Where are we headed?

I go to a public high school. I'm what I would consider an average junior. I put forth a fair amout of effort to my mental and physical edcuation. This being said, I'm in the top 5-10% of my school and close to a year ahead of the "sheeple".
We have threaths of gang related volience, I dont think that my dad ever had to worry about gang wars at school.
So It really scares me that all the people at school in a couple of years are going to be out on their own and in the real world, and more importantly voting and in turn running this country.

And the thing that scares me most is that people seemingly believe the obvious goverment brainwashing. "Dont have sex" "Dont do drugs" "Dont protect your self" " "The goverment is your friend, you should trust them" Although they did try to teach us about the Constitution once, I was the only one that apperantly had ever heard of it and/or knew any thing about it.

The "dont have sex" or "dont do drugs" dosent seem to have gotten through as much as the other ones.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see how this all pans out.



"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

I hope it dosent have to come to that.
 
How does such a belief infringe on your religious beliefs? Do you depend on governmental largesse granted to universities for a living?
Click to expand...
I didn't say that it does, simply that I find it to be counterproductive to the advancement of our species. Power does not come from the barrel of a gun, power comes from knowledge. To eschew education and the desire to learn for the sake of superstition is inherently detrimental to any society that dares call itself free.

Ouch!

afsnco-
Your point was that the pursuit of education was somehow antithetical to the American Way. Stick with that, rather than answering questions with questions.
Rich
Click to expand...
I don't mean for that to be insulting or condescending. I understand people have their beliefs and are certainly free to have them but one of mine is that the cornerstones of all religion is faith (faith defined as belief without proof) which is antithetical to the pursuit of knowledge.

I apologize for throwing this offtopic and for instigating what may very well be construed as a relgious debate but I think that it's a very crucial part of what this thread is about. To question a person's religion is to question that person's entire concept of of reality and when conflicting views on that issue are likely to affect everyone in the country I think it's very important to discuss it. Like I said, I couldn't care less if every member of Congress is a devout christian, jew, muslim, or hindu as long as their religious beliefs do not infringe on my religious beliefs or lack thereof. I don't give a hoot that the founding fathers were christian, they were still attempting to create a free society. And even if they didn't really get freedom right (I mean seriously, how is a slave owner going to pontificate on the ideas of freedom? :rolleyes: ) we at least know and understand the concept and one of the core concepts is that people are allowed to believe what they wish to believe which goes hand in hand with people being able to act as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.
 
Rich,

Actually I was answering a statement with questions. :) Just trying to figure out if Redworm fears that these notional public figures would turn their espoused religious beliefs into public policy. My guess is that's Redworm's fear.

And it's a valid one. If you believe something deeply and profoundly to be wrong, you'll do whatever you can to change it.

But Redworm's profession of belief in religious liberty doesn't appear to be genuine. What he basically said is that public figures can talk the talk as much as they want, but don't let him (Redworm) catch them trying to walk the walk if it disagrees with his beliefs. Hence he DOES have a religious test for public officials. As long as they're all talk and no action, they're OK with Redworm.

The appropriate reaction to public policy you disagree with is to vote the bum out, not try to silence him while he's in office. If enough other citizens agree with your view, the bum will be thrown out.

My point is that freedom of speech and freedom of religion apply to public figures too. My point is that the voters may have voted for him/her because of his stand on moral/religious issues.
 
Excellent thread.
Power does not come from the barrel of a gun, power comes from knowledge
Click to expand...
Maybe a little of both, neh? Maybe more one than the other. You can ponder which will negate your/my well-being instantly as opposed to long term.
I mean seriously, how is a slave owner going to pontificate on the ideas of freedom?
Click to expand...
People can, will and do rationalize everything. Like a Dept. of Homeland Security and all it entails, if that rings a bell or sounds a warning.

Religion? Got it's good AND bad points, 'specially when someone says mine trumps yours and I'm here to make it so.

Faith? Ah, faith. Faith, hope, charity and hard work might get us back on track. It'd help if we had similar values and morals and didn't let our government play the Chicken Little game by stomping on what few freedoms we're still allowed in the name of fearing a few zealots.

Keep the faith babe. (Gotta love Sgt. Oddball)
 
I don't mean for that to be insulting or condescending.
Click to expand...
RW-
It was neither, AFAIC. The "ouch" was the inevitable result of a hammer hitting a nail head.

I apologize [snip] for instigating what may very well be construed as a relgious debate but I think that it's a very crucial part of what this thread is about.
Click to expand...
Well, we'll just keep an eye on it for now. TFL history would dictate, now that the "R-Word" is becoming central to the discussion, it will degenerate to personal attack or personal religious fervor within the next half dozen posts or so.

