it's true that because of America's history that we have a western/Judeo-Christian culture, but we're also suppose to have a classical liberal gov't that respects individual liberty. Immigration restrictions are an invention of the Progressives and it was done for eugenic purposes. We didn't even have immigration restrictions until the Wilson administration. I'm an Evangelical but it's because I choose to be not because of some gov't that wants me to "assimilate"
This is a side note but i feel I really have to clear this up:
i cant believe that neturei karta was used as the picture for "jews"---they do not represent jews. they are a breakaway, anti-israel, european sect whom most jews despise. And they certainly do not represent jewish culture. in fact, real jewish culture is similar to the core american ideals, as many jews helped build america and much of US law is taken from jewish law... I get upset when I see a huge plastic menorah in public...
You are 100% right, I'm sick and tired of being told that immigration is "good" for the United States. Our Culture is dying because we are letting it and political correctness just makes all these things worse.
It took a while, but its good to see you've come around on this issue. The reason so many people are mad is not because we are racist or what have you, but because we pay for it in one way or another. If an illegal alien comes and breaks laws and has children here and sends most of their money to their country, it affects us. America pays the price! We have anarchy right now purtaining to immigration. We had better do something before the levee's break to their capacity and America sinks.
If you take the average IQ of Ethnic groups, Asians and Asian Americans (Indians, Japanese, Chinese on top) have the highest in the USA. They also have the highest incomes and the highest education levels. Asians account for 4.6% of the population, yet make up more than one third of the population of Ivy League schools and nearly one half of the tech workers (both immigrant and native). Your 'Survival of the Fittest' logic will be against your own kind a few decades from now. Watch!
Hindus are the highest earning and the best read ethnic group in the USA, topping other Asian groups like Chinese and Japanese. 51% of the Engineers in the USA are foreign born. USC claims that this country needs to double its science and tech workers by 2015. Having said all those things, your idea of limiting immigration makes no sense. Why aren't you running the nation by yourselves? It would be better to give legal immigrants more rights, for they perform and serve this country better.
I never said they were native to the Americas. And why require one to be "native" to preserve?
btw- Native Americans traveled here. They were not native. In fact, they displaced an entire civilization of people known as the mounders. Very few, if any, are truly "native" in the absolute sense. All have traveled and made home where they reside. Sometimes they are displaced. Sometimes they are the ones doing the displacing.
Homo Sapiens(modern humans) evolved in North Eastern Africa. All Humans are native to Africa. The first group to invade the Americas were the ones who have already reached Asia. Native Americans arrived at the Americans from 35,000 years ago until the end of the Ice Age. They were the first to start a civilization. The Europeans who already had a home in Europe were the intruders. 'Native' doesn't necessarily mean sprouting from the ground. They are the Natives!
The "Natives" annihilated the Mounders. The Mounders were here first. And where do you get the idea that civilization works like "finders keepers"? How far do you push this principle? Should people stay within their native lands? Should they keep their ideas, values, and religions in those lands? Or do you only treat military intrusion as a crime against ownership and sovereignty?
People normally say "better luck next time" after having made a point. This being said, you misused the phrase.
My use of the term 'Native' referred to the group of people who invaded the Americas first -- in your case, they are Mounders. Can you give a more precise name? Because I couldn't find any results on the term 'Mounders.'
My intention was to make it clear to you that nobody is native in the literal sense. You are not native yourself. Saying America is for your White Christian Kind flies at the face of your own logic. And not being able to get the point is your problem. You misused logic.
Look, we are so far off the topic of your video that it is not funny. We are talking about various Christian doctrines; Christian history; State Constitutions vs our nation's founding documents, i.e. Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights; mine quoting; arguments from authority; etc.. Let's stick to your video and your premise that radical multi culturalism has a negative impact on America and that American identity equals cow toeing to Christianity and adhering to it or get out.
For what it is worth Jeremiah, you could have a VERY successful career in radio. You have a great voice, great annunciation/articulation and appreciation for theatrics. You also could do the same on television. No worries Scooter I am not gay nor hitting on you so tell your wife to chill, but you are camera friendly as well. You remind me of Tucker Carlson sans bowtie. I am not sure what your plans are but it is food for thought. Hard life though for a family man who puts family first.
Thank you for the compliments. I try very hard. I dedicate a lot of time to providing a good quality program. I also try very hard at allowing people who disagree with me the time necessary to get their point across. Sometimes I keep a caller on for two segments just to make sure they can. I don't interrupt, and I spend most of the time asking questions. Once the call is over, the topic is done. I don't use that time to backbite.
I need to lose weight to be on TV. Working on it. Doing well.
You are welcome. I am surpised that you do not get more hits. There are other vids with the same topics, who get more hits and involvement in their blogs, but their content is less stimulating and structured, in my opinion. Of course I have only seen 4 of your vids and have not been able to watch much of anything else because I am responding on two of your blogs, which is more time consuming that I thought it would be. Anyhow, though we disagree I do respect your efforts and your talent.
I do not promote my site. I RARELY comment on other sites. Most people just stumble upon it through searches on various topics. I think if I devoted some time to promotion, the site would be more active.
Being selective as to who we let in, HAS nothing to do with culture. It has to do with the individual agenda of that person. Dude you are such an intellectual fraud. Here is where I give you your out. Here is where you say that ad hominems is all I can come up with. Well Scooter, when I talk to a racist, I call them a racist. You are a pathetic representation not only of our founding fathers, but the idea of the Great Experiment and the ideology/philosophy behind it. I pity your kids
No wonder others hate us. Not just extremist Muslims, because that is a "gimme." But even secular nations which have higher life expectancy, lower teen pregnancies, lower suicide, lower violent crimes, lower crimes against personal property, higher infant mortality rates, etc.. All of these are per capita. PER CAPITA! Here is a sad and pathetic reflection on religion: Of the top 60nations reported by the CIA World FactBook, 75% are nations which the majority identify themsleves as Christian
If you are proposing that we have a secular government, we already do. A simple comparison with the colonies or early states would show that the ruling philosophy is that of secular pluralism. This may not be true of the populace, but what should be done about this? Force them to stop believe what they believe?
Can you please show me the causal and necessary connection between the general populace being secular (or Christian) and the various statistics mentioned. I am interested.
It is just a coincidence that nations whose populous identifies themselves as Christian, has more violent crimes, more abuse, more suicide, more abortions, more stds, more teen pregnancies, and makes up 75% of the top 60 nations in these areas. It is also a coincidence that nations which identify themselves as atheist/agnostic including Buddhist or Taoist nations, have less of these things. What a pesky coincidence though huh?
Coincidental isn't the right term. Circumstantial is better. If you want your stats to stick, you need to demonstrate that their causal and necessary factors are Christianity or atheism/agnosticism. Otherwise, you may as well argue that their being European, white, western, or predominantly heterosexual.
OK Scooter you do what you have to deny them so that you can feel better about yourself. It will not change the statisitics however nor Christianity's bloody history. Christians simply do not nor have they, played well with others. I did not make up the stats nor did I make up their bloody history. It is what it is. Don't be upset with me for not being part of the Christ cult or for the sickness they have spread.
Our bloody history. Nobody denies that there were atrocities that took place in history under the banner of the Church. But to act like we have a monopoly on it would be to ignore the history of violence at the hands of secularists. This would be foolish as well as historically illiterate.
Again, an out of context reply. I am guessing this is another red herring. One thing your ilk loves to do is to avoid the fact that there is no book, no doctrine, no dogma, no philosophy, no reference whatsoever that a secularist, atheist, agnostic, non theist can use to rationalize or justify their crimes against humanity. The same cannot be said for the religionist. There are several holy books to choose from which will validate crimes against humanity. FACT
I grant that there is no holy book for atheists. But what does this prove? Nothing. The crimes are still crimes. And can you please show me what verses were used to justify the atrocities you attribute to the Church? And what political leader quoted them as his or her authority?
Even if you can, what does this prove? Nothing. Unless you blur the distinction between the subject and the object.
Oh come on Scooter. You truly want to turn this into a biblical debate now? Have you EVER read your holy book of horrors from cover to cover? If you had then your question is ridiculously disingenuous. There are countless wars in the OT which were order by the OT character, "god." If you deny this fact then it proves my point even more as to how you roll. You are not interested in intellectual honesty but more so interested in apologetics. Which is an intellectual failure.
Yes. I have read it many times over. I was a theology major for two years and attended seminary until I ran out of money. But we aren't talking about the historical record as delivered in the Bible. We are talking about didactic literature, case law, casuistry, and if or when other invoked it as a justification for their actions.
Apologetics is simply the defense of a belief, a person, or an institution.
I was a Christian for over 30 yrs. I was also a pastor, evangelist, missionary and teacher. I taught the bible in Hebrew and Greek as well as Manners and Customs. I taught Textual Criticism, Christian Apologetics and other related subjects. So I too am very familiar with your holy book, the bloody history of your faith and how to use apologetics to argue or defend its bloody history. Btw, thanks for the definition of apologetics. I was so confused as to its proper meaning.
As for my point regarding mentally unstable atheists who commit crimes against humanity, they are not doing it because of some fundamental flaw within atheism. Atheism is not anti anything whereas religion is anti many things depending on the religion. The Christian religion for example can use their bible to be anti non Christian, anti gay, anti feminism, anti immigrant, etc.. There is no universal doctrine, belief, understanding, interpretation. It is an ambiguous book used to perpetuate
You're blurring the subject and the object here. A person may do many things, but this doesn't, by necessity, show a causal link with or defect in the object.
Yes, I am opposed to the homosexual lifestyle. Yes, I am opposed to radical feminism, but have voted for many women and have no problem with a woman in the workplace. Yes, I am opposed to immigrants knowingly and willingly violating our laws, but I am married to a woman whose mother came here from Korea the right way. I support the law.
Again, if you are going to deny that within the Christian religion there are doctrines which are anti humanity, then we just need to drop it and go no further on this topic. You will never get me to believe otherwise because I lived it. Most of the top Christian leaders in America are every bit of every one of the horrible attributes I listed. They claim they hate the sin not the sinner, but it is bullocks. They love feeling superior and love making money off of their phobias and Jesus.
violence, war, serperatism, intolerance, hatred, bigotry, racism, slavery, homophobia, anti-Semitism, etc., etc., ad infinitum. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., used what has been called Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. They replaced oragnized religion with self worship, cult of personality worship, worship of political ideology, etc.. So though they were against outside religions, they started religions and used the religious mindset for their agenda. None of this points to atheism.
don't need to come up with quotes. I already expressed my disdain for mine quoting and its intellectual dishonesty. But if you are going to deny that the bible is chock full of commands from the character "god" to war on other peoples, then I am left speechless but understand because that is why it is called, "blind faith". Not to mention the 613 laws of the OT which many have very bloody repercussions such as stonings for rape victims, unruly children, homosexuals, etc.. Plain and simple
it is a bloody religion. It required blood sacrifice for crying out loud. Your denial of these facts is very sad but as I stated, par for the course as most Christians have no idea or clue as to what their holy book of horrors contains.
The countries with the most appealing per capita rates of the aforementioned demographics are SECULAR/Agnostic/Atheist.
Here is my challenge to you, instead of reguritating rhetoric and unsubstantiaded bigotry, how about we use resourced statistics which are accepted by the mainstream. You show me yours, I will show you mine. If yours come from James Dobson or Fred Phelps, then it is obvious what your intent is. If mine come from Stalin or Pol Pot, then it is obvious what my intent is.
Dobson and Phelps? No. Try again. My primary influences are George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Theodore Roosevelt, Russel Kirk, Pat Buchanan, the Twelve Southerns from "I'll Take My Stand," the writers or "Who Owns America?," Samuel Francis, Hillaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, the political and cultural writings of Thomas Aquinas and Pope Leo XIII, and Lou Dobbs... among others.
You got me wrong, again.
And bigot? Depends on how you choose to define that. It is a wax nose for folks like you
I did not get you wrong because I did not make the assumption that Dobson and Phelps were your heros. You will not that I said IF. Then to drive home the point, I said IF mine are Stalin or Pol Pot. Your tactics are a shame but typical of your ilk. As for your message, yes I see it is racist, bigoted and ignorant.
Sure it does. When you allow multiple cultures to enter the country without any pressure to assimilate or speak the language, then we have a cleft nation, and a cleft culture. The impact on our holidays (take Christmas for example) is evidence enough.
A racist? My black friends at school would disagree. So would my Argentinian ex-girlfriend. So would my Asian wife. Poor souls, they don't know me half as well as you seem to!
Ah yes, the old Bill O'Reilly war on Christmas conspiracy theory. Just because business owners want to be all inclusive and wish their paying customers, "Happy Holidays," instead of singling out one religion over another, there is a conspiracy. You and your ilk are an absolute riot, you see boogeymen behined every corner.
