Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus

"Get used to believing that death is nothing to us. For all good and bad consists in sense experience, and death is the privation of sense experience. Hence a correct knowledge of the fact that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life a matter for contentment, not by adding a limitless time [to life] but by removing the longing for immortality. For there is nothing fearful in life for one who has grasped that there is nothing fearful in the absence of life. Thus, he is a fool who says that he fears death not because it will be painful when present but because it is painful when it is still to come. For that which while present causes no distress causes unnecessary pain when merely anticipated. So death, the most frightening of bad things, is nothing to us; since when we exist death is not yet present, and when death is present, we do not exist. Therefore it is relevant neither to the living nor the dead, since it does not affect the former, and the latter do not exist. But [most people] flee death as the greatest of bad things and sometimes choose it as a relief from the bad things of life. But the wise man neither rejects life nor fears death. For living does not offend him, nor does he believe not living to be something bad. And just as he does not unconditionally choose the largest amount of food but the most pleasant food, so he savours not the longest time but the most pleasant. He who advises the young man to live well and the old man to die well is simpleminded, not just because of the pleasing aspects of life, but because the same kind of practice produces a good life and a good death." [Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus, ]

I believe so you must follow or Religion is dangerous

“I believe so you must follow”

We see this creeping farther into women’s rights to make their own choices for their own bodies.

The recent issue of pharmacists refusing to sell contraceptives to consumers because of “moral reasons” takes the issue to a lower level of high idiocy.

Escondido obstetrician and gynecologist Dr. Arthur Stehly stopped prescribing birth-control pills in 1988. He actually said:

"I rationalized myself into thinking I should be God in my office, judging who gets the pill or not," Stehly said recently. "I knew at home I could not use the pill. I had to do what the natural law says."

He rationalized that he was God? That is blasphemous if you are religious I think. But it’s even more frightening than that. I’m assuming that if it doesn’t conform to His “natural Law” then he can’t be counted on to do his job. Could this even go as far as changing prescriptions for certain drugs if they don’t fit his morals and other drugs do?

Religion is dangerous once you try and bring it out from it’s true place – which is clearly inside ourselves for each of us individually.

Where do we begin? Even an Atheist can say "Under God"

Where to start,,,, how about our first political moment ,, that moment in school where we all stood up and placed our hands upon our hearts and said the Pledge.

and we said ,,, "One Nation, Under God......"

Hold On here,,, Under GOD,,,, wait a Sec,,,, Can we have that in there? A reference to God,, the Almighty Creator,, ya know that God that unPresident Bush consults for major decisions,,,,,,,,,,,

hmmmm,,,,,, let's take a look,,,,,,,

To me, being what Conservatives would call a Godless Liberal, it is clear there should be no debate on this issue. the answer is simple,,,

Hang on a sec before you make any judgements and get your panties all bunched up,,, this should surprise you.

This country was based on the principles of John Locke. In essence, that our rights are NOT given (allowed) to us by a King or particular form of government or political system. In this philosophical view, Rights are given by the Creator and no man nor group of men can take them away.

The bedrock of our system is based on this idea.

As such, The mention of God in the pledge is really only an affirmation of the origin of the rights our system allows us. In other words - we acknowledge the rights granted within our system do not come from the System nor the Government - but something greater. It is irrelevant whether or not you believe in the creator,,, as the right "not to believe" is built into the base idea- so what's the argument?

The mistake comes from the idea that the System is the where the rights come from - in less awkward language, the system grants the rights. But that is clearly wrong when we look at the philosophical base of John Locke. When this mistake in Origin is made, references to "God" within our system come into question, particularly in regards to separation of Church and State.

The "Origin mistake" creates a second in relation to Church and State by mistaking the affirmation of Origin with an affirmation of the existence of the Originator.What is interesting here is that Separation of Church and State in our system exists to protect the base principle and affirms the right of non-belief. Once the "Origin Mistake " is made we miss the point of the Separation clause.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The system is not to make any law that creates a religion of the System, nor is it to stop folks from believing as they will. This is safeguard, a reminder if you will, that the System does not bestow our Rights, and no man can take the basic principle away. In essence, this protects both the believer and the non-believer alike.

So, In the USA our rights are Granted by the Creator, regardless of whether you believe in one or not.The Rights themselves are so broad that they even allow for NON-Belief of the originator of the said Rights. This is a very clever concept because it allows for a multitude of beliefs for the citizens within the system.

So,,, By acknowledging where our System believes our rights come from is in no way acknowledging that there is a creator.

So with that said,, what's the next issue,,, the pledge seems to be a non starter,,,