One of the tropes we read these days from conservative commentators is “the Will of the People.” Where did it come from, what does it mean and how does it work? I can find answers to the first and speculate about the second two.

Some argue it reflects the political theory of Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He believed government derives its authority from the General Will. This formed the foundation of our Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Dan Freeman lives in Galveston.

4
1
0
0
0

(80) comments

Ed Buckner

Well and provocatively said, Mr. Freeman.

Dan Freeman

Thank you

George Laiacona

Very good informative article. But the Americans have a big problem with the Republicans. Because they are controlled by the religious zealots Liberty has been removed from certain classes of people. Even though the greater majority of Americans don’t support the idea of government handing off church business. Abortion and Assisted Dying is a church problem not a state problem. Yet the Republicans have taken control of it just like Prohibition, it’s still here. Then there is voter rights. The Republicans have managed to make it difficult for minorities to disabled to vote even though the majority of Americans want every American to be able to vote without hardships. We the people sounds good, but it is not working today. Until we remove power from the traitor Republicans Liberty for all will continue to be nonexistent.

Carlos Ponce

" Because they are controlled by the religious zealots" Funny, the British thought the same thing about our Founding Fathers whose rally call was "NO KING BUT GOD!" (Read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense".) and "NO KING BUT KING JESUS!"

Charles Douglas

Your present good points Mr. Ponce. I get so tired and disgusted at the never ending practice of the WOKE-LEFT, Party OF Slaves, Drag Queens, Pedophiles, Open Borders, High Taxes, High Inflation, Abortion, Sex Traffickers, & Drug Cartels going around walking on the backs of Minorities to obtain and keep political power!

Every [censored]-[censored] thing now is RACISTTTTTTT! You cannot turn the corner without some WOKE-LEFTIST or some WOKE BLACK Surrogate.....who has swallowed their line of BS ...are seen or heard crying about what is racist, and what is not! Using Minorities in order to harvest political power and votes is no different than appropriating, compelling, and conscripting Minorities to work in the Cotton Fields Of Slavery back in the 1700-1800s!

I'm black ...and I have not seen the man or woman yet who even tried to keep me from voting, since the Jim Crow Era, and I am no spring chicken! So all of this voter suppression of African-Americans is a load of political BS as stinky and foul as that which Stacy Abrams was shoveling in Georgia a year or so ago, when they had the biggest voter turnout in history!

This is why the LEFT wants to enable criminals, because they know most of them will be BLACK or Minorities! They know there will be an over abundance of BLACK ON BLACK CRIME, because of the output of the Third rated, watered-down schools & education they facilitate for Minorities across this country!

All you have to do is go visit your County Jails and State Prisons and see which ethnic group is most represented there! Go check Los Angles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Houston, and New York City and see wich ethnic group has the most victims of crimes, and what ethic group has the most representation of those being incarcerated, and those on food stamps and welfare!

I was raised up in discrimination, hate, poverty, lack, attending third rated, bad schools, entering, and leaving through back-doors! I know what it is like to walk through doors marked "COLORED" ..doors marked "WHITE" too because I got to the.point in my life that I was through playing those tired, despicable, racist games like many others doing those times! So we did something about it, even with the risks we had to take! Now,.. the LEFT is trying to do the same things in different ways ....in order to keep political power! It is Sick-ny-fying!

So don't try to run your WOKE games on people like me who know first hand about racists and racism when we see them, because if we see them ...it won't be our first rodeo! We've delt with them in stores, in public places, on jobs, and in schools much of our lives,... then when progress shows up, we read on a platform like this one where some WOKE-LEFTIST informs us that we have been suppressed from voting! Lololo. ( SMDH).

Carlos Ponce

[thumbup] Charles Douglas!

Bailey Jones

Thanks for a reasonable, logical, and historically accurate letter, Dan. I hope it elicits reasonable, logical, and historically accurate responses.

Our government is based on the Enlightenment idea of a "social contract" - that the government operates with the consent of the governed. While this is a necessary condition for any republic, it's not sufficient in itself. The "will of the people", as we have seen and as the founders often warned, is easily swayed by demagoguery. And as history has shown, the "governed" often consent to a government that does horrible things.

The founders intended that the "will of the people" be shepherded by men of property and liberal education. Plato proposed the "philosopher king" - an autocrat who did everything right because he was educated to do no wrong. The Enlightenment attempted to keep the philosopher but lose the autocrat by empowering men to do good themselves through moral philosophy, science, and education. Most Enlightenment philosophers believed that men like themselves should decide the fate of the citizenry - the ordinary uneducated citizen, not so much.

The "will of the people" can only reflect the best and brightest principles of a society when two conditions are met. First, the people must be educated to believe in those principles. And second, an open marketplace for ideas must exist so that ideas can be judged on their merits, and the best and brightest emerge. It sounds easy, but it's not because just like religious beliefs, ideas of what constitutes "best and brightest" differ wildly. The ideal solution is a never-ending lively debate between thoughtful leaders who can seek common ground and compromise between differing points of view.

But we are not ideal. The pursuit of political power, both for its own sake and as a commodity to exchange for wealth, often gives us leaders with motives that extend no further than their own well-being. The "will of the people" is now subject to manipulation by the mass media, corporations, and political parties who use increasingly sophisticated psychological means to control the citizenry.

Once you control the "will of the people", they will consent to anything you want.

There is no easy solution to this problem because this moral malleability is inherent in our nature as human beings. There are, however, things that we as a society can do to get us back to the idea of the best and brightest. Some things that come to mind are:

Bring back the free market of ideas by re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine. This was a rule that required users of the public airwaves to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance. Those of us of a certain age remember the disclaimer that ran after opinion shows inviting anyone with an opposing view to come forward and be heard.

Bring back the free market of ideas by eliminating gerrymandered political districts. It's a bedrock idea of capitalism that competition creates the best goods and services, and the same is true in politics. Corporate monopolies tend toward corruption and laziness. Political monopolies moreso.

Bring back the free market of ideas in all aspects of education. This means an end to book bans and an end to the censorship of ideas that we see too often in higher education and the public square.