I don't watch, listen, or read Bill O'Reilly. But I remember going to school when Christmas carols didn't have to be taken off the list (or edited), where Christmas break was called Christmas break, and where a public institution could have a nativity scene without having to put a crescent moon and a menorah next to it. And, mind you, I only used Christmas as an example.
WELCOME MY FRIEND to AMERICA as it was intended. WELCOME MY FRIEND to the secular nation you claim we are but HATE. WELCOME MY FRIEND to an ALL INCLUSIVE NATION without Government advocation of or sanction of, one religion over another. WELCOME my friend to a nation which does not allow for tax payers monies to endorse one faith over another! WELCOME!!! All are accepted here without fear of theocratic bigotry, intolerance, dispensation or Government bias! Long live our forefathers vision!
Did our founding fathers use tax money to print Bibles, provide Congress with a Christian chaplain, institute sabbath laws, blasphemy laws, and sodomy laws, etc.?
Were our founders all inclusive? Did they allow atheists to testify in court? Did they celebrate the diversity of blacks, Jews, or Muslims? Did they institute days of Fasting, Prayer, and Thanksgiving?
Modern America would cause our founders to roll over in their graves... if they haven't already.
This argument is so childish but par for the course with your ilk. Our founding fathers also owned slaves and promoted slavery as well as the mass slaughter if Indians, so I reckon we ought to go back to slavery and genocide huh? They also promoted bigotry and racism so we ought to make those legal too. Yes they were hypocrites in their lives just like you are in yours. Another great analogy you made their Scooter. They always seem to bite you in the ass though huh?
Africans owned slaves, still do. Muslims owned slaves, still do. The Greeks, Egyptians, Jews, and Chinese owned slaves. To treat it like it was unique to us is absurd.
And why do you think that wanting to return to or maintain various principles of the American culture our founders enjoyed by necessity makes me wish for a return to slavery or racism? That is absurd.
btw- I am in an interracial marriage. To infer that I would advocate racism is offensive.
Scooter, there you go again putting words in my mouth. I am well aware of the history of slavery and did not imply the U.S. was an anomoly. Your constant use of red herrings and non sequiturs is very telling. As for your wife, there were many an Uncle Tom weren't there? Or in your case an Aunt Lee. There is hypocrisy everywhere, perhaps even in your marriage and friendships with your, "black friends." It proves nothing. Your rhetoric is still in line with the KKK.
You keep talking like that about my wife and I will ban you. I have fought racism online (my old blog) and in person. I am married to an Asian woman and I am proud of it. I had been told by racists that I should abandon my "gook" daughter and "mongrel" children to return to the white race. That didn't fly with me. Your remarks are just as pathetic. I not asking you to cool it, I am telling you that if you don't, then you are done. Got it?
No need to threaten me Scooter, just do what you got to do. If you like power trips, then go ahead and get it on. It was obvious my rebuttal was sarcastic and not hateful. But if you need an out, then just do it and let it be done. You won't hurt my feelings but will only expose your insecurity. The reason I believe in the 1st Amendment is, I prefer that the racists and bigots be allowed to spew their nonsense in the open where they are exposed instead of hiding in darkened backrooms.
I don't need an out. I have only banned two people over the last 3 years on any blog, whether here or elsewhere. But I take very serious any criticism of my family. I also take serious anyone associating me with white separatists and supremacists, especially given the fact that I have fought against them (and been attacked and threated by them) over the years.
I simply made an observation, there was no attack or criticism on your family so stop being so dramatic. As for my comparing your rhetoric to White Seperatists and Supremists, I still stand by it so ban me if you must. I agree that you are no Tom Metzger or even close BUT you do sound like the softer side of the new and improved seperatist movement. Perhaps you have not heard them recently and if you had, you might see where I am coming from. You might still disagree but understand.
Having a similar position with a group that is repugnant does not indicate that we are birds of a feather. I sound like a libertarian on issues such as drugs and guns, but that doesn't mean I support libertarian ideas of abortion. My beign opposed to the war and supporting a living wage doesn't make me a democrat. The point is rather simple: Having a position similar to an unsavory group, or using arguments that are similar, doesn't place me on board with them.
Look, as I stated in one of my other posts, I have only viewed about 4 of your vids. My perception of what I see as bigotry is not based on any other vid but this one. For what it is worth, I do not believe you are a bigot/racist/seperatist. I simply commented on my initial observation/interpretation of this vid. And I still stand by the fact that your rhetoric comes across that way IN THIS VID. Lou Dobbs is also accused of this and since he is one who has influenced you, is there any wonder?
And for the record, if you trace these comments back and keep them in context, I did not know you were a Lou Dobbs fan when I made this observation. But let me again reitterate I do not think you are a bigot and racist. However, on this one subject you do sound like one. I do not think Lou is a bigot or racist either, but I can assure you I am not the only one who thinks he sounds like one. And perception is 99% of reality.
Yes, any time someone opposes mass immigration (like most all of our presidents and statesmen since the founding of this great country), they are perceived to be bigoted. But the issue of nationhood is one that should be considered. Tough questions? Yes, I grant that. But to smother the conversation with emotionally charged words like bigot or racist certainly doesn't help.
As for your other point regarding pressure to assimilate, what nonsense. Just because people choose to keep their heritage or cultural practices when they come to America, does not mean they are bad people or that it is somehow degrading America. Ever been to NY City? I love the cultural diversity, but hey that is just me. One thing is for sure however, by the 2nd generation of that family being American, they have lost their culture and diversity and have blended in. I know
Yes, been to NYC, numerous times. I am not a fan of cultural diversity. And any time an immigrant retains allegiance to the place where they came from, they are in direct violation of their oath of naturalization. But oaths just don't mean much anymore.
I don't deny that there are people who become Americanized within the first few generations. The problem is that the America they are conforming to is a mish-mash of culture and ethnic identities. Americanism is not cultural pluralism.
Honoring your culture/heritage, has NOTHING to do with politics. This is where your premise breaks down and exposes your bigotry and ignorance. I do commend you however for admitting to your disdain for cultural diversity. As well as admitting that 2nd generation Americans DO tow the line and meld into American culture. As for your bigotted caveat, according to you we need to remove not only the symbolism, but also the words on the Statue Of Liberty. "Give me your huddled masses..."
That wasn't even placed on the pedestal until 1903 and it wasn't until 1936 that the statue was first associated with immigrants. This was done by FDR. But this was during the heyday of the Immigration Act of 1924. This act restricted immigration to Europe, primary the Northeast, but other regions were secondary.
Nice try, but bad history. Dare I call it ignorance?
You still haven't shown how I am a bigot. How do you define the word?
Sorry Scooter but I did not try to assert that the words on the Statue of Liberty were words from our founding fathers. Dare I say that was ignorant of you to assume so? But since you have reset the permise to sayings which were added late in our countrie's history, how about "One nation under god" in the pledge of allegiance and "In god we trust" on our currency, in 1954 and 1955 respectively. According to your rule of measure, those words are also null and void.
I could care less if "In God we Trust" was on our currency. I think it is a sham, really.
As for the pledge, I have no problem with the original pledge without the addition.
I am far more concerned with the substance of the issue than I am with the window dressings.
What you have done, though, is to revise history. You do so with the founders, and you do so with Lady Liberty somehow representing a beacon of light to full-blown immigration. This wasn't the case, and it isn't the case.
Scooter, I never said the original intent of the Statue was for immigration. It did not become a symbol for immigration until the 20the century. My point was that it now is one and there is nothing you can do about it. You can whine, complain, stomp your feet like a bigot and racist but it will change nothing. Immigrants and slaves built this country. You talk about revisionist history, you are full of it. The KKK preaches the same message you do, FACT.
Immigrants and slaves built this country? Yes, immigrants who came over here to be America. Who swore an oath that they should all go back and reconsider. Slaves? Give me a break.
No, the KKK preaches white separatism, white supremacy, and hatred of other races. I do not. To compare me with them is despicable.
Look Scooter, your rhetoric is no different than theirs. Just because you do not say you hate immigrants and minorities, does not mean the message is fundamentally different. The "smart talking" seperatist/racist, uses softer language these days so as not to offend, but it is IDENTICAL to yours minus the hate speech. I am sorry but this is a FACT. And it is a hoot that you believe slaves had nothing to do with building this country. More KKK nonsense.
Identical to mine minus the hate speech. Then it isn't identical. I may use arguments against NAFTA that are used by atheist, but equivocation would be absurd. I may use arguments for a just wage like liberals, but this doesn't make me a liberal. Equivocation is a bad tactic.
I'm willing to hear you out here. To what extent did slaves build this country or its institutions?
First off, let's get back to the intellectual honesty here mkay? I never claimed that slaves wrote our founding documents or set up America's institutions. However, without slaves working in the sugar, cotton and tobacco fields, which is incredibly labor intensive and just to name a few, we might not have been as successful. That is arguable I understand but we can only go on what we know and what we know is slavery helped build a stronger economic and export system much quicker than if the
Scooter, you ignored the significance of freeing up a labor force. You ignored the fact that slavery increased the per capita income in the south. You ignored the fact that slavery rapidly increased our exports which in turn helped cement our financial security/stability. Very weak rebuttal on your part. No substance at all.
labor had been paid for in a traditional wage for labor system. Indentured servants also helped but that was more after the civil war. Slavery certainly raised the per capita income in the south. I believe slavery also quickened America's industrialization. Again that is arguable but it is my opinion. I understand that it can be argued that America was set back because of slavery, most specifically because of the civil war it caused. But I believe that can also be interpreted differently
Do you really believe that the Civil War was over slavery? I don't wish to go down a rabbit trail here, as our conversation is extensive already, but I find it interesting when people make this claim.
Ummm, have you studied Lincoln's Senate race against Congressman Douglas? Slavery was an issue before Lincoln took the presidential office. I agree that after he took office slavery took back seat, but it did reemmerge and took the forfront. So instead of claiming an interest into a supposed bogus claim, how about you offer your evidence that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.
In a letter from Lincoln to Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune. He said:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it..."
Slavery was incidental, and it only became an issue after the rise of radical abolitionism. This would make a great subject elsewhere, but I don't wish to be sidetracked here.
Forgive me I was horrbily wrong in my assertion that your quote was not accesible outside of Kee's book. However my rebuttal, disregarding my ignorance on the Greely letter is still apropos. Slavery was an issue with Lincoln before he took the office of President in his Senate race with Congressman Douglas, and anti slavery became his defining legacy during his Presidency. The fact that you argue this with such zeal disregarding the overwhelming scholarly position is what makes you appear bigot
I never said it was a non-issue. I simply stated that it wasn't Lincoln's rationale for the war.
Question: What did Lincoln say of slavery in Douglas debate? What were his remarks on Dred Scott? Did he believe that slaves were "private property"?
And what did Lincoln wish to do with emancipated slaves? Make them voters or jurors? Did he tell Douglas he wanted social or political equality? What about intermarriage?
I disagree with Lincoln on his answers, but don't whitewash history here.
and say that America is better because of the civil war. Plain and simple, slaves and slavery had a great impact on America and helped build America what it is today, whether good or bad, it helped build America into what it is.
As for me comparing your rhetoric to the KKK regarding immigrants and minorities, I stand by it 100%. You sound like the softer side of these Supremist movements. For many of them, their language is not as harsh as it used to be. I don't know how to make it more clear
You stand by it 100%. That is fine. The problem here is with equivocation. That would be like me saying someone sounded like a Nazi because they believed in socialism. Or that someone was a Communist because they supported labor unions. Or maybe I could call people fascist because they believe that the best qualified should rule. Or like al Qaeda because they support Kyoto. Osama wrote about it in more than one of his letters.
In short, to toss around KKK with me is bad argumentation.
Once again Scooter, your analogies are non sequiturs. I am surprised, seriously surprised at the lack of immagination you have in these rebuttals. To be honest, someone who truly was offended by such an observation of their character, would not even offer a rebuttal. They would deny it and move on never to bring it up again as defending themsleves only makes them look more guilty. Period and food for thought. I am not trying to convince you of anything, I just made an observation.
My analogies fit the bill. You identify similar beliefs or methods of argumentation between me and another group. This group just so happens to be a hate group. You then go on to use it (repeatedly) as a means of equivocation. Simple?
If I were to just leave it at that, then you would continue to speak in a way (not only to me) that is at odds with intellectual exchanges of this nature. So pointing out the foolishness of equivocation is a worthwhile endeavor. Not for my sake, but for yours.
Now you know what I would do and how I thinkg? Now you are not only a political pundit, a theologian and a Christian apologist but you are also a mind reader? WOW, I am up against a greater advercary than I thought.
Honoring culture has everything to do with politics. Politics and economics have ramifications upon how we may live, what we may teach, and what we may say.
Still, to some degree, it is reciprocal. Culture impacts politics and politics impacts culture. In a top-heavy system like ours, this has become all the more obvious.
To insist otherwise is to lack a basic literacy of both culture and politics.
