Quite recently, OPP spent a bit of time discussing the concept socialism. Socialistic tendencies are generally attributed to the left. So it is logical to inquire among ourselves if there is a comparable ‘ism’ on the right. Some would probably suggest f*****m in particular the N**ism we have seen in our own recent history.
These comparisons are by definition right vs left divisions that we tend to evaluate. But perhaps we are looking along the wrong fault line. There is another fault line in front of us that we recognize but have not defined well: oligarchy, a political format that divides along different issues that are more difficult to rationalize unless one is aware of their existence, and which therefore is more insidious than c*******m and f*****m because the enemy is us (or among us) and because oligarchy does not need to change the economic system—in fact, it depends on a form of capitalism and needs an elective form government to optiminze.
We hear the word ‘oligarch’ as applied to Putin and his cronies, and perhaps we mesmerize ourselves into thinking that it could not happen in the land of the free. But because of its very nature, it happens to all societies who will not recognize it.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-an-oligarchy-pros-cons-examples-3305591 This article is a good primer on oligarchy. If you choose to read the article, you will see that an oligarchy exists in a political system that has e******ns and often the trappings of a democracy. The rulers are the class of people that controls policies and legislation and “ends up with more wealth than the rest of society.” (See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_ine******y_in_the_United_States “According to a June 2017 report by the Boston Consulting Group, around 70% of the nation's wealth will be in the hands of millionaires and billionaires by 2021.”
So the oligarchs do not divide along left vs right—for instance they contribute heavily to both left and right PACS and campaigns. The division for the oligarchs is: us vs them, rich vs less-than-rich, regular folks vs elite, connected vs non-connected, very educated vs not-so-educated.
The 2016 e******n was a voice in resistance to oligarchy in squeezing a minority v**e into a p**********l win in the e*******l college. It was a reaction of the non-elites, the regular folks, the unconnected against “the swamp” of the Clintons who had betrayed their roots in Arkansas and Illinois to the oligarchical class.
But what did we get? A wannabe oligarch who wants to join bona fide oligarchs Putin, Xi, Erdogan, and the Saudi prince at the trough, whose tax plan has not made things better for the middle class, whose government is filled with corruption.
Oligarchy is an insidious enemy of liberty because of its camouf**ged wrappings.
t***hiness wrote:
Quite recently, OPP spent a bit of time discussing the concept socialism. Socialistic tendencies are generally attributed to the left. So it is logical to inquire among ourselves if there is a comparable ‘ism’ on the right. Some would probably suggest f*****m in particular the N**ism we have seen in our own recent history.
These comparisons are by definition right vs left divisions that we tend to evaluate. But perhaps we are looking along the wrong fault line. There is another fault line in front of us that we recognize but have not defined well: oligarchy, a political format that divides along different issues that are more difficult to rationalize unless one is aware of their existence, and which therefore is more insidious than c*******m and f*****m because the enemy is us (or among us) and because oligarchy does not need to change the economic system—in fact, it depends on a form of capitalism and needs an elective form government to optiminze.
We hear the word ‘oligarch’ as applied to Putin and his cronies, and perhaps we mesmerize ourselves into thinking that it could not happen in the land of the free. But because of its very nature, it happens to all societies who will not recognize it.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-an-oligarchy-pros-cons-examples-3305591 This article is a good primer on oligarchy. If you choose to read the article, you will see that an oligarchy exists in a political system that has e******ns and often the trappings of a democracy. The rulers are the class of people that controls policies and legislation and “ends up with more wealth than the rest of society.” (See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_ine******y_in_the_United_States “According to a June 2017 report by the Boston Consulting Group, around 70% of the nation's wealth will be in the hands of millionaires and billionaires by 2021.”
So the oligarchs do not divide along left vs right—for instance they contribute heavily to both left and right PACS and campaigns. The division for the oligarchs is: us vs them, rich vs less-than-rich, regular folks vs elite, connected vs non-connected, very educated vs not-so-educated.
The 2016 e******n was a voice in resistance to oligarchy in squeezing a minority v**e into a p**********l win in the e*******l college. It was a reaction of the non-elites, the regular folks, the unconnected against “the swamp” of the Clintons who had betrayed their roots in Arkansas and Illinois to the oligarchical class.
But what did we get? A wannabe oligarch who wants to join bona fide oligarchs Putin, Xi, Erdogan, and the Saudi prince at the trough, whose tax plan has not made things better for the middle class, whose government is filled with corruption.
Oligarchy is an insidious enemy of liberty because of its camouf**ged wrappings.
Quite recently, OPP spent a bit of time discussing... (
show quote)
The right has few voices that recognize the different way too much wealth is skimmed from working people. Stock market adjustments like 2007/2008 are the result of needing to account for trillions being taken out of the market, the money already came out, but needs to be formally acknowledged that smaller investors no longer have it in their accounts. It's not there but nobody knows it until the crash. The best example of a piece of where it goes is to see that the top 25 hedge fund managers make over a billion a year each in income.
t***hiness wrote:
Quite recently, OPP spent a bit of time discussing the concept socialism. Socialistic tendencies are generally attributed to the left. So it is logical to inquire among ourselves if there is a comparable ‘ism’ on the right. Some would probably suggest f*****m in particular the N**ism we have seen in our own recent history.
