Charlottesville

[farjean2]

yeah, like trying to read a Bible in school?

Probably can't read the Bible in public schools because it contains the word "slave", 181 times in the NIV. Will the Bible be next on the remove from classics list because it contains nasty stories? Surely we would not want our little darlings exposed to such hideous ideas; we must create more snowflakes to offset global warming.

I would be very much in favor of teaching the Bible in public schools as long as it could be done without religious proselytizing or watering down what it actually says. I'd say to use the KJV but it probably wouldn't pass obscenity codes (like David going into a village to kill everyone that pisses against the wall).

Christians probably ought not to be in favor of this however, because I believe the more people know about what the "Good Book" actually says, the more likely they are to reject it. You really need to hide it from the kids until they are older and you can get them indoctrinated with religious teachings before they take a serious look at it (if they ever do - which most don't).

(Correction: In the KJV it says "pisseth", not "pisses". I think modern translations simply say "men" but the Bible is much more colorful when you translate it literally.)

[Maddy]

Just for the record, the above wasn't my quote.

[Mountaineer]

Just for the record, the above wasn't my quote.

The misattribution happens easily when quoters do not give the full quote - In my opinion, it is better to quote a whole post, including all the sub posts even if it gets messy, so all can see the correct context; otherwise all sorts of mischief can happen and who know what all those bots who are cruising our forum do with that incorrect information. However, I'm guilty of not following my own guidance sometimes.

[dualstow]

In my opinion, it is better to quote a whole post, including all the sub posts even if it gets messy,

I can't stand that quote bloat myself. I understand why people do it if they're on a phone. In fact, right now I'm on an iPad, with no forward arrow and shitty selection capabilities. I spend a lot of time deleting extraneous stuff and moving the stubborn cursor. Can't make anyone else do it, but for me it's worth it.

And how hard is it to type:

Code: Select all

[quote="Mountaineer"]

??

I have my ipad set to expand qt to the close quote tag.

[Mountaineer]

In my opinion, it is better to quote a whole post, including all the sub posts even if it gets messy,

I can't stand that quote bloat myself. I understand why people do it if they're on a phone. In fact, right now I'm on an iPad, with no forward arrow and shitty selection capabilities. I spend a lot of time deleting extraneous stuff and moving the stubborn cursor. Can't make anyone else do it, but for me it's worth it.

And how hard is it to type:

Code: Select all

[quote="Mountaineer"]

??

I have my ipad set to expand qt to the close quote tag.

But the context (sorry Maddy) is going, going, gone.

[Mountaineer]

Probably can't read the Bible in public schools because it contains the word "slave", 181 times in the NIV. Will the Bible be next on the remove from classics list because it contains nasty stories? Surely we would not want our little darlings exposed to such hideous ideas; we must create more snowflakes to offset global warming.

On a serious note, I do not think one can fully understand and appreciate good unless they also understand evil. And, evil will never be eliminated by man, no matter how hard some try to create heaven on earth by getting rid of things they perceive as evil (e.g. statues, or books, or flags in this case). Much better to spend our energy focused on the real solution to the problem, i.e. what has already been done to solve the problem versus what we humans need to do.

Point 1: I agree with portions of this, Mountaineer. And I certainly don't believe any of us can create heaven on earth. But I do believe we are called to oppose evil and do good; not for salvation, but because it's commanded and exemplified in the Bible. (Apologies to the non-religious for the bible thumping)

Point 2: Anyway, back to the secular world: I think it's tough to see more than one side of issues like this unless one gets out of their cultural bubble long enough to form relationships with individuals from other walks of life. Of course there's no law that says any of us need to do that, but I have found it incredibly useful in my own life. It has built empathy in my heart/brain for peoples and issues I previously saw very differently.

Point 3: And again, I wish everyone would take some time out and view the NO Mayor speech on monuments. You may not agree with his conclusion, but at the very least it will help you understand the other side of this issue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/na ... 1bd7519e6a

I added Points in your post to help keep track of my responses.

