The Constitution had several highly specific meanings. The Progressives have distorted many of them. And when they justify it, they use the lingo of evolution to do it. Is that a coincidence?
As Ian Fleming once said: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and the third time it's enemy action.
Evolution – science influencing government
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/08/22 01:31:33
|
|
|||||
|
23 votes
|
|
24% | ||
|
47 votes
|
|
50% | ||
|
24 votes
|
|
26% | ||
Progressives like to say that government should not influence science, nor science influence government. But what have they to say about the influence of evolution?
Nothing, of course. Because evolution informs their thinking.
Their entire philosophy of government has its basis in evolutionary thinking. Think about it. Morality is what they make of it. And so is the US Constitution. That's what all that tripe about "a living document" comes from, and what it means.
That's why the Constitution, in their view, means nothing more, nor less, than whatever the United States Supreme Court says it means, any time they say it.
It all comes back to evolution, which destroys the idea of unchanging principles and God-given rights.
Nothing, of course. Because evolution informs their thinking.
Their entire philosophy of government has its basis in evolutionary thinking. Think about it. Morality is what they make of it. And so is the US Constitution. That's what all that tripe about "a living document" comes from, and what it means.
That's why the Constitution, in their view, means nothing more, nor less, than whatever the United States Supreme Court says it means, any time they say it.
It all comes back to evolution, which destroys the idea of unchanging principles and God-given rights.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/08/21...
Evolution as the world knows it is a lie in itself, basic genetics will show you that with each generation, "genetic material" (information) is actually LOST....there is no such thing as evolving, in fact its more Devolving.
Grace to you, Glory to God!
When the Founders said, in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." they KNEW that man was CREATED by GOD, even if they did not agree about the details of what came after that initial creative act. The fairy-tale of Darwinism with its inter-species change had not yet been invented. Flowing from this KNOWLEDGE of the Creator and His Power came the Constitution, its language and concepts. A pervasive, unwarranted faith in a purely materialistic universe (a necessary foundation to the theory of evolution) cannot help but undermine principles dependent on the existence and beneficial intervention of God.
NOT supporting Willful Ignorance is un-American, or something?
I sure HOPE science influences government, or we're ALL screwed.
The problem is there is not enough science in political science. In other words, the linkage between the Laws of Nature and political science is a lot stronger relative to current political philosophies. Takac brings out this connection in an eloquent way illustrating the rule of manmade law should followed the seven Principles found in the Laws of Nature for the progressive evolution of a civil society; otherwise, the society will become chaotic.
Yet when pressed, they almost always exhibit a complete ignorance of the scientific process.
There are many examples, such as: the global warming scam; the ruinous DDT ban; the "population explosion" and other Malthusian fallacies; the "green energy" fraud.
nor science influence government.
I cannot agree with this premise. Government does influence science and science does influence government and both are done largely at the behest of progressives. Just a few examples: scientists who work for the government or are partially or wholly funded by government grants fearing to state their belief in God and/or creation lest they feel job/career repercussions, the push to teach evolution exclusively in public schools, every aspect of the whole climate change issue, the ability to restrict/deny our Constitutional rights with new technology (the blame for this goes to both progressive and conservative politicians)...
There are also legitimate ways in which science and government influence each other. The space program, intelligence and military to name a few. That is not to say that everything that is done under the umbrella of these, and other, programs/agencies is ethical or proper.
As far as Constitution is concerned, the FFs struggled extensively over that document precisely in order to make it timeless. Part of that timelessness was a method for amending it, which was written into it because the founders recognized the possibility for a need to do so...
I cannot agree with this premise. Government does influence science and science does influence government and both are done largely at the behest of progressives. Just a few examples: scientists who work for the government or are partially or wholly funded by government grants fearing to state their belief in God and/or creation lest they feel job/career repercussions, the push to teach evolution exclusively in public schools, every aspect of the whole climate change issue, the ability to restrict/deny our Constitutional rights with new technology (the blame for this goes to both progressive and conservative politicians)...
There are also legitimate ways in which science and government influence each other. The space program, intelligence and military to name a few. That is not to say that everything that is done under the umbrella of these, and other, programs/agencies is ethical or proper.
As far as Constitution is concerned, the FFs struggled extensively over that document precisely in order to make it timeless. Part of that timelessness was a method for amending it, which was written into it because the founders recognized the possibility for a need to do so. (Amend, not distort, pervert or totally rewrite.) Unfortunately, politicians and the judiciary have been trying to...and have often succeeded in...perverting the meaning of it.
While everyone is free to choose their own moral beliefs, no one can change the fact
that some things are inherently right and others inherently wrong.Some things are constantly evolving, such as society and its values, mores, laws, etc. Other things are immutable.
While people of faith believe we have certain God-given rights, many non-faithful also
believe that we have inherent/unalienable rights. The threat, imo, is those who feel that
the government is rightfully the grantor of all 'rights', because what the government grants, it can take away.
Of course it is a natural occurrence. Do humans affect it? Of course. As do countless other things that are also natural occurrences. No one denies that. The argument is about how great an impact humans have on it.
Yes and scientists even some who denied it a decade ago are changing their opinions and even scientists who were particially funded by the Koch brothers said man is helping speed up global warming. The eskimos in Alaska are losing their land and the perma frost is melting so quickly they can't keep their food cold enough so it doesn't go bad. Half of America is in a drought and more high tempture records were set this year than any other. Check out food prices in a couple of months. The corn crops were a disaster this year and corn is used in many food products. I know the repubs will be blaming Obama for the higher food prices if he is re elected. My brother in law said 2 years ago when Washington DC was pounded by some huge snow storms "where's your global warming now?" The fool didn't realize huge storms were part of global warming. Extremes are one of it's effects. Extreme hot and extreme cold, extreme wet and extreme dry. If only people would take the time to actually learn the facts not the BS talking points.
And if governments can take away any right legally, then I don't think it matters whether the rights are considered "God-given" or "unalienable/inherent".
What concerns use of force, considering that state has monopoly on legal use of force pretty much all law enforcement it performs is done with basis in threat of violence. It's even part of the language: enforcing the law.
Which rights can't the government take away?
In the case of the Constitution, I don't think applying mutations is a good idea. Could make the whole thing die.
Indeed! Most American children learned this in grade school. Apparently, some did not. The primary function of the Supreme Court is interpreting the Constitution:
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution." - http://www.supremecourt.gov/a...
I smell......