Whoever controls the culture and popular opinion can condition any of us to accept our 'place' as permanent wards of the state.

Solzhenitsyn makes it clear "using the struggle for peace and for social justice to lead you down a false road" is something to be vigilant against.

"[T]he legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society..." How true! From the left and the right, the religious and the secular, the humble individual is constantly being picked and prodded by the 'officials' of society, then herded and conditioned to accept their world view as gospel, and of course, our 'place' in it. All for our own good -- and when that oppression has the support of 'God' the oppressed do not long remain loyal to that religion and its authorities.

The oppressed and bombarded will appeal to 'God' as their last hope -- depending on the outcome, God either proves himself or not.

I like the phrase, the God of Nature. It reminds me that I have not made myself and that men are fellow creatures born into a world that already exists and continues to exist. Do we understand all the workings of the universe? Not by a long shot. The Truth is still a mystery.

But I trust in the Process of Life and that if there is a God (or gods) and his will is done, then God's grace is HIS to give however he wants. The dogmatic view of fundamentalists tell us there is a get-out-of-hell-free card, baptism. Note that it is not something you can do yourself, but requires a 'minister' of some sort -- another 'bouncer' at the gate of heaven.

I bear witness to the constant creation, the perpetual unfolding of it all, the one song, the uni-verse, and we each have a note to sing. For me, the Truth is indeed a revelation -- it already is. The teachings of Christ and the allegorical meanings of his work and life, death, and rebirth have meaning for me greater than the small-minded, dogmatic view of the Bible which contain stories much older than the Hebrews. I find it all very fascinating and worthy of in-depth study.

Merry Christmas! ;-)

Mike, I do have to say that your definition of 'religion' and the distinction you make that separates church and state is truly brilliant. If this could be understood by the People themselves, it would be transformational. 100 stars!

One more thing: note that Paine said "tyranny IN religion" not the tyranny OF religion.

The word 'religion' is so broad that the actual principles that found the religion are often neglected. All religions are not equal. Roman Catholicism has undergone several reforms, and those reformations have had their own reformations. People will fight to the death for their religion even at the expense of its precepts.

What is the morality of Christianity? What is the morality of Islam? What is the morality of Hinduism or Buddhism? This of course assuming that one has a choice to inquire, to believe, and to express that belief -- or to reject it.

Is there such a person as an honorable atheist? Can a non-believer do good, tell the truth, and have a heart? The judging of others is the trademark of a religionist, often followed by condemnation. Compassion is exercised for the purposes of enrollment, but once that fails, the heathens are considered sub-par.

I reject the assertion that without religion I would not care about others -- every religious order I have been introduced to in fact promotes division and submissiveness, very little true love or compassion.

Once Paine started writing about religion, especially Christianity, the religious 'right' turned on him, and after his death when he was no longer able to speak for himself, others tried to sully his reputation and discredit him. But the truth cannot be destroyed simply because it is inconvenient. Being called a drunk is an example -- heck, over half of the Continental Congress was inebriated IN SESSION. To call him a drunk because that is what others have said of him doesn't change one iota his writings -- the only complaint of his writings was the expose of the mythological meaning and practices of Christianity. For that he was called a drunken fool.

You could call Paine a Deist, as were also Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington. Those that call themselves Christian should not be so quick to lump together all believers of Divine Providence as also Christians. I do believe if it were possible to poll all believers of God that their actual beliefs and practice are more Deism than Christianity.

Let's spell it out: Love, Forgiveness, Tolerance, Compassion, RESPONSIBILITY, HONESTY, Respect, Perseverance, and FAITH that embodying all this is ITS OWN REWARD. Now that would be a blessing and a grace I would be thankful for! Such a People would be considered Holy.

When allegories are treated as fact, and all must follow or suffer the machinations of the believers, there is tyranny. I do not presume to understand the workings of heaven. The word 'God' connotes many different things to different people -- if God can be defined, he can be believed or not believed, but it matters not what I believe, what is true is true no matter what I believe. In the search for truth, the first discoveries are the veils and deceptions that are propped up for the purpose of enslaving the mind and thus the will. What courage it truly takes to face reality. The Christian allegory has tremendous wisdom and liberating power, but when the Council of Nicea's declaration became 'law', true Christianity was enslaved yet again by an 'anti-Christ.' "And they will know we are Christians by our love," sings the choir -- imagine practicing such an ideology for its own sake without hope or expectation of 'divine' favor or metaphysical friends. One might actually 'get' it...

