# General Lee



## Shaver

We seem to have experienced a dearth of political threads over here on the Interchange of late. Most curious, this lack, as we live in the proverbial Interesting Times.

This being so - Charlottesville. Does anyone believe that Antifa are less responsible than the White Supremacists for the recent violence?


----------



## SG_67

Christening the new and improved interchange I see! Well played sir!

Both Antifa and Neo-Nazis are sores on our body politic. There's nothing Antifa about Antifa; they're fascists in the strictest sense of the word. 

Were it up to me, I'd find a wide open field somewhere far away in the Midwest, and invite both sides to have at it. Perhaps we'll be rid of both with the greatest economy. 

Of course, only when the corporate and political virtue signaling is over.


----------



## TheBarbaron

Incoming wall of text; apologies.

I do. I'm gonna claim the ability to speak with some sort of authority, as a native Virginian, a Charlottesville resident for ~14 years (and another couple of years in Richmond, capital of the ol' CSA). I met Richard Spenser at several alumni events (before anyone knew his politics). My showroom is on the street where Heather Heyer was murdered, and I can look out my window and see the shrine. I was Downtown for about four hours Saturday observing. My local drinking buddy was working the UVA emergency room for 12 hours, treating victims of the car attack and injured protestors on both sides (one of the alt-righters he treated tried to back him into a corner in the hospital room, and was found to have a concealed Bowie knife hidden in his waistband at the hospital).

I'll preface my comments by saying that I'm not a big Antifa fan. I'm a left-center Democrat and believe firmly in the value of non-violent protest; most Antifa that I've met our much farther left than I find easily palatable, and I don't generally agree with their methods.

The alt-righters came prepared and itching for a fight; this is the fourth rally in 2017 (alt-right in April, the Proud Boys in June, the Klan in July, and the much-larger rally last weekend), and the level of provocation offered has been steadily rising - in the early summer it was showing up in local businesses and throwing Heils, or driving their Stars-and-Bars festooned trucks around in local black neighborhoods and finding people to intimidate or threaten. 

This weekend, they were ready and eager to escalate - the alt-right came with shields, and helmets, and torches, and pepper spray, and batons, and a 50-80 person militia with assault rifles. In addition to the widely publicized events (the car attack, the beating in the parking garage with poles, throwing torches at students ringing a statue of Jefferson at the Rotunda, bullrushing lines of peacefully protesting clergy), there were multiple reports of trucks driving through local neighborhoods shooting into the air, or jumping isolated minorities - some have been confirmed, some may be rumor or exaggeration.

Everyone I spoke with who saw the Antifa in action saw them playing defense - stopping ~100 torch wielders from charging through an arm-linked line of clergy, pushing back alt-righters from other protestors, forcing people out of areas. I'm sure fists flew, and boots, and some pepper spray and sticks were probably involved. 

It's possible that if every single counterprotestor in the city had been a mute statue of silent protest, not much would have happened; it's also a distinct possibility that not having people around willing to push back would mean that a lot more of my neighbors and friends would be enjoying our moral high ground in the hospital.

I'm not going out to buy a bandanna and black fatigues (and they wouldn't fit my style anyway), but while I can disagree with them on many things, I can't honestly criticize them for coming ready to fight back against actual, non-hyperbolized, Nazis.

If anyone's still reading at this point, I'll throw out two cents on the statue, ignoring the fact that the statue is merely an excuse for Richard Spencer and his ilk.

The Lee and Jackson statues in Charlottesville were installed in the 20s and 30s during Jim Crow (the majority of CSA monuments went up in two time periods 1910-1930, and 1955-1970). The neighborhood they are in was the primary black community in Charlottesville, Vinegar Hill; the city was using a combination of eminent domain and strategic buying to push out black residents and make way for parks and shopping districts. The statues were installed (partly) as a reminder to black residents about whose city this was. There's a memorial for Confederate dead 100 yards away from Jackson on the courthouse grounds, and I haven't heard a single voice asking for its removal.

Lee himself opposed monuments and reminders of the Confederacy after the war; he preferred to have battlegrounds erased, and the Confederate flag retired to better heal the wounds of civil war. His direct descendants have supported removing his statues. The local community isn't trying to erase 19th century history; they're trying to correct 20th century mistakes.


----------



## SG_67

Both sides likely went there looking for trouble. The so called Antifa movement itself is no stranger to violence given it's actions this year alone on college campuses. 

The neo-Nazi group should probably not have been give a permit to march (assuming that's even legal), or at least march right there. The police should have been more present and ready for some kind of trouble. The people who committed the violence, including the person who drove the car into the crowd, are solely to blame. However, government is also there to make sure that incidence like this don't happen. 

I don't really care one way or another about the removal of the confederate statues. I'm not from the south nor to I sympathize with them in anyway. Their issues are for them to work out and whether statues come down or stay up is for each locality to decide through the political process. However, once the decision has been made to remove a statue, just remove. Come in in the middle of the night and take it down. Don't make a public spectacle of the event trying to score political points. 

This was absolutely tragic unfortunately old wounds have been torn open again thanks to politicians and the press. Good work lads!


----------



## drlivingston

Racism exists on both sides. It's just that simple. These are not people who are looking for common ground. You will not get these people to the bargaining table. Intolerance is their motto and hate is their weapon of choice.


----------



## TheBarbaron

Unfortunately, we're constitutionally obligated to allow a permit; the city attempted to grant a permit for a different, larger, more removed park, but a last minute law suit forced them to grant it for Lee Park. The city council voted to remove the statue earlier this year, but a judge granted an injunction delaying any action on the statue by 6 months, so the city can't remove it yet. There were 1,000 first responders in the area, including city, county and state police.

And I agree that Antifa tend to see violence as a first or second resort, rather than a last, and when they throw rocks at distasteful speakers, I gladly condemn their actions. In this case, they were defending local residents from _actual fascists_, so I'm inclined to be a little less judgmental than usual.


----------



## SG_67

The NYT, no friend of the right, does not see it as black and white as you do.

Also, I'm having a bit of trouble with the semantics of all of this. For days we've been hearing the term "counter protestor". They're protestors. There were protestors on both sides of the issue (assuming either side really even had an issue). They were two groups of protestors that clashed. 

There may have been over 1000 cops there, but there may as well have been 10,000. These protestors, on both sides, showed up with weapons, helmets and shields. 

Now, when I'm out at a baseball field and I see a bunch of people dressed in baseball uniforms, gloves, bats and balls, I'm not shocked that they start playing baseball. Why were these groups permitted to show up with weapons as though going to war?

The day the city council voted to take it down, crews should have been dispatched that minute to do it. Be done with it. 

The former mayor Daley and the feds were in disagreement about whether to shut down Meigs field. The mayor sent out crews in the middle of the night without anyone being told and bulldozed the runways. That ended that issue! The city was fined but so what.


----------



## drlivingston

Catherine Pugh is just happy that the spotlight is off of her for a while. Let's see what happens in Boston this weekend. Hey @cellochris you might want to stay indoors this weekend. Bean Town will be in chaos.


----------



## SG_67

Boston? She's the mayor of Baltimore. I'm not sure the confederacy was well appreciated in Boston. 

Regarding mayor Pugh, that's what I'm talking about! Just do it. Don't wring your hands and play Hamlet. Execution is what the executive does. She did and probably saved her city a lot of trouble.


----------



## triklops55

Antifa isn't an organized group, like Neo-Nazis and white supremacist organizations. They are just a bunch of people who gather at certain times. I'm extremely progressive in my political views and had never heard of Antifa before this weekend. I'd certainly heard of the KKK, Neo-Nazis and white supremacists. It's a false equivalene to compare an organized group of people who gather to make a demonstration of power with another group that spontaneously gets together to counter the first group.


----------



## SG_67

It's no false equivalence. We're judging them by their actions, not the principles for which they stand. Neo Nazis and the KKK are despicable and embrace the most abhorrent traits of humanity. Antifa? Well, who knows. From everything I've seen they are a mix of anarchists, leftists and just angry people who want to bring down "the system." Neither group offers any solutions nor do they inspire any sympathy. Both groups came looking for trouble. They found it and unfortunately there was murder. 

Antifa as they call themselves may not be organized around a particular principle in the same way as Neo Nazis or the KKK, but they don't just "show up". They use social media and other methods of communication to gather. While they don't have a club house or hang out together, they are nevertheless organized in some basic sense of the word. These folks in VA didn't just "show up". They came in from different areas in an organized manner.


----------



## vpkozel

Yes, Antifa is just as much to blame. And the city of Charlottesville deserves quite a bit as well. From everything that I have read, they basically let the two groups do as they wished. 

The cause they neo nazis stand for - as abhorrent as it may be - has nothing to do with this at all.

US citizens are guaranteed the right to gather in protest - even if there is a danger of it becoming violent - and the government is required to support that right and do all that it can to keep it safe.


----------



## drlivingston

SG_67 said:


> Boston? She's the mayor of Baltimore. I'm not sure the confederacy was well appreciated in Boston.
> 
> Regarding mayor Pugh, that's what I'm talking about! Just do it. Don't wring your hands and play Hamlet. Execution is what the executive does. She did and probably saved her city a lot of trouble.


Of course she's the mayor of Baltimore. She was the one who let the rioters go nuts and destroy businesses in her city. She is also the one who had all of the monuments in her city removed. I am just saying that action in other cities makes people forget all of her misdeeds. Boston is the site of the next Free Speech Rally this Saturday.
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2017/08/14/free-speech-rally-boston/


----------



## SG_67

Certainly looks like weapons on both sides. This constitutes a peaceful rally? The police dropped the ball on this one.


----------



## SG_67

drlivingston said:


> Of course she's the mayor of Baltimore. She was the one who let the rioters go nuts and destroy businesses in her city. She is also the one who had all of the monuments in her city removed. I am just saying that action in other cities makes people forget all of her misdeeds. Boston is the site of the next Free Speech Rally this Saturday.
> https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2017/08/14/free-speech-rally-boston/


Got it! I misunderstood the intention of your post. My apologies.


----------



## TheBarbaron

SG_67 said:


> Also, I'm having a bit of trouble with the semantics of all of this. For days we've been hearing the term "counter protestor". They're protestors. There were protestors on both sides of the issue (assuming either side really even had an issue). They were two groups of protestors that clashed.
> 
> There may have been over 1000 cops there, but there may as well have been 10,000. These protestors, on both sides, showed up with weapons, helmets and shields.
> 
> Now, when I'm out at a baseball field and I see a bunch of people dressed in baseball uniforms, gloves, bats and balls, I'm not shocked that they start playing baseball. Why were these groups permitted to show up with weapons as though going to war?
> 
> The day the city council voted to take it down, crews should have been dispatched that minute to do it. Be done with it.


In order:
I use the term counterprotestor merely for clarity; it's unwieldy to say "alt-right/KKK/Nazi/white supremacist person" and "Antifa/BLM/peacenik/whatever person". Both side are protestors, and there's no dispute over that. On side is protesting the other's protest - hence, counterprotest.

I can't speak for the police response; perhaps it was botched, but I'm not well versed enough to comment. The same goes for the legality of bringing helmets and shields and poles, though I presume if bringing them got you arrested, few would bring them.

Your baseball analogy is fairly apt; I'm sure violence is more likely to break out when people come equipped for it. "When all you have is a hammer..." and all that. But to extend the metaphor a bit, if you know a baseball team who doesn't like you is coming to your yard, and they've advertised that they're bringing cleats and bats and gloves and balls and helmets, you have two choices- you can put on a summer suit and hope an umpire intervenes, or you can put on a helmet in case they start throwing fastballs at your head. There are pros and cons to both approaches, but it's easy to understand the impulse.

Lastly, quoted from the LA Times:
"In Virginia, where a lawsuit is proceeding over the Charlottesville City Council's proposal to remove the Robert E. Lee statue, a state law bans cities from attempting to "disturb or interfere" with historic monuments and memorials.

The law, which Charlottesville officials have fought, previously stopped attempts in Alexandria and Loudoun County from removing Confederate statues."


----------



## cellochris

drlivingston said:


> Of course she's the mayor of Baltimore. She was the one who let the rioters go nuts and destroy businesses in her city. She is also the one who had all of the monuments in her city removed. I am just saying that action in other cities makes people forget all of her misdeeds. Boston is the site of the next Free Speech Rally this Saturday.
> https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2017/08/14/free-speech-rally-boston/


Thanks for the head's up - much appreciated. I am in Connecticut visiting family this weekend but will be returning to the city Sunday and have forwarded the article to my friends in Boston. I hope people stay safe and smart.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

There was a great compromise at the end of the Civil War that allowed the country to move forward. The people in the south generally agreed that it was best if the Union had never been dissolved and the folks in the north agreed that the southerners fought bravely for a cause they believed in. This is a rather simplistic statement, but given the terrible aftermath of the war and the immediate need to reconstruct the south and have it rejoin the Union as a cooperative partner, there was really no other realistic way forward. 

I don't have any time for Nazis, the KKK, antifa, or any other violent racist/facist/anarchist groups. I believe they all have the right to peacefully and legally exercise their right to free speech and that the state needs to protect this right and the safety of all people who are exercising their 1st amendment right in a responsible manner. I believe that people running riot and tearing tearing down public memorials, including memorials dedicated to post war reconciliation, pulls at the fabric of our nation and steers us into dangerous waters. 



I pray for peace.

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## Oldsarge

As do I. Believing as I do that the Left in this county is as tyrannical, anti-democratic, bigoted and antisematic as the altRight, there is still no excuse for allowing the existence of modern Nazis. Imagine your father, who may have landed on Normandy, looking at these modern scum and wondering just what in Hell he fought for.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

^ Yep, my great Uncle Pfc Doyce F Spruill, 101 Airborne 501PIR KIA, Normandy June 6, 1944. 

Watching those young men stomping around with twee tiki torches, waving the Nazi flag and giving the fascist salute makes me ill. 

And Nazism isn't even a home grown American mental illness. It is a German import!

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## Langham

Those seen on the BBC looked rather ill-suited to street fighting - awkward, slightly uncoordinated, unfit, overweight, flabby, poor skin, mostly rather too old as well.


----------



## SG_67

Yes well these aren't Uber-Mensch nazis. Most of these guys have been raised on a steady diet of fried chicken and grits. 

With respect to Antifa, it's worth considering what exactly they view as fascism. While most of us have some idea, I think their particular take on it is a bit different. From their chants and rhetoric, basically everyone is a fascist until they've proven themselves as such. 

If you drive the wrong car or vote a certain way you're a fascist. If you work in a certain occupation then you're a fascist. If you read the wrong books then you're a fascist. If you go to the wrong church then you're a fascist. If you chuckle at the wrong joke you're a racist. 

Government and corporations are fascist. The police are fascists. It's very much like the inquisition where someone was accused of heresy or witchcraft with little or no opportunity to defend himself. 

Again, in that sense, they are little different from the fascists they claim to be against. Every aspect of their lives and their participation in culture is sifted through a political prism. As soon as someone disagrees with them, they shout them down and resort to violence; something that should not be lost on students of history. 

Of course, in the eyes of the media and cultural elite, they are seen as romantic figures but in reality they are really no different from the nazis and klansmen who were out last Saturday.


----------



## irish95

I want to thank The Barbaron for sharing his first hand observations of what he saw last weekend. I am at a loss how every discussion on the behavior of the "protestors"(Nazi themed group) is met with a response of "What about the actions of the counter-protesters(Antifa)? Did you fail to read what our member experienced in his own community? Of course some of those counter-protesters came with bad intentions, but how in the world is that a response to the words and actions of those dressed as Nazi"s? This is not the "media" framing a point of view, but a group of people who feel emboldened in the climate existing in our country at the present time. The continual response of "I hate Nazi's", but look what the other... is becoming all too common. It completely detracts from the real cause.

I think we all agree history repeats itself. For all of you old enough to remember or young enough to Google, look back to the Presidential election of 1980. The Iran hostage crisis, Jimmy Carter and a rise in Nationalism all hitting at the same time. Anti-Semitism was on the rise. The Nazi"s got permits to March in Skokie in the late 70"s. Reagan promised America first and we got our tough cowboy President. I feel the times are very similar with all the anger.


----------



## SG_67

^ what climate? Stop blaming one person as neo nazis and the klan were around well before this current president. 

As for your straw man argument, no one is trying to deflect attention from one group to another. Both sides are to blame and both sides are abhorrent.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

^+1

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## 16412

"It's very much like the inquisition where someone was accused of heresy or witchcraft with little or no opportunity to defend himself. "

This is what bothers me. The left media is very much involved in this. Say something, and then you are falsely accused, and then there pushing for punishment. It seems the left has no morality or ethics and falsely sit in judgement. I think America is lost.


----------



## drlivingston

If you don't believe in a media double standard, just look at the case of Missouri State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal. If a conservative had said that about Hillary, he or she would have been crucified.


----------



## SG_67

America is not lost. I'm sitting on the train right now with people just going home at the end of a long work week. 

They're laughing, talking, smiling and greeting one another. These are people of different colors, creeds and nationalities. Some are professionals, others whose profession involves more physical tasks. We're sitting next to one another just thankful and the end of the week is here and we get to enjoy some leisure time. No one is talking about politics. 

To listen to the media one would think that the end of days is here. Of course, were someone else in the White House, the storyline would be different. 

Saturday gave many a chance to pontificate and for corporate America, endless virtue signaling lest someone's comapny come in the crosshairs of the left.


----------



## 16412

The left media is very persuasive and has no respect for the rule of law. So many people I know just believe it.


----------



## eagle2250

^^It seems to me that
the extremists on both the political left and right (members of the media and just plain old civilians) show little respect for the rule of law. :angry:


----------



## SG_67

I guess just coming out in favor of the first amendment is now fascist. See Boston.


----------



## Odradek

SG_67 said:


> I guess just coming out in favor of the first amendment is now fascist. See Boston.


Boston right now.


----------



## SG_67

Odradek said:


> Boston right now.


I think that perfectly encapsulates today's left.


----------



## Odradek

SG_67 said:


> I think that perfectly encapsulates today's left.


Soros pulling all the strings.
Trump's victory has made them pull out all the stops.

Funny how some things seep through the cracks as they try to erase history.


----------



## SG_67

^ Classic!

I'll add this gaffe from the king of gaffes himself:

https://articles.chicagotribune.com...therner-came-last-week-republican-rotary-club


----------



## Oldsarge

Yup, Germany--cars good, Nazis bad. End of report.


----------



## burnedandfrozen

I never heard of Antifa until the past week but what I can gather about them is that they are just another George Soros funded activist group like Black Lives Matter and the Occupy Wall St bunch. So if this is the case, and these "protesters" are paid to go and disrupt things it makes one wonder why the Left has to resort to such things. Can't they win elections on policy agendas instead?


----------



## drlivingston

burnedandfrozen said:


> Can't they win elections on policy agendas instead?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

My wife and I were about to pull the trigger on building a new home in the US for our retirement. Given the fact that it looks like the country has completely blown its cork and this nervous breakdown will last at least a few more years, we are holding off and considering overseas instead. 

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## Dr. Pain

I've lived in Charlottesville for 22 years. I frequent the downtown mall where the incident occurred. I've never understood violence in any form. Typically when events like this occur it brings a country together, but I believe we are more divided than ever. May God help us all !!!!!


----------



## Odradek




----------



## drlivingston

Dr. Pain said:


> Typically when events like this occur it brings a country together, _but I believe we are more divided than ever_.


True... But this has been brewing for several years. People want to blame this division on Trump. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I fear that this would be happening even if Hillary were in office.


----------



## RogerP

TheBarbaron said:


> The Lee and Jackson statues in Charlottesville were installed in the 20s and 30s during Jim Crow (the majority of CSA monuments went up in two time periods 1910-1930, and 1955-1970). The neighborhood they are in was the primary black community in Charlottesville, Vinegar Hill; the city was using a combination of eminent domain and strategic buying to push out black residents and make way for parks and shopping districts. The statues were installed (partly) as a reminder to black residents about whose city this was. There's a memorial for Confederate dead 100 yards away from Jackson on the courthouse grounds, and I haven't heard a single voice asking for its removal.
> 
> Lee himself opposed monuments and reminders of the Confederacy after the war; he preferred to have battlegrounds erased, and the Confederate flag retired to better heal the wounds of civil war. His direct descendants have supported removing his statues. The local community isn't trying to erase 19th century history; they're trying to correct 20th century mistakes.


Thank you for that.


----------



## RogerP

Nazis: instigate a global conflagration; engage in genocide on an industrial scale and advocate for more of the same. AntiFa - throw rocks, smash windows and act like the anarchist jackwads they are. Yeah - pretty much the same.


----------



## SG_67

I'm quite sure if the far left, and I don't mean just the Bernie Bros types but the violent left, got its hands on the machinery of the state, it, too, could give the nazis a run for their money. 

Both sides are totalitarian in their outlook and use violence as a tool for pushing their agenda. Both exist at the margins of society and both are really devoid of any ideas. There's really no empirical evidence that either side of movement is growing and thank God for that.

As for what started all of this, the statues; let them come down. Or stay up. It's a matter for the people in those communities and the people who represent them in local government.


----------



## Shaver

RogerP said:


> Nazis: instigate a global conflagration; engage in genocide on an industrial scale and advocate for more of the same. AntiFa - throw rocks, smash windows and act like the anarchist jackwads they are. Yeah - pretty much the same.


Throw rocks, smash windows?

Kristallnacht.


----------



## drlivingston

RogerP said:


> Nazis: instigate a global conflagration; engage in genocide on an industrial scale and advocate for more of the same. AntiFa - throw rocks, smash windows and act like the anarchist jackwads they are. Yeah - pretty much the same.


Nazis have had more time to get organized. AntiFa will follow the same path as long as they keep benefiting from the largess or Soros. Regardless of their tactics, both of these groups represent the worst of humanity. Both are fueled by equal amounts of self-righteousness and hate.


----------



## Odradek

drlivingston said:


> Nazis have had more time to get organized. AntiFa will follow the same path as long as they keep benefiting from the largess or Soros. Regardless of their tactics, both of these groups represent the worst of humanity. Both are fueled by equal amounts of self-righteousness and hate.


----------



## SG_67

I'm waiting for the book burnings to start. 

By the way, I love the term "our City." I wonder how many of them were Bostonians. Granted Boston is liberal but I've never gotten this vibe when there.


----------



## Odradek

I guess they'll have to rename it as "Five Flags Over Texas".










#Erasing History.


----------



## Langham

Odradek said:


> #Erasing History.


There must be one or two things in British/English history that this or that group take strong exception to. Many remnants throughout the Empire, place names in particular, have gone, but I'm trying to think what symbols, monuments etc. have been erased at home - and we have a lot of them. I believe one or two street names, originally named after heroes who have since been discredited, may have gone (Savile Row's days are surely numbered?), a while ago there was some silly fuss over a statue to Cecil Rhodes, and I know the Irish changed their pillar boxes from red to green, but I can't come up with much. Somehow we got away with retaining the name of Waterloo Station - even using it, for a while, as the terminus for trains from Paris.


----------



## Tiger

Odradek said:


> View attachment 17591


Hard to defend these Bolsheviks; I guess they'll replace statues of Washington and Jefferson with those of Lenin and Stalin. No doubt the Walter Durantys in the American media will continue the obfuscation of the truth...


----------



## Odradek

Last night, "activists" in Baltimore took a sledgehammer to the oldest Christopher Columbus monument in the US. 
Then they uploaded this video


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/899641762247057408


----------



## SG_67

^ and ditto for books we don't like!


----------



## Shaver

I wonder why these folk who are oh-so-concerned with the fate of the noble savage and dreadfully enraged by our
civilisation do not relocate to the Congo, Liberia or Somalia?


----------



## drlivingston

True, Washington and Jefferson both owned slaves. Interestingly enough, Robert E. Lee didn't own slaves, but Ulysses S. Grant did. Go figure. We have to cut out the extremism on both sides of the aisle.


----------



## Langham

I see some are now calling for Clinton's statue to be removed:










There is certainly something objectionable about the fit of his suit.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> I wonder why these folk who are oh-so-concerned with the fate of the nobl savage and dreadfully enraged by our
> civilisation do not relocate to the Congo, Liberia or Somalia?


----------



## Odradek




----------



## SG_67

^ yes well, wanton violence and destruction is always a remedy for societies ills. 

This grievance fetish is taking on a new and disturbing expression.


----------



## drlivingston

How soon until they destroy Jefferson Davis' home in Mississippi?


----------



## SG_67

drlivingston said:


> How soon until they destroy Jefferson Davis' home in Mississippi?


What? It's still standing? Well, what are we waiting for? Let's go!


----------



## Cassadine

Oldsarge said:


> As do I. Believing as I do that the Left in this county is as tyrannical, anti-democratic, bigoted and antisematic as the altRight, there is still no excuse for allowing the existence of modern Nazis. Imagine your father, who may have landed on Normandy, looking at these modern scum and wondering just what in Hell he fought for.


I cannot believe my first post is on politics. I had a Great-Uncle who died there the first day. I don't know what he would think. But judging by my uncle's reactions--a Vietnam 2 tour Marine-- old Uncle Joe would've been positively apoplectic.


----------



## SG_67

The name of Robert Lee needs to be scratched from history. Once we're done with the statues, let's go after this guy:










That's Robert Lee and ESPN just pulled him from coverage of the UVA football game this weekend.


----------



## Cassadine

If true, and not a spoof of a "fake news" outlet, whatever that might be, then that's a ridiculous move. Man alive.


----------



## Mike Petrik

If you can trust Google (fair question) the report is true. The Left has now successfully obviated The Onion's purpose.


----------



## Cassadine

The Onion? Bravo. Here's a snippet from a recent release.

_BOSTON-According to a report released Monday by the sociology department at Tufts University, the average American completely wastes 77 years of his or her life not listening to the adult contemporary soft-rock classic "The Finer Things" by Steve Winwood._


----------



## drlivingston

How soon until we rid the networks of any Dukes of Hazzard reruns? The General Lee 1969 Chargers have always been popular show cars. Now, the people who own them can't even display them at car shows without coming under verbal assault.


----------



## Cassadine

If and when a cultural backlash happens against all this insane posturing, then I fear things will get very ugly, very quickly. American society has become mind-numbingly coarse. The term "civility" will soon be expunged from dictionaries because it hails from the same word group as "civilized" and that's likely "trigger word" for someone, somewhere.


----------



## Flanderian

"Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed--
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above."

"O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe."

https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/let-america-be-america-again/


----------



## 16412

Nice poem.


----------



## culverwood

The Guardian is on the case. Let's pull down Nelson's Column


----------



## Langham

culverwood said:


> The Guardian is on the case. Let's pull down Nelson's Column


Typical of the Guardian readership's perverted view of history.

I had always imagined the column was there to remind us of a great victory over Continental tyranny, but clearly I must have been mistaken.


----------



## SG_67

I would be more sympathetic to iconoclasts if they offered some way forward or at least suggestions as to how to better society. I have a hard time seeing how the tearing down of a statue or striking something from the historical record helps move anything forward. 

This is what the communists did and we see how well that turned out. Shall we scrub the works of Richard Wagner and ban performances by symphonies? 

I actually believe this is a fringe view within the culture in general. Polls actually show this.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Hurricane Katrina almost wiped out Beauvoir, the Jefferson Davis home. I doubt folks in Biloxi will jump on the national nervous breakdown bandwagon. They spent a lot of money putting her back into top condition. Should be safe.

https://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-news/2015/07/sampling_history_beauvoir_look.html

Should be....

