Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Glen Beck's "Restoring Honor" march (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Glen Beck's "Restoring Honor" march
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
==>"If what I wrote was divisive, then the Declaration must be double-plus divisive."

I disagree. That was a manifesto put before the people. The "we" is us. As imperfectly as the union was when it was formed, it is becoming perfected by progressively including more of "us" who have not had an equal voice. I don't see that Beck/Palin are defining "we" as everyone, unless everyone conforms to some set of features that are well known to them, based on everything I know about what they've said in the past. That's my opinion, it doesn't have to be yours.

[ August 30, 2010, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Al Wessex ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
I would be more willing to give religion (in this case Christianity) credit for the movement if it didn't take nearly 2000 years since its discovery (creation) for the movement to come about.
LOL. Yeah: Christianity was born. Over 1900 years later, the civil rights movement was born in America. How can there be a clearer case of a causation between the two? :-)

[DOH] FYI, the most noted figure in the modern American Civil Rights movement was Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

quote:

Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an American clergyman, activist, and prominent leader in the African American civil rights movement. He is best known for being an iconic figure in the advancement of civil rights in the United States and around the world. Also a leader of the Christian left in the 20th Century, he is often considered representative in the history of modern American liberalism.

A Baptist minister, King became a civil rights activist early in his career. He led the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott and helped found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957, serving as its first president. King's efforts led to the 1963 March on Washington, where King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech. There, he expanded American values to include the vision of a color blind society, and established his reputation as one of the greatest orators in American history.

In 1964, King became the youngest person to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to end racial segregation and racial discrimination through civil disobedience and other non-violent means.


Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We're replacing ... communities ... with government programs
Your complaint is that we're replacing community support with... community support?

And, as for the Church, there's a pretty long stretch, from at least the conversion of Constantine till the Reformation was in full swing, that it served explicitly as a tool to keep most people pliable and accepting of the rulership of the Kings and Emperors of the time. It's only in the past few centuries that Christianity has remembered that social justice should be the heart of its message, rather than simply "charitably" just keeping people alive so that they could serve the nobility that ruled them.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"the idea that religion and the morality it inspires should be a part of our public life. "

Problem is, the morality your religion inspires calls for curtailing my freedom.

I really don't see the relevance in your DoI excerpt. The DoI is universal, Beck's crap isn't.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
==>"If what I wrote was divisive, then the Declaration must be double-plus divisive."

I disagree. That was a manifesto put before the people. The "we" is us. As imperfectly as the union was when it was formed, it is becoming perfected by progressively including more of "us" who have not had an equal voice. I don't see that Beck/Palin are defining "we" as everyone, unless everyone conforms to some set of features that are well known to them, based on everything I know about what they've said in the past. That's my opinion, it doesn't have to be yours.

Don't let yourself get tricked here, Al. The Declaration was explicitly about dividing us (the Colonies) from them (the British Empire). It was intended to be a divisive document and a focus for creating a unified faction to fight the identified Other Side.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
In terms of public morality, Mr. Jefferson laid out the basic argument for you, Tom. People are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights.
Sure, but Mr. Jefferson's conception of that Creator was quite a bit different than Mr. Beck's.
Do you have any proof of this? Or is it just complete conjecture?
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
FYI, the most noted figure in the modern American Civil Rights movement was Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Yep. That doesn't say anything about why, if religion is the key factor, that 2000 years of same permitted slavery. When the status quo is upset, one asks "what changed?", not "what factor, present for most of recorded civilization, can we credit?"

You may as well state that it was "people of flesh" that were responsible for driving the civil rights movement. It's not like the south was full of a bunch of secularists prior to emancipation. "People of faith" has never distinguished any sizable portion of America from any other.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Were the opponents of the Civil Rights Movement any less religious?
I would say so, but that's not really the point. The point is that a very common meme in our society and educational institutions today is that religiousity in general and Christianity in particular are oppressive forces; increasingly ignored or disputed is the notion that religion in general and Christianity in particular inspired many Americans from the time of the founding on to create a society devoted to the proposition that people have fundamental rights conferred by God and not government, and to lay down their lives to defend that society and extend its blessings to their fellow men and posterity. People spend plenty of time talking about how religion is used to oppress, and precious little talking about how it's been used to free people and societies from slavery and tyranny.