WOW it must be so sad to live in your paranoid version of America. I have lived all over America, mostly in larger cities like Minneapolis, West Palm Beach, Memphis, St. Louis, Tampa, etc., and I have yet to see how other's culture has changed how Americans live, what their children were taught, their finances or what they could say. Here is where you bust out you some Lou Dobbs and start spewing his rhetoric on the economic woes we suffer. Btw, to disagree with me is basic proof of bigotry
I've lived in Dallas, Harrisburg, Trenton, Battle Creek, Chicago, Mankato, and New London. These range from upper-class suburbs, rural communities, ubran communities, military communities, and a few of them with vast cultural and linguistic diversity. I've even lived in Vancouver, Canada. So what?
To disagree with you is basic proof of bigotry? haha First define. Then explain.
Since you respond out of context I have no idea what this post is regarding. I remember posting a few cities I have lived in, in response to your claim that cultural diversity changes how our kids learn etc., but since you offer no substance in yout rebuttal, I guess enough has been said. Your conversation is not stimulating enough for me to search out the context. I am merely killing time when I respond to you but am not about to put too much effort into it.
My point was to show how irrelevant your having lived in numerous cities around the country was to the conversation. I have lived abroad as well.
Cultural diversity may change how our kids learn, but that change in and of itself doesn't demonstrate whether or not it is advantageous to the children or the society at large? For someone who is predetermined to support this utopian and man-made diversity, sure. For others, it won't work.
As for the final comment I made regarding disagreeing with me makes you a bigot, I was mocking how you respond to others. You set up this ridiculous notion that denying what you say or questioning what you say, is to automatically make that person historically illiterate, politically illiterate, culturally illiterate, etc.. It is a pathetic attempt at making an argument from authority.
Listen, if someone is historically illiterate, then what should I do? Pat them on the back and say, "well, that is a great insight into (or opinion of) something that never happened"? Seriously, if the shoe fits, let them wear it.
of no 2nd generation Chinese, Mexican, Italian, whatever, living in America who does not speak, read and write English. It does not mean they do not exist, I just think it is such a rarity simply because kids who are different, get teased and picked on in schools. You talk about motivation to change, let immigrant kids mingle with the self righteous and spoiled American kids, they will change.
founded on Christianity WHICH Christianity? The Calvinist Christanity? The Methodist Christianity? The Catholic Christianity? The Baptist Christianity? I appreaciate the baby crying in the background for dramatic affect but it backfires because it just makes you look like trailer trash redenecks who are so self absorbed that they do not care why their BABY is crying! The point is, Christians have fought for centuries over who has the CORRECT Christ. Treaty of Tripoli Article 11 says it all
My wife records the show from the house. This allows my co-host to be heard. I used to record at the station, but it would only pick up my voice and it was hard to hear callers.
The baby is one year old. He cries.
We rent a 4 bedroom home in the suburds.
Redneck? haha I'm not a farmer, I don't like NASCAR, I wear sweater vests and ties to school, and I am married to a Asian.
Dude you are such a joke. You claim historical integrity, but you forget why our forefathers left England/Europe. They left because of RELIGOUS PERSECUTION. Not persecution for being Christian, but RELIGOUS THEOCRACY. Little hint Scooter, on your other vid, Seperation Myth PT 2, you claimed you were Catholic and that Prot Christians think you are going to hell. Well, study the 56 signatures on the DOI and tell me how many were Catholic. So when you make this IGNORANT claim that America was
B. Yes, persecution was part of the reason the Separatists left. But study the laws of the colonies. Sabbath laws, blasphemy laws, sodomy laws, etc. Far from secular.
C. The signatories included only one Catholic. But Maryland was most certain Catholic. Regardless, this proves very little seeing that I am referring to the Christian religion in the sense that Justice Joseph Story defined it in the first commentary on the Constitution.
No England was not a theocracy, I mispoke but my point was clear. And yes it was part of the reason they left, the greatest reason. As for blue laws, what does that prove? No one denies that America was ruled by fanatical Christians. As for Story and his opinion, it does not matter. That is one man's opinion. Hitler had an opinion too, does it mean he was right? Madison in his own words was clear on his position of religion. I gave them to you and you refuse to respond to them. I wonder why?
Story's opinion doesn't matter? A Supreme Court Justice appointed by Mr. Constitution himself, James Madison. And wasn't it Madison who was in cahoots with Jefferson over separation of Church and state laws? Story wrote the commentary when founders could have denounced him and his interpretation. Nobody did! Why is that? They didn't care what an influential public official thought? Did they care what he wrote in the first official interpretation of the Constitution? Not likely.
Nobody argues Jefferson's opinion on religion especially Christianity. The reason is the Jefferson Bible. Most apologists are bright enough to leave Jefferson out of the equation, just as they are to leave Paine out of the equation. As for Madison, you still are silent on the FACT that Madison gave his opinion regarding religion most specifically Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal
establishment of Christianity been on trial What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution" He further worte, "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny;
in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." Story's opinion matters as much as any other SINGULAR opinion of any SCJ. If you want to give credence to Story, hows'bout we give credence to other singular OPINIONS from SCJs? Your premise is silly, bias, ignorant and childish.
No, my point is that if Madison didn't believe that Story's assessment was correct, he would have opined. Instead, he was silent. So were any and all remaining signatories. One of the most prominent jurists in the country, appointed by Madison, writing what was esteemed as an authoritative commentary on the Constitution, and no outcry? That isn't a silly recognition, it is stunning.
And why is it that you guys only have two people to run to? How many signatories did we have in all? Two?
"Us" guys do not have just two guys to run to. I just gave you 2 quotes from Madison, whom you claim was a staunch Christian/supporter of a Christian Government. What you and your ilk do is, you mine quote our founding father's statements from public speeches or public writings. But you avoid their private letters, memoirs, diaries, etc.. Why? Because we both know what is said in public when pandering to Christians, is different from what is said privately. Which is why you refuse to
I don't claim Madison as a staunch supporter of Christian government. Whatever you've been smoking, keep it to yourself. I readily admit that he and Jefferson were the poster children for your position. The problem is that you and others ignore the rest of the signatories.
The question, though, is one of the law, not the private opinions in private correspondence. This, in and of itself, wouldn't substantiate your case. It would make them liars forming a coup.
Actually Scooter you did imply that Madison was a stuanch supporter because he did not speak out against Story. You in fact asked me why was he silent if he was against it. So stop with the lies again. As for the importance of private lettter memoirs, diaries etc. this is glaringly obvious. Politicians speak pander to their demographic but speak freely to their thoughts or closest friends. Perfect example is Mother Teresa. Newly released excerpts from her diary suggest she was at best, agnostic
Not speaking out doesn't necessarily say he was a staunch supporter. It is merely a historical curiosity, especially since he was the one who appointed Story. More suspicious is the total lack of disagreement with Story after he wrote it. If he was wrong, and if he was an authoritative figure writing an authoritative commentary, it is quite curious that nobody spoke out.
Once again, private letters, memoirs and diaries show our forefather's opinions on a government ruled by, controlled by, influenced by, as well as a government which sanctions, one religion over another. I agree that state constitutions and laws disregarded the intent of our forefathers and made such provisions for the combining of Christianity and government, but it was our founding documents of this nation which deemed this combination unconstitutional. Here is a perfect example of my point.
If Patrick Henry and Fisher Ames had been successful in their desires to have Christianity written into the Constitution and 1st Amendment respectively, we would not be having this conversation. But the fact is both men failed miserably for trying to include ANY Christian language into these documents. That speaks VOLUMES to me and to those who uphold the seperation of church and state. It is true that Madison was a devout Christian but he was also the one who refused Ames to include any
Christian language in the 1st Amendment. So again, that speaks louder to me than Madison not stirring the pot with Story or his public AFTER THE FACT. My point simply put is, they spoke out when it was neccessary by not allowing Christian language into our founding documents.
Not allowing the specific language in the first amendment doesn't hurt my case in the least. As originally understood, religion was never meant to level various religions insofar as the government was concerned. The various laws enacted by our founders after the signing is indicative of this, as was their laws barring atheist's from testifying in a court of law.
You are speaking of State laws and Constitutions which have subsequently been overturned. I once again agree that State laws and Constitutions did include Christian language and bias. But the fact remains our Nation's Founding Documents DO NOT include this language or bias. You are superimposing our nation's founding documents with the bigoted State Constitutions. This is the crux of your argument and it is pathetically intellectually dishonest.
Some were state laws. Others were declarations made by Presidents.
If they were bigoted, why did Jefferson support them? He supported the sabbath law and, if I remember correctly, the sodomy law.
You said there was no reference to God in the founding documents, plural. I pointed out there there were and that it displays the philosophical framework for the founders.
PS- They aren't all contained in the preamble. Regardless, why would that disqualify them?
Once again you are lying about what I said. I said there is NO Christian language, merely generic referencs to a god. You are constantly being intellectually dishonest with my position. It is rather pathetic and sad.
haha OK, then what God were they talking about? Monotheistic, Judge of the World, has divine Providence, a Creator that gave us inalienable right, whose creation has His Law written within it. haha
They are speaking of a deistic being. period. they left it open for interpretation so as NOT to show preference over one religion to another, hence FREEDOM OF RELIGION. this is not brain surgery Scooter
Deism? Then how could they use Providence or Judge of the World? These fly in the face of the theology of deism.
No preference? Well, they dealt with a religion that involved a Creator, a law within nature that reflects His Law, a God of Divine Providence. A God who Judges the World. A God who was monotheistic. A God who gives man inalienable rights. Hmm... even if we buy into your conspiracy theory, this limits it quite a bit.
comment on my quotes from Madison on the 2 blogs of yours where I posted them. As for Story, no his opinion does not matter. It was an opinion, nothing more. He was not ruling on law, he was not ruling on a statute, he was not ruling on a case. He was giving his opinion and the preface to his opinion says it all. No matter how you wordsmith or twist and tweak this fact, it was just an opinion. I cannot make it any more clear or simple than that.
An inconvenient opinion, given the fact that he was one of the most highly respected jurists of his day, on the Supreme Court at the behest of Madison, and wrote what the populace saw as being an authoritative commentary on the Constitution.
It was also an opinion that held for some time. The Church and religion were ingrained in government, both state and federal, for almost 150 years without a complaint.
Rewording your point does not make it any more valid. The fact remains it was nothing more than an opinion and the fact remains you continue to avoid Madisons's opinions on religion. Keep chanting and stomping your feet but sadly it changes nothing. Your line of reasoning also suggests we need to go back to slavery because our forefatehrs were pro slavery as well.
You just don't get it. Why must I want to return to everything our founders did in order to maintain some of what they stood for? This is nonsense. And if this is the case, then you are equally screwed! If you want to stick with Madison, Jefferson, and Washington, then you have the slave crisis as well. What, do you want slavery back? I mean, you want us to stick with your interpretation of the founding fathers intent! And you can't separate the issues, right? Give me a break.
Scooter, you are now making MY POINT. It is YOUR argument that we must stick with their intent, NOT MINE. Mine is simply that we cannot be 100% sure of their intent because they were so ambiguous and contradictory. The point is, America IS a great nation founded on new and exciting principals. Those principals are fluid and allow for change. If you want to be strict, then let's be strict and go back to slavery and no rights for women. You just don't get it.
Sure it is. Why spend so much time trying to prove that the founders DIDN'T believe what I say if you are not looking for intent. This would be an exercise in futility.
I agree that many of the principles our founders used were fluid and allowed for growth and change. Never said otherwise. My contention has been that there are some that weren't so fluid and that certain people premise their arguments on revisionist history.
How is it revisionist history that there is ZERO Christian language in ANY founding documents? How is revisionist history that our forefathers BLOCKED the inclusion of ANY Christian language into our founding documents? How is it revisionist history to look to their private writtings and thoughts to see that they were against a Christian Government? How is any of this revisionist? Revisionism would be to deny that there IS Christian language in our founding documents and that our forefathers
did NOT write privately against a Christian Government. Again, what speaks volumes as to their intent is the FACT that we have no Christian language in our Constitution or our 1st Amendment, even though there two well known supporters pushing hard to get Christianity included AND it was still REJECTED. More importantly, it was REJECTED, at least in the case of the 1st Amendment, by a devout Christian, James Madison. Talk about an easy equation to follow, this is like arguing against 2+2=4.
Well, according to Story, the context of the First Amendment wasn't to level religions, nor to deprive Christianity of its rightful place of supremacy. The laws of the founders after the signing is proof of this. One could call them hypocrites, or cowering weaklings in the shadow of a Christian populace. I'd prefer to think of them as sincere, knowing what they mean, and acting in accordance with that intent.
Again, I beg you to please show me where there is Christian language in ANY of our nation's founding documents. You continue to ignore this. I know why, you know why. It is because there is NONE. Constantly invoking SCJ Story's opinion does not prove your premise, it only proves your desperation and frustration. Stop this debate now and prove that the Preamble, the Constituion and the Bill of Rights are Christian influenced documents. PLEASE?