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## drlivingston

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Hurricane Katrina almost wiped out Beauvoir, the Jefferson Davis home. I doubt folks in Biloxi will jump on the national nervous breakdown bandwagon. They spent a lot of money putting her back into top condition. Should be safe.
> 
> https://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-news/2015/07/sampling_history_beauvoir_look.html
> 
> Should be....
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


The governor of Alabama passed a state law forbidding the removal of ANY Confederate monuments. So, to stay within the boundaries of her edict, the mayor of Birmingham simply built structures around the monuments to completely obstruct any viewing of them.


----------



## Flanderian

I'd always thought the Weimar Republic an interesting place and era, but never thought to be living it. Then as now we have politically polar extremes using emotionally loaded but ambiguous symbols as camouflage for groups with agendas often pernicious, extreme and violent. Of course the issue isn't really those symbols it's the groups and their doctrines that are using them.


----------



## Odradek

drlivingston said:


> How soon until we rid the networks of any Dukes of Hazzard reruns? The General Lee 1969 Chargers have always been popular show cars. Now, the people who own them can't even display them at car shows without coming under verbal assault.


----------



## Odradek

Cassadine said:


> If true, and not a spoof of a "fake news" outlet, whatever that might be, then that's a ridiculous move. Man alive.


----------



## 16412

Some who were fighting for the South were fighting for slavery. But, what about the rest. Many poor whites were fighting for something else. To say the war was only about slavery is a huge lie. Most of the history I learned, decades ago, I've forgotten. Learned more about the fighting than why. Don't understand the South. And, really don't want to. 

Idaho should clean out the racist groups in that state. It is a shame garbage moved north. It doesn't belong anywhere on US soil.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

20 historically accurate reasons that Johnny Reb found for fighting...in no particular order.

1.Invasion from the North and protection of family homes/property.
2. It's a big adventure that no red blooded boy can resist.
3. It will get me laid. 
4. Everybody else in town joined up and I don't want to look like a coward.
5. My older/younger brother joined and we want to fight together.
6. States Rights vs. the Federal Govt.
7. It's a Second American Revolution. Grandpa fought in the first and he was a hero! I want to be a hero too!!
8. I can touch a girl if I get a uniform. (See #3)
9. Slavery is legal and how can the Feds take away a man's property? It's unconstitutional.
10. War fever.
11. A chance to get out from the south bound end of a north bound a mule and see some of the world. I have never been out of the county.
12. I got drafted.
13. The Yankees insult us and call us evil. We must defend our honor. 
14. The economy of the South depends on slavery and cotton. How else can we survive? We can't afford to pay these folks to work after we bought them. 
15. I got paid to be a stand in for a rich man.
16. Abraham Lincoln is the Devil and the Yankees want to destroy our culture. 
17. A soldier's pay beats field work. 
18. Slavery is in the Bible, so the preacher says it's ok.
19. If we free all the slaves, white dominated society will collapse and chaos will ensue. Slaves need white man's care and patronage to survive. 
20. Killing Yankees sounds like fun.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Odradek

Almost like a burqa.


----------



## SG_67

....meanwhile, the Chinese are working on developing quantum computers and trying to figure out more ways to hack into our vital infrastructure. 

We're busy reaching back 150 years for grievances and our tech folks are working on more efficient dating algorhythms.


----------



## eagle2250

Much to this great nation's detriment, it appears that the spirit of McCarthyism still lives in our midst.


----------



## vpkozel

eagle2250 said:


> Much to this great nation's detriment, it appears that the spirit of McCarthyism still lives in our midst.


Yep. This is exactly what is happening. Who needs proof when you can make up allegations and never be required to prove them?

On this front, watch for this Trump Dossier to be given more and more credence, even though it has been discredited....


----------



## drlivingston

SG_67 said:


> ....meanwhile, the Chinese are working on developing quantum computers and trying to figure out more ways to hack into our vital infrastructure.
> 
> We're busy reaching back 150 years for grievances and our tech folks are working on more efficient dating algorhythms.


The Chinese made all of the eclipse glasses that millions of Americans trusted and used to stare at the sun. If they had just modified them a bit, they could have handicapped a large segment of the population without using a single weapon.


----------



## Cassadine

drlivingston said:


> The Chinese made all of the eclipse glasses that millions of Americans trusted and used to stare at the sun. If they had just modified them a bit, they could have handicapped a large segment of the population without using a single weapon.


But then we might default on the incredible sums of money we owe them. Sometimes I really miss the clarity of the Cold War days.


----------



## drlivingston

Cassadine said:


> But then we might default on the incredible sums of money we owe them. Sometimes I really miss the clarity of the Cold War days.


I was in Russia at the end of the perestroika and glasnost days. I vividly remember students at Central Park in Tolyatti throwing rocks at the statue of Lenin.


----------



## Shaver

Did a lengthy post just disappear from this thread?

I approve of free speech. If an idea is bad do not suppress it rather allow it to wizen in the glare of reason.


----------



## SG_67

^ You're reasoning is well thought out but incomplete on some points.

1) Whether this or that group finds some kind of solace in what was or was not said should not be construed as the intent of the speaker. The fact is that there was violence on both sides, though certainly the white supremacists escalated their participation in it to commit murder. The fact is that Donald Trump could have said anything and people would have pounced on him. Donald Trump's sin is that he doesn't talk pretty. 

2) Both sides are fascistic. Saying that one side is fighting "real Nazis" is erroneous. Both sides use violence as a means of pushing forward a political agenda. Both will stifle descent and both bully. I don't understand this false dilemma that if one condemns antifa then by virtue of that he is supporting or condoning, somehow, neo-Nazis. There are times when two opposing sides are wrong and both opposing sides are reprehensible. Tell who was the good guy when the Nazis invaded the USSR?


----------



## SG_67

Here's an interesting article from the NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/robert-e-lee-slaves.html

I think it's always wise to consider what the world was like in the 1850's. People should do a little more reading and a little less screaming.....and yes, on both sides.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> Did a lengthy post just disappear from this thread?
> 
> I approve of free speech. If an idea is bad do not suppress it rather allow it to wizen in the glare of reason.


My post was in reference to that. Interesting that it disappeared, unless, of course, the author himself removed it.


----------



## 16412

When the New Testament was being written some slaves could buy their way out. Some slaves were wealthy, and some even owned slaves. Some who could have easily bought their way out didn't. So I've been told.

Here in America some slave owners were terrible. And those we hear about. And should all the rest be judged by them? On the other hand slavery seems immoral no matter how one looks at it. And, any caste system is immoral, too. Glad I wasn't born in the south. I believe in opportunity. Some rise to the top, many are middle class, and some don't rise far. Skin color certainly has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

SG_67, finding and referencing original source material from the period makes you an intellectual radical who most certainly can't be trusted in the current environment. Experts certainly can't be depended on to supply information!

As you know, facts cloud a good narrative. If you keep this up, you might find yourself tarred, feathered, tied to a rail and run out of town. :beer:

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## SG_67

Thanks BSR!


----------



## TheBarbaron

The long post was mine, and I deleted it more or less immediately - no editorial censorship involved, except the self-imposed kind. In rereading it, I was diverging topics a little, and the tone had more heat than was intended.

The shorter version, presented more blandly:
I don't think the President is a white supremacist, or a secret Klansman. (While he has some racial hangups, they fall more into "colorful grandpa" territory, and I propose to pass them by in this discussion.) I'll stipulate for the sake of the argument that the neo-Nazi agenda is not the President's.

It's just disheartening that he seems unwilling to stick with last Monday's statement, which was unequivocal and good enough. The alt-righters are big Trump fans, and they firmly believe (however erroneously) that their agenda and the President's are in alignment. 

They read Trump's first statement as tacit support for them (the "both sides" text) because he refused to call them out; Monday's addendum would have been enough to at least shake the foundational belief that he supports them (there are a few whom no evidence will convince, of course), if he could have left it at that. He's since revisited his statements twice, once to in part to claim that there were many "good, fine people" among the marching neo-Nazis, and once to affirm that his first statement was "perfect". Unsurprisingly, the alt-right is pretty thrilled with the revisions.

Lastly, SG, even if we accept (for the sake of argument) that Antifa are as preemptively violent as portrayed, and that there are probably some Communists among their numbers, we end up with this comparison:

A sometimes violent or bullying group that uses their muscle to oppose fascism and "oppression" (real or perceived), targets enemies based on their political beliefs, and has a certain amount of contempt for law and order, versus
a group of white nationalists who actively target Jews, and black people as well as political opponents for intimidation or violence, and who call for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" and a white ethno-state. 

Merriam-Webster defines fascism as: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

You could probably tag Antifa with the last phrase, and I'd even allow that some (the presupposed Communists) might want a centralized government with economic and social regimentation, though again I'd note that communism is not anywhere in the central tenets of Antifa, and respect for a state authority is very low across the body. 
Only one of these groups is actually fascistic, and that's the one who want to remove the non-Aryan population in their twisted interpretation of "Make America Great Again." (Conveniently for identification, it's also the group that has coopted the slogans, icons, leaders and paraphernalia of the best-known fascist regime ever.)

As I've stated multiple times, I'm not here to present a full-throated defense of Antifa; my view of them is just a little more nuanced after last Saturday than it was before.


----------



## drlivingston

Antifa = hate group
KKK = hate group
BLM = group formed with good intent; co-opted by racial extremists
Neo-Nazis = hate group
Alt-Right = influential hate group
Nation of Islam = black separatist hate group
etc. etc.


----------



## TheBarbaron

That all depends on what you define as a hate group, I suppose. The Southern Poverty Law Center (generally considered the tracker of hate groups, and one that the FBI uses as a resource) defines hate groups as ones that "... have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." They do include many black separatist or black supremacist groups in that definition.

SPLC Senior Fellow and journal editor Mark Potok stated that the SPLC's “criteria for a ‘hate group,’ first of all, have nothing to do with criminality or violence or any kind of guess we’re making about ‘this group could be dangerous.’ It’s strictly ideological.”

EDIT: For the sake of balance, I will note that most of SPLC's list are radical right groups and that there have occasionally been accusations (mostly in relation to anti-LGBT groups) that SPLC has some partisan blind spots.


----------



## SG_67

Antifa certainly qualifies as a nation in the classic sense of the word. 

It's a group united by a shared culture and identity. They may be composed of different ethnic groups (though often when seen on TV I can't help but notice a large contingent of Lilly white faces). So I guess we're creeping closer to fascism aren't we? 

Still, I wish someone could explain to me why it's so immoral to denounce both Nazis and Antifa in the same breath.


----------



## drlivingston

The only difference between Nazis and Antifa is their prey.


----------



## burnedandfrozen

Why is it immoral to denounce both Antifa and Nazis in the same breath? That's because Antifa and most other left wing pressure groups think they occupy a moral high ground which excuses their violent behavior. However, isn't that how the Nazi's came to power? The reign of terror unleashed in Europe as the Nazis came to power was made possible by many many civilians who took part in committing atrocities all in the name of a political view. What we are seeing now with the violence erupting at these rallies such as the white progressive who punched out a black Trump supporter in a rally in Laguna Beach CA this past weekend is that identity politics have festered to the point where the Left has no choice but to resort to violence to instill fear in everyone else. That's the trouble with identity politics; it dehumanizes everyone who does not share ones political views which makes it acceptable to many to treat those people with violence...just like what happened with the rise of Nazism in the '30's. It all began immediately after Trump won the presidency. People picked their sides and so began the unfriending on social media, the few people who made the news because they decided to file for divorce from their spouse who voted for Trump and even one political pundit (whose name escapes me) who suggested to his left wing audience that they not invite any Trump voters in their family over for holidays. Now it's gotten to violence and I fear it's only going to get worse. Trump has a little more then three years left in his term so there's plenty of time for unhinged people like the guy who shot at Republican congress members at their baseball practice to completely loose their grip and go off the deep end.


----------



## SG_67

Yes I'm quite certain before the nazis started to march their fellow human beings into gas chambers they first started by shouting down their political opponents, throwing bricks and labeling others as immoral and enemies of the _Volk. _


----------



## Odradek

California jumps the shark in this whole statue fiasco.

*167 Year Old California Catholic School Removes Statues of Mary and Jesus to be More Inclusive*


----------



## SG_67

^ What's next? Will the Swiss Guard be replaced by Janissaries in order to be more inclusive?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Odradek said:


> California jumps the shark in this whole statue fiasco.
> 
> *167 Year Old California Catholic School Removes Statues of Mary and Jesus to be More Inclusive*


This gives jumping the shark a bad name. Nuts. Just nuts.


----------



## Odradek

More insanity.
The BBC have pulled a film that was due to be screened on TV this evening.
"In The Electric Mist" starring Tommy Lee Jones.

I've never heard of it, but the IMDb blurb goes like this...
A detective in post-Katrina New Orleans has a series of surreal encounters with a troop of friendly Confederate soldiers while investigating serial killings of local prostitutes, a 1965 lynching, and corrupt local businessmen.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910905/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Seems the mere mention of Confederate soldiers, even if, as in this case they are ghosts, is enough to trigger the SJW gestapo.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Odradek said:


> More insanity.
> The BBC have pulled a film that was due to be screened on TV this evening.
> "In The Electric Mist" starring Tommy Lee Jones.
> 
> I've never heard of it, but the IMDb blurb goes like this...
> A detective in post-Katrina New Orleans has a series of surreal encounters with a troop of friendly Confederate soldiers while investigating serial killings of local prostitutes, a 1965 lynching, and corrupt local businessmen.
> 
> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910905/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
> 
> Seems the mere mention of Confederate soldiers, even if, as in this case they are ghosts, is enough to trigger the SJW gestapo.


Jones' middle name likely clinched it.


----------



## drlivingston

Odradek said:


> More insanity.
> The BBC have pulled a film that was due to be screened on TV this evening.
> "In The Electric Mist" starring Tommy Lee Jones.
> Seems the mere mention of Confederate soldiers, even if, as in this case they are ghosts, is enough to trigger the SJW gestapo.





Mike Petrik said:


> Jones' middle name likely clinched it.


The SJW crowd doesn't know what to do with Tommy Lee Jones. He's a mixed bag. He attended Robert E. Lee High School in Texas, but roomed with Al Gore at Harvard. Something to annoy both sides of the aisle.


----------



## Odradek

Theater Cancels _Gone with the Wind_Screening After Receiving Complaints that the Film Is 'Insensitive'


----------



## drlivingston

Something tells me that I better sell my stock in Aunt Jemima syrup.


----------



## SG_67

This is from an online NPR article from last year:

"Because of his Southern heritage, he appeared to be very, very comfortable in African-American communities," says Andra Gillespie, an associate professor of political science at Emory University. That ease, Gillespie said, ranges from his famous sax-playing appearance on _The Arsenio Hall Show_ to his ease on the campaign trail in interacting with black voters - it 'sort of hinted at a certain type of cultural fluency that was welcome to African-American voters,' she added."

It's an interesting take on the whole southern heritage thing. Of course, it's helps when your name is Clinton and you're the DNC standard bearer. Had this been the 70th birthday of a Republican pol from the south, I'm sure words like "conflicted", "mixed bag" and "dark past" would have been peppered through there.

If anyone for a moment is so naive to think that this is not just regular liberal politics on steroids (since it's open season on Trump) then he's either stupid or intellectually dishonest.

Chicago last year had more murders than NYC and Los Angeles combined! Three quarters of those were black and were committed by the same percentage of killers. I didn't see that many people get animated about that. No one was marching in the streets over that.

Among those killed was a 9 year old boy. As tragic as that was, what was truly horrific was that he was the son of a gang member. A rival gang member lured him into an alley and killed him; execution style. When the father was asked to cooperate, he refused. What kind of depravity causes this I have no idea, but I'm quite certain a statue of Robert E Lee atop his horse is not the cause.


----------



## drlivingston

SG_67 said:


> When the father was asked to cooperate, he refused.


You gotta love that 'no snitch' mentality.


----------



## 16412

"You gotta love that 'no snitch' mentality" 

This is also with the Italian organize crime and there wanna be's, which there are millions across the US and Canada, which is why they say, "You can't run. And you can't hide." I've figured each that lives to 90 has been involved with 30,000 murders. The FBI as well as police and Sheriff and prosecutors and judges are worthless. Think I'm wrong? Explain why you haven't worked with, or been around, lots of ex prostitutes? The statistics of women's suicide is way off. Murder is easy to set up to look like suicide. And, how many with cement shoes are found. Track hoes and back hoes are so easy to bury.... Chicago's black gangs don't hide their victims. So, easy to count. Gangs that hide the murdered? Italian mafia can be business men & women, Reverends, politicians, prosecutors, judges, professors, school teachers, etc. We rub shoulders with them and don't even know it. Some are far worse than others. They often hide behind the disguise of, "he/she is the last person who would do it". My experience with them they are terrorists who are not being hunted down, much more, given what they do to other people, capital punishment.


----------



## 16412

Watched on C-SPAN 
*Q&A with Tom Ricks*

Thomas Ricks talked about his book _Churchill and Orwell: The Fight for Freedom_, in which he takes a look at the lives of the two men and their impact on the world.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?432335-1/qa-tom-ricks

It is not short. But, interesting. 
He thinks America maybe heading into another Civil War. Conservatives and Progressives.

From my view the progressives really hate America's pass. If they hate it so much why don't they move to a country of their values instead of wreaking this one. Progressives keep moving the goal post, even of "political correctness".


----------



## culverwood

Now the Aussies are starting on Captain Cook
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4831936/Statue-Captain-Cook-Sydney-fenced-tape.html


----------



## Langham

culverwood said:


> Now the Aussies are starting on Captain Cook
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4831936/Statue-Captain-Cook-Sydney-fenced-tape.html


Spray-painting the statue, changing the inscription, or or if necessary removing the statue altogether, would certainly transform the lives of Australia's Aborigines.


----------



## SG_67

This seems to be the fad _de jour_.

Didn't the French completely change the calendar after the revolution? Right before they starting chopping off the heads of priests and nuns of course.


----------



## drlivingston

They are also defacing statues of Revolutionary war figures. 
https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/2...ed-ohio-revolutionary-war-statue-decapitated/


----------



## Tiger

TheBarbaron said:


> That all depends on what you define as a hate group, I suppose. The Southern Poverty Law Center (generally considered the tracker of hate groups, and one that the FBI uses as a resource) defines hate groups as ones that "... have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." They do include many black separatist or black supremacist groups in that definition.
> 
> SPLC Senior Fellow and journal editor Mark Potok stated that the SPLC's "criteria for a 'hate group,' first of all, have nothing to do with criminality or violence or any kind of guess we're making about 'this group could be dangerous.' It's strictly ideological."
> 
> EDIT: For the sake of balance, I will note that most of SPLC's list are radical right groups and that there have occasionally been accusations (mostly in relation to anti-LGBT groups) that SPLC has some partisan blind spots.


The Southern Poverty Law Center is far from an impartial group; it is highly partisan, slanderous, and has its own personal (the seedy Morris Dees) and political agenda (far left). In addition, the FBI no longer utilizes it as a source, due to its dishonest labeling of innocuous groups with which it happens to disagree.

Some information on the SPLC:

https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/17/12-ways-southern-poverty-law-center-scam-profit-hate-mongering/


----------



## SG_67

The SPLC has a position on climate change. That should tell you everything you need to know about them.

I've noticed quite a few TV ads for them recently. Whats that about not letting a good crisis go to waste?


----------



## Shaver

I endured a rather telling exchange with an SJW this morning. I am now *ahem* _reliably_ informed that disagreeing with a snowflake indicates a puerile and futile mind. That this position was presented to me in a tone, quite deliberately, albeit quite astonishingly, imitating a petulant bleating child allowed me to avoid deigning a response and in this absence to simultaneously deliver the coup de grâce.

Shooting fish in a barrel.


----------



## SG_67

^ that's so 1% of you!


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> ^ that's so 1% of you!


How dare you!

0.1% I'll have you know.


----------



## 16412

Looking at a book about those who signed the Declaration of Independence, a little bit about after the Revolutionary War, the book showed an etching of the US citizens pulling down a statute of the king of England. 

Around here the city has taken down plaques and signs about General Pickett. Some people complained, because he never had slaves, and married a local Native American. Left here to fight in the Civil War for the Southern State of Virginia.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> How dare you!
> 
> 0.1% I'll have you know.


In the rare case that I encounter a SJW actually proposing a sensible thought, I tell him it is a "capital idea" just to irritate him. After serving on my Catholic high school board I was given a statuette of a Crusader (our mascot). I keep that prominently displayed in my office. 
Microaggressions are fun.


----------



## FLMike

Shaver said:


> I endured a rather telling exchange with an SJW this morning. I am now *ahem* _reliably_ informed that disagreeing with a snowflake indicates a puerile and futile mind. That this position was presented to me in a tone, quite deliberately, albeit quite astonishingly, imitating a petulant bleating child allowed me to avoid deigning a response and in this absence to simultaneously deliver the coup de grâce.
> 
> Shooting fish in a barrel.


Did he happen to go by the name Duvel?


----------



## TheBarbaron

Tiger said:


> In addition, the FBI no longer utilizes it as a source, due to its dishonest labeling of innocuous groups with which it happens to disagree.


As much as I hate to break up a long string of "Gosh, aren't liberals just the worst?" anecdotes, your post made a factual claim, and that I can address.

The FBI's statement, to The Daily Caller no less:
_"Upon review, the Civil Rights program only provides links to resources within the federal government," an FBI spokesman told The Daily Caller. "While we appreciate the tremendous support we receive from a variety of organizations, we have elected not to identify those groups on the civil rights page."
_
They no longer link the SPLC, but the SPLC is still mentioned by name in their list of civil rights partners.

_"The FBI has forged partnerships nationally and locally with many civil rights organizations to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems. These groups include such organizations as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, American Association of University Women, Anti-Defamation League, Asian American Justice Center, Hindu American Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Council of Jewish Women, National Disability Rights Network, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Organization for Women, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Sikh Coalition, Southern Poverty Law Center, and many others."
_
The SPLC does lean left (it's pretty hard to find an NGO interested in hate groups that isn't); another reputable source would be the Anti-Defamation league, which monitors hate groups as well, though with a special focus on anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli activity. Here's their take on Antifa vs the alt-right: https://www.adl.org/blog/antifa-pose-challenges-for-police-and-counter-protesters-alike


----------



## SG_67

No one is contending that liberals are the worst. Misguided perhaps but we're still countrymen.

All we're saying is that political violence is wrong and that it's not a sin to denounce it. Denouncing Antifa is not a defector endorsement of white supremacists or nazis. They may be against one another but both abhorrent.

As for the SPLC, I'm sure they do some good work but it's an interest group with a political agenda so no one should be ready to hold them as some paragon of social virtue. They have a rather broad definition of hate group.

Here's a perfect example:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/tom-deweese

So now being for limited government and questioning climate change, one is placed on the hate list and "hatewatch".


----------



## drlivingston

Mike Petrik said:


> Microaggressions are fun.


I really try to be careful about what my daughter watches on television. Through the magic of Hulu, I am able to filter out adult content. Unfortunately, while some shows are geared towards children, they aren't necessarily appropriate for today's political climate. Unbeknownst to me, she had been watching episodes of 'Our Gang.' (You can see where I am going with this.) Last week at a local restaurant that we frequent, she proudly tells our server that he looks just like Buckwheat. To his credit, and our great relief, he cracked up and even did the Eddie Murphy "Otay" pose. Life is so much better when people don't take themselves so damn seriously. 
edit: Yes, we did tell her NOT to do that again. When asked why, we gave the age-old parent response, "Because we said so."


----------



## Tiger

TheBarbaron said:


> As much as I hate to break up a long string of "Gosh, aren't liberals just the worst?" anecdotes, your post made a factual claim, and that I can address...They no longer link the SPLC, but the SPLC is still mentioned by name in their list of civil rights partners.


The issue is much more egregious than you intimate. Here's an excerpt from the Washington Examiner:

_"In 2010, liberal journalist Ken Silverstein called the group "essentially a fraud" with "a habit of casually labeling organizations as 'hate groups.'"

"In doing so," Silverstein wrote, "the SPLC shuts down debate, stifles free speech, and most of all, raises a pile of money, very little of which is used on behalf of poor people." In 2000, Silverstein reported on the SPLC's practice of exploiting tragedy with misleading fundraising efforts that allow it to amass tens of millions of dollars in donations."_

The entire article: 
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...at-them-as-responsible-actors/article/2631852

The point is, they are so tendentious that one cannot trust their "determinations."


----------



## TheBarbaron

SG_67 said:


> Here's a perfect example:
> https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/tom-deweese
> 
> So now being for limited government and questioning climate change, one is placed on the hate list and "hatewatch".


To be fair, today was the first time I'd heard of Mr. Deweese. A cursory search indicates that his positions are a tad more extreme than being a proponent of limited government - certainly that's the jumping off point, but Tom is more ambitious than that. Whether it's "The US is being colonized by Red China", or "immigration is a plot by radical jihadis to erase western culture and rape our women", or "Agenda 21," (a non-binding, non-enforceable UN resolution about smart or sustainable community growth for the 21st century ratified by then President George H.W. Bush, that notoriously liberal tree hugger) as a means of instituting a broad global conspiracy to put America under the bootheel of a "globalist, tyrannical" one-world government, Mr. DeWeese has certainly taken classic libertarianism to a tin-foil-hatted extreme.


----------



## TheBarbaron

Tiger said:


> The point is, they are so tendentious that one cannot trust their "determinations."


I was pretty sure that you said the point was their "disavowal" by the FBI last time, which appears not to have actually happened.

Now the point appears to be their "controversial" stances; that's a hard one to have a legitimate argument about, since tendentiousness is somewhat relative to your starting point. You'll cite conservative leaning publications (like the Examiner), I'll cite liberal leaning publications (like the Post), and in the end we'll be no closer to common ground than we were before.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Does a well read thinking person need the SCLC to pull out the hate group label maker for them?

Hate is like porn, I know it when I feel it.... 

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## SG_67

TheBarbaron said:


> To be fair, today was the first time I'd heard of Mr. Deweese. A cursory search indicates that his positions are a tad more extreme than being a proponent of limited government - certainly that's the jumping off point, but Tom is more ambitious than that. Whether it's "The US is being colonized by Red China", or "immigration is a plot by radical jihadis to erase western culture and rape our women", or "Agenda 21," (a non-binding, non-enforceable UN resolution about smart or sustainable community growth for the 21st century ratified by then President George H.W. Bush, that notoriously liberal tree hugger) as a means of instituting a broad global conspiracy to put America under the bootheel of a "globalist, tyrannical" one-world government, Mr. DeWeese has certainly taken classic libertarianism to a tin-foil-hatted extreme.


So radical Islamists holding signs indicating something along the lines of sharia law being instituted in the US isn't enough for you?

Also, so what? How is any of that hate speech? You can certainly debate his political opinions and point out its deficiencies but how is any of that racist or qualify as hate speech.

The SPLC relies on donations. It's donors have a particular world view and would rather give money to organizations who share that world view. Follow the money I guess.


