Anathstryx: Christian Foundations and Abolition of Slavery

[Speak2Truth]

This is a continuation of a discussion that went off-topic in the Neanderthal thread.

"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging three headed beast like god one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes, fools and hypocrites. "
— Thomas Jefferson

This is important. Jefferson railed against the "Fear God" pulpit pounding ministers of the Church of England. He BELIEVED IN THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS, which were not what so many Churches were actually teaching.

Jefferson made this clear in his letter to Benjamin Rush:

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."

In fact, Jefferson's profession of Christian faith is exactly the correct definition of Christian. Jefferson explained what he most admired about Jesus, setting Jesus apart from all others:

"His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others."

It is this deeply Christian viewpoint that is at the foundations of the Declaration of Independence that Jefferson penned. Again, he tried to include abolition of slavery but that was removed by Congress for later implementation, to ensure the Revolution would succeed.

[Speak2Truth]

How exactly does one misapply "Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." regardless of the context in which it was spoken or written?

Anathstryx

Step 1: Read the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Step 2: Look what the ACLU is pushing. It is essentially "Congress shall allow no display or expression of (Christian) religion on government-funded property"

One of them is horribly wrong. I'm betting it's the second, since the first was written by the nation's Founders to tell us exactly what they meant.

Reinforcing this is the fact that the Founders established a Protestant church inside the US Capitol and attended services there. They put renditions of the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court building. They opened Congress and the Supreme Court with prayer to God for guidance. They had Congress print the Bible to be used in schools as an educational tool. They created the first National Holy-day as a day of prayer to God giving thanks for the creation of this nation (Thanksgiving).

Yeah, the ACLU really has got it wrong. They're pursuing the Communist agenda, not the American agenda.

[anathstryx]

Step 1: Read the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Step 2: Look what the ACLU is pushing. It is essentially "Congress shall allow no display or expression of (Christian) religion on government-funded property"

One of them is horribly wrong. I'm betting it's the second, since the first was written by the nation's Founders to tell us exactly what they meant.

Reinforcing this is the fact that the Founders established a Protestant church inside the US Capitol and attended services there. They put renditions of the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court building. They opened Congress and the Supreme Court with prayer to God for guidance. They had Congress print the Bible to be used in schools as an educational tool. They created the first National Holy-day as a day of prayer to God giving thanks for the creation of this nation (Thanksgiving).

Yeah, the ACLU really has got it wrong. They're pursuing the Communist agenda, not the American agenda.

The Bill of Rights arose from the Enlightenment sentiments of natural rights. Folks with your ideology always seem to pervert that fact in these discussions.

I find it completely ironic that a government that spends a couple of billion dollars a week on war has the ten commandments on the Supreme Court building but it's not very surprising given the biblical hostility of the Abrahamic "family". It is very distressing to me that there are prayers, symbols of religion of whatever stripe, and religious intrusions into any government activity, institution, building or whatever (with the notable exception of religious symbols on military graves such as Arlington). I am highly offended by it, in fact, as you should be. Why should there be Abrahamic symbols and prayers on government property and not Pagan symbols? Pagans pay taxes. Pagans die in wars. Pagans are patriots. This is yet another example of the hypocrisy rife in the establishment. American atheists find it offensive and a violation of their rights and they, too, are tax payers, soldiers, patriots.

The point is that no religion should be a part of a government that is an umbrella sheltering people of all belief systems so that none holds sway or dictates over another in matters of civil liberties and natural rights. Remember Jefferson's "free society"?

I fully support the ACLU even when they defend the KKK, which I abhor, just the same as I will defend your civil and natural rights as any patriotic American would do even if I might deplore your politics, your ideology, your belief system.

I am not as articulate as you nor am I a Jeffersonian scholar (but I can google as well as anyone), nor am I an expert on anything except myself. I do grow weary of social justice being misconstrued as socialism and fear-mongers seeing a Communist or Jihadist behind every bush (pun may very well be intended). Quite frankly, IMO, it is the radical and religious right who are the greatest, real threat to American principles.

Well, clearly we are "bulls" in each others paths. But I have enjoyed the diversion from my household drudgery for the day.

Anathstryx

[anathstryx]

This is a continuation of a discussion that went off-topic in the Neanderthal thread.

This is important. Jefferson railed against the "Fear God" pulpit pounding ministers of the Church of England. He BELIEVED IN THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS, which were not what so many Churches were actually teaching.

Jefferson made this clear in his letter to Benjamin Rush:

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."

In fact, Jefferson's profession of Christian faith is exactly the correct definition of Christian. Jefferson explained what he most admired about Jesus, setting Jesus apart from all others:

"His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others."

It is this deeply Christian viewpoint that is at the foundations of the Declaration of Independence that Jefferson penned. Again, he tried to include abolition of slavery but that was removed by Congress for later implementation, to ensure the Revolution would succeed.

Jefferson was a brilliant and deeply conflicted human being who struggled with his own ethical dilemmas all of his life. I'm not sure how you reconcile the conflicts in Christianity of "inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids" and the reality of bitter hostilities against "all mankind". Wouldn't "all mankind" include Communists and Jihadists? But that's one of those conundrums of religion that I don't think I'll ever grok. Or, perhaps, just another lofty ideal one slaps on the bumper of their car or spews in a political ad.

Anathstryx

[Speak2Truth]

Jefferson was a brilliant and deeply conflicted human being who struggled with his own ethical dilemmas all of his life. I'm not sure how you reconcile the conflicts in Christianity of "inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids" and the reality of bitter hostilities against "all mankind". Wouldn't "all mankind" include Communists and Jihadists? But that's one of those conundrums of religion that I don't think I'll ever grok. Or, perhaps, just another lofty ideal one slaps on the bumper of their car or spews in a political ad.