Which God were they invoking? Monotheistic, pluralistic, or some unknown deistic God who Created, has Providence, and Judges nations? What standard does this God use to make Judgments?
Exactly my point. Which god? If it were the Christian god surely these brilliant men would have been specific so as to remove all doubt. But instead they used generic and all inclusive termonology. No Jesus, Christ, Messiah, Emmanuel, Son of Man, Son of God, Trinity, Triune god, etc.. This is a simple fact you cannot dismiss which is why it frusrtates you so.
haha This is turning into bizarro world. Maybe they were talking about Mohammed! Maybe all the signatories (most of them devout Christians), were in on a big conspiracy to describe the Christian God, but not reeeaaallly the Christian God. They didn't use catch phrases! Nobody would understand Who or What they were referencing. Maybe they were secretly hoping that someday the public would be so muddled with other monotheistic religions that this question would come up? C'mon. This is absurd.
what is absurd is that these men were considered the most brilliant politicalminds of all time and yet theey failed to represent their god in more specific terms. they all had a brain fart. they took special care with other subjects, topics, etc., but simply forget to say Jesus or Christian god. like I said, you win. You are on the fringe of this subject anyway so debating you is truly useless. it was fun but you have exposed your dishonesty too many times to be taken seriously any longer
haha Alright, you got me! I'm on the fringe. Well, my understanding of the text is how it was understood and applied for the first 150 years of our nation's existence. Old school or old fashioned would better describe my position, but fringe works. haha
Have a good one.
I'll talk about this on next Monday's program. I'll get a video for it.
It is also complete and utter nonsens to assume what Madison would have done. I got a little secret for you Scooter, politians do not always speak their mind openly and publically, especially when it comes to religion. However if you check their private writtings you might understand more on how they thought regarding religion. Like Washington, Madison, both Adams, Franklin, etc. Try studying Patrick Henry's failing attempts to put religion in the Consititution. Don't hate history embrace it
I have read many of their writings. I have a book that contains quite a collection of their letters, diary entries, and public statements. Do I claim they were orthodox? No. But they most certainly saw the strength, wisdom, and importance of the Christian religion and its most basic tenets.
You can chant all you like but the fact remains, in public they said one thing and in private they said another. I note how you avoided the FACT that Patrick Henry's attempts at having religion put into the constitution FAILED MISERABLY. Face it, the founding fathers that your ilk love to tout as religious or who supported religious Government, were wholeheartedly against it. Sorry but facts are facts.
There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. [George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790]
Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than thsoe which spring from any other cause. [George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792
Of course I do not want to get into a pissing contest over quotes because it is pointless. Almost all our forefathers were contradictory in their statements on religion, most specifically Christianity. You simply asked me why Madison did not have anything to say against religion when he obviously did. And it is more telling if these quotes come from private letters than if they came from speeches or public addresses. Nice deflection though regarding my point with Madison and Henry.
I never asked why Madison had nothing to say against religion. I am well aware of his opinions and writings. I simply pointed out that the founders who remained were silent over Story's authoritative commentary. I pointed out that there should be some evidence of an outcry, but there was none.
I didn't deflect the Henry issue. I think it was a tragedy, but it happened. The reason for not dealing with it is because I think it is irrelevant to the main issue of contention.
How is it irrelevant to the issue? You know what is funny about this supposed reason for not addressing Henry is? You have addressed other subjects which are not relevant to this topic either and have done so for days. But let me ask you, how is Henry and Ames' failures to get ANY Christian language in our founding documents, irrelevant? It most defintely speaks to the issue of why there was no outcry. Why cry out when they already succeeded in keeping Christianity out of the documents?
Founding documents, plural? Would this include the one that mentions the laws of Nature's God? Or that men were created by a Creator? And who is the Supreme Judge of the World? What is divine Providence?
The Constitution, built upon the religion and philosophy contained in the Declaration, is a contract for how the federal government is to work. Why emphasize religion when it was already the backdrop?
The first amendment, as understood by Story, is sufficient for this fellow.
Oy Vey, these references are GENERIC. Come on I know you are more intelligent than this. You use this red herring to avoid the FACTS. There is NO, NONE, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO, Christian or biblical language in the Preamble, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. There could have been if Henry and Ames had their way, but ALAS there is NONE. I thought this was an intellectually honest discussion? Invoking Story again only proves your desperation. Sorry Scoot but facts are facts.
Please respond as to WHY, WHY, I BEG YOU, I BESEECH YOU, I IMPLORE YOU, I CRY OUT WITH GNASHING OF TEETH, offer me one bit of evidence that points to Christianity in our nations founding documents. Reconcile that Adams, a devout Christian could have allowed for Ames to include Christian references into the 1st Amendment, but said NO. Reconcile that Henry's attempts at embuing the Constitution with Christian reference, was REJECTED. Reconcile the FACT that Madison thought the Constitution was
Already did. Already demonstrated this in the Declaration (preamble and elsewhere) and told you that this was the philosophical grid wherewith the founders wrote the Constitution. The rights talked about in the Bill of right were, I presume, the rights from nature and nature's God, unless they figured out some other source. This would be your burden of proof.
The fact you think the founders, most of them Christians, had to specifically use phrases like this is silly. The people, especially the Christian states that had to buy into it, never asked the question. No original Justice ever questioned. Story never did. And why do you think that these phrases were not used by theological contemporaries when talking about the Christian God. Name a few, read their stuff, see the similarity.
FACT, Henry AND Ames were rejected in using Christian language in the Constitution and 1st Amendment.. This cannot be deniedand sepaaks VOLUMES. Take care and glad I could give you some material for your show.
PEACE to you and your faamily and good luck with youor career.
The issue having already been established by the Declaration and the laws of the states would make it a non-issue for the Constitution, especially seeing that it was an operation guide for the federal government. It was made for political, not religious, objectives. But to deny the philosophical continuity from the colonies, to the states, to the vast majority of the signatories, to the underlying worldview of the Constitution would be rather silly.
What is silly is your continued avoidances of pointing out the Christian god in our nation's founding documents. This is getting ridiculous and I am bored with commenting over and over the same facts and asking you over and over for your proof of a Christian god. You use red herrings and non sequiturs as well as misrepresent my points constantly. Call yourself the winner and sleep well at night knowing you could not produce one referenc to Jesus in our nation's founding documents. not one
Ah, the signatories (most of them devout Christians) advanced a document that was in conflict with their beliefs, the beliefs of their states constitutions and laws, and the beliefs of their constituents.
They were brilliant though. They did all this while using language that was familiar to them. They used the language of popular Christian theologians, pastors, and contemporaries!
good enough as it was, but Jefferson, while in France and one who was 100% against organized religion, ESPECIALLY Christianity, convinced Madison that the Constitution needed to be indemnified, most specifically with Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, Trial by Jury, Habeas Corpus, the Substitution of Militia for Standing Army, etc.. If they did not mean, "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING the establishment of religion..." Also take into consideration Jefferson's letter to the Danbury
Baptists where he purposely leaves out ANY reference to Christianity. Take into consideration Madison's letters to Jefferson. This is not brain surgery. The reason why courts are constantly against your POV is, it is too easy to make the decision. Your side provides NOTHING. SCJ Story is not proof of ANYTHING. That is like saying that the individual opinion of a SCJ regarding abortion, proves one side over another. It is nonsensical. What our system is founded on is, the overall opinion.
Unfortunately, it has come to the point where it is trying to be utterly removed from society. Not in my town strangely, at least not yet since I live in a rural area. I am agnostic, yet the diversity police haven't made it to my hometown yet. Well, I don't know, I have heard rumblings.
Maybe so, but every town, every home, every family, every school is a cultural dynamic unto itself. I live in a town where Native Americans and whites are somewhat united, somewhat divided. Somehow, we coexist peaceably on the surface. The idea of a melting pot/salad bowl frame of reference is to allow any culture and subculture the freedom to thrive uninhibited. I think the white ethnocentrism that was dominant for so long had to be challenged.
Hilarious. You are blantantly talking about pissing all over the first amendment while trying to hide that fact under the guise of 'american culture'. Besides what you want to favor is a middle-eastern/european 'tradition'. If only one 'american tradition' should be allowed public display it should be Wakan Tanka.
You are using 'american culture' as a synonym for christianity. You say only 'american culture' should be allowed to express itself in public. Then you go on to say immigrants should be selected on their willingness to 'integrate'. Sounds like you would require them to convert. This would require legislation and violate the first amendment.
I have not got the energy spare to waste it loathing silly beliefs.
Actually, a promise to integrate is part of the oath they take. Has been since 1795. The problem is that oaths just don't mean what they used to mean.
Force them to be Christian? hahaha Respecting our customs, traditions, and cultures, and their preeminent (or exclusive) place in the public square is a far cry from an inquisition.
'integrate' is a bit of a vague term for an oath. Where do you get that idea from ?
Culture IS the customs, traditions, art, science and beliefs of a group. Almost every image and reference you use is religious. A xmas tree, a church, a menorah, the islamic motif - you even identify the immigrants by their religion, Hindu, Islam (choice picture for that one) and hasidic Jews. The message that comes across is - culture = religion consequently integrate can only mean convert.
I am saying nothing more and nothing less than that America's historical traditions and symbols should hold preeminence in the public square.
btw- Religion is a very real part of culture. This is true most of the world over, especially when looking at a nation's history. Our just so happens to be Christian.
That is fine, but the first amendment is a part of that culture and it, quite rightly, prevents the very thing you are proprosing.
btw - I covered religion with 'beliefs'.
We learn from past civilisations' art, science and philosophy, whereas their gods are looked upon as quaint (at best). What makes you think our current civilisation is an exception ?
Don't play dumb. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. You seem to be trying to weasel around it by relabelling it as tradition, so as to only allow your religious 'traditions' in public. Or am I totally misunderstanding you ?
i agree with what you're saying, paleo. i don't multi-culturism is going to stop anytime soon. i really wouldn't be surprised if we start allowing things like polygamy and cannibalism under the banner of multi-culturism. the southern avenger has a good video on youtube to compliment what you posted, paleo. have you checked any of his videos out?
Paleo, great video. I agree with what your saying completely. know this quote is over used but "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" as JFK said it. We can't turn a blind eye to this anymore. Immigration and illegal immigration pose serious problems for the county and I scares me that this is not discussed by the candidates very often. Your daughter is adorable by the way! and I love the three-legged ballerina comment.
the problem is 'public land'. There should be no such thing. All land should be privately owned. Zero govt. Private sector is much better equipped to handle justice, national defense, etc. No monopolies of force. These disagreements about religion in the 'public square' can ONLY be resolved by convincing those possessing 'legal' force to use that force in their favor. Why resort to violence?
Agreed, insofar as the federal government is concerned. Your position is constitutional. States, on the other hand, may do as they please. Whether or not that is a good idea is another discussion altogether.
Still, it remains that we have both federal and state owned land, and the minority wishes to strip our nation of our cultural symbols, traditions, and customs... all in the name of "equality."
Some would say that the ultimate tradition in our country has been freedom, and by holding on to some of the backwards symbols, traditions and customs you are preventing freedom from working.
it's true that because of America's history that we have a western/Judeo-Christian culture, but we're also suppose to have a classical liberal gov't that respects individual liberty. Immigration restrictions are an invention of the Progressives and it was done for eugenic purposes. We didn't even have immigration restrictions until the Wilson administration. I'm an Evangelical but it's because I choose to be not because of some gov't that wants me to "assimilate"
MrAbolitionist 1 year ago
This is a side note but i feel I really have to clear this up:
i cant believe that neturei karta was used as the picture for "jews"---they do not represent jews. they are a breakaway, anti-israel, european sect whom most jews despise. And they certainly do not represent jewish culture. in fact, real jewish culture is similar to the core american ideals, as many jews helped build america and much of US law is taken from jewish law... I get upset when I see a huge plastic menorah in public...
bocanutz 1 year ago
You are 100% right, I'm sick and tired of being told that immigration is "good" for the United States. Our Culture is dying because we are letting it and political correctness just makes all these things worse.
DecimusAquila 3 years ago
It took a while, but its good to see you've come around on this issue. The reason so many people are mad is not because we are racist or what have you, but because we pay for it in one way or another. If an illegal alien comes and breaks laws and has children here and sends most of their money to their country, it affects us. America pays the price! We have anarchy right now purtaining to immigration. We had better do something before the levee's break to their capacity and America sinks.
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
If you take the average IQ of Ethnic groups, Asians and Asian Americans (Indians, Japanese, Chinese on top) have the highest in the USA. They also have the highest incomes and the highest education levels. Asians account for 4.6% of the population, yet make up more than one third of the population of Ivy League schools and nearly one half of the tech workers (both immigrant and native). Your 'Survival of the Fittest' logic will be against your own kind a few decades from now. Watch!
