Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be condescending. What they call American history today sanitizes the role of Christianity, to the point that the youth is completely unaware of this nations deeply rooted Christian heritage. The seculization of this country is a recent phenomena. Look at these state constitutions:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and
subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It wasn't just a social phenomena. Christianity has shaped our nation at the roots. Consider the Mayflower Compact, the first governing document of the Plymoth Colony:

"In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November [New Style, November 21], in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620."

Consider that the "Old Deluder Satan Act", enacted so that Americans would learn scripture and not be deceived by Satan, is the first enactment of public education in this country.

When you say the say our government was influenced by Deism, and not Christianity, you have a long way to go to prove that. At least 50 of the framers were Christians, out of 55.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Every single president has taken his oath on the bible and referred to God in his inaugural address.

The supreme court, after an exaustive 10 year study, declared in 1892 in the Holy Trinity decison "This is a relgious people. This is a Christian nation.".

The supreme court opens every session with "God save the United States of America.

The reasoning behind the checks and balances is because man has a fallen nature and cannot be trusted with absolute power:

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

James Madison

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

Do you not realize that this very letter you are citing, which TJ wrote to the Danbury Baptist association from France, is the entire foundation of the claim of "seperation of church and state"? Those words do not appear in the constitution or anywhere else. It was only a series of court rulings starting in 1947 which interpreted the establishment clause through this particular letter that led to "seperation of church and state" as we know it today. However, this interpretation, in light of the evidence I presented you in the previously reply, is obviously false. The "wall of seperation" that Jefferson is referring to does not mean what you and the liberal courts think it means. If it did, again..why would Jefferson attend church in the house of representitives? Why would he gives federal funds to Christian missionaries? Why would he be okay with teaching the bible in public schools? None of that makes any sense in light of the interpretation that is espoused today. Consider these quotes from William Rehnquist, former chief justice of the supreme court:

"But the greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the framers.”

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

There are plenty of founders who believed that Christianity was central to our identity as a nation. Why do you think it says in the declaration of independence:

"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."

It says our rights come from God and not from men. Why do the founders say things like this:

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."

John Hancock

"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace."
--As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.

Samuel Adams

Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

James Madison

“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

George Washington

God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?”

Thomas Jefferson

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.
I think the misunderstanding is entirely on your side of the debate. Atheists are basically trying to rewrite history and say this nation was intended to be secular, when all evidence points the other direction.

i sincerely esteem the constitution a system which, without the finger of god, never could have been agreed upon by such a diversity of interests

Alexander Hamilton

Atheists are trying to remove God from every sphere of public life, even suing to remove the word God from logos or remove nativity scenes from public property. That was never the intention of the founders. Many of them were openly religious and felt free to use the government and government funding towards furthering Christianity.

It would be akin to you inviting me to stay at your house, and then I inform you that I am going to completely redecorate it without your permission. I also tell you that you have to stay in your room at all times so I don't have to see you. This is why Christians have a problem with this narrative. This nation has always been predominantly Christian. Our many liberties come directly from biblical principles.

americans combine the notions of christians and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible for them to conceive of one without the other.

alexus de tocqueville 1835

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't

We all have a God given conscience which tells us right from wrong. I think anyone is capable of being moral, at least to a point. We're all equal in Gods eyes, and that is the way it should be in this country. I am not interested in establishing a theocracy; that could only work if Jesus returned. This whole idea though of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous. It's ingrained on our monuments, written on the walls of all three branches of government, stamped on our money, and is deeply rooted in all aspects of our history and culture. You cannot seperate the two. We've already seen the shocking moral decline that America has gone through in its departure from biblical morality. This is evidence that if you try to rip out the foundation, the whole thing will crumble.

>> ^LukinStone:

>> ^lantern53:

Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions.
Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does.
Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption.
My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage.
You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know.
I'm a big believer in experience, myself.


lantern53, we've had some good times, but this will have to be my last post on the subject. Unless you make a worthwhile argument.

Point by point:

"Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions."

Bad joke, not factually off base, but minus one for style.

"Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does."