These comparisons are by definition right vs left divisions that we tend to evaluate. But perhaps we are looking along the wrong fault line. There is another fault line in front of us that we recognize but have not defined well: oligarchy, a political format that divides along different issues that are more difficult to rationalize unless one is aware of their existence, and which therefore is more insidious than c*******m and f*****m because the enemy is us (or among us) and because oligarchy does not need to change the economic system—in fact, it depends on a form of capitalism and needs an elective form government to optiminze.
We hear the word ‘oligarch’ as applied to Putin and his cronies, and perhaps we mesmerize ourselves into thinking that it could not happen in the land of the free. But because of its very nature, it happens to all societies who will not recognize it.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-an-oligarchy-pros-cons-examples-3305591 This article is a good primer on oligarchy. If you choose to read the article, you will see that an oligarchy exists in a political system that has e******ns and often the trappings of a democracy. The rulers are the class of people that controls policies and legislation and “ends up with more wealth than the rest of society.” (See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_ine******y_in_the_United_States “According to a June 2017 report by the Boston Consulting Group, around 70% of the nation's wealth will be in the hands of millionaires and billionaires by 2021.”
So the oligarchs do not divide along left vs right—for instance they contribute heavily to both left and right PACS and campaigns. The division for the oligarchs is: us vs them, rich vs less-than-rich, regular folks vs elite, connected vs non-connected, very educated vs not-so-educated.
The 2016 e******n was a voice in resistance to oligarchy in squeezing a minority v**e into a p**********l win in the e*******l college. It was a reaction of the non-elites, the regular folks, the unconnected against “the swamp” of the Clintons who had betrayed their roots in Arkansas and Illinois to the oligarchical class.
But what did we get? A wannabe oligarch who wants to join bona fide oligarchs Putin, Xi, Erdogan, and the Saudi prince at the trough, whose tax plan has not made things better for the middle class, whose government is filled with corruption.
Oligarchy is an insidious enemy of liberty because of its camouf**ged wrappings.
Quite recently, OPP spent a bit of time discussing... (
show quote)
FREE LUNCH!
Currently, over 75% of applications for military service are rejected for reasons of health and/or education. The cure? Free Lunch! Finance patients and students like we finance soldiers: within the defense budget (where costs vanish!), with enough accountants, auditors, and sheriffs to cut out waste, fraud, and abuse. (Yes! American families should still be able to buy their own health care and education in a totally free market, independently of any government program!)
For our defense, we need totally free healthcare for all and expense-paid education up to PhD! Cost? Other nations have government-financed healthcare and education with costs lower than those now saddled upon our young and old. With inflation controlled by the Fed and by federal income tax, we can indeed afford all our needs! Any federal tax increase will be trumped by the increased deficit spending (which is our annual after-tax savings, equal to our imports plus the annual net increase in our domestic bank savings!) Deficit spending = foreign goods + cash!
Yes! After-tax savings do indeed bring prosperity! World War II spending gave us our suburbs and 30 years of prosperity. Spending on the Marshall Plan, Korean War, Cold War, NASA, nuclear energy, Vietnam, etc., also contributed to post-war prosperity. Ask your grandmother!
Federal debt? As explained* by Ben S. Bernanke, Princeton economist and former Fed Chair, the Fed, with Congress’ OK, can buy the federal debt directly from the Treasury! No problem!
With Social Security numbers identifying individuals, computers can manage everything with minimum personnel. Congress can negotiate prices and fees for all goods and services, pay everyone their just worth, and never ever send a bill for service to a patient or to a student!
Yes, there will be growing pains! Education may already have the necessary resources but healthcare will suffer scarcities, especially dentists and rural hospitals/personnel. Until the system matures, shortages will require a program of triage to set priorities and minimize the waiting. So, “Free Lunch” healthcare will have to be implemented gradually while waiting for the graduates of “Free Lunch” education to fill the gaps in medical service! Better late than never!
So, let’s start now by extending Medicare to children up to age 19 and to all students. With their good health, we need only beef up the current system. Then, let’s annually increase the entry age by two years (age 19 to age 21) and decrease the entry age by two years (age 67 to age 65). When possible, annually increase/decrease by three or more years, until EVERYONE has current Medicare. Then, cancel all private health insurance and declare all healthcare and all education, with neighborhood nurseries, day-care, and Pre-K, to be totally free, cradle to grave!
Within ten years or so, if we can educate and build like China, there may be enough medical resources for slack to appear. By then, there should also be no more sk**led labor shortages. And much of our huge prison population could and should be trained to care for sick and old.
Totally free healthcare for all and totally free education at all levels, with just enough taxation to prevent harmful inflation, will increase deficit spending (after-tax savings!) and prosperity! Dump all the deficit hawks! Elect Social Democrats! Make America REALLY Great and Totally Free!
*
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2016/04/11/what-tools-does-the-fed-have-left-part-3-helicopter- money/
© 2018 Marvin Sussman. All rights reserved. Search: YouTube.com for Marvin Sussman!
Please copy this message and spread the word!
t***hiness wrote:
Quite recently, OPP spent a bit of time discussing the concept socialism. Socialistic tendencies are generally attributed to the left. So it is logical to inquire among ourselves if there is a comparable ‘ism’ on the right. Some would probably suggest f*****m in particular the N**ism we have seen in our own recent history.