Re. Point 1 - The main thing Jesus commanded is covered in Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” - Many of the rest of his commands were to show the futility of man being able to do them, and thus to help them see they needed to depend on Jesus alone. [notice it says teaching them to observe, not teaching them to do]

Re. Point 2 - Agree, my experience as well.

Re. Point 3 - I did watch the NO video. There is actually a biblical chain reference on this topic. (Deut 19:14, 27:17, Hos 5:10, Prov 22:28, 23:10, Job 24:2) The short answer is "you shall not move your neighbor's landmark". It is not quite that easy, as I think the context is incredibly helpful and critical. And the law always has three forces, but no force in itself. But, here is something a wrote up on it. http://www.saintmarkslutheran.org/2017/08/17/landmarks/ (Mark Brown). The cancer is spreading to statues of others who some merely "don't like". That's the problem when laws are not respected, as well as the problem when people do not respect the property of others. One of my current beliefs is that our culture has pretty much lost respect for most things that enabled our nation to prosper and grow, but especially the capability to care for each other no matter how obnoxious we may view the other. We used to be united in Christ, or at least in the moral aspects of the Judeo-Christian teachings - no longer. And we are reaping the results.

http://www.fox29.com/news/274535688-story

PHILADELPHIA (WTXF) - The Frank Rizzo statue was defaced with white spray paint that says "Black Power" Thursday night, and Philadelphia Police have now confirmed a suspect was taken into custody early Friday morning. It happened around 11 p.m. Thursday night. Rizzo, the tough talking former cop from South Philly, has long been criticized for his volatile relationships with African Americans and LGBT communities.

[farjean2]

Just for the record, the above wasn't my quote.

My apologies for the quote bloat. I'll try to avoid it in the future. My thinking was to include everybody who had commented on the thread but I'm sorry for the misattribution.

[l82start]

moved the Figuring Out Religion content to the appropriate thread... religious commentary/proselytizing is fine in the correct spot.. it is not complicated to use quote, copy, and paste to respond to political philosophical and investment discussions with a religion based reply in the correct thread, just hit quote copy the quote go to the religion thread paste the quote and reply away....


edit to add - feel free to post a link in the original thread to the religious replies you make over in the religion thread, to direct those who want to see it over there to read it..

[Mountaineer]

The more I think about the taking down of statues (or flags, or banning books and the like) the more I'm coming to believe we are treating the disease with an asprin when open heart 5 bypasses surgery is needed. So very like us humans to feel great about ourselves for the fleeting moment before reality kicks us in the teeth once more like it almost always does. Hope I'm wrong about that ......... I'm off now for a beer and brisket with farjean2 and desert, at least in my mind.

[farjean2]

I'm off now for a beer and brisket with farjean2 and desert, at least in my mind.

I'm flattered. Slow cooked ribs in the oven will be done in about an hour. There's also plenty of beer.

[Mountaineer]

I'm off now for a beer and brisket with farjean2 and desert, at least in my mind.

I'm flattered. Slow cooked ribs in the oven will be done in about an hour. There's also plenty of beer.

Wow, does that ever sound good. I'll bet we will find a whole bunch of things we agree on, likely far more than not. Let's see, how many is that now, at least 4 by my count and we are only trading electrons instead of real conversation.

[Mountaineer]

The more I think about the taking down of statues (or flags, or banning books and the like) the more I'm coming to believe we are treating the disease with an asprin when open heart 5 bypasses surgery is needed. So very like us humans to feel great about ourselves for the fleeting moment before reality kicks us in the teeth once more like it almost always does. Hope I'm wrong about that ......... I'm off now for a beer and brisket with farjean2 and desert, at least in my mind.

I agree. Taking down some statues and flags is only treating the symptoms. Here's a good read on the civil war, the Jim Crow period, and statues.

