'The Election is Over.'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
…Adams’ assertion that this “would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it,”
[/quote]

You’re quoting out of context and thoroughly misrepresenting the meaning. Here’s the rest of the quote:

“But in this exclamatic I should have been as fanatical as (Parson) Bryant or (Pedagogue) Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.”[/quote]

Religion is a necessary evil, then? Made necessary not because of its innate truth but because of the nature of the world itself.

What about the other quotes?

22

^ Cross is an engine of grief, etc.

I’m curious to see if you rationalize those as well.

23

Jefferson’s response to Adams’ line about “best of all worlds” –

"If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, “that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.” But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, “something not fit to be named even, indeed, a hell.” "

One thing is absolutely certain: this is not an excerpt of correspondence between two devout, God-fearing Christians. This is not Tirib v. Brother Chris. This is more like smh23 v. Legionary.

Not to compare myself with Thomas Jefferson.

24

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Religion is a necessary evil, then? Made necessary not because of its innate truth but because of the nature of the world itself.

What about the other quotes?[/quote]

They’re your words not mine. Adams was anti-clerical and the next sentence after the engine of grief reads:

“With the rational respect which is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill, or might fill, the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history.”

26

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:<<< @Trib: Not the change in our system I was talking about, >>>[/quote]I didn’t think it was because it’s THE one that really matters, but carry on.
[/quote]

Sigh Nevermind, you win again. Thread is now about religion.

That said I don’t really see the big what did our founding fathers believe/not believe. If they were all Christians or all not Christians it wouldn’t change my thoughts/opinions one bit. They didn’t allow women to vote and had blacks be slaves. It’s pretty clear I greatly disagree with both of these decisions, among many others.

“Our founding fathers were Christians!” is the religion mans way of acting as if they are superior to you because some guy hundreds of years ago also believes that they did. Big fucking whoop. So that one was wrong just like you are. They didn’t make us a Christian nation on purpose I’d say, they certainly had the opportunity to do so. That’s the important part. Other than that I’ve seen all the fishing for quotes fights a million times, but what the hell does it really prove anyways?

Most of the founders best ideas on government came from earlier Enlightenment thinking in France and England. Montesquieu, John Locke, etc. And the Bill of Rights were merely protections about what had just pissed them off from the King. I’ve seen this battle a million times as both sides parse like crazy trying to find what best fits them. Some of the founders were Christian surely, some were Deist, but I really don’t see what the discussion ultimately leads to in terms of real points.

27

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
We are at a very polarized moment in American history. Compromise has been and always will be necessary for solving tough issues. Compromise was necessary to form our government after all. But you have a left and a right that hates each other right now. Hell look at the Republicans flipping out over Chris Christie for saying anything positive about the President. The Democrats have branded Republicans as the party of no. Our airwaves and internets are flooded with the cheerleaders for both sides talking about how wrong the other team is and how right they are. It’s why the need for another voice is so important. And why both parties fight tooth and nail against it. [/quote]

First of all I don’t think most republicans would be “flipping out” as you say over the Christie remarks if it were done differently. Christie’s comments came a week or so before the election and were very self serving. If he had given Obama a simple one sentence compliment and left it at that and then reiterated his support for Mitt Romney nothing would have been said. After all he is the Governor of a state that was, and is, in need of federal help. But what Christie did was well over the top and also very obvious. In doing what he did he proved himself to be just another pandering politician.

Secondly, I am not against a third party. and in fact would support it. I agree with you that the time is probably right for such a thing to occur. But, obviously I wouldn’t be for any libertarian nonsense. It doesn’t work and never has anywhere in the history of the world. It is a bunch of patched together ideas based on a good concept, freedom, but with a potential execution of complete failure.

[/quote]

Can you point out where libertarianism has failed with specific examples?[/quote]

As I said I don’t know anywhere it has worked in the history of the world. As an advocate maybe you could enlighten me as to where it has worked. And I do not mean that sarcastically, if it has worked anywhere I’d love to read about it.

I agree.

And for good reason

A rogue nation tries to develop nuclear weapons. Do we sit on the sidelines and do nothing? That’s only one example. And although I was NOT in favor of an invasion of Iran (that is one of the things that Bush did that I was against) I do think we need to have a world presence in the name of peace.

This is another example of agreeing with you in theory. Yet, what do we say to our elderly? “sorry folks we feel that you should be on your own.” We need to take care of our elderly and our disabled.

I could not agree with you more on this one. I don’t see a need for this as they can go bankrupt and reorganize this is common for small amd mid size companies and the large companies can do it as well. And that includes GM!

This is one that we will not see eye to eye on. At the base of our failed economy is failed morality. As I’ve said on other threads the following moral problems become financial problems for all of us very quickly:

-Sex without marriage

-Alcoholism

-Drug addiction

-Greed

-Homosexuality (which by the way is responsible for about 65% of all new HIV cases according to the CDC)

Put them (and even more) together and they spell billions of dollars for taxpayers.