These comparisons are by definition right vs left divisions that we tend to evaluate. But perhaps we are looking along the wrong fault line. There is another fault line in front of us that we recognize but have not defined well: oligarchy, a political format that divides along different issues that are more difficult to rationalize unless one is aware of their existence, and which therefore is more insidious than c*******m and f*****m because the enemy is us (or among us) and because oligarchy does not need to change the economic system—in fact, it depends on a form of capitalism and needs an elective form government to optiminze.
We hear the word ‘oligarch’ as applied to Putin and his cronies, and perhaps we mesmerize ourselves into thinking that it could not happen in the land of the free. But because of its very nature, it happens to all societies who will not recognize it.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-an-oligarchy-pros-cons-examples-3305591 This article is a good primer on oligarchy. If you choose to read the article, you will see that an oligarchy exists in a political system that has e******ns and often the trappings of a democracy. The rulers are the class of people that controls policies and legislation and “ends up with more wealth than the rest of society.” (See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_ine******y_in_the_United_States “According to a June 2017 report by the Boston Consulting Group, around 70% of the nation's wealth will be in the hands of millionaires and billionaires by 2021.”
So the oligarchs do not divide along left vs right—for instance they contribute heavily to both left and right PACS and campaigns. The division for the oligarchs is: us vs them, rich vs less-than-rich, regular folks vs elite, connected vs non-connected, very educated vs not-so-educated.
The 2016 e******n was a voice in resistance to oligarchy in squeezing a minority v**e into a p**********l win in the e*******l college. It was a reaction of the non-elites, the regular folks, the unconnected against “the swamp” of the Clintons who had betrayed their roots in Arkansas and Illinois to the oligarchical class.
But what did we get? A wannabe oligarch who wants to join bona fide oligarchs Putin, Xi, Erdogan, and the Saudi prince at the trough, whose tax plan has not made things better for the middle class, whose government is filled with corruption.
Oligarchy is an insidious enemy of liberty because of its camouf**ged wrappings.
Quite recently, OPP spent a bit of time discussing... (
show quote)
I believe you missed the mark. Try this shoe on for a batter fit. Conservatives/Republicans opt for a Constitutional Representative Republic based on the economic principle of capitalism the way our Founders intended. We do not desire an oligarchy and Trump would be the first to acknowledge this basic t***h. Unfortunately, Progressives stir up more dirt than a herd of rooting pigs and they are so sincere in their fabricated lies that they immediately believe them themselves.
Progressives, liberals, Democrats, whichever name you wish to tag on them, are true blooming Marxist. How do we know? We see the same class warfare and identity political tactics Marxist always use. We observe their intentional attempt to k**l an economy by causing huge dept followed by economic failure giving excuse for the government's full take over control of labor, goods and services. The huge elephant in the room, however, Is the intentional destruction of a nation's morals, values and faith, especially that of Christians. This must be accomplished in order that the State can then replace God in providing for the people's needs. The first act, they successfully remove prayer from school. Can anyone reasonably believe our Founders would have advocated for same sex marriage, a******ns, homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy, etc, etc, etc? Can anyone really believe our Founders "hid" these "rights" in the constitution all to be miraculously discovered in the past 50 years coinciding with the emergence of the Progressive philosophy and agenda?
Marxism MUST replace sacred religion with social religion and many so called mainline churches have willingly obliged. Millions of compromising Americans also slid down that same slippery slope and today those of us who oppose hedonism are the people in grievous error - we're extreme right wingers where we were once mainline thought. Thank God I've got the fortitude and faith to remain one of those Progressive define as "right wing nuts!" And to be sure, I'm just one of many millions.
The C*******t in the USSR thought they'd successfully dominated and destroyed the Russian Orthodox Church. They murdered and imprisoned clergy and faithful laity by the thousands. They confiscated church property. The faithful church went underground and with the fall of the USSR emerged strong. Today, the people of Russia are more faithful than are Christians in America and prayer in school is mandatory. The Marxist Progressives know not with Whom they fight their losing battle.
padremike wrote:
I believe you missed the mark. Try this shoe on for a batter fit. Conservatives/Republicans opt for a Constitutional Representative Republic based on the economic principle of capitalism the way our Founders intended. We do not desire an oligarchy and Trump would be the first to acknowledge this basic t***h. Unfortunately, Progressives stir up more dirt than a herd of rooting pigs and they are so sincere in their fabricated lies that they immediately believe them themselves.
Progressives, liberals, Democrats, whichever name you wish to tag on them, are true blooming Marxist. How do we know? We see the same class warfare and identity political tactics Marxist always use. We observe their intentional attempt to k**l an economy by causing huge dept followed by economic failure giving excuse for the government's full take over control of labor, goods and services. The huge elephant in the room, however, Is the intentional destruction of a nation's morals, values and faith, especially that of Christians. This must be accomplished in order that the State can then replace God in providing for the people's needs. The first act, they successfully remove prayer from school. Can anyone reasonably believe our Founders would have advocated for same sex marriage, a******ns, homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy, etc, etc, etc? Can anyone really believe our Founders "hid" these "rights" in the constitution all to be miraculously discovered in the past 50 years coinciding with the emergence of the Progressive philosophy and agenda?