Tyranny in religion is generally a theocracy. A monarchical universe under 'the LORD' does seem incompatible with liberty and a republican form of government. When people start speaking for 'the LORD' or Allah or any deity, especially in judgement of the 'sinners,' 'heathen,' or 'infidels,' there is no better example of the foundation of tyranny. I still find it incongruous that the majority of the world's conflicts are still over whose God/Prophet is real under which all humankind is beholden to the leaders of the religious order. Blecch! I think 9,000 years of this nonsense is enough.

If only the 2nd Amendment was as clear ...

Once again the issue is clarified when put into proper perspective: who is responsible for my freedom and security?

What are we trying to secure if not first and foremost our lives, liberty, and property? All the rest is gravy if we so choose to share rather than tax our neighbors. Each of us are ultimately responsible for defending ourselves -- when we band together to protect each other as well, we become a force. That force is kept in check only by the individuals from whom that force originates. We have not delegated or waived our responsibilities, we have merely agreed to fund group projects voluntarily -- it is in our mutual best interest. When the collective power can be kept within its proper bounds, there you will find as good a security as you can ever expect in this world.

Power over how I will exercise compassion is to remain in MY hands. I will decide where my attention shall go, whom I shall admire or love. The justification of my enslavement because of another's compassion (and my apparent lack of it) is just another mind-f^%k. GD I am so tired of other people 'warning' me and trying to 'save' me all the while they are being led by the nose. Give me a GD break. Sheesh, the reason we are in such a mess is that we are conditioned to give orders or take them -- leave me alone! The idea of someone living their life by their own accord is feared by just about everyone other than the person who just wants to be responsible for himself. Stop telling me my job. ;-)

"Liberty [is] the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense."

There it is folks, the quintessential foundation of republican government. It all starts with the natural born right (and dare I say, responsibility) to defend oneself against predators. All 'legislation' (called 'laws') are to serve this purpose, not transfer our responsibility to the government (which is nothing more than other citizens with the same rights).

Robert, the NRA represents but a fraction of the gun owners in America. The liberal establishment tries to make it sound like the NRA alone is responsible for defending American's rights to arms. Robert, it ought to be noted that carrying arms was a proud British right -- what happened?

There are several hundred MILLION military arms in the hands of the citizenry -- THAT is where they are supposed to be! In American AND Britain. Canada has perhaps more arms per capita than the US -- the Swiss apparently are all armed at home with military weapons.

Everyday, 100 million gun owners do NOT initiate threat or violence - EVERY DAY. More people die from car accidents, but we are not banning automobiles. Removing the arms of 100 million law-abiding citizens to give to corrupt politicians will end up pointing those weapons back at them.

If man cannot be trusted with the power of the gun, what makes him trustworthy once in a position of power and authority over others? The issue is about personal power -- how much personal power is one allowed to have? Who says? The issue is not how much destructive power you possess but how you have used it -- lawfully or unlawfully. We can't just disempower everyone to protect us against the possibility that power will be misused -- and that is the argument proffered by the liberals, fascists, and communists that ALL POWER is to be regulated and the individual is never to possess enough power to say "NO!"

Yes, Feinstein said it and did carry concealed (from her constituency) until she was caught. To save face, she had her gun melted down into a cross and made a public display of the fact.

The issue is about personal POWER and RESPONSIBILITY. Police and government employees that carry weapons do so because their employers have the right and have hired the police to carry out the consolidated duties of their bosses. What we must always remember is that we are the employers! And we do not have the right to take arms out of our neighbors hands -- the law is to protect that inalienable right, and that is what the police have been hired to do. The clamor for control is the clamor for irresponsibility, to declare oneself a servant of the state, and demand that the state provide for all one's needs. Once these folks and this mentality becomes a majority, the rights of the responsible are voted away by the irresponsible. This trend must change...

There is yet another class of people: those that want to be controlled. There are plenty who dread liberty, they just want a benevolent master. This attitude can only survive and reproduce in an environment of master-servant cultures -- having a 'patron' is common in Latin American culture, thus the influx of immigrants not conditioned to self-determination often end up immediately on the government dole -- and if they vote, they will vote to keep it.

The majority of the populace will ALWAYS be under-informed of how things really work -- how can they? To protect ourselves from the passions of the mob, a republican form of government chartered by the People themselves, and from among the People themselves, representatives elected to first and foremost protect the lives, liberty, and property of the People who they represent. None have any authority to seize property or persons without just cause and due process, with the People in the jury box as the final arbiters. This is the American republican government established by our federal and state Constitutions. In a republican government, the People are protected from the mass of fools by the fact that their lives, liberty, and property are not subject to vote -- America is NOT a democracy for this very reason.