Anathstryx

No reconciling is necessary. Jefferson absolutely, clearly explained why he was NOT conflicted.

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself."

Now, go back and look at how he rails against various church institutions and leaders who corrupted the precepts taught by Jesus. It will all become clear.

[Speak2Truth]

The Bill of Rights arose from the Enlightenment sentiments of natural rights. Folks with your ideology always seem to pervert that fact in these discussions.

My ideology? What is my ideology? I'm just discussing history here.

What are those Natural Rights and who is the Creator who endowed us with them? It's explained in the Declaration of Independence, penned by Jefferson.

However, I'll clarify it even further.

Natural Rights are the opposite of Natural Wrongs. We innately know what Natural Wrongs are (Violence against you, Bullying you and Stealing your stuff) so we define Natural Rights as our Natural Right to use whatever force is necessary to fight off anyone trying to inflict those wrongs.

Your Right to Life presumes you will thwart anyone trying to harm you.

Your Right to Liberty presumes you will thwart anyone trying to bully or restrain you.

Your Right to Pursuit of Happiness presumes that you will forcefully defend your ownership of whatever you have acquired in that pursuit. (It was originally called Right to Property in the 1775 List of Grievances)

It is not surprising that we as a people instituted a government and gave it permission to wage war to defend our absolute Right to retain those Rights when others threaten us. It is because we love one another as equals that we forcefully defend each other against Wrongdoers. The Wrongdoer who persists must do so at his own peril, not ours.

Freedom exists only when we love one another sufficiently that we will forcefully defend our neighbor's Rights as well as our own. It is an inescapable fact that those who will do Wrong will use force to get their way - so we are obligated to have superior force at our disposal and be willing to use it.

After all, if you're dead or enslaved, you have lost all your Rights.

[Speak2Truth]

It is very distressing to me that there are prayers, symbols of religion of whatever stripe, and religious intrusions into any government activity, institution, building or whatever (with the notable exception of religious symbols on military graves such as Arlington). I am highly offended by it, in fact, as you should be. Why should there be Abrahamic symbols and prayers on government property and not Pagan symbols?

But we have plenty of Pagan symbols on government property. The Washington Monument is one of the biggest.

However - our ideas of Liberty, Equality and Equal Rights, our American principles, come directly from the Protestant religion. None other. That's why the Founders wanted to ensure we had plenty of references to those foundations to keep reminding us.

What if our nation followed the secularist path of the Soviet Union, Cuba and others that forcibly oppress those of religious belief? Tragedy. Or perhaps Islam? Horror. Hindu? What caste would you be? Pagan? Um, which flavor?

Equality among all people, the Right to prosper by your own efforts, the Right to freely express yourself - these can only be defended if the reason for their existence is defended.

The point is that no religion should be a part of a government that is an umbrella sheltering people of all belief systems so that none holds sway or dictates over another in matters of civil liberties and natural rights.

It is because of the Protestant foundations that we defend the Natural Rights and civil liberties of all. I say let's stick with those foundations.

I fully support the ACLU even when they defend the KKK, which I abhor, just the same as I will defend your civil and natural rights as any patriotic American would do even if I might deplore your politics, your ideology, your belief system.

If the ACLU were defending our Bill of Rights, I might support them. However, they've taken the usual Communist anti-Christian stance. While defending the KKK they work to eradicate Christianity from the public square. They also work to defeat our 2nd Amendment, which is our natural Right to Arms to defend our Rights. There is a reason Communists try to eradicate Christianity (and the power of self defense) when they're fundamentally transforming a society. Let a Communist explain it:

"We hate Christians and Christianity. Even the best of them must be considered our worst enemies. They preach love of one's neighbor and mercy, which is contrary to our principles. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the Revolution. Down with love of our neighbor! What we want is hate... Only then can we conquer the universe." - Anatole Lunarcharsky, Russian Commissar of Education

I do grow weary of social justice being misconstrued as socialism

The moment government assumes power to seize some people's wealth to fund the benevolent wishes of others, it's Socialism and it violates our Natural Rights. We are already there.

You have a Natural Right to work hard, earn good money and donate your own earnings to your favorite good cause. That's not the Social Justice agenda at all.

and fear-mongers seeing a Communist or Jihadist behind every bush (pun may very well be intended).

It would be foolish to disregard their own stated intentions and their actions. It is good and proper to pay attention to them and sound the alarms - for they are people who do great harm when they get the power. A sensible nation never, ever lets them gain power, as a matter of defending Natural Rights.

Quite frankly, IMO, it is the radical and religious right who are the greatest, real threat to American principles.

Yet they are the ones who created and defend natural rights and American principles. The Communists and Jihadists sure didn't and don't. I think your distrust is greatly misplaced.

I enjoy this chat - hope the conversation hasn't kept you away from necessary work. I'm supposed to be packing for Hawaii but, hey, this is FUN!

[anathstryx]

But we have plenty of Pagan symbols on government property. The Washington Monument is one of the biggest.

That's a vague over-simplification. The Washington monument was designed by a Freemason. True that often we find a blend of religious symbolism in Freemason constructs but those are too often subject to wild and unsupported popular theories about their nature. A winged, solar disk which is a Pagan symbol was removed from the design. However, there are many Pagan symbols subsumed by other religions, a fact that is generally accepted by the Pagan community as being both ironic and a typical historical reality.

However - our ideas of Liberty, Equality and Equal Rights, our American principles, come directly from the Protestant religion. None other. That's why the Founders wanted to ensure we had plenty of references to those foundations to keep reminding us.

