any vets. I, on the other hand, am a vet. And I truly found his remarks totally unfounded.

BTW, even though you and I have had a few differences in the past I don't find you childish like Tarzan. I repect you as a cyber person (of course I don't know you in real life either). As shadow suggests, I could just see Tarzan doing victory laps after he post a "slam" (that would be his spin on the post, not mine). As Eve said, he's rude or more accurately, his posts are rude.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 16, 2001.

I noticed that MY forum in your recent post, Together. Last time I looked, it was Unk's forum and we're all here as his guests.

I mix a lot more than race. You may not want to read the following descriptions, as they'll indicate how PERVERSE I really am:

I mix eggs cooked over easy in with my hashbrowns until there's NO sign of white potato at all, the golden "ooze" of the yolks having permeated the potatos, turning the entire dish into a blend of yellow.

I ALSO pour chocolate syrup over vanilla ice-cream and stir and stir until the syrup and the ice-cream blend into a light brown color with a soft texture.

I mix spinach with eggs, mushrooms, tomatos, peppers, and onions.

I'm sure there's a commandment or two against all this mixing, but I just can't help myself when the voices in my head scream "Mix...Mix!"

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 16, 2001.

LOL! I do think this is a funny thread, though I have to agree with Socr@tes (you heard it here first folks!) that this is nothing but a shameless troll monkey.

Shadow, I'm pretty happy the way that I am. I wouldn't change my race for the world. I know plenty of white, conservative, religious people who aren't racist, stupid or homophobic. I'm sort of surprised that you think I would feel that way. But maybe not, your entire vendetta against me is based on misrepresenting my opinions and viewpoints. Anyway, contrary to your statement that I hold no interest over you, I clearly hold quite a bit. You spent a lot of time and energy on this post in particular and in starting not one, not two, but three threads dedicated to yours truly. I just love the adulation of my fans.

Alice you're wrong, I would have been less obvious if I were to troll myself. Also, don't let Maria's comments get you down; most adults know it takes more than a pair of boobs to make a woman.

Anita, cute post.

Richard, your post more than any other left me speechless. Can you identify my ethnicity by my politics?

Cherri indeed.

Tony thanks for your comments but please don't bring up Maria and sex in the same post. Some of us are trying not to vomit!

I also appreciate your comments Bemused. Excellent burn, BTW. And Fan, and ICU thank-you too. I also wondered why Shadow would lie about continuing discussion.

Maria, regarding my post on veterans, you made your bed on that thread and you'll have to lie in it. You were more than happy to be identified with the vet bashers when they were bashing someone you like but when the tables are turned you scream foul. You might want to be a little more careful of your company next time. Oh and I really appreciate the irony of someone who accuses others of performing oral sex acts on political figures and speculates about the gender of others based on the perceived size of their secondary sex traits calling me rude. Pot. Kettle. Black.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 16, 2001.

I am not Dennis Olsen.

-- dudesy (dudesy@37.com), April 16, 2001.

Together is a liberal troll who uses all the right-wing stereotypes. Probably not Tarzan "as it is too wordy for him".

-- Troll Detector (troll@detector.man), April 16, 2001.

"Tarzan "wins" a thread by throwing off a few glib comments and then doing a victory dance."

If presenting hard evidence, demonstrating the falsity of his opponents' claims and neatly defending his position equals "glib comments," then perhaps you're right. However, they don't, so you're wrong. And the victory-dancer is me. I kick the stuffing out of people and then pirouette gracefully around their unconscious bodies in steel-toed boots. Get your data in order, Slim Shady.

"His comments are almost hundred percent content-free."

Wrong. His comments are full of content, data and fact. You simply don't like them, don't agree with them and can't disprove them. Claiming they possess no content does you no good. A thing is not true simply because you claim it is.

"The only thing Tarzan does well is sneer at anyone who doesn't agree with him."

No. That would be me, dipshit.

"Intellectual lightweights like you only know that you agree him, and you fail to notice he never produces anything resembling a coherent position."

Um, you fail to notice his data, statistics and facts. And you fail to counter them at all. His positions are well-argued and well- supported. You have no proof to the contrary.

"But hey, don't let me interupt what's obviously a deep insight for you."

You are nothing if not an interruption. Unless, perhaps, you are a wayward hemorrhoid.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 16, 2001.

I have the skinny on the shit flinging apeman. His real name is Mike Stivic. Hes unemployed, and lives with his fiancee's family at 804 Hauser Street in flushing, new york. I think that's in queens, which is a good place for a fag lover to live. It figurs that a leftist pinko moron like Tarzan would be found in new york. Go after him, Together. Shut that asshole up.

-- i spy with my little eye (super@snooper.com), April 16, 2001.

I am not Al-D.

-- dudesy (dudesy@37.com), April 16, 2001.

I am the forum king. I prance over everyone and expose them for the idiots they real are.

-- Already Dun Nabbied (oh@yeah.right), April 16, 2001.

Sure, the Tarzan "Titanic-fishing boat" metaphor was an OCEAN of data. He's also a Chinese jet pilot, right? Listen, I don't read all the posts on this forum but I have yet to see Tarzan produce anything that looked like "data." How about a reference, a citation, a study? Tarzan's the guy who uses his personal experiences (and those of his beloved) as a basis for analyzing social policy. But, hey, all that matters is whether you agree with guy or not.

-- The shadow (know@gain.com), April 16, 2001.

Tarzan = Already Done Happened

-- dudesy (dudesy@37.com), April 16, 2001.

Tarzan strikes me as not particularly bothersome. I've noticed that when disagreement with him becomes substantive (that is, when facts come into play), he switches into Jerk Mode as a defense mechanism, finding it easier to mock his opponent than support his own contentions. But hey, that *is* easier, especially when you realize that those who agree with your politics will accept pure BS as "support", while those who disagree will deny even the most self- evident and obvious facts. If Tarzan doesn't mind trying to look "smart" by pretending everyone else is even dumber, why should we? We all must ultimately live with ourselves.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 16, 2001.

I am not Dudesy.

-- Enlightenment (gone@away.now), April 16, 2001.

Dammit, Flint, if you don't hit the nail on the head every so often.

Forget about Tarzan for a second and think about this. The Declaration of Independence sets the philosophical table for the formation of the U.S. government. In the Declaration, we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights."

This is pretty standard natural rights language flowing out of the tradition of Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau. The whole notion that the Creator gives people rights means that no government of men can take these rights away. I'm sure you agree that rights are a philosophical construct. No autopsy has ever found the physical existence of a human "right." The framers of the republic first had to establish a philosophically justified break with England (the Declaration). They knew a state religion was a lousy idea, so they created an alternative, a secular Constitution that tolerated religion but kept it separate. The tricky part is that they used an extension of natural rights philosophy based traditional Judeo- Christian values.

What is the difference between a patriot and an evangelist? One worships the idea of America, the worships a Creator. Both are willing to do extreme things out of faith. Here's a snippet I found recently:

"By the time classical liberalism began to take hold, it was still clear to many political philosophers that religion as an arm of the state is dangerous and deleterious to human rights. When liberal ideas were imported into the new world in the 18th century, they were adopted and spread by Puritans, Anglicans, Quakers and Catholics living in colonies established by Christian English royalty. Such beliefs were eventually transmitted to the authors of the American constitution who incorporated their own ideas about human liberty into the document. Horace White once observed that the Constitution is based on "the religion of Calvin" and historian Richard Hofstadter wrote that the Founders "had a vivid Calvinistic sense of evil and damnation." By restraining government, classical liberals are acting on their beliefs that a higher power than the state exists. The Constitution is a product of these beliefs. No where else on earth did such ideas of religion, state, and liberty develop. The Constitution and its parent philosophy, liberalism are founded upon a Judeo-Christian ethic of the fallibility of the state and the need to secure natural rights. With the ratification of the Constitution, these ideals were eventually imposed on all Americans.

In their law article, Simson and Sussman want us to believe that government endorsement of any concept or program that originates in religious morals amounts to violation of the Constitution. The logical extension of this argument is that any action of government that is based on religious values must be discarded as well. By protecting human rights like life and liberty, the government would be imposing its own moral agenda on people who might not hold life and liberty as high esteem as Western, Christian philosophy traditionally has. The conclusion must be that the Constitution itself must violate its own First Amendment because it makes certain moral assumptions about the nature of mankind; assumptions which stem from religious Christian beliefs. Even Jefferson, the so-called deist and author of the Virginia statute against state religions would have never accepted the idea of an amoral government. He was able to see the foolishness of such an idea. Public policy must be based on some kind of moral and ethical foundation. The problem that Simson and Sussman really have is that they just happen to disagree with the idea of abstinence and wish to replace it with a different kind of morality: a state sponsored morality which would be constructed and enforced by the government elites. Ironically, such a plan would create the very situation that the First Amendment sought to avoid: a public morality governing private behavior to be designed and enforced by the state. It’s a situation that any ancient Persian despot would love."

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), April 16, 2001.

I am not Enightenment.

-- dudesy (dudesy@37.com), April 16, 2001.

"Dammit, Flint, if you don't hit the nail on the head every so often."

Perhaps, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I sometimes agree with Our Man Flint, too, though I suspect not for the same reasons you do.

"Forget about Tarzan for a second and think about this."