CeReAlKiLlErIsBaCk 3 years ago
Hindus are the highest earning and the best read ethnic group in the USA, topping other Asian groups like Chinese and Japanese. 51% of the Engineers in the USA are foreign born. USC claims that this country needs to double its science and tech workers by 2015. Having said all those things, your idea of limiting immigration makes no sense. Why aren't you running the nation by yourselves? It would be better to give legal immigrants more rights, for they perform and serve this country better.
CeReAlKiLlErIsBaCk 3 years ago
Caucasians, Christianity, EuropeanAmerican culture are not native to the Americas. Would you like to go back to Europe?
According to your logic, only Native Americans should exist here.
CeReAlKiLlErIsBaCk 3 years ago
I never said they were native to the Americas. And why require one to be "native" to preserve?
btw- Native Americans traveled here. They were not native. In fact, they displaced an entire civilization of people known as the mounders. Very few, if any, are truly "native" in the absolute sense. All have traveled and made home where they reside. Sometimes they are displaced. Sometimes they are the ones doing the displacing.
Better luck next time.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Homo Sapiens(modern humans) evolved in North Eastern Africa. All Humans are native to Africa. The first group to invade the Americas were the ones who have already reached Asia. Native Americans arrived at the Americans from 35,000 years ago until the end of the Ice Age. They were the first to start a civilization. The Europeans who already had a home in Europe were the intruders. 'Native' doesn't necessarily mean sprouting from the ground. They are the Natives!
Better luck next time!
CeReAlKiLlErIsBaCk 3 years ago
The "Natives" annihilated the Mounders. The Mounders were here first. And where do you get the idea that civilization works like "finders keepers"? How far do you push this principle? Should people stay within their native lands? Should they keep their ideas, values, and religions in those lands? Or do you only treat military intrusion as a crime against ownership and sovereignty?
People normally say "better luck next time" after having made a point. This being said, you misused the phrase.
paleocrat 3 years ago
My use of the term 'Native' referred to the group of people who invaded the Americas first -- in your case, they are Mounders. Can you give a more precise name? Because I couldn't find any results on the term 'Mounders.'
My intention was to make it clear to you that nobody is native in the literal sense. You are not native yourself. Saying America is for your White Christian Kind flies at the face of your own logic. And not being able to get the point is your problem. You misused logic.
CeReAlKiLlErIsBaCk 3 years ago
Yes, I am very familiar with the Lincoln/Doubglas debates.
The quote is taken from Roy Appleman's "Abraham Lincoln From His Own Words and Contemporary Accounts."
paleocrat 3 years ago
Look, we are so far off the topic of your video that it is not funny. We are talking about various Christian doctrines; Christian history; State Constitutions vs our nation's founding documents, i.e. Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights; mine quoting; arguments from authority; etc.. Let's stick to your video and your premise that radical multi culturalism has a negative impact on America and that American identity equals cow toeing to Christianity and adhering to it or get out.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
For what it is worth Jeremiah, you could have a VERY successful career in radio. You have a great voice, great annunciation/articulation and appreciation for theatrics. You also could do the same on television. No worries Scooter I am not gay nor hitting on you so tell your wife to chill, but you are camera friendly as well. You remind me of Tucker Carlson sans bowtie. I am not sure what your plans are but it is food for thought. Hard life though for a family man who puts family first.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Thank you for the compliments. I try very hard. I dedicate a lot of time to providing a good quality program. I also try very hard at allowing people who disagree with me the time necessary to get their point across. Sometimes I keep a caller on for two segments just to make sure they can. I don't interrupt, and I spend most of the time asking questions. Once the call is over, the topic is done. I don't use that time to backbite.
I need to lose weight to be on TV. Working on it. Doing well.
paleocrat 3 years ago
You are welcome. I am surpised that you do not get more hits. There are other vids with the same topics, who get more hits and involvement in their blogs, but their content is less stimulating and structured, in my opinion. Of course I have only seen 4 of your vids and have not been able to watch much of anything else because I am responding on two of your blogs, which is more time consuming that I thought it would be. Anyhow, though we disagree I do respect your efforts and your talent.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
I do not promote my site. I RARELY comment on other sites. Most people just stumble upon it through searches on various topics. I think if I devoted some time to promotion, the site would be more active.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Being selective as to who we let in, HAS nothing to do with culture. It has to do with the individual agenda of that person. Dude you are such an intellectual fraud. Here is where I give you your out. Here is where you say that ad hominems is all I can come up with. Well Scooter, when I talk to a racist, I call them a racist. You are a pathetic representation not only of our founding fathers, but the idea of the Great Experiment and the ideology/philosophy behind it. I pity your kids
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
No wonder others hate us. Not just extremist Muslims, because that is a "gimme." But even secular nations which have higher life expectancy, lower teen pregnancies, lower suicide, lower violent crimes, lower crimes against personal property, higher infant mortality rates, etc.. All of these are per capita. PER CAPITA! Here is a sad and pathetic reflection on religion: Of the top 60nations reported by the CIA World FactBook, 75% are nations which the majority identify themsleves as Christian
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
If you are proposing that we have a secular government, we already do. A simple comparison with the colonies or early states would show that the ruling philosophy is that of secular pluralism. This may not be true of the populace, but what should be done about this? Force them to stop believe what they believe?
Can you please show me the causal and necessary connection between the general populace being secular (or Christian) and the various statistics mentioned. I am interested.
paleocrat 3 years ago
It is just a coincidence that nations whose populous identifies themselves as Christian, has more violent crimes, more abuse, more suicide, more abortions, more stds, more teen pregnancies, and makes up 75% of the top 60 nations in these areas. It is also a coincidence that nations which identify themselves as atheist/agnostic including Buddhist or Taoist nations, have less of these things. What a pesky coincidence though huh?
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Coincidental isn't the right term. Circumstantial is better. If you want your stats to stick, you need to demonstrate that their causal and necessary factors are Christianity or atheism/agnosticism. Otherwise, you may as well argue that their being European, white, western, or predominantly heterosexual.
paleocrat 3 years ago
OK Scooter you do what you have to deny them so that you can feel better about yourself. It will not change the statisitics however nor Christianity's bloody history. Christians simply do not nor have they, played well with others. I did not make up the stats nor did I make up their bloody history. It is what it is. Don't be upset with me for not being part of the Christ cult or for the sickness they have spread.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Our bloody history. Nobody denies that there were atrocities that took place in history under the banner of the Church. But to act like we have a monopoly on it would be to ignore the history of violence at the hands of secularists. This would be foolish as well as historically illiterate.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Again, an out of context reply. I am guessing this is another red herring. One thing your ilk loves to do is to avoid the fact that there is no book, no doctrine, no dogma, no philosophy, no reference whatsoever that a secularist, atheist, agnostic, non theist can use to rationalize or justify their crimes against humanity. The same cannot be said for the religionist. There are several holy books to choose from which will validate crimes against humanity. FACT
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
I grant that there is no holy book for atheists. But what does this prove? Nothing. The crimes are still crimes. And can you please show me what verses were used to justify the atrocities you attribute to the Church? And what political leader quoted them as his or her authority?
Even if you can, what does this prove? Nothing. Unless you blur the distinction between the subject and the object.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Oh come on Scooter. You truly want to turn this into a biblical debate now? Have you EVER read your holy book of horrors from cover to cover? If you had then your question is ridiculously disingenuous. There are countless wars in the OT which were order by the OT character, "god." If you deny this fact then it proves my point even more as to how you roll. You are not interested in intellectual honesty but more so interested in apologetics. Which is an intellectual failure.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Yes. I have read it many times over. I was a theology major for two years and attended seminary until I ran out of money. But we aren't talking about the historical record as delivered in the Bible. We are talking about didactic literature, case law, casuistry, and if or when other invoked it as a justification for their actions.
Apologetics is simply the defense of a belief, a person, or an institution.
paleocrat 3 years ago
I was a Christian for over 30 yrs. I was also a pastor, evangelist, missionary and teacher. I taught the bible in Hebrew and Greek as well as Manners and Customs. I taught Textual Criticism, Christian Apologetics and other related subjects. So I too am very familiar with your holy book, the bloody history of your faith and how to use apologetics to argue or defend its bloody history. Btw, thanks for the definition of apologetics. I was so confused as to its proper meaning.
*snicker*
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
As for my point regarding mentally unstable atheists who commit crimes against humanity, they are not doing it because of some fundamental flaw within atheism. Atheism is not anti anything whereas religion is anti many things depending on the religion. The Christian religion for example can use their bible to be anti non Christian, anti gay, anti feminism, anti immigrant, etc.. There is no universal doctrine, belief, understanding, interpretation. It is an ambiguous book used to perpetuate
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
You're blurring the subject and the object here. A person may do many things, but this doesn't, by necessity, show a causal link with or defect in the object.
Yes, I am opposed to the homosexual lifestyle. Yes, I am opposed to radical feminism, but have voted for many women and have no problem with a woman in the workplace. Yes, I am opposed to immigrants knowingly and willingly violating our laws, but I am married to a woman whose mother came here from Korea the right way. I support the law.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Again, if you are going to deny that within the Christian religion there are doctrines which are anti humanity, then we just need to drop it and go no further on this topic. You will never get me to believe otherwise because I lived it. Most of the top Christian leaders in America are every bit of every one of the horrible attributes I listed. They claim they hate the sin not the sinner, but it is bullocks. They love feeling superior and love making money off of their phobias and Jesus.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
violence, war, serperatism, intolerance, hatred, bigotry, racism, slavery, homophobia, anti-Semitism, etc., etc., ad infinitum. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., used what has been called Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. They replaced oragnized religion with self worship, cult of personality worship, worship of political ideology, etc.. So though they were against outside religions, they started religions and used the religious mindset for their agenda. None of this points to atheism.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
The issue wasn't with religion in general, or even deifying humans. The issue was rather specific. And I asked for quotes where these were invoked.
paleocrat 3 years ago
don't need to come up with quotes. I already expressed my disdain for mine quoting and its intellectual dishonesty. But if you are going to deny that the bible is chock full of commands from the character "god" to war on other peoples, then I am left speechless but understand because that is why it is called, "blind faith". Not to mention the 613 laws of the OT which many have very bloody repercussions such as stonings for rape victims, unruly children, homosexuals, etc.. Plain and simple
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
it is a bloody religion. It required blood sacrifice for crying out loud. Your denial of these facts is very sad but as I stated, par for the course as most Christians have no idea or clue as to what their holy book of horrors contains.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
The countries with the most appealing per capita rates of the aforementioned demographics are SECULAR/Agnostic/Atheist.
Here is my challenge to you, instead of reguritating rhetoric and unsubstantiaded bigotry, how about we use resourced statistics which are accepted by the mainstream. You show me yours, I will show you mine. If yours come from James Dobson or Fred Phelps, then it is obvious what your intent is. If mine come from Stalin or Pol Pot, then it is obvious what my intent is.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Dobson and Phelps? No. Try again. My primary influences are George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Theodore Roosevelt, Russel Kirk, Pat Buchanan, the Twelve Southerns from "I'll Take My Stand," the writers or "Who Owns America?," Samuel Francis, Hillaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, the political and cultural writings of Thomas Aquinas and Pope Leo XIII, and Lou Dobbs... among others.
You got me wrong, again.
And bigot? Depends on how you choose to define that. It is a wax nose for folks like you
paleocrat 3 years ago
I did not get you wrong because I did not make the assumption that Dobson and Phelps were your heros. You will not that I said IF. Then to drive home the point, I said IF mine are Stalin or Pol Pot. Your tactics are a shame but typical of your ilk. As for your message, yes I see it is racist, bigoted and ignorant.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Racist? Against who?
Bigoted? You didn't define it.
Now I am ignorant too? Ignorant of what?
paleocrat 3 years ago
Sure it does. When you allow multiple cultures to enter the country without any pressure to assimilate or speak the language, then we have a cleft nation, and a cleft culture. The impact on our holidays (take Christmas for example) is evidence enough.
A racist? My black friends at school would disagree. So would my Argentinian ex-girlfriend. So would my Asian wife. Poor souls, they don't know me half as well as you seem to!
paleocrat 3 years ago
Ah yes, the old Bill O'Reilly war on Christmas conspiracy theory. Just because business owners want to be all inclusive and wish their paying customers, "Happy Holidays," instead of singling out one religion over another, there is a conspiracy. You and your ilk are an absolute riot, you see boogeymen behined every corner.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
I don't watch, listen, or read Bill O'Reilly. But I remember going to school when Christmas carols didn't have to be taken off the list (or edited), where Christmas break was called Christmas break, and where a public institution could have a nativity scene without having to put a crescent moon and a menorah next to it. And, mind you, I only used Christmas as an example.
paleocrat 3 years ago
WELCOME MY FRIEND to AMERICA as it was intended. WELCOME MY FRIEND to the secular nation you claim we are but HATE. WELCOME MY FRIEND to an ALL INCLUSIVE NATION without Government advocation of or sanction of, one religion over another. WELCOME my friend to a nation which does not allow for tax payers monies to endorse one faith over another! WELCOME!!! All are accepted here without fear of theocratic bigotry, intolerance, dispensation or Government bias! Long live our forefathers vision!
