I’m glad my username amuses you. Yours amuses me too!! I chuckle at how pompous and arrogant it sounds.

I really feel I must interject here because you have in this thread now accused both me and infallible of arrogance (or in my case, being full of myself).

I really don’t think infallible is so much amused by your nick and just being clever with his introduction, he did the same with mine and others.

As for the arrogance claim, I can speak for myself and say I go to great lengths to be polite and accurate with my viewpoints, and from reading infallible it seems he is the same way. There is a difference between “arrogance” and being clear, honest, and straightforward about one’s viewpoints.

For example, if we used your loose definition of “arrogance” I could easily accuse you of it here:

I am a Christian who has had some very strange and marvelous experiences which have absolutely convinced me of the existence of God.

I could say that I have had some experiences that have “convinced” me of the opposite; among them my experiences in the war.

Anyhow, I am really not trying to be confrontational and I want to be as respectful as possible to you in deference to your age. Please extent us the same courtesy. Am I arrogant? Perhaps I am, but it’s certainly a rather polite form *smile*.

On February 27th, 2009 at 4:43 pm, infallible said:
This is a common misrepresentation of the Establishment Clause.

You say that I misrepresent the Establishment Clause. And I say that you do. Oh, well. That is another one of those…depends on how you look at it…things.

Happily and scrappily, happyscrapper said:

I’m glad my username amuses you. Yours amuses me too!! I chuckle at how pompous and arrogant it sounds. And yes, I am a scrapbooker and I love it. I am a retired grandmother of 2 1/2 boys and I have a lot of hobbies…genealogy (back to the Mayflower on my side), scrapbooking, writing (just finished a mystery novel), etc. I am a Christian who has had some very strange and marvelous experiences which have absolutely convinced me of the existence of God. Now, I am off to other threads which have been too long neglected by me. See you on one of them?

Yes,I agree, the government shall not establish a religion…ANY religion. That doesn’t mean that religion must be banned from anything that has to do with the government. Establishing a religion and allowing freedom of religion are two very different things.

This is a common misrepresentation of the Establishment Clause. The fact is that the first amendment was meant to prevent the endorsement of any religion as well as religion in total by the government. The Constitution and the republican government that was established was centered on the idea of individual rights, including the rights of non-believers. To that end, it means that government is not the domain of religion (and also the corollary, religion is no place for government). In order for it to be fair, and for it to treat all its citizens equally, a government must be secular. If it weren’t, then members of one religious group would be held in higher esteem than those that are not. As I said before, this is exactly the modus operandi of theocratic regimes like Iran, so I can’t see why anyone who is opposed to them would want that here.

Wow…I never realized before how very engrossed people were in Ayn Rand, almost like a religion in itself.

You’ve stumbled on to a particular annoyance. People claiming that appreciation of the philosophy is a religion. It most certainly is not. Now, I will admit that there are a minority who have fallen into a sort of cult of personality with Rand herself, but people that subscribe to a philosophy are not religious, and it is not like a religion. This is the same sort of thing as when people say that atheism is just another shade of religion. It is nothing of the sort, and a complete distortion of the belief system.

But ole zeroangel did a fine job of making this point. Religion requires metaphysical mysticism, and there is none of that in Objectivism.

Wow…I never realized before how very engrossed people were in Ayn Rand, almost like a religion in itself.

More like a philosophy, after all, I don’t expect to see her after I die; I don’t think she created the universe; and I don’t consider her the final arbitrator on morality. *wink*

That’s only part of the problem with it. The logic is flawed however way you look at it. It assumes not only a deity that wants the worship of a person hedging bets, but it also assumes that the deity wants worship at all. Furthermore, it assumes that the kind of worship desired is something similar to whatever brand of worship the person putting forward “Pascal’s Wager” subscribes to.

A glib answer to a “Pascal Wagerer” might be:

“Goodness! I should immediately start sacrificing virgins lest the Sun God become angry!”

I remember working out how flawed it was when I was young, long before I even knew it was called “Pascal’s Wager.”