I don't object to pointing out instances in our history where religious organizations or people acting out of religious belief have done backwards or oppressive things, so what you're writing isn't really responsive to anything I've said. My objection is to those who pretend that religion has only been used to oppress, and that only by freeing ourselves from its intellectually and morally backwards yoke have we moved towards a better world. They're spitting on the graves of millions of martyrs.

quote:
Very explicitly so. It's fundamental intent was to declare a division.
This we can agree on, Pyr. [Smile] So, do you think that the Declaration of Independence was "problematic" in the same way Al described what I wrote?

quote:
What if, instead, what they're saying is that you have no business dictating those things to other people who disagree with you?
That would be a better world, Pyr. Instead they're usually telling me that there is no god, at least no Christian God, that it's impossible for a black man (or a society) to be racist in any meaningful way against white men, even if their attitudes and policies are patently discriminatory, and that they want marriage to mean what they think it should, without recourse to the democratic, legislative, or constitutional processes.

But even if they were, as in your hypothetical world, telling me not to push my opinions instead of pushing theirs, I still haven't the foggiest idea what their credentials or degrees would have to do with the credibility which I should ascribe to their arguments. You can make those arguments just as convincingly (which is to say not very convincingly) as you could if you had a string of postnomials a mile long.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you have any proof of this? Or is it just complete conjecture?
I'd taken it as a given that Jefferson's religious views were well known by the regulars here. He held a generally deist viewpoint and did not believe in the divinity of Christ. He produced his own version of the New Testament that removed the supernatural acts of Jesus' life. More information is easy to Google.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This we can agree on, Pyr. So, do you think that the Declaration of Independence was "problematic" in the same way Al described what I wrote?
Very much so for anyone who wanted to find a peaceful, unifying solution.

If a war (even just a cultural or political one) is the objective of the speaker, then the working is only problematic to those that don't want such.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Your complaint is that we're replacing community support with... community support?
The federal government isn't a "community", Pyr. The fact that you don't grasp the distinction between a supportive community where people voluntarily give clothes, food, and money to support their needy neighbors and compulsory welfare programs where the government takes peoples' money by force and hands it out to people they've never met is symptomatic of what I'm talking about. Communities involve people who actually know each other and take a voluntary, personal interest in each other's lives. When you replace that with a society dependent upon government handouts, you lose something fundamental.

quote:
And, as for the Church, there's a pretty long stretch, from at least the conversion of Constantine till the Reformation was in full swing, that it served explicitly as a tool to keep most people pliable and accepting of the rulership of the Kings and Emperors of the time. It's only in the past few centuries that Christianity has remembered that social justice should be the heart of its message, rather than simply "charitably" just keeping people alive so that they could serve the nobility that ruled them.
The entire *idea* of fundamental human equality and human rights only came into Western Civilization as a product of Christianity. An early Greek or Roman would have looked at you like you had two heads if you suggested it. One of the reasons Christianity spread as quickly as it did was that it told the poor that they had dignity and value, that they were loved and should be valued as much or more than their richer and more powerful counterparts.

Today the Church feeds, educates, clothes, medicates, and ministers to hundreds of millions of people around the world. At times it certainly has made mistakes over its long history, particularly when it ventured too far into political affairs. But when judged against contemporary institutions, it has over the course of time generally been the strongest force for charity and civilization in history.