Um, you first. You seem more fixated on him than I am. In fact, I'm not worried about him at all.

"The Declaration of Independence sets the philosophical table for the formation of the U.S. government."

Yes. This is a good way of putting it.

"In the Declaration, we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights."

No. In the Declaration, the Founding Fathers assert their BELIEF that they were thusly endowed. However, neither the assertion nor the belief supports the contention that such a creator exists. The Declaration is not supporting proof that there is a creator or god.

"This is pretty standard natural rights language flowing out of the tradition of Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau."

Yes.

"The whole notion that the Creator gives people rights means that no government of men can take these rights away."

If it were true, you mean. However, as it is manifestly obvious that certain governments of man have done precisely that, so your creator must either not be doing his job, or he must not exist. In fact, if you claim that all people possess these rights, then a quick look at world history will demonstrate that those same rights have been abridged by governments for pretty much all of recorded history. As I told you (or someone talking much like you on another thread), perhaps you should have a talk with the Chinese government and tell them that your god says that they can't take their citizens' rights away, and that they'd better clean up their act. See how well that works.

"I'm sure you agree that rights are a philosophical construct."

Not really. Rights are a legal construct.

"No autopsy has ever found the physical existence of a human "right."

And we should not expect an autopsy to find such evidence, either. This is a red herring.

"The framers of the republic first had to establish a philosophically justified break with England (the Declaration)."

I don't think so. They didn't want to leave England, but got sick of being pushed around by the King. Claiming that a "philosophically justified break" was the necessary ancestor of American freedom is like claiming that a battered wife has to write an essay before she's justified in leaving her husband. You give that some thought.

"They knew a state religion was a lousy idea,"

They sure did. Good for them.

"so they created an alternative, a secular Constitution that tolerated religion but kept it separate."

Now here you just go off the deep end. You posit, correctly, that our Constitution is a secular document, but incorrectly that it is apparently intended to fill a place hitherto filled by religion. That's wrong. You're making some kind of cockeyed attempt to equate the Constitution to religion, but you fail before you even get started. We all know that the Constitution supports rights other than freedom of religion, yet you seem to think it's the most important one out there. While it might be the most important one to you, I think others may believe that other rights are more valuable.

"The tricky part is that they used an extension of natural rights philosophy based traditional Judeo- Christian values."

This still does not support your contention that rights are endowed by a creator. The sheer belief of men does not prove that your alleged creator exists. Further, using Judeo-Christian philosophy does not make one a Judeo-Christian. Eating kosher pickles and Hebrew National hot dogs doesn't make you Jewish, either.

"What is the difference between a patriot and an evangelist? One worships the idea of America, the worships a Creator."

No. The two are not mutually exclusive. A patriot loves his country, and will perhaps take steps to aid it. An evangelist loves an idea, concept or belief, and advocates its advancement at every opportunity. You mistakenly attempt to paint patriotism as a secular religion.

I find it laughable in the extreme that so many posters here simply can't accept that patriotism and support for the Constitution -- on the part of atheists -- are just what they are. Nothing more. Not religion.

"Both are willing to do extreme things out of faith."

Not necessarily. Evangelists advocate an idea, but do not, by definition, do "extreme things." To be sure, some may, but then you get into "zealot" territory.

"Here's a snippet I found recently:"

"In their law article, Simson and Sussman want us to believe that government endorsement of any concept or program that originates in religious morals amounts to violation of the Constitution."

That appears to be true. However, simply because a concept appears to be rooted in religious morals does not mean that it is, in fact, a religious program. For example, while governments may give to the needy, the program that dispenses aid to the needy is not necessarily a religious one. There is an important distinction here that Simson and Sussman miss. If I donate money to aid the homeless, am I by definition a religious individual? Not at all. My act does not make me religious, just as having some things in common with Judeo- Christian philosophy and ethics does not make a thing either Jewish or Christian.

"The logical extension of this argument is that any action of government that is based on religious values must be discarded as well."

That would be a logical extension, but as I have shown, Simson and Sussman miss an important distinction between "appears to be rooted in religion" and "actually is a religious matter." The distinction is significant, and seriously damages the argument you have cited.

"By protecting human rights like life and liberty, the government would be imposing its own moral agenda on people who might not hold life and liberty as high esteem as Western, Christian philosophy traditionally has."

No. Here you appear to be adopting Simson and Sussman's flawed argument in order to highlight some flaws. Perhaps you would like to undertake some repair work on it?

"The conclusion must be that the Constitution itself must violate its own First Amendment because it makes certain moral assumptions about the nature of mankind; assumptions which stem from religious Christian beliefs."

That would be the flawed conclusion, yes. Again, you are presuming that if something looks religious or smells religious, then it must be religious. However, the Constitution is not a religious document. It is a legal one. Please try to recognize that.

"Even Jefferson, the so-called deist"

He was a Deist. That obviously upsets you.

"and author of the Virginia statute against state religions would have never accepted the idea of an amoral government."

We do not have an amoral government. However, we do not have a religious one, either. You appear to be suggesting that anything with "god" mentioned anywhere in it must be religious. I have a quarter in my pocket, and it says "in god we trust on it." I suppose that makes me religious?

"He was able to see the foolishness of such an idea. Public policy must be based on some kind of moral and ethical foundation."

However, that does not make that foundation religious in nature. Do you recognize that morals and ethics do not REQUIRE a religion to support them? To be sure, religions do possess moral and ethical codes, but morals and ethics do not require religions as parents.

"The problem that Simson and Sussman really have is that they just happen to disagree with the idea of abstinence and wish to replace it with a different kind of morality: a state sponsored morality which would be constructed and enforced by the government elites."

I certainly oppose that.

"Ironically, such a plan would create the very situation that the First Amendment sought to avoid: a public morality governing private behavior to be designed and enforced by the state. It’s a situation that any ancient Persian despot would love."

And of course, this would be the result of listening to Simson and Sussman too much. I told you earlier than Simson and Sussman made at least one major error in their argument, and that they were therefore wrong. Wrong reasoning leads to wrong results.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did), April 17, 2001.

That last post under my name isn't from me.

-- The REAL Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 17, 2001.

Tar, "You were more than happy to be identified with the vet bashers when they were bashing someone you like but when the tables are turned you scream foul." What does that mean? You know that I was *happy*? You detected that from seeing words on the screen? Identified? I stated my opinion that Cherri is a twit. Last I looked giving an opinion doesn't identify anyone with anyone. People can share opinions without sharing identities. My, you *have* proved how smart you are! Tables were turned? What tables? Scream foul? How did I scream foul? Too funny! Thanks for your analysis; it means so much to me. But let me move on to Alice.

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. My generation burned bras figuratively and literally. Symbolically we denounced the confines of the male dominated world. Alice can be treated more like a citizen thanks to the women's movement. Alice can expect equal pay for equal work, thanks to the women's movement. And Alice can work in any field her heart desires, thanks to the women's movement. So what does she do? She *praises* the benefits of the wonder bra by using it as a handle. Anyone, who reads a post from Alice, will always see her last words on each and every post, "wonder bra". If that conjures up any great meaning to people, then you went over my head. It symbolizes the oppression of women. That women are nothing without cleavage, more bs from a male dominated world. Then Tar gives us his commentary about Alice, "most adults know it takes more than a pair of boobs to make a woman". Well, I don't know who he directed this gem at, but yes Tar, we *do* know that women are more than a pair of boobs but Alice, with her great handle, reminds us how far we (women) haven't come. Thanks Tar for your great insight for which I would be lost without.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 17, 2001.

"Sure, the Tarzan "Titanic-fishing boat" metaphor was an OCEAN of data."

You made an assertatio that faith and political opinion are the same thing. What possible data could be presented in this case?

-- A Fan of the Ape Man (afan@of.theape.man), April 17, 2001.

Already Done Happened is Ken Decker or someone as equally self- important, arrogant, condescending and full of nonsensical legalistic interpretive bullshit as he was.

Just because he decides things are the way he interprets them, does not make them so, even if he uses a bunch of legal psychobable to make it appear so.

-- AlreadyseenDecker (ohyesweh@ve.com), April 17, 2001.

I found the Alice in Wonderbra handle funny...a take-off on Alice in Wonderland. My guess is that it was meant to be humorous.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 17, 2001.

It's "already" time for a history lesson (and correction of some deliberate distortions). The Declaration of Indepedence asserts that we, the people, are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. No one is saying this is proof God exists. (What an asinine distortion). The statement is a reflection of natural rights philosophy and protestant theology. Man's relationship with God is personal, not through the church. The statement is also refutes the entire notion of a "divine right" of kings.

Here's your history lesson. It was important for the colonists to establish a "legitimacy" to the revolution for reasons practical and philosophical. When the Declaration echoed Locke, educated people in England and on the Continent knew exactly what America was talking. The Declaration was an attempt to seize the moral high ground, and it worked. The American Revolution found supporters in England and in Europe, in part because it was grounded in a philosophical framework. If was just a battered colony leaving its abusive husband, why bother with a Declaration? Read the letters written by the early Americans who were involved with this document and you'll see what I am saying is supported.

