Obviously there are a few here that are sucked it in by the worst charlatans of all Limbaugh and Faux news.

Yes, Galileo comes to mind - I would only fear in a theocratic oligarchy . Mike, Archer, and Waff, Just returned and continued the thread re; Aug 14 quotes.

Hi, I'm back, a little late but back in one piece except for one tooth, sorry I'm late getting back to you. Also, I have been a little preoccupied with the passing away of a great Senator Ted Kennedy -- he did so much for so many. He was one of the few politicians that, according to your opinion on Natural Law, practiced Natural Law (OK he made that terrible mistake when he was drunk one night, but I think he made up for it with his 47 years in politics). As mentioned, he did make a bad mistake which unfortunately stopped him from becoming President, but, I'm sure if that fatal night didn't occur he would have been assassinated, but, that's another story. What good deeds will the GOP do to make up for the millions they have killed? Mike, the conflicts as a result of socialism and communism are small fry when compared to religious persecutions down throughout the ages; from the age of Abraham, with its three distinct spin-off religions; the Aztecs, and the brutal rituals of ripping out hearts; the 800 years of European religious wars; the 20 million in China slaughtered because of religion; the continued persecutions and massacres of one religion against another; and the list goes on and on. Religion has caused nothing but suffering, hatred, intolerance, and death, both to the religious and those who are not. This is why our founders wanted a definite separation of church and state and why the Bill of Rights is so important. The core argument here is that religious people are meant to do good deeds -- in other words, good people are responsible for good deeds and bad people are responsible for bad deeds. So, what makes this a terrible dilemma is that religious people are doing deeds against what they preach while bad people are doing exactly what they preach, therefore no hypocrisy. Liberality, on the other hand, has been the giver of life because its primary position is one of fairness, though at times it makes terrible blunders because of giving to the wrong people, but what's important is its motives and the direction in which it moves. It's amazing how pedestrian we are when it comes to throwing out words which were once good words and turning then into negative statements to fit our own personal political rhetoric -- like, Progress, Liberal, Social, and so on. If murder is addressed by natural/positive laws which you say are reflected by societies codes, ordinances, regulations, statutes, and rules, etc., then natural/positive law has a lot to answer for -- it is obviously doing a very poor job. It has been my experience that Natural Law has been passed down more by Liberalism than any other ism. I'm not saying liberalism is without fault, as all ism have their blind spots. What I am saying is that liberalism has been responsible for nearly all positive changes for those who have suffered under the yoke of the powerful religious/corporate and government run capitalistic theocracy. Barbara Bush said it well "Giving frees us from the familiar territory of our own needs by opening our minds to the unexplained worlds occupied by the needs of others." Natural Law is not considered by those who abuse the very tenets of their own dictates. It is considered theory in every respect. Its divine providence has from Thomas Aquinas to Haakonssen has had its umbilical cord firmly attached to religion and as I'm an atheist that alone is enough to provide me with evidence that Natural Law has been severely manipulated and therefore I discount any religious backed theory on the subject. Since 327, Christians have been the instrument of torture, hatred, and intolerance -- look at the situation even today when the church ploughs millions into campaigns that prevents minority legislation Why are the good Christian's so silent when they see this kind of evil -- the same