Whenever people tell me how bad the Church is, my only question is "compared to what?" The US government? The British Empire? The Roman Empire? The Soviet Union? Any institution comprised of people is going to make horrible mistakes when it wields tremendous power; the Church has wielded more power and wealth for longer than any other institution in human history. It's done more good and less bad with that power and wealth than any contemporary institution which comes to my mind. Rebuttals welcome.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The entire *idea* of fundamental human equality and human rights only came into Western Civilization as a product of Christianity.
This is a completely unsupportable statement.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The point is that a very common meme in our society and educational institutions today is that religiousity in general and Christianity in particular are oppressive forces; increasingly ignored or disputed is the notion that religion in general and Christianity in particular inspired many Americans from the time of the founding on to create a society devoted to the proposition that people have fundamental rights conferred by God and not government, and to lay down their lives to defend that society and extend its blessings to their fellow men and posterity. People spend plenty of time talking about how religion is used to oppress, and precious little talking about how it's been used to free people and societies from slavery and tyranny.
There are a few voices who go that far, but the bulk of the argument is, simply that imposition of religious views is, by definition, oppressive. The government has no business dictating religion, not because religion is good or bad, but because religion must be a personal choice to be a meaningful one.

When you look at the times that religion has done good, they're the times when it has stepped forward and spoken against oppressive rules, not when it has sought to impose its own rules. Often laws to try to undo damage done by oppression have been used, but those don't explicitly flow from the religious sensibilities of the people that fought the oppression, but from the practical realities of trying to remove the oppressive influences.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
Today the Church feeds, educates, clothes, medicates, and ministers to hundreds of millions of people around the world. At times it certainly has made mistakes over its long history, particularly when it ventured too far into political affairs. But when judged against contemporary institutions, it has over the course of time generally been the strongest force for charity and civilization in history.

Whenever people tell me how bad the Church is, my only question is "compared to what?" The US government? The British Empire? The Roman Empire? The Soviet Union? Any institution comprised of people is going to make horrible mistakes when it wields tremendous power; the Church has wielded more power and wealth for longer than any other institution in human history. It's done more good and less bad with that power and wealth than any contemporary institution which comes to my mind. Rebuttals welcome.

We should be doing a whole lot better. Part of that is acknowledging where we have been and still are wrong.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The entire *idea* of fundamental human equality and human rights only came into Western Civilization as a product of Christianity.
...after hundreds of years of Church-sanctioned divine rule of kings, class divisions, slavery, etc...

Again, I ask what changed? You can't credit religion for the change unless you are willing to say that the nature of religion itself changed. And if that's the case, then what changed religion?

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, here's what Beck said yesterday on "FOX News Sunday" about what he *really* thinks of including people who he disagrees with in his big tent of Christian brotherhood. This is what he said about his understanding of Obama's Christianity:
quote:
"You see, it's all about victims and victimhood; oppressors and the oppressed; reparations, not repentance; collectivism, not individual salvation. I don't know what that is, other than it's not Muslim, it's not Christian. It's a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ as most Christians know it," Beck said.
And here's the underlying political agenda of his simple gathering on the Mall:
quote:
Conservative commentator Glenn Beck voiced sharper criticism of President Obama's religious beliefs on Sunday than he and other speakers offered from the podium of the rally Beck organized at the Lincoln Memorial a day earlier.

During an interview on "Fox News Sunday," which was filmed after Saturday's rally, Beck claimed that Obama "is a guy who understands the world through liberation theology, which is oppressor-and-victim."

"People aren't recognizing his version of Christianity," Beck added.

To return the favor to Beck that he has several times given to Obama, even Hitler would occasionally kiss a child on the cheek and smile.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
increasingly ignored or disputed is the notion that religion in general and Christianity in particular inspired many Americans from the time of the founding on to create a society devoted to the proposition that people have fundamental rights conferred by God and not government,
You've not explained why 1500 years of governments before the USA which MUCH more openly declared their allegiance to Christianity than the US did, why they weren't equally inspired to be devoted to that proposition.

You talk as if human history began with the Declaration of Independence. If it was Christianity that inspired those propositions -- WHY DID IT WAIT 1750 YEARS TO SO INSPIRE THEM?

