tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post1177763798782427364..comments2023-08-20T11:07:28.396+01:00Comments on Freeborn John: Secularism and the radical traditionPeter Risdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17792275403997179926noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-8738824395611420612008-01-04T22:15:00.000+00:002008-01-04T22:15:00.000+00:00Mark, yes he does say that. The amount of evidence...Mark, yes he does say that. The amount of evidence for ID is exactly equal to zero whereas the amount of evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Evolution plainly happens. How it happens is one of the most interesting areas of scientific work.<BR/><BR/>I disagree with Paul about a lot of things, all of which he specifically states should not be within the province of the federal government.<BR/><BR/>So if I were American I'd vote for him.Peter Risdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792275403997179926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-11742198458439885362008-01-04T21:24:00.000+00:002008-01-04T21:24:00.000+00:00Having watched the Ron Paul video, he says "there ...Having watched the Ron Paul video, he says "there is no absolute proof on either side". Which is factually correct. I'd say there's a heck of a lot more 'proof' for evolution that 'intelligent design' (roughly in the ratio 99.9 to 0.01) but I'm not scientist and it's not up to me to say. <BR/><BR/>So, fair play to him, if you want to get elected in the UK or the USA, apparently it is not good form to admit you are an atheist (see Matthew Parris' article last Saturday). So, as a wily politician, Ron Paul has come up with a reply that keeps everybody happy.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-5371655704456223612008-01-04T17:49:00.000+00:002008-01-04T17:49:00.000+00:00Absolutely not. There were some horror stories the...Absolutely not. There were some horror stories there...Peter Risdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792275403997179926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-17924131513361630912008-01-04T17:33:00.000+00:002008-01-04T17:33:00.000+00:00I think we're agreed: on this business, the Consti...I think we're agreed: on this business, the Constitution writers did a fine job. If any of the states had kept their established churches, though, would you and I agree that it had been a fine job?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-44847375102445108962008-01-04T12:05:00.000+00:002008-01-04T12:05:00.000+00:00I suggested there were two aspects to secularism: ...I suggested there were two aspects to secularism: the defence of the right to private religion and the exclusion of religion from the government.<BR/><BR/>I'd say the former is served by your numbers 1 and 2 and the latter by 3.<BR/><BR/>That's what I meant.<BR/><BR/>You might suggest they could have gone further, but I'm not sure how. The revolutionaries, especially Paine, were engaged in debate, among other things, about whether or not one could bind people in the future to a set of ideas or policies. It's a complicated argument, linked into justifications of the hereditary principle, that I'm sure you're familiar with. But given this, I don't think they could have gone any further without attempting to bind to a set of policies generations to come.Peter Risdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792275403997179926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-16952125418651211172008-01-03T23:16:00.000+00:002008-01-03T23:16:00.000+00:00I'm all for secularism (and atheism too). However...I'm all for secularism (and atheism too). However, "The founding fathers of America had the wisdom to enshrine this in their constitution" isn't quite right, if by that you mean that they insisted on separation of church and state. All they insisted on was three things (for the Union, not for the individual States). 1. No religious test for office. <BR/>2. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" 3. "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Excellent, but that's your lot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com