----------



## Tiger

TheBarbaron said:


> I was pretty sure that you said the point was their "disavowal" by the FBI last time, which appears not to have actually happened.
> 
> Now the point appears to be their "controversial" stances; that's a hard one to have a legitimate argument about, since tendentiousness is somewhat relative to your starting point. You'll cite conservative leaning publications (like the Examiner), I'll cite liberal leaning publications (like the Post), and in the end we'll be no closer to common ground than we were before.


Please don't distort what I wrote; a quick look at my initial post (#119) will prove that the FBI remark was an addendum. The main point has always been left wing bias (as you seemed to indicate in one of your posts) by the SPLC that ignores atrocities on the left. This is exacerbated by Morris Dees' corruption and the organization's tendency to slander groups who show no disposition to "hate."


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> I endured a rather telling exchange with an SJW this morning.


Good thing it was an SJW and not the S1W!


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Good thing it was an SJW and not the S1W!


Woulda been cool fam, I's on point.

I can rap most of Straight Outta Compton album - to the delight of my partner's teenage son. This white boy brings da noize.

"Straight outta England,
A crazy motherplucker named Shaver
From the gang called AAAC Wit' Flavour
When I get called out, I get a dissing post out
Tap-tap the keyboard, and bodies are hauled out
You too, boy, if ya mess with me
The mods are gonna hafta come and get me
Nose to the monitor that's how I'm goin' out
For them punk motherpluckers that's showin out
VPK starts to mumble, he wants to rumble
Mix him and cook him in a pot like gumbo
Goin' off on a internet freestyle
with a mouse that's pointed at yo profile
So beatches better give it up smooth
Ain't no tellin when I'm down for a typed move
Paraphrased reply with quote to keep yo thinking
come backs so fast you best don't be blinking
Qwerty keyboard is the tool
Don't make me act the motherplucking fool
Me and you can go post to post, no maybe
I'm knockin members out tha threads, daily
yo weekly, monthly and yearly
until them dumb motherpluckers see clearly
that I'm down with the capital A-W-F
Boy you can't pluck with me
So when I'm in your neighborhood, you best beware
Coz Shaver is crazy as a Mad March Hare
As I leave, with words you're bludgeoned
but when I come back, boy, I'm comin straight outta England".

.
.
.
.


----------



## drlivingston

via Imgflip Meme Generator


----------



## Shaver

^ Is that you Dr L? 



:devil:


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> ^ Dr Livingston, I presume?
> 
> :devil:


FIFY.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> FIFY.


:beer:


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Coz Shaver is crazy as a Mad March Hare?
'at'l get no argument from BSR there...

+1 Homey

BSR


----------



## Pentheos

TheBarbaron said:


> As I've stated multiple times, I'm not here to present a full-throated defense of Antifa; my view of them is just a little more nuanced after last Saturday than it was before.


L O L
O O
L O L


----------



## Odradek




----------



## Odradek

It's getting a bit like Mao's Red Guards in the USA now.










Smash the Four Olds.


----------



## SG_67

Odradek said:


> It's getting a bit like Mao's Red Guards in the USA now.
> 
> View attachment 17899
> 
> 
> Smash the Four Olds.


Perhaps we need to purge ourselves of the biases and shortcomings of old and rededicate ourselves to a new reality and understanding.

There's this little red book that has opened my eyes.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> In the rare case that I encounter a SJW actually proposing a sensible thought, I tell him it is a "capital idea" just to irritate him. After serving on my Catholic high school board I was given a statuette of a Crusader (our mascot). I keep that prominently displayed in my office.
> Microaggressions are fun.


----------



## TheBarbaron

Pentheos said:


> L O L
> O O
> L O L


Was there an argument ciphered in there somewhere?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Thanks, Shaver. I'm going to have that one copied and taped to my office door. Complainers will be forced to learn something:

https://www.catholicity.com/commentary/madden/03463.html

After their brains explode, the mess will at least be tiny.


----------



## Clintotron

Mike Petrik said:


> Thanks, Shaver. I'm going to have that one copied and taped to my office door. Complainers will be forced to learn something:
> 
> https://www.catholicity.com/commentary/madden/03463.html


Excellent article. I was explaining the premise to my brother-in-law a couple years ago. He started the conversation with his I-know-more-than-you attitude. I kindly said something to the effect of 'Well, actually, the Crusades were a Christian defensive against invading Muslim forces." I knew he wasn't listening when he agreed with me fully, and then all but repeated what he said previously. I cut my losses immediately and walked to another room to converse with those I respect.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## SG_67

Regarding the crusades, I'm forever amused by those who allude to events dating back 600-700 years in order to justify a grievance.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> Regarding the crusades, I'm forever amused by those who allude to events dating back 600-700 years in order to justify a grievance.


Same here, SG. Moreover, in the case of the Crusades the grievance rests less with Muslims (aside from the radical variety) than with with ill-educated but highly-opinionated progressives who subscribe to a self-serving and erroneous account of history.


----------



## SG_67

^ask most and they wouldn't even know how many there were. Or who the Popes were.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> ^ask most and they wouldn't even know how many there were. Or who the Popes were.


... and have less than a 50% chance of even identifying the correct millennium. "Less than" because some will be befuddled by the word "millennium".


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> Thanks, Shaver. I'm going to have that one copied and taped to my office door. Complainers will be forced to learn something:
> 
> https://www.catholicity.com/commentary/madden/03463.html
> 
> After their brains explode, the mess will at least be tiny.


Deus Vult, my friend, Deus Vult.


----------



## Odradek

When will America wake up and acknowledge it is under attack from anarcho-communist terrorists?


----------



## Pentheos

TheBarbaron said:


> Was there an argument ciphered in there somewhere?


No. You defend and support anarchists. There is nothing I could say to present in you in a worse light than you have already said yourself.

What Antifa doesn't understand: typically communists kill the anarchists first. Antifa are a low-IQ bunch. Perhaps their champions as well.


----------



## SG_67

Pentheos said:


> Antifa are a low-IQ bunch.


When one has to wear masks, throw bottles and rocks and set things to fire, I think that says as much.


----------



## Odradek

https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/27/george-washingtons-church-tear-down-memorial-honor/

_George Washington was one of the founding members of Christ Church in Alexandria, buying pew No. 5 when the church first opened in 1773, and attending for more than two decades.

This week the church announced it was pulling down a memorial to its one-time vestryman and the country's first president, saying he and another famous parishioner, Robert E. Lee, have become too controversial and are chasing away would-be parishioners.

While acknowledging "friction" over the decision, the church's leadership said the twin memorials, which are attached to the wall on either side of the altar, are relics of another era and have no business in a church that proclaims its motto as "All are welcome - no exceptions."_

Significantly, all the clergy at this church seem to be women.


----------



## barca10

I hear the next thing to be banned is the word "generally."


----------



## Shaver

barca10 said:


> I hear the next thing to be banned is the word "generally."


Kek.


----------



## drlivingston

Gentlemen, I come to you today with a heavy heart. It is with much pain that I publicly admit that I was sexually harassed earlier today. It all started innocently enough. A friend and I went to a local Waffle House for breakfast. This is normally a safe space where one can enjoy some very unhealthy, low-brow nourishment. After today, I will never set foot in one of their establishments again. Anyway, this is what happened. We walked in and seated ourselves in a booth. Menus and glasses of water were placed in front of us. This is where things went downhill. The young waitress proceeded to come around and actually place her arm around my shoulders in some unwarranted embrace. It was so uncomfortable. I felt positively violated. My friend tried to console me, but the damage was done. Throughout the meal, the waitress added to the emotional trauma by continually referring to me as "Honey" and "Sugar." I did nothing to provoke this assault. Under the advice of an attorney that I retained, I will not release her name. I just ask for your thoughts and prayers during this time of healing.


----------



## Shaver

#MeToo

Almost 40 years ago a lady made a clumsy pass at me - it was a deplorable act from which I still bear the emotional scars and unresolved trust issues.

I never mentioned it before but now I crave the attention of trending on Twitter.


----------



## SG_67

Twenty-five years ago when I was single, I was at a bar with a friend. 

A young lady asked me for $20 and upon giving it to her, she proceeded to dance in front of me and take her clothes off. I was shocked! It’s taken years for me to recover from the incident but it’s my duty to share my pain.


----------



## Bishop of Briggs

Are these guys banned yet?


----------



## Bishop of Briggs

Pretty clear where they stand!


----------



## Odradek




----------



## 127.72 MHz

Dr Livingston, Shaver, and you too SG_67, you are all nuts! But I love you guys!


----------



## vonSuess

I used to do some opera and classical music programs on public radio and actually picked up a couple of stalkers. I suppose these were women with issues, but my point is it can happen to anyone - I mean, look at that picture. There was also a third woman who was attractive, financially well-to-do and not exactly unknown in the community. She contacted me a number of times to say she wanted to follow me around public places and tell people she was stalking me. As the song says, it's a strange, strange world we live in...

Hans


----------



## Pentheos

I was sexually harassed by "Jimmy", a gay bartender, at a gay bar. Don't ask.

May I please have my victim ID badge?


----------



## Shaver

Pentheos said:


> I was sexually harassed by "Jimmy", a gay bartender, at a gay bar. Don't ask.
> 
> May I please have my victim ID badge?


A gay bartender? In a _gay_ bar?!?

Absolutely shocking.


----------



## Shaver

This raised a wry smile....


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> This raised a wry smile....


That is beautiful.


----------



## drlivingston

In other news, porn queen Jenna Jameson has brought forth allegations that, while on the set of a movie, director Seymore Butts refused to touch her. This has sparked quite a bit of controversy and could spell trouble for Butts. Ms. Jameson said that she tried to seduce Mr. Butts on several occasions, but he kept refusing her advances and was even reported as being overly polite to her. This could end up ugly for both parties involved.


----------



## Shaver

Don't forget that it's Transgender Remembrance Day on 20th November. A solemn occasion where we may remember all of those transgender soldiers who so nobly gave their lives in the Great War. Presumably.


----------



## SG_67

I’m sending the nascent movement of revising history to show that the great men were actually transgender women and vice versa. 

Perhaps some archaeologist will find cleopatra’s **** mummified and buried apart from her body.


----------



## Clintotron

SG_67 said:


> I'm sending the nascent movement of revising history to show that the great men were actually transgender women and vice versa.
> 
> Perhaps some archaeologist will find cleopatra's **** mummified and buried apart from her body.


Now, you know that Nicolas Cage already tried to find it and it's in the drawer with the President's Book of Secrets. Quit being so trivial. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 16412

What is right will be called wrong. And what is wrong will be called right. It is written in the Bible somewhere for the end days. And this is happening now. Even churches have departed God's word. That to, is mentioned in the Bible for the end times. Faith in God is becoming rare. Faith in the theories of science as facts, instead of as the theories they are, is now the rule of the day. The future is not looking good if you read the rest of the Bible about it. Good luck is disappearing when an angry God is ahead. Yep! Judgement is coming! The fool looks not ahead and falls into the pit. The wise man looks ahead and avoids the pit. Wise men do not follow crowds. They follow God. Following the church is not following God.

Anyway. Believe whatever you want at your own risk, or not.


----------



## Shaver

WA said:


> What is right will be called wrong. And what is wrong will be called right. It is written in the Bible somewhere for the end days. And this is happening now. Even churches have departed God's word. That to, is mentioned in the Bible for the end times. Faith in God is becoming rare. Faith in the theories of science as facts, instead of as the theories they are, is now the rule of the day. The future is not looking good if you read the rest of the Bible about it. Good luck is disappearing when an angry God is ahead. Yep! Judgement is coming! The fool looks not ahead and falls into the pit. The wise man looks ahead and avoids the pit. Wise men do not follow crowds. They follow God. Following the church is not following God.
> 
> Anyway. Believe whatever you want at your own risk, or not.


*Catechisms Article 676:* The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.


----------



## culverwood

I am going to have to dig out my dictionary to understand that post Shaver.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Yes, as Shaver suggests most dogmatic isms, including radical feminism, are forms of immanentizing the eschaton -- something the Church has always warned against. People who think we can have heaven on earth if only we allowed really really smart people (i.e., people like them) to have sufficient power are dangerous beyond measure.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

The last chapter of the New Testament could have used a better editor. 

I lost the plot entirely. 

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## SG_67

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, as Shaver suggests most dogmatic isms, including radical feminism, are forms of immanentizing the eschaton -- something the Church has always warned against. People who think we can have heaven on earth if only we allowed really really smart people (i.e., people like them) to have sufficient power are dangerous beyond measure.


Something that has been proven over and over again throughout history. During the 20th century, to the tune of tens of millions of souls.


----------



## Clintotron

SG_67 said:


> Something that has been proven over and over again throughout history. During the 20th century, to the tune of tens of millions of souls.


And the masses are blind to see it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 16412

Shaver said:


> *Catechisms Article 676:* The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.


 This is from Roman Catholic "Church"? Which has exalted itself above God. Again, they have people bowing down to them, instead of God. When some say they cannot be wrong, and God says they are, and the people continue to believe them instead of God, then they are part of a false religion. The only one who knows (understands) it all (scripture) is God. Anyone else who says otherwise is a liar. So, yes, God can tell you what scripture means that leaders say otherwise. The first rule laid out in the scripture is to obey God. How can you be obeying God if you are obeying non-God if the non-God is conterdicting God? Need faith in God. Not the church.


----------



## Shaver

WA said:


> This is from Roman Catholic "Church"? Which has exalted itself above God. Again, they have people bowing down to them, instead of God. When some say they cannot be wrong, and God says they are, and the people continue to believe them instead of God, then they are part of a false religion. The only one who knows (understands) it all (scripture) is God. Anyone else who says otherwise is a liar. So, yes, God can tell you what scripture means that leaders say otherwise. The first rule laid out in the scripture is to obey God. How can you be obeying God if you are obeying non-God if the non-God is conterdicting God? Need faith in God. Not the church.


"Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men -the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do." 
He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition."

Mark 7: 6 - 9 (NKJ)


----------



## eagle2250

^^(In response to post #185)Indeed,
so much of what we see occurring these days repeatedly validates the wisdom of embracing our Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." Praise God, participate in our politics/Democracy and never, ever lose sight of the reality that when the sh*t hits the fan, each of us is our own (and our family's) last line of defense!


----------



## SG_67

I believe our friend WA has a fundamental misunderstanding of catholic doctrine.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> I believe our friend WA has a fundamental misunderstanding of catholic doctrine.


You have a gift for understatement.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

My time in the Middle East has left me with an abiding suspicion of religion. And by that I mean ALL religion. 

Cave Canem - "ma" 

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## 16412

SG_67 said:


> I believe our friend WA has a fundamental misunderstanding of catholic doctrine.


Don't know much about RC. Watched a documentary they made about RC. One part showed several slithering across the floor and up a few steps to kiss the pope's feet. Snakes lost their legs because of poor judgment and from thince on slithered, because God took their legs away. Even if you think only symbolism of these two stories it is not looking good for the RC. Of course, there are many more. No group is perfect, and being around for a long time there are many sad stories.


----------



## 16412

Shaver said:


> "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
> This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
> And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men -the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do."
> He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition."
> 
> Mark 7: 6 - 9 (NKJ)


This can be said of the RC because, to name one, they invented the pope something like 300, 400 AD in an argument with the Eastern European Christian leader. Rewrote history to make it sound like there were popes from Peter until the invention of the pope. There were times when 2, 3 and even 4 were claiming to be the pope all at the same time. There were times when they were saying that you can buy your way into heaven. Even today some priest say that you might possibly buy your wife, husband, child, parents into heaven. A clear departure from God's Word. The list of why not to believe them goes on and on and on. One man I talked to, he was in his 40s, actually believe that when the priest spoke that it was literally God speaking through him, so that everything the priest said is absolute truth. No errors! There is to much faith away from God and being placed in them. The lessons from Genesis to Revelations is spiritual leaders are to teach to have absolute faith in God and not much in them. Looking at the Old and New Testaments it is clear why. Humans are prone to a lot of failures, including those who claim to be a pope. It is sad to see so many people believe in the hot air that comes from them.

My grandmother walked away from the RC saying this, "If there be a God, they don't know Him." Later, she became a real Christian and married another.

Shaver, if you believe the pope how can you believe in macro evolution? Didn't the pope say there is no macro evolution?


----------



## Shaver

What pope? Bergoglio the Heretic?


----------



## Mike Petrik

WA, you really shouldn't rely on cheesy documentaries for important information. 
Shaver, the Church has had great popes and scoundrels. Christ never promised otherwise -- only that She will prevail against the gates of Hell.


----------



## Shaver

Whilst this is true Mike, still, I preferred it when the scoundrels were to be found in history books. This current situation is troubling.


----------



## Mike Petrik

We are in violent agreement, my friend.


----------



## 16412

Shaver said:


> What pope? Bergoglio the Heretic?


This is perfect. How could there ever be an error of a heretic being a pope if the RC can think no wrong.

It boils down to the church (whatever that, since there are different opinions among us) is just people who will never be perfect on this earth until Jesus comes back to rule.


----------



## 16412

You guys, who are peace makers, thanks.


----------



## 16412

Mike Petrik said:


> WA, you really shouldn't rely on cheesy documentaries for important information.


The documentary the RC made of themselves?


----------



## culverwood

I had never realised that AA was a hotbed of RC fundamentalism. :icon_saint7kg:


----------



## Mike Petrik

culverwood said:


> I had never realised that AA was a hotbed of anti-RC bigotry. :icon_saint7kg:


Fixed it for you.


----------



## culverwood

Did I ask you to?

But I suppose it is my fault for entering into a discussion about religion, politics or football online.


----------



## Mike Petrik

WA said:


> This is perfect. How could there ever be an error of a heretic being a pope if the RC can think no wrong.


See post #188.


----------



## 16412

Always surprised when I come across adults who believe without a doubt the religious beliefs of their church. Every denomination and single churches has some errors. Some denominations have several accepted beliefs. And, of course, any belief that is accepted has to sound right. Any many do. But, they can't all be right. So many have the same rules for praying and studying and think they can't be wrong, but among the different groups come up with different beliefs. Some have generations of a denomination, and for that reason think they can't be wrong, which, from my perspective, is ancestral worship, which is definitely sin, and a departure from God, because it is faith in something else. The Word of God says to be taught by men, but also the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is God. If the Holy Ghost says something different than man's teaching, you have a choice. To keep God on the throne, or replace Him with men. The Holy Ghost doesn't correct every error of men. Therefore, we should always have doubt when we only hear from men. That's what I believe.


----------



## Mike Petrik

WA said:


> Always surprised when I come across adults who believe without a doubt the religious beliefs of their church. Every denomination and single churches has some errors. Some denominations have several accepted beliefs. And, of course, any belief that is accepted has to sound right. Any many do. But, they can't all be right. So many have the same rules for praying and studying and think they can't be wrong, but among the different groups come up with different beliefs. Some have generations of a denomination, and for that reason think they can't be wrong, which, from my perspective, is ancestral worship, which is definitely sin, and a departure from God, because it is faith in something else. The Word of God says to be taught by men, but also the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is God. If the Holy Ghost says something different than man's teaching, you have a choice. To keep God on the throne, or replace Him with men. The Holy Ghost doesn't correct every error of men. Therefore, we should always have doubt when we only hear from men. That's what I believe.


WA,
I did not quarrel with your beliefs, which I fully respect; nor did I (or anyone else) lay claim to beliefs unencumbered by doubts. The point is simply that you made statements about Catholic teachings that are mistaken. One is certainly free to disagree with Catholic teachings, but one ought to disagree with the actual teachings not some silly caricatures. Might I kindly suggest you do a little serious reading before making well-intended but nonetheless grossly incorrect assertions?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

"But, they can't all be right".

But they could most certainly all be wrong. 

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## 16412

Mike, I wasn't just writing about RCs, but also Baptist, Lutherans, etc. when it comes to having to much belief in what they are taught in church. And, as Mr. Robinson says, "But, they can't all be right". Was it Jfk who convinced the pope to let RCs have a Bible in their house? Even decades later some priest were saying, "Don't read it except in our presence". That is a huge lack of faith in God from them. Religions that puts man on a pedestal above their God or God's is kinda strange.


----------



## Mike Petrik

WA said:


> Mike, I wasn't just writing about RCs, but also Baptist, Lutherans, etc. when it comes to having to much belief in what they are taught in church. And, as Mr. Robinson says, "But, they can't all be right". Was it Jfk who convinced the pope to let RCs have a Bible in their house? Even decades later some priest were saying, "Don't read it except in our presence". That is a huge lack of faith in God from them. Religions that puts man on a pedestal above their God or God's is kinda strange.


Oh my. First, no -- JFK never did any such thing. Catholics have owned and read Bibles for centuries. And I cannot fathom any priest ever saying what you claim. I fear you have been seriously victimized by some pretty hilarious anti-Catholic propaganda. I urge you -- again -- to do some pretty serious reading before further embarrassing yourself.


----------



## vpkozel

Just to close this loop. Robert E. Lee was an Episcopalian.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

The older I get, the more I fall into the Christopher Hitchens school on religious thought. We could certainly do better with less than more. 

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## SG_67

vpkozel said:


> Just to close this loop. Robert E. Lee was an Episcopalian.


Yes but what was his stance on trans gender and women serving in the military? That's the real question.


----------



## vpkozel

SG_67 said:


> Yes but what was his stance on trans gender and women serving in the military? That's the real question.


Pretty sure that if they could have kept up with Jackson's foot cavalry or execute Longstreet's disciplined holding actions he would have been all for it.


----------



## 16412

Mike Petrik said:


> Oh my. First, no -- JFK never did any such thing. Catholics have owned and read Bibles for centuries. And I cannot fathom any priest ever saying what you claim. I fear you have been seriously victimized by some pretty hilarious anti-Catholic propaganda. I urge you -- again -- to do some pretty serious reading before further embarrassing yourself.


Hmm. If I remember correctly even RCs said they couldn't own Bibles.


----------



## 16412

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> The older I get, the more I fall into the Christopher Hitchens school on religious thought. We could certainly do better with less than more.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


No wonder why he was on the wrong side. He was a redcoat in disguise.


----------



## Mike Petrik

WA said:


> Hmm. If I remember correctly even RCs said they couldn't own Bibles.


You "remember" incorrectly (of course), but keep embarrassing yourself. And I am duly noting how AA's moderators tolerate scurrilous lies about Catholics -- not that I care really, except for the double standard relating to another certain religion that must (apparently) go unnamed. In the case of that religion even truthful statements will not be tolerated.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

WA,

Not so sure how disguised Hitchens was. He was a dedicated follower of Trotsky in his youth and maintained many of his Trotskyist sentiments until his untimely death. 

Funny you mention Red Coats. As I get older, I think the American Revolution might have been a historical aberration. A bit of a Pyrrhic victory slow to be corrected by the arc of history. 

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## 16412

"corrected by the arc of history. "

So, the British are going to become Americans?


----------



## 16412

Mike Petrik said:


> You "remember" incorrectly (of course), but keep embarrassing yourself. And I am duly noting how AA's moderators tolerate scurrilous lies about Catholics -- not that I care really, except for the double standard relating to another certain religion that must (apparently) go unnamed. In the case of that religion even truthful statements will not be tolerated.


Are you saying that literature, and the documentary that I saw on TV, put out by the RC, is off limits to write about? And I'm liar for writing it? What you've written above should not be tolerated. Yes, the moderators should take notice.


----------



## Mike Petrik

WA said:


> Are you saying that literature, and the documentary that I saw on TV, put out by the RC, is off limits to write about? And I'm liar for writing it? What you've written above should not be tolerated. Yes, the moderators should take notice.


I don't know what you read or have seen on television, but you are a fool to believe such nonsense, which is easily disprovable via simple online research -- which, notwithstanding my entreaties, you have obviously not bothered to do. I have implored you repeatedly to do a little research, but you would rather repeat bigoted lies. You should be ashamed of yourself, and the mods should be ashamed for allowing this forum to tolerate such nonsense.


----------



## Shaver

None of the types currently engaged in undermining our civilisation, whilst leeching off its benefits, can be criticised Mike.

I had the very good fortune to attend two exemplary educative establishments: Jesuit boy's college - 'give me the boy and I will give you the man' - preceded by convent junior school; the nuns were keen to impress upon us that Jesus was a rebel, a radical and a renegade.

WWJD?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> None of the types currently engaged in undermining our civilisation, whilst leeching off its benefits, can be criticised Mike.
> 
> I had the very good fortune to attend two exemplary educative establishments: Jesuit boy's college - 'give me the boy and I will give you the man' - preceded by convent junior school; the nuns were keen to impress upon us that Jesus was a rebel, a radical and a renegade.
> 
> WWJD?


Thanks, Shaver. Not being Jesus, I actually prefer the formula, "What would Jesus have me do?" And yes, Jesus was certainly counter-cultural, but never in a political way. He had no illusions about the limits of worldly politics and never offered political prescriptions. This is not to suggest of course that our public policy preferences shouldn't be informed by ends and means compatible with His teachings, but those ends and means are usually fraught with uncertainty and therefore in great need of prudence. And those so eager to tear down statues and murder the memories of our ancestors have little acquaintance with prudence.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Although non Catholics, my children attended Catholic primary school. It was an excellent education and the discipline was spot on. 

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## FLMike

Shaver said:


> I had the very good fortune to attend two exemplary educative establishments: Jesuit boy's college - 'give me the boy and I will give you the man' - preceded by convent junior school; the nuns were keen to impress upon us that Jesus was a rebel, a radical and a renegade.
> WWJD?


I, too, attended an all boys Jesuit high school. While not Catholic myself, I married into a very devout Catholic family. While I've always respected and admired their commitment to their faith, at times I have wondered if maybe they are extoling Catholicism more highly than Christ himself. In my own Christian faith, I view it as being about a relationship (with God) rather than about rituals (which seem to be favored in the Catholic church).


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

^+1 

If there is one thing I have come to appreciate as a semi-agnostic Protestant living in the cradle of Islam is that my God is not very demanding. 

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## culverwood

FLMike said:


> I, too, attended an all boys Jesuit high school. While not Catholic myself, I married into a very devout Catholic family. While I've always respected and admired their commitment to their faith, at times I have wondered if maybe they are extoling Catholicism more highly than Christ himself. In my own Christian faith, I view it as being about a relationship (with God) rather than about rituals (which seem to be favored in the Catholic church).


Your post struck a chord. I have been involved in pilgrimage to Santiago and Rome for many years and some RC's attitude to non Roman Catholics on the Caminos is as you describe.


----------



## 16412

I didn't mean to offend you Mike.
The RC has, I believe, a home for girls and another for boys here who need a place to stay for a while.


----------



## Mike Petrik

No worries, WA. I probably overreacted. The Catholic Church is hardly perfect, and certainly can be fairly criticized. But many criticisms, perhaps most, are criticisms of "facts" that are demonstrably untrue and the circulation of these kinds of falsehoods is unfair, hurtful and damaging.


----------



## 16412

Yes, that happens to all denominations. Probably more so to the RC. As a boy growing up in two denominations I heard a lot of criticism between the two. Because of the two backgrounds I knew I needed an open mind. One of my granddads was a pentecostal preacher. A great grandfather, on the other side of the family, would stand in front of Pentecostal churches and protest them. He probably protested my granddads church. Stranger than fiction dad and mom got married. I didn't pick a side. But now, favor Pentecostals by far. Listening to people who can explain well what they believe in can sound absolutely right. Hearing several view points that sound correct, but are in conflict, and walk off not knowing which one is right, if any. I can believe several of them, but not have faith in any of them. If the Holy Ghost tells me something, then I know that is the truth, and I have absolute faith in it. Believing in what people want me to believe sometimes cased damage. The old saying, "listen with a grain of salt" has a lot of wisdom in it. The Word of God is dead, but the Holy Ghost gives it life. In the end only what God says counts, is what I have found. Sometimes preachers are helpful, but none of them are God.