Actually, they come from English common law which has as its foundation the Magna Carta, witnessed and sanctioned by Abbots, Bishops, and Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. Of course, there have been many political permutations since 1215 C.E. and the Enlightenment had a great impact on the formation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The words "God, Creator, Jesus, or Lord" (with one notable exception being "in the Year of our Lord" in the signatory section, a common expression of dating at the time, both secular and non-secular). These omissions were imperative to the framers to insure that religion of any sort not be involved in government.

What if our nation followed the secularist path of the Soviet Union, Cuba and others that forcibly oppress those of religious belief? Tragedy. Or perhaps Islam? Horror. Hindu? What caste would you be? Pagan? Um, which flavor?

An irrelevant question and a diversion from the argument.

Equality among all people, the Right to prosper by your own efforts, the Right to freely express yourself - these can only be defended if the reason for their existence is defended.
It is because of the Protestant foundations that we defend the Natural Rights and civil liberties of all. I say let's stick with those foundations.

It is because of Humanist foundations that we defend the natural and civil liberties of all. I'm for sticking with those.

If the ACLU were defending our Bill of Rights, I might support them. However, they've taken the usual Communist anti-Christian stance. While defending the KKK they work to eradicate Christianity from the public square. They also work to defeat our 2nd Amendment, which is our natural Right to Arms to defend our Rights. There is a reason Communists try to eradicate Christianity (and the power of self defense) when they're fundamentally transforming a society. Let a Communist explain it:

"We hate Christians and Christianity. Even the best of them must be considered our worst enemies. They preach love of one's neighbor and mercy, which is contrary to our principles. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the Revolution. Down with love of our neighbor! What we want is hate... Only then can we conquer the universe." - Anatole Lunarcharsky, Russian Commissar of Education

The moment government assumes power to seize some people's wealth to fund the benevolent wishes of others, it's Socialism and it violates our Natural Rights. We are already there.

This is almost too silly to dignify a response. The ACLU is not anti-Christian or anti-any religion. In fact, the ACLU was formed out of the National Civil Liberties Bureau, created by two Christians and having many Quakers among its members. The ACLU is inclusive of all faiths and non-faiths. The notion that the ACLU is a Communist front is patently ridiculous and smacks of McCarthy-era hysteria and ignorance.

Was Anatole Lunarcharsky a member of the ACLU? In the governing body? You can find hate speech from any sector of society. Your better argument would have been to cite Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. But a few Communists in the ACLU does not a front make. Nor does the inclusion of Christians make it a Christian conspiracy, Jews a Jewish conspiracy, or Athiests an Athiest conspiracy group.

You have a Natural Right to work hard, earn good money and donate your own earnings to your favorite good cause. That's not the Social Justice agenda at all.

You clearly have no idea what social justice is. Must be reading too much Ayn Rand.

It would be foolish to disregard their own stated intentions and their actions. It is good and proper to pay attention to them and sound the alarms - for they are people who do great harm when they get the power. A sensible nation never, ever lets them gain power, as a matter of defending Natural Rights.

Yet they are the ones who created and defend natural rights and American principles. The Communists and Jihadists sure didn't and don't. I think your distrust is greatly misplaced.

I do not disregard the agendas of any extremest by any means, including the radical religious right, who currently have way too much power and are, in fact, doing great harm as they occupy seats in the House and Senate. How many Communists and Jihadists are U. S. Senators and Congressional Representatives?

Anathstryx

[Speak2Truth]

You mention the Constitution. That's just the set of laws written to uphold the founding principles of our nation, which are clearly spelled out in the founding document:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

To say the word "God" is absent from the Constitution is like saying it is absent from our speed limit laws. The Declaration of Independence is the "why", the Constitution is "these are the rules".

Does English Common Law or the Magna Carta state what our Declaration of Independence does? I'd be curious to see some quotes on that. English Common Law was for a Christian people, like our Declaration of Independence. Its concepts could not and do not exist under Islam, Hindu, Atheism...

Me: What if our nation followed the secularist path of the Soviet Union, Cuba and others that forcibly oppress those of religious belief? Tragedy. Or perhaps Islam? Horror. Hindu? What caste would you be? Pagan? Um, which flavor?

You: An irrelevant question and a diversion from the argument.

Absolutely not! You suggested it would be wrong to not allow equal influence in our nation by others. I point out that if they get their way, our nation gets "fundamentally transformed" into something else - because their belief systems are completely different and they will use government power to do things their way. So, my statement is absolutely essential to understanding why our nation does and must preserve its distinctly Protestant roots.

That is the very core of the argument.

It is because of Humanist foundations that we defend the natural and civil liberties of all.

Humanist... can you show me the Founders' references to that?

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical ...

Do Humanists claim our Rights come from God, the Creator? Do they publish the Bible for use in schools? Establish a Protestant church in the nation's Capitol? Open their sessions of Congress and the Supreme Court with prayer to God? Establish, by official Congressional and Presidential act, a national day of prayer to God to give Thanks? No.

You'll have to present some hard evidence to support your claim.

Regarding the ACLU:

Roger Baldwin - Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union
Enthusiastic proponent of Communism
https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/...asp?indid=1579

"In the 1930s Baldwin and the ACLU became linked to the Popular Front movement, which was engendered by Stalin to strengthen the Communist Party by allowing it to make common cause with socialists and other leftist groups. Baldwin himself made two trips to the Soviet Union, and in 1928 published a book entitled Liberty Under the Soviets, which contained effusive praise for the USSR."

This is why the ACLU continues attacking any expression of Christianity in government and schools - UNLESS it serves a "secular" purpose. For example, the Founders were happy with the Ten Commandments on a courthouse, even the Supreme Court, but the Communist ACLU insists that ONLY if there is a secular purpose can such a religious display be made. They're wrong, of course.