The definition of legislate: 'to perform the function of legislation; specifically: to make or enact laws' or 'to mandate, establish or regulate by or as if by legislation'

So, are you suggesting that the president only executes? The Supreme court only judges? I'm not calling you stupid, but your attempt to use language to cover your argument is. I think it's completely valid to use the word "legislate" to describe some of what the president does, as he has an effect on laws being made, even outside utilizing the veto. Besides, presidential contenders are often asked about legislation they would support. I wouldn’t think using this word would confuse anyone, unless they hadn't yet taken eighth grade American history.

"Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption."

Yeah, we're responding to what you wrote. See, when adults write things, we can tell things due to context and implication. It's not really an unfounded assumption on my part to infer that you were preaching the evils of premarital sex. This discussion is about a video concerning Santorum's views. You defended him. So, we'll assume you think he has valid ideas.

"My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage."

Okay, fine. Let's just ignore everything else. Here's your point. Same as last time, you are wrong. We can't define social problems like this and rate them from better to worse. Have you seen "Dead Poet's Society"? Remember when Robin Williams rips the intro out of their Literature textbook? He does that because the text was attempting to rate something as subjective as art. Here you're doing the same thing as that chart attempted in that movie, saying one subjective human experience is better than another. I bet you could come up with a handy chart too. Instead of a Literature text book, you're invoking religion or tradition as the authority when making such a claim. Either way, its BS.

"You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know."

Thank you, I will. Notice, I made this same point in my last post. I interpret the 'but in the end' bit as you saying: Just sleep around outside of marriage and you'll suffer, just wait.

"I'm a big believer in experience, myself."

Really? You don't seem to value experience if you think never having sex outside of marriage is the ideal path for all Americans. Some people would consider that inexperience. I consider it sad.

The bible isn't some mythical book written by some omnipotent being. It is a collections of short stories, carefully selected and complied by the Roman Catholic church 200 years after some guy names Jesus may or may not have lived. They were hand selected and occasionally edited to create a book that the Roman Catholic church could use to control and scare the pagan and outlying sects of early christianity under one banner.....theirs.

The bible is the inspired word of God, and your read of history leaves much to be desired. First, many of the books in the NT were considered canon around 140 AD, just as the early church was getting its start, and there was no conspiracy in selecting them. The only issue in the selection process was to weed out the gnostic writings and the uninspired works from the old testament era. Second, the RCC was not an institution until much later. By the time the bible was canonized in 367, the whole church was in agreement about what should be in it. There is also no evidence of editing. We have the early manuscripts and can check this.

To say this nation was founded on Christian ideals is a complete and utter fallacy, one that has been force fed to you and every other American for decades. The entire revolutionary war and the rebellion against England had absolutely nothing to do with god or religion. It was due to the occupation of Boston, the taxes levied on everything imported or exported from the colonies and the fact that the colonials were fed up with totalitarian control from a king 3000 miles away. When those men were killed at The Boston Massacre in 1770, their religion, race or background played zero part in the aftermath and the birth of a revolution that soon followed.

That's as biased a read of american history as I have ever heard. To say that Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of this country is patently absurd. If you want evidence, feel free to read my other post, or do some *unbiased* research. I suppose you have never seen the Mayflower Compact?

http://www.pilgrimhall.org/compact.htm

Were members of the first Continental Congress religious? Of course. Were they highly educated and well read? Absolutely. The Bible was one of the most widely available books at that time and I am sure every one of them had read it. I am a staunch atheist and even I have read it cover to cover (ironically reinforcing my atheism). Of course references to the bible are in the early writings, documents and monuments of the day. The bible, while complete, man-made fiction, is still full of fairly useful and often poignant quotes.

It's impossible for you to understand the bible without the Holy Spirit. It might as well have been written in swahili for the good that it did you reading it. The accuracy of the bible is not just a historical matter but also in how it describes the human condition. That's why you have those quotes you have to admit are undeniably true, because the bible tells us the reality of the human heart. Yes, of course the founders read it (many of them went to seminary). There were many books in those days, and many philosophies, but they specifically chose the bible, and books based on the bible, as references to draft our nations founding documents, which itself is well documented. Most of them believed the bible was the inspired word of God, which was the reason they used it, not because it was a "popular book of short stories".