----------



## FLMike

WA said:


> The Word of God is dead, but the Holy Ghost gives it life.


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. -John 1:1

If you believe, as Christians do, that Jesus is the Word, then you should certainly not believe that the Word (of God) is dead.


----------



## Gurdon

I have read this thread with considerable pleasure. In particular, I am enjoying the civility of an exchange on religion, a subject apt to lead to rhetorical excess.

I'm sorry that I cannot be of assistance regarding things said about various denominations. 

I hope everyone enjoyed the holiday and had a good meal. 

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## 16412

FLMike said:


> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. -John 1:1
> 
> If you believe, as Christians do, that Jesus is the Word, then you should certainly not believe that the Word (of God) is dead.


But, if I quoted parts of scripture those parts would be the word of God.
Another place it says that the Holy Ghost wrote the word. Another, it says Jesus did the will of the Father. Another place it says, before the earth was made, "we agreed". 
I find that people who are to well learned by their spiritual leaders miss parts of the scripture. Fundamentalist, seems like, are especially over taught. Coming from both Baptist (which are Fundamentalist) and Pentecostal it is like two different languages. So, each denomination, you could say, is its own language.
Back to the Word of God. When was the last time you walked with Jesus like the disciples did? Why did Jesus send the Holy Spirit? Does men teaching the Word of God replace Jesus and the Holy Ghost? Would God the Holy Ghost replace anything men say? What is your faith in? God, or men? No doubt Jesus is the Word of God. But, who knows it best? GOD? Or, men? Who do you trust the most? Anybody who says you can't trust God most, should you be around them? If they say you need their help reading God's Word they show a lack of faith in God. If they are a preacher shouldn't they be showing the most faith in God? Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Ps I was going to look up the scriptures and quote them. But, I've been busy elsewhere.


----------



## 16412

Gurdon said:


> I have read this thread with considerable pleasure. In particular, I am enjoying the civility of an exchange on religion, a subject apt to lead to rhetorical excess.
> 
> I'm sorry that I cannot be of assistance regarding things said about various denominations.
> 
> I hope everyone enjoyed the holiday and had a good meal.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


I enjoy some back and forth. It makes one think. Sometimes I found I forgot some. And, no I don't know it all. My perspective, some churches have replaced God. "Trust us, not Him. Therefore, you are obeying Him." When I stand before God on my judgment day they, the church and preachers, won't be judging me. Only God.


----------



## Odradek




----------



## SG_67

My mother in law’s name is Dixie.


----------



## drlivingston

Alabama's motor vehicle license plates still have "Heart of Dixie" on them. Good luck getting rid of that. Oh, I forgot... We just put a liberal in the Senate. I guess that will be on his agenda.


----------



## drlivingston

Odradek said:


> View attachment 19555


I ate there last year and caused a bit of a ruckus. They serve a meal that you are supposed to eat with your hands. This includes greasy rotisserie chicken and buttered corn on the cob. Needless to say, I wasn't going to do that. So, without asking my wife's permission, I went to a local Dollar Tree and purchased several sets of stainless flatware. I carried them in the front compartment of my camera bag. People who had never been there were mortified that they were expected to eat with their hands. I broke out the flatware and became an instant hero to all of the people sitting around me. The people serving the food chastised me for not honoring "the spirit of the event." #$%^ that...


----------



## eagle2250

^^We encountered a similar problem, many years ago,
when we took the kids to one of those ever so entertaining Medieval Times establishments. They expected you to pick your big, greasy turkey drumstick up with your hands and gnaw on it, while watching those ever so brave knights jousting! They would bring you flatware, but you had to ask, real nicely, for it. LOL.


----------



## Clintotron

I have absolutely no problem eating with my hands. Nor do I have a problem with “Dixie”. Nor have I problems with the ‘rebel flag’ (“stars and bars” battle flag), historical monuments, or In God We Trust.
Give me my freedom, my liberty, my Savior and my sloppy bbq and you probably won’t hear much from me. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

In order for me to avoid going into convulsions due to my OCD regarding Confederate vexiology, I ask that we acknowledge the following....

This is the Stars and Bars....believe it or not, based on the Austrian flag. It has stars, and bars thus the name. The St. Andrews Cross is the Battle Flag.










Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Mike Petrik

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> In order for me to avoid going into convulsions due to my OCD regarding Confederate vexiology, I ask that we acknowledge the following....
> 
> This is the Stars and Bars....believe it or not, based on the Austrian flag. It has stars, and bars thus the name. The St. Andrews Cross is the Battle Flag.
> 
> View attachment 19565
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


This.


----------



## SG_67

I was at a home furnishings gallery a few weeks back. Some of the wall art consisted of vintage flags. 

Among those displayed and for sale was the Union Jack (not sure how vintage though). 

A woman complained and remarked why they were displaying the confederate flag. 

To be outraged is the new chic.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> I was at a home furnishings gallery a few weeks back. Some of the wall art consisted of vintage blacks.
> 
> Among those displayed and for sale was the Union Jack (not sure how vintage though).
> 
> A woman complained and remarked why they were displaying the confederate flag.
> 
> To be outraged is the new chic.


Vintage blacks? Home furnishings? Don't start a riot in H&M.


----------



## 16412

The goal posts of the word racist has been moved so many times by the left it's starting to make my head spin. The dishonesty of the elites with all their tricks sounds more like prostitutes than honorable men and women who are supposed to be well educated.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> Vintage blacks? Home furnishings? Don't start a riot in H&M.


Flags. My apologies.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Flags. My apologies.


Too late to equivocate.

You were shopping at the slave market, weren't you?


----------



## Shaver

WA said:


> The goal posts of the word racist has been moved so many times by the left it's starting to make my head spin. The dishonesty of the elites with all their tricks sounds more like prostitutes than honorable men and women who are supposed to be well educated.


You mention prostitution with a frequency which arouses my suspicions.

Get it out of your system - God will forgive you if you indulge yourself every once in a while.


----------



## irish95

Shaver--simply priceless! Came back from lunch and saw that, makes for a good way to start my afternoon.


----------



## 16412

Shaver said:


> You mention prostitution with a frequency which arouses my suspicions.
> 
> Get it out of your system - God will forgive you if you indulge yourself every once in a while.


I don't use prostitutes. The subject is even mentioned in the Bible. In fact one prophet was told to marry a prostitute.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> Too late to equivocate.
> 
> You were shopping at the slave market, weren't you?


I'll thank you not to refer to Costco in that way.


----------



## 16412

I used to shop at Costco. Stuff I bought for dad to eat disappeared and those shelves filled with sweets. Also, getting to it includes driving through the worst traffic in town.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Quoted from a disgruntled friend on the dating carousel...."I find that most prostitutes are simply honest women and most 'honest women' are simply dishonest prostitutes."

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Clintotron

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> In order for me to avoid going into convulsions due to my OCD regarding Confederate vexiology, I ask that we acknowledge the following....
> 
> This is the Stars and Bars....believe it or not, based on the Austrian flag. It has stars, and bars thus the name. The St. Andrews Cross is the Battle Flag.
> 
> View attachment 19565
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


You're absolutely correct. I always get "stars and bars" mixed up with the battle flag since, in my mind, they are crossed bars with stars on them. I shan't edit my post so the generations to come may learn from our mistakes. Lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

^ No worries, you are in good company. The WAPO makes the same error every other week. My requests to correct in the "Comments" go unanswered. Now I email the reporters directly. I am probably on the "nut case" list. It's an academic tic from being a history major and a former professor. 

I am beginning to think that it is such a common error that it has now reached the realm of an accepted fact.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## 16412

And then there are those who are dissatisfied and rewrite history. As a boy a few old men said that the history I was learning in school that some of it was rewritten. How much that has happened in my life time children are learning a different story. Discovered that some people are afraid of the past and teach children something else. And the "news" media does not always tell the truth. What are historians supposed to study when the media is fowl? Knowing when the news media is fowl and telling the truth is another problem. It is pretty hard to learn from our mistakes if we don't really know what happened with all rewriting of history.


----------



## culverwood

Is there one truth?


----------



## SG_67

culverwood said:


> Is there one truth?


Truth is an objective matter. There is only one truth. Sometimes this is not revealed to us but it doesn't make it any less valid.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

^^ This concept is rare.

There are very few corporate media outlets and they reflect their own interests.

The same corporations and fabulously wealthy people who give bribes masquerading as "Contributions" to our so-called leaders. (We have legalized bribery.)

And a dumbed down, spoiled population, incapable of critical thought.

Warm thoughts to start out our day,....


----------



## vpkozel

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> ^ No worries, you are in good company. The WAPO makes the same error every other week. My requests to correct in the "Comments" go unanswered. Now I email the reporters directly. I am probably on the "nut case" list. It's an academic tic from being a history major and a former professor.
> 
> I am beginning to think that it is such a common error that it has now reached the realm of an accepted fact.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


As a fellow history major concentrating on the CW, I share and applaud your preciseness. In this case it is a hugely crucial distinction as the stars and bars was an official flag of the CSA. The battle flag was not as it was the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia and as such, represented the soldiers.


----------



## 16412

culverwood said:


> Is there one truth?


We all live for different reasons. So, perhaps not one truth sometimes. But, this is different from people who deliberately tell false. Then there are the misunderstandings.
What surprised me about older reporters, who have forgotten other ways of speech, who misunderstood Trump. The reporters are about language and culture, so there are really no excuses for misunderstanding Trump. No doubt they have forgotten, which makes them poor writers. Younger writers weren't around before so many of the old methods of talk were edited out by modern schoolery. So, they certainly have an excuse. Guys my age and older have no excuse for huge errors of what Trump was saying.
And, you can't forget Reagan and the outrageously lying media. Which is why he turned to the radio. He even worned them and they still went out and deliberately lied.
The media has an agenda. And it isn't truth.


----------



## eagle2250

^^I"m in general agreement with much of what you say in the post above and hope not to be taken as a conspiracy theorist, but is the 'lame-stream' media in fact the subliminal voice of the "Deep State?" :icon_scratch: The last lame-stream media reporter to whom I granted unquestioning trust in what he said was Walter Cronkite!


----------



## 16412

How much are the tongues and fingers chained to the owners of the companies? 
The world is different today than Walter Cronkite days. JFK chasing women was never reported. It was considered improper. Some say Cronkite wasn't so great, either. Katie Couric had the serpents tongue. There is no excuse for her ever being on the news. If you want to learn how to slander go watch her. She choose to do what she did. 
I find so much news with a heavy left slant. Meaning explained from the lefts view point. If you don't hear from the rights view point too, then people who don't know what the right is about and never learn it. Talked to many people who vote left and all they know about the right is lies. These people don't even know what they are voting for if they don't know both sides. So many people I've talked to from the left learned what they believe about the right that the left told them, which is a pack of lies. They're so brainwashed they won't even listen to the right to even check if the left is telling the truth. Have talked to people since Ford was president and this is what I've found of the left through out all these years. 
Orrin Hatch said one time, after him and Ted Kennedy worked on a bill, that the parts he fought for, if the public liked it, that Ted Kennedy would get the credit, and the parts Kennedy worked on that the public didn't like that Hatch would be blamed. Why did he say this? Because that's what the news media was doing. So many left voters wouldn't know. 
The left doesn't even like the Bill of Rights. Christian rights are being removed by lesser laws from the left. And judges of the left are agreeing.


----------



## eagle2250

Indeed, the elective leadership of the left are consistently excused from being held accountable for many, if not most, of their transgressions. More recent examples might include former President Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi (in all the years she has been in Congress just what of value has she accomplished?)...and the list goes on and on. As before, regarding your comments about the press/media, I find myself somewhat in agreement with much of what you say, but must you include Walter Cronkite on this alter of recrimination? He is one of the few of the real life hero's/icons in my life that stood the test(s) of time...at least so far! LOL. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Shaver

We endure fake news and exist in an ersatz moral reality.

An individual who will not subscribe to the obligation of indulging and supporting an inverted hierarchy of savages, perverts and the insane is considered monstrous by the media - who by no small coincidence are populated by such creatures - and thus agreement is enforced upon the endlessly malleable submissive consumers of the goggle box.

Conversely the normal masculine response to make a pass at an attractive lady is latterly elevated to a crime of the vilest stripe.

The world is upside down and has been turned upside down by a tiny minority who, according to their idle and self important nature, have inveigled themselves into positions within the various media from which they may trumpet their nonsensical bile.

Rejoice for this will all pass, the safe space lunatics begin to turn on themselves in their 'arms race' to superior offendedness and human nature may once more inform our collective ideals.


----------



## eagle2250

Egad, I do believe I was hovering on the edge of a pit of despair, as my perceptions of so many touchstones in life continued to crumble and fall. Thank you, my friend, for that ever so eloquently worded cause for hope!


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Shaver said:


> We endure fake news and exist in an ersatz moral reality.
> 
> An individual who will not subscribe to the obligation of indulging and supporting an inverted hierarchy of savages, perverts and the insane is considered monstrous by the media - who by no small coincidence are populated by such creatures - and thus agreement is enforced upon the endlessly malleable submissive consumers of the goggle box.
> 
> Conversely the normal masculine response to make a pass at an attractive lady is latterly elevated to a crime of the vilest stripe.
> 
> The world is upside down and has been turned upside down by a tiny minority who, according to their idle and self important nature, have inveigled themselves into positions within the various media from which they may trumpet their nonsensical bile.
> 
> Rejoice for this will all pass, the safe space lunatics begin to turn on themselves in their 'arms race' to superior offendedness and human nature may once more inform our collective ideals.


Well said.

Although I am not optimistic that the lunacy shall pass in my lifetime.
Regards,


----------



## 127.72 MHz

WA said:


> How much are the tongues and fingers chained to the owners of the companies?
> The world is different today than Walter Cronkite days. JFK chasing women was never reported. It was considered improper. Some say Cronkite wasn't so great, either. Katie Couric had the serpents tongue. There is no excuse for her ever being on the news. If you want to learn how to slander go watch her. She choose to do what she did.
> I find so much news with a heavy left slant. Meaning explained from the lefts view point. If you don't hear from the rights view point too, then people who don't know what the right is about and never learn it. Talked to many people who vote left and all they know about the right is lies. These people don't even know what they are voting for if they don't know both sides. So many people I've talked to from the left learned what they believe about the right that the left told them, which is a pack of lies. They're so brainwashed they won't even listen to the right to even check if the left is telling the truth. Have talked to people since Ford was president and this is what I've found of the left through out all these years.
> Orrin Hatch said one time, after him and Ted Kennedy worked on a bill, that the parts he fought for, if the public liked it, that Ted Kennedy would get the credit, and the parts Kennedy worked on that the public didn't like that Hatch would be blamed. Why did he say this? Because that's what the news media was doing. So many left voters wouldn't know.
> The left doesn't even like the Bill of Rights. Christian rights are being removed by lesser laws from the left. And judges of the left are agreeing.


True enough. And the left leaning National Public Broadcasting received $448 million in 2017 for presenting one side of the story.


----------



## 16412

127.72 MHz said:


> True enough. And the left leaning National Public Broadcasting received $448 million for presenting one side of the story.


Wow! No wonder why the right wants to turn the $ tap off to PBS and other government stations. $448 million is completely immoral when all for one side. Clearly the left has no interest in honesty, anymore. During the presidential election, last time, only one person was jovial. The rest were so gloomy, that Clinton wasn't winning, they should have been fired. If half was gloomy it would be a fair representation. But when dozens and dozens more are gloomy and only one person isn't this should be illegal. The same goes for schools and colleges of faculty, that includes teachers and professors.


----------



## 16412

Used to watch Walter Cronkite at the neighbors. We didn't have a TV. Some thought he was a bit left back then. A little left is very different than a lot left as of nowadays.
David Muir at ABC might be alright. Haven't watched enough of him to decide where he stands. Don't have a TV to watch, nowadays.


----------



## Odradek

Insanity has gone mainstream.


----------



## Shaver

Odradek said:


> Insanity has gone mainstream.
> 
> View attachment 19748


This is not a hoax, as one might reasonably imagine, rather it is, I am given to understand, a shattering of the grease-soaked napkin ceiling.

Handbasket to Hell, family size with bbq sauce.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Shaver said:


> This is not a hoax, as one might reasonably imagine, rather it is, I am given to understand, a shattering of the grease-soaked napkin ceiling.
> 
> Handbasket to Hell, family size with bbq sauce.


You have had the displeasure of a visit to the Colonel,...


----------



## Shaver

127.72 MHz said:


> You have had the displeasure of a visit to the Colonel,...


Indeed. I was somewhat obliged to entertain their *ahem* fare when treating the son of an ex partner some years ago now. 'Food' and 'fast' are two words which, in tandem, signify an experience comparable with excrement.


----------



## Shaver




----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


>


What is it they say about a picture being worth something?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Odradek said:


> Insanity has gone mainstream.
> 
> View attachment 19748


From my photo, one can see that I wear my facial hair in a style designed to highlight my natural Anglo-Saxon masculine XY chromosome ability to grow "extreme" facial hair. I find the application of facial hair to the female Colonel to be an insensitive appropriation of my masculinity, on the level of a white person wearing blackface.

I am offended to the verge of tears.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## 16412

Women's lib, huh?

One guy I met at church had worked in 50 different countries said that where men had beards men ruled. Otherwise, women ruled.


----------



## Shaver

WA said:


> Women's lib, huh?
> 
> One guy I met at church had worked in 50 different countries said that where men had beards men ruled. Otherwise, women ruled.


This 'church' - was it a mosque by any chance?


----------



## Shaver

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> From my photo, one can see that I wear my facial hair in a style designed to highlight my natural Anglo-Saxon masculine XY chromosome ability to grow "extreme" facial hair. I find the application of facial hair to the female Colonel to be an insensitive appropriation of my masculinity, on the level of a white person wearing blackface.
> 
> I am offended to the verge of tears.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Loving your work.


----------



## 16412

Shaver said:


> This 'church' - was it a mosque by any chance?


No. He worked for the US government as a spy. The government pushs those people to become pH: D. So, he was in school. One class he was taking he actually did lots of the teaching because he had been in that closed country a number of times and knew far more than the professor for newer times.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

How can the feminists explain this? Clearly this little girl has put the patriarchy in its proper place.

https://www.babble.com/parenting/sk...rl-shred-through-the-vans-us-open-pro-series/

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## eagle2250

^^The feminists be damned, I'd be way more impressed if that athletic prodigy were sporting some or all of the safety gear available to reduce the potential injuries practicing her sport entails!


----------



## Shaver

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> How can the feminists explain this? Clearly this little girl has put the patriarchy in its proper place.
> 
> https://www.babble.com/parenting/sk...rl-shred-through-the-vans-us-open-pro-series/
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


I would like to make it clear that, unlike WA who seems to exhibit a streak of misogyny, I am all for the equal treatment of ladies. Rather it is the tiny, nay infinitesimal, minority of 3rd wave feminists who, despite their clamorous and militant screeching, do not represent their gender in any way, shape or form, that I disdain.


----------



## Dcr5468

Shaver said:


> I would like to make it clear that, unlike WA who seems to exhibit a streak of misogyny, I am all for the equal treatment of ladies. Rather it is the tiny, nay infinitesimal, minority of 3rd wave feminists who, despite their clamorous and militant screeching, do not represent their gender in any way, shape or form, that I disdain.


You're already in trouble Shaver. "Lady" is offensive. At some point "woman" was preferred, now apparently "female" is the adjective de jour.

I'm confused, I've always used "male"and "female" to identify wild game and farm animals.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## eagle2250

^^Say what!!! 
The term lady is offensive...please, say it isn't so, Joe? Have we all lost our freaking minds? :crazy:


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

I saw an embroidered pillow in the sitting room at Sandringham last April. It was a gift from one of the grandchildren to Prince Phillip. It had a pheasant on it and it read, "Old shooters never die, they just pull fewer birds."

Birds...

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## 16412

Shaver said:


> Speaking of PhD, you will appreciate this I am certain, I recently assessed an application to spend three years researching feminists protesting against the patriarchy at skateboard parks. You read that correctly. Professional obligations prevent me from publicly expressing my opinion as to the merit, or otherwise, of such an endeavour.


Father's even go to skateboard parks?! I thought boys and young men went there to get away from their fathers.
When I was a child my parents knew practically nothing. Otherwise they would have had white hair decades earlier, and died decades earlier. Or, life would have been soooooo boring. Parents need to know their limits.


----------



## 16412

Shaver said:


> I would like to make it clear that, unlike WA who seems to exhibit a streak of misogyny,


Perhaps.



> I am all for the equal treatment of ladies.


So, some women were treated less well than other women. What about jail?

About men and women, God put men as head of the family and women second, whatever that means. He says to love your wife as yourself. Seems many men have ignored the second. There are directions in the Bible about husband and wife relationships. Some men certainly do a lot of cherry picking, which Marrs or wreaks the relationship.
Read stories where the husband dies and the wife takes over the business and turns it into a multi-million dollar business. Why shouldn't a woman have the right to do that?
One guy I worked with both his grandmother's started businesses and turned them into multi-million dollar business. These companies are now worth billions? They, as young ladies, married their husband after they started their business. One of them might have started several businesses that were doing well decades later. The husband's each started businesses that grew into the millions. This guy I worked with his parents were expected to do the same, and did. Guess what his grandparents and parents expected of him? Start his own business and turn it into a multi-million dollar company, and probably marry a woman who does the same. Within reason, why would there be a problem with this? Shucks! I could have retired early if I were lucky enough to marry a woman like these women! 
In the Bible Jesus stomps on cultural rules in the Prodigal Son story. Even Churches get caught up in cultural rules and demand them. So what are the real rules?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

"Lucky enough to marry a woman like these women". Good Lord.

Fortunately, I am not so much a misogynist as consistently appalled by how dumb my male brothers can be. I often wonder what induces any young man with a modicum of common sense to get married these days. Given the current configuration of the court system, in strictly financial terms, marriage is the worst decision a young man can make.

It is a fact that the prospect of losing at least half ones property in a divorce is well over 50% these days. However, despite the odds, young men continue line up like lemmings thinking their cupcake is somehow the exception, converting their temporary, chemically induced euphoria, into a binding financial menage a trois between himself, his "soul mate", and the state. Brilliant. 

Paul McCartney was married to Heather Mills for 6 years. She never wrote a Beatles song and wasn't with him to inspire him to write a Beatles (or Wings!?!) tune. Unlike Linda McCartney, she never played in his band. She had one child (aka financial anchor baby), maybe she fetched his bottled water and handed him a cold towel during his concert tours, and yet Sir Paul had to pay $50 million dollars in the settlement just to rid himself of her, which does not even include the $ he spent on her while they were together. Yet, this is what that daft Scouser Paul paid for the pleasure of Heather's company, a pleasure that he subsequently described as "The worst decision I ever made".

Brilliant.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## 16412

Come from a background where divorce is wrong. Don't want a divorce, marry back into that background. Who knows what one is marrying? One guy I met, his dad invested for his children's future, in their names. Children's generation, lots of divorces. He put those investments in his name. He didn't want the ex's to take what he worked so hard for, his children.

Nowadays, a paper can be signed that prevents the ex from getting anything, or much. Believe that is what Bill Gates did. And, many others since then.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

WA said:


> Come from a background where divorce is wrong. Don't want a divorce, marry back into that background. Who knows what one is marrying? One guy I met, his dad invested for his children's future, in their names. Children's generation, lots of divorces. He put those investments in his name. He didn't want the ex's to take what he worked so hard for, his children.
> 
> Nowadays, a paper can be signed that prevents the ex from getting anything, or much. Believe that is what Bill Gates did. And, many others since then.


The logical way to prevent divorce is to not marry. Young men are waking up and marriage is in a serious decline.

BTW. Ask any lawyer, prenups are worthless. The only sure thing is to establish a trust.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## 16412

The world is really tanking, huh? 
Then there is always the chance of marrying a man (someone who had a sex change from man to woman).
This world is out of control. 
Wonder what next is coming that I don't want to know.


----------



## smmrfld

WA said:


> Then there is always the chance of marrying a man (someone who had a sex change from man to woman).


Your increasingly nonsensical rants truly know no bounds.


----------



## Shaver

WA said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> So, some women were treated less well than other women. What about jail?
> 
> About men and women, God put men as head of the family and women second, whatever that means. He says to love your wife as yourself. Seems many men have ignored the second. There are directions in the Bible about husband and wife relationships. Some men certainly do a lot of cherry picking, which *Marrs* or wreaks the relationship.
> Read stories where the husband dies and the wife takes over the business and turns it into a multi-million dollar business. Why shouldn't a woman have the right to do that?
> One guy I worked with both his grandmother's started businesses and turned them into multi-million dollar business. These companies are now worth billions? They, as young ladies, married their husband after they started their business. One of them might have started several businesses that were doing well decades later. The husband's each started businesses that grew into the millions. This guy I worked with his parents were expected to do the same, and did. Guess what his grandparents and parents expected of him? Start his own business and turn it into a multi-million dollar company, and probably marry a woman who does the same. Within reason, why would there be a problem with this? Shucks! I could have retired early if I were lucky enough to marry a woman like these women!
> In the Bible Jesus stomps on cultural rules in the Prodigal Son story. Even Churches get caught up in cultural rules and demand them. So what are the real rules?


MARRS?

'Brothers and sisters!
Pump up the volume
We gonna get ya!'


----------



## Shaver

Dcr5468 said:


> You're already in trouble Shaver. "Lady" is offensive. At some point "woman" was preferred, now apparently "female" is the adjective de jour.
> 
> I'm confused, I've always used "male"and "female" to identify wild game and farm animals.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I endeavour to avoid interaction with females who do not consider themselves to be ladies.


----------



## Shaver

smmrfld said:


> Your increasingly nonsensical rants truly know no bounds.


Whilst I would not disabuse you of this notion, still, WA may have a point. Have you ever watched Jerry Springer?


----------



## 16412

We all come from different backgrounds and circumstances which shape our thinking.


----------



## Odradek




----------



## drlivingston

Any true depiction of historic events where people do not look identical will soon be deemed racist. It's cultural homogenization.


----------



## eagle2250

It seems eerily like Margaret Atwood's story, "The Handmaids Tale," becoming real life. Joseph McCarthy, where are you(!)?


----------



## Odradek




----------



## SG_67

eagle2250 said:


> It seems eerily like Margaret Atwood's story, "The Handmaids Tale," becoming real life. Joseph McCarthy, where are you(!)?


It's interesting that you alluded to that story.

I remember last year when the television version came out in Netflix. It got a lot of buzz and was used as a stick to bludgeon Christians in this country with the always favorite "this could be America" if an evangelical were to assume the presidency.

Interesting to note that one can see a real life version of the handmaids tale being played out, oh so tragically, in many Islamic and middle eastern countries, though this is never talked about.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Sort of like the Warren Jeff cult's approach to procreation, eh? At least we put that nutcase in prison, but alas, the beat goes on!


----------



## 16412

Some do a lot of damage. Their foolishness certainly stands out sometimes. They thoroughly get wrapped up in mindlessness. Big holes in their reasoning.