Marxism MUST replace sacred religion with social religion and many so called mainline churches have willingly obliged. Millions of compromising Americans also slid down that same slippery slope and today those of us who oppose hedonism are the people in grievous error - we're extreme right wingers where we were once mainline thought. Thank God I've got the fortitude and faith to remain one of those Progressive define as "right wing nuts!" And to be sure, I'm just one of many millions.
The C*******t in the USSR thought they'd successfully dominated and destroyed the Russian Orthodox Church. They murdered and imprisoned clergy and faithful laity by the thousands. They confiscated church property. The faithful church went underground and with the fall of the USSR emerged strong. Today, the people of Russia are more faithful than are Christians in America and prayer in school is mandatory. The Marxist Progressives know not with Whom they fight their losing battle.
I believe you missed the mark. Try this shoe on f... (
show quote)
Your boondockers don't fit me very well, and I will comment on several issues later. But I agree that the Russian Orthodox Church was hit very hard by the Bolsheviks and Stalin. Their survival and their thriving today is a testament of their loyalty to their faith. Many Christians were martyred by the N**is in Germany as well----one particular hero of mine was Dietrich Bonnhoeffer ("The Cost of Discipleship"), a severe critic of Hitler, who returned to his pastorship during the war after he had escaped Germany only to be executed several weeks before the end of the war. C*******m and f*****m both lead to dark places.
padremike wrote:
I believe you missed the mark. Try this shoe on for a batter fit. Conservatives/Republicans opt for a Constitutional Representative Republic based on the economic principle of capitalism the way our Founders intended. We do not desire an oligarchy and Trump would be the first to acknowledge this basic t***h. Unfortunately, Progressives stir up more dirt than a herd of rooting pigs and they are so sincere in their fabricated lies that they immediately believe them themselves.
Progressives, liberals, Democrats, whichever name you wish to tag on them, are true blooming Marxist. How do we know? We see the same class warfare and identity political tactics Marxist always use. We observe their intentional attempt to k**l an economy by causing huge dept followed by economic failure giving excuse for the government's full take over control of labor, goods and services. The huge elephant in the room, however, Is the intentional destruction of a nation's morals, values and faith, especially that of Christians. This must be accomplished in order that the State can then replace God in providing for the people's needs. The first act, they successfully remove prayer from school. Can anyone reasonably believe our Founders would have advocated for same sex marriage, a******ns, homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy, etc, etc, etc? Can anyone really believe our Founders "hid" these "rights" in the constitution all to be miraculously discovered in the past 50 years coinciding with the emergence of the Progressive philosophy and agenda?
Marxism MUST replace sacred religion with social religion and many so called mainline churches have willingly obliged. Millions of compromising Americans also slid down that same slippery slope and today those of us who oppose hedonism are the people in grievous error - we're extreme right wingers where we were once mainline thought. Thank God I've got the fortitude and faith to remain one of those Progressive define as "right wing nuts!" And to be sure, I'm just one of many millions.
The C*******t in the USSR thought they'd successfully dominated and destroyed the Russian Orthodox Church. They murdered and imprisoned clergy and faithful laity by the thousands. They confiscated church property. The faithful church went underground and with the fall of the USSR emerged strong. Today, the people of Russia are more faithful than are Christians in America and prayer in school is mandatory. The Marxist Progressives know not with Whom they fight their losing battle.
I believe you missed the mark. Try this shoe on f... (
show quote)
...
Mike, you say, “We observe their intentional attempt to k**l an economy by causing huge dept followed by economic failure giving excuse for the government's full take over control of labor, goods and services.”
That is pretty hyperbolic because if the government collapsed, the left would lose the l*****t characteristics (a******n, homosexuality, etc) “gains” they feel they have made because the American e*****rate is center-right and would not tolerate a huge move to the left after a financial collapse. It is in the interest of the left to keep a democratic government and a stable economy in place.
Let’s see who is really responsible for large budgets.
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 cost the taxpayers $3.5T
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cutsAnd who were the prime beneficiaries of the results of these tax cuts?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/02/the-legacy-of-the-bush-tax-cuts-in-four-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.820920c1b0deThe wealthy.
Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $2.4T when interest is taken into account because Republicans borrowed money to pay for them rather than raise taxes.
It is hard to blame $3.5T+ $2.4T = $5.9T on homosexuals and a******nists desire to audacious left-leaning spending The idea that the left is the tax and spend party is the very successful propaganda myth perpetuated by the right.
Now we can add the cost of Trump’s tax cut---ouch! $1.8T.
https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-trump-tax-cuts-4586645 .
It’s just not trickling down, just as David Stockman, as Reagan’s budget director, realized that supply-side economics would not work as he described in his self-admitted “youthful screed,” The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed. Today as a hedge fund manager, Stockman extends his thinking to an inevitable future financial collapse in an even ‘screedier,’ The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America where he describes contemporary financial problems being fueled by twin problems: “FDR’s repudiation of the bipartisan tradition of sound money and the New Deal’s incubation of crony capitalism.” The twins have been adopted by the conservative right as a plan to get us to the new age of oligarchy.
We need to consider the Founders tomorrow—it is late now as you can see by my missed insertion above--sorry :).
Bezos Soros Steyer Pelosi
bringing you oligarchy since 2018!