Rich
 
But Redworm's profession of belief in religious liberty doesn't appear to be genuine. What he basically said is that public figures can talk the talk as much as they want, but don't let him (Redworm) catch them trying to walk the walk if it disagrees with his beliefs. Hence he DOES have a religious test for public officials. As long as they're all talk and no action, they're OK with Redworm.
Click to expand...
Eh, sorta. If Bush wants to say "God Bless America" at the end of every speech then no one should keep him from doing so. On the other hand if he wants to keep a person from commiting a certain act for the sole reason that his religion dictates that it's a sin, then we have a problem.

There are those who suggest that our laws are based solely on christian ideals but they're not. Murder is not illegal simply because the ten commandments say it's a no-no. The point is that I have no issue with a religious politician attempting to enact laws that are based on his religious ideals as long as those laws are genuinely beneficial to the people he serves. When the only justification for a law is a religious belief then it becomes an infringement on those who don't agree with that belief.
 
Maybe a little of both, neh? Maybe more one than the other. You can ponder which will negate your/my well-being instantly as opposed to long term.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking in broader terms, more along the lines of the effect on the evolution of our species. In either case the power that comes from the barrel of a gun would not be possible without the science that discovered it. ;)


Well, we'll just keep an eye on it for now. TFL history would dictate, now that the "R-Word" is becoming central to the discussion, it will degenerate to personal attack or personal religious fervor within the next half dozen posts or so.

Rich
Click to expand...
I hope it doesn't come to that. :o
 
So far science hasn't proven very benificial for the decay of America, nor has it yet to prove God or Christianity wrong or not to exist. Infact, science seems to have failed in many area's mankind, and like religion it can be used as a propaganda machine as well.
 
Redworm said:
Power does not come from the barrel of a gun, power comes from knowledge.
Click to expand...
Power is power, whether it comes from a gun or a broadsword or a human wave attack. Ask the Romans when they faced the barbarians. Ask the Greeks when they faced Rome. Ask the Pharaohs when they Faced Alexander.

Knowledge is all well and good, but, by itself, it will not stand up to brute force alone.

When a civilization becomes so complacent that the citizens no longer volunteer for military service, that civilization is doomed to be conquered. As much as we like to think otherwise, we are not so far from the barbarian.
 
My only issue is with the idea of "religion = good, education = bad".
Click to expand...
Redworm,
I did not say education was bad. The worship of education is bad - just like the worship of money and/or power is bad. Education is a good thing, as long as it is not elevated to the status of a god.

For many in our nation, education has taken on the status of a religious cult - to these people, only the most educated are qualified for public office.

If that thinking comes to dominate, we have a situation of "rule by the experts," which is one of the tenets of socialism. Socialism is diametrically opposed to every tenet of the Constitution and the philosophy that this nation was founded upon.
 
Good point steel!

It also seems public education has taken on a strong left wing distortion of our country and constitution. Religion and personal responsibility have been banned in public schools.
 
I don't know, but I don't like it. And I'm frustrated because there is nothing I can do. I think that if our servicemen new, on D-Day, where our nation would be 60 years later, they would have turned around. What are we to do?
 
OK, I'm really trying to stay away from the issue of religion; I even edited my questions that I posed earlier to steelheart to eliminate a religious question.

However, this is reaching the point of being ridiculous. This thread now contains posts by people arguing or implying strongly that both science and education somehow have exercised a detrimental effect on the course of the nation's development. These posts are written and posted by people using an Internet website no less! Funny, if it hadn't been for American science, fostered in no small part by American education, the Internet that enables us to read these gems of wisdom wouldn't even exist!

When I read things like this, I have to wonder that those championing RKBA issues have any supporters at all. I mean, we've got high schoolers with the unmitigated gall to be dismissive of their peers as sheeple, people seemingly arguing for a strong activist role for religion (read: evangelical Protestant Christianity) within the public schools and public realm, and people stuck in the rhetoric of the Cold War! We're fighting a war in the Middle East against people who can't keep their religion and their politics separate, for pete's sake! Why does it come as any surprise that those otherwise dismissed as sheeple eschew this particular cause, when some of its advocates (and maybe many?) have nothing but contempt for them?

Where are we headed? I guess we could choose to be like the Taliban if we really want that ... armed to the teeth, possessed of the piety of true zealots, and dumb as stumps.

Wouldn't be any pesky NFA restrictions to interfere, though. RPGs for everybody!
 
Last edited:
I guess I will jump in.

Each according to his ability, each according to their need. The Utopian dream of the liberal society.
Click to expand...

I believe that is supposed to be "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I'm not trying to be pickey; it just loses something if you leave off those prepositions.

