tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post408363356337452768..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Democracy & Religion in AmericaBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9939240083216103602009-12-26T19:00:58.101-07:002009-12-26T19:00:58.101-07:00.
ha ha ha ha
.
That's for sure.
..<br />ha ha ha ha<br />.<br />That's for sure.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57399351175405907772009-12-26T18:46:30.682-07:002009-12-26T18:46:30.682-07:00Good point Phil.
Does the public actually underst...Good point Phil.<br /><br />Does the public actually understand what is good for them?<br /><br />Does the public cast votes consistent with what is good for them?<br /><br />Are politicians interested in winning favor with their constituents, or with the lobbyists?<br /><br />I'd better stop asking questions, or else I'll become more cynical than I already am ;-)bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20077797825232824942009-12-26T18:17:51.969-07:002009-12-26T18:17:51.969-07:00.
I think sociologists might be better at understa....<br />I think sociologists might be better at understanding what the people think their good is.<br />.<br />While politicians compete with each other to be elected into office by the people. I seriously doubt that most of them have the public good in mind. Mostly their interest is in getting and holding on to public office where they get to have personal relationships with special interest lobbyists who come to them bearing gifts of all sorts.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39954282815954615192009-12-26T17:44:58.569-07:002009-12-26T17:44:58.569-07:00Phil,
Thanks for explaining. My take is that &quo...Phil,<br /><br />Thanks for explaining. My take is that "public good" is what politicians say it is, but now necessarity what is good for the public.<br /><br />If we want to understand what the public thinks is good for them, I'd suggest keeping an eye on <i>the market</i>.<br /><br /><i>The market</i> is represented by the individuals who comprize <i>the public</i>.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78130774305960152009-12-26T11:34:04.181-07:002009-12-26T11:34:04.181-07:00.
Hey, Ben.
.
Generally, the public good is what o....<br />Hey, Ben.<br />.<br />Generally, the public good is what our representatives are elected to care for. It's up to them to create the appropriate legislation. They have no power to adjudicate.<br />.<br />Problems arising between and among the private interests are generally left up to the courts. If our government has a problem arising from the private sector, the courts are where those problems get settled.<br />.<br />I have been working to learn about the questions involved. And, I suspect I am starting to see why some academics and others do not want to discuss the questions involved.<br />.<br />Even so, the questions are deeply involved in America's creation.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33478458901102805122009-12-26T11:13:23.488-07:002009-12-26T11:13:23.488-07:00Phil,
Re: "There is no law that requires gov...Phil,<br /><br />Re: "<i>There is no law that requires government to keep its nose out of business that affects the Public Good.</i>"<br /><br />Do you refer to actions that are congruent with the public good, or any actions that are constructive or destructive to the public good?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76914188577771372222009-12-26T09:27:24.084-07:002009-12-26T09:27:24.084-07:00.
Angie writes, "Pinky,
The market does provi....<br />Angie writes, <i>"Pinky,<br />The <b>market does provide for a type of checks and balances</b> as long as government doesn't use it to hide their interests, or the private sector isn't in bed with the government..."</i><br />.<br />Your use of what I've highlighted is as though the public has no right to express its interests and want us all to believe that, somehow, the private interest has some unalienable right to impose its methods on society.<br />.<br />After all is said, and done, the United States is a society of laws. There is <b>no law</b> that requires government to keep its nose out of business that affects the Public Good.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-86378226090031597902009-12-23T08:38:10.298-07:002009-12-23T08:38:10.298-07:00Pinky,
The market does provide for a type of check...Pinky,<br />The market does provide for a type of checks and balances as long as government doesn't use it to hide their interests, or the private sector isn't in bed with the government...<br /><br />This is also the case for religion. And why I have ceased to think that religion has any place in civilized society where it concerns business transactions. <br /><br />Laws were to protect the common person from such corruptions of power, weren't they? Doesn't the law protect boundaries around the private and public sectors?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50658807654234259352009-12-23T04:30:27.242-07:002009-12-23T04:30:27.242-07:00.
