(FB 1550176605 Timestamp) “One may speak the law to religion, but one may never speak religion to the law. This is the law.” (Updated version of render unto caesar….)
Theme: Constitutional Order
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550176605 Timestamp) “One may speak the law to religion, but one may never speak religion to the law. This is the law.” (Updated version of render unto caesar….)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550236001 Timestamp) —“Nothing in our Law will undermine your Faith, but your Faith cannot be co-identical with our Law”—Nick Dahlheim
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550236001 Timestamp) —“Nothing in our Law will undermine your Faith, but your Faith cannot be co-identical with our Law”—Nick Dahlheim
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550432062 Timestamp) PROPERTARIAN NATURAL LAW VS CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION VS LEGISLATION VS REGULATION Propertarian natural law used to create normative (political) law – but truthfully. Meaning that we must give special dispensation to devout christians to lie about magic nonsense, just as we give special dispensation to the Amish. But in matters of law, no. Ie: we can re-christianize the public spaces etc, and re-paganize the public spaces, and re-lionize (heroes) the public spaces … if we want. We just must state that christians exchange prohibition on making truth claims about magic nonsense in exchange for free practice of the religion. And once that constitutional trade is made, it cannot be modified. In practice this is what exists today. Except we cannot outlaw judaism and islam for being counter to natural law. Whereas christianity is only counter to the justification of natural law. This is why these are problems for smart people. They are hard problems.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550432062 Timestamp) PROPERTARIAN NATURAL LAW VS CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION VS LEGISLATION VS REGULATION Propertarian natural law used to create normative (political) law – but truthfully. Meaning that we must give special dispensation to devout christians to lie about magic nonsense, just as we give special dispensation to the Amish. But in matters of law, no. Ie: we can re-christianize the public spaces etc, and re-paganize the public spaces, and re-lionize (heroes) the public spaces … if we want. We just must state that christians exchange prohibition on making truth claims about magic nonsense in exchange for free practice of the religion. And once that constitutional trade is made, it cannot be modified. In practice this is what exists today. Except we cannot outlaw judaism and islam for being counter to natural law. Whereas christianity is only counter to the justification of natural law. This is why these are problems for smart people. They are hard problems.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550460544 Timestamp) CAN IT BE DONE? —“…can be done?”— I”m positive. But that’s because we can unite people behind law and policy not ideology, philosophy, or religion, giving everyone a win but no one a monopoly. All win and nobody loses. Because People follow incentives. People online have an incentive to signal. Online is a video game of signaling – not the political market. Policy will unite the clans so to speak out of common interest. Because common interest in progress is better than defeat in pursuit of monopoly
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550460544 Timestamp) CAN IT BE DONE? —“…can be done?”— I”m positive. But that’s because we can unite people behind law and policy not ideology, philosophy, or religion, giving everyone a win but no one a monopoly. All win and nobody loses. Because People follow incentives. People online have an incentive to signal. Online is a video game of signaling – not the political market. Policy will unite the clans so to speak out of common interest. Because common interest in progress is better than defeat in pursuit of monopoly
-
(FB 1550687130 Timestamp) —âTEACHING AS TRUE BY LAW RATHER THAN TRUE BY FAIT
(FB 1550687130 Timestamp) —âTEACHING AS TRUE BY LAW RATHER THAN TRUE BY FAITHâ— CLARIFICATION Over the past few weeks I have been trying to find a means of limiting abrahamic means of false promise, baiting into moral hazard, and pilpul and critique, from application outside of christian doctrine, thereby ending the ability to pursue marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism and other application of abrahamic persuasion (deceit) in the ongoing war against our people by the globalists (mostly semites and their allies). The solutions were either prohibit, gain compromise, or give compromise, which is the ancient one that faced the romans when attempting to bring the jews into the empire. The ‘give compromise’ is an exchange: “spiritual is true by faith, and material is true by law”. This frustrates both parties a bit but is the only truly reciprocal exchange under the law. And it works for christianity alone because the law also requires compatibility with natural law. Judaism and Islam as well as marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism are not compatible with the law. So the remaining challenge is just to define christianity as some set of existing sects sharing some long standing tradition, limited to compliance with natural law AND the demarcation between the spiritual faith and the material law. I felt it was not possible even to achieve this compromise, so it was better to state the law as the law, and grant christians a specific license under the law. The exchange gives christianity peerage with the law. The exemption gives it permission under the law. And legal scholars will have to debate these things for centuries – because I cannot close the loophole of truthful speech because of the christian demand for identity between truth and myth. So that is where I ended up. To avoid the question by specific license rather than compromising on the question as a difference between faith and law. -Curt
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550686043 Timestamp) No man has any rights over any other, except in the group’s righthing of a wrong before the jury. “The Rights of Anglo Saxons”. A man has duty to a landholder (sovereign), in exchange for land and service. This is the meaning of ‘sovereignty’. It is not ‘individualism’. It is SOVEREIGNTY.