It seems to me there's much closer correlations with things like the development of rationalism, humanism, and the enlightment. Rather than Christianity, which closer correlates to the European religious wars and the burning of heretics.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is a completely unsupportable statement.
I'm more interested in whether it's true than whether you think it's supportable. Do you think it's a false statement? If so, then how do you believe that idea entered so powerfully Western thought?

quote:
There are a few voices who go that far, but the bulk of the argument is, simply that imposition of religious views is, by definition, oppressive. The government has no business dictating religion, not because religion is good or bad, but because religion must be a personal choice to be a meaningful one.
Many people came to this country to be able to form communities of faith, not merely to live out their faith as individuals. Religion must be a personal choice to be a meaningful one, but essential to the concept of most major religions is the idea of a community of faith where believers live and practice together.

Now, I suspect that you're going to argue that there are distinct roles for a government and a community; that a community shouldn't be able to and shouldn't want to impose its values on its members with a compulsory system of governmental enforcement. If you're going to make that perfectly legitimate argument, then you'll have neatly disproved your nonsensical "community support" equivocation. The truth of the matter is that you'll happily argue (and have at length argued) for the legitimate authority of a community to impose its values upon unwilling members, so long as those values are yours and not those of "fundamentalist Christians". The only difference between you and them, to my mind, is that they at least generally have the courtesy not to pretend that they're not imposing their values.

quote:
When you look at the times that religion has done good, they're the times when it has stepped forward and spoken against oppressive rules, not when it has sought to impose its own rules.
We disagree about what "good" is, I suspect. I think that the greatest good that religion has done for man is giving him rules whereby to live a good life in communion with God and his fellows.
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
The federal government isn't a "community", Pyr. The fact that you don't grasp the distinction between a supportive community where people voluntarily give clothes, food, and money to support their needy neighbors and compulsory welfare programs where the government takes peoples' money by force and hands it out to people they've never met is symptomatic of what I'm talking about. Communities involve people who actually know each other and take a voluntary, personal interest in each other's lives. When you replace that with a society dependent upon government handouts, you lose something fundamental.

You're drawing a false distinction that's a product of relatively modern othering of "government". Your requirement that everyone knows each other fails already for mid-sized towns, never mind cities or states. Communities are organized groups of people that share a common identity as part of the same group. Size is a characteristic of a community, not a defining element, and communities are not mutually exclusive.
The United States is much a community as is any subdivision of it or even completely self-selected group of people; it's simply one of the communities that its residents belong to. It takes a large set of formal rules to moderate such a large group, given that working by consensus is logistically impossible on that scale, but it still fundamentally operates on the principle of community consent. The only difference between the Federal Government and a town council is size and scope, as well as the fact that technology serves every day to render geographical limitations more meaningless, and thus less able to inherently define communities.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you think it's a false statement? If so, then how do you believe that idea entered so powerfully Western thought?
The idea that individuals possess rights and dignities independent of their role in society? I'd say that that belief is an inevitable consequence of the collapse of feudalism and the return of land to the people, something that tends to produce a middle class of specialized producers; we saw something similar with the Greeks, and certainly with the Italian Renaissance. A belief in individual rights is a product of a merchant class, except when suppressed by religion justifying the alternative.

[ August 30, 2010, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We should be doing a whole lot better. Part of that is acknowledging where we have been and still are wrong.
No disagreement there [Smile] I've never pretended we're perfect, and certainly historically we've made our share of mistakes and continue to.

quote:
...after hundreds of years of Church-sanctioned divine rule of kings, class divisions, slavery, etc...

Again, I ask what changed? You can't credit religion for the change unless you are willing to say that the nature of religion itself changed. And if that's the case, then what changed religion?

The growth and evolution of human societies isn't a fast thing, Matt. If I were to give a patient medicine for a disease, and the disease were to persist for some time, but gradually weaken and fade, you couldn't disprove my contention that the medicine cured the disease with the fact that the patient wasn't immediately and absolutely cured, or even with the "evidence" that he remained sick for some time.

