[quote]JEATON wrote:
Reading this thread, it occurs to me how deficient my knowledge of American history really is. Any suggestions on books that could alleviate this problem? I know it is almost a non sequitur these days, but I would prefer non revisionist history suggestions.[/quote]
you prefer old lies to shiny new ones?
Why?
[quote]orion wrote:
JEATON wrote:
Reading this thread, it occurs to me how deficient my knowledge of American history really is. Any suggestions on books that could alleviate this problem? I know it is almost a non sequitur these days, but I would prefer non revisionist history suggestions.
you prefer old lies to shiny new ones?
Why?[/quote]
Real dilemma isn’t it.
I often remind myself (and others if they will listen) that in a court of law you are not just asked to tell the truth. You are asked to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is a big difference.
In any conflict of interest, of which history is largely made up of, there are always at least three versions of events; yours, mine and the real one.
In both of the above scenarios, the best source of information is probably an uninvolved third party with no agenda and no stake in the outcome.
Unfortunately, such a source is not always available. This being the case, I guess you then have to gather a much data as possible, filter for consistencies, obvious bias, etc., and examine the results.
Note I said obvious bias. It is impossible to filter out all bias. In the end, you simply do the best you can.
Unfortunately, unbiased is often less entertaining and therefore less commercially viable. Hence the current state of our media.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
orion wrote:
JEATON wrote:
Reading this thread, it occurs to me how deficient my knowledge of American history really is. Any suggestions on books that could alleviate this problem? I know it is almost a non sequitur these days, but I would prefer non revisionist history suggestions.
you prefer old lies to shiny new ones?
Why?
Real dilemma isn’t it.
I often remind myself (and others if they will listen) that in a court of law you are not just asked to tell the truth. You are asked to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is a big difference.
In any conflict of interest, of which history is largely made up of, there are always at least three versions of events; yours, mine and the real one.
In both of the above scenarios, the best source of information is probably an uninvolved third party with no agenda and no stake in the outcome.
Unfortunately, such a source is not always available. This being the case, I guess you then have to gather a much data as possible, filter for consistencies, obvious bias, etc., and examine the results. Note I said obvious bias. It is impossible to filter out all bias. In the end, you simply do the best you can.
Unfortunately, unbiased is often less entertaining and therefore less commercially viable. Hence the current state of our media. [/quote]
I like it when people make their point with gusto.
Every idea deserves to have as good and passionate an advocate as possible, to make the best case for his version of things.
You just have to look at all the other sides too which will hopefully be put forward with the same enthusiasm.
[quote]I like it when people make their point with gusto.
Every idea deserves to have as good and passionate an advocate as possible, to make the best case for his version of things.
You just have to look at all the other sides too which will hopefully be put forward with the same enthusiasm.
[/quote]
Passion is a wonderful thing when focused and directed.
The average person can take basic data, dates, events, actions, participants, etc., and form their own opinion. Passion developed out of this scenario is good and honest.
The average person is too easily swayed by emotion over substance. Ad passion in this situation and your have fanatical loose canon, dangerous to both those for and against his position.
[quote]borrek wrote:
I’m sure this point has been made ad nauseum, but Jefferson and the rest of the founders were the Forbes top 100 of their time. They stood to gain a tremendous amount in finding freedom from Britain, but subsequent revolution would only serve to impoverish them all.[/quote]
I am not sure what you mean by this exactly, but if it is to say that somehow the Revolution was a revolt of the wealthy executed on the backs of the common man, you are headed for disaster.
To answer your question more accurately: everyone who defied the crown stood to gain a tremendous amount in victory, and everyone who defied the crown and lost stood to lose everything…Forbes 100 list or not.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
I will ad to this in a bit but welcome input. [/quote]
I think Borrek’s reply was a really good one, and I would only add that there is no value or reason in treating unlike things alike - which is the case here. There is no inconsistency in reading one literally, and the other non-literally, so, in my view, there is no tension to resolve.
Which comment of Borrek’s are you referring to? Is it this one?
“One has to take into account that the Constitution is a primary source document. The Bible is not.”
If so, do you have an answer to my followup question to him?
“I need some clarification with this statement. To my understanding, a primary source document would be a piece of historical literature that would have had a great influence or bearing on person, group, etc.
If this definition is correct, then would your statement not be backwards. The Bible WOULD be a primary source document to the framers of the constitution. The constitution would be a result.”
If we are on the same page, then I will contend that they are not that “unalike.”