Finally - we've got to teach kids how to think critically and logically. The art of debate is the ability to create an argument from facts, suppositions, and reason. This requires the ability to discern fact from fiction, and the logical from the fallacious. These are skills that can be taught at every level of education and are all that stand between an enlightened citizenry governing in its own best interests, and demagoguery, prejudice, and superstition. Unfortunately, demagoguery, prejudice, and superstition are all too often ingrained into our personal beliefs, and any attempt to apply critical thinking to those beliefs is branded as tyranny.

Dan, thanks again for presenting some ideas worth actually thinking about. [thumbup]

I think I'll go get my breakfast taco now.

Ed Buckner

Mr. Jones has favored us with pretty much a full guest column here--and one as good as Dan Freeman's to boot. Good stuff, whether accompanied by a breakfast taco or not. [thumbup][thumbup]

Bailey Jones

Ed, it's always a blessing to start off a Saturday reading a letter that doesn't cause me to weep for humanity. And tacos.

Ed Buckner

[thumbup], Bailey J.

Robert Braeking

Unfortunately we no longer appoint Senators by state legislators. As designed, our constitution provides for the Senate to moderate the "Will of the People" with statesmanlike decisions. As it is amended, we do not have that moderation. We merely elect representatives by district and senators at-large. That has degraded the congress to a "Will of the People" body which does not consider the ramifications of their legislation.

Governing to the "Will of the People" is dangerous in that the people can be enticed into mob rule. That is the danger of a Democracy. That is why our founders designed a Republic. We are no longer a Republic. All our God given rights have been violated.

Ed Buckner

Help me out here, Mr. Braeking: "We are no longer a Republic." But we still elect representatives at the local, state, and federal levels to represent us. How is that not a republic? And who do you think should decide who representatives are? When Senators were chosen by state legislations, what was superior about who chose those state legislative representatives (originally considered superior because they were white, land-owning, men)? And "All our God given rights have been violated"--like what? Who decides what counts as a "god given right"?

Robert Braeking

Mr. Ed,

The loss of the Republic is obvious to anyone, your racist parenthetical not withstanding. By electing our Senators at-large, the control of our Senate is vested with the big cities. Rural Texas has no representation in the Senate. Case in point: The big cities very nearly elected the El Paso village idiot when he ran for Senate the last time.

As far as God given rights is concerned, the Constitution decides. All rights are given by God. Some of those rights are limited by the government. The only rights that the Federal government can limit are restricted to the ENUMERATED powers given it by the Constitution. Even so, they have eroded many rights by regulation. For instance, the right to keep and bear arms has been severely diluted. The second amendment does not define the type of arms that can be limited, therefore, the right to keep ALL arms shall not be infringed. Arms are weapons. Any weapons. That includes howitzers, explosives, automatic rifles, A-10 Warthogs, and Abrams tanks. Obviously the private ownership of these examples is infringed. Requiring licenses or outright prohibition is an infringement.

Most recently they are considering taking away our right to cook on gas stoves, as if they have the power to do so.

Ed Buckner

Mr. Braeking,

possibly you were being satirical or ironic and I missed it, but if you were sincere in what you said--if you honestly don't think people who live in cities should have the same voting power as people who live in rural areas and if you think a citizen has a god-given right to own an Abrams tank or a Howitzer without infringement, then I find myself quit happy that you are somehow under-represented.

We should and I think do have power to push back against any effort to take away our gas stoves.

But power to affect government should not have anything to do with where one lives or with how big one's, uh, er, ... gun is.

Robert Braeking

Mr. B,

I do not think that your assessment is an honest one. City people and rural people have different goals and aspirations. That is the whole purpose of the Electoral College. Otherwise the five largest cities in the country would be able to control the presidency. That is also why, originally, the state legislatures appointed senators. Somehow in your liberal education you missed these nuances in the design of the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution did not want New York and Philadelphia to control the government. They knew that we would become a serfdom and they were right.

When I was young it was possible to walk into any hardware store and buy some Dupont Special® to remove stumps or get a rock out of the way for your construction project. It is amazing how big a stump 1/4 stick of dynamite will remove. I was 11 when it was outlawed. That is but one example of the erosion of the second amendment. And yes, the amendment does not allow the limit of the power to own a Howitzer. Surely you remember the static display of Civil War cannons in front yards all over the south. Again, you miss the purpose of the amendment. It WAS to retain with the people the ability to repel an oppressive government. The Waco massacre proved the power of our oppressive government. They lit fire to the Davidian compound with CS gas canisters, burning people alive. Oopsie. Recently we have seen the government's weaponizing the IRS, DOJ, EPA and FBI. Americans are a tolerant people, but we are also not inclined to bow down to oppression.

If the EPA outlaws the sale and distribution of gas stoves by fiat, there is nothing the people can do, you included. They have jacked up the cost and downgraded the performance of automobiles and trucks by fiat. What makes you think that they can't do that with gas stoves? It is only a matter of time before we become a banana republic, as if that has not happened already.

Ed Buckner

I respectfully request that you cease and desist calling me dishonest. We vigorously disagree on matters important to us both and I may have misunderstood something you wrote, but I have not been dishonest and if you really think I have, please do not again read anything I write nor comment thereon.

Every voter in this nation, no matter what age, occupation, place of residence, etc., should have the same power to elect our representatives and executive government officials. Of course city dwellers see some things quite differently from the way farmers do--but every one of them in all places has a right to equal representation.

The framers did, perhaps as a necessary compromise to get the Constitution adopted, seem to value land over individuals, but we should move past that.

The USSupCt has ruled (and they don't always get things right, but there has to be some authority to settle matters, at least temporarily--it can't just be what you or I say the law or the Constitution is) have declared that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms--but that government can indeed regulate that. Abrams tanks and submachine guns and howitzers can certainly exist in the hands of the military or in historical displays, but you and I have no right to own and operate such things, and with quite sound logical and constitutional grounds for prohibition.

I know nothing about stump-removing dynamite, but I certainly think explosives should be subject to regulation and restriction.

Gas stoves? Apparently Biden agrees with you and has ended at least for now any outlawing of them, and I lack any expertise on them--and we have and like our gas stove. But if in fact evidence was developed that showed they were serious threats to the health and safety of us all, yes they should be regulated.

Unregulated, unrestricted things can lead to things like Thalidomide babies--and no one wanted that.