Padre Mike: Your question, “Can anyone really believe our Founders ‘hid’ these ‘rights’ [a******n homosexuality, etc.] in the constitution all to be miraculously discovered in the past fifty years coinciding with the emergence of the Progressive philosophy and agenda?”
And the answer is, of course, a resounding NO. But neither did they try to prevent those practices from coming into public discourse or even practice.
First, a short diversion about the Founders.
“But the widespread existence in 18th-century America of a school of religious thought called Deism complicates the actual beliefs of the Founders. Drawing from the scientific and philosophical work of such figures as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Newton, and John Locke, Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs. “
“Thus, Deism inevitably subverted orthodox Christianity. Persons influenced by the movement had little reason to read the Bible, to pray, to attend church, or to participate in such rites as baptism, Holy Communion, and the laying on of hands (confirmation) by bishops.”
“Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and e******y that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214Second, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and especially the First Amendment was very much concerned with the concept of the freedom of conscience. Rodney K. Smith in his biography of Madison ("James Madison: The Father of Religious Liberty" ) goes so far as to say that Madison’s idea of freedom of conscience was larger than just freedom of religion: it included the right to think and talk about almost any subject free from governmental interference, action, and persecution.
So while Madisonian freedom of conscience does not promote a******n, homosexuality, etc,. neither does it deny them or reject them. The Constitution provides general guidelines to not restrict those concepts to be discussed and acted upon according to the laws that the community establishes. And thereby you (and I) dispute the problems associated with Roe cs Wade.
Third, a response (especially from a clergyman) might suggest that there is a natural law involved. But the Founders, coming from such diverse religious backgrounds, knew that not all interpretations of natural law converge. While you may feel a******n is a sin, some religions think that drinking alcohol is a sin. Even the playing of an organ in a worship service is considered taboo to some Christians.
So the Founders kept the Constitution free from specifics especially when freedom of conscience is such an important issue.
t***hiness wrote:
Padre Mike: Your question, “Can anyone really believe our Founders ‘hid’ these ‘rights’ [a******n homosexuality, etc.] in the constitution all to be miraculously discovered in the past fifty years coinciding with the emergence of the Progressive philosophy and agenda?”
And the answer is, of course, a resounding NO. But neither did they try to prevent those practices from coming into public discourse or even practice.
First, a short diversion about the Founders.
“But the widespread existence in 18th-century America of a school of religious thought called Deism complicates the actual beliefs of the Founders. Drawing from the scientific and philosophical work of such figures as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Newton, and John Locke, Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs. “
“Thus, Deism inevitably subverted orthodox Christianity. Persons influenced by the movement had little reason to read the Bible, to pray, to attend church, or to participate in such rites as baptism, Holy Communion, and the laying on of hands (confirmation) by bishops.”
“Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and e******y that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214Second, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and especially the First Amendment was very much concerned with the concept of the freedom of conscience. Rodney K. Smith in his biography of Madison ("James Madison: The Father of Religious Liberty" ) goes so far as to say that Madison’s idea of freedom of conscience was larger than just freedom of religion: it included the right to think and talk about almost any subject free from governmental interference, action, and persecution.
So while Madisonian freedom of conscience does not promote a******n, homosexuality, etc,. neither does it deny them or reject them. The Constitution provides general guidelines to not restrict those concepts to be discussed and acted upon according to the laws that the community establishes. And thereby you (and I) dispute the problems associated with Roe cs Wade.
Third, a response (especially from a clergyman) might suggest that there is a natural law involved. But the Founders, coming from such diverse religious backgrounds, knew that not all interpretations of natural law converge. While you may feel a******n is a sin, some religions think that drinking alcohol is a sin. Even the playing of an organ in a worship service is considered taboo to some Christians.
So the Founders kept the Constitution free from specifics especially when freedom of conscience is such an important issue.
Padre Mike: Your question, “Can anyone really beli... (
show quote)
I'm sorry, but when you assert that the Founders were predominantly influenced by Deism I know that to be untrue. That is an accepted modern excuse by some to do precisely what you have done - establish a crack in the Constitution through which the camel get his nose into the tent and finds all those hidden mysteries. The Founders were very clear that the form of government they were establishing would only work for a moral and religious people. We're failing in those specific areas in which failure destroys a nation. The bedrock, of course, is the family.
padremike wrote:
I'm sorry, but when you assert that the Founders were predominantly influenced by Deism I know that to be untrue. That is an accepted modern excuse by some to do precisely what you have done - establish a crack in the Constitution through which the camel get his nose into the tent and finds all those hidden mysteries. The Founders were very clear that the form of government they were establishing would only work for a moral and religious people. We're failing in those specific areas in which failure destroys a nation. The bedrock, of course, is the family.
I'm sorry, but when you assert that the Founders w... (
show quote)
'''
For a moral people, yes. For a religious people, no. People do not have to be religious or be associated with a religion to be moral.
How do you know the Deism argument to be untrue? Your version of history during a time when you did not live? Maybe you have some source of inspiration that you could share that has lead you to this conclusion that historians describe (e.g., above).
