I agree with this. 'Morals' are a human invention, and every society has a different set of morals. You can't call an act of another country or it's citizens 'wrong' just because it breaks the moral code of the United States. In the UK, most people aren't allowed to bear arms at all, period. If an armed gunman broke into their house, they couldn't shoot back. A man from the US might see this as wrong. Conversely a man from the UK sees an average American family owning a gun that the children could possibly get access to as wrong.

When bringing up Christianity into the U.S government and into the idea of everyone already has morals and doesn't need religion for it. Going into the basics of don't kill your fellow man, don't steal Etc. Ignores that there's a lot of carnal instincts that Christianity philosophy goes against. Being merciful isn't a normal behavior for someone to just have. Loving your enemy. Etc. There's someone that does a much better job at going into this and until I can actually post videos I'll leave it at that.

I will say you can most certainly dictate better morality from other countries in comparison to others. I don't care where you are, throwing someone off a rooftop because they're gay isn't correct and should be scrutinized. Until it is scrubbed from the Earth. You can certainly judge other countries with completely screwed up moralities, criticizing it's the only way you can fix a problem. The reason our country has freedoms like the First and Second Amendment and others don't, is because they never intended to have freedom like that...because the United States was started and built differently from all those other countries. And yes they did it through a Christian lense.

Plenty to spin off on here -- most I could summarize by saying "We're a Christian-majority democracy, it's only natural." The laws about who can run for office should definitely go.... but this quote brings up this week's classic mdk rrant

Not too ball bust for something innocuous to the following paragraphs. But I will point out really quick that we are a constitutional republic. Not a democracy, the founding fathers were adamant about how absolutely evil a pure democracy is. (You probably knew that but clarifying for those who may not.)

This sounds a lot like the argument that `you can't do x or y because it's against the constitution` but constitutions are changed, literally all the time, and most often without the people noticing. These amendments are the same and so are rights - they can be taken away from you much easier than they are given to you.

As far as I am concerned you don't have a right to anything, and that goes for literally anyone on this planet.

Also something I feel like clarifying and adding to that particular paragraph. The assumption that the constitution constantly changes and under the noses of the people. When the fact is that changing or adding an amendment to the Constitution is the hardest thing you can do, and was purposely designed that way by the creators. And the last time it actually had anything change about it was in 1992. (I'm also pretty sure that there hasn't ever been a scenario where an amendment has been outright removed.) if you're really want to get into the more recent Amendments that were added later, you could get into that Constitutional argument.

I feel like that nihilistic idea doesn't really even make that much sense, especially if you're religious. Saying you don't have a right to anything, like self-preservation goes against the concept of humanity itself.

.

I just wanna circle back real quick to note two things -- first, I'm stupid, and it's the fourteenth amendment that protected voting rights for all (male) citizens regardless of race, not the thirteenth, my bad (but some of yours too, we must be equally stupid).

The other thing I wanted to point out is that this concept I've been talking about -- where your rights exist already, and the law simply protects (or fails to protect) them -- that's not something I just made up. That's the way the Constitution is written. It's not so much "my take" on things, that's the actual extant law of the United States. The law doesn't say "You're allowed to have guns," the law says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

....except when it's not written that way, which is something I didn't realize (because clearly I don't study the constitution enough) until I looked it up to prove my point. Take the "Miranda" rights, for example -- there's a significant technical difference between the fourth amendment ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated") and the sixth (it's long, google it). The fourth considers security a basic human right, where the sixth extends a legal privilege to citizens. Wildly different concepts. We refer to both as "rights" in regular humanspeak, but those are different things.

Which brings me to this -- I'm definitely right about certain constitutional rights, but I'm also definitely wrong and you folks are right about other constitutional rights. According to what the actual law actually is, anyway, we can argue philosophically about that, but the constitution itself (and its amendments), pretty black-and-white.

.

Also something I feel like clarifying and adding to that particular paragraph. The assumption that the constitution constantly changes and under the noses of the people. When the fact is that changing or adding an amendment to the Constitution is the hardest thing you can do, and was purposely designed that way by the creators. And the last time it actually had anything change about it was in 1992. (I'm also pretty sure that there hasn't ever been a scenario where an amendment has been outright removed.) if you're really want to get into the more recent Amendments that were added later, you could get into that Constitutional argument.

I feel like that nihilistic idea doesn't really even make that much sense, especially if you're religious. Saying you don't have a right to anything, like self-preservation goes against the concept of humanity itself.

I shouldn't have to even explain this but the point I was making was entirely theoretical and based on general principles of constitutions. Hence I said constitutions because the US of A does not have multiple constitutions. In Europe constitutions are changed very frequently. The issue I have furthermore with what you wrote is that the constitution for the US of A was meant to be changed according to the actual person that, yknow, wrote it, but people later on decided they were lazy and constitutions should remain the same.