There was a lot that was beautiful about Classical philosophy and secular humanist thought, but they didn't inspire hundreds of thousands of people to bleed the ground red in order to extirpate the evil of slavery from human society. They didn't inspire a group of brave rebels to assert that their rights came from God and not government, and cause them to take on and defeat the mightiest empire on the face of the planet in armed conflict. A belief in God and God-given rights did those things. It didn't do them immediately, and why it took as long as it did is an interesting question and one worthy of examination. But the point persists that it did do it.

quote:
It seems to me there's much closer correlations with things like the development of rationalism, humanism, and the enlightment. Rather than Christianity, which closer correlates to the European religious wars and the burning of heretics.
It says a lot about your sense of objectivity that you ascribe purely secular motives to people when they openly say that they believe in a God or a Creator, that they believe that he created people equal, that he is the source of their rights, that they rely upon him for protection, that they're going to die to make men free as Jesus died to make them holy, that they designed their constitution for the governance of a religious people. I had a similar conversation with a friend of mine. When he finally saw the corner he was painted into, he said that the Soviet regime was "religious" because it demanded unthinking obedience. If you're defining "religious" as "anything bad" and "secular" as "anything good", then sure, the Framers and the abolitionists and the Civil Rights Movement were all just a bunch of secular humanists fighting Christian oppression. I'll disturb your fantasy no longer.
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The idea that individuals possess rights and dignities independent of their role in society? I'd say that that belief is an inevitable consequence of the collapse of feudalism and the return of land to the people, something that tends to produce a middle class of specialized producers; we saw something similar with the Greeks, and certainly with the Italian Renaissance. A belief in individual rights is a product of a merchant class, except when suppressed by religion justifying the alternative.
Where do you suppose people believed those rights came from? Why should they be respected?
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interestingly, there is the idea of 'fairness' inherent not just in humans but also evidenced in other primates. It is no big stretch, even absent raw self-interest, to see where 'fairness' in society might have expressed itself by those (the 'middle' class) becoming more powerful in relation to religious organizations and the ruling class (where not the same).

Is your answer to that question "those rights came from God"?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
[QB] [DOH] FYI, the most noted figure in the modern American Civil Rights movement was Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

And the one KKK used burning crosses. Your point?

quote:
Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an American clergyman,
My god, you rightwingers think that anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of history, must BE ******* IGNORANT OF HISTORICAL FACTS. Noel thought I'd never heard of the Iraq-Kuwait war nor of the Iran-Iraq war, and you now think I never heard of MLK.

You are idiots.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Irony, thy name is Aris Katsaris.

Donald, that's a fair nutshell answer. There's a longer one having to do with Natural Law, but it does boil down to God as the author of that Law and the rights which emerge from it.

I've exceeded my Ornery quota for the day and work is calling me. Respond away and I'll get back when I get a chance, although the next few days might be hectic. I'm going back to school tomorrow and resuming coaching activities while still trying to earn some money on the side, so I'll have to make an effort to keep Ornery time to a minimum. This thread is hard to resist though. [Smile]

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They didn't inspire a group of brave rebels to assert that their rights came from God and not government, and cause them to take on and defeat the mightiest empire on the face of the planet in armed conflict.
And amusingly enough those brave rebels (like, in later years, the brave rebels of Alamo, and the brave rebels of the Confederacy) RETAINED slavery, while that mighty empire quickly abolished it and indeed fought it tooth and nail all over the seas.

Stop wanking over bravery and the spilt blood of slaveowners, and start seeing that the mighty empires they defeated (The British, the Mexicans) were actually a fair bit more equality-minded than THEY.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Irony, thy name is Aris Katsaris.
Up yours, then, you condescending moron.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey, Aris, I appreciate your passion, and quite often your point of view, and the thoughts you articulate here. Because I appreciate reading you, I'm asking you to tone it down.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"The growth and evolution of human societies isn't a fast thing, Matt. If I were to give a patient medicine for a disease, and the disease were to persist for some time,"
Here's what the "medicine" of Christianity did: It dragged Hypatia and skinned her alive, and tortured her to death. That's the immediate causation.

All the ideas about The Rights of Man, not coincidentally at all, came after the power of the Christian Church GOT SMASHED INTO SMITHEREENS. After Luther destroyed the power of the Catholic clergy all over the north of Europe, after Henry subordinated religion to the state in the UK, near the same time when the French Revolution started chopping the heads of priests and the Papal states got destroyed, and when the UNITED STATES established freedom of and FROM religion.