Crack in the Constitution? Not by me, doc. The Constitution, inspired by Deity, has survived because of its allowing freedom of conscience to diverse peoples of different religions and peoples of no religion who have given much even their lives for it. You read narrowness into it; I read breadth. You read things into it that are not there or that you think are there by your peculiar interpretation. You read religion into it when it specifically removes religion. Thank God that there is no state religion in the US for which we thank the Constitution.We see what happens to countries that have a state religion---either the religion atrophies (Europe), or becomes a tool of the state (Saudi Arabia).
Agreed: bedrock is the family.
t***hiness wrote:
'''
For a moral people, yes. For a religious people, no. People do not have to be religious or be associated with a religion to be moral.
How do you know the Deism argument to be untrue? Your version of history during a time when you did not live? Maybe you have some source of inspiration that you could share that has lead you to this conclusion that historians describe (e.g., above).
Crack in the Constitution? Not by me, doc. The Constitution, inspired by Deity, has survived because of its allowing freedom of conscience to diverse peoples of different religions and peoples of no religion who have given much even their lives for it. You read narrowness into it; I read breadth. You read things into it that are not there or that you think are there by your peculiar interpretation. You read religion into it when it specifically removes religion. Thank God that there is no state religion in the US for which we thank the Constitution.We see what happens to countries that have a state religion---either the religion atrophies (Europe), or becomes a tool of the state (Saudi Arabia).
Agreed: bedrock is the family.
''' br For a moral people, yes. For a religious pe... (
show quote)
The founders realized one thing you evidently do not and that is that morality has a source, it is not man made.
From John Adams to Massachusetts M*****a, 11 October 1798
To the Officers of the <, Start deletion,third, End,> first Brigade of the third Division of the M*****a of Massachusetts
Quincy October 11. 1798Gentlemen
I have received from Major General Hull and Brigadier General Walker your unanimous Address from Lexington, animated with a martial Spirit and expressed with a military Dignity, becoming your Characters and the <, Start deletion,Place, End,> memorable Plains, in which it was adopted.
While our Country remains untainted with the Principles and manners, which are now producing desolation in so many Parts of the World: while the continues Sincere and incapable of insidious and impious Policy: We shall have the Strongest Reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned Us by Providence. But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep <, Start deletion,[. . .], End,> simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is r**ting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by <, Start deletion,[. . .], End,> morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition <, Start deletion,and, End,> Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other
An Address so unanimous and firm from the officers commanding two thousand Eight hundred Men, consisting of such substantial Citizens as are able and willing at their own Expence, compleatly to arm, And cloath themselves in handsome Uniforms does honor to that Division of the M*****a which has done so much honor to their Country. Oaths, in this Country, are as yet universally considered as Sacred Obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable Spot is an ample Pledge of your sincerity, and devotion to your Country and its Government.
John Adams
----------------------
A significant number of the signers to the Constitution had seminary degrees. The majority Deist nonsense is an invention: a modern day convolution of t***h to support a lie.
[quote=t***hiness]'''
For a moral people, yes. For a religious people, no. People do not have to be religious or be associated with a religion to be moral.
How do you know the Deism argument to be untrue? Your version of history during a time when you did not live? Maybe you have some source of inspiration that you could share that has lead you to this conclusion that historians describe (e.g., above).
Crack in the Constitution? Not by me, doc. The Constitution, inspired by Deity, has survived because of its allowing freedom of conscience to diverse peoples of different religions and peoples of no religion who have given much even their lives for it. You read narrowness into it; I read breadth. You read things into it that are not there or that you think are there by your peculiar interpretation. You read religion into it when it specifically removes religion. Thank God that there is no state religion in the US for which we thank the Constitution.We see what happens to countries that have a state religion---either the religion atrophies (Europe), or becomes a tool of the state (Saudi Arabia).
Agreed: bedrock is the family.[/quote
THIS IS BUT ONE OF MANY REFERENCES AVAILABLE. It is no accident this revision of our religious history. In T***h, there were comments by detractors but to include their comments gave warning I had exceeded the max length. This was the very first article I found.
Did You Know that Half the Declaration's Signers Had Divinity School Training?
Historians/History
by Larry Schweikart
Mr. Schweikart is Professor of History, University of Dayton
No phrase has been more egregiously misapplied than Thomas Jefferson’s infamous “wall of separation between church and state,” a line he used in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.This line, along with references to the supposed lack of Christian faith among the Founders, has for decades fed the fires of the American l*****ts in their drive to excise any references to God and/or Christ from the public square. Yet how “ir-religious” were these Founders?
It is worth beginning at the beginning and to note that entire colonies were established precisely to serve as religious sanctuaries for various denominations of the Christian church, with Pennsylvania a Quaker state, Maryland a Catholic state, and Massachusetts a Puritan state. Moreover, the supposedly “deistic” Jefferson wrote Virginia’s Sabbath law, and far from wishing to move America away from her Christian roots, Jefferson’s Bill for “Establishing Religious Freedom” in 1786 was expressly designed to move the nation toward a less-Anglican, more Protestant base. These words hardly sound like those of a man committed to atheism or even “deism”: “Almighty God hath created the mind free,” and “all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind . . . .” Jefferson wanted to extend the Gospel by “its influence on reason alone,” not coercion. Nevertheless, that hardly supports the notion that Jefferson lacked faith in God, or, for that matter, the Gospels.