On to asinine distortion number two. The reference to the Creator endowing individual human rights comes with no assurances. Governments of man always have (and probably always will) trample on human rights. The real issue for the founding fathers was legitimacy. If rights come from a Creator, no government can legitimately deny them AND any government that does MUST be overthrown. This is exactly what I would tell the Chinese.

If rights come from government, than government can alter these rights. If rights are nothing more than a legal construct, than the laws can be changed. The framers understood the long history of governments doing bad things to people. They were also, as a group, believers in the Judeo-Christian tradition and followers of natural rights philosophy. They made individual rights "divine," because of the inherent fallibility of government.

The notion of the Constitution as religious document depends on how you see religion. The Constitution is clearly an extension of a natural rights philosophy that contends Man is endowed with certain rights. The most important right is NOT the freedom of religion, but the freedom to self govern. The Constitution is based on a divine right of man, not kings.

Like any religious document, the Constitution has been studied and reinterpreted over the years, ironically by people in long, black robes. It has been as venerated as any religious icon. America has carried its doctrines to other nations using missionaries like the CIA (Christians in Action?). The "superiority" of the values in the Constitution have been touted like any religion, and occasionally through the end of the gun. The recent mission was to stop the competing dogma of communism and its bible provided by Marx and Lenin. Like any religious document, the Constitution allows for the punishment of heretics, only the secular version is treason or sedition. The Constitution allows for forcing a "tithe" although much higher than the biblical 10 percent. Communism is the state religion of China. Liberalism is the state religion of America. If you don't think patriotism (or nationalism) can be a religion, how do you explain the statement, "My country, right or wrong, is still my country?" Sounds a lot like religious zealotry to me.

The founding fathers and their philosophical heroes said that rights come from a creator. They built a system of government based on this assumption, a philosophical notion no more provable than big juju running the universe. Hey, it may be a nifty idea but you cannot "prove" a right exists any more than some one else can prove a "soul" exists. The Constitution proves "rights" about the same as the Bible proves God.

The quotation was written by someone else, not me, but I'll be glad to forward your thoughtful and sincere concerns.

The American political and legal system based on a FAITH in the notion of individual human rights. The Church of the United States has its symbols, saints, heretics, icons and edifices. It is organized around "holy" documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It is full of the usual noble ambitions and lackluster results. If you don't see this, great, but knock off the petty distortions of my position.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), April 17, 2001.

shadow:

I think thou dost protesteth too much.

Yes, the founders of the US wanted to justify their behavior for good political reasons. They needed any European support they could get. Basing their complaints on the writings of Locke, Mills, Rousseau is a good political decision, since these were respected political philosophers of the time.

The statements about inalienable rights use religious or theological principles mostly as window dressing. This government, like any other, can and does abuse these rights whenever those in power find it a good expedient. However, they do (and should) recognize that they'd better not find this expedient too often or too publicly. Legitimacy is largely a matter of public acceptance.

So of course rights don't come from any (imaginary) creator. But if enough people profess to believe they do, then it makes political sense to use this belief as leverage. But as you point out, doing so is a 2-edged sword. So long as enough people continue in such a belief, the laws are difficult to change too much. Other than that, it really doesn't matter what philosophical system underlies the basic thrust of the legal tradition. What matters is that the public subject to the laws agrees that illegal acts according to the law are also "bad" acts according to a common value system (which need not be religious).

This "divine right" terminology seems to confuse you. The basic notion that people are capable of governing themselves requires no divinity. The US Constitution is a practical, NOT a religious document. It recognizes that power must be decentralized, that the interests of the powerful must be in permanent competition. It's a careful balance between concentrating enough power to accomplish useful governmental purposes, without concentrating it so much that nobody has enough power to correct the inevitable abuses.

You have some of this quite backwards. When churches collect taxes, they are acting as political bodies, not vice versa. Beyond this, you have defined "religion" as basically anything that anyone cares about enough to try to preserve and defend it. But this definition is so vague and general as to be useless -- until it's used as an excuse to impose as laws the tenets of some particular dogma.

The US government is based on solid, practical definitions and procedures. These are political in nature. Government doesn't become religion simply because both organizations involve people, and people share the quality of being human. While no particular religion (or any at all) is necessary to have a good government, governing is admittedly very difficult if the values of the citizens don't overlap a great deal. Calling all these values "religion" obscures the nature of government while it distorts the nature of religion. Remember that politics requires the kind of compromise that religion prohibits.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 17, 2001.

You can disagree, Flint, but I think the founding fathers were men of legitimate faith. I think they sincerely believed that the Creator did endow people with rights--a philosophical notion straight from the devout Locke.

The concept of "rights" has grown out of the tradition of liberalism, but it is clearly linked to American and European philosophical traditions. Other cultures have peacefully existed without this conception of rights. If rights are simply a majority consensus, where then the minority? Two hundred years ago, American "rights" did not apply to black slaves. Did not the blacks have a moral justification to demand rights? On what basis might this demand be legitimate?

Without a conception of rights outside the framework of political expediency, there is no Declaration of Independence nor an Emancipation Proclamation.

I agree that the Constitution has its practical application, but in practice it works very much like a religious document. You have this stubborn notions that religions cannot change, an idea that has no basis in religious history. The practice of Christianity has changed radically over the past 2000 years. The guiding principles have remained the same, though subject to widely divergent interpretation. The same can be said for the Constitution. Your statement about religions being unable to compromise simply has no bearing in reality. We're talking about the reality of religions, Flint, not the textbook.

Furthermore, you really need to ease up on the religious paranoia. Aside from Gary North and a few fruitcakes, organized religion in the U.S. has no desire to get into the business of theocracy. And I think you are being deliberately obtuse in ignoring the similarties between the U.S. Government and a church. Religion and government both form the basis for moderating human relations, allocating resources (based on varying criteria), providing services and creating rules and regulations. The government has considerably more power than religion because compliance is voluntary in most churches. Most contemporary religions have stopped putting heretics to death. Government has not.

Hey, I see commonalities and you see differences. I see government making the same mistake the Catholic church made in the middle ages. I call them indulgences, you call them presidential pardons.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), April 17, 2001.

The only church that is trying to take over the government is The Church of Secular Humanism.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), April 17, 2001.

shadow:

I think you misunderstand. I'm trying to draw what I consider a very real distinction between religious and political organizations. Yes, there are similarities as well. But calling either one a religion is as incorrect as calling both of them political organizations.

And even in practice, religions cannot compromise and remain true to themselves. They are presumably the Voice Of God On Earth, speaking absolutes handed down long ago, unvarying forever.

Remember the thread a few weeks back where someone was snorting and sputtering, over and over and over, at my suggestion that it was a *political* decision at what age to grant personhood to a citizen, before which that person had no right to life. Whoever that was simply could not grasp the concept. Why, infanticide is *wrong*! For him, this was in no way a political decision, it was not open to practical determination by the people involved. His religion told him such an issue was simply not open to discussion. Why, we're talking about *infanticide*! Can't anyone SEE this! Sputter, sputter, snort!

Now, I can see the utility of religion acting as a font of values and moral anchor for people. It does make politics easier when everyone agrees on what's good or bad. Mao was probably right that political power emerges from the barrel of a gun, but practical government can't go around shooting too many citizens, it simply costs too much.

But similarly, it's very expensive for government to legislate and attempt to enforce morality. When both parties to a transaction are satisfied and nobody is harmed, the government should have no business coming in and saying otherwise. Black markets happen when the white market is too heavily taxed or regulated. And when there are no victims, there should be no crimes.

[Most contemporary religions have stopped putting heretics to death. Government has not.]

I select this single statement out to deconstruct, because it seems most symptomatic. Government (at least around these parts) *sometimes* puts killers to death. Are killers heretics? Not by any stretch of garbled semantics! The concept of the punishment fitting the crime is not a religious concept unless you stretch religion beyond recognition.

Meanwhile, only government *prevents* religions from killing heretics. And when the godballs feel strongly enough (like killing abortion providers), not even the government can completely stop them.

So the only similarity is that people are willing to kill other people under some circumstances. But we can point out all the places where this happens (wars, apprehending criminals, committing murders, "mistakes" made on hopeless cases in hospitals, etc.) and have a hard time deciding that these are all ramifications of either religion or government.

Any organization of people is bound to have many similarities with any other organization. They have members, they have rules, they have purposes. This makes them neither all governments nor all religions, though if you work at it hard enough you can take almost *anything* that's done in the name of any organization and find *something* more- or-less similar done by either government or religion. And in some ways, a tree is like a snail. But when you start talking about forests of snails (or the Constitution as a religious document) then I can only laugh, because you have lost your bearings. Men and women are nearly identical, but Oh, those differences! They are critical.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 17, 2001.

I could have had a V-8

-- dope-slapping myelf (up@my.forehead), April 17, 2001.

"protesteth"?

uh...I dont think so

-- (duh@flint.duh), April 17, 2001.

"Already Done Happened is Ken Decker"

No. I am not.

"or someone as equally self- important, arrogant, condescending"

This much is correct. I freely admit to being self-important, arrogant and condescending. I am also a "dick" and an "asshole." But I am also right, and I challenge any and all to disprove me.

"and full of nonsensical legalistic interpretive bullshit as he was."

I know, I know. It's upsetting when someone nails your ass to the wall with legalistic minutiae. But it doesn't change the fact that they are right. Get used to it, whiner. You can't whip me, so you bleat like a wounded lamb about to fall under the wolf's slavering jaws.