Take Christians. Thou shall not steal, lie, kill, etc. which is good. Christians are not perfect, no doubt about that. But the mindless attacks Christianity, because they don't understand them. Intelligent thinking doesn't attack what it doesn't understand. Mindlessness attacks what it doesn't understand. Since the left media puts this garbage out,....


----------



## FLMike

SG_67 said:


> It's interesting that you alluded to that story.
> 
> I remember last year when the television version came out in Netflix.


I thought it was Hulu.


----------



## SG_67

FLMike said:


> I thought it was Hulu.


Yeah, that too.

I don't know anymore. All that stuff is the same to me.


----------



## FLMike

SG_67 said:


> Yeah, that too.
> 
> I don't know anymore. All that stuff is the same to me.


Yeah, I feel like I'm getting "$9.99'd" to death with all these subscriptions. I need to come up with something that millions of people would be willing to pay me $9.99 a month for.


----------



## MichaelS

WA said:


> Some do a lot of damage. Their foolishness certainly stands out sometimes. They thoroughly get wrapped up in mindlessness. Big holes in their reasoning.
> 
> Take Christians. Thou shall not steal, lie, kill, etc. which is good. Christians are not perfect, no doubt about that. But the mindless attacks Christianity, because they don't understand them. Intelligent thinking doesn't attack what it doesn't understand. Mindlessness attacks what it doesn't understand. Since the left media puts this garbage out,....


Good evening WA. It has been a few years since I responded to one of your posts, which while I often disagreed with, I have respected the thought behind your posts. While I agree there are a lot of mindless attacks on both sides, I think that what bothers so many people on the left (myself included), is the apparent extreme hypocrisy of the far right evangelical Christians. If they limited their reading of the bible to the actual teaching of Christ, instead of the craziness of Revelations and other parts of the bible that came much later after the death of Christ, and were more of use to control people, instead of teaching people to follow the gospel, we wouldn't see such insanity/blasphemy of prosperity theory and preachers preaching that true Christians need to own assault weapon wanna-bees.


----------



## 16412

Hi Michael S, 

My thoughts about guns is freedom to own because we are not owned by the government. Every freedom taken away is more government ownership, which is illegal in this country. The problem with freedom is solved another way that doesn't take away freedom. Freedom also means government doesn't know who has a gun. Government has become so lacked where it is not supposed to, meaning incompetence. That means they are making the wrong choices. And proving it by removing our freedoms. That is called slavery. 

Many people who buy the assault style guns will never use them for that. How many buy them just for the fun of shooting? And then there is the fact of male nature where some open their mouths and make believe falls out, and in truth, if they found themselves close to one of those imaginary situations they would running the other way. Just listen to guys watching football blathering away. But, they are on the lazy couch instead of out on the field. 

Are many churches any different than the paragraph above? You're supposed to "believe and please these people" so often. My little research decades ago gave me the impression that the great prophets in the Old Testament all walked away from men's teachings and followed God. Most of, if not all, of the lesser prophets didn't make that clean break. This sneaky lie in so many churches, "If you believe us you are believing God." always amazes me how many people fall for that lie. 

No doubt in my mind Christ reserved most of the most important lessons for Himself to tell us. What he gave others to teach (in the written word) can't be edited out, either. 

When I was a boy we sung God Bless America, Hark the Herald Angels Sing, and so on. Now, so much of this is supposedly illegal at government schools and other government functions. Even prayer by teems who think it is fine and government is treading upon us. If you were born later you don't understand how it was before. Older Christians certainly have a problem with illegal activity with the government. Inalienable rights means there are limits to government. Freedom means government has limits. In Europe government and churches are sometimes the same. But not in America. Tolerance is getting along. Some American churches have done wrong, no doubt. 

Never been around preachers who taught to own assault weapons. Dad always taught that self defense is a spiritual war, and that carnal defenses are not secure. But, people who don't have that faith, what are they going to depend upon? Jesus said a few things about swords, including taking them when traveling. Today the sword is the gun. 

I've read two FBI reports, ten years apart, where every government job was filled by organized crime members in some counties. If you have to get permission from the government to buy and carry a gun because of organized crime. Your out of luck! If you realize that you need a gun, because organized crime doesn't like you now, you will never to buy one. So, it pays to have one first, if that ever happens. Have you ever looked on line for prostitutes? In the US there are tens of thousands of them. They've not there by choice. If they were carrying a gun when the kidnapping attempt was happening they could have had a very good chance to escape. Shoot them in the foot, leg, whatever it takes to escape. If you scroll through these webpages of prostitutes you are looking at people who are going to be dead. Pussy not tight she is of no value. And they can't let her go! The are not going to jail because she talks! What do you think they are going to do with her? Murder is the only answer. Drugs and a suicide note. Bury is also widely used. How about garbage collectors. The list goes on. 

Lifes not the way it is supposed to be.


----------



## Shaver




----------



## Shaver

MichaelS said:


> Good evening WA. It has been a few years since I responded to one of your posts, which while I often disagreed with, I have respected the thought behind your posts. While I agree there are a lot of mindless attacks on both sides, I think that what bothers so many people on the left (myself included), is the apparent extreme hypocrisy of the far right evangelical Christians. If they limited their reading of the bible to the actual teaching of Christ, instead of the craziness of Revelations and other parts of the bible that came much later after the death of Christ, and were more of use to control people, instead of teaching people to follow the gospel, we wouldn't see such insanity/blasphemy of prosperity theory and preachers preaching that true Christians need to own assault weapon wanna-bees.


Considering the subject matter discussed in the Revelation of John of Patmos would you prefer it to be less 'crazy'? I could prepare a 'G' rated version for you if you like?


----------



## Shaver

WA said:


> Hi Michael S,
> 
> My thoughts about guns is freedom to own because we are not owned by the government. Every freedom taken away is more government ownership, which is illegal in this country. The problem with freedom is solved another way that doesn't take away freedom. Freedom also means government doesn't know who has a gun. Government has become so lacked where it is not supposed to, meaning incompetence. That means they are making the wrong choices. And proving it by removing our freedoms. That is called slavery.
> 
> Many people who buy the assault style guns will never use them for that. How many buy them just for the fun of shooting? And then there is the fact of male nature where some open their mouths and make believe falls out, and in truth, if they found themselves close to one of those imaginary situations they would running the other way. Just listen to guys watching football blathering away. But, they are on the lazy couch instead of out on the field.
> 
> Are many churches any different than the paragraph above? You're supposed to "believe and please these people" so often. My little research decades ago gave me the impression that the great prophets in the Old Testament all walked away from men's teachings and followed God. Most of, if not all, of the lesser prophets didn't make that clean break. This sneaky lie in so many churches, "If you believe us you are believing God." always amazes me how many people fall for that lie.
> 
> No doubt in my mind Christ reserved most of the most important lessons for Himself to tell us. What he gave others to teach (in the written word) can't be edited out, either.
> 
> When I was a boy we sung God Bless America, Hark the Herald Angels Sing, and so on. Now, so much of this is supposedly illegal at government schools and other government functions. Even prayer by teems who think it is fine and government is treading upon us. If you were born later you don't understand how it was before. Older Christians certainly have a problem with illegal activity with the government. Inalienable rights means there are limits to government. Freedom means government has limits. In Europe government and churches are sometimes the same. But not in America. Tolerance is getting along. Some American churches have done wrong, no doubt.
> 
> Never been around preachers who taught to own assault weapons. Dad always taught that self defense is a spiritual war, and that carnal defenses are not secure. But, people who don't have that faith, what are they going to depend upon? Jesus said a few things about swords, including taking them when traveling. Today the sword is the gun.
> 
> I've read two FBI reports, ten years apart, where every government job was filled by organized crime members in some counties. If you have to get permission from the government to buy and carry a gun because of organized crime. Your out of luck! If you realize that you need a gun, because organized crime doesn't like you now, you will never to buy one. So, it pays to have one first, if that ever happens. Have you ever looked on line for prostitutes? In the US there are tens of thousands of them. They've not there by choice. If they were carrying a gun when the kidnapping attempt was happening they could have had a very good chance to escape. Shoot them in the foot, leg, whatever it takes to escape. If you scroll through these webpages of prostitutes you are looking at people who are going to be dead. Pussy not tight she is of no value. And they can't let her go! The are not going to jail because she talks! What do you think they are going to do with her? Murder is the only answer. Drugs and a suicide note. Bury is also widely used. How about garbage collectors. The list goes on.
> 
> Lifes not the way it is supposed to be.


WA I like you, increasingly I do. This being said I urge you to beware - the obsessions of Godly men become perversions if nurtured. The transcripts of the Salem trials are merely indicative of the sexual fantasies of the accusers. Get Satan behind thee!


----------



## MichaelS

Shaver said:


> Considering the subject matter discussed in the Revelation of John of Patmos would you prefer it to be less 'crazy'? I could prepare a 'G' rated version for you if you like?


No need for a G rated version. The original bad dreams and visions as detailed in the King James version are fine with me. I just wish I could read the old Greek, Latin, and Aramaic versions to get a better feel for it. Yes I do think the concepts of the beast and Antichrist are crazy and have nothing to do with the gospels of Christ.

I do apologize if my use of the term "crazy" is offensive to you. I need to think of a better adjective.


----------



## Shaver

MichaelS said:


> No need for a G rated version. The original bad dreams and visions as detailed in the King James version is fine with me. I just wish I could read the old Greek, Latin, and Aramaic versions to get a better feel for it. Yes I do think the concepts of the beast and Antichrist are crazy ands hae nothing to do with the gospels of Christ.
> 
> I do apologize if my use of the term "crazy" is offensive to you. I need to think of a better adjective.


My dear fellow, no apology is necessary.

I will, however, urge you to explore the Apocalyptic messages which Jesus provided. The abomination of desolation is a reasonable starting point. Jesus was an.apocalyptic prophet - prophecy without apocalypse is really rather dreary.

*Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?*


----------



## MichaelS

WA said:


> Hi Michael S,
> 
> My thoughts about guns is freedom to own because we are not owned by the government. Every freedom taken away is more government ownership, which is illegal in this country. The problem with freedom is solved another way that doesn't take away freedom. Freedom also means government doesn't know who has a gun. Government has become so lacked where it is not supposed to, meaning incompetence. That means they are making the wrong choices. And proving it by removing our freedoms. That is called slavery.
> 
> Lifes not the way it is supposed to be.


I am an old"ish" F--- now at 61, and yes I do remember prayers in school. Those I don't miss or see the need for them. I see nothing wrong with singing Christmas carols in schools, and in my state it is pretty common in the right season.

We should teach religious history in schools. But it should be real history, (not the Ark or other tales) and include religions other than Christianity. (We are also in desperate need for returning classes in Civics to the schools in this country).

Interestingly, when I grew up, religion, while everyone went to church on Sunday, it was not so "in your face" as I see now. There were some radio and TV preachers, but it wasn't like the 1600's in Salem and elsewhere (hanging Quakers, Catholics and Protestants taking turns massacring each other and anyone else who didn't believe their way). Nor was it like what I am seeing in the US right now where I see the far right religious groups in this country gaining power and doing more and more to strip the rights away of those who do not agree with them. We have many in this country who if given the opportunity, would be little different than the Taliban or Hindu nationalists, the "Buddhists" in Myanmar massacring Muslims, etc., etc., etc....

As to guns and freedom, I think fully free access to guns for anyone actually removes more freedom than protecting freedom.

I have been in Australia a couple of times for work in the last few years and didn't see they were any free than we are even though it is difficult to get a gun (there are plenty of hunters though). The same goes for Ireland and the UK (although I am worried about Ireland with the unknown effect BREXIT will have on long N-S history).

In many of the well developed western countries I have visited and worked in (for very short periods of time), the local populations seem much more free than we do.


----------



## MichaelS

Shaver said:


> My dear fellow, no apology is necessary.
> 
> I will, however, urge you to explore the Apocalyptic messages which Jesus provided. The abomination of desolation is a reasonable starting point. Jesus was an.apocalyptic prophet - prophecy without apocalypse is really rather dreary.
> 
> *Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani*?


Thanks you. I have read a very little about this topic, but from what I have read, some scholars believe Christ though the "end was very close". We have seen similar religious figures in the millennia since then confidently predicting the end of time again and again.

It hasn't happened yet and I do not believe religious predictions will ever come to pass. Although as a geologist, I know there have been mass extinctions in the past, but these most likley were due primarily to environmental reasons (not a Noah's Ark and flood story however).

At least there is always more to learn.


----------



## Shaver

MichaelS said:


> Thanks you. I have read a very little about this topic, but from what I have read, some scholars believe Christ though the "end was very close". We have seen similar religious figures in the millennia since then confidently predicting the end of time again and again.
> 
> It hasn't happened yet and I do not believe religious predictions will ever come to pass. Although as a geologist, I know there have been mass extinctions in the past, but these most likley were due primarily to environmental reasons (not a Noah's Ark and flood story however).
> 
> At least there is always more to learn.


"Very close' is a relative term. If one exists outside of time then 'close' has no literal meaning other than to those of us in its thrall.

Teasing you gently, I accept that the end of time hasn't happened just yet. However, the Apocalypse is merely the end of this world.

Cool.

I have no problem with a new world, as long as it is better than this world.


----------



## MichaelS

Shaver said:


> "Very close' is a relative term. If one exists outside of time then 'close' has no literal meaning other than to those of us in its thrall.
> 
> Teasing you gently, I accept that the end of time hasn't happened just yet. However, the Apocalypse is merely the end of this world.
> 
> Cool.
> 
> I have no problem with a new world, as long as it is better than this world.


As a geologist, I may have a different interpretation of "close" in terms of time!

Have a nice evening.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

I read a great deal about various "end of world" scenarios in the newspaper. Climate change, nuke war, Jesus/Muhammad/Aliens returning, killer viruses, etc.

It is odd that few mention that the actual physical geological earth goes on no matter what means people contrive to destroy humankind. I doubt Mother Gaia gives a rip whether we occupy her epidermis or not. Give her a few million years to get over her post human hangover and she will become a new Eden ready to begin the cycle again.

The typical western zeitgeist appears to hold that the world begins the day we are born and ends the day we die, so the end of the world already happens about 150,000 times each day by that measure. 

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Shaver

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> I read a great deal about various "end of world" scenarios in the newspaper. Climate change, nuke war, Jesus/Muhammad/Aliens returning, killer viruses, etc.
> 
> It is odd that few mention that the actual physical geological earth goes on no matter what means people contrive to destroy humankind. I doubt Mother Gaia gives a rip whether we occupy her epidermis or not. Give her a few million years to get over her post human hangover and she will become a new Eden ready to begin the cycle again.
> 
> The typical western zeitgeist appears to hold that the world begins the day we are born and ends the day we die, so the end of the world already happens about 150,000 times each day by that measure.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Coronal Mass Ejection - something in an order of magnitude at least equivalent to the Carrington event of 1859. In 2012 we narrowly avoided a direct hit from such a CME. Had it been on target then civilisation as we know it would have ceased to exist and we would probably be Asking Andy About Bearskins.


----------



## eagle2250

^^(in response to post # 319)
Thought provoking...yet rather insightful and surely somewhat humbling as well. Are you saying we humans are not the center of it all and that we are not all that important in the overall scheme of things?


----------



## 16412

Why do macro evolutionist even care if the earth is warming or not? According to them we are an accident that will be replaced. So, no loss. We don't matter. 

Christianity says us humans are important. The earth and all can be replaced, because earth and all isn't what it's about. He (God) made humans for purposes greater than the cosmos we live in. 

A huge difference between the two. One group says we're nothing (worthless). And the other says we are worth more than the whole cosmos. You have a choice here in belief. You are worth nothing. Or, you are worth a tremendous amount.


----------



## Odradek




----------



## Shaver

I found this satirical website to be rather amusing:

https://diversitychronicle.wordpress.com/about/

At least I believe it to be satire....? Certain of the links are troubling.

At any rate the content on the main site is wryly entertaining.


----------



## Clintotron

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> I read a great deal about various "end of world" scenarios in the newspaper. Climate change, nuke war, Jesus/Muhammad/Aliens returning, killer viruses, etc.
> 
> It is odd that few mention that the actual physical geological earth goes on no matter what means people contrive to destroy humankind. I doubt Mother Gaia gives a rip whether we occupy her epidermis or not. Give her a few million years to get over her post human hangover and she will become a new Eden ready to begin the cycle again.
> 
> The typical western zeitgeist appears to hold that the world begins the day we are born and ends the day we die, so the end of the world already happens about 150,000 times each day by that measure.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


I'd say more like 1,000 years to recuperate. Look at Chernobyl. Unimagined vitality with fauna/flora, wildlife, etc. Maybe humans aren't the indigenous demons so many make us out to be...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## derum

Odradek said:


> View attachment 21639
> 
> 
> View attachment 21640


Debatable: The ship _Desire_ brought a cargo of Africans from Barbados to Boston in 1634; these people were sold as slaves. In 1640 John Punch, a runaway servant of African descent, was sentenced to lifelong slavery in Virginia.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Judgement without the lens of historical context is folly.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67

I guess I really don’t understand what purpose it serves to ignore or try to erase history. 

“Grievance Chic” is alive and well.


----------



## Shaver

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Judgement without the lens of historical context is folly.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


All that is required to become loathsome is to adhere to the morals of one's youth in old age.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> I guess I really don't understand what purpose it serves to ignore or try to erase history.
> 
> "Grievance Chic" is alive and well.


This post offended me.

#SG_67microaggression.


----------



## Shaver

Google liberal bias and the reality: 

Oh deary me! The image has gone walkies. 

Google Juno mission team and the Google doodle for the Juno mission team then compare and contrast.


----------



## Odradek




----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Odradek said:


>


"Southern folk are probably the most patriotic people in our country!"

Preach!

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## 16412

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Judgement without the lens of historical context is folly.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


This sounds good until conscience appears.
Conscience is like gold. It never changes.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

WA said:


> This sounds good until conscience appears.
> Conscience is like gold. It never changes.


Values, the drivers of conscience, certainly change over time. Otherwise we would still hold slaves and stone women found to not be virgins on their wedding night.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Values, the drivers of conscience, certainly change over time. Otherwise we would still hold slaves and stone women found to not be virgins on their wedding night.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


And yet oddly enough there are still cultures that tend towards this application of medieval values.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

SG_67 said:


> And yet oddly enough there are still cultures that tend towards this application of medieval values.


I'm surrounded by it. Community sanctioned rape is one of the local favorites.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> I'm surrounded by it. Community sanctioned rape is one of the local favorites.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


That will show those young girls to be chaste!

All the energy the put behind tearing down statues of dead white guys makes no sense.


----------



## 16412

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> I'm surrounded by it. Community sanctioned rape is one of the local favorites.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Don't agree. Conscience is from God. What you are referring to is often human made morality. And your example separates Conscience even further from man made morality. Why is the female being killed and not the male? Morality? Not really. Those writing the law and enforcing the law are getting what they want at other people's expense, which is neither real morality nor obeying ones Conscience. Greed is not even morale. Mohammed "married" his six year old daughter. How many small girls have been "married" and died from sex before morning was over? Greed is not in the category of morality nor Conscience.


----------



## derum

WA said:


> Don't agree. Conscience is from God. What you are referring to is often human made morality. And your example separates Conscience even further from man made morality. Why is the female being killed and not the male? Morality? Not really. Those writing the law and enforcing the law are getting what they want at other people's expense, which is neither real morality nor obeying ones Conscience. Greed is not even morale. Mohammed "married" his six year old daughter. How many small girls have been "married" and died from sex before morning was over? Greed is not in the category of morality nor Conscience.


In the United States in 1880, in the state of Delaware the minimum age for marriage was 7 years old and in most othet states it was 10.
Why did you not reference that instead of trying to promote your Islamophobia?


----------



## culverwood

derum said:


> In the United States in 1880, in the state of Delaware the minimum age for marriage was 7 years old and in most othet states it was 10.
> Why did you not reference that instead of trying to promote your Islamophobia?


Is not your assumption the rapists were Muslim more Islamophobic than the original post.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

culverwood said:


> Is not your assumption the rapists were Muslim more Islamophobic than the original post.


The assumption, in this instance, is well documented and correct.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67

That something that was law in 1880 in the US is a bit of a stretch. The underlying assumption being that children were in fact married off at that age. I believe some states until a few years ago had laws against interracial marriage though they were not enforced. 

What was or was not legal some 140 years ago in this country really means nothing. How is it that the west has been able to evolve past this yet the East still thinks in the same terms?


----------



## derum

culverwood said:


> Is not your assumption the rapists were Muslim more Islamophobic than the original post.


As I didn't refer to any rapists in my post, isn't your assumption complete and utter bollocks?


----------



## derum

SG_67 said:


> That something that was law in 1880 in the US is a bit of a stretch. The underlying assumption being that children were in fact married off at that age. I believe some states until a few years ago had laws against interracial marriage though they were not enforced.
> 
> What was or was not legal some 140 years ago in this country really means nothing. How is it that the west has been able to evolve past this yet the East still thinks in the same terms?


That something was real and provable versus something that can neither be proven nor even substantiated is not a stretch.


----------



## SG_67

derum said:


> That something was real and provable versus something that can neither be proven nor even substantiated is not a stretch.


Was there a rash of 7 year olds being married in 1880? Let's assume there was. It was 1880!

Let's look at the modern Islamic world:

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mi...woman-stoned-death-adultery-saudi-6912835.amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sf...riage-still-issue-in-Saudi-Arabia-3270366.php


----------



## derum

SG_67 said:


> Was there a rash of 7 year olds being married in 1880? Let's assume there was. It was 1880!
> 
> Let's look at the modern Islamic world:
> 
> https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mi...woman-stoned-death-adultery-saudi-6912835.amp
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sf...riage-still-issue-in-Saudi-Arabia-3270366.php


The act of child marriage is abhorrent, irrespective of the era or the age of the child. 
18 U.S. states have no minimum age requirement. In 2017, Connecticut and Texas became the 24th and 25th states to set a minimum age, and in 2018, Florida, Kentucky, Arizona, Delaware, Tennessee, New Jersey and Missouri became the 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st and 32nd states to set a minimum age. Thirty two of the jurisdictions have a minimum age in these cases, which varies between 14 and 18. Effective from 1 January, 2019, New Hampshire will have enacted a minimum age of 16; prior to that date the age was 13 for girls and 14 for boys.

And then we could go into the Catholic Church's knowledge of child abuse and the lack of punishment.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

As I noted earlier, I often find myself transported into what can only be described as the 14th century in my travels in this part of the world. Where my interest lies is watching the fault lines between the 14th and the 21st century rub against each other.

Internet Porn addiction and obesity were rife when I lived in the Gulf. Here things are more sane but they have both nukes and polio. Go figure.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

derum said:


> The act of child marriage is abhorrent, irrespective of the era or the age of the child.
> 18 U.S. states have no minimum age requirement. In 2017, Connecticut and Texas became the 24th and 25th states to set a minimum age, and in 2018, Florida, Kentucky, Arizona, Delaware, Tennessee, New Jersey and Missouri became the 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st and 32nd states to set a minimum age. Thirty two of the jurisdictions have a minimum age in these cases, which varies between 14 and 18. Effective from 1 January, 2019, New Hampshire will have enacted a minimum age of 16; prior to that date the age was 13 for girls and 14 for boys.
> 
> And then we could go into the Catholic Church's knowledge of child abuse and the lack of punishment.


Was child marriage on the rise in these states thus fostering the need for legislation? Or was this merely a codification of what was already a well established cultural norm assigning the state increasing authority in areas where no quantifiable statistical need could be established?

It costs legislators nothing to be against something that is abhorrent yet virtually unknown and casts them in the role of protectors of threatened virtue. Maybe they can outlaw the taking of maidens by dragons next?

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## derum

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Was child marriage on the rise in these states thus fostering the need for legislation? Or was this merely a codification of what was already a well established cultural norm assigning the state increasing authority in areas where no quantifiable statistical need could be established?
> 
> It costs legislators nothing to be against something that is abhorrent yet virtually unknown and casts them in the role of protectors of threatened virtue. Maybe they can outlaw the taking of maidens by dragons next?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


"Marriage license data from 2000 to 2010, the most recent year for which most states were able to provide information showed that in 38 states, more than 167,000 children - almost all of them girls, some as young 12 - were married during that period, mostly to men 18 or older. Twelve states and the District of Columbia were unable to provide information on how many children had married there in that decade. It is estimated that the total number of children wed in America between 2000 and 2010 was 248,000."


----------



## SG_67

derum said:


> The act of child marriage is abhorrent, irrespective of the era or the age of the child.
> 18 U.S. states have no minimum age requirement. In 2017, Connecticut and Texas became the 24th and 25th states to set a minimum age, and in 2018, Florida, Kentucky, Arizona, Delaware, Tennessee, New Jersey and Missouri became the 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st and 32nd states to set a minimum age. Thirty two of the jurisdictions have a minimum age in these cases, which varies between 14 and 18. Effective from 1 January, 2019, New Hampshire will have enacted a minimum age of 16; prior to that date the age was 13 for girls and 14 for boys.
> 
> And then we could go into the Catholic Church's knowledge of child abuse and the lack of punishment.


There are tons of antiquated laws on the books, but I'm quite convinced that we don't have a child bride problem in this country. Nor do we allow girls to burn to death for want to modest dress.

You're focused on laws on the books as opposed to what is actually in practice.


----------



## derum

SG_67 said:


> There are tons of antiquated laws on the books, but I'm quite convinced that we don't have a child bride problem in this country. Nor do we allow girls to burn to death for want to modest dress.
> 
> You're focused on laws on the books as opposed to what is actually in practice.


Did you choose to ignore post #350 as it did not fit your world view?
Did you choose to ignore the comment about abuse of young children by "respected" priests in post #347 because it did not fit your world view?


----------



## SG_67

derum said:


> Did you choose to ignore post #350 as it did not fit your world view?
> Did you choose to ignore the comment about abuse of young children by "respected" priests in post #347 because it did not fit your world view?


I'm not ignoring anything. I'm talking about state sanctioned and culturally accepted standards.

I'm no apologist for the Catholic Church and certainly not a defender of pedophile priests, but I'll imagine that there aren't too many Catholics that view this as appropriate.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

I imagine that if commune Mormons, recent non European immigrant communities and 17 year olds were removed from the count it would then be statistically zero? 

It is difficult to legislate ignorance out of existence.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## 16412

Don't know everything. Do you? Telling part of the information isn't telling everything. Did these American girls die and the man go out and get another one. Or was he hung for murder?
What I wrote above is not a secret. The Muslims are not keeping it a secret. Where is the phobia in saying that they do these things?
If non Muslims did in the US, does that justify it for anyone?


----------



## 16412

"respected" priests ? The churches I've gone to anyone trying to have sex with someone their not married to is thrown out. Add to that trying to have sex with a minor their not married to would be talking to law enforcement unless they are both children. A 15 year old choosing to get married is very different from small child being sold into "marriage".


----------



## 16412

Western Civilization had many unwritten rules. Because they have walked away recently we now need thousands of written laws. Unwritten rules were better.


----------



## smmrfld

WA said:


> "respected" priests ? The churches I've gone to anyone trying to have sex with someone their not married to is thrown out. Add to that trying to have sex with a minor their not married to would be talking to law enforcement unless they are both children.