What is completely ignored in the debates about “religious freedom” is that every one of the groups fighting the tax assessments for public funding of ministers desired “religious freedom” within a Christian tradition, and none, in their wildest dreams, would have suspected the concept of religious freedom would be used to justify the removal of Christian crosses from public squares, the elimination of prayers in school, or the removal of copies of the Ten Commandments from courtrooms. In the minds of these groups, the threat of tyranny by an Anglican Church would have been a far lesser evil than the complete removal of Christianity from the public square.
There was certainly no separation of church from our Founding statesmen. Half the Declaration’s signers had some sort of divinity school training, and while John Adams was the most overtly pious, even the supposed non-believers among the Founders, such as Benjamin Franklin, found the need to turn to God in times of trouble. During the Constitutional Convention's most contentious moments, it was Franklin who not only offered a prayer but who added:
Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance [emphasis added].
Do these words sound like those of a “deist” who thinks human ability sufficient for the challenges of the day? Franklin not only went on to quote scripture a la Adams, but stated flatly that “God governs the affairs of men” (emphasis Franklin’s).
Modern historians, steeped in the “feelings” and emotions of people, demand more evidence of the “inner man” from the Founders. But faith, to all of them, was a deeply private issue, lest one come up short against another. Whether or not George Washington prayed in the snow, or whether or not declarations such as Franklin’s were for “public consumption,” it is abundantly obvious that these men spoke of God, the Creator, the Lord, the Divine (capital “D”) relentlessly. Even if it were true that, initially, such pronouncements were intended for the ears of others, it nevertheless bespeaks a Biblical law that “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17). By constantly speaking faith, they consistently built up their own. Non-believers might see hypocrisy; believers would see confession and optimism, whereby one “calls those things which do not exist as though they did.” (Romans 4:17).
The omnipresence of Christianity in America provided an undergirding to everything the Founders said and did. It was so common that most people, aside from an ultra-pious man like John Adams, did not delve deeply into the implications of their faith for every daily interaction. Yet how can one escape the fact that virtually all of the Republic’s early universities were founded by denominations with the intent of advancing the cause of Christ---and not some generic “Creator”? How does one reconcile the evidence of a long and tortured spiritual journey of Abraham Lincoln, who only “surrendered all” after Gettysburg? How can the divinity school training of so many early giants---and many later presidents, who studied theology formally---be cavalierly swept aside? And all this in a young nation in which the path to power and fame was anything but the clergy!
Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state clearly did not apply to a wall separating church and statesmen, for it was assumed by all that men of poor character could not govern. The unstated assumption beneath that was that character came from God, and faith, not from man’s own works. They spoke of character without ceasing: Alexander Hamilton stated that he would “willingly risk my life, though not my character, to exalt my station.” But of course, Hamilton had gotten that training from a New Jersey minister, who funded his education. Jefferson wrote in his Bible, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator.” Jefferson, we might add, was the chairman of the American Bible Society. Patrick Henry, in 1776, stated, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.” The First Continental Congress authorized the purchase of 20,000 Bibles in 1777 from Holland---a fact that anti-religious websites deliberately misrepresent. Indeed, the most common argument against the faith of the Founders is an argument from silence. Yet that speaks more about their view of what was properly discussed in public---even in private letters---than it does their lack of Christian faith.
Had the Founders been subject to the incessant polling we suffer from today, three things are clear: 1) They would have overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, characterized the United States as a Christian nation (leaving aside what each interpreted that to mean); 2) They would have overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, thought it imperative that leaders display the type of character that sprang from Christianity; and 3) They would have almost certainly unanimously agreed that the “wall of separation” was to prevent one Christian denomination from dominating, and was never intended to be a wedge between the government and Christianity. Even the so-called “Deists” among them would be horrified at the actions taken under the guise of protecting “religious liberty,” when in fact they are usually efforts to attack religion. I’d wager that had they seen the perversions of their intended protection of Christianity, more than a few would have uttered, “Oh, my God!”
[quote=padremike]
t***hiness wrote:
'''
For a moral people, yes. For a religious people, no. People do not have to be religious or be associated with a religion to be moral.
How do you know the Deism argument to be untrue? Your version of history during a time when you did not live? Maybe you have some source of inspiration that you could share that has lead you to this conclusion that historians describe (e.g., above).
Crack in the Constitution? Not by me, doc. The Constitution, inspired by Deity, has survived because of its allowing freedom of conscience to diverse peoples of different religions and peoples of no religion who have given much even their lives for it. You read narrowness into it; I read breadth. You read things into it that are not there or that you think are there by your peculiar interpretation. You read religion into it when it specifically removes religion. Thank God that there is no state religion in the US for which we thank the Constitution.We see what happens to countries that have a state religion---either the religion atrophies (Europe), or becomes a tool of the state (Saudi Arabia).
Agreed: bedrock is the family.[/quote
THIS IS BUT ONE OF MANY REFERENCES AVAILABLE. It is no accident this revision of our religious history. In T***h, there were comments by detractors but to include their comments gave warning I had exceeded the max length. This was the very first article I found.
Did You Know that Half the Declaration's Signers Had Divinity School Training?
Historians/History
by Larry Schweikart
Mr. Schweikart is Professor of History, University of Dayton
No phrase has been more egregiously misapplied than Thomas Jefferson’s infamous “wall of separation between church and state,” a line he used in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.This line, along with references to the supposed lack of Christian faith among the Founders, has for decades fed the fires of the American l*****ts in their drive to excise any references to God and/or Christ from the public square. Yet how “ir-religious” were these Founders?
It is worth beginning at the beginning and to note that entire colonies were established precisely to serve as religious sanctuaries for various denominations of the Christian church, with Pennsylvania a Quaker state, Maryland a Catholic state, and Massachusetts a Puritan state. Moreover, the supposedly “deistic” Jefferson wrote Virginia’s Sabbath law, and far from wishing to move America away from her Christian roots, Jefferson’s Bill for “Establishing Religious Freedom” in 1786 was expressly designed to move the nation toward a less-Anglican, more Protestant base. These words hardly sound like those of a man committed to atheism or even “deism”: “Almighty God hath created the mind free,” and “all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind . . . .” Jefferson wanted to extend the Gospel by “its influence on reason alone,” not coercion. Nevertheless, that hardly supports the notion that Jefferson lacked faith in God, or, for that matter, the Gospels.
What is completely ignored in the debates about “religious freedom” is that every one of the groups fighting the tax assessments for public funding of ministers desired “religious freedom” within a Christian tradition, and none, in their wildest dreams, would have suspected the concept of religious freedom would be used to justify the removal of Christian crosses from public squares, the elimination of prayers in school, or the removal of copies of the Ten Commandments from courtrooms. In the minds of these groups, the threat of tyranny by an Anglican Church would have been a far lesser evil than the complete removal of Christianity from the public square.
There was certainly no separation of church from our Founding statesmen. Half the Declaration’s signers had some sort of divinity school training, and while John Adams was the most overtly pious, even the supposed non-believers among the Founders, such as Benjamin Franklin, found the need to turn to God in times of trouble. During the Constitutional Convention's most contentious moments, it was Franklin who not only offered a prayer but who added:
Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance [emphasis added].
Do these words sound like those of a “deist” who thinks human ability sufficient for the challenges of the day? Franklin not only went on to quote scripture a la Adams, but stated flatly that “God governs the affairs of men” (emphasis Franklin’s).
Modern historians, steeped in the “feelings” and emotions of people, demand more evidence of the “inner man” from the Founders. But faith, to all of them, was a deeply private issue, lest one come up short against another. Whether or not George Washington prayed in the snow, or whether or not declarations such as Franklin’s were for “public consumption,” it is abundantly obvious that these men spoke of God, the Creator, the Lord, the Divine (capital “D”) relentlessly. Even if it were true that, initially, such pronouncements were intended for the ears of others, it nevertheless bespeaks a Biblical law that “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17). By constantly speaking faith, they consistently built up their own. Non-believers might see hypocrisy; believers would see confession and optimism, whereby one “calls those things which do not exist as though they did.” (Romans 4:17).
The omnipresence of Christianity in America provided an undergirding to everything the Founders said and did. It was so common that most people, aside from an ultra-pious man like John Adams, did not delve deeply into the implications of their faith for every daily interaction. Yet how can one escape the fact that virtually all of the Republic’s early universities were founded by denominations with the intent of advancing the cause of Christ---and not some generic “Creator”? How does one reconcile the evidence of a long and tortured spiritual journey of Abraham Lincoln, who only “surrendered all” after Gettysburg? How can the divinity school training of so many early giants---and many later presidents, who studied theology formally---be cavalierly swept aside? And all this in a young nation in which the path to power and fame was anything but the clergy!
Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state clearly did not apply to a wall separating church and statesmen, for it was assumed by all that men of poor character could not govern. The unstated assumption beneath that was that character came from God, and faith, not from man’s own works. They spoke of character without ceasing: Alexander Hamilton stated that he would “willingly risk my life, though not my character, to exalt my station.” But of course, Hamilton had gotten that training from a New Jersey minister, who funded his education. Jefferson wrote in his Bible, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator.” Jefferson, we might add, was the chairman of the American Bible Society. Patrick Henry, in 1776, stated, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.” The First Continental Congress authorized the purchase of 20,000 Bibles in 1777 from Holland---a fact that anti-religious websites deliberately misrepresent. Indeed, the most common argument against the faith of the Founders is an argument from silence. Yet that speaks more about their view of what was properly discussed in public---even in private letters---than it does their lack of Christian faith.
Had the Founders been subject to the incessant polling we suffer from today, three things are clear: 1) They would have overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, characterized the United States as a Christian nation (leaving aside what each interpreted that to mean); 2) They would have overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, thought it imperative that leaders display the type of character that sprang from Christianity; and 3) They would have almost certainly unanimously agreed that the “wall of separation” was to prevent one Christian denomination from dominating, and was never intended to be a wedge between the government and Christianity. Even the so-called “Deists” among them would be horrified at the actions taken under the guise of protecting “religious liberty,” when in fact they are usually efforts to attack religion. I’d wager that had they seen the perversions of their intended protection of Christianity, more than a few would have uttered, “Oh, my God!”
''' br For a moral people, yes. For a religious pe... (
show quote)
...
Thanks for the reference. And there you have it--two different views of history--just like today, two different views of America. Always glad to talk with you, Mike--even if I have to prod you for references. Not many of your colleagues do that. Have a wonderful sabbath.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.