A Memorial Day Reflection...

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='30 May 2010 - 09:45 PM' timestamp='1275270325' post='2120936']
No, it's just a misnomer. I'd like to see a mini-State try to exercise any of the powers recognized in the Constitution, such as instituting a mini-State religion. The Federal State would step in and crush them if they resisted. No, it's just one State, for all practical purposes. It's just one big State that has little appendages, appendages of one main idea sustained by the threat of violence.

If a man threatened to beat or kill his wife if she tried to get away from him for being a senseless and violent drunkard, I wouldn't call that arrangement "union," would you?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
I don't disagree with most (or at least a lot) of that. However, the name of the entity is the United States.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='30 May 2010 - 08:50 PM' timestamp='1275270648' post='2120946']
I don't disagree with most (or at least a lot) of that. However, the name of the entity is the United States.
[/quote]

Names are important. In Biblical times, especially, names had a great import, and they reflected a reality about the named thing. I like that about names. That's why I don't call a baby-snuffing, curette-brandishing infanticidal maniac a "women's healthcare provider." I don't call a whore a "sex worker." I'm carrying on that long and glorious tradition when it comes to the State. You know. Keeping it real.

~Sternhauser

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='30 May 2010 - 08:59 PM' timestamp='1275267545' post='2120910']
And may God bless Stateless freelancers who oppose the United State military, too.
~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I may pray for the salvation of all human souls, but I don't pray God's blessings on people whose sole goals are to massacre innocent citizens who are unaffiliated with military action. The "nobody is innocent" argument they propose is fallacious. Terrorism is evil, no matter who perpetrates it.


[quote name='Sternhauser' date='30 May 2010 - 09:45 PM' timestamp='1275270325' post='2120936']
I'd like to see a mini-State try to exercise any of the powers recognized in the Constitution, such as instituting a mini-State religion.
~Sternhauser
[/quote]

The right to institute a state religion (whether at the state or federal level) is nowhere in the Constitution. The First Amendment includes a specific prohibition of such an act.

Stern, I get that you are an anarchist, and though I don't agree with a lot of your positions, I don't trust the government to do anything. However, to decry the modern manifestation of the state is one thing; to state flatly that any human collective of common agreement for a determination of self-governance is wrong is erroneous. A common agreement (including that which would encompass a common force used to defend oneselves) is the right of each individual. Do modern governments reflect this? Of course not. Is it correct, then, to assert that anarchy is the only acceptable alternative? Nope.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='30 May 2010 - 10:01 PM' timestamp='1275271274' post='2120951']
I may pray for the salvation of all human souls, but I don't pray God's blessings on people whose sole goals are to massacre innocent citizens who are unaffiliated with military action. The "nobody is innocent" argument they propose is fallacious. Terrorism is evil, no matter who perpetrates it.
[/quote]

I pray for God's blessing on all men, if that blessing means the grace of conversion and Union with the Divine.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='30 May 2010 - 10:02 PM' timestamp='1275271373' post='2120953']
I pray for God's blessing on all men, if that blessing means the grace of conversion and Union with the Divine.
[/quote]

That is exactly what I meant. You phrased it better.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='30 May 2010 - 10:04 PM' timestamp='1275271499' post='2120960']
That is exactly what I meant. [b]You phrased it better[/b].
[/quote]

Tee hee that's a first.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='30 May 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1275271727' post='2120966']
Tee hee that's a first.
[/quote]

Not a last, I am sure.

[SanctitasDeo]

I have never found Memorial Day to be much of a problem. I have not seen any religious or governmental propaganda requiring me to combine it with my religious beliefs. I see it as a day to remember the sacrifices made by those who preserve freedom, especially my freedom. I probably tend to focus on the armed forces of the United States in my thoughts and any commemorations I happen to make. This is because I live in the United States. I don't think that honoring those who have fallen for freedom takes away from the sacrifice Christ made (or His honor) any more than honoring someone for any other kind of sacrifice does (including a priest, or a mother, or anyone else who sacrifices for the good of another).

Now, a patriotic Mass strikes me as odd (though I am not Catholic)...