Confederate statues are generally not very aesthetically memorable. They are far more important for what they represent: a bill still being paid for over a century of deliberate forgetting and rewriting of the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Let me start with one important fact: The American Civil War was fought over slavery. Southern states seceded (and later started the war) in furious outrage over Abraham Lincoln being elected on a platform of restricting slavery's extent to the places in which it already existed. Rather than accept the result of the democratic process, secessionists decided to break the country apart and start a war to keep it that way. Preserving and extending slavery — which was the sole foundation of the Confederacy's political economy — was the objective of this war.

http://theweek.com/articles/718986/how- ... -civil-war

I have no idea if this is really true, but I was once told by a history teacher that if one really wanted to understand the American Civil War, the most reliable but still far from perfect way to do that was to read newspapers from the North and South written at the time and no later than about 1870 or 1880. Read all the newspaper, opinions, articles, ads and such - everything for a maybe 30 or 40 year period. A very big task to say the least. After that, the rewriting of history began in ernest, especially the summary stuff that tries to reduce the complexity to a few major causes, according to that teacher. Who knows?

[dualstow]

Rather than accept the result of the democratic process, secessionists decided to break the country apart and start a war to keep it that way.
http://theweek.com/articles/718986/how- ... -civil-war

Jeez, that sounds like a description of the entire left and some of the right these days.

It truly does. Btw, I get the Week in print. Much of it is a bit left even for me, but most of it is reprinted excerpts from both sides of an issue, e.g. New York Times AND Slate AND Nat'l review. For about a buck an issue, it's a nice way to pass the time when the wife *still* isn't dressed and ready for dinner.

[dualstow]

Well, well, well. It's being rumored, the alleged source being the "hard left" Southern Poverty Law Center--that Jason Kessler is a left-wing activist previously associated with Occupy. It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Unfolded -

Jason Kessler posts derogatory tweets about woman killed during Charlottesville riot.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017 ... yback.html

[dualstow]

#1 you mean.

[Mountaineer]

Where will it end?

"In the wake of the violence that took place in Charlottesville over last weekend, numerous activists and politicians have called for the destruction of more historical monuments, although a significant majority of Americans (62 percent) think the monuments should stay put. Only 27 percent of Americans think these statues should be removed for fear of offending some people. As usual, public opinion’s not stopping liberals from pursuing an unpopular agenda.

Though by no means comprehensive, here’s a list of the monuments that are facing calls for removal or have already been torn down." See link:

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/17/her ... -tear-far/

[dualstow]

Ha, I thought that I was the only one 'still' waiting for the GF to be ready to leave.

I believe it was the inspiration for Eric Clapton's "Wonderful Tonight."

[farjean2]

I think we've still got a long ways to go before we reach the level of civil unrest we saw in the 60's with the Vietnam war protests and the race riots but things do seem to be heating up quite a bit. What's surprising to me is that there are so many "white nationalists" out there. They seem to have kept mostly silent until now.

I wonder if these things come in cycles and we're due for one.

[Maddy]

Here's a nice writing from 1928, by DuBois:

. . . Well, for what did he fight? State rights? Nonsense. The South cared only for State Rights as a weapon to defend slavery. If nationalism had been a stronger defense of the slave system than particularism, the South would have been as nationalistic in 1861 as it had been in 1812.

No. People do not go to war for abstract theories of government. . .

Says he. Those "abstract theories of government" represent the product of centuries of critical thinking about actual events and about very concrete social and political issues. We go to war over those "abstract theories" because we know, from experience, what happens when power becomes concentrated in a central government.

[farjean2]

Here's a nice writing from 1928, by DuBois:

Robert E. Lee
Lee hesitated and hung his head in shame because he was asked to lead armies against human progress and Christian decency and did not dare refuse.

Pure Bullshit. The Apostle Paul made it very clear that slaves are to submit to their masters and the book of Philemon where he sent a slave back to his master was often quoted for justifying the fugitive slave act. I know you are a Christian so how do you go about reconciling the Bible as the "authoritative word of God" on the subject to the point that you can condemn Mr. Lee for supporting slavery?