[quote]
Again, as best I can tell the country largely started like this and has moved away from it ever since as the government has reached more and more into our lives. I believe this has been largely negative, with some exceptions where government may have needed to play a bigger role. You support this reaching into our lives on the specific stuff you don’t like. I also support the government, but in a much more limited role than both parties give lip service to. [/quote]

I am for limited government with caveats.

  1. Take care of the elderly and disabled. Everyone else can either work or starve it would be up to them. The age of the welfare queen will expand under Obama but should die in my opinion.

  2. People tend to hurt themselves through bad decision making and the desire for immediate gratification. Now if that did not cost taxpayers money I would not be so quick to impose what you call “moral laws” (in reality most every law is a "moral law). But the fact is when they make mistakes we all pay for them.

  3. The day of the island nation is long over with and I’m not sure if it isn’t all together a myth. Even Thomas Jefferson sent the Navy to fight the Barbary Pirates to protect our trading interests. To think that the US can and should stay out of international conflicts is not only naive. But, also works against our own interests.

28

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

…But, obviously I wouldn’t be for any libertarian nonsense…

[/quote]

I’m halfway through Wayne Allyn Root’s book, “Conscience of a Libertarian” and the nonsense you’re probably referring to just aint in there. Root was the VP candidate for the Libertarian Party in 2008.

The only place so far that I think you’d have a problem is with pot legalization.

His heroes are Goldwater and Reagan. He’s nowhere near the anarchist wing of libertarian thinking.

[/quote]

I’m sure there is a wide range of libertarian thinking. For example, Ronald Reagan was a very strong anti-drug President. The “just say no” campaign was born in his Presidency. And you say Reagan was one of his heros?

29

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Smh, you need to understand that in this regard religion and Christianity are not interchangeable terms.

Do I need to explain?[/quote]

No, but I’m not sure how this amounts to a case against mine.

Christianity in particular is what Tirib subscribes to. And his interpretation of Christian doctrine (and almost any interpretation taken as legitimate outside of a Unitarian lecture hall-church in Westchester, NY) is shunned, even mocked, in much of the founders’ correspondence. For example:

“The human Understanding is a revelation from its Maker which can never be disputed or doubted. There can be no Scepticism, Phyrrhonism or Incredulity or Infidelity here. No Prophecies, no Miracles are necessary to prove this celestial communication. This revelation has made it certain that two and one make three; and that one is not three; nor can three be one. We can never be so certain of any Prophecy […] Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai and admitted to behold, the divine Shekinah, and there told that one was three and three, one: We might not have had courage to deny it. But We could not have believed it. The thunders and Lightenings [sic] and Earthquakes and the transcendant [sic] Splendors and Glories, might have overwhelmed Us with terror and Amazement: but we could not have believed the doctrine.”

–Adams to Jefferson, Sept. 12, 1813

These are not the musings of a Christian, as Tirib understands the term. Which was my original point.

30

[quote]H factor wrote:
You can trap righties in terms of Obama by pointing at Reagan when he does the same thing. [/quote]

Yes, both Obama and Reagan breathed air but that is where the similarity ends. Sure Reagan pushed the debt up by a couple of billion over 8 years (he also created 20 million private sector jobs to Obama’s ZERO) as he never had both houses of congress republican. Obama on the other hand could have done anything that he wanted during his first two years as both houses of congress were democrat. What did he do? He passed the single most unpopular bill in modern times and one that will spend us into oblivion Obamacare. He also raised the debt more than from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.

Really, I know Reagan wasn’t perfect in this area but don’t compare him to Obama you only lose credibility.

31

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

It’s the type of government Republicans like to talk about, but quickly dismiss as they want to play world police, expand medicare, bail out companies, and legislate morality through laws which repress those who don’t believe as they do. It’s the type of government Democrats like on social issues, but want to be able to spend, spend, spend with no limits and interfere in the market place as much as possible. [/quote]

I’d like to add that I sure haven’t seen the D’s champion the bill of rights like they at least claimed they used to. Gitmo’s still open and the Patriot Act has only been strengthened. Fucking unrestrained drone strikes/assassinations are a big problem for me as well. IMO, any reason I had to vote for a Democrat has largely disappeared because if they are not going to attack the Patriot Act, what the fuck are they good for other than spending money we don’t have? I don’t agree with Push on a few issues, but, like him, I voted for Gary Johnson and no R or D is going to get my vote unless I see some substantial change from one of the parties.
[/quote]

Honestly it’s really striking when you go back and look at some of this stuff even from the exact same people. I got a few left leaning boards I frequent and it’s insane the amount of stuff they HAMMERED Bush over that they now apologize for Obama with. Go back and look at righties thoughts on the role of government under Bush. Did they give a fuck about the debt then? Hell no man, we got attacked we gots to go to Iraq. And expand medicare. And send out stimulus checks. And the Patriot Act. Bailouts.

Which is why the party cheerleader system is monumentally fucked. When you treat politics like football and you’re always yay go R’s or yay go D’s you’re going to lose. You’ll apologize for your team all day long and attack the other team over and over again. And good lord it’s all over the internet man. Clinton only did good because of Republican control! Look at the surpluses under Clinton, he reduced the deficit! When righties are in charge this happened. When lefties are in charge they do this! Horseshit. Both sides are big government through and through and have proven this.

