tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post2292416259997475290..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: 12-14-13 HodgepodgeGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-32767309164704123292013-12-16T17:20:46.552-06:002013-12-16T17:20:46.552-06:00Vigilis,
I'm not certain I'm following you...Vigilis,<br />I'm not certain I'm following your point, so I'm going to restate it as I understand it. If you would be so good as let me know if I'm on point or not, I'd appreciate it. <br /><br />In your sentence about Peter Schwartz and someone's need constituting a claim against you, are you saying that government endorsement of that claim is what you consider wrongheaded and something you deplore? (The structure of the sentence makes that question unclear to me.)<br /><br />I'm assuming that your point about atheists and amoralists winning court cases is trying to point up that certain religious institutions are being driven from the civil sphere thus opening up a vacuum for inserting the face of bureaucracy?<br /><br />And when you say that "Without the faith-based, the gov't's overreach will become tyranny..." are you referring to individuals of faith or faith-based institutions?<br /><br />If you have the time, I'd certainly appreciate it. It may be that I'm just missing the obvious here, but I'm having trouble grasping exactly what you're saying in these points.<br /><br />Thank you<br /><br />c. andrewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-84320406822133522612013-12-15T06:12:47.627-06:002013-12-15T06:12:47.627-06:00Vigilis,
Did you know that the authors of each o...Vigilis, <br /><br />Did you know that the authors of each of these pieces, to a man, are atheists (as am I)? <br /><br />I am sure that each would disagree with the idea that our form of government can be adequately defended by appealing to <a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/faith.html" rel="nofollow">faith</a>, and would oppose any attempt by the government to ram religion down our throats via "faith-based" initiatives.<br /><br />It is amazing to me that that you would support that, given that you find other religions replete with things you find repugnant. Among many other considerations: How do you know that what YOU believe in would win out in such a scenario as the government forcing people to conform to the baseless dictates of some religion or other?<br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-85708418160666959232013-12-14T11:35:40.019-06:002013-12-14T11:35:40.019-06:00Gus, the articles you spotlighted from Forbes have...Gus, the articles you spotlighted from Forbes have been overdue in national political discussions.<br />Thank you for highlighting them.<br /><br />In response to Peter Schwartz's "Why should the fact of someone’s need constitute a claim against you?", I must answer with government's frequent and wrongheaded habit deplored by Objectivists and myself no less harshly.<br /><br />Now that atheists and amoralists have been winning court cases, it has become much easier for government to insert bureaucracy as America's ultimate decision broker, more unaccountable than ever. Formerly sacrosanct faith-based, individual conscience is ridiculed, eroded and replaced by the faces of idiots representing bureaucracies. <br /><br />Every so-called religious sect or denomination exhibits attitudes, behaviors and beliefs I have found both offensive and off-putting. Yet, summary dismissal of the faith-based is short-sighted.<br /> <br />Without the faith-based, the government's overreach will become tyranny, not Objectivist utopia.<br /> <br />Non-pragmatic academics are as much of the problem today as a beggaring pope. <br /><br /> Vigilishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05051789616490005367noreply@blogger.com