applies to the Muslim extremists, the good Muslims should rise up against their own extremist but they don't because like the Christians, they are happy with the status quo and don't rock the boat. Give me an atheist who discusses natural law and then you have peeked my interest. If Human beings are to participate in Natural Law, the law Aquinas and other latter advocates affirm, they must first show they behave by their own principles and dictates, then they may bring others into a sympathetic discourse. Just saying that Natural Law is the primary base for a moral and ethical government and individual behavior is arrogant to say the least does. There are many philosophies that also consider moral and ethical behavior as a platform from which to live your life, which I personally prefer over Aquinas, Locke and others. The Eternal law I speak of (The Universal Principle) and that which I have referred too many times is my preferred base, even though it may be contrary to our governments laws, regulations, and dictates, etc. Archer, the Atman and or Atma, as identified in Hinduism means Soul (the supreme soul and the individual soul are recognized by traditional Vedic philosophies as being One -- the great Self; the universal life-principle; other roots include 'breath', meaning Soul. There are two understandings/interpretations of the Vedas with regard to the individual soul and the supreme soul. The Supreme soul (God if you wish) is referred to as Brahman. Advaita Vedanta sees the soul as monism and (both are one) where Dvaita Vedante see it as dualistic. But once the dust has settled both positions agree that Brahman is both Atman and Atma. Jainism also uses the Atman to refer to the Self. There are dualistic and monistic understandings but the key here is that the individual soul and the universal soul (God) are one of the same -- that is my understanding and the understanding of many Vedic translators, so the Atman, Atma, Brahman are all beliefs that end with the supreme being SELF. I could go on and start talking about the beginning which most religions today have highjacked -- 5000-6000 years ago (kuru and paandu dynasties) the major tenet was "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Upanishads is full of language that is used in many religious writings today. The Mahabharata is still today the longest literary epic poem in the world. It has 18 books and the Bhagavad-Gita is one of them. The Upanishads were a number of gurus/elders of which there were ten principle Upanishads who are translated in the book 'The Upanishads.' Definitely worth reading. My favorite verse from Kena 2:3 (eighth century BC) in the Upanishads is: 'He by whom it is not [since it is beyond thought], by him it is thought; he by whom it is known, knows it not [since it is unknowable]. It is not understood by those who understand it; it is understood by those who do not understand it.' This I believe is the closest to the original text, translated by FMax-Muller and revised by Suren Navlakha. There are other translations of this famous verse but the essence is the same within them all. Sorry for my rumblings. The beast is within us all but so is compassion and it is compassion that has been able to keep us alive from the first days we stepped out of the caves -- we were vegetarian then -- but the dark side became strong and over powered our compassion. From then until today life has become a see-saw of brutality and compassion. It will remain that way until there is no need for materialism. By the way, since this thread I have spoke to a number or friends and strangers and asked them to define Natural Law and most said they thought it meant dog-eat-dog. So, if we are to live by Natural law it is important to define our concepts of it and to start behaving by the rules and regulations that they augment. Until I see this moral theory of Natural Law in action I will remain a Universalist (which is my version of Natural Law). So, I think that covers all four planks? Please let me know if I need to expound on the points above.