Waffler, voting for the guy that promises to raise taxes on the supporters of the opposition in order to give to his constituency, on the basis of 'compassion,' is an example of justifying theft in the name of the 'conscience' of the majority. Yes, I have a right to act according to conscience -- and so do you. However, if your conscience is insistent on robbing me, my conscience will be insistent on defending myself from you and your mob. What Waffler continues to ignore is the 'power' of the collective being used to enforce opinion -- the rest of us do not have to accept the opinion, but we do have to do what we are commanded to do or else. Obamacare is a good example, but there are many others -- the Patriot Act is still in effect, we have no habeas corpus rights anymore.

Assuming the representative does not exceed his Constitutionally authorized duties, I can agree with the statement. If the representative was voted in on principle, then he should stay true to his word to keep that principle. The electorate as a rule does NOT know what goes on behind the scenes. That is the primary reason 'honor' is such an important qualification for government office. Representatives with integrity are the true guardians of liberty and prosperity.

Those clamoring for equality are hoping to raise themselves up -- they acknowledge that their expectations are to receive benefits currently unavailable to them once their 'rights' are recognized by those they wish to bring down who will then progressively turn over their property until everything is 'fair'. They call it 'equality' -- those whose property has been voted away call it 'tyranny.'

Where are the politicians at the podium telling their constituents, "You are responsible for the condition and quality of your life."? Nobody gets elected by putting the responsibility back into the hands of the people. No, the politicians want only your money and your vote, and they get that by promising to relieve the voter of his responsibility and place it with the State. The mistake is to surrender to a 'lord' for the purposes of being taken care of by him. The key difference between the freeman and the slave is where they place the responsibility for himself -- in his own hands or another's.

Man, Adams couldn't be more right on. Note the date is prior to the American Revolution -- his experience is of the English government. Obviously the corruptions are full blown now in the USA. Something has got to give, or else...

Subjects of oppression will rally behind the idea of 'democracy' to cast off the current tyrant's shackles. With the monarch and aristocracy dead, and their lands and property seized by the military power that did the killing, does the military leader give up power? The French Revolution is a good example.

But in a 'democracy' where the majority rules, no matter whether they are wise or foolish, the media conglomerates wield incredible amounts of power through 'opinion-making' and political propaganda. They are paid by ALL politicians to be their 'publicists.' TV shows and movie plot lines and characters are chosen/developed that promote the current mind set desired in the 'consumers' to not only salivate on command, but to condition them to accept substitutes for what they really want/need, to remind them of how small and powerless they are and in need of authorities. Success is measured by how many 'listeners' they can get to shout "Bomb 'em!!"

The 'democratic' mindset considers what he/she does not own as public domain, and thus any claim to property is subject to vote on how best to utilize the 'commonwealth.' It is not surprising that the property-less lean toward the idea, whereas the independent free man/woman living on their property votes for representatives who will protect their property from trespass -- particularly from corporate and government collectives that can apply vast resources to tax/sue property owners while tying up the property/business in court indefinitely -- asset seizure laws completely ignore property rights and due process of law.

The Law is to protect the rights of the People who have chartered their government. When legislators promise the property-less that if they vote for him/her, they will tax the property of those that have it (they call property owners 'the wealthy' -- anyone can own property in America), that is when Democracy becomes a wild beast, insatiable.

What needs to be regulated is democracy -- that is how the founders formed the government, with democracy kept in check by the rights of the people themselves, and each of the branches of government keeping check on the others.

Why all these checks and balances? To protect the nation from the corruptions that are inherent wherever power is concentrated. Honor and integrity should be the primary qualifications for even running for office -- I think 90% or more of all of Congress would not pass the integrity requirement.

But how do you check a man's ambition? Should you? The hard truth is that Power is only kept in check by Power. With each new generation, we become more powerful -- we have what were mainframe computers in 1970 as 'smart phones' today with hundreds of times more processing power -- those that know how to harness the power of technology, credit, transportation, and ENERGY are playing in a bigger game than the 'consumers'. Keeping the power in the hands of the individual is what Liberty is all about -- if everything were subject to vote, we would eat pizza every night. ;-)

What keeps a democracy in check? The US House of Representatives of the Legislative Branch was to be the 'democratic' voice representing the People at large; the Senate was to be the voice of the land owners (i.e. 'aristocratic') -- electors for governor and president are limited to land owners to protect their property from being voted away by the masses. The Executive Branch represents the monarchical form -- commander-in-chief. The Jury is/was the check on the Legislative Branch. A partisan Judicial Branch in office for life is a crack in the Liberty Bell. The only thing that really protects the individual (read: the People) is our Declaration of Independence and Constitution with Bill of Rights. As long as these ideals live within the People, ever reminded by the honored parchments under glass and in every oath of office or trust, Liberty has its foundation. It must live within the hearts and minds of the People, no paper can protect us from ourselves...