That's the argument from the beginning of th....<br />That's the argument from the beginning of the republic, Angie.<br />.<br />You are--very much--on the side of the private realm. For my money, I see the private realm as having taken over our government. I don't think you have really thought it out. The private realm is the sector that has bought out our representatives in congress. They have done it through special interest lobbyists.<br />.<br /><br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22748033079628151392009-12-22T21:07:28.326-07:002009-12-22T21:07:28.326-07:00Many are appalled at the government using taxpayer...Many are appalled at the government using taxpayer money to support abortion rights, when many do not agree with that right. I concur.<br /><br />The U.N. has talked about women's health issues similarily. Those who are not able for one reason or another should be sterilized, etc. to protect valuable resources in these poor countries.Globalized eoncomies nor globalism is a good choice. <br /><br />Limited government was always the Founders vision. But, today, we find government growing by the day, as now healthcare, not only will create a government beauracracy that will oversee 6% of our GNP...and in the meantime, senators are being 'paid off" and their constiuencies, if they are not careful will close they mouth and eyes because of the pay-off. And the compormising politician will not loose their office because they have beneiftted their people with "goods from the government". Government dependency has not done anything "good" for the countries that support such thinking and systems.<br /><br />Now there is talk of legislation that would limit the next administration with changing the policies put in place for govenrment reform. This is an atrocious grab for power and control like no other.<br /><br />I do hope that our country can be turned back.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40520825349735891722009-12-22T18:47:36.716-07:002009-12-22T18:47:36.716-07:00This Could Be A Little Difficult
To explain; but, ...This Could Be A Little Difficult<br />To explain; but, if you work with me, I think you will get it.<br /><br />It’s about your right to be in control of your own private life and property.<br /><br />Back during the colonial days, most of the colonies had its own “state church”. If you lived in Rhode Island, you were a Baptist and so on for all the colonies; Baptist, Puritan, Church of England, etc.<br /><br />In each of these colonies, the legislatures had authority over all the inhabitants regarding their personal habits and behavior. The town assemblies and colonial authorities were very intrusive on the personal life of each inhabitant. People were fined for not attending Sunday services among other private choices and behaviors. Everyone knew everyone else’s business.<br /><br />After the Revolution, when the United States was finally set up as a functional republic with our U.S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights, it became the law of the land that individuals had the private right to their own religious beliefs. That was no small thing. In fact, it was a major change in so as the way private and public expressions of belief were concerned. Freedom of religion brought a NEW <br />understanding of the rights of the individual into play of our American society.<br /><br />Gradually, it came to be seen by the people as well as by the courts that there were places in a person’s life where the public sector—the government—had no rights or authority to intrude. So, over a lengthy period of time the idea of individual rights developed and the privacy of the individual came to be seen as just as sacred as their right to worship as they saw fit.<br /><br />As we are a nation of laws and as laws belong to the judiciary and not to the legislative or executive branches of government, the individual is protected in their rights by the courts. If my rights are trod upon, my access to reparation is through the courts—that’s part of the separation of powers in our government that is different from the way things were in the colonial period.<br /><br />Now, laws are adjudicated by precedent—this is a very important point.<br /><br />If the state has the power to control the private functions of a woman’s body, the precedent is established that the state has authority to control just about every private function of YOUR MIND AND BODY. <br /><br />The questions can easily be seen as NOT about the morality of abortion; but, that they are about YOUR rights to privacy.<br />.<br />-----------------<br /><br />What's wrong with that thinking?Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65831059930832174402009-12-19T13:22:19.383-07:002009-12-19T13:22:19.383-07:00.
This bears repeating:
"....if we don't....<br />This bears repeating:<br /><br />"<i>....if we don't adhere to the principles of good government, allowing voice and choice then we are no better than tyrannical kings that the Founders resisted...<br /><br />So, no one will get me to submit my body where my head doesn't understand or assent....otherwise, I am just a slave of the whim of whatever political leader wants...and that would allow the tyrannical leader(s) to circumvent "proper order" in regards to choice, purpose, values and principle...which is undermining the principle of "equality under law"...</i>"<br />.<br />Pretty clear thinking.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-58850435882884347582009-12-19T11:26:01.770-07:002009-12-19T11:26:01.770-07:00It's almost 1:30 p.m. at my location.
.
If you...It's almost 1:30 p.m. at my location.<br />.<br />If you can get C-Span 3, a discussion on John Adams, religion, politics, and society has just begun.<br />.<br />It's snowing and I'm making chili. My wife is two miles away at the mall and has just locked her car keys in the trunk. My son borrowed my car and he is two states away.<br />.<br />Whooopee!<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33239922861502815802009-12-19T10:55:33.865-07:002009-12-19T10:55:33.865-07:00These men were educated and of course, discussed i...These men were educated and of course, discussed ideology, because ideology drives policy.<br /><br />Policy is what we are talking about. And if we don't adhere to the principles of good government, allowing voice and choice then we are no better than tyrannical kings that the Founders resisted...<br /><br />So, no one will get me to submit my body where my head doesn't understand or assent....otherwise, I am just a slave of the whim of whatever political leader wants...and that would allow the tyrannical leader(s) to circumvent "proper order" in regards to choice, purpose, values and principle...which is undermining the principle of "equality under law"...Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69070037982054154722009-12-19T10:36:29.274-07:002009-12-19T10:36:29.274-07:00.