Robert Braeking

So.......you are not dishonest but indoctrinated. I get it.

Thalidomide babies - is that anything like the 'regulated' MRNA induced heart conditions? I'm just saying that regulation does nothing if the regulators are in the pockets of the producers.

Regulation: The governmental control of personal freedom for the advantage of the few at the expense of the many.

Case in point: In the rural areas of our town we burn our tree debris as the town does not want to incur the expense of collecting it. But they did institute burn permits as a measure to garner revenue and lord over the populace. An individual who actually works for a living cannot obtain a permit without taking a day off from work as the town offices are not open for business during the times when working people are working. That makes the permit cost not only the permit fee but also the opportunity cost of lost work to obtain the permit. It does nothing to change the practice of burning other than the levy of fines for failure to obtain a permit.

Ed Buckner

What an easy world to live in it must be if you can delude yourself into thinking that anyone who disagrees with you is either dishonest or indoctrinated. Then you won't have to consider facts you don't like or logic that has escaped you--and you can insult others with abandon.

Let me try one more time, as it's possible we agree on some important things even as we differ on some details.

I submit that we both agree that societal/governmental control of behavior--regulation--is necessary and desirable, AND that we both agree that some regulation is unwise or unfair--that unintended consequences and corrupt or greedy or self-interested parties can use regulation to make things worse. Both of us, I'm pretty sure, want regulations against holding up convenience stores or shooting your neighbor or driving an auto 110 mph in a school zone. Both us almost certainly agree that trying to regulate what someone thinks or says or posts on GCDN forum should be done only with greatest of care and done infrequently at most.

Regulation: The governmental control of personal freedom that, if done wrong, works for the advantage of the few at the expense of the many. And if done right, interferes as little as possible with personal freedom while securing great benefits to many or most.

I know nothing of regulations about using dynamite or burning debris, but I'm sure there's a place for both--and that both can be mishandled.

Do Robert Braeking and Ed Buckner disagree about regulation in practice and about much else, including things of great importance to both of us? Yes.

Can we respect each other? Remains to be seen.

Robert Braeking

Mr B,

By indoctrinated I was referring to your acceptance of the status quo - that the limits imposed on our second amendment rights are just and acceptable. My opinion is that any limits on any amendment cannot be imposed without a supplemental amendment. If the citizens wanted to exclude weapons of war - the original intent of the second amendment - then the proper way to do that would be by amendment. Regardless of laws passed by congress and signed by the president, they do not have the power to change an amendment. Jim Crow laws limited the 15th amendment illegally. Neither the Congress nor the states can do that. The courts agreed. That is the precedent.

The 15th amendment gave the right to vote to previously enslaved men.

The 18th amendment outlawed the devil's brew.

The 19th amendment gave women the right to vote.

The 21st amendment repealed the 18th - perhaps because the 19th created so much stress that men needed a drink.

There is a proper way to limit people's rights and that is the amendment process. More than 11,000 amendments have been proposed and only 27 have been ratified.

The Federal government only has certain powers and they are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. All other powers remain with the people. Jimmy Carter turned down the speed limit. Not legal. Not a Federal power.

I have and will continue to defend to the point of risking my own death your right to have an opinion.

Gary Scoggin

Robert B., regarding, “ The second amendment does not define the type of arms that can be limited, therefore, the right to keep ALL arms shall not be infringed. Arms are weapons. Any weapons. That includes howitzers, explosives, automatic rifles, A-10 Warthogs, and Abrams tanks”, I want to propose a thought experiment.

Suppose I wanted to create and store on my residential property a significant quantity of phosgene gas. I don’t intend to sell it or use it, except for defensive purposes. Since there are regulations regarding the storage of hazardous materials in a neighborhood, do such regulations infringe on your right to store phosgene? If this is a legitimate infringement, where on the continuum between owning a derringer and owning a tank of phosgene do these restrictions become permissible?

Robert Braeking

Mr. B,

It is too bad that people are not educated about the meanings of the Constitution nor the role of the federal government. Article I, Section 8 'enumerates' the power of congress. (Interestingly a military furlough based on mental health issues is also a section 8) Article II, Section 1 'enumerates' the powers of the executive. It is up to SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) to decide if a law is outside of the jurisdiction of the Federal government. In order to have SCOTUS rule on an abuse of power there must be a case before it. No case concerning the James Earl Carter national speed limit was brought. Recently a decision known as Roe vs Wade was overturned as Congress does not have the power to allow the killing of babies. The 10th Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." That is pretty clear. If you want to kill babies in your state that is within the power of your state. However, the rights of the baby is protected by the 14th. The problem is that the SCOTUS was from time to time composed of constructionist judges who performed legal gyrations to interpret powers to exist that do not exist. Fortunately, the court is now heavily represented with strict constitutionalists. Look for many of the powers that Congress has taken to be returned to the 'states respectively, or to the people'.

Robert Braeking

Mr Scoggin,

That depends. Is the regulation coming from the state or local government? If you had an inadvertent leak would you be endangering the lives of your downwind neighbors? Are you willing to accept the liability? The same considerations apply to anhydrous ammonia fertilizer or refrigerant. I worked with ammonia refrigerant. The regulations regarding the use and storage are state and local laws.

Gary Scoggin

Bob - thanks for the reply. Let’s continue this thought experiment a little further along the lines you’ve suggested.

1. Suppose I have the phosgene only for purposes of being used as a weapo. (Unlike ammonia, it has no direct commercial use except as a precursor for manufacturing other chemicals.)

2. I store it appropriately, but not necessarily in compliance with regularly standards like local plumbing and building codes. (I’m purposely leaving federal regulations out of this.)

3. So, if my local government were to enact regulations concerning the storage of hazardous materials, that would effectively prohibit my phosgene weapon, is this an impermissible intrusion on my Second Amendment rights? Is my inventory exempt from local regulations because its intended use is as a weapon and not for consumer or other use? How is my case any different than any other state or local laws regarding firearms or other weapons? Or do you agree I have a Constitutional right to store phosgene as a weapon on my property, even if it’s next to an elementary school and I only incur liability if it happens to leak?