Freedom of religion is as much freedom FROM religion and it is to practice whatever religions you want as you see fit. The separation of church and state was not only to avoid having a state religion, but to also avoid the church taking over the government as it had so many times in history. Sadly, we have fallen right back in the trap where religion, specifically CHRISTIAN religion, has as much impact on policy in the America government today as it did during the crusades in Europe when people's lives were dictated by what the church deemed appropriate and right and not the people as a whole. When you have a president of this nation saying that he went to war, ignoring Congress in the process, in the Middle East because god told him to, shit has gone WAY too far.

Apparently you don't know but there was a defacto state religion; almost every state had its own church, and every state constitution mentioned God. Again, they held church every sunday in the house of representitives. Clearly the founders were not interested in removing religion from government, they were only concerned about the balance of power. The secular dream you think the founders had never existed; they loved God and deliberately included Him in public affairs. After they wrote the constitution, Washington declared a day of thanksgiving and praise to God

"to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God"

"http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/thanksgiving/"

>> ^Hive13

@quantumushroom

When you look over American history, at all the great social changes from the ending of slavery, to women's suffrage, to the New Deal, to labor rights, to civil rights, to gay rights, conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history. Pro slavery, anti suffrage, anti labor, anti civil rights, anti gay.

If you could travel back in time, would you join hands with the conservatives of the past to defend these various forms of oppression, or would you have the courage to stand up to the crowd and rebel against these injustices?

Now, at the dawn of the next big step towards social justice, you sit in the bleachers of our mutual oppressors in a revealing skirt, waving a pair of pompoms like so many generations of conservatives before you.

When the schoolchildren of the twenty-fifth century study our era, do you really want your legacy to be one of unquestioned fealty to global corporate empire?

It's never too late to join the rebel alliance.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sure as an unbeliever you think it is purely coincidental that founding this country on Christian principles led to it being the greatest country in history within 200 years.
I'm sure that you also think that its a coincidence that since they started taking God out of our schools and public life in the 60's, violent crime has gone up 500 percent, murder rates have tripled, divorce rates have doubled, STD rates are up 200 percent, fatherless households increased from 6 to 40 percent, unwed birth rates of 10-14 year olds up 500 percent etc
This isn't how it ought to be, or how the founders intended. We have a society that accepts all of these diverse views because of the Christian principles of personal freedom and liberty. Atheists, using these great freedoms afforded to them by our judeo-christian heritage, want to use them to dismantle the very foundation of what gave them those freedoms in the first place. What in the world do you think is going to happen when you tamper with the foundation? It is all going to fall apart, as we see it happening today.
This country was founded on a covenant with God, and much like israel, when we reject our Creator, judgement isn't far behind. The secularization of this society is basically suicide.

>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If you don't believe that America is founded on judeo-christian beliefs then you don't know anything about American history.
There's little point in debating the way things used to be, when you should be debating how they ought to be.


Nobody got that? He says it right there: "I'm a Troll, I'm a Troll!"

I'm sure as an unbeliever you think it is purely coincidental that founding this country on Christian principles led to it being the greatest country in history within 200 years.

I'm sure that you also think that its a coincidence that since they started taking God out of our schools and public life in the 60's, violent crime has gone up 500 percent, murder rates have tripled, divorce rates have doubled, STD rates are up 200 percent, fatherless households increased from 6 to 40 percent, unwed birth rates of 10-14 year olds up 500 percent etc

This isn't how it ought to be, or how the founders intended. We have a society that accepts all of these diverse views because of the Christian principles of personal freedom and liberty. Atheists, using these great freedoms afforded to them by our judeo-christian heritage, want to use them to dismantle the very foundation of what gave them those freedoms in the first place. What in the world do you think is going to happen when you tamper with the foundation? It is all going to fall apart, as we see it happening today.

This country was founded on a covenant with God, and much like israel, when we reject our Creator, judgement isn't far behind. The secularization of this society is basically suicide.


>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If you don't believe that America is founded on judeo-christian beliefs then you don't know anything about American history.
There's little point in debating the way things used to be, when you should be debating how they ought to be.

>> ^shinyblurry:
If you don't believe that America is founded on judeo-christian beliefs then you don't know anything about American history.

There's little point in debating the way things used to be, when you should be debating how they ought to be.

Really!? You mean the apostles weren't born in America? Sigh..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

"The word is used as a title, hence its common reciprocal use Christ Jesus, meaning "The Messiah Jesus". Followers of Jesus became known as Christians (as in Acts 11:26) because they believed Jesus to be the Christ, or Christos, or Christian Messiah, prophesied in the Old Testament - therefore they often call him Jesus Christ, meaning Jesus is the Christos."