I recognize from your posts that your understanding and use of the English language is clearly compromised, but are you not aware of the issues afflicting the Catholic church over the past several decades?


----------



## eagle2250

WA said:


> "respected" priests ? The churches I've gone to anyone trying to have sex with someone their not married to is thrown out. Add to that trying to have sex with a minor their not married to would be talking to law enforcement unless they are both children. A 15 year old choosing to get married is very different from small child being sold into "marriage".


The Pennsylvania Attorney Generals report on pedophile priests seems to be a pretty damning report on the personal predilections of an arguably significant segment of the Catholic church's ordained staff. Such offenders are a minority, for sure, but the "church" has never effectively/properly handled such grievous transgressions.


----------



## Tiger

eagle2250 said:


> The Pennsylvania Attorney Generals report on pedophile priests seems to be a pretty damning report on the personal predilections of an arguably significant segment of the Catholic church's ordained staff. Such offenders are a minority, for sure, but the "church" has never effectively/properly handled such grievous transgressions.


Agreed. For the purposes of accuracy, we should also point out that the overwhelming (90% plus) amount of the pedophile, hebephile, and ephebophile cases were homosexual - a fact that somehow is rarely reported on/mentioned.

Only some sacred cows get to be slaughtered...


----------



## derum

Tiger said:


> Agreed. For the purposes of accuracy, we should also point out that the overwhelming (90% plus) amount of the pedophile, hebephile, and ephebophile cases were homosexual - a fact that somehow is rarely reported on/mentioned.
> 
> Only some sacred cows get to be slaughtered...


For the purposes of accuracy, the three terms you use refer exclusively to children and adolescents.
Also for the purposes of accuracy, the fact that some of the priests were/are homosexual is irrelevant. They were paedophiles.


----------



## Tiger

derum said:


> For the purposes of accuracy, the three terms you use refer exclusively to children and adolescents.
> Also for the purposes of accuracy, the fact that some of the priests were/are homosexual is irrelevant. They were paedophiles.


For the purposes of accuracy, my comment was in response to Eagle, not to anything anyone else wrote. There was nothing inaccurate about what I wrote.

In a church whose priests are all male and deal often with young people who are male and under eighteen, the sexual predilections and gender preference of priests are very relevant.


----------



## derum

Tiger said:


> For the purposes of accuracy, my comment was in response to Eagle, not to anything anyone else wrote. There was nothing inaccurate about what I wrote.
> 
> In a church whose priests are all male and deal often with young people who are male and under eighteen, the sexual predilections and gender preference of priests are very relevant.


I responded only to the points you made. You posted on an open forum, therefore your comment is open to anyone to respond to.
The fact that you infer that Pedophilia and Homosexuality are linked says an awful lot about you.


----------



## Tiger

derum said:


> I responded only to the points you made. You posted on an open forum, therefore your comment is open to anyone to respond to.
> The fact that you infer that Pedophilia and Homosexuality are linked says an awful lot about you.


As I already wrote, there wasn't anything inaccurate about my post. No need for corrections from you.

As to your personal insult, well, that says much about *you*. So does the fact that your irrational sense of politically correct ideology prevents you from comprehending/admitting that there is an abundantly clear linkage between the homosexuality of priests and their pedophile/hebephile/ephebophile abuse of children, especially when 95% or greater of these abuse cases were of the homosexual variety.

I prefer to defend and protect children, not a politically correct homosexual agenda that seems to care solely about itself.


----------



## derum

Tiger said:


> As I already wrote, there wasn't anything inaccurate about my post. No need for corrections from you.
> 
> As to your personal insult, well, that says much about *you*. So does the fact that your irrational sense of politically correct ideology prevents you from comprehending/admitting that there is an abundantly clear linkage between the homosexuality of priests and their pedophile/hebephile/ephebophile abuse of children, especially when 95% or greater of these abuse cases were of the homosexual variety.
> 
> I prefer to defend and protect children, not a politically correct homosexual agenda that seems to care solely about itself.


I didn't insult you, but you chose to insult me: "irrational sense of politically correct ideology"
You do not understand the term homosexuality when used in relation to child abuse. It refers to the victims gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately people, you, sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrators sexual orientation. 
You have no evidence to suggest that 95% or greater of abusive priests were homosexuals. - Did they, for example, show a sexual interest in Adult males?
Fortunately not all homosexuals are paedophiles, just as not all priests are paedophiles. I would have no issues with any gay person becoming a priest. Would you?
There needs to be more done to protect children no matter where they are.


----------



## Tiger

derum said:


> I didn't insult you, but you chose to insult me: "irrational sense of politically correct ideology"
> You do not understand the term homosexuality when used in relation to child abuse. It refers to the victims gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately people, you, sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrators sexual orientation.
> You have no evidence to suggest that 95% or greater of abusive priests were homosexuals. - Did they, for example, show a sexual interest in Adult males?
> Fortunately not all homosexuals are paedophiles, just as not all priests are paedophiles. I would have no issues with any gay person becoming a priest. Would you?
> There needs to be more done to protect children no matter where they are.


Most of your post is either trite or purposely confusing.

Didn't insult me? You wrote: "The fact that you infer that Pedophilia and Homosexuality are linked says an awful lot about you." That is an insult, but perhaps you do it so often that you don't realize it.

One of many sources regarding the vast amount of homosexual child sexual abuse in the clergy: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...ere-gay-and-abused-male-teens-pa-grand-jury-r Note that the author mentions the attempt to deflect from the fact that the vast majority of the abuse is homosexual; much like you're doing!

What exactly don't I understand? Adult males sexually abusing boys is homosexual pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia. Keep in mind that nearly all of the priests in question had access to young girls as well, but chose to molest the boys. No amount of your duplicitous phraseology can alter that...


----------



## Tiger

_From an article by Rod Dreher:_

"Almost exclusively homosexual" is not quite right, but the truth is bad enough. The authoritative 2004 John Jay Study of Catholic priest sexual abuse found that unlike in the general population, where most victims of sexual abuse are female, four out of five victims of Catholic priests are male. Here's a screenshot from the report:










Furthermore, the Jay report found that the majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.

So they weren't pedophiles, strictly speaking. These were gay men who wanted to get it on with sexually mature (in the physical sense) boys."

The report is fifteen years old; we know more now based on the release of additional information regarding the extent of the abuse.


----------



## derum

Tiger said:


> Most of your post is either trite or purposely confusing.
> 
> Didn't insult me? You wrote: "The fact that you infer that Pedophilia and Homosexuality are linked says an awful lot about you." That is an insult, but perhaps you do it so often that you don't realize it.
> 
> One of many sources regarding the vast amount of homosexual child sexual abuse in the clergy: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...ere-gay-and-abused-male-teens-pa-grand-jury-r Note that the author mentions the attempt to deflect from the fact that the vast majority of the abuse is homosexual; much like you're doing!
> 
> What exactly don't I understand? Adult males sexually abusing boys is homosexual pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia. Keep in mind that nearly all of the priests in question had access to young girls as well, but chose to molest the boys. No amount of your duplicitous phraseology can alter that...


Confusing? Tell me what is too complicated for you and I will explain.
I can quote many sources too, but will it make you understand that the terms homosexuality and heterosexuality in pedophilia refer to the victims gender in relation to the perpetrator.


Tiger said:


> _From an article by Rod Dreher:_
> 
> "Almost exclusively homosexual" is not quite right, but the truth is bad enough. The authoritative 2004 John Jay Study of Catholic priest sexual abuse found that unlike in the general population, where most victims of sexual abuse are female, four out of five victims of Catholic priests are male. Here's a screenshot from the report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the Jay report found that the majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.
> 
> So they weren't pedophiles, strictly speaking. These were gay men who wanted to get it on with sexually mature (in the physical sense) boys."
> 
> The report is fifteen years old; we know more now based on the release of additional information regarding the extent of the abuse.


Glad you quoted the John Jay report and that "we now know more based on the release of additional information".
The following is from the new John Jay College of Criminal Justice study, called "The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010,"
"The researchers found no statistical evidence that gay priests were more likely than straight priests to abuse minors-a finding that undermines a favorite talking point of many conservative Catholics. The disproportionate number of adolescent male victims was about opportunity, not preference or pathology".

First of all, nearly every reputable psychologist and psychiatrist, not to mention almost every scholarly study, decisively rejects the conflation of homosexuality with pedophilia, as well as any cause-and-effect relationship. The studies are almost too numerous to mention. Pedophilia, say experts, is often more a question of a stunted (or arrested) sexuality, more a question of power, and more a question of proximity (among other complicated psychological and social factors). The new John Jay College of Criminal Justice study, called "The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010," points to, among other reasons: emotionally immature and psychologically maladjusted men entering seminaries; the difficulty of dealing with cultural upheaval in which priests found themselves in the 1960s and 1970s; as well as, again, the issue of proximity--young men and boys were abused because priests were more likely to be working with them, rather than with young women and girls. But simply put, being a homosexual priest does not make one an abusive priest.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

It is true that a significant amount of XY on XY sexual activity is conducted by men who do not self identify as homosexuals.

Does engaging in XY on XY sex make one less than heteronormative or merely “queer” vs. full on bisexual or gay? These are issues that I have found a bit too nuanced for the cis gender heteronormative community, of which I am a card carrying member, to easily grasp. It is a complicated subject and one we should not subject our brethren to ridicule for failing to have a fundamental understanding. I barely get it myself.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Tiger

Please do not mistake your nebulous writing for a lack of comprehension on my part. I know what you wrote; it's simply that you are relying on legerdemain to mask the truth - just as you did in avoiding Dreher's obvious point(s). *Your repeated attempts to somehow separate homosexual behavior from homosexuals is ludicrous, as is the use of the term "pedophile" when the abuse against children was far more extensive than that.*

My point is pretty simple, and easily understand by anyone not possessing a political agenda: The vast amount of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy has been perpetrated by adult males against boys of various ages, but especially post-pubescent ones. This is true even when the presence of girls was nearly as ubiquitous as boys. If that doesn't mean "homosexual," we need a new dictionary.

Your dishonesty is stunning. I have never written that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles. Nor did I write that homosexual priests are more likely to be abusive than heterosexual priests. See the paragraph above for a summation of what I've written; even a charlatan should be able to recognize the key points.

Please, save your duplicity, "straw man," and "smoke and mirrors" debating style for others less gullible.


----------



## Tiger

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> It is true that a significant amount of XY on XY sexual activity is conducted by men who do not self identify as homosexuals.
> 
> Does engaging in XY on XY sex make one less than heteronormative or merely "queer" vs. full on bisexual or gay? These are issues that I have found a bit too nuanced for the cis gender heteronormative community, of which I am a card carrying member, to easily grasp. It is a complicated subject and one we should not subject our brethren to ridicule for failing to have a fundamental understanding. I barely get it myself.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Thank you, BSR, but derum is not being nuanced in an honest sense, he's practicing a political/cultural/sexual form of sophistry. His goal is to defend homosexuality at all costs - even when it doesn't need to be defended! - even at risk of sounding like a pseudo-educated charlatan. What used to be called a quack, I believe...

As for the concept of self-identification: There are many people who insist that they are not what their collective actions empirically and decisively indicate that they are; the insistence/assertion does not make it so. This is too clear for argument for most of us who cherish honesty and truth.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Tiger said:


> Thank you, BSR, but derum is not being nuanced in an honest sense, he's practicing a political/cultural/sexual form of sophistry. His goal is to defend homosexuality at all costs - even when it doesn't need to be defended! - even at risk of sounding like a pseudo-educated charlatan. What used to be called a quack, I believe...
> 
> As for the concept of self-identification: There are many people who insist that they are not what their collective actions empirically and decisively indicate that they are; the insistence/assertion does not make it so. This is too clear for argument for most of us who cherish honesty and truth.


I think your stated belief that homosexuals are no more prone to the sexual abuse of minors than heterosexuals establishes a reasonable standard from which the discussion can evolve.

My own personal view is that a significant number of Catholic men with sexual preference outside the heteronormative standard are attracted to the priesthood in an effort to find a way to absolve themselves of the guilt of their "deviant" thoughts and try to bury themselves in what they think is a world away from sexual temptation only to find that the priesthood is not an escape from their inner natures. No matter how far we try to run from ourselves, we are always there.

It is when normal sexual desire is driven into the recesses that men are morphed into monsters. One of the reasons that these men are so reviled and despised is that at our core being we know that except but by the grace of God we could find ourselves in a similar circumstance. Their monstrosity gives us mistaken comfort that we could never be so beastial.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## derum

Tiger said:


> Thank you, BSR, but derum is not being nuanced in an honest sense, he's practicing a political/cultural/sexual form of sophistry. His goal is to defend homosexuality at all costs - even when it doesn't need to be defended! - even at risk of sounding like a pseudo-educated charlatan. What used to be called a quack, I believe...
> 
> As for the concept of self-identification: There are many people who insist that they are not what their collective actions empirically and decisively indicate that they are; the insistence/assertion does not make it so. This is too clear for argument for most of us who cherish honesty and truth.


"Sophistry" "legerdemain" "nebulous" "falsely educated charlatan" "a quack" ?
Every post I have written has been factual. Yours have not. You have retracted, deflected and ignored.
I have no agenda regarding homosexuals or their behaviour, I have not denied that there may be priests who are indeed homosexual, and that they may have abused children. 
The discussion was around your initial assertion that the overwhelming (90% plus) of catholic priests who were paedophiles were homosexual and that is a fact that somehow is rarely reported on/mentioned.

I have not tried to separate homosexual behaviour from homosexuals, perhaps the nuance is just a little too much for you.

With regards to the "concept of self identification", I agree, after all i'm sure that you don't think you come across as homophobic.


----------



## Tiger

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> I think your stated belief that homosexuals are no more prone to the sexual abuse of minors than heterosexuals establishes a reasonable standard from which the discussion can evolve...


Actually, I've never said _that_, either. I have made no general statements regarding the proclivities of homosexuals and heterosexuals relative to sexual abuse of minors, one way or the other. Our friend derum has tried to utilize a straw man argument against me, but I won't let him!

Many interesting thoughts in your post, BSR...


----------



## Tiger

derum said:


> "Sophistry" "legerdemain" "nebulous" "falsely educated charlatan" "a quack" ?
> Every post I have written has been factual. Yours have not. You have retracted, deflected and ignored.
> I have no agenda regarding homosexuals or their behaviour, I have not denied that there may be priests who are indeed homosexual, and that they may have abused children.
> The discussion was around your initial assertion that the overwhelming (90% plus) of catholic priests who were paedophiles were homosexual and that is a fact that somehow is rarely reported on/mentioned.
> 
> I have not tried to separate homosexual behaviour from homosexuals, perhaps the nuance is just a little too much for you.
> 
> With regards to the "concept of self identification", I agree, after all i'm sure that you don't think you come across as homophobic.


You really are dishonest, derum. I have not "retracted, deflected, or ignored" but I have refuted your sophistry.

You have offered nothing but obfuscation, and have yet to respond to my contention - now written multiple times:

_My point is pretty simple, and easily understood by anyone not possessing a political agenda: The vast amount of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy has been perpetrated by adult males against boys of various ages, but especially post-pubescent ones. This is true even when the presence of girls was nearly as ubiquitous as boys. If that doesn't mean "homosexual," we need a new dictionary.
_
My assertion about the vast number of sexual abuses in the Church being of the homosexual variety remains, and is undeniably true. Whether it is 90% or 80% (as per the John Jay study) is a distinction without a difference, especially since such data will always be lacking due to the fact that so many abused people will never come forward. Even if we use the 80% figure from the Jay study, it quite condemning.

Your "nuance" is dishonesty; I have already responded to this several times. That you refuse to understand that I do not accept your logic doesn't mean I do not understand it; it means that I think you're wrong. You have yet to demonstrate why you are not. Sleight of hand may work on children...

And, as expected, you resort to the slur of being "homophobic." I knew it was only a matter of time, as those who militantly defend a position - even when indefensible - often do when refuted or proven to be ludicrous. A trait quite unappealing, but _very_ predictable. In fact, that last slur of yours proves my assertion about your agenda!

But, I'll allow you one more opportunity before I cease wasting any more time in this thread. Read my italicized paragraph above, and please point out my supposed factual errors, ignorance, homophobia, or any other corrosive adjective you wish to hurl.


----------



## derum

Tiger said:


> You really are dishonest, derum. I have not "retracted, deflected, or ignored" but I have refuted your sophistry.
> 
> You have offered nothing but obfuscation, and have yet to respond to my contention - now written multiple times:
> 
> _My point is pretty simple, and easily understood by anyone not possessing a political agenda: The vast amount of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy has been perpetrated by adult males against boys of various ages, but especially post-pubescent ones. This is true even when the presence of girls was nearly as ubiquitous as boys. If that doesn't mean "homosexual," we need a new dictionary.
> _
> My assertion about the vast number of sexual abuses in the Church being of the homosexual variety remains, and is undeniably true. Whether it is 90% or 80% (as per the John Jay study) is a distinction without a difference, especially since such data will always be lacking due to the fact that so many abused people will never come forward. Even if we use the 80% figure from the Jay study, it quite condemning.
> 
> Your "nuance" is dishonesty; I have already responded to this several times. That you refuse to understand that I do not accept your logic doesn't mean I do not understand it; it means that I think you're wrong. You have yet to demonstrate why you are not. Sleight of hand may work on children...
> 
> And, as expected, you resort to the slur of being "homophobic." I knew it was only a matter of time, as those who militantly defend a position - even when indefensible - often do when refuted or proven to be ludicrous. A trait quite unappealing, but _very_ predictable. In fact, that last slur of yours proves my assertion about your agenda!
> 
> But, I'll allow you one more opportunity before I cease wasting any more time in this thread. Read my italicized paragraph above, and please point out my supposed factual errors, ignorance, homophobia, or any other corrosive adjective you wish to hurl.


I have responded with clarity and reference several times. I have even given you information from sources you quoted. 
You choose to see only what you want to see. Your hubris and arrogance in denial of presented facts is astonishing. You are the only one militantly defending a position, unable to accept that you may not have got it quite right. Your narcissistic self is summed up with "will allow me one more opportunity" Good grief man, grow up.


----------



## Tiger

derum said:


> I have responded with clarity and reference several times. I have even given you information from sources you quoted.
> You choose to see only what you want to see. Your hubris and arrogance in denial of presented facts is astonishing. You are the only one militantly defending a position, unable to accept that you may not have got it quite right. Your narcissistic self is summed up with "will allow me one more opportunity" Good grief man, grow up.


Game...set...match!

As assumed, you refused to respond to what I've actually written, as opposed to the words and thoughts that you dishonestly attributed to me.

I used the Jay source to point out data. You attempted to use it for causality, but the problem is that everything that you quoted from "experts" would apply to men in a multitude of fields, yet we don't experience the same incidence of homosexual child abuse in other endeavors. In any event, the "information" that you quoted is far more opinion than it is fact; I have simply stated what has occurred. I did not provide the why, although you were quick to try to slur me in a devious manner. Since you have not presented any facts at all, it would be logically impossible for me to deny their existence.

*Which position have I "militantly defended"? You have never quite gotten around to addressing what I have now written several times. So, I ask you again, what is this position that I am "militantly defending"?*

"The one more opportunity" line was in recognition that I am attempting to converse with someone for whom truth has no meaning. Only your ideology seems to matter to you, and I have far more important things to do than continue this unprofitable discourse with someone who still hasn't addressed what I've written, despite being given multiple chances. I can only devote so much time to your silliness.

You remind me of the pseudo-intellectuals masquerading as professors in the American college and university system who can't stand to have their gossamer logic shredded by someone not locked into their Frankfurt School ideology.


----------



## jts287

Hi, lifetime (non-abused) Catholic. I would wager that if the Vatican rescinded the (imo) draconian celibacy requirement, you'd see far fewer instances of abuse. It's boys because they're far, far more likely to be in close contact with the clergy.


----------



## Tiger

jts287 said:


> Hi, lifetime (non-abused) Catholic. I would wager that if the Vatican rescinded the (imo) draconian celibacy requirement, you'd see far fewer instances of abuse. It's boys because they're far, far more likely to be in close contact with the clergy.


I have attended and taught in Catholic schools for nearly a quarter of a century; there has always been ample opportunity for clergy to abuse girls. Yet, the ratio of abuse is incredibly skewed toward boys.

Are you saying that the demand for celibacy is what causes the abuse of predominantly boys? I don't see the connection...


----------



## derum

Tiger said:


> Game...set...match!
> 
> As assumed, you refused to respond to what I've actually written, as opposed to the words and thoughts that you dishonestly attributed to me.
> 
> I used the Jay source to point out data. You attempted to use it for causality, but the problem is that everything that you quoted from "experts" would apply to men in a multitude of fields, yet we don't experience the same incidence of homosexual child abuse in other endeavors. In any event, the "information" that you quoted is far more opinion than it is fact; I have simply stated what has occurred. I did not provide the why, although you were quick to try to slur me in a devious manner. Since you have not presented any facts at all, it would be logically impossible for me to deny their existence.
> 
> *Which position have I "militantly defended"? You have never quite gotten around to addressing what I have now written several times. So, I ask you again, what is this position that I am "militantly defending"?*
> 
> "The one more opportunity" line was in recognition that I am attempting to converse with someone for whom truth has no meaning. Only your ideology seems to matter to you, and I have far more important things to do than continue this unprofitable discourse with someone who still hasn't addressed what I've written, despite being given multiple chances. I can only devote so much time to your silliness.
> 
> You remind me of the pseudo-intellectuals masquerading as professors in the American college and university system who can't stand to have their gossamer logic shredded by someone not locked into their Frankfurt School ideology.


With regards your statement in post #375 I will try one final time.
There is no indication that a gay man is more likely to engage in sexually abusive behavior than a straight man and some studies even suggest it is less likely. But sexual abuse is not a sexual "relationship," - it's an assault. The sexual orientation of the abusive person is not really relevant to the abusive interaction. A man who sexually abuses or exploits boys is not engaging in a homosexual interaction - any more than men who sexually abuse or exploit girls are engaging in heterosexual behavior. He is a deeply confused individual who, for various reasons, desires to sexually use or abuse a child, and has acted on that desire.

In response to this beauty; "but the problem is that everything that you quoted from "experts" would apply to men in a multitude of fields, yet we don't experience the same incidence of homosexual child abuse in other endeavors."
You state that you have taught in schools. The incidence of child abuse in schools is far higher than it is in the Catholic Church. Is it always the case that male teachers who abuse boys are predominantly gay?


----------



## Tiger

derum said:


> With regards your statement in post #375 I will try one final time.
> There is no indication that a gay man is more likely to engage in sexually abusive behavior than a straight man and some studies even suggest it is less likely. But sexual abuse is not a sexual "relationship," - it's an assault. The sexual orientation of the abusive person is not really relevant to the abusive interaction. A man who sexually abuses or exploits boys is not engaging in a homosexual interaction - any more than men who sexually abuse or exploit girls are engaging in heterosexual behavior. He is a deeply confused individual who, for various reasons, desires to sexually use or abuse a child, and has acted on that desire.
> 
> In response to this beauty; "but the problem is that everything that you quoted from "experts" would apply to men in a multitude of fields, yet we don't experience the same incidence of homosexual child abuse in other endeavors."
> You state that you have taught in schools. The incidence of child abuse in schools is far higher than it is in the Catholic Church. Is it always the case that male teachers who abuse boys are predominantly gay?


Again, I have never written that,"a gay man is more likely to engage in sexually abusive behavior than a straight man." You continue to use the straw man argument, and it is dishonest.

"The sexual orientation of the abusive person is not really relevant to the abusive interaction. A man who sexually abuses or exploits boys is not engaging in a homosexual interaction..." - I disagree completely, and contradicts the empirical evidence of clergy abuse. As Rod Dreher pointed out, the majority of the sexual abuse occurs between priests and *post-pubescent* male children; this would seem to indicate that there is indeed a "homosexual interaction" or desire, at least on the part of the adult. Overwhelmingly, they are choosing this group (post-pubescent boys), not girls (of any age), animals, or adults (although many have had non-consensual homosexual interactions with younger male adult members of the clergy/seminary. You can ask Theodore McCarrick about that!).

I have not studied rates of child abuse in every field of human endeavor. The point was that the "expert" explanation is wanting. (As are the explanations of many "experts" in the social sciences; it is the nature of the beast.) Has anyone performed a study asking male clergy why they have sexually abused boys, as opposed to girls? I would find that more valuable than a set of dubious psychological assumptions. You even agreed with another poster that "celibacy" was a reason for abuse; that is foolish beyond belief. Millions of men have abstained from sex without resorting to abusing male children. If a member of the clergy wished to break his vow of celibacy, there are an ample amount of adults to consort with; it need not be with boys.

My remarks were confined to the Church scandal. No doubt such abuse exists elsewhere, but I would have no way of knowing if "it's always the case that male teachers who abuse boys are predominantly gay." However, if the men in question are repeatedly sexually abusing post-pubescent boys to the near-exclusion of girls, then I would feel pretty confident that the abusers are "predominantly gay."


----------



## derum

Rod Dreher is a conservative blogger.
Show the empirical evidence you refer to.


----------



## Tiger

derum said:


> Rod Dreher is a conservative blogger.
> Show the empirical evidence you refer to.


Again, you're being dishonest. You mischaracterize who Rod Dreher is, and in doing so imply that his extensive work on this issue is invalid because he is "conservative." Ad hominem silliness! Should we discard all data and information gleaned from liberal writers/researchers?

You also ignored the fact that the great majority of the abuse took place between adult males and post-pubescent boys, clearly indicating a sexual aspect. Sure, why let the obvious get in the way...

An internet search for "homosexual problem in the Catholic Church" for instance, will yield a tremendous amount of information that contradicts what you've written. To make it sound as if you have "truth" to the exclusion of everyone else is arrogant and dishonest.

_A tidbit:_ According to Cardinal Raymond Burke, "It was clear after the studies following the 2002 sexual abuse crisis that most of the acts of abuse were in fact homosexual acts committed with adolescent young men. There was a studied attempt to either overlook or to deny this. Now it seems clear in light of these recent terrible scandals that indeed there is a homosexual culture, not only among the clergy but even within the hierarchy, which needs to be purified at the root. It is of course a tendency that is disordered."

Writer Michael Brown wrote, "Yes, it was fine to talk about Catholicism's problem with _pedophilia_. It was fine to discuss _sexual scandals_ in broad terms. But it was basically forbidden to connect them directly to homosexuality. Is it true that homosexual pedophiles are more likely to abuse boys then heterosexual pedophiles are likely to abuse girls?" Sound familiar, derum?

Brown continues, "According to a 2007 Mayo Clinic study, 'The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9 per cent to 40 per cent, which is approximately four to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality of 2 per cent to 4 per cent)...This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children.'"

I can quote a thousand things, but you can perform your own research, if you're willing. Of course, that would presuppose that you're able to put aside your ideological rigidity.