Robert Braeking

Gary,

That is a question for SCOTUS. If that is your goal, then do as you please. Get arrested. Plea your case before all the lower courts and ultimately take it to SCOTUS and accept their decision. Are you willing to present the test case? Keep in mind that pre-trial confinement may be an extended stay at the iron bar Hilton.

The second amendment says what it says. SCOTUS has interpreted it to allow the current restrictions. They declined to hear many cases on assault weapons bans. My personal interpretation does not have the force of law without a SCOTUS ruling. However, I defer to the author's writings. Jefferson wrote: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense wrote: "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.....Horrid mischief would ensue where the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.".

George Laiacona

Lincoln advised the audience that if you can gain public sentiment you can be of value to all Americans. Today’s republicans have failed to gain public sentiment due to the fact that they are controlled by the religious zealots. The majority of Americans do not want the church to control the state, yet this is exactly what the Republicans are doing.

Carlos Ponce

The Constitution (free exercise clause of the First Amendment) does not prohibit members of Congress from expressing religious views. Since the first Congress, senators and representatives have often expressed religious views while in session. The Capitol Building was used a church on Sundays for religious service. One of the first acts of Congress was to authorize the printing of 10,000 Bibles now referred to as the "Aitken Bible".

This appears on the Bible:

“RESOLVED, THAT the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.” September 12, 1782

Ed Buckner

Mr. Ponce is, as often happens, not uninformed but rather only inadequately informed. From the book my son and I wrote (In Freedom We Trust, Prometheus Books, 2012)--

20. How can you argue that the Founders intended for this to be a secular nation when they held Christian worship services in the US Capitol—which Thomas Jefferson himself attended on many occasions?

To begin with, one must not—as James Madison said of military and legislative chaplainships—allow a “step beyond the landmarks of power [to] have the effect of a legitimate precedent.”24 That the Constitution does not allow Congress to make laws respecting establishments of religion and instead protects the free exercise thereof by the individual citizen is of greater importance than that there were religious lectures in the Capitol in nineteenth-century America. That Thomas Jefferson—a man noted for an insatiable and broad-ranging intellectual curiosity—attended religious services in which speakers from a variety of denominations held forth cannot negate his life-long devotion to religious liberty and (in his own famous words) building up “a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Chris Rodda at the Talk to Action website has ably dissected this particular claim of the Christian Nation propagandists. The eyewitness reports of Mrs. Margaret Bayard Smith, a newspaper editor’s wife, and the British diplomat Sir Augustus Foster, who actually attended these services, bear quoting at some length, first from Mrs. Smith:

I have called these Sunday assemblies in the capitol, a congregation, but the almost exclusive appropriation of that word to religious assemblies, prevents its being a descriptive term as applied in the present case, since the gay company who thronged the H. R. looked very little like a religious assembly. The occasion presented for display was not only a novel, but a favourable one for the youth, beauty and fashion of the city, Georgetown and environs. The members of Congress, gladly gave up their seats for such fair auditors, and either lounged in the lobbies, or round the fire places, or stood beside the ladies of their acquaintance. This sabbathday-resort became so fashionable, that the floor of the house offered insufficient space, the platform behind the Speaker's chair, and every spot where a chair could be wedged in was crowded with ladies in their gayest costume and their attendant beaux and who led them to their seats with the same gallantry as is exhibited in a ball room. Smiles, nods, whispers, nay sometimes tittering marked their recognition of each other, and beguiled the tedium of the service. Often, when cold, a lady would leave her seat and led by her attending beau would make her way through the crowd to one of the fire-places where she could laugh and talk at her ease. One of the officers of the house, followed by his attendant with a great bag over his shoulder, precisely at 12 o'clock, would make his way through the hall to the depository of letters to put them in the mail-bag, which sometimes had a most ludicrous effect, and always diverted attention from the preacher. The musick was as little in union with devotional feelings, as the place. The marine-band, were the performers. Their scarlet uniform, their various instruments, made quite a dazzling appearance in the gallery. The marches they played were good and inspiring, but in their attempts to accompany the psalm-singing of the congregation, they completely failed and after a while, the practice was discontinued,--it was too ridiculous.25

[then from Foster:] Church service can certainly never be called an amusement; but from the variety of persons who are allowed to preach in the House of Representatives, there was doubtless some alloy of curiosity in the motives which led one to go there. Though the regular Chaplain was a Presbyterian, sometimes a Methodist, a minister of the Church of England, or a Quaker, or sometimes even a woman took the speaker's chair; and I don't think that there was much devotion among the majority. The New Englanders, generally speaking, are very religious; though there are many exceptions, I cannot say so much for the Marylanders, and still less for the Virginians.26

From the descriptions given by Mrs. Smith and Sir Augustus of these observances, the truly devout should take no particular comfort in the prospect of politicians staging public worship services.

Carlos Ponce

You are entitled to your opinion.

George Laiacona

If you took a deeper look at this practice you would see that it was nothing more than a fashion show.

Virginia Stone

Thanks again, Dan Freeman.

Thomas Carpenter

A great article, Mr. Freeman. I hope the federal prisons take the GDN so the incarcerated idiots who followed their feckless leader's orders to march against the Capital have some educational material to peruse in their spare time.

Gary Scoggin

When it comes to Congress, the “will of the people” is frustrated by the power of the Speaker in not allowing regular order (including floor debate) on matters before the body. This is one peeve of the recent Speaker holdouts - and I believe that are right about this (but not much else). By moving issues for full debate can each elected representative voice the interests of their constituency.

A corollary to this is the Hastert rule, named after the convicted, child-molesting former speaker, is that a party won’t allow a bill to go forward without majority support of its members. This greatly curtails the opportunity for bipartisan legislation; legislation that most likely represents the collective will of the people at large.

David Hardee

Pardon the diametric opposition to an article that resound with applause from the choir of liberals that consistently find virtue in taking every possible MINORITY (gender, color, sexual preference, religion, culture, addicted, disable, illegal border invader, self inflicted infirmity, and the growing number of biological, psychological and physical self perceptions that a person can conjure) to make them a victim of the CRT. or Systemic White Superiority. Mr. Freeman expresses in this paragraph - "Competent politicians focus on the issues and try to make reasonable choices among competing alternatives. No single platform can address all issues for all people. Just as we are a diverse people, our views differ from issue to issue. Ideally, we vote for politicians reflecting our mix of views as nearly as possible. The artful politician balances these views to arrive at an agenda reflecting the Will of the People with its complexity while respecting the rights and views of the minority." - his prescription for constructing a society, government and world that will honor all of the diversities and give us the utopia of the INCLUSIVE, PERMISSIVE, PROGRESSIVE liberal world.