If you don't believe that America is founded on judeo-christian beliefs then you don't know anything about American history. This isn't one of those subjects where you can look at the evidence and plausibly say it could go either way. It is totally beyond a shadow of a doubt.

For instance, did you know that the act which established the public school system in this country is called "The Old Deluder Satan Act"? The reason it was called that is because they wanted the public to be able to read and understand scripture so they wouldn't be deluded about the truth by Satan. Is it getting clear to you yet?

http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/deluder.html

"It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted with false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers; and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors."

>> ^Diogenes:

i know less than some, and i know more than some... but i certainly won't be learning any history from your trollish spiels
the word 'christian' appears in the bible, huh? you mean it appears in an english translation of the bible, right? because none of the original manuscripts that came to form the new testament contained any english
the original texts were in greek, aramaic, and hebrew - we see khristos derived from the nominative greek, which was simply a direct translation from the hebrew meaning of messiah or annointed one - latin added the '-anos' suffix to create the adjective form
hey! did you know that the swahili word 'mafuriko' appears in the epic of gilgamesh? yes, it means 'flood'
>> ^shinyblurry:
You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible
>> ^Diogenes:
you, sir, are full of dumb

The solution is to only allow 50% of people to vote?

Nowhere does it state in the text of the column that voting is to be restricted for anyone, only that stupid, uninformed voters may be the end of the Republic.

Civil war? May happen anyway.



>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^quantumushroom:
"Consider the Ohio voters. Ohio has a failing economy with one of the nation’s highest state income tax rates and forced unionization – Ohio private sector workers can be forced to join a union in order to work. By a narrow margin they elected a governor, John Kasich, who promised to bring government employee unions under control. Kasich ushered a law through the Ohio legislature that restricted collective bargaining rights for government employee unions.
"OK … let’s stop here for a moment and consider government unions engaging in collective bargaining. Would you like to know two prominent people in American history who steadfastly opposed government union collective bargaining? That would be Franklin D. Roosevelt and labor giant George Meany, the former president of the AFL-CIO. That’s not to say these men didn’t support the growth of unions! Come on! FDR and George Meany? Of course they were pro-union. But they recognized that while private sector unions were bargaining for a share of the profits they produced through their work, government sector unions didn’t generate profits. They were merely negotiating for taxpayer money … negotiating with politicians they put in office with their campaign contributions and volunteer efforts on election day.
"So now the uninformed and often flat-out ignorant voters of Ohio have handed these collective bargaining rights back to the government sector unions. They will not resume negotiations with the very officials they put into office for the money in the pockets of the people who gave them that power. The only way Ohio government entities will have to handle the rising costs will be to raise taxes, cut services or fire workers.
"Yes --- I understand. The question on the ballot for Ohio voters was poorly worded. Worded, in fact, to favor the union organizers who got that question put on the ballot through a petition process. That doesn’t excuse the voters. This is their money, their economy, their future and the future of their children. They owed it to themselves and their children to become informed on the issues. They didn’t. Ohio will suffer. They will suffer. Their children will suffer if they don’t get the hell out of Ohio and move to Wisconsin or some other state with right-to-work laws where government sector unions don’t have collective bargaining rights.
"Democracy is ugly. Majority rule can be a disaster. There is a reason our founding fathers thought it to be a good idea to limit who had the privilege (not the right) of going to the polls and selecting our leaders. There was a reason our founding fathers did not include a right to vote in a federal election – including voting for our president – in the constitution. They didn’t trust mobs. They didn’t want to see the “mindless whims of the masses” translated into law. They were right … but to no avail. Now the masses are taking their ignorance to the polls. We live in a country where over half of the people get some kind of a check from the government every month without working for it … and they vote. Now you tell me how we’re supposed to survive that."

Neal Boortz from "In the end ... it's the idiot voters destroying the country "

The solution is to only allow 50% of people to vote? I'd consider what the long term effects of that were before chasing that dream if i were you. You might find yourself either in a civil war or at the helm of an oppressive government in effect holding half a nation prisoner.
Democratic government was founded upon the mindless whims of the masses, it is supposed to be subject to the national will.
And now it serves the mindless whims of the few. Up with Occupy.

