Isn’t that part of what’s gotten America into this mess?
3 Likes
Perhaps, but I’m advocating proper necromancy, not biblical studies.
8 Likes
Oh Civil Liberty Extremists exist alright. There’s about 300 million in the United States alone. One wonders how Christie can sleep at night knowing the threat they pose to his government.
“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” - Thomas Jefferson
3 Likes
Depending on how literal the religion is, not much difference.
Although, yes, literal necromancy would at least make Easter a lot more interesting…
2 Likes
It’s not the religions which are literal, but rather the people who follow them. If it wasn’t their chosen doctrine, they could just as easily be gullibly proclaiming any of the worlds other literature to be history.
1 Like
I can’t stand grandstanding about issues like this, so I am going to derail the discussion
Look at these gorgeous mini mince pies.
7 Likes
This gets rather afield of the topic, but doesn’t that kinda imply that the religion exists independently of the people who follow the religion?
Personally, I think it’s more that a religion (constructed by the people following it) requires a certain level of literalness (literality? Eh, whatever). It’s a little recursive, but that’s pretty typical of memes.
1 Like
Why? Post must be at least 6 characters
(P.S. I was asking about “requires a certain level of literalness”)
Mainly because I don’t think a meme (even a religious one) can legitimately be said to exist without a brain for it to act on to imagine it, I suppose.
[edit] phrased that completely wrong the first time[/edit]
People here often assert the same tactic with me here when discussing politics. Isn’t the US merely an emergent property of a few hundred million people? Am I not “the government” as much as anybody else? People can entrench power structures with a variety of different excuses. And interpretation of doctrine - be it the Constitution or The Vedas - tends to play a huge part in that. I agree with you that everything is just people, but most people, even the fairly open-minded people here, balk at the idea of interacting with governments and/or corporations in a direct personal manner. The tendency is to see them as removed, as being on a different order of existence.
Hahahaha!<cough><choke>
FYI, this is the guy telling us that the residents of NJ have come up with the cunning scheme of telling everyone that they despise him for the sole purpose of jealously keeping him in the state for themselves!
And if you don’t believe Chris Christie, who do you believe?
1 Like
Okay, I get what you are saying, and respect it.
… Buy can you bring the abstract ideas you are thinking of into tactical examples?
One boundery condition: throwing out political status quo is not allowed for tactical planning.
In a way, but it’s much more difficult to talk about governments on an individual scale than it is to talk about religions on that scale. A religion can just be a set of beliefs (all the way down to an individual’s beliefs), while a government is a communal set of rules that are applied through that government’s method of decision-making. Religions are capable of existing on a communal level, but they don’t need to.
(wow, this got deep, fast)
2 Likes
“And there are going to be some who are going to come before you and are going to say, ‘Oh, no, no, no. This is not what the Founders intended,’” he said. “The Founders made sure that the first obligation of the American government was to protect the lives of the American people, and we can do this in a way that’s smart and cost-effective and protects civil liberties. But you know, you can’t enjoy your civil liberties if you’re in a coffin.”
I’m pretty sure “You can’t enjoy your civil liberties is you’re in a coffin” is a direct quote from the Founding Fathers, just before they gave up on the whole “revolution” thing as being too dangerous and not cost-effective.
The motto of the state where he gave his little speech? “Live Free Or Die.” Ha ha, oops.
7 Likes
This is being mocked, to some extent justly, but I have to admit I do agree with the principle. I know, I know, it goes against the divine founders willing to die for a free slave-owning nation, that after only one massive internal war and some fierce civil rights battles has turned out comparable to the other English nations.
Setting them aside, though, I personally think what makes freedom at all worthwhile is people actually being able to build the lives they want. People are less free when they’re stuck trying not to be killed by terrorists, just as they’re less free when they have to worry about crossing the police, to check what they say when government spies are listening, to not be able to marry who they want, to work in a sweatshop in hopes of feeding their kids or paying medical bills.
I understand not everyone agrees with this view, but I doubt I’m alone in it, and more to the point I think making it the debate is accepting a false dichotomy. The big lie here is that terrorists are the serious threat to American lives, and not the neoliberal-fascist blend that people like Christie are peddling. For ordinary citizens, freedom and security should really be the same side against them.
5 Likes
I have never understood why someone soldiers going into battle are considered brave, while those who are willing to risk a potential increase in harm in order to have a free society, are not.
You’re not alone in your confusion, it seems.
“It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare”
Mark Twain
9 Likes
Oh yes, we do know what the founders would have done. We don’t need necromancy - we have books. We have documents. Here’s the section of the Constitution that outlines the “first duty of the American government.”
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It’s true the “common defence” is in there, but it sure isn’t elevated to the level of “first duty.”
5 Likes
Christie, what an asshole.
16 Likes
Reluctantly in Christie’s defense, New Jersey is right across the river and was probably more directly affected than any other state after NY (and VA/DC.)
The train platforms that were buried under the towers included a major PATH (NJ commuter rail) station. NJ residents probably accounted for the majority of non-NY victims. I can’t find a decent data dump but it looks like 696 of the 2606 WTC deaths were people from there, so over 26%. I think having almost 700 of your state’s citizens die gives you a legitimate spot on the rostrum. It’s not like the governor of Alaska elbowing her way on there.
What one chooses to do with that spot is a separate issue. “Shamelessly exploit it for political gain” is one direction to take it, I guess…
6 Likes
I’d take the mild rash any day of the week.
1 Like