Think about that picture. Dwell on it. Live it.

"Just because he decides things are the way he interprets them, does not make them so,"

That's true. It also takes proof, evidence, logic and reason to get there. If you think you have any of that, then bring it on and try to disprove me.

"even if he uses a bunch of legal psychobable to make it appear so."

Legal is legal. If you're not schooled in the law and in Constitutional matters, then that's your problem. I, however, am both of those things. Sorry I'm so well prepared, and you came to class without having done your homework. Perhaps you should pick out a topic on which you are better informed.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 17, 2001.

Translation: Pick on someone your own size.

-- Joey wasn't the only one in the cab (who@smelled.funny), April 17, 2001.

"It's "already" time for a history lesson"

If you feel that you have anything to teach me, then you are welcome to try.

"(and correction of some deliberate distortions)."

Yes. I welcome the opportunity to clear up more of your deliberate distortions.

"The Declaration of Indepedence asserts that we, the people, are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. No one is saying this is proof God exists. (What an asinine distortion)."

Considering that you hammered rather extensively on that "creator" point, you certainly seemed to be making that point. Do you or do you not take that statement as true?

"The statement is a reflection of natural rights philosophy and protestant theology. Man's relationship with God is personal, not through the church."

If you believe in a god, perhaps that's so. If you do not, then your statement is meaningless. It is, in any event irrelevant and hardly germane.

"The statement is also refutes the entire notion of a "divine right" of kings."

I know. That's a key point in the development of the concept of social equality.

"Here's your history lesson. It was important for the colonists to establish a "legitimacy" to the revolution for reasons practical and philosophical."

However, the Revolution was well under way before there was any significant attempt to establish this legitimacy, was it not? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter in particular.

"When the Declaration echoed Locke, educated people in England and on the Continent knew exactly what America was talking. The Declaration was an attempt to seize the moral high ground, and it worked."

I take it more as a justification for revolution. As the colonists were justified (IMO) in launching their revolution, I have seen the Declaration as a an assertion that "we've been wronged and here's how, we're leaving and here's why." We may, however, be saying the same thing in two different ways.

"The American Revolution found supporters in England and in Europe, in part because it was grounded in a philosophical framework. If was just a battered colony leaving its abusive husband, why bother with a Declaration?"

If it was a matter of a battered wife leaving an abusive husband, then there probably wouldn't be any Declaration. But it's a funny thing about new nations -- they always seem to issue those darn formal statements (read: Declarations) when they are founded, or when they cut themselves loose from their parent nation. But you already knew this. Asking this question seems more than a little duplicitous of you.

"Read the letters written by the early Americans who were involved with this document and you'll see what I am saying is supported."

Your citations, please? Which particular ones would you like for me to read so that I don't mistake your meaning?

"On to asinine distortion number two. The reference to the Creator endowing individual human rights comes with no assurances."

Well, you didn't clarify it, and considering I have had the same discussion elsewhere on this board, I felt it needed to be amplified. If you agree with what I said (and it appears that you do), then we can pass by this.

"Governments of man always have (and probably always will) trample on human rights.

Yes.

"The real issue for the founding fathers was legitimacy."

This is debatable.

"If rights come from a Creator, no government can legitimately deny them AND any government that does MUST be overthrown. This is exactly what I would tell the Chinese."

I agree with this hypothetical, though I do not believe that rights devolve from a Creator.

"If rights come from government, than government can alter these rights. If rights are nothing more than a legal construct, than the laws can be changed."

Yes. Rights are legal constructs, and they (laws and rights) can be changed.

"The framers understood the long history of governments doing bad things to people. They were also, as a group, believers in the Judeo- Christian tradition and followers of natural rights philosophy."

Mmm. I'll grant this, though you are certainly aware that several of the Founders were Deists, not Christians. You said as much in an earlier post. Further, the Constitution specifically rejects sectarianism, though it is laced throughout with a decidedly Calvinistic world-view.

"They made individual rights "divine," because of the inherent fallibility of government."

They did no such thing. They asserted their BELIEF that individual rights were divine, and promulgated a legal document that established -- among other things -- a starter list of rights enjoyed by the people.

"The notion of the Constitution as religious document depends on how you see religion. The Constitution is clearly an extension of a natural rights philosophy that contends Man is endowed with certain rights."

No. I disagree. It is clearly a legal document that can be changed, as can the rights enumerated and implied within it.

"The most important right is NOT the freedom of religion, but the freedom to self govern."

Hmm. I need to give this some thought. I'm not sure that I agree.

"The Constitution is based on a divine right of man, not kings."

'Based on' in a theoretical sense only. In any practical sense, it is a legal document. Further, if you have a look at Federalist 85, you will see that Alexander Hamilton clearly saw the Constitution as a work in progress, stating "time must bring it to perfection."

"Like any religious document, the Constitution has been studied and reinterpreted over the years, ironically by people in long, black robes."

Now you're just being obtuse. And now you betray your belief that the Constitution is a religious document. Shall we now posit that any book or magazine read by a judge in formal dress is a religious document? Pffffft.

"It has been as venerated as any religious icon."

Which does not make it a religious icon. The Beatles were as venerated as any religious figures, yet they are not Popes. I'm agog at your line of argument.

"America has carried its doctrines to other nations using missionaries like the CIA (Christians in Action?)."

That's it. You're off the deep end.

"The "superiority" of the values in the Constitution have been touted like any religion, and occasionally through the end of the gun."

This is certainly something that our system of government has in common with many religions, yet it is not evidence of the point you appear to be trying to make.

"The recent mission was to stop the competing dogma of communism and its bible provided by Marx and Lenin. Like any religious document, the Constitution allows for the punishment of heretics, only the secular version is treason or sedition."

I think there are no longer laws against sedition, though I would have to check to be certain.

"The Constitution allows for forcing a "tithe" although much higher than the biblical 10 percent."

I believe that tithing is a matter of choice in most modern xtian churches. Paying taxes is not. The amount of one's tithe is likewise a personal choice. The amount of one's taxes is not.

"Communism is the state religion of China. Liberalism is the state religion of America.

I reject your claim. Further, you have presented no evidence to support either statement.

"If you don't think patriotism (or nationalism) can be a religion, how do you explain the statement, "My country, right or wrong, is still my country?" Sounds a lot like religious zealotry to me."

Not really. One can have great respect and love for one's country while still recognizing and admitting its flaws and faults. Religious zealots have unquestioning respect and love for their religion, and fail to recognize or admit its flaws and faults. For a quick course on religious zealotry, have a close look at one of the mind-control cults operating in the US today, like EST/Landmark, or perhaps the Scientologists.

"The founding fathers and their philosophical heroes said that rights come from a creator. They built a system of government based on this assumption, a philosophical notion no more provable than big juju running the universe."

And the system works great, even if there's no truth to this creator nonsense.

"Hey, it may be a nifty idea but you cannot "prove" a right exists"

Of course I can. I can go to court and point to the right in the Constitution. What a silly assertion on your part.

"any more than some one else can prove a "soul" exists."

Well, I will certainly agree with you that this can't be done.

"The Constitution proves "rights" about the same as the Bible proves God."

Ridiculous. The Constitution does not *prove* rights. It *establishes* and *guarantees* them.

"The quotation was written by someone else, not me, but I'll be glad to forward your thoughtful and sincere concerns."

You are free to forward my comments to whomever you wish.

"The American political and legal system based on a FAITH in the notion of individual human rights."

It is perhaps based on such faith, but it does not operate upon it. This is a critical point that you seem to miss.

"The Church of the United States has its symbols, saints, heretics, icons and edifices."

No. What rot.

"It is organized around "holy" documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution."

No. Perhaps it makes you feel better to believe this, but it is simply not true.

"It is full of the usual noble ambitions and lackluster results."

And noble ambitions with lackluster results constitute a religion? What an overbroad and vague definition. Useless.

"If you don't see this, great, but knock off the petty distortions of my position."

I don't see this, and I don't believe I am distorting your position at all. You use thin and inaccurate comparisons to compare the Constitution to a religious document and to compare the government of the US to a religion. Yet you leave gaping holes unaccounted for and then chastise me for "distorting" your opinion.

Your argument may have merit, but it needs a lot of work. And you need to do some more reading.

"I think they sincerely believed that the Creator did endow people with rights--a philosophical notion straight from the devout Locke."

However, as I have pointed out to you already, their belief does not make it so.

"The concept of "rights" has grown out of the tradition of liberalism, but it is clearly linked to American and European philosophical traditions. Other cultures have peacefully existed without this conception of rights. If rights are simply a majority consensus, where then the minority?"

You answered your question when you invoked slaves. However, rights are not a majority consensus. They are a legal construct. There's a difference.

"Two hundred years ago, American "rights" did not apply to black slaves."

That's correct. Slaves had few legal rights at that time. We now believe that to have been wrong, but it was legal then. This directly contradicts your position.

"Did not the blacks have a moral justification to demand rights?"

I believe so, but I do not think any such demand would have been successful.

"On what basis might this demand be legitimate?"

If enough judges had agreed with it, thereby establishing rights for slaves.

"Without a conception of rights outside the framework of political expediency, there is no Declaration of Independence nor an Emancipation Proclamation."