A federal court in Lexington, Ky., has ruled that the Ten Commandments can remain on display in the Mercer County courthouse, rejecting an attempt by the American Civil Liberties Union to have them removed.

Read more: ACLU loses 10 Commandments fight https://www.wnd.com/?pageId=14974#ixzz1TQuc077D

ACLU asks for removal of high school prayer banner
https://www.boston.com/news/local/rh...prayer_banner/

ACLU wants school prayer covered in Cranston case
ACLU has asked a federal judge to preliminarily enjoin the city of Cranston from continuing to display a school prayer painted on an auditorium wall...
https://newsblog.projo.com/2011/05/r...prayer-co.html


ACLU says moment of silence in school for terrorist victims is unconstitutional, violates "separation of church and state"
https://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24481

See, they continue using a phrase that is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA, and implementing it in the Soviet interpretation, to thwart our own Bill of Rights. This is to be expected from the Communist organization, as it has never changed its purposes since its Communist creation. The very premise that Christian displays cannot be made in school or halls of government unless they serve a secular purpose is directly in conflict with our nation's foundations and Bill of Rights. The ACLU is an enemy of Americanism.

"I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union.... I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal." - Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU

[Speak2Truth]

You clearly have no idea what social justice is.

It invariably means that the wealth of some is seized to redistribute to others and that our Natural Rights will be trampled by the "collective". It means arbitrary power can be exercised to adjust society to meet the vision of those wielding it. It does not defend the absolutely equal Natural Rights that we previously discussed, especially the Right to pursue happiness according to one's own ability and means.

Ex: Under Equal Rights, everyone is considered for a job based on their qualifications. Under Social Justice, if there are not enough "people of color" in a particular job (or school or whatever), then compulsion is used to balance out the skin color ratio. However, if nearly all the employees of Taco Bell are Latino no compulsion is used to add white employees - because of a certain bias of those wielding the power of Social Justice.

Do you disagree?

Can you explain what "great harm" is being done by the Right through government? You've said this several times without providing details.

[rossmen]

speaks your truth the declaration has no legal standing and it was written like 13 years? before the constitution, which had a lot more work put into it by a larger group of people. i was raised christian and i am now a pagan. christian values vary according to sect and individual. jesus was cool, and he was all about love, compassion and humility. your diatribes against non christian religions only make sense from a intolerant christian perspective. it reads like you advocate religious war. maybe it is just with words and selective law enforcement but that is bad enough. i challenge you to embrace the diversity of religious thought; animist and pagan, hindu, buddist, jewish, christian, muslim and everything in between including new age. you paint with an incredibly fat brush.
mrs ross

ps when is come to usa slavery your own links do not support your position. you are a cart horse for reactionary right wing propaganda. read your own backup info with the blinders off.

You mention the Constitution. That's just the set of laws written to uphold the founding principles of our nation, which are clearly spelled out in the founding document:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

To say the word "God" is absent from the Constitution is like saying it is absent from our speed limit laws. The Declaration of Independence is the "why", the Constitution is "these are the rules".

Does English Common Law or the Magna Carta state what our Declaration of Independence does? I'd be curious to see some quotes on that. English Common Law was for a Christian people, like our Declaration of Independence. Its concepts could not and do not exist under Islam, Hindu, Atheism...

Absolutely not! You suggested it would be wrong to not allow equal influence in our nation by others. I point out that if they get their way, our nation gets "fundamentally transformed" into something else - because their belief systems are completely different and they will use government power to do things their way. So, my statement is absolutely essential to understanding why our nation does and must preserve its distinctly Protestant roots.

That is the very core of the argument.

Humanist... can you show me the Founders' references to that?

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical ...

Do Humanists claim our Rights come from God, the Creator? Do they publish the Bible for use in schools? Establish a Protestant church in the nation's Capitol? Open their sessions of Congress and the Supreme Court with prayer to God? Establish, by official Congressional and Presidential act, a national day of prayer to God to give Thanks? No.

You'll have to present some hard evidence to support your claim.

Regarding the ACLU:

Roger Baldwin - Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union
Enthusiastic proponent of Communism
https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/...asp?indid=1579

"In the 1930s Baldwin and the ACLU became linked to the Popular Front movement, which was engendered by Stalin to strengthen the Communist Party by allowing it to make common cause with socialists and other leftist groups. Baldwin himself made two trips to the Soviet Union, and in 1928 published a book entitled Liberty Under the Soviets, which contained effusive praise for the USSR."

This is why the ACLU continues attacking any expression of Christianity in government and schools - UNLESS it serves a "secular" purpose. For example, the Founders were happy with the Ten Commandments on a courthouse, even the Supreme Court, but the Communist ACLU insists that ONLY if there is a secular purpose can such a religious display be made. They're wrong, of course.

A federal court in Lexington, Ky., has ruled that the Ten Commandments can remain on display in the Mercer County courthouse, rejecting an attempt by the American Civil Liberties Union to have them removed.

Read more: ACLU loses 10 Commandments fight https://www.wnd.com/?pageId=14974#ixzz1TQuc077D

ACLU asks for removal of high school prayer banner
https://www.boston.com/news/local/rh...prayer_banner/

ACLU wants school prayer covered in Cranston case
ACLU has asked a federal judge to preliminarily enjoin the city of Cranston from continuing to display a school prayer painted on an auditorium wall...
https://newsblog.projo.com/2011/05/r...prayer-co.html


ACLU says moment of silence in school for terrorist victims is unconstitutional, violates "separation of church and state"
https://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24481

See, they continue using a phrase that is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA, and implementing it in the Soviet interpretation, to thwart our own Bill of Rights. This is to be expected from the Communist organization, as it has never changed its purposes since its Communist creation. The very premise that Christian displays cannot be made in school or halls of government unless they serve a secular purpose is directly in conflict with our nation's foundations and Bill of Rights. The ACLU is an enemy of Americanism.