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='SanctitasDeo' date='30 May 2010 - 10:13 PM' timestamp='1275272024' post='2120976']
I have never found Memorial Day to be much of a problem. I have not seen any religious or governmental propaganda requiring me to combine it with my religious beliefs. I see it as a day to remember the sacrifices made by those who preserve freedom, especially my freedom. I probably tend to focus on the armed forces of the United States in my thoughts and any commemorations I happen to make. This is because I live in the United States. I don't think that honoring those who have fallen for freedom takes away from the sacrifice Christ made (or His honor) any more than honoring someone for any other kind of sacrifice does (including a priest, or a mother, or anyone else who sacrifices for the good of another).

Now, a patriotic Mass strikes me as odd (though I am not Catholic)...
[/quote]

Well said, and I agree. The only mention of Memorial Day made at Mass this morning in my parish was an exhortation for us to take a moment for silent prayer for the souls of the deceased at 3 pm, which is the hour of observance for Memorial Day. My parish priest is also a veteran. So there was no inherent propagandist agenda put forward, just a request for prayer for the dead. We should do that every day anyway.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='30 May 2010 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1275271274' post='2120951']
I may pray for the salvation of all human souls, but I don't pray God's blessings on people whose sole goals are to massacre innocent citizens who are unaffiliated with military action. The "nobody is innocent" argument they propose is fallacious. Terrorism is evil, no matter who perpetrates it.
[/quote]

I pray for God's blessing on everyone. Not that they may be successful in evil ventures, but that they may convert from their violent ways. And yes, terrorism is evil, no matter who perpetrates it. That's why I oppose people who support the bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Hamburg. That's why I oppose the use of drones that constantly kill non-combatants, creating more hatred.

It seems that most of the violence in Afghanistan and Iraq is directed against the occupiers. Not "innocent civilians unaffiliated with military action."


[quote]The right to institute a state religion (whether at the state or federal level) is nowhere in the Constitution.[/quote]

It is, actually. In the Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, [b]nor prohibited by it to the States[/b], are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." How do you read it?



[quote]The First Amendment includes a specific prohibition of such an act.[/quote]

It doesn't contain any such prohibition to the mini-States. It says "[i][b]Congress[/b] [/i]shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The amendment applies to the Federal Congress. Not the mini-States, several of which had State religions at the time of the ratification, and did so well into the 1830's.


[quote]Stern, I get that you are an anarchist, and though I don't agree with a lot of your positions, I don't trust the government to do anything. However, to decry the modern manifestation of the state is one thing; to state flatly that any human collective of common agreement for a determination of self-governance is wrong is erroneous.[/quote]


I've never claimed anything of the sort. I am against a State [i]monopoly[/i] on the use of violence, but I am also against the idea that anyone has the right to engage in [i]aggression. [/i]The idea that aggression is sometimes acceptable results in the physical manifestation of the idea, which I call the State. (Not the "state" spoken of by Fr. Fagothey, a definition I can get behind.) Self-governance means that one voluntarily does not commit aggressive acts. Governance means stopping, with violence or other means, other people from commiting aggressive acts. The State means that [i]aggressive[/i] violence, in one role or another, in taxation or pre-emptive restraint, is used in an attempt to achieve, among other things, arresting aggressive acts. But the nature of the State is never to stop at only protecting life, liberty and property.



[quote]A common agreement (including that which would encompass a common force used to defend oneselves) is the right of each individual. Do modern governments reflect this? Of course not. Is it correct, then, to assert that anarchy is the only acceptable alternative? Nope.
[/quote]

