Re: Opium [was: Re: freelance sysadmining -- superlong -- [WAS: "Red Hat recommends Windows for consumers"]]
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 14:09:56 +0000
ben <ben_foley@web.de> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 02:05:15 -0600
> Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 23:07, ben wrote:
> > > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:14:38 -0800
> > > <donw@examen.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:39:31AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > whatever about the rest, a theocracy in a century! bush has
> > > already made public statements about how god instructed him to
> > > invade afghanistan and iraq. what the hell happend to separation
> > > of church and state? on top of
> >
> > Tell you what: I won't interpret the German Constitution if you
> > don't interpret the U.S. Constitution.
>
> nah, i've got a better idea: you feel free to interpret the german
> constitution or any other text in the world, or not, as you wish, and
> i'll go on feeling free to do the same. no need to forbid yourself
> anything on my account.
>
>
> >
> > Do you even know what "separation of church and state" means? Does
> > it mean "government officials shall avoid religion at all costs",
> > or does it mean "Congress shall make no law respecting an estab-
> > lishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?
> > http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt1.html
> > http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
> >
> > Yes, that's right: Jefferson didn't mean what we now understand
> > "a wall of separation between Church and State" to mean.
> >
> then i take it you haven't read jefferson's wall of separation letter.
> there's a copy of it at
>
> www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall,
>
> a transcript of the original in the library of congress.
>
> in response to the two questions above, consequent to my
> interpretation of the statements made by jefferson in that letter, the
> first answer would be that i believe i have a fairly good grasp of
> what jefferson understood separation of church and state to mean, and
> the second answer would be that, both definitions above are equally
> correct.
>
> don't get me wrong, i'm not an america-basher. i know and like the
> place, but i'm very concerned that so much that is great there, in
> particular the vast range of freedoms implied in the constitution, is
> being steadily pulled out from under you by the current
> administration, and in such a manner that the conditions under which
> us other humans get to live are also detrimentally influenced. i think
> that the process by which individuals get to be in power, there, has
> been steadily removed from the people to such a degree that too many,
> albeit well-intended and loyal good folks, have begun to rely on blind
> faith rather than to continually regard government sceptically, as a
> necessary evil that should always be held in check and held to account
> for the manner in which it deals with its allotment of public trust.
>
> ben
>
Now that is fair and unbiased.
The only thing that can prevent the general acceptance of that are the
points of perception that are created by the sort of insular, parochial
forms of 'education' (incorporating mechanisms like nationalism), that I
have previously referred to.
Regards,
David.
Reply to: