Such as forced welfare. The act of taking care of society's poor, destitute, sick, and down-trodden is indeed virtuous. However, if I were to start a street gang to break into people's homes to steal money for the poor, I would be breaking the law and committing an un-virtuous act. I would not be praised for my actions for being “advanced” in my thinking; If I was caught stealing for the poor, I couldn’t argue in court that they were “entitled” to it; I wouldn't be labeled clever, resourceful, original, skillful, cunning, nor would people say that I used ingenuity-- I would be called what I am: A thief and a robber. I would still be a thief and a robber, even if I was allowed to do this by the government. How then can I authorize my government to break into people’s lives and steal money for the poor? I cannot. Legalized plunder is still plunder.

Said by the master communist himself-- kinda makes you pause and reconsider your standing with a government that promises to take care of you.

Clever.

To confuse the populace.

Ah, that we would still actually understand and accept what "natural right" and "natural law" means... But rather, we love to live by democratic de facto law.

One of the best quotes we've ever had.

Bravo! I would only argue as to what the definition of "law" is; whether it is rules, guidelines, principles, things as they really are, or just what people say they are. Any man who will defy secular (man-made) law, in order to "arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice", is truly showing respect for natural law (the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God).

Well said.

In the grand scheme of things, what are 3,000 American lives, really? We should at least up that to 3,000 a day and attack Iran and N. Korea, while we're at it. How many millions of people do we have in our country? We can stand to off a few soldiers here and there, can't we? I love war. I love taking it to other nations that haven't actually attacked us. How about you? I hate the Monroe Doctrine. I hate the Constitutional parameters that say that Congress must wage war. I would that our President just go ahead and send our troops over to attack other nations at his own whim; that is, just so long as it's in accordance with popularity. I love doing unto others before they can do unto me. How about you?

Very well said. It is perhaps the most dangerous thing in the world, to be right, when the government is wrong-- or to be right when the majority is wrong; especially during times of war. Too bad we no longer have a Republic, but a Democracy.

And even sweeter to those who command it who have a hand in the purse-pocket of the person making the weapons.

Bigger government = lesser freedoms. Always has, always will. It seems, from the government's point of view, that the reason government even exists is to grow. Ever heard of a government getting smaller? We always need bigger government, especially in times of "crisis" and "war".

The United States has not "officially" been at war since WWII; that is, Congress has not declared "war", the President(s) just usurped the power and sent our boys to fight under certain "operations". An "operation" really isn't a "war", ya know? So, in reality, we're really not at "war" in Iraq... It's just an "operation" we're finishing out on. = )

As a Christian conservative American, I actually agree with Reston. The person who doesn't identify with reality to see the atrocities that are being committed by the neocon agenda, are living with their heads in the sand... Either blind complacency, or total lack of understanding for the course that's being followed, seems to be the mental state of being for the majority of Americans. There are many aspects of Naziism that present themself in different forms through, at different times, and in different places... The basic principles behind what Hitler did were not new, nor are the tactics of the neocon today.

Apparently not.

As have Presidents and Congressmen.

The best way to avenge thyself against the po-po (police), is to obey the speed limit?

Hence the reason why Bush's neocon agenda will never work... you cannot take away from the individual, or the society they create, their freedom and expect peace.

The surest way to prevent obesity is to not fear it? Or... maybe just obstain from eating, maybe? Maybe some exercise?Sure, I guess...

Ah, following after the multitude: truth determined by majority vote.

Who determines what an error is? The majority? If life is only "what works", who is to determine what worked for whom? Is the majority the only determining factor? When a lion eats its prey, which was in error? How would the animal kingdom, as a majority, determine the matter? There is no right and wrong in this matter, only instinct. But does instinct have anything to say about it? Instinct is simply what nature has produced, by accident, through evolution and natural selection, for an animal to promote itself. If I kill someone, there isn't any "right or wrong", is there? That is, if it "works" for me? Isn't that just the next step in my evolutionary chain-- the chain of natural selection, survival of the fittest? Certain homo-sapiens set up some rules of conduct (laws) that homo-sapiens accept, but this doesn't change the course of natural selection (excluding the butter-fly effect, =). Would that be in my freedom to "error" in such a case, to kill someone? Oh, wait, then we're right back to the business of determining what an error is.

Yes, Mike, as "Christians", I agree that we're all apart of God's great big happy family; however, the quote is in reference to toleration due to basic humanity. I personally do not have respect for someone because he is a human or non-human, but because all things, as I see them, are a creation of God. Atheistically, toleration isn't even a misnomer, it simply just doesn't exist.

Archer, don't misunderstand what I'm saying, I'm not attacking anyone or anything. As a believer in a God, I find that all of God's creation should be respected and held in high esteem, without exception. I get as frustrated with so-called Christians as I do with so-called atheists. I have no problem with atheists who call it as it is, and I know a few, who I have great respect for. The issue is that atheism, as a philosophy, cannot pick and choose what it wants to accept and what it doesn't (as well as any other philosophy). If there is no God, then there is no right and wrong, only what "works"; this leads to the only problem I see, with many so-called atheists, because what "works" is always personally relative. If I kill another man, sure, it works for me, but it didn't for the other person (etc. etc. etc.). Tolerance only exists in a "right/wrong" frame of existence, which atheism is fundamentally against.

Rubbish. Regardless of whether you're a religionist or atheist, this quote is worthless. A true religionist is not "tolerant", but humbly "loves the sinner" while "hating the sin" (as it were). Should the "sinner" in this case be an atheist, the atheist should ask for no tolerance, nor give any, because tolerance itself is completely outside the scope of what it cosmically means to not have a God; at the basic animal level, there is no "tolerance", only what "works" for each individual creature; animals co-exist with each other, not because they're tolerant, but because it "works" for their own specific need. Everyone is always worried about what other people think of them; atheists should be the ones above this all, and not care what anyone in society thinks, since science is not concerned with people's perceptions. "Humanity" is just as vague as right or wrong; it is just the figment of some guy's imagination. Otherwise, if there is a God, then we respect all God's creations for what they are, whether perceived right or wrong, because they are God's creation.

Free yourself from what?