You're right that they don't reflect this common agreement, because a common agreement in which aggression is utilized against non-aggressive dissenters is not an agreement, it's a tyranny imposed at gunpoint. Anarchy/voluntarism, in the way I embrace it, is the idea that aggression is immoral. Always. By anyone. It means that violence may only be used in self-defense or in proximate or direct defense of an innocent. That means no, you don't have the right to shake down your neighbor at gunpoint to form a neighborhood police force, even if it "benefits everyone." And if you don't have that right, you can't give that right to anyone else, and that includes politicians. Voluntaryism means that voting for a State politician is simply choosing who is going to put a gun against your neighbor's head to force him to fund certain institutions, and to comply with certain policies that have nothing to do with directly and/or proximately protecting anyone from violations of the right to life, liberty or property. It's an act of aggression.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 31, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='30 May 2010 - 10:19 PM' timestamp='1275272341' post='2120980']
I pray for God's blessing on everyone. Not that they may be successful in evil ventures, but that they may convert from their violent ways. And yes, terrorism is evil, no matter who perpetrates it. That's why I oppose people who support the bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Hamburg. It seems to me that most of the violence in Afghanistan and Iraq is directed against the occupiers. Not "innocent civilians unaffiliated with military action." That's why I oppose the use of drones that constantly kill non-combatants, creating more hatred. [/quote]

I don't disagree with this stance.


[quote]It is, actually. In the Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, [b]nor prohibited by it to the States[/b], are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." How do you read it? [/quote]

Well, even though the implied powers clause of the Tenth Amendment could be argued to apply to the establishment of state religion, there has been social and legal precedent to assert that the position regarding state religion which was laid out in the First Amendment was philosophically applicable to the governments of the individual states.

[quote]It doesn't contain any such prohibition to the mini-States. It says "[i][b]Congress[/b] [/i]shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The amendment applies to the Federal Congress. Not the mini-States, several of which had State religions at the time of the ratification, and did so well into the 1840's.[/quote]

True. However, in legal precedent, the recognized date of abolition of the legality of state religions in the individual states was the beginning of the Revolution. Subsequent legal cases (i.e. Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961) have ruled that any clauses in the constitutions of individual states which directly enforce the establishment or endorsement of a particular religion are unenforceable, both in the interpretation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth.


[quote]I've never claimed anything of the sort. I am against a State [i]monopoly[/i] on the use of violence, but I am also against the idea that anyone has the right to engage in [i]aggression. [/i]The idea that aggression is sometimes acceptable results in the physical manifestation of the idea, which I call the State. (Not the "state" spoken of by Fr. Fagothey, a definition I can get behind.) Self-governance means that one voluntarily does not commit aggressive acts. Governance means stopping, with violence or other means, other people from commiting aggressive acts. The State means that [i]aggressive[/i] violence, in one role or another, in taxation or pre-emptive restraint, is used in an attempt to achieve, among other things, arresting aggressive acts. But the nature of the State is never to stop at only protecting life, liberty and property.

[/quote]

I can get behind that.


[quote]You're right that they don't reflect this common agreement, because a common agreement in which aggression is utilized against non-aggressive dissenters is not an agreement, it's a tyranny imposed at gunpoint. Anarchy/voluntarism, in the way I embrace it, is the idea that aggression is immoral. Always. By anyone. It means that violence may only be used in self-defense or in direct defense of an innocent. And that voting for a State politician is simply choosing who is going to put a gun against your neighbor's head to force him to fund certain institutions, and to comply with certain policies that have nothing to do with directly protecting anyone from violations of the right to life, liberty or property. It's an act of aggression.
~Sternhauser

[/quote]

Again, I don't disagree with your proposition here. Perhaps you could clarify whether you are a true anarchist? To my understanding you were. Are you completely against the construction of any common assent to leadership, are you solely a proponent of individual governance only? Or is there any governmental construct you can endorse? I ask because I am curious what your opinion is on that matter.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='30 May 2010 - 09:45 PM' timestamp='1275273919' post='2120988']
Well, even though the implied powers clause of the Tenth Amendment could be argued to apply to the establishment of state religion, there has been social and legal precedent to assert that the position regarding state religion which was laid out in the First Amendment was philosophically applicable to the governments of the individual states.[/quote]

It's starting to sound a little "penumbrous" in here, you dig?



[quote]True. However, in legal precedent, the recognized date of abolition of the legality of state religions in the individual states was the beginning of the Revolution. Subsequent legal cases (i.e. Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961) have ruled that any clauses in the constitutions of individual states which directly enforce the establishment or endorsement of a particular religion are unenforceable, both in the interpretation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth.[/quote]

I'm speaking only of the Constitution as it was written and intended. Subsequent subjective rulings and bench-legislation have eviscerated the intent of the Constitution, as I'm sure you'll agree.



