Thread: knowledge corrupts

On "knowledge is power, therefore knowledge is corruption."

Wrong. The "knowledge is power" phrase is a forwardthinking statement. A catchphrase if you will. Actually, it is the proper application of knowledge, allowing you to gain leverage, that is powerful. Power and powerful are not the same thing.

On "absolute power corrupts absolutely". True. Unequivocally. The closest visible example any of you have of this, is your own government.

People worry about terrorism, but the truth is, no one will abuse a people more than their own government. Chemical testing. Biological Testing. Nuclear Testing. Absurd Taxation. Torture. Political disenchantment. Public humiliation. Outright legalized theft. Imprisonment without recourse.

And in fact, in the United States, that is the main reason the forefathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution-- the right to bear arms. Not so that people could protect themselves from an invader-- that's what an army is for. No, it was placed in the Consititution as the 2nd most important right to allow the individual to protect the other Consitutional rights from being taken away by his own government. That is one of the rights the forefathers didn't have. They could not protect themselves from their own government-- and hence they were driven to find a new land.

As for the old "Evolution .v. Religion" argument--

I find it interesting that all evolutionists require that the physical laws of the universe already exist prior to any of their untold numbers of fantastic leaps of biology occuring, in direct confrontation to many laws, including the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

While on the other hand, the religious people recognize that the reason the physical laws are so balanced is that they were in fact designed to be that way. With forethought. As it is written, the proof is _in the creation_.

But don't take my word for it. Ask questions and try to determine the answers yourselves.

Originally posted by *
On "knowledge is power, therefore knowledge is corruption."
And in fact, in the United States, that is the main reason the forefathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution-- the right to bear arms. Not so that people could protect themselves from an invader-- that's what an army is for. No, it was placed in the Consititution as the 2nd most important right to allow the individual to protect the other Consitutional rights from being taken away by his own government. That is one of the rights the forefathers didn't have. They could not protect themselves from their own government-- and hence they were driven to find a new land.

That might have been true at the constitution was written but I don't think it is right to claim that any american citizen can protect them self against the government/law. armed or not. The state can always repond with more force and violence then the citizen can

If all the missspelled words and strange grammer didn't revel it, the last post was posted by me.