I disagree with you calling what we said nihilism too. It's not nihilism - it's the rejection of natural forces that put forward such 'laws' and 'rights' that humans have to abide by. There is no natural right to freedom of speech and there is no natural body of nature that enforces it. The right to free speech was given to us by someone that decided he liked the idea of it, but it can just as easily be taken away or 'trampled' as MDK put it nicely. There is nothing preventing it. You can say 'it's my right' and I'll turn around and say 'yes, yes it is, but I'm taking it anyway' and unless you have weaponry, economical power or diplomatical sway (hint, you have nothing, because you are my citizen and I can take all that away too) you stand powerless to change that. That's not nihilism - that's common sense. So either you are using the word nihilism wrong, or you are entirely confused about what I was saying. Perhaps both.

Furthermore I am not sure why you think that religion = I have a natural right to things. This is not true at all. I am religious in a broad sense and our religion teaches us we need to work for everything because not even the gods will give us what we want without something in return. Ergo there are no natural rights except the right of the strongest, which is a dynamic variable that changes all the time. If I want something, I take it - whether that is physical goods, ideology, or a right. It's not a natural power giving me those things, it is me taking those things. That's not nihilistic.

I just wanna circle back real quick to note two things -- first, I'm stupid, and it's the fourteenth amendment that protected voting rights for all (male) citizens regardless of race, not the thirteenth, my bad (but some of yours too, we must be equally stupid).

The other thing I wanted to point out is that this concept I've been talking about -- where your rights exist already, and the law simply protects (or fails to protect) them -- that's not something I just made up. That's the way the Constitution is written. It's not so much "my take" on things, that's the actual extant law of the United States. The law doesn't say "You're allowed to have guns," the law says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

....except when it's not written that way, which is something I didn't realize (because clearly I don't study the constitution enough) until I looked it up to prove my point. Take the "Miranda" rights, for example -- there's a significant technical difference between the fourth amendment ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated") and the sixth (it's long, google it). The fourth considers security a basic human right, where the sixth extends a legal privilege to citizens. Wildly different concepts. We refer to both as "rights" in regular humanspeak, but those are different things.

Which brings me to this -- I'm definitely right about certain constitutional rights, but I'm also definitely wrong and you folks are right about other constitutional rights. According to what the actual law actually is, anyway, we can argue philosophically about that, but the constitution itself (and its amendments), pretty black-and-white.

I see what you're saying about the right already existing but again, that implies that there is some sort of higher power (God) giving you that right. This raises all kinds of questions. How can we measure it? What are the limits? Are these limits in line with what God wants them to be? If not then aren't we, the people, trampling on those rights now? If God wants us to have these rights why does he allow people to trample them? Why doesn't the Pope, literal incarnate God on Earth, also allow these things? Do we consult the Pope for policy making advise?

.

I'll take a wild guess and say...norse paganism.

I'll take a wild guess and say...norse paganism.

The A s s t h e t h i c c of norse paganism maybe.

<Snipped quote by Odin>
Which religion do you follow, if I may ask?

Also, someone wanting to die seems like a request that'll be freely fulfilled by the gods, given human mortality still exists.

I'll take a wild guess and say...norse paganism.

No, that's a request that wouldn't be fulfilled by the Gods. It's not the Gods that gave mortality. In fact wanting to die is seen as a cowardly way out and although most people who die just.. vanish into nothingness (they die a true death and nothing remains of them but their name and memory) and the strong and brave go to Valhöll and Folkvangr, those who commit suicide (wanting to die -> suicide) will eternally linger and go to Hél, among other things. There are varying interpretations but none of them say suicide is a good idea if you want to, yknow, actually die.

So the best way to do it is make something of your life and die in battle if you want to die that bad.

.

@catchamber fate. The Gods themselves are mortal too, though not quite in the same capacity. Many of them will die during Ragnarök for example. There is too little known about the faith to tell who or what specifically gave us mortality. My guess is that it was created when humans were created, so that probably means the creation of the universe. Cows licks salt block and creates the first aesir, who were trapped in the block. Beyond that? Your guess is as good as mine.

.

I see what you're saying about the right already existing but again, that implies that there is some sort of higher power (God) giving you that right. This raises all kinds of questions. How can we measure it? What are the limits? Are these limits in line with what God wants them to be? If not then aren't we, the people, trampling on those rights now? If God wants us to have these rights why does he allow people to trample them? Why doesn't the Pope, literal incarnate God on Earth, also allow these things? Do we consult the Pope for policy making advise?

Legally speaking, all it means is that these rights are more important than the government. Your right to assemble with other humans trumps anything that DC wants to do. Your right to vote is considered "sacred" by law -- whether that's what Xenu really wants or not. The right to own guns is not drawn from any religion anywhere, it comes from the principle that... okay bad example there's a lot of debate about where that comes from.