"I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union.... I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal." - Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU

[podfish]

It invariably means that the wealth of some is seized to redistribute to others and that our Natural Rights will be trampled by the "collective".

there's a very specific worldview implied by that phrasing, one that accepts that there's a natural distribution of wealth that's meritoriously based - and that under "natural" conditions it would flow to the deserving.

It means arbitrary power can be exercised to adjust society to meet the vision of those wielding it.

you're describing evolution. Society adjusts; the definition of power is drawn from the causes of what adjustments end up happening. There's no ideal state where no-one has a vision of society, or no-one does anything to adjust it, or only the pure-of-heart and true-of-insight are able to shape the world.

[Speak2Truth]

there's a very specific worldview implied by that phrasing, one that accepts that there's a natural distribution of wealth that's meritoriously based - and that under "natural" conditions it would flow to the deserving.

Well... isn't that the Social Justice approach to things? Those with power get to decide who "merits" receiving wealth that is seized from others?

Our Natural Rights presume that the man who works to earn or create wealth owns it. It is up to him to decide what to do with it, not some other schmuck who did not perform the labor to create it. Because we are all create Equal, every one of us must respect the Rights of the other.

you're describing evolution. Society adjusts; the definition of power is drawn from the causes of what adjustments end up happening. There's no ideal state where no-one has a vision of society, or no-one does anything to adjust it, or only the pure-of-heart and true-of-insight are able to shape the world.

I agree with you. However, we know certain truths in our own hearts. Every one of us has known them since birth. This is what the Declaration of Independence was trying to explain. Therefore, we can create a type of society that comes closest to defending what we know to be truth.

You know that if someone commits violence against you, you have been wronged.

If someone bullies or coerces you to get you to do their bidding, you have been wronged.

If someone seizes the wealth that you worked to create or earn, you have been wronged.

The most just kind of society is one that defends every single individual against what we innately know to be wrong. The American system is, in that regard, the pinnacle of social evolution.

It will never be perfect because humans, with all their faults, must be given certain powers to operate the mechanism of government. However, by limiting government power to only the barest essentials, the Founders ensured they could do the least Wrong to any individual or class of individuals.

It's the system that ensures the most Liberty for us to pursue what we deem best for us, to improve our lives and the lives of our families with the least outside interference, to strive and excel without someone else taking away the gains that we make.

It is the best defense of Individual Liberty around.

That's why I like it so much.

[Speak2Truth]

your diatribes against non christian religions only make sense from a intolerant christian perspective. it reads like you advocate religious war.

Um... I had hoped you would notice that my diatribes are against those whose belief system advocates religious war.

I have not diatribed against Wiccans. Did you notice? How about Sufis? I have not diatribed against Buddhists. Nor against ... well, who HAVE I diatribed against? Can you identify them?

Islamists.

Communists.

Both are ideologically driven to oppress and control others and engage in religious (doctrinally supported) war of aggression to achieve their goals.

I advocate AGAINST religious war. I had hoped you would notice.

[anathstryx]

Absolutely not! You suggested it would be wrong to not allow equal influence in our nation by others. I point out that if they get their way, our nation gets "fundamentally transformed" into something else - because their belief systems are completely different and they will use government power to do things their way. So, my statement is absolutely essential to understanding why our nation does and must preserve its distinctly Protestant roots.

I never said nor even remotely suggested that "it would be wrong to not allow equal influence in our nation by others". Although your statement is awkward and I can barely understand it, I assume you mean Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, etc.,...possibly Martians (yes, I AM being sarcastic about the Martians). How do you know that these creepy-scary others haven't influenced our nation already? Our founding fathers were well-read, astute intellectuals. They were men of the Enlightenment. They even dabbled in devilish alchemy. Why, good old Jefferson had an extensive library that included the writings and discourses of many celebrated Pagans. Perhaps the logic and politics of Aristotle had some little influence on him. Oh, oh! Those insidious, Christless Pagans are going to take over America and we'll all have to dance naked under the full moon! (Yes, I AM being sarcastic about Pagans taking over America and decreeing we'll all have to dance naked under the full moon. There are just too many people I don't need to see naked, even in romantic lighting, so that's not on my agenda for world domination).

You misconstrue what I've said and, regardless of how many ways I try to say it or support it, you're going to continue to misconstrue and try to put "words in my mouth" because that is an obvious pattern of your tactic...ergo, it's really pointless for me to continue on with this dance.

I'm throwing in the proverbial towel. I'm going to go recline on the couch, watch a movie, and commune with my cats....which, of course, makes me a communist.

Have a great time in Hawaii. Go surfing. May you become one with Hina...or some spam musubi.

Anathstryx

[rossmen]

perhaps what we disagree on is a definition of war. some followers of the quoran and marx theory have advocated for violent conquest and some have even done it. that doesn't mean i get to lock up or oppress anyone who uses these systems to understand the world. i just don't think that creates what i value, peace and mutual understanding.

Um... I had hoped you would notice that my diatribes are against those whose belief system advocates religious war.

I have not diatribed against Wiccans. Did you notice? How about Sufis? I have not diatribed against Buddhists. Nor against ... well, who HAVE I diatribed against? Can you identify them?

Islamists.

Communists.

Both are ideologically driven to oppress and control others and engage in religious (doctrinally supported) war of aggression to achieve their goals.

I advocate AGAINST religious war. I had hoped you would notice.