[moda0306]

Here's a nice writing from 1928, by DuBois:

. . . Well, for what did he fight? State rights? Nonsense. The South cared only for State Rights as a weapon to defend slavery. If nationalism had been a stronger defense of the slave system than particularism, the South would have been as nationalistic in 1861 as it had been in 1812.

No. People do not go to war for abstract theories of government. . .

Says he. Those "abstract theories of government" represent the product of centuries of critical thinking about actual events and about very concrete social and political issues. We go to war over those "abstract theories" because we know, from experience, what happens when power becomes concentrated in a central government.

Not only is it ridiculous to assert that the gears of war actually start turning over abstract theories than more simple material and power gains to be had, but what's more is that war is the ultimate unchecked collection of power in the central government. Revolution might be more of what you are trying to speak of.

The Civil War wasn't fought by against the federal U.S. government by a bunch of decentralized militias or even independent states, but a Confederation that drafted (read: enslaved) men to go die to protect the imperial interests of the elite political class of the South. The North was pretty much the same thing, but with "slavery" as the thing they eventually pretended they fought the war for rather than "decentralized government."

"Abstract theories" are almost always simply a pretext to get the populace whipped up.

[Mountaineer]

Here's a nice writing from 1928, by DuBois:

. . . Well, for what did he fight? State rights? Nonsense. The South cared only for State Rights as a weapon to defend slavery. If nationalism had been a stronger defense of the slave system than particularism, the South would have been as nationalistic in 1861 as it had been in 1812.

No. People do not go to war for abstract theories of government. . .

Says he. Those "abstract theories of government" represent the product of centuries of critical thinking about actual events and about very concrete social and political issues. We go to war over those "abstract theories" because we know, from experience, what happens when power becomes concentrated in a central government.

Not only is it ridiculous to assert that the gears of war actually start turning over abstract theories than more simple material and power gains to be had, but what's more is that war is the ultimate unchecked collection of power in the central government. Revolution might be more of what you are trying to speak of.

The Civil War wasn't fought by against the federal U.S. government by a bunch of decentralized militias or even independent states, but a Confederation that drafted (read: enslaved) men to go die to protect the imperial interests of the elite political class of the South. The North was pretty much the same thing, but with "slavery" as the thing they eventually pretended they fought the war for rather than "decentralized government."

"Abstract theories" are almost always simply a pretext to get the populace whipped up.

Maddy, Desert, moda0306, very interesting and divergent views. Serious question: What is the source(s) that shape your view, or opinion, and how did you determine the source(s) is/are factual or true?

[moda0306]

For me... Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky, Smedley Butler, Howard Zinn, Eugene Debbs... others but you really can't go wrong there.

At least my views on foreign policy and war.

[Maddy]

Maddy, Desert, moda0306, very interesting and divergent views. Serious question: What is the source(s) that shape your view, or opinion, and how did you determine the source(s) is/are factual or true?

I'm not sure what particular view you're referring to, but the view that people do stand up for principle as opposed to being motivated politically by their own self-interest is supported in spades by the behavior of constitutional conservatives during the last eight and a half years.

It would have been very easy, given the shredding of the constitution, the dismantling of culture, and the nearly complete abandonment of the rule of law that we witnessed during the Obama administration, for constitutional conservatives to have thrown a collective temper tantrum such as the one we are presently witnessing from the Progressive Left. However, the vast majority of conservatives exercised an impressive amount of restraint and did what they have always done--played by the rules--while the other team fouled them time and time again. Amazingly, those rule-of-law conservatives held out for eight extremely demoralizing years, patiently awaiting the opportunity to register their individual vote at the polls. When you think about it, that was a really amazing exercise of character, the backbone of which came from the genuinely-held belief that the principles behind our constitutional form of government do matter, and that to win by violating those principles would be a pyrrhic victory.