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Did our founding fathers use tax money to print Bibles, provide Congress with a Christian chaplain, institute sabbath laws, blasphemy laws, and sodomy laws, etc.?
Were our founders all inclusive? Did they allow atheists to testify in court? Did they celebrate the diversity of blacks, Jews, or Muslims? Did they institute days of Fasting, Prayer, and Thanksgiving?
Modern America would cause our founders to roll over in their graves... if they haven't already.
paleocrat 3 years ago
This argument is so childish but par for the course with your ilk. Our founding fathers also owned slaves and promoted slavery as well as the mass slaughter if Indians, so I reckon we ought to go back to slavery and genocide huh? They also promoted bigotry and racism so we ought to make those legal too. Yes they were hypocrites in their lives just like you are in yours. Another great analogy you made their Scooter. They always seem to bite you in the ass though huh?
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Africans owned slaves, still do. Muslims owned slaves, still do. The Greeks, Egyptians, Jews, and Chinese owned slaves. To treat it like it was unique to us is absurd.
And why do you think that wanting to return to or maintain various principles of the American culture our founders enjoyed by necessity makes me wish for a return to slavery or racism? That is absurd.
btw- I am in an interracial marriage. To infer that I would advocate racism is offensive.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Scooter, there you go again putting words in my mouth. I am well aware of the history of slavery and did not imply the U.S. was an anomoly. Your constant use of red herrings and non sequiturs is very telling. As for your wife, there were many an Uncle Tom weren't there? Or in your case an Aunt Lee. There is hypocrisy everywhere, perhaps even in your marriage and friendships with your, "black friends." It proves nothing. Your rhetoric is still in line with the KKK.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
You keep talking like that about my wife and I will ban you. I have fought racism online (my old blog) and in person. I am married to an Asian woman and I am proud of it. I had been told by racists that I should abandon my "gook" daughter and "mongrel" children to return to the white race. That didn't fly with me. Your remarks are just as pathetic. I not asking you to cool it, I am telling you that if you don't, then you are done. Got it?
paleocrat 3 years ago
No need to threaten me Scooter, just do what you got to do. If you like power trips, then go ahead and get it on. It was obvious my rebuttal was sarcastic and not hateful. But if you need an out, then just do it and let it be done. You won't hurt my feelings but will only expose your insecurity. The reason I believe in the 1st Amendment is, I prefer that the racists and bigots be allowed to spew their nonsense in the open where they are exposed instead of hiding in darkened backrooms.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
I don't need an out. I have only banned two people over the last 3 years on any blog, whether here or elsewhere. But I take very serious any criticism of my family. I also take serious anyone associating me with white separatists and supremacists, especially given the fact that I have fought against them (and been attacked and threated by them) over the years.
paleocrat 3 years ago
I simply made an observation, there was no attack or criticism on your family so stop being so dramatic. As for my comparing your rhetoric to White Seperatists and Supremists, I still stand by it so ban me if you must. I agree that you are no Tom Metzger or even close BUT you do sound like the softer side of the new and improved seperatist movement. Perhaps you have not heard them recently and if you had, you might see where I am coming from. You might still disagree but understand.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Having a similar position with a group that is repugnant does not indicate that we are birds of a feather. I sound like a libertarian on issues such as drugs and guns, but that doesn't mean I support libertarian ideas of abortion. My beign opposed to the war and supporting a living wage doesn't make me a democrat. The point is rather simple: Having a position similar to an unsavory group, or using arguments that are similar, doesn't place me on board with them.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Look, as I stated in one of my other posts, I have only viewed about 4 of your vids. My perception of what I see as bigotry is not based on any other vid but this one. For what it is worth, I do not believe you are a bigot/racist/seperatist. I simply commented on my initial observation/interpretation of this vid. And I still stand by the fact that your rhetoric comes across that way IN THIS VID. Lou Dobbs is also accused of this and since he is one who has influenced you, is there any wonder?
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
And for the record, if you trace these comments back and keep them in context, I did not know you were a Lou Dobbs fan when I made this observation. But let me again reitterate I do not think you are a bigot and racist. However, on this one subject you do sound like one. I do not think Lou is a bigot or racist either, but I can assure you I am not the only one who thinks he sounds like one. And perception is 99% of reality.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Yes, any time someone opposes mass immigration (like most all of our presidents and statesmen since the founding of this great country), they are perceived to be bigoted. But the issue of nationhood is one that should be considered. Tough questions? Yes, I grant that. But to smother the conversation with emotionally charged words like bigot or racist certainly doesn't help.
paleocrat 3 years ago
As for your other point regarding pressure to assimilate, what nonsense. Just because people choose to keep their heritage or cultural practices when they come to America, does not mean they are bad people or that it is somehow degrading America. Ever been to NY City? I love the cultural diversity, but hey that is just me. One thing is for sure however, by the 2nd generation of that family being American, they have lost their culture and diversity and have blended in. I know
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Yes, been to NYC, numerous times. I am not a fan of cultural diversity. And any time an immigrant retains allegiance to the place where they came from, they are in direct violation of their oath of naturalization. But oaths just don't mean much anymore.
I don't deny that there are people who become Americanized within the first few generations. The problem is that the America they are conforming to is a mish-mash of culture and ethnic identities. Americanism is not cultural pluralism.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Honoring your culture/heritage, has NOTHING to do with politics. This is where your premise breaks down and exposes your bigotry and ignorance. I do commend you however for admitting to your disdain for cultural diversity. As well as admitting that 2nd generation Americans DO tow the line and meld into American culture. As for your bigotted caveat, according to you we need to remove not only the symbolism, but also the words on the Statue Of Liberty. "Give me your huddled masses..."
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
That wasn't even placed on the pedestal until 1903 and it wasn't until 1936 that the statue was first associated with immigrants. This was done by FDR. But this was during the heyday of the Immigration Act of 1924. This act restricted immigration to Europe, primary the Northeast, but other regions were secondary.
Nice try, but bad history. Dare I call it ignorance?
You still haven't shown how I am a bigot. How do you define the word?
paleocrat 3 years ago
Sorry Scooter but I did not try to assert that the words on the Statue of Liberty were words from our founding fathers. Dare I say that was ignorant of you to assume so? But since you have reset the permise to sayings which were added late in our countrie's history, how about "One nation under god" in the pledge of allegiance and "In god we trust" on our currency, in 1954 and 1955 respectively. According to your rule of measure, those words are also null and void.
*snicker*
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
I could care less if "In God we Trust" was on our currency. I think it is a sham, really.
As for the pledge, I have no problem with the original pledge without the addition.
I am far more concerned with the substance of the issue than I am with the window dressings.
What you have done, though, is to revise history. You do so with the founders, and you do so with Lady Liberty somehow representing a beacon of light to full-blown immigration. This wasn't the case, and it isn't the case.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Scooter, I never said the original intent of the Statue was for immigration. It did not become a symbol for immigration until the 20the century. My point was that it now is one and there is nothing you can do about it. You can whine, complain, stomp your feet like a bigot and racist but it will change nothing. Immigrants and slaves built this country. You talk about revisionist history, you are full of it. The KKK preaches the same message you do, FACT.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Immigrants and slaves built this country? Yes, immigrants who came over here to be America. Who swore an oath that they should all go back and reconsider. Slaves? Give me a break.
No, the KKK preaches white separatism, white supremacy, and hatred of other races. I do not. To compare me with them is despicable.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Look Scooter, your rhetoric is no different than theirs. Just because you do not say you hate immigrants and minorities, does not mean the message is fundamentally different. The "smart talking" seperatist/racist, uses softer language these days so as not to offend, but it is IDENTICAL to yours minus the hate speech. I am sorry but this is a FACT. And it is a hoot that you believe slaves had nothing to do with building this country. More KKK nonsense.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Identical to mine minus the hate speech. Then it isn't identical. I may use arguments against NAFTA that are used by atheist, but equivocation would be absurd. I may use arguments for a just wage like liberals, but this doesn't make me a liberal. Equivocation is a bad tactic.
I'm willing to hear you out here. To what extent did slaves build this country or its institutions?
paleocrat 3 years ago
First off, let's get back to the intellectual honesty here mkay? I never claimed that slaves wrote our founding documents or set up America's institutions. However, without slaves working in the sugar, cotton and tobacco fields, which is incredibly labor intensive and just to name a few, we might not have been as successful. That is arguable I understand but we can only go on what we know and what we know is slavery helped build a stronger economic and export system much quicker than if the
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Their working with sugar, cotton, and tobacco fields is a given. But this is a far cry from saying they helped build our nation.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Scooter, you ignored the significance of freeing up a labor force. You ignored the fact that slavery increased the per capita income in the south. You ignored the fact that slavery rapidly increased our exports which in turn helped cement our financial security/stability. Very weak rebuttal on your part. No substance at all.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
labor had been paid for in a traditional wage for labor system. Indentured servants also helped but that was more after the civil war. Slavery certainly raised the per capita income in the south. I believe slavery also quickened America's industrialization. Again that is arguable but it is my opinion. I understand that it can be argued that America was set back because of slavery, most specifically because of the civil war it caused. But I believe that can also be interpreted differently
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Do you really believe that the Civil War was over slavery? I don't wish to go down a rabbit trail here, as our conversation is extensive already, but I find it interesting when people make this claim.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Ummm, have you studied Lincoln's Senate race against Congressman Douglas? Slavery was an issue before Lincoln took the presidential office. I agree that after he took office slavery took back seat, but it did reemmerge and took the forfront. So instead of claiming an interest into a supposed bogus claim, how about you offer your evidence that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
In a letter from Lincoln to Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune. He said:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it..."
Slavery was incidental, and it only became an issue after the rise of radical abolitionism. This would make a great subject elsewhere, but I don't wish to be sidetracked here.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Forgive me I was horrbily wrong in my assertion that your quote was not accesible outside of Kee's book. However my rebuttal, disregarding my ignorance on the Greely letter is still apropos. Slavery was an issue with Lincoln before he took the office of President in his Senate race with Congressman Douglas, and anti slavery became his defining legacy during his Presidency. The fact that you argue this with such zeal disregarding the overwhelming scholarly position is what makes you appear bigot
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
I never said it was a non-issue. I simply stated that it wasn't Lincoln's rationale for the war.
Question: What did Lincoln say of slavery in Douglas debate? What were his remarks on Dred Scott? Did he believe that slaves were "private property"?
And what did Lincoln wish to do with emancipated slaves? Make them voters or jurors? Did he tell Douglas he wanted social or political equality? What about intermarriage?
I disagree with Lincoln on his answers, but don't whitewash history here.
paleocrat 3 years ago
and say that America is better because of the civil war. Plain and simple, slaves and slavery had a great impact on America and helped build America what it is today, whether good or bad, it helped build America into what it is.
As for me comparing your rhetoric to the KKK regarding immigrants and minorities, I stand by it 100%. You sound like the softer side of these Supremist movements. For many of them, their language is not as harsh as it used to be. I don't know how to make it more clear
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
You stand by it 100%. That is fine. The problem here is with equivocation. That would be like me saying someone sounded like a Nazi because they believed in socialism. Or that someone was a Communist because they supported labor unions. Or maybe I could call people fascist because they believe that the best qualified should rule. Or like al Qaeda because they support Kyoto. Osama wrote about it in more than one of his letters.
In short, to toss around KKK with me is bad argumentation.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Once again Scooter, your analogies are non sequiturs. I am surprised, seriously surprised at the lack of immagination you have in these rebuttals. To be honest, someone who truly was offended by such an observation of their character, would not even offer a rebuttal. They would deny it and move on never to bring it up again as defending themsleves only makes them look more guilty. Period and food for thought. I am not trying to convince you of anything, I just made an observation.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
My analogies fit the bill. You identify similar beliefs or methods of argumentation between me and another group. This group just so happens to be a hate group. You then go on to use it (repeatedly) as a means of equivocation. Simple?
If I were to just leave it at that, then you would continue to speak in a way (not only to me) that is at odds with intellectual exchanges of this nature. So pointing out the foolishness of equivocation is a worthwhile endeavor. Not for my sake, but for yours.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Now you know what I would do and how I thinkg? Now you are not only a political pundit, a theologian and a Christian apologist but you are also a mind reader? WOW, I am up against a greater advercary than I thought.
*snicker*
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Honoring culture has everything to do with politics. Politics and economics have ramifications upon how we may live, what we may teach, and what we may say.
Still, to some degree, it is reciprocal. Culture impacts politics and politics impacts culture. In a top-heavy system like ours, this has become all the more obvious.