I have to agree with the pessimists that things are going poorly. I live in the region around San Francisco so maybe I am a little biased, but it seems to me that my contemporaries, people of college age and post-college age, only have a genuine care for what they can get out of America and not any ideals that it used to (and hopefully still does) represent. Most of the younger crowd see our way of life merely as the the product of a system of government, and they overlook that it is built on a set of promises (rights) that were established by people fighting, violently, for what they believed and that these promises are supposed to be honored. Instead my contemporaries are more interested in how the system can be manipulated to get what they want or bring about a more utopian society. Of course this is not true of all of the younger crowd, but I think its true enough of the majority of them in my area.

I agree with Glock31 that the younger crowd doesn't care as much. I attended a no-amnesty protest on May 5th and 6th to counter the protest made by the illegals and their supporters. The vast majority of people there were near retirement age, if not older. There was a few of us under 30, but not many. I take the lack of support for the basic defense of citizenship in our society by the young as a grim omen.

In my opinion, people have simply become comfortable and think that things will basically stay the same no matter what happens. Don't worry about the trade deficit and that a larger portion of the national debt is owned by foriegners, the economy will manage. Don't worry about illegal aliens who make demands to be part of a country they were not invited to, they will be good citizens. Don't worry when the government restricts your access to arms, because that same government will take care of you. As Modest Mouse says, "don't worry, we'll all float on alright."

Yeah, right.
 
The founder of Communism speaks

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Click to expand...
Who brought us this jewel? Karl Marx, one of the founding fathers of Communism.
Marx expected the new synthesis to be socialism. He believed that its organizations would grow out of the conditions of the time. He predicted that there would be two phases during the transition from capitalism to a new synthesis. In the first phase, there would be a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' in which the workers would assume power in order to eliminate class differences through reeducation. This government by the working class would subsequently give way to a communal society operating under the slogan: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Click to expand...
As I have stated on numerous occasions, socialism is not what The Founders of our nation had in mind.

And from Neil Boortz of Newsmax:
Those of you who have made any study of Karl Marx and his little pet political project will recognize his belief in "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

Though there is good evidence that Marx actually lifted this little ditty from the Torah, it has become recognized as perhaps the pre-eminent motto of Communism.

I bring this up today because it is becoming increasingly clear that the international Communist movement needs to get one of its lawyer pals to hurry out there and trademark its precious motto.

If it doesn't act fast, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is going to become the de facto motto of the Democratic Party – quickly becoming known as the Social Democratic Party.
Click to expand...
(Sorry - I couldn't resist that one!):D
 
Last edited:
I read an article on news tonight that Arnold said he'd veto a bill that requires kids of all grade levels in Cali to read up on gays. The parents are none too happy either.

Oh and change the text books too, at tax payers expense of coarse. Just another example of decay in a liberal education system. It's no wonder more parents are choosing home schooling.

Sounds like they work their little heads over hard.
 
Leif said:
Wouldn't be any pesky NFA restrictions to interfere, though. RPGs for everybody!

I would like my RPG launcher in OD Green color. I will also take 100 RPG's. Is there any way we could get a Howitzer and a Tank too? And do you take credit? :)
 
Not really sure about how I feel with regard to religion and politics. I've never thought about it very much, and I probably took the seperation of church and state doctrine for granted. Taking it for granted in the sense that politicians would keep their beliefs on religion out of their political lives.

It's very confusing to me just where the country stands on the subject. You have aetheists wanting crosses on the sides of the road removed, and some of them got what they wanted. Yet our money says, "In God we trust". Bush does indeed use "God bless America". Which I personally don't have a problem with, but other religious groups might. Court rooms, I believe, still have "In God we trust" on display, yet we ban God from the pledge of allegiance in schools.

The country doesn't really seem to be able to make it's mind up. The whole idea about religion benefitting the country, stems I think, from the idea that people who follow religions that eschew good moral actions and goals, create better people. These morally rich people then move our country forward by making decisions that benefit everyone and not just themselves, which satisfies their moral tenents.

I can't help think though, that if the president is confronted or presented with a plan for the country, that completely violates every religious belief he has, would he be able to be objective about it? And what does it say about him, as a president, if he can or can't?

Knowledge is all well and good, but, by itself, it will not stand up to brute force alone.
Click to expand...
I don't know, that could go both ways. A soldier with an RPG could take a tank down, if he knows the tank has a weak spot and where to find it. A smaller force could seriously cripple a larger force with hit and run tactics and superior battle strategy. It depends on the context of what the knowledge and power is. Doesn't karate teach to use an opponent's strength against him?

When a civilization becomes so complacent that the citizens no longer volunteer for military service, that civilization is doomed to be conquered.
Click to expand...
Truer words were never said. Which goes along with my original theory that in years to come, volunteer numbers will dwindle. We could see the return of the likelyhood of the draft being implemented.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top