Madison questioned the seats of power in his let....<br />Madison questioned the seats of power in his letter to Jefferson.<br />.<br />Where did the power exist in the early republic's government? Who was deciding what laws should be passed and what was their purpose? Searching out those answers helps us understand our Founding far better than finding answers to academic questions about Locke and others--not that they weren't important. But, more to the point, our interest is in the real life of the Founding generation. What moved them from day to day? I cannot imagine a group of men sitting in ye olde towne tavern drinking stout ale having discussions about Lockian principles. What do you think they talked about?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34793010332864264362009-12-19T10:02:42.415-07:002009-12-19T10:02:42.415-07:00And those that know how government works, use it f...And those that know how government works, use it for their benefit, the "naive ones" pay the costs or move on to another place, or hold government accountable to the 'rule of law' to maintain their freedom from coercive, abusive, or oppressive government...precedence is important for the 'common good" in these situations...I thinkAngie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5488220967770191912009-12-19T09:57:15.444-07:002009-12-19T09:57:15.444-07:00.
The "need"of the ancestors who transit....<br />The "need"of the ancestors who transitioned from colonial life under the Crown's government to the early republican lie under th4eir own government appears to have been the Public Good--whatever that was.<br />.<br />Our present day dilemma about health care reform is another matter. Even so, the example holds when we look behind the scenes in our present day congress to see the private interests of wealthy corporations that use their influence to buy our representatives. If we look closely at the concerns of the Founding generation we might see their worst fears are being realized in our representative legislature"".<br />.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-58601573197974982232009-12-19T09:28:06.074-07:002009-12-19T09:28:06.074-07:00.
But, I only brought up Health Care as an example....<br />But, I only brought up Health Care as an example to show how the Founding generation thought--to help us get into their minds.<br />.<br />It's not what we think here; but, an attempt to understand where their minds were at so we can better understand our Founding as a national society.<br />.<br />You bring up good issues having to do with the "churches" for example. While I might agree with you, how did the colonial/Revolutionary/Founding generation deal with the problems involved?<br />.<br />Of course, I know you are on board with all of this. It's just that I wanted to remind you of my motivations.<br />.<br />:<)Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35925638071423111552009-12-19T09:22:08.614-07:002009-12-19T09:22:08.614-07:00.
Well, I guess you and I can settle this problem ....<br />Well, I guess you and I can settle this problem while the rest go off in the la la land of academe.<br />.<br />You might be itnerested in this statement from Wood's essay, <i>"According to Republican Theory," said Madison, "Right and power being both vested in the majority, are held to be synomonous." But experience since 1776 had shown the contrary. "Wherever the real power in a Government lies," he told his friend Thomas Jefferson, then in Paris, "there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from any acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of constituents." That was why, for Madison, the crisis of the 1780s was truly frightening. For the legislative abuse and the many violations of individual rights, he said, "brought into question the fundamental principle of republican Government, that the majority who rule in such governments are the safest Guardians both of public Good and private rights.</i><br />.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71808952442816027342009-12-19T09:16:45.227-07:002009-12-19T09:16:45.227-07:00Pinky, You have mentioned "healthcare" a...Pinky, You have mentioned "healthcare" as an example of "public good"...I look at it this way...<br /><br />If there is a need, there should be family, friends, and/or community support that is aware of the personal aspect of the need, not just the statistical need of another, which depersonalizes the person...and causes a dependency on government.<br /><br />But, I do not think government taking from one to give to another is appropriate, because government always "seives" off a measure for themselves, just as the insurance companies do "for profit" (which is the greatest evil in liberal terms...). <br /><br />Voluntary service is the only way to protect against "profiteering". But, government cannot demand volutary service, unless they want to be tyrannical. So, what to do? <br /><br />Healthcare is not considered a necessity by some as some people choose not to have healthcare. And that should be their prerogative. I think it is more immoral and unethical to take away the right to choose, than to allow someone to fall through the cracks of the healthcare system...so it is a matter of pritoritizing what is ethcially more important in a society. I do not like socialism, or communisitic ways of understanding "community"...and religious jargon has been useful towar that "end" of getting others "on board" to socialize medicine. I don't thisk we have taken the time to discuss and really know options. It is a power grab and it si arm twisting and political manuevering, so that government can grow larger and become more expensive.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23502522553143317812009-12-19T08:42:25.543-07:002009-12-19T08:42:25.543-07:00Pinky,