To insist otherwise is to lack a basic literacy of both culture and politics.
paleocrat 3 years ago
WOW it must be so sad to live in your paranoid version of America. I have lived all over America, mostly in larger cities like Minneapolis, West Palm Beach, Memphis, St. Louis, Tampa, etc., and I have yet to see how other's culture has changed how Americans live, what their children were taught, their finances or what they could say. Here is where you bust out you some Lou Dobbs and start spewing his rhetoric on the economic woes we suffer. Btw, to disagree with me is basic proof of bigotry
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
I've lived in Dallas, Harrisburg, Trenton, Battle Creek, Chicago, Mankato, and New London. These range from upper-class suburbs, rural communities, ubran communities, military communities, and a few of them with vast cultural and linguistic diversity. I've even lived in Vancouver, Canada. So what?
To disagree with you is basic proof of bigotry? haha First define. Then explain.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Since you respond out of context I have no idea what this post is regarding. I remember posting a few cities I have lived in, in response to your claim that cultural diversity changes how our kids learn etc., but since you offer no substance in yout rebuttal, I guess enough has been said. Your conversation is not stimulating enough for me to search out the context. I am merely killing time when I respond to you but am not about to put too much effort into it.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
My point was to show how irrelevant your having lived in numerous cities around the country was to the conversation. I have lived abroad as well.
Cultural diversity may change how our kids learn, but that change in and of itself doesn't demonstrate whether or not it is advantageous to the children or the society at large? For someone who is predetermined to support this utopian and man-made diversity, sure. For others, it won't work.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Yes, and those others are bigots, elitists and seperatists. CONGRATS!!!
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
As for the final comment I made regarding disagreeing with me makes you a bigot, I was mocking how you respond to others. You set up this ridiculous notion that denying what you say or questioning what you say, is to automatically make that person historically illiterate, politically illiterate, culturally illiterate, etc.. It is a pathetic attempt at making an argument from authority.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Listen, if someone is historically illiterate, then what should I do? Pat them on the back and say, "well, that is a great insight into (or opinion of) something that never happened"? Seriously, if the shoe fits, let them wear it.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Exactly my point, so might I ask, "how dem shoes fittin Govna?"
*snicker*
Dude this is fun. I truly have had more of a challenge with high school debate teams that with you.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
of no 2nd generation Chinese, Mexican, Italian, whatever, living in America who does not speak, read and write English. It does not mean they do not exist, I just think it is such a rarity simply because kids who are different, get teased and picked on in schools. You talk about motivation to change, let immigrant kids mingle with the self righteous and spoiled American kids, they will change.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
founded on Christianity WHICH Christianity? The Calvinist Christanity? The Methodist Christianity? The Catholic Christianity? The Baptist Christianity? I appreaciate the baby crying in the background for dramatic affect but it backfires because it just makes you look like trailer trash redenecks who are so self absorbed that they do not care why their BABY is crying! The point is, Christians have fought for centuries over who has the CORRECT Christ. Treaty of Tripoli Article 11 says it all
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
My wife records the show from the house. This allows my co-host to be heard. I used to record at the station, but it would only pick up my voice and it was hard to hear callers.
The baby is one year old. He cries.
We rent a 4 bedroom home in the suburds.
Redneck? haha I'm not a farmer, I don't like NASCAR, I wear sweater vests and ties to school, and I am married to a Asian.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Dude you are such a joke. You claim historical integrity, but you forget why our forefathers left England/Europe. They left because of RELIGOUS PERSECUTION. Not persecution for being Christian, but RELIGOUS THEOCRACY. Little hint Scooter, on your other vid, Seperation Myth PT 2, you claimed you were Catholic and that Prot Christians think you are going to hell. Well, study the 56 signatures on the DOI and tell me how many were Catholic. So when you make this IGNORANT claim that America was
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
A. England wasn't a theocracy.
B. Yes, persecution was part of the reason the Separatists left. But study the laws of the colonies. Sabbath laws, blasphemy laws, sodomy laws, etc. Far from secular.
C. The signatories included only one Catholic. But Maryland was most certain Catholic. Regardless, this proves very little seeing that I am referring to the Christian religion in the sense that Justice Joseph Story defined it in the first commentary on the Constitution.
paleocrat 3 years ago
No England was not a theocracy, I mispoke but my point was clear. And yes it was part of the reason they left, the greatest reason. As for blue laws, what does that prove? No one denies that America was ruled by fanatical Christians. As for Story and his opinion, it does not matter. That is one man's opinion. Hitler had an opinion too, does it mean he was right? Madison in his own words was clear on his position of religion. I gave them to you and you refuse to respond to them. I wonder why?
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Story's opinion doesn't matter? A Supreme Court Justice appointed by Mr. Constitution himself, James Madison. And wasn't it Madison who was in cahoots with Jefferson over separation of Church and state laws? Story wrote the commentary when founders could have denounced him and his interpretation. Nobody did! Why is that? They didn't care what an influential public official thought? Did they care what he wrote in the first official interpretation of the Constitution? Not likely.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Nobody argues Jefferson's opinion on religion especially Christianity. The reason is the Jefferson Bible. Most apologists are bright enough to leave Jefferson out of the equation, just as they are to leave Paine out of the equation. As for Madison, you still are silent on the FACT that Madison gave his opinion regarding religion most specifically Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
establishment of Christianity been on trial What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution" He further worte, "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny;
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." Story's opinion matters as much as any other SINGULAR opinion of any SCJ. If you want to give credence to Story, hows'bout we give credence to other singular OPINIONS from SCJs? Your premise is silly, bias, ignorant and childish.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
No, my point is that if Madison didn't believe that Story's assessment was correct, he would have opined. Instead, he was silent. So were any and all remaining signatories. One of the most prominent jurists in the country, appointed by Madison, writing what was esteemed as an authoritative commentary on the Constitution, and no outcry? That isn't a silly recognition, it is stunning.
And why is it that you guys only have two people to run to? How many signatories did we have in all? Two?
paleocrat 3 years ago
"Us" guys do not have just two guys to run to. I just gave you 2 quotes from Madison, whom you claim was a staunch Christian/supporter of a Christian Government. What you and your ilk do is, you mine quote our founding father's statements from public speeches or public writings. But you avoid their private letters, memoirs, diaries, etc.. Why? Because we both know what is said in public when pandering to Christians, is different from what is said privately. Which is why you refuse to
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
I don't claim Madison as a staunch supporter of Christian government. Whatever you've been smoking, keep it to yourself. I readily admit that he and Jefferson were the poster children for your position. The problem is that you and others ignore the rest of the signatories.
The question, though, is one of the law, not the private opinions in private correspondence. This, in and of itself, wouldn't substantiate your case. It would make them liars forming a coup.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Actually Scooter you did imply that Madison was a stuanch supporter because he did not speak out against Story. You in fact asked me why was he silent if he was against it. So stop with the lies again. As for the importance of private lettter memoirs, diaries etc. this is glaringly obvious. Politicians speak pander to their demographic but speak freely to their thoughts or closest friends. Perfect example is Mother Teresa. Newly released excerpts from her diary suggest she was at best, agnostic
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Not speaking out doesn't necessarily say he was a staunch supporter. It is merely a historical curiosity, especially since he was the one who appointed Story. More suspicious is the total lack of disagreement with Story after he wrote it. If he was wrong, and if he was an authoritative figure writing an authoritative commentary, it is quite curious that nobody spoke out.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Once again, private letters, memoirs and diaries show our forefather's opinions on a government ruled by, controlled by, influenced by, as well as a government which sanctions, one religion over another. I agree that state constitutions and laws disregarded the intent of our forefathers and made such provisions for the combining of Christianity and government, but it was our founding documents of this nation which deemed this combination unconstitutional. Here is a perfect example of my point.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
If Patrick Henry and Fisher Ames had been successful in their desires to have Christianity written into the Constitution and 1st Amendment respectively, we would not be having this conversation. But the fact is both men failed miserably for trying to include ANY Christian language into these documents. That speaks VOLUMES to me and to those who uphold the seperation of church and state. It is true that Madison was a devout Christian but he was also the one who refused Ames to include any
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Christian language in the 1st Amendment. So again, that speaks louder to me than Madison not stirring the pot with Story or his public AFTER THE FACT. My point simply put is, they spoke out when it was neccessary by not allowing Christian language into our founding documents.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Not allowing the specific language in the first amendment doesn't hurt my case in the least. As originally understood, religion was never meant to level various religions insofar as the government was concerned. The various laws enacted by our founders after the signing is indicative of this, as was their laws barring atheist's from testifying in a court of law.
paleocrat 3 years ago
You are speaking of State laws and Constitutions which have subsequently been overturned. I once again agree that State laws and Constitutions did include Christian language and bias. But the fact remains our Nation's Founding Documents DO NOT include this language or bias. You are superimposing our nation's founding documents with the bigoted State Constitutions. This is the crux of your argument and it is pathetically intellectually dishonest.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Some were state laws. Others were declarations made by Presidents.
If they were bigoted, why did Jefferson support them? He supported the sabbath law and, if I remember correctly, the sodomy law.
You said there was no reference to God in the founding documents, plural. I pointed out there there were and that it displays the philosophical framework for the founders.
PS- They aren't all contained in the preamble. Regardless, why would that disqualify them?
paleocrat 3 years ago
Once again you are lying about what I said. I said there is NO Christian language, merely generic referencs to a god. You are constantly being intellectually dishonest with my position. It is rather pathetic and sad.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
haha OK, then what God were they talking about? Monotheistic, Judge of the World, has divine Providence, a Creator that gave us inalienable right, whose creation has His Law written within it. haha
paleocrat 3 years ago
They are speaking of a deistic being. period. they left it open for interpretation so as NOT to show preference over one religion to another, hence FREEDOM OF RELIGION. this is not brain surgery Scooter
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Deism? Then how could they use Providence or Judge of the World? These fly in the face of the theology of deism.
No preference? Well, they dealt with a religion that involved a Creator, a law within nature that reflects His Law, a God of Divine Providence. A God who Judges the World. A God who was monotheistic. A God who gives man inalienable rights. Hmm... even if we buy into your conspiracy theory, this limits it quite a bit.
paleocrat 3 years ago
comment on my quotes from Madison on the 2 blogs of yours where I posted them. As for Story, no his opinion does not matter. It was an opinion, nothing more. He was not ruling on law, he was not ruling on a statute, he was not ruling on a case. He was giving his opinion and the preface to his opinion says it all. No matter how you wordsmith or twist and tweak this fact, it was just an opinion. I cannot make it any more clear or simple than that.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
An inconvenient opinion, given the fact that he was one of the most highly respected jurists of his day, on the Supreme Court at the behest of Madison, and wrote what the populace saw as being an authoritative commentary on the Constitution.
It was also an opinion that held for some time. The Church and religion were ingrained in government, both state and federal, for almost 150 years without a complaint.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Rewording your point does not make it any more valid. The fact remains it was nothing more than an opinion and the fact remains you continue to avoid Madisons's opinions on religion. Keep chanting and stomping your feet but sadly it changes nothing. Your line of reasoning also suggests we need to go back to slavery because our forefatehrs were pro slavery as well.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
You just don't get it. Why must I want to return to everything our founders did in order to maintain some of what they stood for? This is nonsense. And if this is the case, then you are equally screwed! If you want to stick with Madison, Jefferson, and Washington, then you have the slave crisis as well. What, do you want slavery back? I mean, you want us to stick with your interpretation of the founding fathers intent! And you can't separate the issues, right? Give me a break.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Scooter, you are now making MY POINT. It is YOUR argument that we must stick with their intent, NOT MINE. Mine is simply that we cannot be 100% sure of their intent because they were so ambiguous and contradictory. The point is, America IS a great nation founded on new and exciting principals. Those principals are fluid and allow for change. If you want to be strict, then let's be strict and go back to slavery and no rights for women. You just don't get it.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Sure it is. Why spend so much time trying to prove that the founders DIDN'T believe what I say if you are not looking for intent. This would be an exercise in futility.
I agree that many of the principles our founders used were fluid and allowed for growth and change. Never said otherwise. My contention has been that there are some that weren't so fluid and that certain people premise their arguments on revisionist history.
paleocrat 3 years ago
How is it revisionist history that there is ZERO Christian language in ANY founding documents? How is revisionist history that our forefathers BLOCKED the inclusion of ANY Christian language into our founding documents? How is it revisionist history to look to their private writtings and thoughts to see that they were against a Christian Government? How is any of this revisionist? Revisionism would be to deny that there IS Christian language in our founding documents and that our forefathers
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
did NOT write privately against a Christian Government. Again, what speaks volumes as to their intent is the FACT that we have no Christian language in our Constitution or our 1st Amendment, even though there two well known supporters pushing hard to get Christianity included AND it was still REJECTED. More importantly, it was REJECTED, at least in the case of the 1st Amendment, by a devout Christian, James Madison. Talk about an easy equation to follow, this is like arguing against 2+2=4.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Well, according to Story, the context of the First Amendment wasn't to level religions, nor to deprive Christianity of its rightful place of supremacy. The laws of the founders after the signing is proof of this. One could call them hypocrites, or cowering weaklings in the shadow of a Christian populace. I'd prefer to think of them as sincere, knowing what they mean, and acting in accordance with that intent.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Again, I beg you to please show me where there is Christian language in ANY of our nation's founding documents. You continue to ignore this. I know why, you know why. It is because there is NONE. Constantly invoking SCJ Story's opinion does not prove your premise, it only proves your desperation and frustration. Stop this debate now and prove that the Preamble, the Constituion and the Bill of Rights are Christian influenced documents. PLEASE?