>> ^quantumushroom:

"Consider the Ohio voters. Ohio has a failing economy with one of the nation’s highest state income tax rates and forced unionization – Ohio private sector workers can be forced to join a union in order to work. By a narrow margin they elected a governor, John Kasich, who promised to bring government employee unions under control. Kasich ushered a law through the Ohio legislature that restricted collective bargaining rights for government employee unions.
"OK … let’s stop here for a moment and consider government unions engaging in collective bargaining. Would you like to know two prominent people in American history who steadfastly opposed government union collective bargaining? That would be Franklin D. Roosevelt and labor giant George Meany, the former president of the AFL-CIO. That’s not to say these men didn’t support the growth of unions! Come on! FDR and George Meany? Of course they were pro-union. But they recognized that while private sector unions were bargaining for a share of the profits they produced through their work, government sector unions didn’t generate profits. They were merely negotiating for taxpayer money … negotiating with politicians they put in office with their campaign contributions and volunteer efforts on election day.
"So now the uninformed and often flat-out ignorant voters of Ohio have handed these collective bargaining rights back to the government sector unions. They will not resume negotiations with the very officials they put into office for the money in the pockets of the people who gave them that power. The only way Ohio government entities will have to handle the rising costs will be to raise taxes, cut services or fire workers.
"Yes --- I understand. The question on the ballot for Ohio voters was poorly worded. Worded, in fact, to favor the union organizers who got that question put on the ballot through a petition process. That doesn’t excuse the voters. This is their money, their economy, their future and the future of their children. They owed it to themselves and their children to become informed on the issues. They didn’t. Ohio will suffer. They will suffer. Their children will suffer if they don’t get the hell out of Ohio and move to Wisconsin or some other state with right-to-work laws where government sector unions don’t have collective bargaining rights.
"Democracy is ugly. Majority rule can be a disaster. There is a reason our founding fathers thought it to be a good idea to limit who had the privilege (not the right) of going to the polls and selecting our leaders. There was a reason our founding fathers did not include a right to vote in a federal election – including voting for our president – in the constitution. They didn’t trust mobs. They didn’t want to see the “mindless whims of the masses” translated into law. They were right … but to no avail. Now the masses are taking their ignorance to the polls. We live in a country where over half of the people get some kind of a check from the government every month without working for it … and they vote. Now you tell me how we’re supposed to survive that."

Neal Boortz from "In the end ... it's the idiot voters destroying the country "


The solution is to only allow 50% of people to vote? I'd consider what the long term effects of that were before chasing that dream if i were you. You might find yourself either in a civil war or at the helm of an oppressive government in effect holding half a nation prisoner.

Democratic government was founded upon the mindless whims of the masses, it is supposed to be subject to the national will.

And now it serves the mindless whims of the few. Up with Occupy.

"Consider the Ohio voters. Ohio has a failing economy with one of the nation’s highest state income tax rates and forced unionization – Ohio private sector workers can be forced to join a union in order to work. By a narrow margin they elected a governor, John Kasich, who promised to bring government employee unions under control. Kasich ushered a law through the Ohio legislature that restricted collective bargaining rights for government employee unions.

"OK … let’s stop here for a moment and consider government unions engaging in collective bargaining. Would you like to know two prominent people in American history who steadfastly opposed government union collective bargaining? That would be Franklin D. Roosevelt and labor giant George Meany, the former president of the AFL-CIO. That’s not to say these men didn’t support the growth of unions! Come on! FDR and George Meany? Of course they were pro-union. But they recognized that while private sector unions were bargaining for a share of the profits they produced through their work, government sector unions didn’t generate profits. They were merely negotiating for taxpayer money … negotiating with politicians they put in office with their campaign contributions and volunteer efforts on election day.

"So now the uninformed and often flat-out ignorant voters of Ohio have handed these collective bargaining rights back to the government sector unions. They will not resume negotiations with the very officials they put into office for the money in the pockets of the people who gave them that power. The only way Ohio government entities will have to handle the rising costs will be to raise taxes, cut services or fire workers.

