Board Thread:Suggestions forum/@comment-174.22.192.132-20161104024309/@comment-26119768-20161213033202

@catfishperson

When I say assumptions I mean that in order to use reason we both have to assume certain things are true, me that morals come from a god, you that they don't. Since neither of those assumptions are within our  ability to prove, we're essentially arguing that our assumption is better than the others.

Regarding the "universal religion", refer to the previous paragraph.

The ideas in the Constitution which  can be traced to religion are, for instance, the idea of natural law, being endowed with certain rights, and so on.

The quote being part of a treaty doesn't de-legitimise it, I just can't find any sources which say that it originated with George Washington. The contention is that historians can't decide whether that particular part of the treaty was to be taken at face value or if it was merely  put in to sooth the Ottoman Empire that the treaty was between two foreign governments, not two religious powers.

@OneMordorianDream

But see, they both require absolute power of the government, and once you reach that point, there's not really much difference to the people who live in it.

If for a second you imagine a line with anarchy on one end and complete control on the other, doesn't that make a bit more sense than labeling things right wing or left wing, when both left and right can be so similar?