Christianity didn't inspire the rights of man, PEOPLE HAD TO DEFEAT CHRISTIANITY before they got any rights at all.

That's what history tells us. THAT'S some true causation. The Christian Church got defeated, and mankind started having rights.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Where do you suppose people believed those rights came from? Why should they be respected?
Lots of people believe these rights came from lots of places. Additionally, these rights should be respected because they seem to produce a better society.

quote:
When he finally saw the corner he was painted into, he said that the Soviet regime was "religious" because it demanded unthinking obedience.
For what it's worth, I absolutely believe Red China -- nominally an atheist regime -- was a religious regime, but not because it demanded unthinking obedience.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
One of the reasons Christianity spread as quickly as it did was that it told the poor that they had dignity and value, that they were loved and should be valued as much or more than their richer and more powerful counterparts.
And the fact that if you didn't agree to convert and declare your gods to simply be Christian saints, there was a legionnaire with a good Roman sword that wanted a word with you. On the other hand, if you did pay lip service to the God that Rome was pushing, you got roads, a hungry trade partner, and the support of those legionnaires in taking over your neighbors.

Some monks and philosophers held closer to the core teachings, but as soon as Christianity tasted secular power (which Jesus had tried to very explicitly keep it separate from) it simply became a tool of men to subjugate others, and was refined as such for about 1000 years, helped along by other philosophers who were only too happy to use it as an outlet for their own demons- warping the core message from one of unconditional acceptance and forgiveness to one of shame and guilt.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The anti-Catholcism on this thread is breathtaking.

It works out like this, no Church, no Franciscans and Dominicans.

No Franciscans and no Dominicans, no Universities, no Luther's reformation

(which was not remotely interested in separation of Church and state. For heaven's sake the people trying to get evolution tossed out of public schools are almost exclusively products of the reformation.)

Reformation or not, without the universities you wouldn't have the enlightenment.

You can talk about the Greeks and the Romans but we had the same heritage in the Orthodox world and the Muslims by and large had it too and neither culture produced anything remotely simmilliar.

Paladine I think a lot of this comes down to anti-Catholocism which is one of the few prejudices (anti-mormonism being another) that both the right and left find socially acceptable.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
==>"There's a longer one having to do with Natural Law, but it does boil down to God as the author of that Law and the rights which emerge from it."

Except of course if God doesn't exist at all. You can't imagine that, so you can't imagine that you want to impose a set of beliefs on people that reflect yourselves, not reality.

In a way it's sad to listen to Christians march and polemicize, because you can't even get your act together on what exactly your beliefs really are. Beck threw a "march" to celebrate civil rights on an auspicious day everyone associates with overcoming racial prejudice and hardly any non-white people attended.

The very next day after calling for a return to Christianity and Christian values that are common to everyone, he outright states that Obama's version of Christianity is a perversion, even though he mistakenly associates Obama's beliefs with a black Christian religious denomination and philosophy that he doesn't belong to or share.

Many Catholics and Protestants think Mormonism is barely Christianity, and until as recently as 50 years ago it was unheard of to elect a President who was a Catholic. Then there are the myriad fundamentalist evangelical sects who have discovered the real truth about Jesus that has eluded the rest of you supposedly devout believers. So why should *any* of you get to say what the right "values" or "morals" or "beliefs" are?

==>"Paladine I think a lot of this comes down to anti-Catholocism which is one of the few prejudices (anti-mormonism being another) that both the right and left find socially acceptable."

That must mean that you are a fellow Catholic and you don't like it when it's your ox that is being gored. Wouldn't this country -- the world -- be so much better off if we could all live in peace as Catholics like you?

Before you tee off on me, I'm not especially anti-Catholic. Christianity as a whole has tried for more than 1000 years to make the world a Christian place, and it will go on trying to do so, and probably become more militant about it in this country as time goes on. Beck is a fool and Palin is an idiot, but that doesn't mean that they aren't harbingers of things to come.