Yes, however, your statement is misplaced. Philosophical means may certainly be used to argue for a right, but only legal means can establish them. You seem to miss this very significant distinction.

"I agree that the Constitution has its practical application, but in practice it works very much like a religious document."

No. You're totally off base.

"And I think you are being deliberately obtuse in ignoring the similarties between the U.S. Government and a church."

And I think you're being deliberately vague and cloudy.

"Religion and government both form the basis for moderating human relations, allocating resources (based on varying criteria), providing services and creating rules and regulations."

Religion and government both wage war. Religion and government both reside in buildings. Religion and government both take Federal holidays off. As vague as your comparisons are, I could probably equate my cat with a can of Spaghettios.

"Hey, I see commonalities and you see differences."

Your commonalities are very, very strained. The differences are far more pronounced.

"I see government making the same mistake the Catholic church made in the middle ages. I call them indulgences, you call them presidential pardons."

Just so you know, I'm no fan of Clinton's, nor of his dirty pardons.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 17, 2001.

I agree, Flint, that there are some differences between government and religion. I think they are alike in some very important ways, in particular, both are ideologically-driven social structures based on nonempirical notions (like freedom and justice).

Your comments about religion reflect a profound misunderstanding, or perhaps a lack of experience with the subject. Many religious people see documents like the Bible not as a rigid WORD OF GOD, but as the stories told by those who experienced God, occasionally first hand. Like any human stories, the tales are colored by perspective and historical context. Over the past 2000 years, theologians and others have attempted to study these stories to gain a better understanding of God. This study has always been influenced by perspective and context.

You treat religion like a young Sunday School pupil who only sees God writing commandments on stone tablets. This may be religion (or God) to some, but not to all. As we grow and change, so does our understanding of God. As Locke notes, this understanding will always be imperfect.

The mature purpose of religion is not to tell people what to do, but to guide them in living more meaningful lives. Returning to the commandments, it is immature to think some actions are wrong because God (or Big Juju) said so. Murder is wrong because it denies another person his or her life. Furthermore, the act of murder diminishes the murderer.

Modern government often behaves like an Old Testament church. Thou shall wear a safety belt or a motorcycle helmet. Thou shalt not use marijuana. Thou shall register for the draft. Ironically, religion is more forgiving than government of transgressions, and often less interested in meddling.

Personally, I can choose another church every Sunday. My choice in governments is far more limited. To become a citizen, I must forswear my citizenship of another country and pledge my faith to the new one. Church is voluntary, Flint, government is not.

Heretics, Flint, are not murderers but those engaged in "treason" or "sedition." The U.S. has a long history of putting "traitors" to death, and what is a traitor if not a heretic of the State? Come now, Flint, don't you remember the McCarthy era? Blacklisting? The FBI spying on American citizens suspected of communist leanings? America has a 200 year history of ramming its ideology down people's throats, not unlike your fearsome view of a church.

Already, making me laugh again. You're a paper tiger, and your slavering jaws pose no threat to me in reality or cyberspace. You don't believe rights come from a Creator. The founding fathers did. If rights are simply legal constructs and mutable, the Chinese can correctly say their citizens have "rights" as defined by their laws. The jailing or torture of Chinese dissidents is not a violation of any "right" because no right has been violated under Chinese law. If we follow your logic, America has no right to interfere with any sovereign nation's nation treatment of its people. This includes genocide. After all, it is easy enough to pass a "law" saying that Jews have no rights and build a Dachau.

The founding fathers understood this from a long history where monarchs routinely changed "laws" and people suffered. I agree that the constitution is a legal document, but it is also a statement of profound beliefs. I call this religious in nature, you may not.

The founding fathers also felt certain rights were unalienable, implying that these rights could not be changed by legal machinations. Unalienable means not given by the State nor subject to taking by the State. You tell me where you think rights come from? If they are endowed by the Government, how can they be unalienable? If rights come from the government, they are clearly subject to change and therefore not unalienable.

The CIA comment stands. The U.S. has exported its notion of democratic ideals the world over. It has supported petty dictators to prevent the spread of communism. One goal of many religions is to increase converts. The U.S. has engaged in this same type of ideological crusade for 200 years.

As for religion, many followers can recognize tremendous flaws in churches including their own. Churches tend to become political institutions over time. Some of the most devout Catholics have fought tenaciously against the Catholic Church, and some have been excommunicated. I think some patriots have seen similar flaws in the U.S. government.

Listen, you can cut-and-paste my every syllable and waste more bandwidth. Our debate is a matter of perspective, not absolute truth. I see the U.S. government acting quite like a church. You don't. Perhaps Flint's point is most salient in that many churches have evolved into political organizations. You can take another point from Flint and not try to be an asshole every other sentence. You can disagree without being quite so disagreeable. Flint disagrees, but I sense an honest willingness to engage in a discussion. If you and your twin Tarzan just want a pissing contest, find some other venue, please. It's a waste of my time and yours.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), April 18, 2001.

shadow:

I'll keep trying. But I must admit I agree with everything "Already" has written. Even if he is disagreeable about it, his points are dead on target.

[I think they are alike in some very important ways, in particular, both are ideologically-driven social structures based on nonempirical notions (like freedom and justice).]

Actually, I regard government as administrative and managerial, and most of that freedom and justice stuff as rhetorical window dressing.

[You treat religion like a young Sunday School pupil who only sees God writing commandments on stone tablets. This may be religion (or God) to some, but not to all. As we grow and change, so does our understanding of God.]

I simply don't believe you. You mean Christians (or their church) can compromise and say, well, *maybe* there's a god, but there's nothing wrong with regarding this as unlikely. And *maybe* Christ was divine, but it's legitimate to regard any such claims he might have made as being for rhetorical effect? And *maybe* we've been exaggerating those Commandments, and it's OK to covet your neighbor's wife sometimes, but only if she seems interested? Somehow, I do not think religions are open to real compromise. Evolving guesses about the nature of the nonexistent doesn't count.

[Murder is wrong because it denies another person his or her life.]

Nope. Murder is a legal construct. Go back and reread my brief list of occasions people have for killing one another, for which sometimes they become outright heroes! Legally, murder is the deliberate taking of another's life under conditions not legally or politically sanctioned. What's critical is circumstances and intent. People die all the time.

[Modern government often behaves like an Old Testament church.]

No, this is too much of a stretch. Sure, all governments have laws, and some of them try to enforce those laws evenly. But parents have and enforce rules for their children, and don't become religions as a consequence. Countries have always tried to defend themselves against foreign encroachment, and have rules to assist in this effort. This doesn't make governments into religions either. Please stick to the topic.

[If rights are simply legal constructs and mutable, the Chinese can correctly say their citizens have "rights" as defined by their laws]

Correct. They can, and they do. And it's true, though you might consider the rights legally conferred too limited for your tastes.

[The jailing or torture of Chinese dissidents is not a violation of any "right" because no right has been violated under Chinese law.]

This is debatable. Certainly beating confessions out of people is a long tradition in this country as well. Be aware that there's a difference between granting a right and respecting that right. Even here, too many rights are honored in the breach.

[America has no right to interfere with any sovereign nation's nation treatment of its people.]

"International law" is a strange beast, almost entirely imaginary. Between countries, adventures are the result of cost/benefit analyses, rarely principles.

[After all, it is easy enough to pass a "law" saying that Jews have no rights and build a Dachau.]

Not necessarily that easy. Circumstances can sometimes be turned to your advantage if you are clever and unscrupulous enough. BUT, once passed by legal procedures, it's a law just like any other.

[monarchs routinely changed "laws" and people suffered. I agree that the constitution is a legal document, but it is also a statement of profound beliefs.]

Not necessarily related. Laws can be changed for the better as well. As for the suffering, it's not spread evenly. Consider current policy alternatives -- the debate centers around WHO will benefit and WHO will lose ground. It's nearly impossible to pass (or repeal) ANY law without SOMEONE suffering.

[I call this religious in nature, you may not.]

Calling it religious doesn't make it so, but it does seem to cloud your mind. I sincerely believe the world is round and revolves around the sun. Does the sincerity of this belief make it religious? You need to recognize that not every belief is religious in nature.

[If rights come from the government, they are clearly subject to change and therefore not unalienable.]

You are confusing rhetoric with practice. All rights come from the government. Now, as a practical matter you might decree some more important than others, in a heirarchy. And over time, this has been highly workable, because our formal procedures make it very difficult to reduce certain rights too drastically. But this is still a political process. As we pass laws, our rights are growing, shrinking, and changing day to day, incrementally.

[It has supported petty dictators to prevent the spread of communism. One goal of many religions is to increase converts.]

Again you indulge in your stretched comparisons. The goal of any salesman is to make converts. Does this make the Fuller Brush Man a religion? Please stick to the topic.

[As for religion, many followers can recognize tremendous flaws in churches including their own.]

Almost impossible to do otherwise. But my (limited) experience is that they see flaws in the church, not in the religion. There is never enough money. The parking lot isn't big enough. They play lousy music to please the richest members of the congregation. Most churches are largely social clubs, and all that bible stuff is a justification for socializing. The god business is for those with personal problems. Some are comforted.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 18, 2001.