----------



## derum

Tiger said:


> Again, you're being dishonest. You mischaracterize who Rod Dreher is, and in doing so imply that his extensive work on this issue is invalid because he is "conservative." Ad hominem silliness! Should we discard all data and information gleaned from liberal writers/researchers?
> 
> You also ignored the fact that the great majority of the abuse took place between adult males and post-pubescent boys, clearly indicating a sexual aspect. Sure, why let the obvious get in the way...
> 
> An internet search for "homosexual problem in the Catholic Church" for instance, will yield a tremendous amount of information that contradicts what you've written. To make it sound as if you have "truth" to the exclusion of everyone else is arrogant and dishonest.
> 
> _A tidbit:_ According to Cardinal Raymond Burke, "It was clear after the studies following the 2002 sexual abuse crisis that most of the acts of abuse were in fact homosexual acts committed with adolescent young men. There was a studied attempt to either overlook or to deny this. Now it seems clear in light of these recent terrible scandals that indeed there is a homosexual culture, not only among the clergy but even within the hierarchy, which needs to be purified at the root. It is of course a tendency that is disordered."
> 
> Writer Michael Brown wrote, "Yes, it was fine to talk about Catholicism's problem with _pedophilia_. It was fine to discuss _sexual scandals_ in broad terms. But it was basically forbidden to connect them directly to homosexuality. Is it true that homosexual pedophiles are more likely to abuse boys then heterosexual pedophiles are likely to abuse girls?" Sound familiar, derum?
> 
> Brown continues, "According to a 2007 Mayo Clinic study, 'The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9 per cent to 40 per cent, which is approximately four to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality of 2 per cent to 4 per cent)...This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children.'"
> 
> I can quote a thousand things, but you can perform your own research, if you're willing. Of course, that would presuppose that you're able to put aside your ideological rigidity.


I didn't mischaracterise anything or anyone. Rod Dreher is a conservative blogger, it's what he does. How is that dishonest?
His opinion has no more relevance than mine or yours.
Why not quote Alex Jones and his confirmation that the pedophile priests also performed satanic rituals, or Michael Savage who said that gay rabbi's would likely rape teenage boys or Bill Donahue, President of the catholic league who stated that "it's not rape if the child isn't penetrated"
I too can quote a thousand things, can argue and disprove every single one of your statistics but what's the point?
You are what you are.

coda: I googled "homosexuality in the catholic church" and not one return referenced pedophile priests.


----------



## jts287

Tiger said:


> I have attended and taught in Catholic schools for nearly a quarter of a century; there has always been ample opportunity for clergy to abuse girls. Yet, the ratio of abuse is incredibly skewed toward boys.
> 
> Are you saying that the demand for celibacy is what causes the abuse of predominantly boys? I don't see the connection...


I'm 39 years old, and attended eight years of Catholic grade school (only male altar boys) and four years of all-male high school. I'll double-down on my statement that boys have been historically more likely to be working closely with priests than girls.

Edit: the Church's ass-backwards treatment of women has probably saved untold numbers of them from abuse, at the expense of little boys.


----------



## Tiger

derum said:


> I didn't mischaracterise anything or anyone. Rod Dreher is a conservative blogger, it's what he does. How is that dishonest?
> His opinion has no more relevance than mine or yours.
> Why not quote Alex Jones and his confirmation that the pedophile priests also performed satanic rituals, or Michael Savage who said that gay rabbi's would likely rape teenage boys or Bill Donahue, President of the catholic league who stated that "it's not rape if the child isn't penetrated"
> I too can quote a thousand things, can argue and disprove every single one of your statistics but what's the point?
> You are what you are.
> 
> coda: I googled "homosexuality in the catholic church" and not one return referenced pedophile priests.


You really are duplicitous. This will be my last interaction with you; your dishonesty is irritating and undeserving of my time.

_From Wikipedia:_ "*Ray Oliver* "*Rod*" *Dreher* (born February 14, 1967) is an American writer and editor. He is a senior editor and blogger at _The American Conservative_ and author of several books, including _How Dante Can Save Your Life_. He has written about religion, politics, film, and culture in _National Review_ and _National Review Online_, _The Weekly Standard_, _The Wall Street Journal_, _Touchstone_, _Men's Health_, the _Los Angeles Times_, and other publications. He was a film reviewer for the _South Florida Sun-Sentinel_ and chief film critic for the _New York Post_. His commentaries have been broadcast on National Public Radio's _All Things Considered_, and he has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Court TV, and other television networks." Yeah, just a blogger...

You asked for empirical evidence about homosexual clergy, and I not only provided some sources (and more sources cited in those pieces), I pointed you to a search that would yield much information. Please don't bark out names and positions and insinuate that I wrote such things. I'm really sick of your straw man antics and distortions.

"Pedophile priests"? What new game of deceit are you now playing? When did _that_ become the chief part of this discussion? I must have written half a dozen times that the Catholic Church scandal appears to be one of male clergy (and others) sexually abusing post-pubescent boys, thus leading rational people to believe that it is a homosexual abuse scandal. While there have been instances of pedophilia, it is far more of the pederast variety of abuse. The proof is in the thread; I need not pursue this further. That you would distort what is obviously public record demonstrates your lack of good faith.

Once again, it appears that when you are refuted or unable to engage another honestly, you resort to distortion and legerdemain. Modern man at his finest...


----------



## Tiger

jts287 said:


> I'm 39 years old, and attended eight years of Catholic grade school (only male altar boys) and four years of all-male high school. I'll double-down on my statement that boys have been historically more likely to be working closely with priests than girls.


But there are many members of the Catholic clergy that interact with girls, there are many coed catholic schools, and church services are coed as well. While I do believe that boys are more in harm's way than girls, it's certainly not a (minimum) four to one ratio. My experience is twice as lengthy as yours - most of it coed - and in the instances where there was sexual abuse, it was adult males sexually abusing post-pubescent boys, despite the presence of pretty girls of various ages.

You may profit from reading some of the outside sources I've mentioned/posted in this thread, some by Church hierarchy. They seem to disagree with you, too.

In addition, proximity should not matter. Are veterinarians engaged in bestiality because they're close to animals? The fact remains that these men have decided to sexually abuse post-pubescent boys not because it was "convenient" but because that was their inclination. Were these predators not in the clergy, no doubt they would still have sought out their youthful targets somewhere else in society.


----------



## jts287

Vets go home to their wives and girlfriends. Priests go home to ... the bible?


----------



## derum

jts287 said:


> Vets go home to their wives and girlfriends. Priests go home to ... the bible?


Agreed. For the purposes of accuracy, we should also point out that the overwhelming (90% plus) amount of vets who performed bestiality were homosexual -a fact that somehow is rarely reported on/mentioned.

Only some sacred cows get to be slaughtered...or shagged.


----------



## Tiger

jts287 said:


> Vets go home to their wives and girlfriends. Priests go home to ... the bible?


So, rather than have an affair with a woman (or for that matter, any adult), and thus violate their vow of celibacy, it is somehow more acceptable for a priest to sexually assault a young boy? Is that in keeping with their priestly vows? Is that what all single men do?

Is that your logic? You don't find something very strange (and perverse) about that?


----------



## Tiger

derum said:


> Agreed. For the purposes of accuracy, we should also point out that the overwhelming (90% plus) amount of vets who performed bestiality were homosexual -a fact that somehow is rarely reported on/mentioned.
> 
> Only some sacred cows get to be slaughtered...or shagged.


Another vacuous and clownish comment - all that remains after an intellectual flogging.

Of course, when one believes that homosexuals having homosexual sex isn't homosexual, well, I guess such people are capable of anything.


----------



## derum

Tiger said:


> Another vacuous and clownish comment - all that remains after an intellectual flogging.
> 
> Of course, when one believes that homosexuals having homosexual sex isn't homosexual, well, I guess such people are capable of anything.


An intellectual flogging? oh my, I must put some some linament on these welts.
You are the epitome of the availabilty heuristic.
Please stop now, you are blowing my mind.


----------



## jts287

Who says it's acceptable? Preying on anyone, especially the young, is deplorable. I do wonder if incidences of victimization would drop greatly if priests were allowed to be normal: raise a family, satisfy urges in a healthy way, etc.


----------



## Tiger

derum said:


> An intellectual flogging? oh my, I must put some some linament on these welts.
> You are the epitome of the availabilty heuristic.
> Please stop now, you are blowing my mind.


Sure, and your profound and deliberative thinking has resulted in you believing that homosexuals having homosexual sex isn't homosexuality.

You began with the proposition that you must defend the concept of homosexuality at all costs, and ended with destroying logic, rational thought, and common sense.

So, which institution of "higher learning" do you work for?


----------



## Tiger

jts287 said:


> Who says it's acceptable? Preying on anyone, especially the young, is deplorable. I do wonder if incidences of victimization would drop greatly if priests were allowed to be normal: raise a family, satisfy urges in a healthy way, etc.


You make it sound so binary; one need not resort to sexually assaulting boys if they are not married. Please read some of the sources I posted for the diagnosis of why these scandals have occurred in the first place.


----------



## 16412

smmrfld said:


> I recognize from your posts that your understanding and use of the English language is clearly compromised, but are you not aware of the issues afflicting the Catholic church over the past several decades?


Reading some of your posts, after you wrote whats above, suggests that you are not so great with the English language, or, even thinking. Your confusion that theories are not facts is astounding.

I didn't want to pull out names, such as the R Catholic church. It seems rather out of touch with God and His Word.


----------



## 16412

jts287 said:


> Who says it's acceptable? Preying on anyone, especially the young, is deplorable. I do wonder if incidences of victimization would drop greatly if priests were allowed to be normal: raise a family, satisfy urges in a healthy way, etc.


What would normal be for them?


----------



## jts287

It's not binary; many/most priests are never accused of any sexual misconduct. My only point is that I feel it unnatural to deprive someone of an outlet for biologically-based urges and feelings, and in doing so, the Church may be setting vulnerable and relatively powerless young people (by and large males, since they've historically worked closer with the clergy than females have) up to be at risk for victimization.


----------



## Tiger

jts287 said:


> It's not binary; many/most priests are never accused of any sexual misconduct. My only point is that I feel it unnatural to deprive someone of an outlet for biologically-based urges and feelings, and in doing so, the Church may be setting vulnerable and relatively powerless young people (by and large males, since they've historically worked closer with the clergy than females have) up to be at risk for victimization.


But no one so "deprived" should resort to sexually abusing boys! Just about everyone experiences "biologically-based urges and feelings" at some point which are not satisfied (and there are people for whom those urges are never satiated), yet they don't turn to pederasty.

The problem isn't celibacy, abstinence, or deprivation, it's that some people are sexually depraved. In this case, it seems as if there were/are a lot of homosexual sexually depraved priests who sexually assaulted young boys. Were they in another profession, they would still seek to commit those crimes. Only then, perhaps there wouldn't be other homosexual sexually depraved men in the organizational hierarchy that would seek to prevent these crimes from being exposed...


----------



## 16412

I sure don't see any reason why priests shouldn't get married. Many married men are great pastors, teachers, etc. The RC should throw out the band on marriage.


----------



## eagle2250

Lucido said:


> Situation can definitely change sexual behaviour. The phenomenon of otherwise heterosexual incarcerated men having sex with other men for the lack of female partners is well documented.
> 
> I have no doubt that forcing priests to adhere to a lifetime of celibacy and repressed sexuality leads to devastating consequences that would not occur otherwise. I can't see the Catholic church ever removing the ban but with any luck the entire institution will be consigned to the rubbish heap of history within a generation or too.


I don't think celibacy is the catalyst for such aberrant behavior. Virtually all of us endure periods of incidental celibacy throughout our lives and yet most never resort to the types of behaviors so rightfully condemned herein. Also the incidence of such behaviors are not restricted to the Catholic church. Frankly I think such criminal actions have been reported involving ordained members of most protestant sects and other religions as well. The real issue is that people enjoying a disparate balance of power in relationships with others, frequently exercise such power imbalances is less than acceptable and frequently criminal ways. Just my opinion!


----------



## Tiger

Lucido said:


> And you wonder why people think you're homophobic.


Perhaps you have difficulty with reading comprehension. What you quoted is a description of what has occurred. That homosexual priests have sexually abused post-pubescent boys at enormously higher rates than they abused girls is not debatable. Perhaps you wish that it were not so, but your wishes don't determine reality.

Interesting that the homosexual lobby - and that includes the two AAAC members that are quick to use slurs - label an accurate description as "homophobic." Sorry, I don't have any animus toward homosexuals, only toward the loathesome PC police, and people who distort reality for the purposes of furthering a political agenda.


----------



## Tiger

Lucido said:


> Situation can definitely change sexual behaviour. The phenomenon of otherwise heterosexual incarcerated men having sex with other men for the lack of female partners is well documented.
> 
> I have no doubt that forcing priests to adhere to a lifetime of celibacy and repressed sexuality leads to devastating consequences that would not occur otherwise. I can't see the Catholic church ever removing the ban but with any luck the entire institution will be consigned to the rubbish heap of history within a generation or too.


Members of the clergy are not incarcerated; if they are willing to violate church law and their vows in order to sexually abuse boys, they certainly could have chosen to have consexual sex with an adult. That they did not gets to the root of the problem...

I am not Catholic, but it is interesting how the person so quick to label me "homophobic" has just launched an attack against the entire Catholic Church. How would it sound if someone wrote that, "With any luck the entire homosexual lobby/movement will be consigned to the rubbish heap of history..."?

The hypocrisy is stunning...


----------



## Tiger

eagle2250 said:


> I don't think celibacy is the catalyst for such aberrant behavior. Virtually all of us endure periods of incidental celibacy throughout our lives and yet most never resort to the types of behaviors so rightfully condemned herein. Also the incidence of such behaviors are not restricted to the Catholic church. Frankly I think such criminal actions have been reported involving ordained members of most protestant sects and other religions as well. The real issue is that people enjoying a disparate balance of power in relationships with others, frequently exercise such power imbalances is less than acceptable and frequently criminal ways. Just my opinion!


Much common sense here, Eagle. Thank you!


----------



## Mike Petrik

Lucido said:


> I can't see the Catholic church ever removing the ban but with any luck the entire institution will be consigned to the rubbish heap of history within a generation or too.


I appreciate the fact that you are willing to expose your bigotry for the world to see.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Mike Petrik said:


> I appreciate the fact that you are willing to expose your bigotry for the world to see.


Oh, Shaver, where art thou in our hour of need?

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Mike Petrik

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Oh, Shaver, where art thou in our hour of need?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


I would be reluctant to make assumptions about Shaver's view if I were you.


----------



## 16412

Some of the terminology varies from country to country at various degrees. Not to mention family to family.

Many scientists today say what you are is not your choice. That is only a theroy and shouldn't be taken seriously. New test, New thoughts can change all of this quickly.

Stumbling blocks should be removed.

Like to hear Shavers view points.


----------



## Odradek

Are they going to tear down Abraham Lincoln next ?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Mike Petrik said:


> I would be reluctant to make assumptions about Shaver's view if I were you.


One might be....

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Mike Petrik

Lucido said:


> There's nothing bigoted about looking forward to the inevitable demise of a toxic, parasitic organisation that has abused generation after generation of children. I have nothing against individual Muslims or their faith, delusional as it may be - it's Islam itself that I wish to see removed from the fabric of our society.


The assertion above, as altered, would result result in a warning or even suspension by the mods.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Lucido said:


> Then I suggest that you don't alter my posts.
> 
> I'm not calling for removal of Catholicism, Islam or any of the world's religions from society. People have the unalienable right to believe in their fairy tale of choice.
> 
> It the the institutions themselves and the lack of church/state separation that I take issue with - the Catholic church's control over schools and hospitals and the stranglehold that Islamic theocracies have over many governments in the Middle East and elsewhere.


The Catholic Church has every right to control the schools and hospitals that it establishes. Go fund and establish your own.


----------



## FLMike

Lucido said:


> No, it does not. We cannot allow state sanctioned religious indoctrination of children that are too young to differentiate between medieval superstition and reality.


"Delusional", fairy tale", "medieval superstition"

Yes, it's clear that you are very respectful of others' religious beliefs (not!). It's one thing to make it known that you don't share certain beliefs, but to go out of your way...three times now on one page of posts....to condescendingly disparage those beliefs shows a striking lack of class, in my opinion.


----------



## SG_67

Lucido said:


> No, it does not. We cannot allow state sanctioned religious indoctrination of children that are too young to differentiate between medieval superstition and reality.


Actually they do. They are private organizations and though there are laws governing baseline services, the rest is up to them.

The state does not sanction, operate or in any other way influence them. People have a choice to send their children to parochial schools. By the way, it's clear you don't have much of a grasp of catholic education, as least in this country. There is very little indoctrination taking place.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

SG_67 said:


> Actually they do. They are private organizations and though there are laws governing baseline services, the rest is up to them.
> 
> The state does not sanction, operate or in any other way influence them. People have a choice to send their children to parochial schools. By the way, it's clear you don't have much of a grasp of catholic education, as least in this country. There is very little indoctrination taking place.


When I lived in coastal Georgia, the best primary school in the city was a parochial school. No indoctrination took place, except in the maintenance of discipline and the expectation of high performance. Only one nun remained as a teacher and she was in her 80s.

My kids are not Catholic, and we paid a higher tuition rate for being protestant, but the education was the very best available in the area. My son won the spelling bee for the Diocese of Savannah the last year we lived there, quite a coup for little St. Francis Xavier of Brunswick, GA facing off against the big Savannah powerhouses.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> When I lived in coastal Georgia, the best primary school in the city was a parochial school. No indoctrination took place, except in the maintenance of discipline and the expectation of high performance. Only one nun remained as a teacher and she was in her 80s.
> 
> My kids are not Catholic, and we paid a higher tuition rate for being protestant, but the education was the very best available in the area. My son won the spelling bee for the Diocese of Savannah the last year we lived there, quite a coup for little St. Francis Xavier of Brunswick, GA facing off against the big Savannah powerhouses.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Most catholic schools and even universities have long ago moved away from the clergy teaching to civilian faculty. While the administration is certainly catholic (mostly) the teaching is done by regular people.

By the way, it's not uncommon of catholic schools to raise the ire of the most fundamentalists with some of their policies. 
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...gender-dorms-are-good-for-the-catholic-church


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> Most catholic schools and even universities have long ago moved away from the clergy teaching to civilian faculty. While the administration is certainly catholic (mostly) the teaching is done by regular people.
> 
> By the way, it's not uncommon of catholic schools to raise the ire of the most fundamentalists with some of their policies.
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...gender-dorms-are-good-for-the-catholic-church


They raise the ire of many practicing Catholics to boot. Catholic schools that fail at catechesis fail at their primary mission. 
And for the record the most common reason non-Catholics are charged a premium is that the school receives a subsidy from its diocese from funds donated by the Catholic community.


----------



## SG_67

Mike Petrik said:


> They raise the ire of many practicing Catholics to boot. Catholic schools that fail at catechesis fail at their primary mission.
> And for the record the most common reason non-Catholics are charged a premium is that the school receives a subsidy from its diocese from funds donated by the Catholic community.


I agree wholeheartedly. I sort of get it from the standpoint of the school. They have to be able to stay open and as demographics change, the potential base for students does as well.

Last year, Queen of Peace high school, a south side all girls HS which had been a staple on the south side closed its doors. Enrollment was way down and only a fraction of the students were actually paying regular tuition. The rest were on "scholarship" which is a euphemism for a free ride.

Of course those schools that cater to a wealthier population, St. Ignatius or Loyola Academy for example are faring quite well.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> I agree wholeheartedly. I sort of get it from the standpoint of the school. They have to be able to stay open and as demographics change, the potential base for students does as well.
> 
> Last year, Queen of Peace high school, a south side all girls HS which had been a staple on the south side closed its doors. Enrollment was way down and only a fraction of the students were actually paying regular tuition. The rest were on "scholarship" which is a euphemism for a free ride.
> 
> Of course those schools that cater to a wealthier population, St. Ignatius or Loyola Academy for example are faring quite well.


Yes, the south side Catholic schools are challenged, chiefly for the reason you suggest, but also because the sheer number of them causes market cannibalization. Where I grew up I could bike to St. Laurence (Queen of Peace's brother school) or walk to either Brother Rice or Marist. I actually served on the Rice board for many years, finally retiring a few years ago.


----------



## vpkozel

Lucido said:


> There's nothing bigoted about looking forward to the inevitable demise of a toxic, parasitic organisation that has abused generation after generation of children. I have nothing against individual Catholics or their faith, delusional as it may be - it's the institution itself that I wish to see removed from the fabric of our society.


It really isn't even a close argument that Christianity has brought more aid and peace than any entity in history, so I suggest you rethink your lopsided approach to include that. Hospitals, orphanages, schools, etc. and that does not even bring in the amazing advances in science and architecture that were a direct result of church building.


----------



## SG_67

vpkozel said:


> It really isn't even a close argument that Christianity has brought more aid and peace than any entity in history, so I suggest you rethink your lopsided approach to include that. Hospitals, orphanages, schools, etc. and that does not even bring in the amazing advances in science and architecture that were a direct result of church building.


 Not to mention the role monasteries and the church played in keeping alive Ancient Greek teaching and texts from which the Renaissance was issued.

How many times does Aquinas reference "the philosopher" (Aristotle).


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Mike Petrik said:


> They raise the ire of many practicing Catholics to boot. Catholic schools that fail at catechesis fail at their primary mission.
> And for the record the most common reason non-Catholics are charged a premium is that the school receives a subsidy from its diocese from funds donated by the Catholic community.


It was still a bargain at $10,000 per year for two children.

I always got a chuckle each morn watching the mom in a Jag dropping her kids off at the failing public school down the block.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Clintotron

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> It was still a bargain at $10,000 per year for two children.
> 
> I always got a chuckle each morn watching the mom in a Jag dropping her kids off each morning at the failing public school down the block.
> 
> Cheers,


That is QUITE a deal. It was $25,000 for my three to go to private school after a 50% discount. The oldest is 8, the youngest is 3 1/2.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## derum

vpkozel said:


> It really isn't even a close argument that Christianity has brought more aid and peace than any entity in history, so I suggest you rethink your lopsided approach to include that. Hospitals, orphanages, schools, etc. and that does not even bring in the amazing advances in science and architecture that were a direct result of church building.


To be fair, he wasn't criticising the whole of Christianity. 
Religious arguments are futile, I've never heard anyone say "Your argument seems valid and I will now dispense with my previous belief system and take on yours." 
Each to their own.

My favorite quote about religion is this:
"There has been more bloodshed in the name of God than for any other cause. And it is all because people never attempt to reach the fountainhead. They are content only to comply with the customs of their forefathers and instructions in some books, and want others to do the same. But, to explain God after merely reading the scriptures is like explaining the city of New York after seeing it only on a map."


----------



## Mike Petrik

derum said:


> To be fair, he wasn't criticising the whole of Christianity.
> Religious arguments are futile, I've never heard anyone say "Your argument seems valid and I will now dispense with my previous belief system and take on yours."
> Each to their own.
> 
> My favorite quote about religion is this:
> "There has been more bloodshed in the name of God than for any other cause. And it is all because people never attempt to reach the fountainhead. They are content only to comply with the customs of their forefathers and instructions in some books, and want others to do the same. But, to explain God after merely reading the scriptures is like explaining the city of New York after seeing it only on a map."


It is an interesting quote I suppose, but demonstrably untrue.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Clintotron said:


> That is QUITE a deal. It was $25,000 for my three to go to private school after a 50% discount. The oldest is 8, the youngest is 3 1/2.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Although there are exceptions, Catholic schools try hard to keep tuition as low as possible in order to price out as few families as possible. I recently retired as board chair of an Atlanta Catholic high school. The current tuition is $12,700. Our facilities are good but not comparable to so-called elite private high schools (most of which are more than twice as expensive) or taxpayer-supported suburban high schools. But our outcomes are comparable to the former and easily exceed the latter.


----------



## derum

Mike Petrik said:


> It is an interesting quote I suppose, but demonstrably untrue.


I'm intrigued, please feel free to demonstrate.


----------



## Mike Petrik

derum said:


> I'm intrigued, please feel free to demonstrate.


This took less than five minutes:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/is-religion-the-cause-of-_b_1400766.html

https://www.str.org/blog/is-religion-the-cause-of-most-wars#.W5gShFVKiUk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

https://carm.org/religion-cause-war

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...the-most-number-of-wars-murders-and-massacres


----------



## Gurdon

Arguments about religion are rarely productive. But, if people wish to have them, that's ok, so long as the discussion is civil. This one is interesting on several counts.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## derum

Mike Petrik said:


> This took less than five minutes:
> 
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/is-religion-the-cause-of-_b_1400766.html
> 
> https://www.str.org/blog/is-religion-the-cause-of-most-wars#.W5gShFVKiUk
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war
> 
> https://carm.org/religion-cause-war
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...the-most-number-of-wars-murders-and-massacres


No argument with any of that, but the quote was "bloodshed in the name of god" not religious wars.
There is a substantial difference.


----------



## Mike Petrik

derum said:


> No argument with any of that, but the quote was "bloodshed in the name of god" not religious wars.
> There is a substantial difference.


Some of those citations do address violence more generally, but nonetheless it is now your turn to explain how this "substantial difference" operates to support the claim that "there has been more bloodshed in the name of God than for any other cause."


----------



## derum

Mike Petrik said:


> Some of those citations did address violence more generally, but nonetheless it now your turn to explain how this "substantial difference" operates to support the claim that "there has been more bloodshed in the name of God than for any other cause."


We have to look at the phrase "in the name of God". Many wars, which had nothing to do with religion, were proclaimed in the name of god, as this provides justification to the aggressor, and often a promise of martyrdom. Crusades were dressed as a holy war, but we know that they weren't. Islam fought the crusaders under the name of their god, but their motives were not religious. Christian expansion into the Americas and Asia was done under the cloak of Gods name, but was primarily commercial. We have to exclude Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, as they did not try to justify their atrocities in the name of any God. The real causes of most wars have been nationalism or greed, but unfortunately men have often justified this by stating that they have god on their side. As I said, the name of God has been used to justify and motivate bloodshed since the dawn of mankind by all faiths, creeds and religions, but as you correctly point out, Purely religious wars do not make up a major percentage of historical conflicts. But "in the name of God" has been uttered constantly.


----------



## FLMike

I agree with those here who have wisely suggested that religious arguments are futile. But, when one goes out of their way, in three consecutive posts, to refer to (in this case) Catholic/Christian religious beliefs as “delusional”, fairy tale”, and “medieval superstition”, they are clearly belittling those millions of people worldwide for whom those beliefs are central to their existence. That blatant disrespect for others’ religious beliefs is disgusting, in my opinion, and I’d be interested to hear Lucido’s justification for said disrespect, should he have any.


----------



## drlivingston

Lucido said:


> You know, I get that the Interchange often functions like a right-wing echo chamber. It's the stinkers like the racist tripe above that really leave me shaking my head.


To avoid ruffling your delicate tail feathers, I deleted my post.


----------



## smmrfld

drlivingston said:


> To avoid ruffling your delicate tail feathers, I deleted my post.


Yet as you can see above, posts never really go away forever. Wow...that has to be one if the most vile things to appear on this site in a while.


----------



## SG_67

Lucido said:


> You know, I get that the Interchange often functions like a right-wing echo chamber. It's the stinkers like the racist tripe above that really leave me shaking my head.


Sorry...I need to call BS on this.

Not knowing the exact circumstances, I'll assume at face value the proposition as outlined by DrL.

How is it racist exactly? People send their kids to parochial schools for many reasons. Sometimes, it's quite simply the best education in the area.

Let's say he didn't use the term Hispanic. Let's say he said German. Yet still, they were handicapped in the same way, both financially and in terms of basic academic skills. As a result, the students are subsidized which in a private school means that the students paying full fare are part of that subsidy, and the students need to catch up.

