And yet again he nails it !!

[House Mouse]

Resisting The Islamic State s Demand For Submission RealBenCarson.com


The Islamic State (usually called ISIS) and the other advocates of Shariah law are growing rapidly, along with their zeal to eradicate or convert all “infidels.” For those who are asleep at the wheel, in the opinion of these fanatics, most of Western civilization — including America — fits into the infidel category

 

[AVG-JOE]

Well thank (insert your preferred Deity here) for THAT!!!

And may (insert your preferred Deity here) BLESS The United States of America!!​

 

[AVG-JOE]

Seriously though...

Just one more reason that reasonable and dynamic Civil Laws must always trump Religious laws whenever the two come into conflict.

 

[koshergrl]

You mean like the civil laws in, say, China, that make it legal to forcibly abort women?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Sure. As long as they comply with the Chinese Constitution and a majority of the Chinese people are on board.

If a society decides that a change is necessary, they need only make the political changes required, and anyone wishing to follow tighter religious laws can do so of their own free will.

That's why dynamic Civil Laws are needed. To keep up with changing times, and all.

 

[asaratis]

Resisting The Islamic State s Demand For Submission RealBenCarson.com


The Islamic State (usually called ISIS) and the other advocates of Shariah law are growing rapidly, along with their zeal to eradicate or convert all “infidels.” For those who are asleep at the wheel, in the opinion of these fanatics, most of Western civilization — including America — fits into the infidel category

Ben Carson is correct. Radical Muslims do not care what you think. If you do not believe as they do, they want to kill you.

In order to prevail in the war on terrorism, we must have an overall strategy, the goal of which is annihilation of the terrorists, as opposed to simply winning battles with them here and there.

For years I posted "Kill all radical Muslims!" Recently, I've changed it to "Kill all radical Muslims and their children!"

My goal seems quite the same as theirs. But for the reasoning behind it, they are the same. They want to kill me because I do not believe the same as they do. I want to kill them because they want and have sworn to kill me. There's a big difference there.

Kill All radical Muslims and their children!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Seriously though...

Just one more reason that reasonable and dynamic Civil Laws must always trump Religious laws whenever the two come into conflict.

False. That's a prescription for tyranny. The proper standard is the rejection of any civil law that conflicts with the inalienable rights of humanity as enumerated, though not exhaustively so, in the Bill of Rights.

Your welcome.

 

[AVG-JOE]

And The Bill of Rights is a fine example of...

Civil Law!
​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You mean like the civil laws in, say, China, that make it legal to forcibly abort women?

Bingo!

Those are the kinds of civil laws he forgot about when he forgot about the real-world standard for genuine liberty.

That's what happens when one unwittingly goes with the sloganeering of personal bias, as if the state's determination of what does and does not constitute religion would not necessarily entail the state imposing the "religion" of some on others, or unwittingly goes with the sloganeering of cultural Marxism, rather than the real political theory on which this nation was wisely founded: the inalienable rights of natural law.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And The Bill of Rights is a fine example of...

Civil Law!
​

Try again.

We both know you weren't thinking in that vein at all. The construct of inalinable rights is predicted on divine and natural law. The Bill of Rights are merely a number of the most obvious formally expressed in the Republic's social construct. They are not, strictly speaking, civil laws in any statutory sense, which is the context in which you were opining in your first post. Isn't that right, Joe? And I obviously wasn't speaking in terms of mere statutory law. Isn't that right, Joe?

 

[koshergrl]

Sure. As long as they comply with the Chinese Constitution and a majority of the Chinese people are on board.

If a society decides that a change is necessary, they need only make the political changes required, and anyone wishing to follow tighter religious laws can do so of their own free will.

That's why dynamic Civil Laws are needed. To keep up with changing times, and all.

What a good fascist you are. Blech.

 

[AVG-JOE]

And The Bill of Rights is a fine example of...

Civil Law!
​

Try again.

We both know you weren't thinking in that vein at all. The construct of inalinable rights is predicted on divine and natural law. The Bill of Rights are merely a number of the most obvious formally expressed in the Republic's social construct. They are not, strictly speaking, civil laws in any statutory sense, which is the context in which you were opining in your first post. Isn't that right, Joe? And I obviously wasn't speaking in terms of mere statutory law. Isn't that right, Joe?

Absolutely not!

I'm thinking that the best laws to be FORCED to live under are the simplest set of Civil Laws that a majority of us can agree on, in example, The Bill of Rights. If you happen to believe that you should restrict your existence further to appease some Deity described in a story either ancient or modern, knock yourself out. Just don't ask me to do the same just because YOU believe.

Not making me or any other non-muslim follow Sharia Law happens to be the best modern example of this because The West has been abandoning attempts to force everyone to comply with Christian Law since the Liberal revolutions of Europe and The Americas.

It is WRONG for anyone to force their religion on everyone via the government.

Remember - any rights or responsibilities that you feel are "God given" is your opinion and NOTHING more.


Does this mean that Civil Law and Religious Law will never cross paths? Hell no! Thou Shall Not Kill is a time tested rule that is NOT copyrighted by any religion.


The secret to success for a pluralistic and diverse society such as ours is Civil Laws with an emphasis on LIBERTY and the freedom to practice whatever religion floats your boat.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Sure. As long as they comply with the Chinese Constitution and a majority of the Chinese people are on board.

If a society decides that a change is necessary, they need only make the political changes required, and anyone wishing to follow tighter religious laws can do so of their own free will.

That's why dynamic Civil Laws are needed. To keep up with changing times, and all.