[podfish]

Those with power get to decide who "merits" receiving wealth that is seized from others?... the man who works to earn or create wealth owns it...... we know certain truths in our own hearts. Every one of us has known them since birth. .

you have far too simplistic a vision of creating wealth. If you're talking about the little red hen who makes a loaf of bread after a series of labors, you're on the money. Her bread is her wealth. Even then, a chunk of her wealth derives from her access to the dirt where the corn is grown; she didn't create that dirt from her own efforts. The definition of wealth in any more complex situation is far more subtle - and the ability to control it isn't particularly related to any single individual's hard work. Vide GBush's avowed goal - that we should be come an "ownership society". Ownership is completely independent of work in a logical sense; you can of course increase the value of what you own by work, at least in many cases, but the whole point of it is to derive value independent of work. So any claims that American values are primarily aimed at rewarding hard work with wealth are specious. There are several other factors that are obvious if you drop the blinders - the people most rewarded with wealth are being rewarded for something other than hard work. You can see this if you examine whether or not you feel that the "owners" deserve to tap into the wealth created by their employees, who are presumably working quite hard.

One thing I noticed in one of your other posts - you list Communists and Islamists, but fail to list Christians among those who are
"ideologically driven to ... control others". It's an odd omission. Your assertion that we "know certain truths in our hearts" and your endorsement of that as a guiding principal for government is difficult to reconcile with your professed goal of maximizing Liberty.
The right tends to get all worked up about the efforts of those they lump as socialists or liberals to influence the distribution of wealth by identifying their efforts as theft; they don't seem to see that there's a different perspective - that the distribution of wealth is distorted. Look at who's claimed as the perpetrators: in the one case, it's the poor, immigrants, welfare mothers, etc. In the other, it's bankers, lobbyists, corporate heads, some of the wealthiest individuals in the country. Hmm, which group would -you- bet on, in the contest to distort the economic system???

["Mad" Miles]

Which Communists? Which Islamists? Which specific group, tendency, individual. Cause every educated person already knows, there's a massive amount of diversity and complexity within those broad brush labels. It's that lack of specificity and nuance, which make your pronouncements here so irritating and ridiculous S2T. But we both know that's nothing new from you. I must say, you've certainly been on a binge/roll lately. I don't consider you a troll, or insane, but spammer has come to mind.

And to the other Wacoons refuting and disputing, debating and discussing S2T's provocations, etc. Thanks for a job well done. And in that noble company I include those who I've crossed rhetorical swords with here in the past, Star Man and Dixon in particular.

I spend oodles of time on Facebook these days, and a lot of it is engaged in political discussions with more or less like minded people. I also debate "Communists" which I call Marxist Leninists and Right Wing Libertarians. In the latter context I summarized some of S2T's recent claims:

***********

American (colonial and U.S.) slavery was instituted by a Black man who didn't like the English version of indentured servitude and imported the "African" institution of chattel slavery. 30% of Blacks in ante-bellum Louisiana owned 60% of Black slaves. (Or some such, I may have the exact stats wrong.)

All taxes are robbery/theft, except those that go to military defense and police. (So much for Libertarian Tea Partiers being anti-authoritarian, what?)

The Obaminator started the fight over the debt ceiling and is the one threatening to cut off Social Security checks if the U.S. defaults.

Glen Beck (who he doesn't cite) is spot on about the threat of the impending Islamic Caliphate.


Need I go on? We see what happens when loony tunes ideas become popular and effect elections and public policy.

Weimar Republic anyone?

********************************

There really isn't enough time in the day...

Barry,

By the way. The positions S2T takes, at least most of them, are not "conservative", they are extreme right wing fringe. There are plenty of conservatives who do not subscribe to such nonsense. Although they haven't done much lately that I can see to police the margins of their faction/s.

And S2T is not a "guest" he's been a registered Wacoon for several years now. Part of the anthropogenic global warming denial, the FED is responsible for a grand part of our economic woes, Obama is a Socialist Muslim plant, yadda, yadda, yadda, that comes out the the Beck, Limbaugh, Paul, Jones and FOX TV camp.

There are a few other regular Wacoon's who follow the talking points that S2T has been regurgitating. And their opinions are fairly well represented and repeated here.

So, the "Wacco is intolerant of crazy right wingers" line put out by another Waccoon today (sorry, spacing your name) is a bit exaggerated.

Calling someone on their shit, even in a "Conscious Community" is not disrespect, it's what people in families and communities do with, and for, each other, all the time. Hopefully with respect and the appropriate least amount of withering sarcasm and scorn that some ideas deserve.

I know for a fact that the boundaries of decorum here keep me from being completely blunt about much of the nonsense I read here, but I doubt anyone is confused about what I consider cogent, valid, interesting and useful vs. what I consider to be complete blithering idiocy and partisan manipulation with rhetorical bomb throwing as the main tactic in debate.

At least this isn't a newspaper chat room, or blog responses that pass for political discussions these days. Those vile sewers of rage and confusion, rarely get my attention. Just like FOX.

Late for the Backyard! Z'out!!

[Speak2Truth]

perhaps what we disagree on is a definition of war. some followers of the quoran and marx theory have advocated for violent conquest and some have even done it. that doesn't mean i get to lock up or oppress anyone who uses these systems to understand the world. i just don't think that creates what i value, peace and mutual understanding.

It's not just that some followers have done it. Their core ideology is to use methods including war to force all others to submit to them. You may value peace and mutual understanding but they do not, no more than a lion does.

Wow, could you imagine what the world would be like if the Muslim nations actually fostered peace and mutual understanding?

That would be terrific!

To learn what they're really like, those folks who demand we allow them to build a mosque at ground zero to show "muslim outreach", just try building a catholic church in Saudi Arabia. Nothing mutual about it. You'll get dead.

[Speak2Truth]

One thing I noticed in one of your other posts - you list Communists and Islamists, but fail to list Christians among those who are
"ideologically driven to ... control others". It's an odd omission.