As Hitchens has said (I think this is the correct link, I can’t verify because I can’t view youtube here):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X94YffpUryo

…religious hucksterism. The “used car salesman’s” argument for religion.

On February 27th, 2009 at 2:48 pm, infallible said: It’s not to prevent the establishment of any specific religion, it’s to prevent the establishment of ANY AND ALL religion.

Yes,I agree, the government shall not establish a religion…ANY religion. That doesn’t mean that religion must be banned from anything that has to do with the government. Establishing a religion and allowing freedom of religion are two very different things. As I said before, this isn’t an argument that will be settled any time soon. But I believe what I believe and will always stand on my principles. And I’m sure you will too.
Wow…I never realized before how very engrossed people were in Ayn Rand, almost like a religion in itself.

Damn, I am happy you are here.

From your links:

‘this would be the best of all possible worlds

I have a sudden urge here to reread “Candide.”

This is one of my favorites and I have used it as a .sig file in other places:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

This could be as good an answer as any to Pascal’s Wager:

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear….Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.”

It is sometimes amazing to me that this “debate” is still raging, so many years after the Enlightenment. I am also somewhat appalled that I never learned any of these things about the founding fathers in High School.

Excuse me, but I believe you are attributing my comments to Dave Turson and blasting him. Please re-read the post. It was from me.

True, true. My mistake. Apologies to you, Dave Turson!

However, while taking a break from enjoyable scrapping, happyscrapper replied:

I am pro-life because I believe life is sacred and it begins at conception. We can argue that point, but no one will win. You have your opinion about it and I have mine. But my reason for being pro-life has nothing to do with injecting religion into government.

Of course it does. From where does that definition come? Religion, of course! That’s how it’s about injecting religion into government and foisting that religion onto everyone, including those that don’t believe.

Next issue…where do you get that our government was INTENDED to be free from religion? Where in our founder’s documents does it say that? Our Pilgrims came here to be FREE to choose their religion and not to have a certain specific religion forced upon them by a king. That is not freedom FROM religion, it is freedom OF religion.

You may want to check your history, mate. The pilgrims (thankfully) had nothing to do with the foundations of the US nor had they anything to do with the creation of the government. But if you look at the men that did: Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc, they were very clear that America was not formed on Christian (or any other religious) principles, and that religion was to be wholly separate from government. That’s a major point of the first amendment. It’s not to prevent the establishment of any specific religion, it’s to prevent the establishment of ANY AND ALL religion.

Since we’re in a thread about Ayn Rand, I think it’s appropriate to provide this link of direct quotes from many of the Founding Fathers that wholly support my position:
Ayn Rand Center article, “The Founding Fathers on Religion.”

Also, emjem24 consulted with Synergy and made a passionate argument against legalization. Part of it was as follows:

The issue of Marijuana is where you and I disagree. For places like the Netherlands, legalizing pot/hashish/marijuana (whatever you want to call it) has unforseen consequences. One of those unforseen consequences is the introduction of organized crime and criminal gangs.

I have to dispute this. It’s prohibition that encourages the creation of organized crime. When alcohol was illegal, it was the mobs that ferried spirits and profited by them. Today, with drugs being illegal, it’s cartels and street gangs that flourish. If what you said was true, then still today there would still be mobsters running gin. But that isn’t the case. The underground market for booze died with prohibition, and the mob lost a lot of its money and influence. The same would happen with the violent street gangs that are around today. They wouldn’t have the money or motive to commit violence, so they’d whither down. (Not vanish completely, of course, but things would improve.)

And as far as the dangerous effects of drugs, I agree with you in almost every way. I don’t think anyone should be using drugs, even pot, and I’ve seen heavy users have some real negative effects as a result of the drug. But, if anything, legalization would make it harder for minors, like your sister, to get drugs. It’s been clearly demonstrated by studies that it’s easier for kids to get a hold of pot than it is for them to get alcohol or cigarettes. Drug dealers don’t care who they sell to, but businesses do. It’s in a store’s interest to obey the law (of which, sale to minors should be absolutely illegal), and this is why kids have a harder time getting legal drugs than illegal ones.