Page 1 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

09 Jun 2010, 12:38 am

If elected to the highest office in atheism, how will you uphold our constitution? Do you believe it to be a sacred, unalterable document, a "living" text? There has been some controversy in the past over the concept of the Unitary Executive in Stridency and on Dawkins' Doctrine of Preemptive Argumentation.

And Grandma Betty has a question from the audience:

Grandma Betty wrote:
We are tired of the stern strident atheist! Will you embrace sympathetic stridency?

Each candidate has two minutes to respond.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Jun 2010, 5:47 am

NeantHumain wrote:
If elected to the highest office in atheism, how will you uphold our constitution? Do you believe it to be a sacred, unalterable document, a "living" text? There has been some controversy in the past over the concept of the Unitary Executive in Stridency and on Dawkins' Doctrine of Preemptive Argumentation.

And Grandma Betty has a question from the audience:
Grandma Betty wrote:
We are tired of the stern strident atheist! Will you embrace sympathetic stridency?

Each candidate has two minutes to respond.


The constitution is a convention, a set of rules decided upon by representatives of the adult population acting as a body politic. It is purely a human artifact. If we were wiser and smarter we would have a new constitutional convention every thirty years so that adults in each generation would have a direct or indirect (through representation) role in determining the basic law under which they live.

ruveyn



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

09 Jun 2010, 6:02 am

ruveyn wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
If elected to the highest office in atheism, how will you uphold our constitution? Do you believe it to be a sacred, unalterable document, a "living" text? There has been some controversy in the past over the concept of the Unitary Executive in Stridency and on Dawkins' Doctrine of Preemptive Argumentation.

And Grandma Betty has a question from the audience:
Grandma Betty wrote:
We are tired of the stern strident atheist! Will you embrace sympathetic stridency?

Each candidate has two minutes to respond.


The constitution is a convention, a set of rules decided upon by representatives of the adult population acting as a body politic. It is purely a human artifact. If we were wiser and smarter we would have a new constitutional convention every thirty years so that adults in each generation would have a direct or indirect (through representation) role in determining the basic law under which they live.

ruveyn


Your founding fathers should have written a document of responsibilities to go along with your constitution of rights.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

09 Jun 2010, 6:23 am

I neither entered my name nor have any desire to become whatever the election indicates. It seems unlikely I will be chosen but be confident that if so I am I will initiate no actions or hold no responsibilities in he matter.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

09 Jun 2010, 8:50 am

To NeantHumain, I do not intend on worshiping a constitution of any sort. Laws exist primarily for the people who use them, not for a bunch of dead people. Now, I am not so crazy as to believe that these laws should be altered every generation, and this is mostly because social relations are driven to a significant degree by norms, and economic actions (as well as many other categories of action) require the ability to make good predictions about the future. However, I do think that ultimately what matters is the spirit of the law, and that the law is working for the benefits of individuals.

Also, unlike Dent, I will not try to destroy our great society and constitution by starting a communist revolution, something that Marxists sometimes have an urge to do.

As for Grandma Betty's question: I am a compassionate strident atheist in very much the same way as George W Bush was a compassionate conservative. In all of my political engagements, I will try to say loudly and often that I am a compassionate strident atheist. Hopefully that answers your question.



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

09 Jun 2010, 10:44 am

Stride Pride topic

Grandma Betty and I thank all those who corresponded.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


skysaw
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 645
Location: England

09 Jun 2010, 10:50 am

If I use the word Strident a lot, can I be one of the in-crowd too?



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

09 Jun 2010, 11:17 am

NeantHumain wrote:
If elected to the highest office in atheism, how will you uphold our constitution? Do you believe it to be a sacred, unalterable document, a "living" text?



It is alterable through the amending process.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Jun 2010, 11:47 am

Fuzzy wrote:

Your founding fathers should have written a document of responsibilities to go along with your constitution of rights.


That is the function of Law. The Constitution is an enabling document on how Congress makes laws and how the executive and judiciary dispose of them. There is only one responsibility: obey the laws as passed by Congress and approved by the President.

ruveyn



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

09 Jun 2010, 2:09 pm

skysaw wrote:
If I use the word Strident a lot, can I be one of the in-crowd too?

When I get into power, I will create a WP Society of Strident Atheists, so that way yes, you can be in the in-crowd.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

09 Jun 2010, 10:17 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Fuzzy wrote:

Your founding fathers should have written a document of responsibilities to go along with your constitution of rights.


That is the function of Law. The Constitution is an enabling document on how Congress makes laws and how the executive and judiciary dispose of them. There is only one responsibility: obey the laws as passed by Congress and approved by the President.

ruveyn

We're talking about the atheists' constitution here, not the Constitution of the United States.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

10 Jun 2010, 9:23 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
skysaw wrote:
If I use the word Strident a lot, can I be one of the in-crowd too?

When I get into power, I will create a WP Society of Strident Atheists, so that way yes, you can be in the in-crowd.


The title should be Atheists' Strident Society so that the opposition would spread the acronym.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

10 Jun 2010, 9:46 pm

FundyOne wrote:
You A.S.S.es flood the forum with your heretical topics!


Like that?


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


countzarroff
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 401
Location: Massachusetts

12 Jun 2010, 5:34 am

There would be no way to enforce a community of any set belief without totalitarianism. Because faith is spiritual and not scientific, people's hearts will still be bonded to their faith, even those who listen and respect the facts. Unless you are willing to take the soviet approach to eliminating religion through aggression (which would be just as immoral and insane as persecution by religious justification) there is no way to remove religion.

The better way to go about it would be to create a society where different people of different faiths can come together and form a community that does its best to make everyone happy. That's why democracy is what's cool right now.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Jun 2010, 7:16 am

countzarroff wrote:

The better way to go about it would be to create a society where different people of different faiths can come together and form a community that does its best to make everyone happy. That's why democracy is what's cool right now.



Ah Democracy! The ideal form of government for fools and asses.

The best form of government would be a loose defense confederation of self-supporting and productive communities. The last thing we need is Equality and Redistribution. Mankind is not a race of equals. The few feed the many because they are smarter and more productive.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Jun 2010, 8:20 am

ruveyn wrote:
countzarroff wrote:

The better way to go about it would be to create a society where different people of different faiths can come together and form a community that does its best to make everyone happy. That's why democracy is what's cool right now.



Ah Democracy! The ideal form of government for fools and asses.

The best form of government would be a loose defense confederation of self-supporting and productive communities. The last thing we need is Equality and Redistribution. Mankind is not a race of equals. The few feed the many because they are smarter and more productive.

ruveyn


The few feed the many because the few with money and power have squeezed out all competition.