Let Mr. Freeman speak of those intrusions to the concept of his utopia. Things that would make a humanity founded ethics, morality, and justice. Mr. Freemans governance prescription effectively makes a world without discriminations on any of the practices and acts of those individuals or gatherings (majority or minority) that acts in contradiction to the better attribute of a human. Do not dispose of the irrationalities of humans by accepting everything one will do as permittable. Perversions exist and must be given discrimination (Judge and eliminated).

Must Those perversion be individually listed for the point to be proven that the utopia of the INCLUSIVE, PERMISSIVE, PROGRESSIVE liberal world is a false prescription? If you do not know them then you are truly a human without any discretions.

Charles Douglas

Mr. Hardee> Thank you for your extraordinary, excellent, and exceptionally fine explanations, and ideas concerning the issues with life, and how we interact in this nation! You always bring something....extra....and enlighting to this platform of discussion! Thanks you again for sharing![thumbup][thumbup][thumbup]

Gary Scoggin

David, I think you are misinterpreting what Mr. Freeman said. He is saying that an elected representative of the people should consider all viewpoints when forming his position. You are apparently afraid that considering all viewpoints leads to (yikes) wokism - a world where all people, not just the majority, are valued; a world where various viewpoints are considered. Maybe not adopted, but at least considered.

Why are you afraid of such a world, David? Are you afraid that your particular set of views can’t win out in the marketplace of ideas and therefore must be protected by, as de Tocqueville described it, the tyranny of the majority?

David Hardee

Scroggins, your comment is both sarcastic and scheme-ish.

The last paragraph in my comment, that befuddled you, is particularly applicable as a reply to you - "Must those perversion be individually listed for the point to be proven that the utopia of the INCLUSIVE, PERMISSIVE, PROGRESSIVE liberal world is a false prescription? If you do not know them then you are truly a human without any discretions." Got it, yet?

Gary Scoggin

“Got it, yet?” In a word: Nope.

Trying to sort through your unclear writing and difficult sentence construction, I remain befuddled. Or at least I hope I’m befuddled as the message I discern from your writing is … something I hesitate to label.

What “perversions” are you referring to? Please be specific.

What are the shortcomings of an “INCLUSIVE” world? Please be specific.

What does it mean to be a “human without any discretions”? Why is that a bad thing as you imply?

Ed Buckner

I agree with Mr. Scoggins about the opaque nature of Mr. Hardee's perorations (big vocabularies don't equal clarity). When i read,"Must those perversion be individually listed for the point to be proven that the utopia of the INCLUSIVE, PERMISSIVE, PROGRESSIVE liberal world is a false prescription? If you do not know them then you are truly a human without any discretions," a quite plausible interpretation is just, "If everyone doesn't accept a right-wing, rigid, religious interpretation that allows us old white men and corporations to stay in control, then nothing can be done." But who knows? Hardee will just repeat impenetrable rhetoric and declare that we're stupid or against everything good and pure.

David Hardee

You and Bailey are "word salad " aficionados that plead "linguistic determination" to excuse your inability to (select a word that you want)

discern,

understand,

comprehend,

appreciate

recognize

realize

acknowledge

know

be aware of

be conscious of

be cognizant of

accept

commiserate with - when the thought patterns of a presentation require more than a declarative simplicity.

When you and Bailey cannot without simplistic declarative comprehend that the word INCLUSIVE, when not presented with a MODIFIER, it means, universal, And if neither of you cannot - without my giving you the list for your simple selection then - " you are truly a human without any discretions."

Got it, yet?

You can plead your linguistic problems with the other part of my comment, OKAY!

Now do you understand the last paragraph, yet.

But

David Hardee

Buckner, It is useless to involve in any communications with a person whose entire being ( mental, physical, spiritual) is constructed in their own perception from a mind that is subject to " irrational " intrusions., that are not bounded by any root of acknowledgement for a higher authority. Ergo an atheist is the personification of being one own diety (divine status, quality, or nature.).

Not being an atheist, I will not ever be able to define "perversion" for that undefinable persuasion (group, religion, cult, society, etc.). Therefore, in the future, I will leave all your comments with this statement, "Atheism is beyond my realm of comprehension, thus no reply."

Jim Forsythe

That does not help your case, David. They have a point that you fail to address.

Ed Buckner

It is nothing short of bizarre, Mr. Hardee. i cannot speak for Mr. Jones or Mr. Scoggins, but for me I'll say: no, I don't have it yet. But the problem is not with me. Despite lots of words, you're not making any sense. This is not a matter of whether I agree with you--though I imagine I don't--it's that you have not expressed yourself at all clearly. It's not your definition of "inclusive"--it's your grasp of social reality that's not clear.

Ed Buckner

If anyone thinks I'm arguing with Mr. Hardee over whether he understands atheism, I'm not. He doesn't. But that's not all he fails to understand. He flat out doesn't realize that he is not in fact communicating any meaning--good, bad, or indifferent--with his words. If he's ready to admit altho he isn't and doesn't care, that's fine with me.

David Hardee

Buckner - as promised - "Atheism is beyond my realm of comprehension, thus no reply."

Ed Buckner

Not sure why I need to repeat this, but apparently my earlier statement of it wasn't read or understood. If anyone thinks I'm arguing with Mr. Hardee over whether he understands atheism, I'm not. He doesn't. But that's not all he fails to understand. He flat out doesn't realize that he is not in fact communicating any meaning--good, bad, or indifferent--with his words. If he's ready to admit that he isn't and doesn't care, that's fine with me.

David Hardee

This following comment, - in “ quotations “ was posted by ED B:

“If anyone thinks I'm arguing with Mr. Hardee over whether he understands atheism, I'm not. He doesn't. But that's not all he fails to understand. He flat out doesn't realize that he is not in fact communicating any meaning--good, bad, or indifferent--with his words. If he's ready to admit altho he isn't and doesn't care, that's fine with me.”