"Yes --- I understand. The question on the ballot for Ohio voters was poorly worded. Worded, in fact, to favor the union organizers who got that question put on the ballot through a petition process. That doesn’t excuse the voters. This is their money, their economy, their future and the future of their children. They owed it to themselves and their children to become informed on the issues. They didn’t. Ohio will suffer. They will suffer. Their children will suffer if they don’t get the hell out of Ohio and move to Wisconsin or some other state with right-to-work laws where government sector unions don’t have collective bargaining rights.

"Democracy is ugly. Majority rule can be a disaster. There is a reason our founding fathers thought it to be a good idea to limit who had the privilege (not the right) of going to the polls and selecting our leaders. There was a reason our founding fathers did not include a right to vote in a federal election – including voting for our president – in the constitution. They didn’t trust mobs. They didn’t want to see the “mindless whims of the masses” translated into law. They were right … but to no avail. Now the masses are taking their ignorance to the polls. We live in a country where over half of the people get some kind of a check from the government every month without working for it … and they vote. Now you tell me how we’re supposed to survive that."



Neal Boortz from "In the end ... it's the idiot voters destroying the country "

@NetRunner

"I'm always puzzled when people respond to a misunderstanding this way. When someone misunderstands me, I generally consider that a failure on my part to make myself understood.

For some reason, some people who debate me seem to think failing to make themselves understood means they've scored some sort of victory over me."

^Assine bullshit. I was pretty damn clear about my POV. When I fail to convey my message, I look back and admit it every single time--unless the person I am debating is an obvious troll. But when I am clear I don't need to feel like I made the mistake.

What chaps my ass is that you considered me so damned inept as to totally fuck up the whole premise of a simple-to-understand movie (American History X.) In fact, I would have had to get the whole concept backwards entirely--a truly magnificent feat of stupidity!

And the worst part? You did it unintentionally, which only makes things worse, because if you had done it on purpose at least I could have considered you just trolling. But accidentally? You honestly believed me that retarded, that monolithically brain damaged. Perhaps I am wrong, but have I ever interpreted your comments in such a manner? That even apparent concepts are lost on you?

You may think it overreacting but that isn't your choice to make. It's mine.

I am no longer mad--and I do understand where you were coming from, but know where I was coming from too.

So far, the 112th congress--which is GOP/Tea Party--is the least productive congress in history

Pht - not to put too fine a point on it - but the LESS PRODUCTIVE government is, the better off the American people are. Clinton got saddled with a GOP congress in 1992 that put the brakes on his agenda. And America BENEFITED. President Reagan and Bush1 had Democrat congresses to put the brakes on them. And America BENEFITED.

Who are the two worst presidents in American history. Bush2 and Barak Obama. Why? Because under both of them government spending has skyrocketed, fiscal policy has deteriorated, and government has increased in size, scope, lack of transparency, and lack of accountability. And what is the common thread to both of these presidents? The Congress was the SAME PARTY as the President, and thier administrations were "highly productive" (in the sense that they passed a ton of legislation).

So you guys should be praising the Tea Party for slamming the brakes on a lousy government, because when thin-skinned, tin-plated self-deluded dictator-wannabes like Obama take office we NEED a 'do nothing' Congress shutting them down. Problem with Obama is he is such a crazy dictator that he just keeps doing what he wants with czars and cabinets. In a sane world, every American would demand he be thrown out of office, pilloried in town square, and then run out of town on a rail to be dumped in Cuba, or Venezuala, Iran, or some other communist dictatorship where he could feel more at home.

These ***holes won't even debate an unbelievably important ... jobs bill,"

Good, because it isn't important. It's a disaster. And you are allowed to whine about the GOP 'not debating it' only after it makes it out of the SENATE, which is controlled by the Democrats. The fact that even the Democrats can't stand this loser piece of crap should tell you a lot about how awful it is.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Wow wow wow, never once did I say American History X promoted anything remotely related to racism. I said the opposite. "Slashed into" doesn't mean "promoted." Slashed into means "hurt" racism... In fact, "slashed into" is about as far from promoting as possible.
Well that was the biggest fail from you I have seen...and I am only half kidding

I'm always puzzled when people respond to a misunderstanding this way. When someone misunderstands me, I generally consider that a failure on my part to make myself understood.

For some reason, some people who debate me seem to think failing to make themselves understood means they've scored some sort of victory over me.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Next, I meant you would detest the movie but not the free speech. You know, since the movie was made for one purpose only---capitalistic greed. Of course I am assuming the motives of the people who made the film, perhaps wrongly, but I doubt the makers had the best of intentions without the dollars.

