we got the same excellent education. But she doesn't know the responsibilities of the three branches of government.

It's not a lack of education, they chose to forget.

...the history of the LABOR movement,
and that several times in the past we HAD unregulated Corporations and no taxes on the RICH,
and what happened THEN is exactly what is happening NOW.

This knowledge of the modern (1860+) Economic History of the US will allow people to move past the "theory" of deregulation and Tax Breaks for the "Job Providers"
to "We already tried that, and it didn't work!'

Those who do NOT know history......

Last edited Mon Feb 16, 2015, 10:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Aquinas says that if you keep yourself willfully ignorant, then you are as morally culpable as if you acted in full knowledge. See his Summa Theologia I-II, question 76, article 1.

Since Aquinas believed in a deity for which there is no evidence.
Every thing he wrote was based on flawed premises.

Here are some more of his thoughtful thoughts:

ST Ia q.92, a.1, Reply to Objection 1: As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation.



ST q.92, a.1, Reply to Objection 2: Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates.



ST, q. 92, a. 3: I answer that, It was right for the woman to be made from a rib of man. First, to signify the social union of man and woman, for the woman should neither use authority over man,' and so she was not made from his head; nor was it right for her to be subject to man's contempt as his slave, and so she was not made from his feet.

The people who worry me are the ones who still believe that stuff.

I had a few "discussions" about him with my jesuit-educated father-in-law....



Needless to say, after a while he stopped quoting Aquinas to me.

Kinda miss the old joker....

That Aquinas said some silly things is undeniable. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with his statements about willful ignorance, which is spot on and germane to the discussion.

Because I think Aquinas had his head up his ass, I'm an "anti-Christian bigot".

OK.

It's your statement that

Since Aquinas believed in a deity for which there is no evidence.
Every thing he wrote was based on flawed premises.

An example of BIGOTRY would be a church that won't ordain
women as priests.

Last edited Thu Jun 14, 2018, 08:42 AM - Edit history (1)

Is your obvious belief that he was a Christian theologian, and therefore anything he says on any subject is automatically wrong. Similarly, citing Aquinas on the ordination of women is wholly irrelevant to his opinions on willful ignorance. It's like saying that George Washington being a slaveholder meant that his actions during the Battle of Trenton were wrong. The one has nothing to do with the other.

I actually agree with you on the ordination of women, and I have even posted on why Inter Insigniores, the Vatican's position paper on the ordination of women, is a piece of crap. See http://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1221&pid=605 If you would like me to expand on this, I would be happy to.

Since they already "know" what's what, there's certainly no need for them to become more curious or well read.

When the wingnuts start arguing that the Founding Fathers meant Z instead of X, history is relevant. When we start making alliances and agreements that almost inevitably lead to war, history is relevant. When the rich demand tax cuts that have never ever stimulated the economy, history is relevant.

It is because people tell us "history isn't relevant" that we keep making the same stupid mistakes.