In a very simplistic way, is it not fair to say that a constitution is much like a code of conduct, morals and ethics defining the relationship between a country and its citizens?
If so, is it not also far to say that a religion is also a code of conduct, morals and ethics defining the relationship between God and his children?
If we have any agreement at this point, then I have to fall back to my original post.
"Not to hijack the thread, but this brings to mind something I have been wrestling with of late. When it comes to a constitution what could you tolerate other than a literal interpretation.
I do not want my constitution figurative, open to works of the spin masters. Literal is the only way, unless or until the proper processes and procedures put in place for amendment are followed. Such amendment should border on the impossible, hence the term “it would take an act of congress.”
Now, when put into the context of religion, I am not so sure of myself. That is were my current struggles lie. I am a Christian, but struggle with my church’s and denomination’s (Baptist) insistence on a literal interpretation of every word of the Bible.
I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and feel no real conflict in doing so. I do not believe “In the beginning…” was intended to be a literal blueprint of the construction of all creation.
The question then becomes, however, when does the literal interpretation take over? In the New Testament? There has to be a definitive point of literal interpretation or it all collapses into a subjective nightmare."
The point to be made is in the last sentence.
Jeaton, I think his point may have been that far fewer human hands have been laid on the constitution than the Bible.
The text itself of the Constitution has remained unchanged (save for amendments, but you know what I mean) since it’s creation whereas the Bible has been rewritten and edited countless times throughout the centuries.
The fact that the Bible has been changed and rewritten for so many different purposes demands, perhaps, that a more subjective approach is taken due to the inconsistencies between the text today and the intents of its original author(s) (oh shit, not opening that can of worms).
The constitution, however, remains relatively unchanged from the document that was ratified by our founding fathers and this fact requires that it be interpreted as literally as possible, as the intents expressed in the document still ring incredibly true to the intent of those who originally penned it.
My view of the Constitution as contract is that it is a contract signed by our government ensuring boundaries for its own behavior. By being citizens, we enter into a contract by which we guarantee our respect of the boundaries established by the government (laws).
The dependency of these two contracts on each other is where I start to draw a gray area as we can break the law and still maintain our constitutional rights. Obviously, I am unwilling to allow the same for our government, as the government has the potential to do far more harm to the people than the people have potential to do to the government.
[quote]orion wrote:
JEATON wrote:
Reading this thread, it occurs to me how deficient my knowledge of American history really is. Any suggestions on books that could alleviate this problem? I know it is almost a non sequitur these days, but I would prefer non revisionist history suggestions.
you prefer old lies to shiny new ones?
Why?[/quote]
We will all remember that the next time you offer an opinion on American history.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
“I need some clarification with this statement. To my understanding, a primary source document would be a piece of historical literature that would have had a great influence or bearing on person, group, etc.
If this definition is correct, then would your statement not be backwards. The Bible WOULD be a primary source document to the framers of the constitution. The constitution would be a result.”[/quote]
Your definition is incorrect. From Wikipedia;
[i]In historiography, a primary source (also called original source) is a document, recording, artifact, or other source of information that was created at the time under study, usually by a source with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic.
Similar definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.[/i]
Much of the Bible is written post hoc and/or is clearly second hand (or further) information (e.g. the inconsistencies in the Nativity between Matthew and Luke indicate that neither of them nor their narrator(s) was likely present). The Constitution was overwhelmingly first person, primary source, literature.
Actually, it is this definition that is wrong, at least in the confines of this discussion. (pause for more evidence). Actually it appears that either definition can apply given various sources. In the meanwhile I have studied Stronghold’s post and appreciate the point he made. In his context it all comes together in a much more meaningful way.
BTW, I have taken an Ambien by this point, so if I continue to post things could get very interesting.
Stay tuned…
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
The text itself of the Constitution has remained unchanged (save for amendments, but you know what I mean) [/quote]
What I love about the Constitution is the fact that not a word has changed. Amendments have only added words. Por ejemplo, Prohibition is still in there. There’s just another amendment saying to ignore Prohibition. It’s so much better than simply cutting it out.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
The text itself of the Constitution has remained unchanged (save for amendments, but you know what I mean)
What I love about the Constitution is the fact that not a word has changed. Amendments have only added words. Por ejemplo, Prohibition is still in there. There’s just another amendment saying to ignore Prohibition. It’s so much better than simply cutting it out.
mike[/quote]
Agreed.
