Is it Legal to Ban a Philosophy?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

1:06 PM 24/09/2005

So, Philosophy, philosophy of Law, well, in the philosophy of Law we find the recognition of the 'Spirit of the Law' difficult at best to define, yet none the less acknowledged inasmuch as what is sought by Law is "Justice" Justice is a Sense of Fairness and Equality having been served, and 'seen' as served, in a situation wherein someone/something has been aggrieved/injured/trespassed upon and is in need of restitution/rehabilitation/restoration.

But be clear enough that this is a Practice of a philosophy, a Love of Wisdom as that is what 'philosophy' means etymologically (sorta), wisdom is the rendering of Good Judgment, Good Judgment can only be rendered when it is based upon a proper sense of the truth, that being therefore the Goal of the practice of the Philosophy of Law, seeking to uncover the Truth as to be enabled thereafter to practice Good Judgment in rendering the needed restitution/rehabilitation/restoration.

Notice how it all revolves around Truth...and God is the Truth, but God is of "The philosophy of Religion" yet, seemingly the two are conjoined inasmuch as both are "Systems of Beliefs" hence philosophical in nature, as they are both set upon a basis of 'Ideals' Ideals that cannot, and are not 'applicable as verbatim' to the areas, and values, in life that they must, none the less, govern over.

The problem is that the Laws are perfect, just that what they attempt to rule over, humanity, cannot act with the Perfection of the Ideal, hence we see the entirety of it as, somehow flawed, none the less, it is the only manner that works, so it is pursued to the attempted enrichment of all by manner of "A System of Justice".

But the Point of this is somewhat simpler inasmuch as the practice/preaching/teaching/rule of law is based upon philosophical teaching, in recognition of a 'Spirit' of said teachings, therefore

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Lets also take clear notation of the idea that, both! Law, and Religion, are Philosophies ascribing Codes of Moral Conduct....ergo: same purpose, same end(s) only dfference is in Who creates the Code, God, or Humanity.

So how can Humanity create a Code that seeks to Deny God having done so before them....after all, if it is, simply, a Creator, then it must be recognized as having Preceeded US, any other explanations, that would follow (Time wise) would be explanations derived from exactly what that Creator Created/DID!

Talk about "A Shot in the...." well, seems it went a little higher, then the/their foot.....

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

So if your uncertain of the Above arguement, try thinking this through...

...Here

cause it sorta works out to the same thing, except, God can Have Mystery, Human Law/Code/Rule/Statute/bylaw cannot.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

from this site Science V Religion a News Page guardian.co.uk

as posted, on that page, at the bottom:

President Bush has also weighed in, saying schools should present both concepts when teaching about the origins of life.

Is there a coorelation?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

More *Here*

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Apparently I have recently heard that one of the reasons why they want to ban the teaching of God in American Schools is because they have no 'Proof' of God, so I ask the simplest of Questions, Have you looked EVERYWHERE?

After all, there is an ENTIRE UNIVERSE in which to look, and the evidence of the existence of God might just be Minute, and hidden on some really really far off planet somewheres else in the Universe.

All proofs are subjective attestaments, as is the proof of Darwinism, nothing more then a concensused agreement of Subjective opinions (the idea of Physical evidence is by subjective attestament as well, so) which is exactly the same thing that the religions teach about God, a Concensused agreement of subjective attestaments, and whatever physical evidence there is of the existence of the peoples who have made such attestaments....Oh Yes, if you need me, to do that, to prove that "I" too 'exist' and will attest to the FACT of the existence of God, please E-mail me.

Thanks

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

If we need, in the Pratice of the Philsophies of Law, want of the Perception of Equality before the Law, we would need recognize the Abilities of the Opposing Positions to fulfill there own Given Criteria of Proofs in the Greater, and Lessor extents, of the Encapsulation of their respective Ideologies.

That given, then it must be of/in the Ability of Science, as presentor of Case of Merit in a Democratically construed Place of 'Seen Justice' a Courtroom, therein the Party, "Science" Must Prove it's Ultimate assertion of the Ability to Prove ALL Greator And Lessor Criteria of there Postulate, hence the Need of the Ability to, either, Prove/Proof that there Is, or is not, an Infinity, or admit to the In-ability of Proving it*, or DROP it from ALL scientific postulate(s) and face the Child asking you: "And what is outside of that?"

Hence the two arrive at a very similar conclusive dilema inasmuch as Neither of them can Prove, nor dis-Prove, their Ultimate viewpoint as a Sumation of all of what either of them 'Knows', (as provable/proven) singularily, or in totallity, (as all of the singularities must sum to the Same totallity) the Un-Imaginable....But that does NOT prove it as Imaginary, just un-provable.

(A Bit like what I can do, Un-Provable, sorta)




(* same as the Ultimate Sumativation of the Religious People(s), UN-provable-yet 'Proven' (subjectively) as the same 'thing' (endpoint) the 'Infinite' or 'God' some what 'equals' inasmuch as they cannot be proven, yet as cumulated 'Ideals' and as equals...sorta, in the Mystery of God more is 'Known' then just the Physical, but only as per the subjective attestaments of People)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Funny, you would know that the two are the same because both of them are beliefs, or if you would wish to, you can 'dis-belief' either, or both, but Neither is Provable, nor has any comport in physical reality, no Physical evidence is available, nor forseeably available, as to be able to either, Prove, or Dis Prove, either of them...so why would you try to make one Belief Illegal and the Other Belief Legal? especially when it is sooooo fundamental to all of the cultures of our collecive societies that they be allowed to continue to teach there belief systems that a Governance would decide, under some sort of Pseudo law/legalizms that it could remove from the Schools the Teaching of the Philosphy of Religions that sees the very same In-describable feature, yet it ascribes it to an intelligence, while the other sees only it's own intelligence, but similarily as in the Very same feature...why/HOW could anyone ban such teachings?

Would you BAN the teachings of and/or in a 'Belief'...are you trying to tell us all that we can no longer Believe? That ONLY the Available Believing systems of science are to to be taught, as that is also the culmination of Scientific processes, it too is a System of 'Beliefs' supported (not always) by physical evidence, as are religious teachings, just that the evidence in religious teachings is too Anthorpic for the Scientists' mind....too bad for them, but please, don't make me pay, because they won't admit to it!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

3:21 PM 13/10/2005

So, if the debate remains the Idea of "Intelligent Design" as not being Provable, then the Other side must show that it DOES have the Proof of Intelligence, How it came/comes to be? what it is? how it work? etc.? etc.? Otherwise they have NO greater Purchase in any Proof Of the Truths' respective to/of "Intelligence" then anyone else, as presented by either Reality=PhysicalScience OR Religion=PhysicalSciencePLUSmystery? or the Re-titlement as the Somewhat "Generic" term for the "Intelligent Designer" GOD and/or The Creator.....by Intelligent Design, too!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Humm separation of "Church and State" means NO One "religious Person' is allowed to teach about only their 'Ideology of God' but the States' Responsibility remains, to education, thus All Possibilites must be included, a Special Course on the 'Other' Mythologies, as no one alive today can make an attestament of Witness to anything preceeding what? (The Year 1850 sounds like a Really Safe Number) how old is the Oldest Living Human? cause that is the Correct year for the Oldest Living Witness as proof of anything, all the rest could have not been there, created at the Moment of that persons Birth, and ALL else that followed, No one can Prove it any different.

After that well, trust what you 'see' as evidence? Sorry, No Counsel on that one.