Okay, for one, discussions about liberty are about what people should morally and legally be permitted or empowered to do, not their personal preferences. Also, to repeat myself, "positive liberty" isn't an ideology -- saying "positive liberty means you would detest the movie" makes as much sense as saying "red means you would detest the apple".

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
And, on the other note, conservatives are happy with both liberties--but only when both types of liberties are slanted in their favor (For example, see your own part where you mentioned free speech.)

True, but that's because they're hypocrites, not because they're happy with both kinds of liberty.

If I explain positive liberty to a conservative, they usually react the way you did at first, and reject it out of hand. Accepting positive liberty means that supporting liberty sometimes means requires more government intervention, not less. Right-wing people want to pretend that's always antithetical to liberty. It's not.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Liberals tend to favor both liberties less in that self-serving manner, but most still do manipulate them somewhat.

Heh, always with the equivalency. Why would liberals bother with willfully trying to misrepresent it? We don't go around asserting that our policy platform is the One True Freedom, and all who oppose us are against freedom, the way the right does.

We understand that you need to look at the whole picture, and not just whether the government is limiting people's behavior or not.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Hrm, your last point, that the alleged coercive aspect of freedoms impeding freedom is interesting.

As DFT is fond of saying, liberty for the cat is tyranny for the mouse.

It takes some thought, consideration, and debate to come up with what sorts of laws actually maximize liberty. That's what liberals believe, and we really, really, really, wish the right would participate in the debate as free thinking individuals, rather than just laying down ideological dogma and refusing to budge.

Wow wow wow, never once did I say American History X promoted anything remotely related to racism. I said the opposite. "Slashed into" doesn't mean "promoted." Slashed into means "hurt" racism... In fact, "slashed into" is about as far from promoting as possible.

Well that was the biggest fail from you I have seen...and I am only half kidding

Next, I meant you would detest the movie but not the free speech. You know, since the movie was made for one purpose only---capitalistic greed. Of course I am assuming the motives of the people who made the film, perhaps wrongly, but I doubt the makers had the best of intentions without the dollars.

And, on the other note, conservatives are happy with both liberties--but only when both types of liberties are slanted in their favor (For example, see your own part where you mentioned free speech.) Liberals tend to favor both liberties less in that self-serving manner, but most still do manipulate them somewhat.

Hrm, your last point, that the alleged coercive aspect of freedoms impeding freedom is interesting.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
A good example of negative liberty is found in the movie industry. American History X probably slashed into racism these days more (Since our young have the attention span of gnats and wouldn't listen to a long speech) than anything else (Warning, that was a very unverifiable statement.) Positive liberty would disdain such a video, one that is full of violence and racism and it's universal motivation is greed--to acquire property from the movie's sale. Of course, since it has a good "message" it would not be prohibited, of course...
But no, I read it right then.
You obviously don't understand liberty.
For one, American History X is ultimately a powerful story about tolerance, redemption, and forgiveness, and an illustration of the ugliness and pointlessness of racism. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it's actually promoting racism, as you say.
For starters, "positive liberty" doesn't say anything about the video. It's not an ideology, or a dogma.
I think you're trying to make a swipe at liberalism by saying it'd be okay with banning such a film, but the truth is we believe in free speech, and wouldn't want it banned, even if it was some sort of racist screed.
But what is free speech? Is it a positive or negative liberty?
In our legal system, it's barely considered a right. It's viewed as a negative liberty, sorta. The government can't constrain your speech, but private organizations may. Legally, you may spout whatever racist speech you like, but if your employer wants to fire you for doing so they can, and media companies can refuse to publish racist content if they like.
Some conservatives get confused about this (because they don't understand liberty), and think free speech is a positive liberty. They think that they should be legally protected from being fired for saying racist things, or that media companies should be legally compelled to publish whatever sort of racist screed they want to publish. Sometimes they even take this to a ridiculous extreme, and think free speech entitles them to a right to not be criticized for what they say.
See the difference yet?
Liberals generally are comfortable with both types of liberty being "real". Conservatives often assert that property, plus some narrow subset of negative liberty (freedom from constraint by government) is the very definition of liberty. Never mind that the net result of that is a very strict set of coercive limits being placed on people's ability to do as they please...