I like things like that best when they change halfway through. Sort of like when I’m driving my mother somewhere and she is giving me directions as we go.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
borrek wrote:
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there has ever been a legal case of self-defense with a firearm pertaining to protection of constitutional rights as opposed to just the plain ol’ corporeal self?
I can think of no better example than the Battle of Athens, Tennessee.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm
(Edited. Originally wrote “Athens, Georgia,” like a dumbass.)[/quote]
Good story. I couldn’t help but chuckle at this"
[i]
“By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard Armories…”
[quote]JEATON wrote:
“I need some clarification with this statement. To my understanding, a primary source document would be a piece of historical literature that would have had a great influence or bearing on person, group, etc.
If this definition is correct, then would your statement not be backwards. The Bible WOULD be a primary source document to the framers of the constitution. The constitution would be a result.”[/quote]
I can’t speak for Borrek, but my take on it is that the original source for the Bible is, of course, God, and the authors of the Bible are doing their level best to convert Godly word into human communications. As such, the authors of the Bible are not the “primary source” of the material - they are the interpreters of it. The authors of the Constitution, by contrast, are themselves the source. I think your definition is skewed - the definition is based on source, not influence.
[quote]If we are on the same page, then I will contend that they are not that “unalike.”
In a very simplistic way, is it not fair to say that a constitution is much like a code of conduct, morals and ethics defining the relationship between a country and its citizens?
If so, is it not also far to say that a religion is also a code of conduct, morals and ethics defining the relationship between God and his children?
If we have any agreement at this point, then I have to fall back to my original post. [/quote]
I would wholly disagree that they serve similar functions - one is terrestrial law to govern affairs among men, one informs a Christian’s personal relationship with God - but perhaps an even more important point is context - the Bible is filled with allegory, meaning literalism won’t always provide the necessary context to any meaning. An example would be Jesus’ recommendation to “turn the other cheek” - he isn’t instructing Christians to literally turn their cheek - it is a metaphor. If you don’t view it as that kind of interpretation, it teaches an absurd rule.
In my view, it is the height of human arrogance and hubris to think we have “all the answers” is one prepackaged textbook. A literal interpretation assumes that we, as mere mortals, have it all figured out down to the word - ignoring, of course, that even the Bible notes that we flawed humans “see through a glass darkly”.
I’d add that once we believe that we have the answers so tightly wrapped up as Biblical literalism suggests, we stop the dialogue with Providence and the inquiry necessary to have an informed faith - the journey is effectively over. I can’t possibly believe that is supposed to be the case.
You are absolutely right to note that the words have to mean something. That’s the danger at the other end of the spectrum, a no less a danger, in my view, than rigid, uninformed literalism.
But I don’t think the antidote to one is the extreme at the other end. I think the answer - to the extent there is one - is constant inquiry, and common sense. While appealing to “common sense” in PWI may seem downright wacky, I think a fair amount of relativistic subjectivity with the Bible (and other texts) can be eliminated with the application of the elimination of the absurd.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There is no inconsistency in reading one literally, and the other non-literally, so, in my view, there is no tension to resolve.
[/quote]
Unless one reads the Bible literally, and the Constitution non-literally.
Then we have problems.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Reading this thread, it occurs to me how deficient my knowledge of American history really is. Any suggestions on books that could alleviate this problem? I know it is almost a non sequitur these days, but I would prefer non revisionist history suggestions.[/quote]
We cannot even get present facts delivered to us bias free and yet we readily take to task the memorization of propaganda delivered as a history lesson and thus the religion of nationalism is born.
Since none that are alive now were there to witness the unfolding of historical events and since it is human action alone that determines history, knowing history is impossible without a proper theory of human action. Furthermore, without understanding the ideas that shape human action there is no point in trying to understand why history turned out the way it did. Historical understanding requires a proper revisionist method. In fact all historians are revisionists though the individual methods used are many.
Earlier in our political history, there were many “micro-parties” that had one major stance, such as the Dixiecrats, the Anti-Masonic Party, or the Green Party.
If a new “Constitutionalist Party” came together to put a candidate on the ballot who had the sole goal of restoring the Constitution, would you vote for them? Would you vote even if your knew there was a possibility that certain social issues like abortion etc would be ignored entirely?
[quote]borrek wrote:
If a new “Constitutionalist Party” came together to put a candidate on the ballot who had the sole goal of restoring the Constitution, would you vote for them?[/quote]
Wasn’t Ron Paul that guy?
Why should people vote for a party and not an individual? Seems that is what is most fucked up about politics to me.