Dumbmmmmmmmmm, dumb, dumb, dumbmmmmmmmmmmmm....

I am traveling today so I will get back on this when I return on Tuesday. Let's keep this thread going... Well done! Robert

The same with most Austrian philosophers (OK, nearly all philosophers) women don't come into the big picture. Mike and Archer I did continue our thread on the last post if you wish to go back and continue our conversation. Jim, don't judge a person on his grammar judge instead on intent. Yes, we only want the wealthy educated.

Archer, thank you for your kind retort and for entering the fray. Just a couple of things. First, though socialism has been and still is associated with communism it obviously has been seriously tainted -- as someone once said: All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. Communism is a system in which the economy and society is controlled by a totalitarian state, by a single political party, with absolute control. Socialism is more equitable, as it does not wish to control society but instead wishes a fair exchange of wealth to those who are the workers. Archer, you are so vitriolic against socialism there must be some past that is affecting your sensibility. Marxism used socialism as a door for dominate control; Marx knew that following the trade unionist movement in Great Britain was a key to push through his political agenda of communism -- socialism was used as a platform for his own ideology -- call it communism if you wish. Socialism has its roots as far back as the Magna Carta, when power was distributed to the nobles from the absolute power of the King. I don't think socialists would shout fire and brimstone from the pulpit; they leave that to right wing fundamentalists, brown-shirts, fascists, megalomaniacs, etc. Socialists may be as passionate about their beliefs as priests are about theirs but that can be said for any orator who believes firmly in his own convictions -- just look at history's list, from the Roman Senate to today's Town Hall hooligans. Socialism has always been about fairness (I know you see otherwise). Unfortunately, power hungry tyrants and despots have used socialism for their own end, to rally support and once in power it turns quickly to demagoguery. Socialism is powerless for the very reason it was born out of oppression and inequity for the working class. It was never the intent, with regard to the essence of socialism, to become a single power structure that belongs to fascism, communism, and religious fundamentalism. Now for the interesting part of your retort 'The Challenge' I'm up for it, where shall we start; you suggested we should start with our own ideological planks to see how many we have in common. OK, let's get the ball rolling (we can go deeper into those planks once we have identified their titles. 1. Kindness, that is my religion (I think the Dalai Lama also said that). 2. Compassion for all sentient beings (you could start by being a vegetarian). 3. The right to be free from political, religious and bureaucratic dictates, and last but by no means least number 4; to have the right to be left alone without encumbrance of government or religion -- unfortunately, both government and religion are currently affecting numbers 3 and 4. So, you see we do have some common ground. Any minute a Gamma ray from a super nova could end this discourse. I believe the only thing that would remain would be the Atman or Atma -- so you see, that doesn't really make me an Atheist. Mike, thank you also for continuing the thread. No, I don't hate your God or anyone's Gods, I just don't believe in your Gods or any Gods. I'm also not offended by your Gods or your belief in them; I am only offended when it concerns my planks 3 and 4. I most definitely don't harbor any ugly prejudices as you put it. I am for the freedom of all religions and will fight along side you to that end. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." has been responsible for the death of millions, so it's something not to be taken lightly or individually. Exodus 20.13 has been totally disregarded by many Christian's - what should be their punishment? Unfortunately the church has interfered and continues to interfere with our secular government so it is very difficult for me to separate the two.

Archer, you are conspicuous by you absence...

Mike, please provide proof of God's nature (I don't want myth or faith based ideology). I am subject only to my own dictates (without of course the forced dictates of religious fundamentalism or an oligarchy). I do not need Leviticus or any other so called Law (written by man to subjugate the masses) to understand and live a moral and ethical life -- the only true law is the law of Self (The Universal Law); it is the law by which we wake in the morning and go about our day. Order comes about because we need social processes to function in a harmonious existence, it does not come about because man decides so - it is OUR NATURE, OUR SELF. I have found in my travels that the law of self is my best companion, I need no book to tell me the true law, it guides me to the true nature of things, not some other ideology or demagoguery (be it individual or societal); and, then the true nature of law is very simple not complex at all, its symbiotic. All nature depends on this relationship with its environment, not dictated by any God, person or ideology. As Waffler pointed out "we are all socialist's at heart" (I think that's what he was getting at). When we left our shadows in the cave we lived by being compassionate and understanding the needs of others and helping with those needs - and the the split came between those compassionate and those who were greedy and wanted power (nothing has changed) . The American Indians understood the need to have this relationship with nature, they had no written law telling them how they should act they knew how they should act -- it was SELF the only true God. Waffler keep on bashing away we will get some love into these folk. Sorry for the rant...

Mike, thank you for your thoughtful reply. The nuts and bolts are not what makes the clock tick it is the imagination and that is far more important than knowledge. That which defines right from wrong is not religion, socialism, or any order or authority; it is Self, the only true religion in the Universe; it is absolute and nothing comes before it. Amalgamated ideology - is not the marriage of socialism and theocracy counter point to that argument? Before venturing any further it would be enlightening to be privy to the "original research" and the comparison of original concepts, you spoke of. I believe socialism is more at peace with a secular society than any theocracy. Socialism was brought about by the need to share wealth in particular for the less fortunate; it brought about hospitals, better working hours, care for the elderly and much more. Compared to the selfishness I see today it may be a philosophy that needs to return. By the way America is the most socialized country in the world.

Homeschooling is yet another form of child abuse.