What a good fascist you are. Blech.

Oooo. Childish insults. That will influence leaders and win hearts and minds.

Let the grown ups talk, eh Kiddo?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sure. As long as they comply with the Chinese Constitution and a majority of the Chinese people are on board.

If a society decides that a change is necessary, they need only make the political changes required, and anyone wishing to follow tighter religious laws can do so of their own free will.

That's why dynamic Civil Laws are needed. To keep up with changing times, and all.

Like I said, you weren't opining in the context of inalienable rights at all, but mere statutory law or the social contract theory of statist collectivism: ultimately, the arbitrary tyranny of mobocratic/strong man rule, not any absolute rule of law. What we have in America is a thing called the Second Amendment which recognizes the fact that the people retain the ultimate check against the fascism of normative relativism.

Your welcome.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Yeah, the whole Chinese thing was reactionary bullshit from the get-go, but I like to give the benefit of the doubt and TRY to respond in kind when something other than a personal insult hits the board.

The whole Civil Law over Religious Law thing fits so much better in the context of a real democracy.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And The Bill of Rights is a fine example of...

Civil Law!
​

Try again.

We both know you weren't thinking in that vein at all. The construct of inalinable rights is predicted on divine and natural law. The Bill of Rights are merely a number of the most obvious formally expressed in the Republic's social construct. They are not, strictly speaking, civil laws in any statutory sense, which is the context in which you were opining in your first post. Isn't that right, Joe? And I obviously wasn't speaking in terms of mere statutory law. Isn't that right, Joe?

Absolutely not!

I'm thinking that the best laws to be FORCED to live under are the simplest set of Civil Laws that a majority of us can agree on, in example, The Bill of Rights. If you happen to believe that you should restrict your existence further to appease some Deity described in a story either ancient or modern, knock yourself out. Just don't ask me to do the same just because YOU believe.

Not making me or any other non-muslim follow Sharia Law happens to be the best modern example of this because The West has been abandoning attempts to force everyone to comply with Christian Law since the Liberal revolutions of Europe and The Americas.

It is WRONG for anyone to force their religion on everyone via the government.

Remember - any rights or responsibilities that you feel are "God given" is your opinion and NOTHING more.


Does this mean that Civil Law and Religious Law will never cross paths? Hell no! Thou Shall Not Kill is a time tested rule that is NOT copyrighted by any religion.


The secret to success for a pluralistic and diverse society such as ours is Civil Laws with an emphasis on LIBERTY and the freedom to practice whatever religion floats your boat.

False on all counts. You're deeply confused, historically and philosophically illiterate. The classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition of limited republican government on which this nation was founded was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought, and the preeminent imperative of those ramifications is that the inalienable rights of humanity cannot be violated without dire consequences resulting in the subjugation of the people. Hence, the arbitrary rule of man under the banner of the divine rule of kings, theocracy or collectivism is anathema to divinely endowed free will and, thus, to liberty.

You are utterly clueless as to what Judeo-Christianity is in sociopolitical terms. It does not advocate theocracy in any way, shape or form, let alone advocate any form of statism.

The only one unwittingly advocating the divine rule of kings (in terms of strong man rule) theocracy (in terms of institutionalized normative relativism) or the collectivism of unchecked majoritarianism is you.

What you're advocating, ultimately, is the statism of oligarchic or mobocratic rule of the Platonic-Rousseauian-Hegelian-Maxist-Fascist line of sociopolitical theory, that of Continental Europe, not that of the English and American Enlightenment, not that of this nation's founding ethos; and prior to the rise progressivism, alternately expressed as fascist corporatism or Marxist corporatism in the capitalist West, Americans understood the difference. You're no liberal in the classical sense at all.

Those of us who actually know the history of ideas and events, subverted/suppressed by leftist academicians and repackaged for sheep like you, understand that the Protestant Reformation, for example, was the second breakout of biblical Christianity against the tyranny of theocracy and made the Enlightenment possible, that it spearheaded the overthrow of monarchy and the democratization of the West.

The classical liberals of history have always understood this. PoliticalChic submitted a post earlier today that illustrates this truth:

Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America.

Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam:

Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods (Tocqueville, "Democracy in America," vol.2, p. 23.).​

 

[AVG-JOE]

How the fuck can my opinion be 'false'?!?

That there's funny.

 

[AVG-JOE]

On the other hand, that post is a DYNAMITE example of pointless labeling - I've only seen one better.

Kudos. ​

 

[AVG-JOE]

This one is going on the 'fridge:

"Hegelian-Maxist-Fascist"

​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This one is going on the 'fridge:

"Hegelian-Maxist-Fascist"

​

Store these items in your 'fridge too:

First Principles - Progressivism

Articles The Hegelian Dialectic the True Culprit

Dialectic - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Hegelian Dialectics for Dummies therightplanet.com

The Hegelian Dialectic the Delphi Technique and Moral Relativism A Letter To The Times

Hegel Fascism National Review Online

Fascism Communism

Popper further proposed that Hegel's philosophy served not only as an inspiration for communist and fascist totalitarian governments of the 20th century, whose dialectics allow for any belief to be construed as rational simply if it could be said to exist. . . . Isaiah Berlin listed Hegel as one of the six architects of modern authoritarianism who undermined liberal democracy, along with Rousseau, Claude Adrien Helvétius, Fichte, Saint-Simon, and Joseph de Maistre.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
​

Wow! The embolden text in the above sort of reflects your political meanderings, doesn't it?