@Trib: Not the change in our system I was talking about, but I’m really not looking for another religious debate here. As best I can tell it’s going on in about 55 other threads right now and I don’t think we need to make it 56.

[/quote]

That’s Tirib if he’s not talking religion he’s talking sex!

32

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

“The right to freedom is the gift of God Almighty…The rights of the Colonists as Christians may be best understood by reading, and carefully studying the institutes of the great Lawgiver and head of the Christian Church: which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.” <<<>>>
“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.” [/quote] There’s a million of em.[/quote]

There are also some that you conspicuously never reproduce. I refer to the Treaty of Tripoli, the so-called Jefferson Bible, Adams on the Cross as an “engine of grief” producing “calamities,” Adams’ assertion that this “would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it,” Adams on the fact that “God is an essence that we know nothing of,” etc. etc.

I’m sure you’ve heard all of these before, many times. What I can’t figure out is why you insist that this country was founded as a Christian one when many of its founders were not Christians (certainly not by your standards, anyway) and at times explicitly spoke ill of Christianity.[/quote]

Oh stop it, the overwhelming majority of the founders were Christian. And…you know it!

33

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Oh stop it, the overwhelming majority of the founders were Christian. And…you know it![/quote]

No, not really. I do know that I’ve read explicitly anti-Christian excerpts in the writings of the heaviest hitters and of those who command the most respect from posterity, particularly Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Paine (in whose case ‘anti-Christian’ is an understatement), and the “Father of the Constitution” himself, James Madison.

I also know that I’ve read Jefferson’s claim that “Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of [Christianity] than did he himself.”

I also know that their religion doesn’t really matter, because they founded a secular country upon a Jesus-less Constitution.

34

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
You can trap righties in terms of Obama by pointing at Reagan when he does the same thing. [/quote]

Yes, both Obama and Reagan breathed air but that is where the similarity ends. Sure Reagan pushed the debt up by a couple of billion over 8 years (he also created 20 million private sector jobs to Obama’s ZERO) as he never had both houses of congress republican. Obama on the other hand could have done anything that he wanted during his first two years as both houses of congress were democrat. What did he do? He passed the single most unpopular bill in modern times and one that will spend us into oblivion Obamacare. He also raised the debt more than from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.

Really, I know Reagan wasn’t perfect in this area but don’t compare him to Obama you only lose credibility.

[/quote]

Talking points, talking points, opinion on Obamacare, and more talking points. Reagan tripled the motherfucking deficit. How many times do we have to paint this for you? Obama RECEIVED a deficit much larger than Ronald Reagan. The interest is much higher on it than Reagan ever saw. He received two very costly wars in the midst of one of the worst recessions in American history coupled with a housing crisis. I’d say it’s a little early to write the book on him as you want to do. We can judge Obama when he’s finished. I don’t think it looks good for him, but unemployment was quite high at this point in Reagan’s term (where Obama is) as well. If you wrote the book on Reagan at year three of his Presidency it wouldn’t be anywhere near as good as at year 8. Now that I said I don’t expect Obama to have a solid track record in 4 years, but your comparing 8 years to 4. He’s going to get 8 years like Reagan did.

Reagan exploded the size of the federal government. So did Obama. They have much more in common than you will ever begin to admit. It was a huge deal when Obama raised the debt ceiling. Ronald Reagan did this 18 times. All I’m asking for is a little consistency. Probably asking way too much I realize.

36

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I also know that their religion doesn’t really matter, because they founded a secular country upon a Jesus-less Constitution.[/quote]

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.

37

[quote]smh23 wrote:
…they founded a secular country…[/quote]

‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…’

38

Deism was quite popular at the time as well. Deism, while believing in a Creator, is FAR from Christianity. Essentially a God sets the universe in motion and lets it run according to its natural laws. Not an active God in that sense. Pointing at that phrase or under God is hardly evidence that they planned this as a Christian nation. After all many non Christian based religions believe in a creator or a God.

39

[quote]H factor wrote:
Deism was quite popular at the time as well. Deism, while believing in a Creator, is FAR from Christianity. Essentially a God sets the universe in motion and lets it run according to its natural laws. Not an active God in that sense. Pointing at that phrase or under God is hardly evidence that they planned this as a Christian nation. After all many non Christian based religions believe in a creator or a God. [/quote]

So what you’re saying is they didn’t “found a secular country” then?

40

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Deism was quite popular at the time as well. Deism, while believing in a Creator, is FAR from Christianity. Essentially a God sets the universe in motion and lets it run according to its natural laws. Not an active God in that sense. Pointing at that phrase or under God is hardly evidence that they planned this as a Christian nation. After all many non Christian based religions believe in a creator or a God. [/quote]

So what you’re saying is they didn’t “found a secular country” then?[/quote]

They didn’t put Jesus anywhere to be seen that’s for sure