Not worth commenting on such a self centered statement - Its the same as people who travel the world and go in search of McDonald's

Well done Reston. What a backward statement and so uneducated that it's an embarrassment to intelligence. Imagination is far from being stifled - the list of creativity that came our of the public school system is VERY long. That is really beside the point, what is the point is that many children would not have received an education if it was not for the PSS. Most children do not come from wealthy families and are unable to pay for private schools. Many brilliant minds have emanated from social programs that promote equality for kids. The problem with this nation is they want kids to be dumb and therefore cut schools spending whenever possible. A dumb nation is easy to cajole - the recent town hall demonstrations are an example of American education. I still believe in the public education system, we have just got to get it away from the bureaucrats and scholars of mediocrity.

Mike, come to that anything could be interpretive. I'm sorry, but I disagree with your assumptions. We must be honest to the intention of the original concept not some mythological ideology. Mike, I'm beginning to feel you may be blinded by your own religion and that all you see is through that belief you have. It's unconscionable to associate, as an interpretive forms, subjects that have no base in ecclesiastical instruments.

Sorry, he was way off the mark with this one. Ben perhaps you and Mike should get together. When will you on this blog understand and become intelligent when discussing Socialism, Communism and Christianity; they have nothing to do with each other, only that there are some Christians who practice goodness and others that don't -- the British merged Socialism and Christianity towards the end of the 19 century but its power didn't last long. I will not fire a tirade anti-Christian rhetoric as you on this blog know where I stand as far as my opinion is concerned. At one point, about the mid 19th century 'Socialism' and 'Communism' were considered opposites even though communism founded its roots in socialism -- Karl Marx and Engels coined communism out of the socialist philosophy. And in 1918 the Socialist-Revolutionary Party was dissolved by the Bolsheviks after only one day. The wealth of a nation is taken from those who labored to produce it by those who labored to steal it (those who exploited the working class). When the workers wanted schools, hospitals, and a fair return for their labor they were called socialists and communists. If it wasn't for the socialist movements of the past we would still be working 15 hour days and children would still be in the mills -- there would be no health care for the old and disabled, no subsistence for the workers who were later kicked out because they were too old or ill too work. All the workers wanted were equal opportunity in education and social well-being, a roof over their head and food. Later it was philosophized that socialism would create harmony and less government -- sadly, that too got exploited -- yes, and even Libertarians, well some, were socialist's. It was their design to have less government and have humanity control its own destiny. But alas like all good intentions it was exploited by those who saw a window of opportunity, namely greed and power. Stalin himself said that Russia wasn't ready for socialism and we all know where he went with his philosophy. The Russian Communist party undermined the original socialist ideals of the revolution. Even before the revolution of 1917-1923 America had its own Socialist Labor Party of America which became the Social Democratic Party -- this all fizzled out because of WW1 and then came the Communist Party USA. So, the gist of all this is that to truly understand the connections and intricacies of any partnering between Communism, Socialism and Christianity you must first do a lot of reading.

Love it!

Statements must stand alone or this must be a joke or its next to the Bush sayings - like when he wanted to know how much is a Brazilian - What an asinine statement.

Will tend to proto-fascism which will fortify itself from day to day, instead of working its own cures - see Teresa Centric's "Is Modern USA a Proto-Fascist State?" Mike, lets start...

What about the trend monopolizing the private information vehicles? and the more and more concentration over private opinion? What ever happened to the Monopolies Commission or what ever it was called. There are tremendous savings and resource to be had with one system but on the other hand if that system is riddled with corruption the opposite happens - look at health care and the new health care reform bill which further lines the pockets of the Pharma and Medical Industry. If we directed some of the resources we plow into the war machine into a Universal Health care system we would have enough resources to provide all Americans with health care - plus there would be funds left for the humanities.