There is among the commentors claims that my communication, by written rhetoric, is beyond their ability to make an interpretation. I cannot know what their problem are or what they interpreted. I can only know what they responded. And I conclude that since they did respond they interpreted enough to conjure a response.

We all know that when a presentation or message is not pleasant, or cannot be debated, or cannot be disputed by a response, the recipient of the message, will be caused frustration and will frequently create an attacks on the messenger, right?

I went to the effort of running this one of my comments – the one below with the * (asterisks) - through the editor provided by Microsoft word. It scored at 96% on clarity, excellent.

- In the following reply, I will between - asterisks - explain any word or context that – even though the editor found as 96% clarity – that I suspected was possibly too complex for a simple declarative interpretation.

I repeat for those that had difficulty with the prior paragraphs explanation of - Below in parentheses is the scored 96% clarity previous reply with attenuated clarifications for those having problems understanding the words and or meanings that are incorporated to produce the readers understanding and context. Enjoy!

“Any who claim to understand the formulation *for those needing the complex word formulation defined use the dictionary * of another human’s psyche * psyche encompasses is all the criteria and processors a human uses to develop every thought, imagination and produce a resulting act* especially *especially is use as would the word AND but makes the next clause of superior importance* mystical beliefs (heavenly, spiritual, or ethereal,) * in the parenthesis are listed some of the beliefs which have the characteristic that are unique* and otherworldly visions * otherworldly is meant to incorporate those thought and acts that are generate from emotion and instinctual that are spontaneous and often irrational* is at minimum foolish *this clause give the conclusion from all preceding context as being the least dramatic and expects the totality of the entire statement to stimulate the audience to exercise themselves to mentally arrive at a conclusion*

Got it, yet!

Ed Buckner

It certainly does not surprise me--and I'll bet it surprises no one else--that Mr. Hardee will not (can not?) answer basic questions about what he has said and will dishonestly declare that he will no longer bother to discuss matters with an atheist, since he is unable to understand atheism or atheists.

He does seems to enjoy stringing words together and to think (maybe?) that an automated program can save him from having to be logical and responsive. Is he just befuddled, thorough no fault of his own? Perhaps--and, if so, he and any around him have my sincere sympathies.

David Hardee

Buckner - as promised - "Atheism is beyond my realm of comprehension, thus no reply."

Ed Buckner

David Hardee writes, immediately after breaking this very same promise, "Buckner - as promised - "Atheism is beyond my realm of comprehension, thus no reply.""

Who're you gonna believe, David Hardee or David Hardee?

Gary Scoggin

I am reminded of Mark Twain’s quip, “I apologize for such a long letter - I didn't have time to write a short one.”

Clear, compelling and brief writing is the most effective.

Ed Buckner

Right you are, Mr. Scoggin.

Ted Gillis

The statement “ the practice was discontinued,..it was too ridiculous” pretty much says it all about most organized religious services.

Charlotte O'rourke

I always enjoy reading Dan’s commentary. The hardest part of “will of the people” in todays world is the ability to understand the issues due to the political change and acceptance of lying and liars. The ends justify the means philosophy and collapse of investigative reporting makes researching an issue is much more difficult.

Charlotte O'rourke

I always enjoy reading Dan’s commentary. The hardest part of “will of the people” in today’s world is the ability to understand the issues due to the political change and acceptance of lying and liars. The ends justify the means philosophy and collapse of investigative reporting makes researching an issue much more difficult.

Ed Buckner

Mr. Braeking (this comment perhaps not placed in correct part of a thread--lost my way)--thanks for at least defending "the essentially Voltairean principle" regarding my right to opinions with which you disagree. I think you substantially overstate the straightforwardness of your position. "Enumerated" understanding apparently led, eventually to the USSupCt's overturning of racist interpretations, and you cite that favorably. Yet the courts have not interpreted the Second Amendment at all in the way you do, and no court declared Jimmy Carter's federal highway speed limits unconstitutional. Where do limits or lack of them on the USSupCt come from? Was Marbury v. Madison (1803) wrongly decided? And if so, what's the alternative? Can Presidents simply declare what the Constitution, as amended, really means? Can a majority of voters? Can Ed and Robert decide?

David Hardee

This thread has produced several back and forth conversations which will are destine to presist for eternity. When a participant is inflicted with the maniacal psyche that there is no authority that is dominant (whether civil or spirtual) and there is no model that has attributes that would be inspiring to making them a better human - because I am the deity of the greatest order - it is feudal to embrace them, ever. Back and forth, success and failure, and searching for the truth are the processes that create knowledge. And knowledge plus sufficient experience should create wisdom. Wisdom is a rare commodity in our society as illustrated by proliferation and acceptance of liberal permissive's voted into leadership.

Vote Wisely!

Ed Buckner

I've certainly not it before, but I'll nevertheless say it again: David Hardee, who incomprehensibly enough thinks others are possessed "with the maniacal psyche ... ," fails entirely to grasp what atheism means. I'll explain that, again, on my blog ("Letters to a Free Country" on Substack), but Hardee will not read it and would not comprehend even if he did. I can tell you this now: thinking that I am better informed and more articulate than David Hardee does not make me a deity nor make me think I am.

Ed Buckner

CORRECTED: I've certainly said it before, but I'll nevertheless say it again: David Hardee, who incomprehensibly enough thinks others are possessed "with the maniacal psyche ... " if they dare to disagree with him, fails entirely to grasp what atheism means. I'll explain that, again, soon, on my blog ("Letters to a Free Country" on Substack), but Mr. Hardee will not read it and would not comprehend even if he did. I can tell you this now: thinking that I am better informed and more articulate than David Hardee does not make me a deity nor make me think I am.

Ed Buckner

I have to start a new thread, Mr. Braeking, because, not for the first time, I cannot be sure I'm putting my comment where it should go--

I suspect that you have not (yet) understood what I'm asking you. You are, apparently, a follower of Scalia and the idea that we should construct quite strictly what the framers wanted and not try to adjust the rules too fit the world as it is now, other than through the arduous amendment process. I don't agree with that, but my questions still apply even if I did. The basic question is: who gets to decide if the proper interpretation of enumeration of powers has occurred? I don't know if the federal interstate highway system proposed by a series of people, most importantly Dwight Eisenhower, was ever challenged as unconstitutional in court. My questions to you are 1. if it were, would you accept that the US Sup Ct would have the power to rule whether it is; and 2. do you have any doubt that the courts would have held it acceptable? I'm not asking you whether it IS constitutional, in your opinion--I'm asking if you think the court has that power?