In the early Republic, as has been said, th...Pinky,<br />In the early Republic, as has been said, there was less beauracracy, therefore, local politics was not "too far" from "Public concerns"...that is, individuals were tied within communities who had a direct connection with their government. <br /><br />Today, this is not so. There are many interests that a person can be involved in, which could conflict. And it has nothing to do with "selfishness". In fact, the need for laws that protect private interests become more necessary, because accountability is more needed. Secrecy in government affairs breeds corruption and individual acting selfishly. These individual might deem it unselfish if it was for "the common good", in fact "resourcefulness" would the the term they would use, but if government contracts are not done in the open, then the private interests of corporate greed lend itself to abuse of power over taxpayer money. We see this often when corporations get millions for common necessities that costs far less in the public sector.<br /><br />So, limiting abuse of power, is maintaining an open "business contract" of "public interests" where the common person is made aware of budgetary needs and expenditures, so that selfishness does not run governmental "concers"!!! There are TOO many ways in which money can be laundered through government....Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17203690967062364052009-12-19T08:21:49.351-07:002009-12-19T08:21:49.351-07:00It’s almost funny how some Americans get so carrie...It’s almost funny how some Americans get so carried away by such flim-flam as that provided by recent “tea parties” promoted by shills like Hannity and Limbaugh. It’s as though they think of themselves as the only real patriots with a grasp of what America’s Founding was all about. I say, bunk!<br /> Maybe a quote from a highly respected historian, Gordon S. Wood, will help. It’s from his essay, The History of Rights in Early America***:<br /><i>“In republican American, government would no longer be merely private property and private interests writ large, as it had been in the colonial period. Public and private spheres that earlier had been mingled were now presumably to be starkly separated. Res publica became everything. The new republican states saw themselves promoting a unitary public interest that was to be clearly superior to the many private interests and rights of the people.<br /> “At the beginning of the Revolution, few Americans imagined that there could be any real conflict between the unitary public good expressed by the representative state legislatures and the rights of individuals. When, in 1775, a frightened Tory warned the people of Massachusetts that popular Revolutionary legislatures could become as tyrannical as the Crown and deprive the people of their individual liberties, John Adams dismissed the idea out of hand. That the people might tyrannize over themselves and harm their own rights and liberties was illogical, declared Adams. ‘A democratic despotism is a contradiction in terms.’<br /> “With the now heightened sense of the public good, the Revolutionary republican legislatures were determined to bring what was seen as the private rights of selfish individuals under communal control. Many Americans now viewed with suspicion the traditional monarchical practice of enlisting private wealth and energy for public purposes. Especially objectionable was the issuing of corporate privileges and licenses to private persons. In a republic, it was said; no person should be allowed to exploit the public’s authority for private gain. Indeed, several of the states wrote into their Revolutionary constitutions declarations, like that of New Hampshire that ‘government is instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the public community, and not for the private interests or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men.’ And some of the states, like North Caroline, declared that ‘perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of the state, and ought not to be allowed’”</i><br />To act as thought America was created as a place for individuals to benefit at the disadvantage of others is just plain bunk. And that is not a matter of opinion—all this so-called conservatism to the contrary.<br /> So, what happened during those times when America was in the cupulo? Did the wealthy private interests just pack up and leave town?<br /><br />*** From the book, The Nature of Rights at the American Founding and Beyond, edited by Barry Alan Shain. Here’s a link where you can check it out: http://www.amazon.com/Nature-American-Founding-Constitutionalism-Democracy/dp/0813926661Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72192063488707178662009-12-17T19:14:24.973-07:002009-12-17T19:14:24.973-07:00I never intend to do another wrong...under any cir...I never intend to do another wrong...under any circumstances...<br /><br />Churches do "own" interests in things other than religion...and this is a dire problem, as far as I am concerned...Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71415455005590755502009-12-17T17:56:55.347-07:002009-12-17T17:56:55.347-07:00.
Churches are protected from almost every possibl....<br />Churches are protected from almost every possible regulation by the First Amendment. The only thing that can regulate them is probably if something about their activities presents a clear and present danger to society.<br />.<br />Churches are not required to incorporate in order to practice their form of religion.<br />.<br />Religion is an entirely different domain than the private and public.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68649595934766249362009-12-17T17:29:36.344-07:002009-12-17T17:29:36.344-07:00Churches that are "incorporated" protect...Churches that are "incorporated" protect their interests, but those that serve under their auspices, have a right to be informed, contractually of their duties. Otherwise, one is treating another as a slave, and isn't slavery against our Constitutional rights?<br /><br />I recognize the Hein in 2007 did not win against the religious 'right" to get government funds to do "business',...but business is business and isn't religion...therefore, wouldn't a contract be an important aspect of protecting right under our Constitution concerning the 'slave issue"?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com