I'm talking about an ideological imperative to use force to control (and enslave) others. People brave shark infested waters, land mines and barbed wire to escape the Communists. The Islamists will murder anyone trying to escape their faith. Both happily murder quite a lot of people subject to their control for "offending" the ruling ideology.

How many people were murdered by rampaging Christians when the statue of Jesus in a jar of urine was upheld as "free speech"?

Okay, burn a Koran and see what happens.

Or tear down a poster of Castro and trample it in Cuba.

Then, you'll see the difference.

Your assertion that we "know certain truths in our hearts" and your endorsement of that as a guiding principal for government is difficult to reconcile with your professed goal of maximizing Liberty.

Did you read what those truths are? Do you disagree with the premise that if we defend ourselves against the Wrongs I describe we maximize our liberty?

The right tends to get all worked up about the efforts of those they lump as socialists or liberals to influence the distribution of wealth by identifying their efforts as theft;

When someone sends men with guns to seize your wealth to redistribute to others, that's theft. Just say "no" to their taking your tax dollars to stuff into their pockets and you'll meet the men with guns.

I'm an American. I believe very strongly in the Freedom resulting from adherence to America's founding principles. And this guy has something important to say...

"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." - Samuel Adams

they don't seem to see that there's a different perspective - that the distribution of wealth is distorted. Look at who's claimed as the perpetrators: in the one case, it's the poor, immigrants, welfare mothers, etc. In the other, it's bankers, lobbyists, corporate heads, some of the wealthiest individuals in the country. Hmm, which group would -you- bet on, in the contest to distort the economic system???

I'll bet on the Politicians. Only they can send men with guns to seize my earnings to cram into the pockets of others. Bankers cannot. Corporate heads cannot. The poor cannot and Bill Gates cannot.

The Politicians who create a system where they can seize and redistribute put themselves in the glorious position of receiving all sorts of bribes and votes in exchange for their favor. It's illegal in the USA but they're doing it (after swearing an oath to us that they will obey the Constitution).

The Politicians must go. Legitimate, lawful public service must be restored. Then we can get back our liberty and prosperity.

[Speak2Truth]

Miles, your rants are funny, though barely coherent. I'd be impressed if you were to actually engage in these topical discussions in a meaningful manner like some other posters here. All that mud-slinging implies you've got some valid reason to disagree with the information I'm posting so I'm curious to see it.

Reason... "Mad"... hm. Perhaps the twain do not meet?

["Mad" Miles]

S2T,

I don't do line by line refutations of specific "facts" in screeds by wingnuts. I've learned over the years that that is a complete waste of time, and just leads down a tit for tat rabbit hole. It's an old ideologue trick, state an absurdity, respond to the dismissal demanding proof it isn't an absurdity, rinse and repeat. I have refuted, with specific information, the gist and general ideas you spout, that you don't see that, is indicative of your ideological blinders.

And congratulations, you just flunked the inadvertent litmus test that my nom de keyboard sometimes serves to flush out "debaters" here when they go personal when otherwise stymied. I just picked it because after some time of referring to myself as a mad forwarder of political email (still true) a nice woman quipped back with, OK Mad Miles, and I made it my own. If you know British slang, it connotes passion. And I like it because it's a quadruple entendre. I'll give you a little credit and assume you know what "scare quotes" denotes. (Hint: It's in no way a claim to objective truth of any kind.) The litmus test for reactive personalities is just a serendipitous lagniappe.

And before you call me a hypocrite and complain that I'm the one personalizing things, consider this. All of the slams I've used here, are in reference to your statements/actions, expressed beliefs and affirmed causes. They are not comments about your character or personality. In fact, if you read me carefully, I've even been sympathetic, in part, about what possibly motivates you. I've even disagreed with some of your other critics.

That said, I really do think you are stark raving uninformed and biased in what you claim to know. But unfortunately, you appear to be a node in a burgeoning movement bound to the ideas you regurgitate. That does not bode well for our country, or the world. We've seen other movements bound to the distortions, stereotyping and hate speech of demagogues. And in every instance, no matter what part of the political spectrum they come from, it hardly ever turns out well.

Currently some of the recently elected representatives who hold many of your views, seem to be bent on tanking the global economy. And don't give me Ron Paul's booshwah from MSNBC last night about, "we're already bankrupt and we'll pay down the debt via inflation, instead of cuts." On the surface, seemingly true, inflation if allowed to run rampant, is a major problem, but anybody with an inkling of economic history knows that governments have carried debt burdens since there have been governments. And inflation in recent years has been the least of our problems.

The Free Market Libertarian fetishization of balanced budgets, never has, and never will solve the "problem" that you and Paul identify. And anybody who thinks such an approach will, hasn't done their homework and has swallowed the koolaid.

But enough, I should have been asleep at least two hours ago. This stuff is addictive, I'll give you that.

[rossmen]

you didn't get my point. your thought process = war. i believe everybody values peace and mutual understanding. and this is possible if we are willing to work together.

are you of the worldview that war is inevitable and its best to have enemies well identified ahead of time and a bigger gun?

It's not just that some followers have done it. Their core ideology is to use methods including war to force all others to submit to them. You may value peace and mutual understanding but they do not, no more than a lion does.

Wow, could you imagine what the world would be like if the Muslim nations actually fostered peace and mutual understanding?

That would be terrific!

To learn what they're really like, those folks who demand we allow them to build a mosque at ground zero to show "muslim outreach", just try building a catholic church in Saudi Arabia. Nothing mutual about it. You'll get dead.

[Speak2Truth]

And before you call me a hypocrite and complain that I'm the one personalizing things, consider this. All of the slams I've used here, are in reference to your statements/actions, expressed beliefs and affirmed causes.