And, BTW, I don't think any court anywhere has ever held that killing babies is OK, in the US or within any state, nor do I know anyone who would say it is. You probably know full well that the Roe v Wade and other decisions were not decided that way, but if you don't, you should read more widely.

Robert Braeking

Mr B.,

Perhaps you should read the Constitution for a start. The process is clear on the question of the interpretation of the powers of the federal government.

The federal highway system justification is on the congressional power "To establish Post Offices and post Roads." (Another Section 8)

You speak in hypotheticals. If you are that interested, bring a suit and see what happens.

You need to expand your sphere. Killing babies is exactly what Roe v Wade was about. It takes great powers of justification to question the humanity of a prenatal baby. At what gestational age do you consider it to be human? Scientifically speaking, it is at conception when the egg and sperm join to make a complete and unique human cell. Where do you draw the line? Since 1973 63,459,781 abortions have been performed in the United States. That's a lot of Democrat voters.

Ed Buckner

Mr. Br.,

So, sarcastic rudeness is how you think we get to understanding or winning or whatever--OK--

Perhaps you should read a basic book on logic for a start. The process on arguing logically is clear if you just pay attention.

The federal highway system can be justified on post roads and the interstate highway system, including speed limits thereon, can be justified by claiming it's all about national defense--but *only* if the USSupCt accepts the justification as extending enumerated powers. And if the USSupCt can justify that, the court can justify interpreting "born" to mean that human rights begin when one is, like, I dunno, born. And that the feds can regulate what happens before one gets birthed, but not in the same way after one turns into a baby--when one can breathe, be inspired, etc.

Scientifically speaking, Robert Braeking became a unique human being when his 350 millionth grandfather (or one of them) had sex with his 350 millionth grandmother (or one of them) and the genes and DNA flowed on from there. (Or maybe it was the 351st millionth.) Where do you draw the line? In the Bible, it's drawn at birth, not at conception. In 18th and 19th century America, when the Framers were walking the postal roads, the line was drawn at birth. Arbitrarily regulating by trimesters of a pregnancy is indeed arbitrary--but so is any other place you draw these lines. You need to expand your sphere before bandying about" speaking scientifically," as if you actually knew what you're saying.

Since 1973 CE, mother nature (scientifically speaking--you and Hardee would say "God") has peremptorily slaughtered about 878,000,987,321 unique human beings before they could see the light of day. That's a lot of right-wing voters.

Gary Scoggin

(Not sure where this comment goes, but I'll give it a shot.)

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” I think that this is another justification for the Interstate Highway system.

I have long been concerned that the interstate commerce clause is often used to render the Tenth Amendment moot. However, this approach has long been used by the Federal Government and supported by the Supreme Court. Perhaps the Court as currently constructed can continue to balance this - as they did with the Dobbs decision.

Ed Buckner

Of possible interest to several of you on this forum is a LTE in the NY Daily News from a friend of mine. I'd especially be interested in Mr. Braeking's response to the constitutional question (14th Amendment)--

This appeared in the Jan. 16 N.Y. Daily News in response to an anti-abortion letter that was printed a few days earlier.

Brooklyn: To Voicer Natalie Barklow: A fertilized egg or an embryo is no more “human” or “living” than an acorn is a tree, an egg is a chicken or a kernel is a wheat plant. The potential for life is not the same as life. You may be interested to learn that the Constitution defines a citizen as someone who is born, not conceived, in the United States. Moreover, about 10-20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, but the actual number is likely higher because many miscarriages occur very early in pregnancy, before a girl or woman might even know she is pregnant. By your lights, this would make God the world’s leading abortionist, since these pregnancies end via natural, not artificial, means. --Dennis Middlebrooks

Ed Buckner

I've tried to get Robert Braeking to comment on this, but he hasn't--very likely because it got lost among the different threads. Let me try again. Mr. Braeking, you wrote (somewhere above) that, But the 14th, which certainly does protect the rights of all US citizens, wherever they live,* explicitly defines citizens as people *BORN* in the US. I know you think a woman carries a baby as soon as she gets pregnant, but the US Constitution, as duly amended, disagrees, unambiguously. What happened to your argument about enumerated powers? Does robert Braeking somehow get the power to interpret the Constitution as it suits him , including ignoring specific language like "born"? (There is no enumerated power of federal or states to prohibit murder, because common law supersedes constitutional law on such a basic matter.

*Among the rights the 14th guarantees to all citizens, including US citizens who're atheists (like me) is that state and local governments cannot make religious decisions for me.

Carlos Ponce

" I know you think a woman carries a baby as soon as she gets pregnant, but the US Constitution, as duly amended, disagrees, unambiguously."

Interesting since Georgia has a fetal personhood law. So does Texas.

Ed Buckner

Good to see Mr. Ponce accepting that Georgia and Texas passed unconstitutional laws.

Carlos Ponce

Where the Constitution is silent, the 10th Amendment kicks in. The power belongs to the states.

Ed Buckner

Ah, Mr. Ponce, what about those places where the Constitution is not silent at all, but open and clear--take the Fourteenth Amendment for example, which plainly states that citizens of the United States shall not have their freedoms and due process abridged by US or state or local governments, and that declares citizenship, and the rights apertaining thereunto start at birth--not at conception? This of course includes the rights of atheists to not have state or local governments make religious decisions for us, and the rights of women not to have their rights to control their own bodies infringed by state or local governments. You do accept duly passed amendments as constitutional, as the constitution itself says they must be, yes?

Carlos Ponce

"and the rights apertaining thereunto start at birth--not at conception?" That is not in the Constitution.

Carlos Ponce

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. "

This pertains only to those born or naturalized in the United States. It does not prevent a STATE from guaranteeing rights to those who are between conception and birth. Where the Constitution is SILENT, the 10th Amendment kicks in. A STATE may take action. Both Texas and Georgia have taken action.