[ August 31, 2010, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: Al Wessex ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not Catholic, not Mormon either. I don't like seeing the Catholic Ox gored because I think that they're misteated by both sides as I said before.

I expect an ascendant Palin would turn on Catholics (and Mormons like Beck) in a heartbeat as her own sect, the Assemblies of God, are amongst those who see Rome as the "whore of Babylon". I can''t substantiate that, but most of the Assemblies of God, Pentacostals and Baptists (ex-Southern Baptist myself) ranged from regarding Catholics as inferior to all other Christians to regarding them as damned to Hell.

The Roman Catholic clergy also tend, aside from abortion and a few other issues, to be far more in tune with progressives than with Fox news conservatives.

[ August 31, 2010, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
==>"I'm not Catholic"

My apologies. That was an overreach on my part.

==>"The Roman Catholic clergy also tend, aside from abortion and a few other issues, to be far more in tune with progressives than with Fox news conservatives."

That's my sense of it, too, but they're not secular. They have strict beliefs and punishments and a leader in Rome that keeps their adherents in line, so they also shouldn't try to speak for anyone other than themselves, no matter how universal they may feel what they believe represents.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rome's adherants are perfectly free to ignore the clergy and the pope himself without any punishment at all in this life other than being denied communion. I've had some rather unpleasant arguments with Paladine (mostly my doing) about what I see as a disregard for the church's POV on war and torture.

The US is trying to impose a secular system of Democracy on Iraq and Afganistan, and there's a drive to have us do so on Iran.

There ay be people trying to impose religious rule on people, but i can't think of anywhere Rome is doin this by force, or any Christians currently.

[ August 31, 2010, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
"The growth and evolution of human societies isn't a fast thing, Matt. If I were to give a patient medicine for a disease, and the disease were to persist for some time,"
Here's what the "medicine" of Christianity did: It dragged Hypatia and skinned her alive, and tortured her to death. That's the immediate causation.

All the ideas about The Rights of Man, not coincidentally at all, came after the power of the Christian Church GOT SMASHED INTO SMITHEREENS. After Luther destroyed the power of the Catholic clergy all over the north of Europe, after

Which happened, by pure coincidence, right after the seminal writings of Christianity, i.e. the New Testament, became available to the public.

Pull your head out, Aris. Equating Christianity to the structure of holy Roman Empire is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen on Ornery ... dumb enough to make old Eddie Whitesides blush. I certainly expected better from you.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Three interesting pages later, and I'm still not sure what the Restoring Honor rally had to say about how best to restore America's honor, or what America has apparently done to lose that honor in the first place. And I'm starting to think that I'm in the majority on this [Smile]
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Which happened, by pure coincidence, right after the seminal writings of Christianity, i.e. the New Testament, became available to the public.

By "the public" what you mean actually is princes and monarchs who determined by decree the faith of all their citizens, often because it justified them to confiscate church property if they denounced Rome.

It's not as if individual peasants had a free choice in the religion they'd follow after the Reformation. They were bound by the religion of their kings.

quote:
Pull your head out, Aris. Equating Christianity to the structure of holy Roman Empire is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen on Ornery
Oh, don't worry, Pete, *any* church that becomes dominant over the state would be as oppressive as the Roman Catholic Church has been. It's not the presence or absense of Roman Catholicism that determines oppression, it's how much control the religious structures have over the state structures.

The Reformation was all about princes (the more secular feudal structures) rebelling against the theocratic structures; same as the French Revolution later rebelled against both feudal and theocratic structures.

[ August 31, 2010, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Oh, don't worry, Pete, *any* church that becomes dominant over the state would be as oppressive as the Roman Catholic Church has been. It's not the presence or absense of Roman Catholicism that determines oppression, it's how much control the religious structures have over the state structures.
e.g. the French revolution didn't succeed in installing a new religion, it broke the church's power by chopping off heads instead.

On the other hands Serb orthodox clergy had the front lines in the bosnia serb parliament, and the result was massacres and rape camps.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1