You have proffered not one bit of evidentially supported discussion of the topics. All you've done is personal attacks against me.

As I said, I'd be impressed if you actually did show some intellectual integrity and capacity for rational debate rather than just keep insisting I'm wrong.

Others in this forum have demonstrated such qualities and I appreciate them for it even when we disagree on some issues.

[Speak2Truth]

you didn't get my point. your thought process = war. i believe everybody values peace and mutual understanding. and this is possible if we are willing to work together.

That only works if both sides believe in and strive for that objective. Do you believe the Muslims who will murder a Christian for preaching the Bible in their country, will murder a man for being gay, will murder a girl for "shaming" the family by becoming interested in a boy, will pretty much murder anyone who does not submit and do as they say - are on the same team as you?

are you of the worldview that war is inevitable and its best to have enemies well identified ahead of time and a bigger gun?

I accept the statements of a group saying "You will submit to Islam. We will kill you if you don't." I believe they're being honest and, as a forward-thinking human being (you know, the sort who also stores grain for the lean years), I prepare to the best of my ability for their carrying out their clearly stated threats.



Do you see peace and mutual understanding?

Do you think I'm making this up as an excuse to be aggressive toward someone else?

[Speak2Truth]

This is a response to Mad Miles' off-topic post in the Neanderthal forum. I hope he'll join in the slavery discussion here.

Miles, what part of "Slavery was officially established in Virginia in 1654, when Anthony Johnson convinced a court that his servant (also a black man), John Casor, was his for life." do you fail to comprehend?

Someone mistakenly claimed you had some research skills. You assert that "I've seen no scholarly work on this matter." It seems due to a lack of effort on your part.

All you're saying is THAT YOU DID NOT FIND ANYONE REFUTING the information I'm posting. That speaks to the strength of the information, as in unrefuted.

And, yes, Anthony Johnson's legal victory, to legally establish his ownership of a fellow black man for life, did set a legal precedent that extended to some of the British colonies in North America. In others, the moral repugnance of slavery prevailed.

Even white people were held as slaves and suffered the same horrors as their black brethren. Did you find that in your search for scholarly information? I did.

All your denials seem to be based on a lack of research, an attempt to project attitude rather than seek truth.

[podfish]

This is a response .....
Miles, what part of "Slavery was officially established in Virginia in 1654, when Anthony Johnson convinced a court that his servant (also a black man), John Casor, was his for life." do you fail to comprehend?

what you yourself don't seem to comprehend is that this kind of technical nitpicking doesn't really support an argument. You can dredge through historical trivia if you like; it's often entertaining and adds color to an argument. It does not often add illumination. Unless you think that without this individual's legal efforts there'd be no slavery in the colonies, I don't see the importance of this point. And if you -do- think that, I think you completely misread history.

[Speak2Truth]

what you yourself don't seem to comprehend is that this kind of technical nitpicking doesn't really support an argument. You can dredge through historical trivia if you like; it's often entertaining and adds color to an argument. It does not often add illumination. Unless you think that without this individual's legal efforts there'd be no slavery in the colonies, I don't see the importance of this point. And if you -do- think that, I think you completely misread history.

Actually, my original assertion is fully backed by this point (and the fact of white slaves suffering along with their black brethren).

Slavery was NOT a white-on-black institution as modern day revisionists pretend. It still is not.

Once you learn the true history, all this "race" crap, sowing hatred against white people, is exposed for what it really is. Crap.

The motive is to create racial divisiveness. It's a common strategy to divide and conquer a society. The KGB established the Church of Liberation Theology, for example, to propagate that strategy.

I point out this true history because of my love for my fellow man. By learning Truth, we can overcome the Hatemongers and their damnable lies. If we can shut down their racist-hate machine, we can look upon one another as brothers again, realize that NONE OF US was involved in that, and begin working together toward a common, better future.

Are you in?

[rossmen]

oh so now the target is liberation theology? and this in the service of challenging hate mongers to promote unity? in response to someone who challenged your understanding with clear logic? your words do match your stated reasons for being here s2t

Actually, my original assertion is fully backed by this point (and the fact of white slaves suffering along with their black brethren).

Slavery was NOT a white-on-black institution as modern day revisionists pretend. It still is not.

Once you learn the true history, all this "race" crap, sowing hatred against white people, is exposed for what it really is. Crap.

The motive is to create racial divisiveness. It's a common strategy to divide and conquer a society. The KGB established the Church of Liberation Theology, for example, to propagate that strategy.

I point out this true history because of my love for my fellow man. By learning Truth, we can overcome the Hatemongers and their damnable lies. If we can shut down their racist-hate machine, we can look upon one another as brothers again, realize that NONE OF US was involved in that, and begin working together toward a common, better future.

Are you in?

[rossmen]

you confuse values and objectives. you dehumanize muslims. this is easy to do with any country or culture. your very words could be used to question us. this is why your thought process=war. as long as nations and cultures and religions are teams/sides we will be at war. if we recognise our common values then we can work toward mutual objectives.

That only works if both sides believe in and strive for that objective. Do you believe the Muslims who will murder a Christian for preaching the Bible in their country, will murder a man for being gay, will murder a girl for "shaming" the family by becoming interested in a boy, will pretty much murder anyone who does not submit and do as they say - are on the same team as you?



I accept the statements of a group saying "You will submit to Islam. We will kill you if you don't." I believe they're being honest and, as a forward-thinking human being (you know, the sort who also stores grain for the lean years), I prepare to the best of my ability for their carrying out their clearly stated threats.



Do you see peace and mutual understanding?

Do you think I'm making this up as an excuse to be aggressive toward someone else?