"Modern government often behaves like an Old Testament church. Thou shall wear a safety belt or a motorcycle helmet. Thou shalt not use marijuana. Thou shall register for the draft."

Oh, horseshit. Old Testament churches don't permit their parishoners to influence the formation of policy. Modern government does. Old Testament churches present orthodoxy, and expect their adherents to follow in unquestioningly. Modern government allows for questioning, opposition and revision.

"Ironically, religion is more forgiving than government of transgressions,"

Depends on what sect you're into. Some denominations are notoriously UNforgiving.

"and often less interested in meddling."

This is a non-starter. You haven't defined "meddling." If "meddling" equates to "getting involved in governmental affairs," then OF COURSE modern government gets involved in governmental affairs. You are using murky language here, and not helping your point a bit.

"Personally, I can choose another church every Sunday. My choice in governments is far more limited. To become a citizen, I must forswear my citizenship of another country and pledge my faith to the new one. Church is voluntary, Flint, government is not."

No. Government is voluntary. If you don't like the one you live with, you are perfectly free to pick another one off the shelf. You might respond by saying 'there are no governments I find preferable,' but that does not contradict my point. You CAN change the government you live with. Not my problem if you can't find one that suits you.

"Heretics, Flint, are not murderers but those engaged in "treason" or "sedition."

As I said earlier (and you apparently blew right past), I don't believe there are still sedition laws on the books. If you have evidence to the contrary, then please present it. And heresy is often defined as criticism of a church. Are you saying that anyone who criticizes the US government should be burned at the stake?

"The U.S. has a long history of putting "traitors" to death, and what is a traitor if not a heretic of the State?"

This is a loose definition, and while somewhat accurate, it does not support your claim that State = Religion.

"Come now, Flint, don't you remember the McCarthy era? Blacklisting? The FBI spying on American citizens suspected of communist leanings?"

Who was executed as a result of the HUAC hearings? Anyone? And do you remember what happened to Tailgunner Joe? That's right, he was publicly rebuked and embarrassed during the hearings, and died less than a year after the hearings ended. And have any religious heretics been executed for selling the secrets of the Catholic church to a competing religion? Get serious, Shady.

"America has a 200 year history of ramming its ideology down people's throats, not unlike your fearsome view of a church."

Doesn't make the US government a church, or even church-like.

"Already, making me laugh again."

You're making ME laugh. You have no citations, you won't answer direct questions, you can't adequately defend your points, and your 'history lesson' was seriously fucked up.

"You're a paper tiger, and your slavering jaws pose no threat to me in reality or cyberspace."

Mostly because I haven't threatened you. But I did whip your ass soundly.

"You don't believe rights come from a Creator. The founding fathers did."

Irrelevant. As I have told you (twice now, I think), the Founders' belief does not make it so. Rights come from law. Period.

Many of the founders also believed that man would never walk on the moon. Whoops.

"If rights are simply legal constructs and mutable, the Chinese can correctly say their citizens have "rights" as defined by their laws."

That is correct, but see below.

"The jailing or torture of Chinese dissidents is not a violation of any "right" because no right has been violated under Chinese law."

That is correct, but see below.

"If we follow your logic, America has no right to interfere with any sovereign nation's nation treatment of its people."

I disagree. Government being a thing of laws, and laws deriving their just power from the consent of the governed, the governed cannot be said to consent to repression and mistreatment by their government. If China were a nation of masochists who liked to be beaten three times a day in Tienanmen Square, then you might have a point. But it's not, and so you're wrong.

"This includes genocide. After all, it is easy enough to pass a "law" saying that Jews have no rights and build a Dachau."

It is easy enough. But you cannot possibly claim that Jews would consent to that. BTW, I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. You lose.

"The founding fathers understood this from a long history where monarchs routinely changed "laws" and people suffered. I agree that the constitution is a legal document, but it is also a statement of profound beliefs. I call this religious in nature, you may not."

I don't.

"The founding fathers also felt certain rights were unalienable, implying that these rights could not be changed by legal machinations. Unalienable means not given by the State nor subject to taking by the State."

What they believed is irrelevant. Your argument would not stand up in any court.

BTW, I have noticed a certain misconception on your part -- you routinely switch between the Declaration and the Constitution. Do you not recognize that the Declaration is NOT a legal document, but a statement of beliefs and principles? And that it carries no legal weight whatsoever?

Go back to class, Shadow.

"You tell me where you think rights come from? If they are endowed by the Government, how can they be unalienable? If rights come from the government, they are clearly subject to change and therefore not unalienable."

Rights did not come from the Declaration of Independence. They came from the Constitution. You have gotten your wires crossed.

"The CIA comment stands."

It stands with no weight whatsoever.

"The U.S. has exported its notion of democratic ideals the world over. It has supported petty dictators to prevent the spread of communism. One goal of many religions is to increase converts. The U.S. has engaged in this same type of ideological crusade for 200 years."

Yada yada yada, bullshit bullshit bullshit. CIA does not = missionaries. Repeating your error does not strengthen your strained point.

"As for religion, many followers can recognize tremendous flaws in churches including their own. Churches tend to become political institutions over time."

No, no, no. I spoke of (and I suspect you understood perfectly well) church members recognizing and addressing flaws IN THEIR OWN CHURCHES, not in their government. This is intentional distortion on your part.

"Some of the most devout Catholics have fought tenaciously against the Catholic Church, and some have been excommunicated. I think some patriots have seen similar flaws in the U.S. government."

Give me examples of devout Catholics who fought the Catholic church. Give me examples. Give me proof.

"Listen, you can cut-and-paste my every syllable"

I shall. If you don't like it, that's too bad.

"and waste more bandwidth."

I think your posts are more of a waste of bandwidth. You fail to answer questions, you fail to cite supporting items, and you display an almost horrifying misunderstanding of Constitutional law. Yet you prattle on as if you have all of those things and more.

"Our debate is a matter of perspective, not absolute truth."

No. We are having a debate about a factual issue. You introduce perspective as if it has some impact on the facts at hand, though it most assuredly does not.

"I see the U.S. government acting quite like a church. You don't."

You also claim that rights devolve from a creator. They do not.

"Perhaps Flint's point is most salient in that many churches have evolved into political organizations."

Perhaps.

"You can take another point from Flint and not try to be an asshole every other sentence."

And if you don't like my posting style, then perhaps you can kiss my shiny ass. Further, you can take another point from Flint and provide some evidence or citations for your claims so that you don't look like a religious crank with an axe to grind.

"You can disagree without being quite so disagreeable."

So can you. I believe you used the word "asshole" before I got to it.

"Flint disagrees, but I sense an honest willingness to engage in a discussion."

I am discussing. However, you appear to have a religious or ideological attachment to a point of view that is neither supported by facts or provable. I, however, am asserting a factual matter that disagrees with you. You don't like it. That's too bad. I will continue to post on this matter and others as long as I please.

"If you and your twin Tarzan just want a pissing contest, find some other venue, please."

No.

"It's a waste of my time and yours."

Then don't bother reading or responding to my posts. Otherwise, you can go ahead and pucker up, because you know right where my ass is located.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 18, 2001.

Right between your ears!

-- Can't (tell@em.apart), April 18, 2001.

The thread has turned to farce. Religions do not compromise on every tenet of faith. Christians accept the existence of God as a cornerstone of faith. Divergence (and evolution) begins with how Christians move past a simple faith in God. Christianity (and democracy) are really sets of principles. What does it mean to "love thy neighbor?" How does one take this principle and apply it in daily life? Most Christians agree on the existence of God, but problems break out when the principles of Christianity are applied to daily life. Most Americans believe in the Constitution, but problems break out based on how the broad principles are applied.

You and Already write as people with no practical experience in religion. The whole notion that religion is composed of people marching in lockstep is laughable. Dissident theologian Hans Kung is a good example of loyal opposition. Father Leonardo Boff is another example. Boff advocated liberation theology, a powerful reversal of traditional Vatican thought. Father Charles Curran advocates a public right to dissent from the Catholic Church. Add to this list Father Matthew Fox, Sister Ivone Gebara and Father Tissa Balasuriya. Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen of Seattle was reproached by Rome for his tolerance of ministry to homosexuals and his involvement in progressive political causes. (I have quite a list, Already. If you'd like more, just ask.)

These men and women are all examples of people who share a common faith, but disagree with prevailing theology.

I know Flint has a pathological fear of anything that smacks of an absolute. Relax, Flint, for many religious people God is the only absolute. As noted before, the human understanding of God has always been imperfect. Making things worse, religion has been coopted and used a political structure. In the course of history, religion has committed the same atrocities as governments.

Wise people, including a few of the theologians I mentioned, recognize the common mistakes of religion. As persons of conscience, they are obligated to work to better understand God, even when this work places them against their church. Patriots have the same obligation when their government no longer honors the core values and principles of the constitution.

The "consent of the governed" is a trap. In a democracy, a majority rules. Under your philosophy, the majority can remove the rights from a minority in a perfectly legal fashion. The people getting beaten by Chinese officials need be masochists. They simply need to be in the minority. Under your logic, there are no rights for the minority unless granted by the majority. I wish you both the deeply informative and enlightening experience of one day becoming a member of a minority with no legal rights. And I do hope you'll take the beating without a bunch of whining about your rights. You've earned it.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), April 19, 2001.

shadow:

Your notion of government is as limited as my notion of religion.