Now we're facing a very different sort of overreach from the Left. Violence aimed at law-abiding citizens, the attempted creation of chaos, the quashing of divergent viewpoints, the publication of entirely made-up political narratives, and daily displays of vile, intolerant, and wholly uncivilized behavior. And once again constitutional conservatives are exercising amazing restraint, since the natural impulse of one with the power of law on his side, in the face of such egregiously criminal conduct, would be to forcibly take the criminals into custody and put them in prison--or in a state hospital--for a good long time.

In short, the rule-of-law conservatives have held fast to the principle that even when the country's very foundation is under attack and one side is playing with a double deck, it is imperative that we still adhere to our principles.

[moda0306]

Maddy, Desert, moda0306, very interesting and divergent views. Serious question: What is the source(s) that shape your view, or opinion, and how did you determine the source(s) is/are factual or true?

I'm not sure what particular view you're referring to, but the view that people do stand up for principle as opposed to being motivated politically by their own self-interest is supported in spades by the behavior of constitutional conservatives during the last eight and a half years.

It would have been very easy, given the shredding of the constitution, the dismantling of culture, and the nearly complete abandonment of the rule of law that we witnessed during the Obama administration, for constitutional conservatives to have thrown a collective temper tantrum such as the one we are presently witnessing from the Progressive Left. However, the vast majority of conservatives exercised an impressive amount of restraint and did what they have always done--played by the rules--while the other team fouled them time and time again. Amazingly, those rule-of-law conservatives held out for eight extremely demoralizing years, patiently awaiting the opportunity to register their individual vote at the polls. When you think about it, that was a really amazing exercise of character, the backbone of which came from the genuinely-held belief that the principles behind our constitutional form of government do matter, and that to win by violating those principles would be a pyrrhic victory.

Now we're facing a very different sort of overreach from the Left. Violence aimed at law-abiding citizens, the attempted creation of chaos, the quashing of divergent viewpoints, the publication of entirely made-up political narratives, and daily displays of vile, intolerant, and wholly uncivilized behavior. And once again constitutional conservatives are exercising amazing restraint, since the natural impulse of one with the power of law on his side, in the face of such egregiously criminal conduct, would be to forcibly take the criminals into custody and put them in prison--or in a state hospital--for a good long time.

In short, the rule-of-law conservatives have held fast to the principle that even when the country's very foundation is under attack and one side is playing with a double deck, it is imperative that we still adhere to our principles.

Now your phrase is "stand up," whatever that means. But before you were saying "we go to war" for these principles. While I wouldn't put it past certain individuals to join a cause at great expense for perceived principles (though usually extremely naively), the actual engineers of most wars or just political causes in-general are usually NOT in a similar position. They are careerists who sacrifice very little for the wars or other policies they propose and execute.

But to your broader that 1) Obama was uniquely flippant towards the rule of law, and that 2) "constitutional conservatives" were uniquely principled in their "stand up" against him, I guess I'd ask you a couple things...

- In what major ways was Obama and his admin uniquely flippant towards the rule of law.

- Who are these principled constitutional conservatives? Are there many politicians you would label as such, or are you talking about individual citizens? If the latter, aren't you sort of cherry picking? Wouldn't you also say that there are members of "the left" who take very principled stands and don't resort to violence and have power-decks stacked against their causes as well? Or, put a bit differently, aren't there extremely unprincipled "conservatives" in our government (caughMitchMcConnell) that aren't worthy of praise at all?

Yes, there are very principled people out there... but usually the only principle that can drive big decisions at the government level such as a WAR is rampant careerism and cronyism, and all the profit benefits of neo-Imperialism.

I would also add that if there was every any time where evidence was at its highest that "conservatives" had far fewer principles than they propose they do, it's in the election of the utter buffoon we have in the White House (and I thought the last "conservative" buffoon was bad). Rand Paul, once again, didn't stand a chance, and he's on a very, very short list of what seem to be quasi-principled politicians out there, and if we really had a critical mass of "constitutionalists" out there, Rand would have been far more popular.