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
What did they mean by divine Providence?
What did they mean by Creator?
What did they mean by Supreme Judge of the World?
What did they mean by the laws of Nature's God?
Which God were they invoking? Monotheistic, pluralistic, or some unknown deistic God who Created, has Providence, and Judges nations? What standard does this God use to make Judgments?
paleocrat 3 years ago
Exactly my point. Which god? If it were the Christian god surely these brilliant men would have been specific so as to remove all doubt. But instead they used generic and all inclusive termonology. No Jesus, Christ, Messiah, Emmanuel, Son of Man, Son of God, Trinity, Triune god, etc.. This is a simple fact you cannot dismiss which is why it frusrtates you so.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
haha This is turning into bizarro world. Maybe they were talking about Mohammed! Maybe all the signatories (most of them devout Christians), were in on a big conspiracy to describe the Christian God, but not reeeaaallly the Christian God. They didn't use catch phrases! Nobody would understand Who or What they were referencing. Maybe they were secretly hoping that someday the public would be so muddled with other monotheistic religions that this question would come up? C'mon. This is absurd.
paleocrat 3 years ago
what is absurd is that these men were considered the most brilliant politicalminds of all time and yet theey failed to represent their god in more specific terms. they all had a brain fart. they took special care with other subjects, topics, etc., but simply forget to say Jesus or Christian god. like I said, you win. You are on the fringe of this subject anyway so debating you is truly useless. it was fun but you have exposed your dishonesty too many times to be taken seriously any longer
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
haha Alright, you got me! I'm on the fringe. Well, my understanding of the text is how it was understood and applied for the first 150 years of our nation's existence. Old school or old fashioned would better describe my position, but fringe works. haha
Have a good one.
I'll talk about this on next Monday's program. I'll get a video for it.
paleocrat 3 years ago
It is also complete and utter nonsens to assume what Madison would have done. I got a little secret for you Scooter, politians do not always speak their mind openly and publically, especially when it comes to religion. However if you check their private writtings you might understand more on how they thought regarding religion. Like Washington, Madison, both Adams, Franklin, etc. Try studying Patrick Henry's failing attempts to put religion in the Consititution. Don't hate history embrace it
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
I have read many of their writings. I have a book that contains quite a collection of their letters, diary entries, and public statements. Do I claim they were orthodox? No. But they most certainly saw the strength, wisdom, and importance of the Christian religion and its most basic tenets.
paleocrat 3 years ago
You can chant all you like but the fact remains, in public they said one thing and in private they said another. I note how you avoided the FACT that Patrick Henry's attempts at having religion put into the constitution FAILED MISERABLY. Face it, the founding fathers that your ilk love to tout as religious or who supported religious Government, were wholeheartedly against it. Sorry but facts are facts.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. [George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790]
Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than thsoe which spring from any other cause. [George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
If you want to get into a pissing contest over quotes, make my day. I am not at a loss for counter quotes. I have books dedicated to them.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Of course I do not want to get into a pissing contest over quotes because it is pointless. Almost all our forefathers were contradictory in their statements on religion, most specifically Christianity. You simply asked me why Madison did not have anything to say against religion when he obviously did. And it is more telling if these quotes come from private letters than if they came from speeches or public addresses. Nice deflection though regarding my point with Madison and Henry.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
I never asked why Madison had nothing to say against religion. I am well aware of his opinions and writings. I simply pointed out that the founders who remained were silent over Story's authoritative commentary. I pointed out that there should be some evidence of an outcry, but there was none.
I didn't deflect the Henry issue. I think it was a tragedy, but it happened. The reason for not dealing with it is because I think it is irrelevant to the main issue of contention.
paleocrat 3 years ago
How is it irrelevant to the issue? You know what is funny about this supposed reason for not addressing Henry is? You have addressed other subjects which are not relevant to this topic either and have done so for days. But let me ask you, how is Henry and Ames' failures to get ANY Christian language in our founding documents, irrelevant? It most defintely speaks to the issue of why there was no outcry. Why cry out when they already succeeded in keeping Christianity out of the documents?
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Founding documents, plural? Would this include the one that mentions the laws of Nature's God? Or that men were created by a Creator? And who is the Supreme Judge of the World? What is divine Providence?
The Constitution, built upon the religion and philosophy contained in the Declaration, is a contract for how the federal government is to work. Why emphasize religion when it was already the backdrop?
The first amendment, as understood by Story, is sufficient for this fellow.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Oy Vey, these references are GENERIC. Come on I know you are more intelligent than this. You use this red herring to avoid the FACTS. There is NO, NONE, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO, Christian or biblical language in the Preamble, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. There could have been if Henry and Ames had their way, but ALAS there is NONE. I thought this was an intellectually honest discussion? Invoking Story again only proves your desperation. Sorry Scoot but facts are facts.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Please respond as to WHY, WHY, I BEG YOU, I BESEECH YOU, I IMPLORE YOU, I CRY OUT WITH GNASHING OF TEETH, offer me one bit of evidence that points to Christianity in our nations founding documents. Reconcile that Adams, a devout Christian could have allowed for Ames to include Christian references into the 1st Amendment, but said NO. Reconcile that Henry's attempts at embuing the Constitution with Christian reference, was REJECTED. Reconcile the FACT that Madison thought the Constitution was
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Already did. Already demonstrated this in the Declaration (preamble and elsewhere) and told you that this was the philosophical grid wherewith the founders wrote the Constitution. The rights talked about in the Bill of right were, I presume, the rights from nature and nature's God, unless they figured out some other source. This would be your burden of proof.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Please just reference the Christian god and stop these silly games. Either Jesus is mentioned or he is not.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
The fact you think the founders, most of them Christians, had to specifically use phrases like this is silly. The people, especially the Christian states that had to buy into it, never asked the question. No original Justice ever questioned. Story never did. And why do you think that these phrases were not used by theological contemporaries when talking about the Christian God. Name a few, read their stuff, see the similarity.
This is becoming silly, but good radio material!
paleocrat 3 years ago
FACT, Henry AND Ames were rejected in using Christian language in the Constitution and 1st Amendment.. This cannot be deniedand sepaaks VOLUMES. Take care and glad I could give you some material for your show.
PEACE to you and your faamily and good luck with youor career.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
The issue having already been established by the Declaration and the laws of the states would make it a non-issue for the Constitution, especially seeing that it was an operation guide for the federal government. It was made for political, not religious, objectives. But to deny the philosophical continuity from the colonies, to the states, to the vast majority of the signatories, to the underlying worldview of the Constitution would be rather silly.
paleocrat 3 years ago
What is silly is your continued avoidances of pointing out the Christian god in our nation's founding documents. This is getting ridiculous and I am bored with commenting over and over the same facts and asking you over and over for your proof of a Christian god. You use red herrings and non sequiturs as well as misrepresent my points constantly. Call yourself the winner and sleep well at night knowing you could not produce one referenc to Jesus in our nation's founding documents. not one
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Ah, the signatories (most of them devout Christians) advanced a document that was in conflict with their beliefs, the beliefs of their states constitutions and laws, and the beliefs of their constituents.
They were brilliant though. They did all this while using language that was familiar to them. They used the language of popular Christian theologians, pastors, and contemporaries!
Quite a conspiracy theory you've got.
paleocrat 3 years ago
good enough as it was, but Jefferson, while in France and one who was 100% against organized religion, ESPECIALLY Christianity, convinced Madison that the Constitution needed to be indemnified, most specifically with Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, Trial by Jury, Habeas Corpus, the Substitution of Militia for Standing Army, etc.. If they did not mean, "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING the establishment of religion..." Also take into consideration Jefferson's letter to the Danbury
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Baptists where he purposely leaves out ANY reference to Christianity. Take into consideration Madison's letters to Jefferson. This is not brain surgery. The reason why courts are constantly against your POV is, it is too easy to make the decision. Your side provides NOTHING. SCJ Story is not proof of ANYTHING. That is like saying that the individual opinion of a SCJ regarding abortion, proves one side over another. It is nonsensical. What our system is founded on is, the overall opinion.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Unfortunately, it has come to the point where it is trying to be utterly removed from society. Not in my town strangely, at least not yet since I live in a rural area. I am agnostic, yet the diversity police haven't made it to my hometown yet. Well, I don't know, I have heard rumblings.
opinionhead444 4 years ago
Maybe so, but every town, every home, every family, every school is a cultural dynamic unto itself. I live in a town where Native Americans and whites are somewhat united, somewhat divided. Somehow, we coexist peaceably on the surface. The idea of a melting pot/salad bowl frame of reference is to allow any culture and subculture the freedom to thrive uninhibited. I think the white ethnocentrism that was dominant for so long had to be challenged.
opinionhead444 4 years ago
Hilarious. You are blantantly talking about pissing all over the first amendment while trying to hide that fact under the guise of 'american culture'. Besides what you want to favor is a middle-eastern/european 'tradition'. If only one 'american tradition' should be allowed public display it should be Wakan Tanka.
digitaljez 4 years ago
How does my position piss all over the first amendment?
You may loath what America has been since we settled (and conquered), but I do not.
paleocrat 4 years ago
You are using 'american culture' as a synonym for christianity. You say only 'american culture' should be allowed to express itself in public. Then you go on to say immigrants should be selected on their willingness to 'integrate'. Sounds like you would require them to convert. This would require legislation and violate the first amendment.
I have not got the energy spare to waste it loathing silly beliefs.
digitaljez 4 years ago
Actually, a promise to integrate is part of the oath they take. Has been since 1795. The problem is that oaths just don't mean what they used to mean.
Force them to be Christian? hahaha Respecting our customs, traditions, and cultures, and their preeminent (or exclusive) place in the public square is a far cry from an inquisition.
paleocrat 4 years ago
'integrate' is a bit of a vague term for an oath. Where do you get that idea from ?
Culture IS the customs, traditions, art, science and beliefs of a group. Almost every image and reference you use is religious. A xmas tree, a church, a menorah, the islamic motif - you even identify the immigrants by their religion, Hindu, Islam (choice picture for that one) and hasidic Jews. The message that comes across is - culture = religion consequently integrate can only mean convert.
digitaljez 4 years ago
How do you propose keeping xmas trees in the square and menorahs behind locked doors without violating the first amendment?
digitaljez 4 years ago
I am saying nothing more and nothing less than that America's historical traditions and symbols should hold preeminence in the public square.
btw- Religion is a very real part of culture. This is true most of the world over, especially when looking at a nation's history. Our just so happens to be Christian.
paleocrat 4 years ago
That is fine, but the first amendment is a part of that culture and it, quite rightly, prevents the very thing you are proprosing.
btw - I covered religion with 'beliefs'.
We learn from past civilisations' art, science and philosophy, whereas their gods are looked upon as quaint (at best). What makes you think our current civilisation is an exception ?
digitaljez 4 years ago
How does the first amendment prevent the very thing I am proposing? Just curious.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Don't play dumb. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. You seem to be trying to weasel around it by relabelling it as tradition, so as to only allow your religious 'traditions' in public. Or am I totally misunderstanding you ?
digitaljez 4 years ago
i agree with what you're saying, paleo. i don't multi-culturism is going to stop anytime soon. i really wouldn't be surprised if we start allowing things like polygamy and cannibalism under the banner of multi-culturism. the southern avenger has a good video on youtube to compliment what you posted, paleo. have you checked any of his videos out?
vint7107 4 years ago
Paleo, great video. I agree with what your saying completely. know this quote is over used but "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" as JFK said it. We can't turn a blind eye to this anymore. Immigration and illegal immigration pose serious problems for the county and I scares me that this is not discussed by the candidates very often. Your daughter is adorable by the way! and I love the three-legged ballerina comment.
InNomineVeritate 4 years ago
the problem is 'public land'. There should be no such thing. All land should be privately owned. Zero govt. Private sector is much better equipped to handle justice, national defense, etc. No monopolies of force. These disagreements about religion in the 'public square' can ONLY be resolved by convincing those possessing 'legal' force to use that force in their favor. Why resort to violence?
pairunoyd 4 years ago
Agreed, insofar as the federal government is concerned. Your position is constitutional. States, on the other hand, may do as they please. Whether or not that is a good idea is another discussion altogether.
Still, it remains that we have both federal and state owned land, and the minority wishes to strip our nation of our cultural symbols, traditions, and customs... all in the name of "equality."
paleocrat 4 years ago
Some would say that the ultimate tradition in our country has been freedom, and by holding on to some of the backwards symbols, traditions and customs you are preventing freedom from working.
morsec0de 4 years ago