It seems we have someone in the white house that doesn't agree with this statement

He talk with fork tongue

This was my reply to a friend who sent me Dr Price speech: This is so much codswallop that its embarrassing to see a US congressman actually spew this kind of misinformation. I agree this health care reform bill stinks because it doesn't go far enough - its not the plan Americans need as it actually keeps the same processes in place for the Pharma and medical industry to keep on making vast profits at the expense of our health. I could go on but I know you don't have the time to listen to my ranting but here are a few pointers. First, we already have a system that is socialized and is the biggest single payer in America taking care of over 100 million lives - its funny that no one is screaming about that. Secondly, doctors love Medicare and often have signs saying they accept Medicare - one of the prime reason for doctors not accepting Medicare is that their practice is full not because they don't want Medicare. A Medicare patient is like having three non-Medicare patients (re reimbursements) - you do the math. This Dr. Price is speaking rubbish and he knows it. The bill I would like to see is going for the jugular and have a Universal health system straight out of the gate - do away with ALL THE MIDDLE men - that is what Price means when he talks about employment - its employment that takes health care away from the American citizen. I could cover each point he makes - let me know if you need more... I have written to Obama and the White House Task Force on health care with my ideas, alas no reply - if you have a contact in at the White House please let me know. The plan I have would actually save money and provide a better health care system The death panel that Palin talks about is the present system where they deny you healthcare because you have no insurance or because you have an existing condition or because your insurance company will not pay for the procedure - THAT IS THE DEATH PANEL - I'm sorry, but this kind of rhetoric, especially coming from a physician is reprehensible. And Archer I would give you more credit if your argument was based on facts. This was from a previous post on the subject: The sooner we take this equation away (meaning from the current system) from greedy corporations the better. And please. you bleeding who ever, don't tell me the country will go bankrupt. Did you know that 35% of all procedures carried out are unnecessary and 20 percent of all hospital charges are caused by the hospital, and that 15 percent of all charges to Insurance companies are fraudulent, and that doctors (not all) bill for services not performed - under Medicare you are blacklisted if you are caught? Did you know that many deaths in the US could be avoided if procedures that were needed were not either held up or denied by insurance companies? Did you know the US has one of the worst mortality records in the western world? Its amazing, if you don’t have health insurance a visit to the ER could cost you $5k but if you have insurance the charge would be about $2k So, if you are poor and unable to afford the extortionate insurance premiums you have $5k charge but if you have insurance but had to pay the full amount it would only cost you$2k Now you tell me where the ethics is in this scenario. If we had a controlled system and I have written how that could be possible we could cut our healthcare cost in half while providing health insurance for everyone including illegal aliens. We should revert back to the DRG (Diagnostic Related Groups) system of paying for procedures and let hospitals pay for the infections they cause. Even the system in place to monitor hospitals is corrupt. There is so much wrong with the current system and how providers are reimbursed (a National Injustice) that any change would be an improvement. How about all that money we gave to the banks and that the FR is unable to account for? One of the $7.5 trillion would help. And this is from my post on Oped: Rob, I have a wonderful solution re; single payer health care system - take away Medicare and sit back and wait for the outcry for Universal Health care - what are Americans thinking? Don't they realize that the death panel are the insurance companies who deny care - our record for longevity is behind that of Europe and Canada; so much for the best health care in the world - ********. The health care protests around town halls are orchestrated by those who have primarily Medicare (a socialized program) let's take it away and see these same people protesting for socialized medicine, paid for by corporite interests and GOP whose intent it is to total disrail the democrats as they have no political voice of their own - so, its Brownshirt time. These old white people who have Medicare don't want anyone else to effect their coverage - how selfish and unamerican can you be. This country needs a wake-up call before its sinks into a proto-fascist nation. Today we have one party in America and its not yours. P.s. I ran a Health care coalition for 11 years and before that was director of health plans physician and facilities networks for a large commercial health insurance company. IT IS OUR MORAL AND ETHICAL DUTY TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE TO ALL PEOPLE FREE OF CHARGE AND WITHOUT PROFIT. WHEN WILL AMERICANS WAKE UP FROM THEIR SELFISH AND GREEDY EXISTENCE.

We are there today yet not a whisper from the gallery - our government and corporate America is riddle with corruption; Harry Truman come back all is forgiven.

Editor, I think you scored a hat-trick - well done! This is my favorite...

It seems to reflect whats going on in our town halls recently. Now, did Richard III kill the two Princes? Its like if you tell (or hear) a lie enough times it becomes the truth