[The "consent of the governed" is a trap.]

No. The consent of the governed has turned out in practice to be a pretty stable and useful idea. Regimes govern poorly when the citizens don't feel involved in the process somehow. More detail later.

[Under your philosophy, the majority can remove the rights from a minority in a perfectly legal fashion.]

No. This is not a philosophy, this is an observation. I further observe that this is entirely a matter of power, not necessarily majority. A very few can remove the rights of everyone else, if they have enough power and can keep everyone else disorganized. This is in fact a very common form of government, and tends to make the few in power very rich and often very assassinated. Laws themselves are exactly as meaningful as their enforcement.

[Under your logic, there are no rights for the minority unless granted by the majority.]

You're still hung up on this majority business. Those with less power have whatever rights the powerful choose to grant them. For economic reasons if nothing else, we've found that dividing up the power (so that whoever cuts the pie doesn't get to choose the first piece) makes for more stability. The thinner power can be spread, the more people feel part of the system (they "buy in" by voting at the very least) and the larger the middle class economically (because they have real power, and their interests must be respected. Most of our interests are economic).

[And I do hope you'll take the beating without a bunch of whining about your rights. You've earned it.]

Why the childish sarcasm? I've been trying to tell you how things work. Those without power have historically been vulnerable to those with power. Legal systems that deprive definable classes of all rights tend to lead to less vigorous societies on the whole. But when such systems are created, there is always a human tension between enlightenment and short-sightedness.

We want, say, freedom of speech, but are there limits? Are we really free to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theatre? If not, why not? Because lives are endangered? What reasons for limiting our rights and freedom make sense? Most commonly, speech against the government is limited (in many countries), because this threatens those in power. But we find that when we govern with the formal consent (and participation) of the citizens, then speech against the government is no longer a threat, and becomes a natural part of the political dialogue. An excellent tradeoff, *except* for those who want unlimited power.

And that's all these "rights" are. They aren't divine, they didn't come from any imaginary creator, whatever anyone might believe. They have been derived (after many many centuries of trial and error) because they lead to healthy, stable societies where more people are content than anything else we've tried. The challenge now is to protect those rights from people who, with all good intentions, want to strongly influence the course of our lives for our own good. The tension between enlightenment and short-sightedness is permanent. Eternal vigilance and all that.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 19, 2001.

If you want to pick a ponytail then go to the Outback.

-- man (men@women.children), April 19, 2001.

Actually, Flint, totalitarian regimes have been pretty stable and long lived. China may well outlast the U.S.

Political systems are based on philosophy. Government run on pragmatism. Where does your philosophy provide a justification for freeing slaves? Economic efficiency? Were you alive in the 1850s, would you have suggested the southern states had every "right" to perpetuate the institution of slavery? If the practice is really inefficient, than the marketplace result in the natural failure of slave-owning plantations. Why should government intervene in the market for forced human labor?

I know how things work, Flint. I am interested in how things ought to work. I understand that rights cannot be unalienable, but not absolute. But if these "rights" are just a convenient political or legal construct, then they can come and go.

I believe that human rights come not from the state, but that individuals possess these unalienable rights. The individual is sovereign, and the state derives its power from the consent of individuals. Our rights are absolute until we agree, by a social contract, to limit these right for the common good. Men create the state, Flint, the state does not create men. Unless we believe in the sovereign nature of the individual, there is no moral argument against slavery. Where does man's sovereignity come from? You can build a philosophy, Flint, or you can say it comes from a Creator like Thomas Jefferson did. Or you can be cynical and say that rights are whatever the prevailing government decides to give people. In practice, you are right. In principle, you are wrong.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), April 20, 2001.

shadow:

Practices are all we really have. Principles can be useful to help us define effective practices, but these are tools and not absolutes. If you find it necessary to worship your tools, this is not my problem.

I'm glad you prefer the system we have evolved. I do too, from where I sit as a common person. I might prefer other systems, if I were among the elite in those systems. Where you sit is where you stand.

About slavery, I have a fascinating book called Time On The Cross, whose authors did an extensive quantitative analysis of the economics of slavery. For the purposes it was used for, it was very profitable (about 8%). No wonder our founding fathers, who believed all man were created equal and endowed with inalienable rights, also believed that slaves were not men for these purposes. They were too valuable as slaves.

So even these revered beliefs aren't absolute.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 20, 2001.

Practice without principle is an empty cask. I see in your argument the pessimism of Hobbes and the skepticism of Hume. For you, man is nothing more than a pleasure-seeking, pain-avoiding social animal. What concern do you have if some of the people choose to use others as cattle? For you "rights" are just a subjective notion, a legal construct provided by a government. You can have no moral objections to slavery or any other human activity, Flint, because you have no philosophical basis for morality. With or without God, I can conceive of ethics.

-- The shadow (know@gain.com), April 20, 2001.

Welll biteeee me, hey shadow, you MUST be the infamous incognito KD?

hee hee.

-- sumer (shh@aolc.on), April 20, 2001.

"The thread has turned to farce."

Yes, because you refuse to provide citations, refuse to answer questions, and present your opinion as fact.

"Religions do not compromise on every tenet of faith."

Didn't say they had to. But if you want to compare our governmental system to a religion, then you are going to have to demonstrate that MOST religions bring ALL articles of faith forward for public consideration and discussion. Otherwise, your point's toast.

"Christians accept the existence of God as a cornerstone of faith. Divergence (and evolution) begins with how Christians move past a simple faith in God. Christianity (and democracy) are really sets of principles."

Irrelevant.

"What does it mean to "love thy neighbor?" How does one take this principle and apply it in daily life?"

I don't care what your religious precepts call for.

"Most Christians agree on the existence of God, but problems break out when the principles of Christianity are applied to daily life. Most Americans believe in the Constitution, but problems break out based on how the broad principles are applied."

And most human beings agree that they need to get enough to eat each day, but problems break out in some places when people try to do that. Your comparison is so broad and strained as to be totally useless.

"You and Already write as people with no practical experience in religion."

You do not know what practical experience I may or may not have in religion. Once again, you present your opinion as fact. That's why you're not getting any traction in this discussion. Further, you appear to be writing as someone with no practicel experience in law or government.

"The whole notion that religion is composed of people marching in lockstep is laughable."

No one has presented that argument. However, you have compared patriots to evangelists, a comparison that simply does not stand.

"Dissident theologian Hans Kung is a good example of loyal opposition. Father Leonardo Boff is another example. Boff advocated liberation theology, a powerful reversal of traditional Vatican thought. Father Charles Curran advocates a public right to dissent from the Catholic Church. Add to this list Father Matthew Fox, Sister Ivone Gebara and Father Tissa Balasuriya. Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen of Seattle was reproached by Rome for his tolerance of ministry to homosexuals and his involvement in progressive political causes. (I have quite a list, Already. If you'd like more, just ask.)"

I will be examining the individuals on your list. But before I do, I'd like to offer you an opportunity to be honest. One, why are all your examples Catholics? Second, how many have been defrocked or excommunicated for their activities? Further, I asked you for "zealots," did I not? Do you suggest that the people on your list are zealots?

In any event, if the only examples you can present are Catholics, then you have harmed your argument. Rather than "church" or "religion," you should perhaps be saying "Catholic church" or "Catholic religion."

"These men and women are all examples of people who share a common faith, but disagree with prevailing theology."

You have been arguing regarding "religion," not one specific religion. Perhaps you need to come up with some examples from other faiths -- including non-christian ones.

"I know Flint has a pathological fear of anything that smacks of an absolute. Relax, Flint, for many religious people God is the only absolute."

Even though no god exists. Nice.

"As noted before, the human understanding of God has always been imperfect."

The understanding of something that does not exist cannot be anything but imperfect.

"Making things worse, religion has been coopted and used a political structure. In the course of history, religion has committed the same atrocities as governments."

Particularly when religion IS the government. Would you care to examine some examples of that?

"Wise people, including a few of the theologians I mentioned, recognize the common mistakes of religion. As persons of conscience, they are obligated to work to better understand God, even when this work places them against their church. Patriots have the same obligation when their government no longer honors the core values and principles of the constitution."

This starts out well enough, but you beg the question and betray an agenda. You have utterly failed to demonstrate that our government no longer honors the core values and principles of the Constitution. In fact, I have demonstrated that you are mistakenly presuming that the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence have the force of law, and that they are subsumed de jure in the Constitution.

"The "consent of the governed" is a trap. In a democracy, a majority rules."

Therefore, you have defended my point re the Chinese. Thanks!

"Under your philosophy, the majority can remove the rights from a minority in a perfectly legal fashion."

In reality, it could be done in a specifically legalistic approach. However, I dispute the legality of any attempt to remove rights from any group, minority or class. I can present case law and precedent to support my point. Are you, perhaps, a member of a perceived "minority" group who believes that his rights have been violated? If so, then stop dancing around the point. Come out and tell us what your problem is.

"The people getting beaten by Chinese officials need be masochists. They simply need to be in the minority."

No. You are wrong, and I have demonstrated how.

"Under your logic, there are no rights for the minority unless granted by the majority."

Wrong. If you could restrain yourself from intentional distortion, I might be persuaded to explain it to you, even though Flint has done a pretty good job of it already.

