Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Ancalagon, Apr 16, 2019.
Republicans are telling us who they are.
We should listen.
No, you see, they're white nationalists, NOT Nazis ohnononononono. Totally different, dontchaknow. For starters, the white nationalists WILL let Jews in, at least until they've run out of Arabs, Hispanics and Blacks to demonize. See Miller, Stephen.
In amusing news:
Eh, the College Republicans marching in Charlottesville were chanting “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and Soil”.
Yes, but those are the useful idiot low-income ones. The higher-ups like Rush leave a bit of wiggle room.
Just keep digging, just keep digging....
He managed to recover just fine I'd say....
United States was founded on Christianity? That's news.
Look who becomes a ditto head now that Rush is openly defending Nazis.
Some of the colonies were, were they not? Whenever people make comments like this, I can't help but thinking that that's what they're referring to. Either out of ignorance or malice they are conflating that with the founding of the US.
According to some history it would seem some of the initial migrants were trying to go all puritan and went to the colonies because they wanted to escape the politically powered catholic system of Europe. Hence why there were so many protestants in America over roman catholics. It always seemed like the restrictions on a government religion were more to protect individual churches from a government enforced Christian ideology rather than to keep the government from being religious at all. I am pretty sure they did not mean to protect atheism, Islam, Hebrew, and pagan ideas.
The Puritans came over to avoid religious prosecution, then decided to put their own boot on other religions' heads.
Philadelphia was literally the exact opposite of that. I went there with the Navy and I was amazed at one of the maps locating all of the historic churches, synagogues and even a mosque going back to the 1600s. It was one of the very few places where one could open Catholic in America at the time.
It's specifically because of the puritians that we put the separation of church and state clause in our Constitution. It hasn't always worked in practice, however, but our founding fathers realized that their religious beliefs can't and shouldn't govern policy...which is what I believe armalyte was getting at.
So they said. Actually, Puritans were hardly persecuted in England. It was just that the particular group who boarded the Mayflower were so fanatically extremist even their fellow Puritans didn't want them around.
That's because they refused to use the cheap stuff:
Yup. We have William Penn’s enlightened leadership to thank for that.
So what's mightier, the Willy or the Penn?
See the Treaty of Tripoli, written by John Adams, “The US is in no way a Christian nation.” Can’t get much plainer than that.
Except that the treaty that superseded the Treaty of Tripoli expressly omitted that clause for some reason.
It's worth taking that statement in context given Adams was himself a devout Christian. He saw no issue whatsoever acknowledging that fact despite his personal beliefs.
The US constitution is actually about the closest you would find at the time to an outright humanist document, it was written from a rational perspective and placed human reason and dignity before dogma. That, more than anything else, is why I tend to rail against people who treat it as exactly the thing it implicitly rejected, a dogmatic ideology which should never be questioned, just another "holy book".
It's like using Richard Dawkins as a reading in a baptist church.
Well, hence "founded."
However as a layman who has never sat foot in America or even outside of Europe in my life: My understanding is precisely that the United States has a thoroughly secular constitution and thus cannot in any meaningful way be said to be founded on Christianity or any religion.
You know, this is one of the things I envy your nation.
Which is very much the point, the association between church and government was a latter day phenomenon. I'd say it was a regression to boot.
So if I were to make a joke I'd say the USA was founded by people who wanted to escape Christianity.
People who had fought a war against an oppressive religious empire and wanted to create something better, sure.
And I'll throw a caveat here which is also totally beside the point but whatever:
(No seriously don't read.)
All ethical belief systems are at their core metaphysical thus can be described as "religious" in one manner of speaking. It would be silly to think the constitution would not be influenced by the Christian Western upbringing of its signatories.
The very idea that killing people and raping babies is wrong is, at its core, logically indefensible except by referring to other motivations for that idea, which are themselves impossible to defend, and so on and so forth ad nauseam. At one point you will have to say "I believe it because I believe it." This is what I define as an ethical nail. (Sounds better in Swedish but never heard anyone else use the term.) The less such you have the more coherent your system. This is why I am a big believer of establishing a hierarchy of your morality. C because B because A. Keeps you intellectually honest. Also why the dialectical method has been so attractive to me.
One dumb thing with organized religions to me is mostly having to adopt several sets of values, from an outside source, most of which contradict each other. The good thing, eh, of course, acceptance. Especially in a country that will have your head for dissent.
And I think that covers most of my bases on the individual level.
(Edited for spelling because I'm overworked and drunk)
The underlying tragedy of the U.S., IMO, @armalyte, is that the majority of its people's philosophy is based on emotion and the cult of personality.
"Hey, I like this guy. He thinks like me. I'd follow him into the Abyss."
(The majority of them, of course, have never heard the word Abyss, except perhaps in relation to some movie they may or may not have seen, and they certainly don't know what it means.)
To adapt one's worldview around "Hey, I like this guy" is the biggest mistake any human culture can adopt. Unfortunately for us in the States, it's become the norm.
I would (very!) cautiously suggest this is superimposing the way you relate to people on a tribe or personal level to the state level. I would think this has become more and more prevalent with social media and "direct access" to leaders i.e. watching videos, seeing their behavior as "actual people", rather than experiencing the ruling elite in decrees or theorem or violence.
I agree it's harmful (most of all, this media exposure breaks class solidarity by its framing) and at the same time most understandable. The underlying instinct is sound. Been going on a long time. Example, for boxing fans, compare Jack Dempsey to Muhammad Ali. (No, I am not suggesting boxing champions were never in any sense political before, but they didn't have that "personal voice." In this sense Ali represented a paradigm shift.)
^You need to post more often. You raise the IQ level here by at least 20 points.
Separate names with a comma.