The incarnate god on earth who gets 'consulted' (post-facto) on what this all means is the Supreme Court.

I totally do understand what you're driving at, I just don't have time to get to the state constitutions before leaving for work. Short version is there's fifty of the damned things and their writing spans a broad timeline (and also I'm familiar with roughly one, and couldn't quote a word of it)

@mdk so the body responsible for maintaining these laws is the same body that can remove these laws? That's what I mean. Yeah it's sacred - so is water if a priest waves his hand over it. It only has the meaning and weight you attach to it. I don't really attach meaning and weight to rights because they can be taken or plunged into a non-right at any given moment.

I shouldn't have to even explain this but the point I was making was entirely theoretical and based on general principles of constitutions. Hence I said constitutions because the US of A does not have multiple constitutions. In Europe constitutions are changed very frequently. The issue I have furthermore with what you wrote is that the constitution for the US of A was meant to be changed according to the actual person that, yknow, wrote it, but people later on decided they were lazy and constitutions should remain the same.

I disagree with you calling what we said nihilism too. It's not nihilism - it's the rejection of natural forces that put forward such 'laws' and 'rights' that humans have to abide by. There is no natural right to freedom of speech and there is no natural body of nature that enforces it. The right to free speech was given to us by someone that decided he liked the idea of it, but it can just as easily be taken away or 'trampled' as MDK put it nicely. There is nothing preventing it. You can say 'it's my right' and I'll turn around and say 'yes, yes it is, but I'm taking it anyway' and unless you have weaponry, economical power or diplomatical sway (hint, you have nothing, because you are my citizen and I can take all that away too) you stand powerless to change that. That's not nihilism - that's common sense. So either you are using the word nihilism wrong, or you are entirely confused about what I was saying. Perhaps both.

Furthermore I am not sure why you think that religion = I have a natural right to things. This is not true at all. I am religious in a broad sense and our religion teaches us we need to work for everything because not even the gods will give us what we want without something in return. Ergo there are no natural rights except the right of the strongest, which is a dynamic variable that changes all the time. If I want something, I take it - whether that is physical goods, ideology, or a right. It's not a natural power giving me those things, it is me taking those things. That's not nnihilistic

That could not be more incorrect. They didn't want things to change willy nilly. That's why they made it so difficult to do so, in the first place. If anyone actually thinks that any of the original amendments that we have now that the founders wanted to give the ability to remove them, let alone easily, they fundamentally misunderstand the Constitution and the founding fathers. (But I already said that.) Since we are a constitutional republic our Constitutional Amendments have to mean something. The laws can't consistently change like they would in a democracy when it's the will of the people majority to change the law however they wish to see fit. Hence why the founding fathers found that so evil. Also these theoretical constitutions of Europe don't exist. Places like the UK Poland and much of elsewhere doesn't have a codified constitution. If they have anything at all. Constitutions are not equivalent to laws. Just so we're clear, because that seems to be what you're speaking about.

My point is you're seemingly using this phrase to disregard the rights that others already have put in place. Because saying people don't have rights nowadays just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially in America. Which is why you're theoretically suggesting that constitutions were just supposed to be amended without thought and the Second Amendment could be removed tomorrow if we were doing what we were supposed to be doing. And I'm taking that context into consideration. You're right that laws were created by man but if your religious you have God given rights. So atheists wouldn't try to self preserve if they were living somewhere without any laws that said on a piece of paper that you were allowed to keep yourself alive then I suppose that's on them. I know that some people confuse what should be a right and what shouldn't be. But I didn't think that was the discussion we were having.

Actually most religions do not revolve around the idea of doing good deeds and working to get to Salvation. Christianity, for example, the only thing that you need to do is accept Jesus Christ in your heart. That's not a whole lot of work. (Since we're discussing religion.) The idea that you need to not do something and for it to magically occur is somehow the definition of right, is not what a right is.

@Odin The reason why most religions say it's not good to commit suicide is for the very same reason most atheists would hopefully point out that's not a good way to die. Because individuals affect those around them. If you commit suicide you will more than likely psychologically affect someone else. If you just want to die wait for it to happen. Again the idea you seemed to be drawing to is "Gee why don't all religions want everyone to kill themselves?" Because it's not a healthy thing for a society to have in high numbers...(and not questioning the negative outcomes of it is fairly nihilistic.)

Donald trump did it..

He declared the capital of Israel.
It seems that the media will have somthing to print tonight.

Yes, the man did the exact thing he said he would do and that of which several Presidents of the United States before him kept postponing because the decision was politically inconvenient. This endeavor seats itself back in the year 1995, if my memory serves, but consider me impressed all the same by the boldness and willingness to uphold something he promised he would do, particularly this business with how needlessly touchy it all is. All in all, very good news, @PrinceAlexus.