Robert Braeking

Mr Ponce,

The constitution defines a citizen not a human being. If you can justify killing babies because they are not citizens, then can you justify killing illegal migrants, who also are not citizens?

Robert Braeking

All arguments to be brought before the Supreme Court. Until my interpretation is included in a court ruling it is just something to debate. BTW - After I saw some of your snarky comments to another commenter, I assumed that you enjoyed 'snarkism'.

Ed Buckner

CORRECTED (I failed to include the Braeking quotation I was commenting on--I'm old and slow): I've tried to get Robert Braeking to comment on this, but he hasn't--very likely because it got lost among the different threads. Let me try again. Mr. Braeking, you wrote (somewhere above) that,

< If you want to kill babies in your state that is within the power of your state. However, the rights of the baby is protected by the 14th. The problem is that the SCOTUS was from time to time composed of constructionist judges who performed legal gyrations to interpret powers to exist that do not exist.>

But the 14th, which certainly does protect the rights of all US citizens, wherever they live,* explicitly defines citizens as people *BORN* in the US. I know you think a woman carries a baby as soon as she gets pregnant, but the US Constitution, as duly amended, disagrees, unambiguously. What happened to your argument about enumerated powers? Does Robert Braeking somehow get the power to interpret the Constitution as it suits him, including ignoring specific language like "born"? (There is no enumerated power of federal or states to prohibit murder, because common law supersedes constitutional law on such an ancient, basic matter. )

Mr. Braeking, please hear me--I'm not asking about how you interpret the Constitution. I'm asking how you reconcile the idea that the USSupCt interprets things like the 14th or the 2d Amendments in ways that you don't like with your apparent conclusion that the court is the decider.

*Among the rights the 14th guarantees to all citizens, including US citizens who're atheists (like me) is that state and local governments cannot make religious decisions for me.

David Hardee

To have an atheist invoke God into an argument on abortion is an atheistic sacrilege.

When a human's ego concludes it can put (the prime mover) NATURE into a Constitutional argument , or on trial, that is a demonstration of a person with an unbounded maniacal obsession to become the prime adjudicator for the universe, God.

Truly, man's eons of struggle with codifying the best prescription for living his life and managing his society have all been flawed. But for any irrational human to invoke NATURES indisputable orderly processes as a determinative, or implied reason for the flaw in our Constitutional reeks of dementia.

A quotation of, " this would make God the world’s leading abortionist," used by an atheist is abstract lunacy.

Ed Buckner

Since Mr. Middlebrooks is not on this forum to defend himself, let me just point out the part of his comment that Mr. Hardee omitted (possibly from his own illiteracy? his own abstract lunacy? who knows)--"By your lights, this would make God the world’s leading abortionist, since these pregnancies end via natural, not artificial, means. --Dennis Middlebrooks"

Mr. Hardee, look up "By your lights"--and then look up all the hard words in the explanation until you get it. If you can.

Ed Buckner

Mr. Braeking and Mr. Ponce,

It seems it is the two of you who should actually read the Constitution as amended. (Full text of Amendment XIV below--take as long as you need).

Citizens of the US are protected from government--at any level--abridgement of their rights and citizens, who are plainly BORN (or naturalized--but not merely conceived) persons, not sperm, ova, zygotes, fetuses, etc.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Carlos Ponce

This has already gone before the Supreme Court (Doe v McKee) who refused to hear it in light of Dobbs v. Jackson (2022). Dobbs v. Jackson left the matter of abortion up to each state. The Supreme Court NEVER ruled fetal personhood was unConstitutional. SCOTUS refused to hear the case. Like Dobbs, it is up to the states.

David Hardee

In summary – There is no “will of the people” in the conditions that prevail today’

In the convolution created by the bastardizations of the words, the definitions of genders, the lack of assimilation to traditional culture, lack of rational discrimination, and the insanity of woke, the segmentations of the society defy the ability to produce an election that is the "will of the people", aka E Pluribus Unum. Effectively the best pandering produces a polarity of voters.

The unbounded permissiveness of the liberals require nothing from a voter and promise a utopian society where all is provided by a governance that feels your pain and will provide relief.

As to the thread of comments that wandered about trying to make some point(s) the following summary:

From "the will of the people" to "the Constitution" to Devine intervention" to "intelligent design" we arrive at:

It is foolish when that irrational human, who denies any existence of any deity, projects his intellect as the prime mover, God.

Q: What is intelligent design? A: Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific set of beliefs based on the notion that life on earth is so complex that it cannot be explained by the scientific theory of evolution and therefore must have been designed by a supernatural entity.

This and all answers to the question ID (aka God) are a mental construction by a irrational human. Using, invoking or discussing ID is a exercise of perpetual circular hypothesis. Therefore "belief" is the culprit a human struggle with intellectually.

Obviously, humans make Gods from their beliefs in order to have visual images that will judge, and reward or punish. Evolution has produced some societies that have refined the belief and images that will inspire them to emulate as models. Those models and their disciples began codifying the prescriptions for managing themselves. The most accepted codified prescription in the evolution was the simplicity of "ten commandment." Rather than recite all the progression that occurred over the 1000s of years a rational conclusion is that the 10 commandments and the belief of Christianity are the fathers of our Constitution.

Finally, the exercise of circular conclusion will go on as beliefs oscillate and evolve in and among irrational humans.

Ed Buckner

It's already a well-established fact that David Hardee does not understand what atheism is or means, but this reaffirms that. He slow don't grasp what the point of, or means to accomplish, secularism/church-state separation is, either. Nor does he appear to know much about American history, especially about the efforts of people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to guarantee religious liberty. Hell, I doubt if he even knows what is included in the Ten Commandments.

Ed Buckner

CORRECTED (damned auto-correct)--It's already a well-established fact that David Hardee does not understand what atheism is or means, but this reaffirms that. He doesn't grasp what the point of, or means to accomplish, secularism/church-state separation is, either. Nor does he appear to know much about American history, especially about the efforts of people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to guarantee religious liberty. Hell, I doubt if he even knows what is included in the Ten Commandments.

Welcome to the discussion.

Real Names required. No pseudonyms or partial names allowed. Stand behind what you post.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.