[quote]Again, I don't disagree with your proposition here. Perhaps you could clarify whether you are a true anarchist? To my understanding you were. Are you completely against the construction of any common assent to leadership, are you solely a proponent of individual governance only? Or is there any governmental construct you can endorse? I ask because I am curious what your opinion is on that matter.
[/quote]

If an "anarchist" is someone who believes there should be no leaders, then no, I am not an anarchist. But a [i]leader[/i] does not stand behind you, pointing a gun at you and [i]telling[/i] you what to do. He stands in front of you and [i]inspires[/i] you to do something. If I were against the construction of a common assent to leadership, or governmental construct, I couldn't be a Catholic, because the Vatican is both those things, and more.

I am not at all opposed to any group of people getting together to form an institution whereby the rights to life, liberty and property will be directly protected through the use of violence, if necessary. I am opposed to them doing it by collecting money at gunpoint or the threat of gunpoint. (Taxation.) I am opposed to them enforcing statutes which do not, either in their intent or their real effect, protect the life, liberty and property of individuals from actual violations of those rights. There is an armed, private police force in San Francisco that has the power to arrest people, and they work among State police. Their services are paid for by storeowners. The great thing about them is that they do not go around "enforcing statutes." They do nothing but protect life, liberty and property, and are funded voluntarily. Kudos to them.

The days of "raising a hue and a cry," when citizens responded to a felony with whatever weapons they had, were days that were far less crime-ridden, and far less violent overall. These days, people don't rely on their neighbors for help so much. They call some stranger: a State-funded cop who is 8 minutes away. A sad situation.

If it is A) voluntarily funded, and B) only uses violence against real aggressors, and only when necessary, I'm probably for it.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 31, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='30 May 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1275274982' post='2121009']
It's starting to sound a little "penumbrous" in here, you dig? [/quote]

Lawl. Yeah, true.


[quote]I'm speaking only of the Constitution as it was written and intended. Subsequent subjective rulings and bench-legislation have eviscerated the intent of the Constitution, as I'm sure you'll agree. [/quote]

I do agree.


[quote]If an "anarchist" is someone who believes there should be no leaders, then no, I am not an anarchist. But a [i]leader[/i] does not stand behind you, pointing a gun at you and [i]telling[/i] you what to do. He stands in front of you and [i]inspires[/i] you to do something. If I were against the construction of a common assent to leadership, or governmental construct, I couldn't be a Catholic, because the Vatican is both those things, and more.

I am not at all opposed to any group of people getting together to form an institution whereby the rights to life, liberty and property will be directly protected through the use of violence, if necessary. I am opposed to them doing it by collecting money at gunpoint or the threat of gunpoint. (Taxation.) I am opposed to them enforcing statutes which do not, either in their intent or their real effect, protect the life, liberty and property of individuals from actual violations of those rights. There is an armed, private police force in San Francisco that has the power to arrest people, and they work among State police. Their services are paid for by storeowners. The great thing about them is that they do not go around "enforcing statutes." They do nothing but protect life, liberty and property, and are funded voluntarily. Kudos to them.

The days of "raising a hue and a cry," when citizens responded to a felony with whatever weapons they had, were days that were far less crime-ridden, and far less violent overall. These days, people don't rely on their neighbors for help so much. They call some stranger: a State-funded cop who is 8 minutes away. A sad situation.

If it is A) voluntarily funded, and B) only uses violence against real aggressors, and only when necessary, I'm probably for it.
[/quote]


OK, cool. Thank you for that explanation. I am actually in total support of the scenario you laid out. The current system of government is an abominable distortion of the intent of the founders.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Marie-Therese

[Semper Catholic]

Memorial Day is not about America, it is not about Religion, it is not about the "State"

It is about remembering the Veterans who sacrificed so that we could be free, regardless of our religion, or any affiliations.

It is idiotic that anyone could write an article about Memorial day and not even mention the entire reason behind dog gone thing.

[Semper Catholic]

You guys did a good job making me rage though, I just tore the head off my favorite teddy bear.