"I wish you both the deeply informative and enlightening experience of one day becoming a member of a minority with no legal rights. And I do hope you'll take the beating without a bunch of whining about your rights. You've earned it."

What an arrogant ass you are. I suppose you should take your beating on this thread with no complaints. After all, you have earned it.

"Actually, Flint, totalitarian regimes have been pretty stable and long lived."

Really? Show me some examples. The Soviet Union barely lasted 70 years. The Nazi regime lasted 12.

"China may well outlast the U.S."

China's current government is about 175 years younger than that of the US, and would have to last to the late 22d century simply to equal the age of the US government, assuming the US disappeared tomorrow. With that in mind, then, on what do you base your claim?

"Political systems are based on philosophy. Government run on pragmatism."

Yes, and?

"Where does your philosophy provide a justification for freeing slaves?"

Why, exactly, does extending rights to all citizens require any justification? Better that YOU should give us a defense FOR slavery that is supportable under Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau.

"Economic efficiency? Were you alive in the 1850s, would you have suggested the southern states had every "right" to perpetuate the institution of slavery?"

I am not concerned with states' rights. I am concerned with individual rights, particularly those in this country.

"If the practice is really inefficient, than the marketplace result in the natural failure of slave-owning plantations. Why should government intervene in the market for forced human labor?"

Because market concerns do not outweigh individual rights, and because government (specifically, the law) is the guarantor of individual rights. What a ridiculous question you have asked.

"I know how things work, Flint. I am interested in how things ought to work. I understand that rights cannot be unalienable, but not absolute. But if these "rights" are just a convenient political or legal construct, then they can come and go."

Yes. In a purely theoretical sense, you are right. However, it is the opposition of individual citizens that prevents the abridgement or repeal of those rights. You said that Flint has a pathological fear of anything that smacks of an absolute, but perhaps you have a pathological fear of discovering that your rights are not immutable and absolute. Did you consider that? Perhaps it is YOUR discomfort that is more active here, Shady.

"I believe that human rights come not from the state, but that individuals possess these unalienable rights."

However, as a matter of law, you are wrong. You cannot demonstrate this, you cannot support it, and you have cited no evidence to support your belief. I'm sorry, Shadow, but your belief and opinion have no value in a practical world.

"The individual is sovereign, and the state derives its power from the consent of individuals."

Ah. But the "consent of the governed" is a trap, is it not? That's what you said -- so are you not now falling into your trap?

"Our rights are absolute"

No. You have not demonstrated this, and you have not proven it.

"until we agree, by a social contract, to limit these right for the common good."

No. Your citizenship is a social contract which you can break at any time by moving elsewhere (picking another government, as I pointed out earlier). Your failure to explicitly agree to abide by the social contract is irrelevant. This is a libertarian fallacy.

"Men create the state, Flint, the state does not create men."

However, the state defines what rights will be enjoyed within its territory.

"Unless we believe in the sovereign nature of the individual, there is no moral argument against slavery."

No. You are incorrect. It is immoral to restrain the rights of any man so that another man may profit by his labor. This has nothing to do with your arguments presented earlier.

"Where does man's sovereignity come from? You can build a philosophy, Flint, or you can say it comes from a Creator like Thomas Jefferson did. Or you can be cynical and say that rights are whatever the prevailing government decides to give people. In practice, you are right. In principle, you are wrong."

He's not wrong because of anything you have presented. Your argument is weak and flawed, and your evidence sketchy and strained. Practice is all that matters here.

"You can have no moral objections to slavery or any other human activity, Flint, because you have no philosophical basis for morality."

No. You are incorrect. You cannot conceive of them, but that does not mean that they do not exist.

"With or without God, I can conceive of ethics."

But you would rather that your morals and ethics devolve from your god, wouldn't you?

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 20, 2001.

shadow:

You seem increasingly hard of reading. Please read first. I didn't say practice without principle. I said principles are very useful tools to use in crafting practices. Change the principles, and you change the practices.

Now, the big question is whether a change is an improvement. To make this determination, you need a philosophical baseline for comparison. Nearly any change you can think of will make some people better off and others worse off (in their own eyes). In the US, the general principle is that changes should be made such that as many people as possible will consider themselves better off, *provided* that nobody falls below some explicit line in the process.

This turns out to work fairly well. We say, "Here is a minimum set of rights guaranteed to everyone." And we try to avoid making any changes that would deprive anyone of anything in that set. We've also found that as a polity we consider ourselves better off if we can increase that set, and add new rights. But doing so always has costs, and we must decide whether we are wasteful or thrifty in the process. That's what politics is for. Costs are things that make people worse off in their own eyes. Excessive costs are those that make too many people feel too much worse off.

But even a philosophical baseline is a practical matter, subject to change based on observation and feedback. I consider it misguided to determine the minimal set of rights based on anything other than cost (such as instability or average lifespan or even GDP). But I can see that the simpleminded must have their absolutes. Systems that haven't been able to work around such deadweight have suffered.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 20, 2001.

SUMER! Is it ok if I turn on the tv?

-- helen (sumer@sumer.sumer), April 20, 2001.

helen: ?????? only the shadow 'knows' for sure.

I gotz an idea ..... shadow, can WE turn on the tv.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 22, 2001.

I'm turning on the radio.

-- dizz (its@da.dizz), April 22, 2001.

The subject/namesake of this long thread only posted twice!?!

It counts names and addresses together, so small changes will be counted differently (ala "already done happened" being counted with a ".com" and without,) but:

As of Tue Apr 24 09:23:59 CDT 2001 :



# Lines:          # Posts:         Name:
----------------  ------------     ------------------------
   579 (32.9%)      5 ( 5.7%)      already done happened 
(oh.yeah@it.did.com)
   353 (20.0%)     12 (13.8%)      the shadow (knows@gain.com)
   281 (16.0%)      7 ( 8.0%)      flint (flintc@mindspring.com)
   133 ( 7.6%)      1 ( 1.1%)      already done happened 
(oh.yeah@it.did)
    62 ( 3.5%)      6 ( 6.9%)      maria (anon@ymous.com)
    47 ( 2.7%)      4 ( 4.6%)      anita (anita_s3@hotmail.com)
    45 ( 2.6%)      2 ( 2.3%)      tarzan the ape man 
(tarzan@swingingthroughthe
junglewithouta.net)
    37 ( 2.1%)      3 ( 3.4%)      together we can stop tarzan 
(visualize@tarzan
.on.trial)
    31 ( 1.8%)      4 ( 4.6%)      alice in wonder bra 
(alice@wonder.bra)
    27 ( 1.5%)      4 ( 4.6%)      a fan of the ape man 
afan@of.theape.man)
    24 ( 1.4%)      4 ( 4.6%)      bemused (and_amazed@you.people)
    17 ( 1.0%)      2 ( 2.3%)      the shadow (know@gain.com)
    11 ( 0.6%)      2 ( 2.3%)      (richard@richardjackamo.con)
    10 ( 0.6%)      1 ( 1.1%)      icu (icu@yes.you)
     9 ( 0.5%)      4 ( 4.6%)      dudesy (dudesy@37.com)
     9 ( 0.5%)      1 ( 1.1%)      eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com)
     9 ( 0.5%)      1 ( 1.1%)      (together )
     7 ( 0.4%)      1 ( 1.1%)      tony baloney (leave 
tarzan@alone.com)
     6 ( 0.3%)      2 ( 2.3%)      uncle deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com)
     6 ( 0.3%)      1 ( 1.1%)      i spy with my little eye 
(super@snooper.com)
     6 ( 0.3%)      1 ( 1.1%)      alreadyseendecker (ohyesweh@ve.com)
     5 ( 0.3%)      1 ( 1.1%)      tony baloney (take this 
you@repug.com)
     5 ( 0.3%)      1 ( 1.1%)      so (cr@t.es)
     3 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 1.1%)      troll detector (troll@detector.man)
     3 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 1.1%)      tony baloney (fuck the@repugs.com)
     3 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 1.1%)      sumer (shh@aolc.on)
     3 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 1.1%)      sumer (shh@aol.con)
     3 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 1.1%)      cherri (jessam5@home.com)
     3 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 1.1%)      already dun nabbied (oh@yeah.right)
     3 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 1.1%)      (paracelsus@pb.au)
     3 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 1.1%)      (duh@flint.duh)
     2 ( 0.1%)      1 ( 1.1%)      the real flint 
(flintc@mindspring.com)
     2 ( 0.1%)      1 ( 1.1%)      man (men@women.children)
     2 ( 0.1%)      1 ( 1.1%)      joey wasn't the only one in the 
cab (who@smel
led.funny)
     2 ( 0.1%)      1 ( 1.1%)      helen (sumer@sumer.sumer)
     2 ( 0.1%)      1 ( 1.1%)      enlightenment (gone@away.now)
     2 ( 0.1%)      1 ( 1.1%)      dope-slapping myelf 
(up@my.forehead)
     2 ( 0.1%)      1 ( 1.1%)      dizz (its@da.dizz)
     2 ( 0.1%)      1 ( 1.1%)      can't (tell@em.apart)
     2 ( 0.1%)      1 ( 1.1%)      (dudesy@37.com)

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), April 24, 2001.