How exactly is it racist to point this out and voice concern for your own child's education?

If you really want to see racism, go to Mexico or other Latin American countries and see how the indigenous people are treated compared to those who can trace their heritage back to European stock. See how skin tone and eye color affect ones prospects in those countries.


----------



## vpkozel

Lucido said:


> Let me clear - I feel the same way about all religious faiths. I'm not out to specifically lampoon Christianity.
> 
> Stop for a moment and consider the absurdity of a fully grown, educated adult that believes in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and Russell's tea-pot orbiting around the sun.
> 
> That's how I feel about religious belief.
> 
> The largest issue I see is the insidious effect that religion has on society. Children attending religious schools are indoctrinated in religious faith from an early age. It affects how people vote, how they think and how they treat others. It affects government policy. In some parts of the world it leads to homosexuals being thrown from roof tops and the public lapidation of women suspected of adultery. It leads to the crusading pro-life brigade and their never-ending war to roll back basic reproductive rights. It leads to the spread of HIV/AIDs across the African continent as religious leaders refuse to acknowledge basic common sense and sanction the use of condoms.
> 
> Essentially I see religion as an malevolent and regressive force within society and look forward to the day when our grandchildren look back and shake their heads in wonder at the idea that we used to believe in an omnipotent man in the sky.


So, basically what you arr saying is that you are SO offended and outraged that it trumps everyone who does believe in a God. Good to know.

And you say it is a malevolent force, but refuse to address that it has historically done more for its fellow humans than any other human endeavor.


----------



## derum

SG_67 said:


> Sorry...I need to call BS on this.
> 
> If you really want to see racism, go to Mexico or other Latin American countries and see how the indigenous people are treated compared to those who can trace their heritage back to European stock. See how skin tone and eye color affect ones prospects in those countries.


Why go so far? Just look on any reservation. 
Skin tone affects people's prospects here too, unfortunately.


----------



## SG_67

derum said:


> Why go so far? Just look on any reservation.
> Skin tone affects people's prospects here too, unfortunately.


Yes of course. Let's all pack up and move to Brazil.

Instead of calling people racist or labeling their arguments as racist, why not try putting forth a counter argument? It's because you cannot and it's much easier and I'm sure satisfying to do the former.


----------



## derum

vpkozel said:


> So, basically what you arr saying is that you are SO offended and outraged that it trumps everyone who does believe in a God. Good to know.
> 
> And you say it is a malevolent force, but refuse to address that it has historically done more for its fellow humans than any other human endeavor.


The Roman Catholic Church has, as an institution, been a greater force for good than any other entity. Unfortunately the people within that institution have often destroyed that perception.


----------



## derum

SG_67 said:


> Yes of course. Let's all pack up and move to Brazil.
> 
> Instead of calling people racist or labeling their arguments as racist, why not try putting forth a counter argument? It's because you cannot and it's much easier and I'm sure satisfying to do the former.


What an odd response.
I clearly wasn't calling anyone a racist nor labelling anyone's arguments as such, just pointing out that racism exists here too. It exists everywhere, even Brasil.


----------



## vpkozel

derum said:


> The Roman Catholic Church has, as an institution, been a greater force for good than any other entity. Unfortunately the people within that institution have often destroyed that perception.


Oh, I could not agree more, but it is not limited to the Catholic church doing good. For instance evangelicals have done more to combat aids, the sex trade, etc than just about any government.

Back to the RCC. It is run by humans of course and we are all fallible. And as an Episcopalian, I definitely do not agree with some of it's tenets. Bit to say it is historically evil or without merit is so false as to be laughable and only serves to expose your bias and invalidate any points you might be trying to make. Not you, but Lucido in this case.


----------



## derum

I can not speak for Lucido, but I can defend his right to say how he feels, as everyone else on this forum has the same right. 
As I stated in post #429: 
R_eligious arguments are futile, I've never heard anyone say "Your argument seems valid and I will now dispense with my previous belief system and take on yours." 
_
Members of this forum can't agree on the best shoe, never mind religion.

Everyones view on religion is very much determined by environment, experience and choice. _Each to their own.

_
(Apologies for reposting bits of my own post).


----------



## SG_67

derum said:


> What an odd response.
> I clearly wasn't calling anyone a racist nor labelling anyone's arguments as such, just pointing out that racism exists here too. It exists everywhere, even Brasil.


My apologies. I mistook you for someone else.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Lucido said:


> Let me clear - I feel the same way about all religious faiths. I'm not out to specifically lampoon Christianity.
> 
> Stop for a moment and consider the absurdity of a fully grown, educated adult that believes in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and Russell's tea-pot orbiting around the sun.
> 
> That's how I feel about religious belief.
> 
> The largest issue I see is the insidious effect that religion has on society. Children attending religious schools are indoctrinated in religious faith from an early age. It affects how people vote, how they think and how they treat others. It affects government policy. In some parts of the world it leads to homosexuals being thrown from roof tops and the public lapidation of women suspected of adultery. It leads to the crusading pro-life brigade and their never-ending war to roll back basic reproductive rights. It leads to the spread of HIV/AIDs across the African continent as religious leaders refuse to acknowledge basic common sense and sanction the use of condoms.
> 
> Essentially I see religion as an malevolent and regressive force within society and look forward to the day when our grandchildren look back and shake their heads in wonder at the idea that we used to believe in an omnipotent man in the sky.


In America, religious indoctrination, is not always the case since our state has a codified gap between church and state. This makes many religious institutions wary about crossing the line between free will and coercion.

Just my experience.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## jts287

Well, I haven't been around this topic in awhile, let's see where it...

Sweet merciful crap


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

derum said:


> I can not speak for Lucido, but I can defend his right to say how he feels, as everyone else on this forum has the same right.
> As I stated in post #429:
> R_eligious arguments are futile, I've never heard anyone say "Your argument seems valid and I will now dispense with my previous belief system and take on yours."
> _
> Members of this forum can't agree on the best shoe, never mind religion.
> 
> Everyones view on religion is very much determined by environment, experience and choice. _Each to their own.
> 
> _
> (Apologies for reposting bits of my own post).


Frankly, I believe religion is mostly bogus and an attempt by man to quantify the unknown. I act as if God exists, and my Masonic brotherhood requires a belief in a divine being of some sort. I can live with that.

My own faith tradition is Southern Baptist and I adhere to their practice because it is me and I am it, but I have a brain and I know that the world is over 5000 years old, and that the Bible is not the unerring word of God and that Revelation is a bit of ridiculous tripe. Exploring faith with a skeptical and critical mind is a great journey with many rewards.

I don't require an afterlife to entice me to be moral and decent. I hope there is something after, but I clearly won't be disappointed if there isn't.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Mike Petrik

derum said:


> We have to look at the phrase "in the name of God". Many wars, which had nothing to do with religion, were proclaimed in the name of god, as this provides justification to the aggressor, and often a promise of martyrdom. Crusades were dressed as a holy war, but we know that they weren't. Islam fought the crusaders under the name of their god, but their motives were not religious. Christian expansion into the Americas and Asia was done under the cloak of Gods name, but was primarily commercial. We have to exclude Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, as they did not try to justify their atrocities in the name of any God. The real causes of most wars have been nationalism or greed, but unfortunately men have often justified this by stating that they have god on their side. As I said, the name of God has been used to justify and motivate bloodshed since the dawn of mankind by all faiths, creeds and religions, but as you correctly point out, Purely religious wars do not make up a major percentage of historical conflicts. But "in the name of God" has been uttered constantly.


Your understanding of history is a hodgepodge of unfortunate popular misconceptions: 
Re the Crusades for instance here are two good portals from which to actually start learning:

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/06/inventing-the-crusades

https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/282


----------



## derum

Mike Petrik said:


> Your understanding of history is a hodgepodge of unfortunate popular misconceptions:
> Re the Crusades for instance here are two good portals from which to actually start learning:
> 
> https://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/06/inventing-the-crusades
> 
> https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/282


Your condescencion demonstrates your binary unconcious information processing.

I was taught extensively about the crusades and have studied many writings, including those you quote. What do you think makes them more accurate than others which take a different viewpoint? 
What gives you the right to criticise my understanding of history? You base yours on those works which tie in with your beliefs. I could post many links to works which take a differing stance to those you posted, also written by eminent historians and scholars.

Did God speak to the crusaders personally or were they carried out in his name?


----------



## 16412

This reporter. Don't remember his name. His parents were atheist. Obviously he would have been brought up to be another atheist. And they sent him to RC school. He became a very liberal reporter for one of the big three. Later he became a Christian, probably Baptist.


----------



## drlivingston

smmrfld said:


> Yet as you can see above, posts never really go away forever. Wow...that has to be one if the most vile things to appear on this site in a while.


"...most vile things to appear on this site in a while." I have great respect for you, smmrfld. But, you have got to be kidding? I have read FAR more inflammatory posts. Here are the facts. We had a school in our diocese that recently closed due to lack of funding and low test scores. Those students were funneled into other schools. Because our school offered a very enticing tuition break, we received more than most. Consequently, ALL grades have reported lower scores on recent progress reports. Coincidence?


----------



## 16412

Many things have been hijacked. Church's, science, governments, to name a few with people who intend to and do ill to the rest of us. Greed has been a problem for thousands of years. Greed has never stops showing its ugly head. A fix today does not prevent it from showing up tomorrow in another way. Greed is often disguised as something good until it is hard to stop.


----------



## smmrfld

drlivingston said:


> "...most vile things to appear on this site in a while." I have great respect for you, smmrfld. But, you have got to be kidding? I have read FAR more inflammatory posts. Here are the facts. We had a school in our diocese that recently closed due to lack of funding and low test scores. Those students were funneled into other schools. Because our school offered a very enticing tuition break, we received more than most. Consequently, ALL grades have reported lower scores on recent progress reports. Coincidence?


Appreciate the clarification...I do believe, though, that you could have made your post without reference to a specific demographic. Perhaps your school can help bring these students up to where the existing students are re test scores while embracing a more diverse student body? Then it's a win-win.


----------



## Mike Petrik

smmrfld said:


> Appreciate the clarification...I do believe, though, that you could have made your post without reference to a specific demographic. Perhaps your school can help bring these students up to where the existing students are re test scores while embracing a more diverse student body? Then it's a win-win.


I agree, at least for the most part.

First, one must be careful to avoid confusing (i) the effect an introduction of challenged students might have on a school's average outcomes (e.g., test scores) with (ii) the effect such an introduction might have on a the legacy students themselves. Logically, a parent should care about the second, of course, but not the first. If average outcomes degrade but not at the expense of the legacy students, then the prospect of a win-win remains as long as the new students are benefiting from their new school -- and everyone's experience with diversity should be happy icing on the cake.

The biggest risk is usually curriculum degradation due to the need to teach a cohort of students who are behind their legacy cohort. This often can be addressed by appropriate course management, but not always. The idea that this should never be a concern because the new students will always catch up to their legacy counterparts and competently manage their new course load is naive. Demographics are reasonably predictive of outcomes precisely because family life is the most important factor in education outcomes. Teachers are second. As important as they are -- and they are far more important than the quality of facilities and technology, or even teacher-student rations -- teachers cannot be expected to produce equal outcomes between two very different cohorts of students.


----------



## drlivingston

smmrfld said:


> Appreciate the clarification...I do believe, though, that you could have made your post without reference to a specific demographic. Perhaps your school can help bring these students up to where the existing students are re test scores while embracing a more diverse student body? Then it's a win-win.


In that respect, we are in complete agreement. I should not have mentioned any ethnic group. I'll stick to the thrift store brag thread.


----------



## Odradek

The US circling the drain still.
When does someone stand up and shop "STOP" ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44604844


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

I have a fantasy. One day, scientists will be able to translate the thoughts of all the cuddly wild mammals on land and in sea and find that they are incredibly bigoted. 

Whales being the absolute worst offenders of course. 

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> I have a fantasy. One day, scientists will be able to translate the thoughts of all the cuddly wild mammals on land and in sea and find that they are incredibly bigoted.
> 
> Whales being the absolute worst offenders of course.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


and why Great "WHITE" shark?


----------



## cmoore

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> I have a fantasy. One day, scientists will be able to translate the thoughts of all the cuddly wild mammals on land and in sea and find that they are incredibly bigoted.
> 
> Whales being the absolute worst offenders of course.


Have you ever read Christopher Moore?

Comic novelist. He had a book called "Fluke" which explained that all killer whales were named Kevin and were the most obnoxious of bullies. It was rather an inspired passage for such a weird scene that I won't spoil by trying to recount it. But I think you and the author might be of the same mind here.


----------



## Big T

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Frankly, I believe religion is mostly bogus and an attempt by man to quantify the unknown. I act as if God exists, and my Masonic brotherhood requires a belief in a divine being of some sort. I can live with that.
> 
> My own faith tradition is Southern Baptist and I adhere to their practice because it is me and I am it, but I have a brain and I know that the world is over 5000 years old, and that the Bible is not the unerring word of God and that Revelation is a bit of ridiculous tripe. Exploring faith with a skeptical and critical mind is a great journey with many rewards.
> 
> I don't require an afterlife to entice me to be moral and decent. I hope there is something after, but I clearly won't be disappointed if there isn't.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


As a Mason, I find my Catholic faith disapproves of our brotherhood, but I believe both should embrace one another. Morality and demonstrated compassion for each other should be the core of our existence.

To the OP's original premise of this thread, I am a student of the American Civil War and have visited, since 1963, virtually all battlefields (some dozens of times) east of the Mississippi, plus many non-fighting sites. In a historical sense, I respect what has been placed before me for interpretation of that time. HOWEVER, that is history and give me history as pure as the original hand that wrote it, as each version changes to theviews of the author. Even the original records were tainted, so how are we to believe opinions written a hundred years later?

In NW Penna., at my manufacturing plant, do not apply for a job with any sign of rascism on your person or vehicle. If hired, do not fail to treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. I was raised that way, as were my daughters, but we're still generations away from the ideals espoused by many of our founding fathers.

As for General Lee, from a military view, give me a Nathan Bedford Forrest or a James Longstreet any day.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Big T said:


> As a Mason, I find my Catholic faith disapproves of our brotherhood, but I believe both should embrace one another. Morality and demonstrated compassion for each other should be the core of our existence.
> 
> Agreed and your comment is appreciated. Occasionally, I look back one of my prior posts and see that I was in a different state of mind, or belief, than I currently inhabit.
> 
> Over the past two years, I have been all over the map in my own faith journey. We are all fellow travelers on life's road. I have had several "Road to Damascus" moments over the past year which has recalibrated my spiritual compass and repositioned it toward He which never left me while I wandered around rather lost and confused.
> 
> Embracing joy and being of kind heart is a conscious mindset. The frustrations and aggravations of today's political and social climate can be challenging to maintaining a happy heart, but as Jules said in Pulp Fiction...."I'm tryin' real hard!"
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR
> 
> To the OP's original premise of this thread, I am a student of the American Civil War and have visited, since 1963, virtually all battlefields (some dozens of times) east of the Mississippi, plus many non-fighting sites. In a historical sense, I respect what has been placed before me for interpretation of that time. HOWEVER, that is history and give me history as pure as the original hand that wrote it, as each version changes to theviews of the author. Even the original records were tainted, so how are we to believe opinions written a hundred years later?
> 
> In NW Penna., at my manufacturing plant, do not apply for a job with any sign of rascism on your person or vehicle. If hired, do not fail to treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. I was raised that way, as were my daughters, but we're still generations away from the ideals espoused by many of our founding fathers.
> 
> As for General Lee, from a military view, give me a Nathan Bedford Forrest or a James Longstreet any day.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Big T said:


> As a Mason, I find my Catholic faith disapproves of our brotherhood, but I believe both should embrace one another. Morality and demonstrated compassion for each other should be the core of our existence.


Mason teaching and Catholic teaching do indeed have much in common, particularly in regard to certain fundamental moral principles. The problem is that there are certain important incompatibilities as well. Without getting into the weeds the reason these incompatibilities are not recognized by Catholics who are Masons is that few Catholics actually understand Church teaching with much depth just as few Masons actually deeply understand Masonic teachings. Most people are not interested enough to think that hard and are therefore blissfully innocent of the theological/philosophical dissonance between the two.


----------



## Big T

Mike Petrik said:


> Mason teaching and Catholic teaching do indeed have much in common. The problem is that there are certain incompatibilities as well. Without getting into the weeds the reason these incompatibilities are not recognized by Catholics who are Masons is that few Catholics actually understand Church teaching just as few Masons actually understand Masonic teachings. Most people just don't think that hard and are therefore blissfully unaware of the teaching dissonance between the two.


But it is up to the individual to accept which principles are followed, correct? I'm not one for group think, or the notion, for example, that just because I'm a republican (a small "r" republican) that I accept as gospel, everything put forth by that political party.

Of course, come around me, waving the confederate battle flag, and I will categorize you as racist!


----------



## Mike Petrik

Big T said:


> But it is up to the individual to accept which principles are followed, correct? I'm not one for group think, or the notion, for example, that just because I'm a republican (a small "r" republican) that I accept as gospel, everything put forth by that political party.
> 
> Of course, come around me, waving the confederate battle flag, and I will categorize you as racist!


I cannot speak for Freemasonry, but the Catholic faith not work that way. While Catholics are free to disagree about all prudential matters (which are indeed most matters), matters of dogma are not optional, and there are indeed principles of Freemasonry incompatible with Catholic dogma. Whether a Catholic can simply opt to reject those particular Freemasonry principles and still be a Mason in good standing (or a Catholic in proper communion) I cannot say, but in any case political parties are not analogous since they require no confessions of faith of any sort.


----------



## Shaver

Big T said:


> But it is up to the individual to accept which principles are followed, correct? I'm not one for group think, or the notion, for example, that just because I'm a republican (a small "r" republican) that I accept as gospel, everything put forth by that political party.
> *
> Of course, come around me, waving the confederate battle flag, and I will categorize you as racist!*


Really? That seems a trifle excessive.

Would you consider this conclusion to be informed by a luxury belief or conspicuous compassion?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

An interesting discussion and one I have been studying for some years. 

Freemasonry is the largest fraternal organization in the world, and its “belief system” is diverse.

The only requirements for Masonic lodge membership are that a man believe in a supreme being, be of legal age (18 or 21 depending on the jurisdiction), be freeborn, of good character, not physically impaired as to be a burden to the brotherhood from the outset, and come to the craft of their own free will with no ulterior motives. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and many more, are all welcome. 

Once a member, discussions of politics or religion within the lodge are expressly forbidden as they can potentially disrupt the brotherhood and are a not a focus of Masonic practice. The dominant faith core of each lodge tends to be influenced by geography and the local cultural norm more than anything else. 

As far as Masonry and it’s incompatibility with Catholicism, much of the schism has political overtones going back to the Protestant reformation and animosity of Catholic imperial monarchies and the Papacy toward Protestantism and Freemasonry and other secret societies as threatening to the social order. If one believes that modern Freemasonry springs from the Templar Knights, a Catholic military-banking institution that was eventually recognized as heretics and constituting a fundamental threat to the Church, with its Grand Master De Molay burned at the stake in Paris, one can see why there might be lingering discomfort between these two ancient institutions. 

There is a very deep Judeo-Christian theme in Masonry, and especially in the appendant orders, but Masonic lodges around the globe have members from all monotheistic faith groups as well as from some faiths that are clearly pan theistic. Having a faith is the determinant, and not what faith. 

This wide faith net is not compatible with “traditional” one God in three Persons Christian theology and casts Masonry in a suspicious light when viewed by more conservative Christian faith groups. 

A very interesting topic and one that many people much more intelligent than me have dedicated their entire academic lives studying.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Mike Petrik

Excellent post as always, BSR. Wiki confirms much of your post and adds clarity regarding contemporary objections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_ban_of_Freemasonry
As for a wide faith tent, the Church embraces ecumenecism but rejects religious indifference. An organization that embraces members of varying faiths is considered perfectly acceptable whereas an organization that teaches the equal validity of all faiths is not. Among other objections, the Church apparently believes -- rightly or wrongly -- that Freemasonry's tenets rest too close to the latter.


----------



## Big T

Shaver said:


> Really? That seems a trifle excessive.
> 
> Would you consider this conclusion to be informed by a luxury belief or conspicuous compassion?


My prerogative as either the goomer waving it, does not know its meaning, or he/she does!


----------



## Peak and Pine

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> A very interesting topic and one that many people much more intelligent than me have dedicated their entire academic lives studying.


Must have time on their hands. You wear a fez and you drive tiny cars in small town parades. What more is there to know, or am I confusing this with something else?


----------



## Tiger

Big T said:


> My prerogative as either the goomer waving it, does not know its meaning, or he/she does!


May I ask, what do *you* think is the meaning of the Confederate flag? Is it also possible that someone else may have a different meaning in mind than you?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Peak and Pine said:


> Must have time on their hands. You wear a fez and you drive tiny cars in small town parades. What more is there to know, or am I confusing this with something else?


 Freemasonry, like many fraternal organizations, has a rich and complex history that includes a robust and laudable tradition of charity. It differs from other fraternal organizations in its development of an unusually sophisticated belief system, a result of which is an historic tension with Catholicism, a community of faith also known for its unusually sophisticated belief system. So yes, it is much more than parades and fezzes.


----------



## Shaver

Big T said:


> My prerogative as either the goomer waving it, does not know its meaning, or he/she does!


I see.

Your right is one which you imagine grants you the authority to ascribe single and absolute meaning to an object.

Such power.

Mercifully it is wielded by the righteous, eh?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Peak and Pine said:


> Must have time on their hands. You wear a fez and you drive tiny cars in small town parades. What more is there to know, or am I confusing this with something else?


You are confused.

That would be Shriners you are referring to, a very successful charitable organization that has associations with freemasonry. Their most well know charity is assistance to burned children and their families. However, most Masons are not members of the Shrine.

I am a member of the Commandry, a different appendant body based on the Knight Templar tradition. The Scottish Rite is another.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Big T

Tiger said:


> May I ask, what do *you* think is the meaning of the Confederate flag? Is it also possible that someone else may have a different meaning in mind than you?


Depends upon which flag you are referring to! Someone else may definitely have a different meaning in mind, but that meaning does not make it correct. To me, the flag a symbol of anarchism in this nation, with an economic root cause.


----------



## Big T

Shaver said:


> I see.
> 
> Your right is one which you imagine grants you the authority to ascribe single and absolute meaning to an object.
> 
> Such power.
> 
> Mercifully it is wielded by the righteous, eh?


Most obviously!


----------



## Tiger

Big T said:


> Depends upon which flag you are referring to! Someone else may definitely have a different meaning in mind, but that meaning does not make it correct. To me, the flag a symbol of anarchism in this nation, with an economic root cause.


Anarchism? In what way? Did the Confederacy violate the Constitution? Were any actions by the Union anarchistic?


----------



## Peak and Pine

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> You are confused.
> 
> That would be Shriners you are referring to, a very successful charitable organization that has associations with freemasonry. Their most well know charity is assistance to burned children and their families. However, most Masons are not members of the Shrine.
> 
> I am a member of the Commandry, a different appendant body based on the Knight Templar tradition. The Scottish Rite is another.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR





Mike Petrik said:


> Freemasonry, like many fraternal organizations, has a rich and complex history that includes a robust and laudable tradition of charity. It differs from other fraternal organizations in its development of an unusually sophisticated belief system, a result of which is an historic tension with Catholicism, a community of faith also known for its unusually sophisticated belief system. So yes, it is much more than parades and fezzes.


I have no desire to s*** on your parades regarding this voo doo, simply made a remark that, as often happens with Conservatives, leaves you head scratching searching for motive, defense and hidden meaning. It was a ha-ha. I don't use emoticons because they're expensive and are the equivilent of a jab in the ribs while saying, Get it? I like you both and you are instructed to like me in return.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Peak and Pine said:


> I have no desire to s*** on your parades regarding this voo doo, simply made a remark that, as often happens with Conservatives, leaves you head scratching searching for motive, defense and hidden meaning. It was a ha-ha. I don't use emoticons because they're expensive and are the equivilent of a jab in the ribs while saying, Get it? I like you both and you are instructed to like me in return.


Peak, you are way overthinking. I simply responded to your post. Precisely because I never appreciated any hidden meaning -- political or jocular -- I interpreted your post literally and as entirely inoffensive. I don't expect most folks to have an informed understanding of Freemasonry, and simply took an opportunity to be informative -- even if not as informative as BSR.

And I like you as well.


----------



## Shaver

Big T said:


> Most obviously!


Oho! If your claims are indeed most obvious then it ought to be but a simple matter to provide a demonstration of their validity. I invite you to do so.


----------



## Vecchio Vespa

My views on the Stars and Bars are probably not that different from most folk on AAAC, but it doesn’t seem to me that my views are as impactfully important as the views of those who find it a banner of intimidation, often racist and, increasingly often, ideology. If we are to unite around our commonality in this great experiment, it just makes sense for us to put away certain symbols and rhetoric not because of what they mean to us but because others find them inflammatory or intimidating.


----------



## Mike Petrik

TKI67 said:


> My views on the Stars and Bars are probably not that different from most folk on AAAC, but it doesn't seem to me that my views are as impactfully important as the views of those who find it a banner of intimidation, often racist and, increasingly often, ideological. If we are to unite around our commonality in this great experiment, it just makes sense for us to put away certain symbols and rhetoric not because of what they mean to us but because others find them inflammatory or intimidating.


I completely agree, which is why I would never display the old Confederate battle flag (which is not the stars & bars by the way). That said I know people with an historic respect and affection for that flag who are not racists, and who refuse to allow racists to claim ownership of a symbol they cherish. I respect that point of view even if on balance I disagree with it. I certainly have the good sense to know that their decision does not somehow magically render them racists (and I do realize you are not suggesting such a thing).


----------



## Peak and Pine

Mike Petrik said:


> Peak, the inferential liberties you take are cartoonishly irrational.


So where else am I supposed to go with this?
You see a guy at 2 a.m. staggering along the cobblestones in the Old Port district of Portland (Maine) where all the good bars are, and you think to yourself, _a drunk guy. _In truth, he could be disabled and needs a hand. But the circumstances suggest otherwise. Besides, it's a 10 second burp out of a a 24-hour day and you slap a quick lapel on it knowing you're not going to be asked to testify to the veracity of your thinking. The incident on the bridge described above prompts a similar quick conclusion. (Parenthetical exasperation. Jeezus, Mike, this is Maine. I haven't seen a Confederate flag up here since never.)

Quote Reply

Prev 

1
&#8230;
47
48
49


----------



## Mike Petrik

Peak --
Pickup truck + Trump sticker + Confederate flag does not = racist. Even in Maine. More specifically the fact that some racists might favor and display such items does not mean that all or even most people who favor or display such items are racists. One must be careful with such things. I have heard it said that there are people who claim that because young African-American males make up a disproportionate part of the US criminal cohort that it is somehow reasonable to assume that a young African-American male they encounter on the street is a criminal. I'm sure you agree that this would be a dangerous, irrational and unfair assumption, even if the young man is in the very act of committing the heinous (sartorial) felony of wearing his trousers well below his hips.
To be fair, I don't think it is irrational to harbor appropriately modulated suspicions or speculations (as opposed to conclusions or assumptions) based on experience or statistical possibilities, and I imagine that is probably what you really meant to express. You don't strike me as a gent who would want to think badly of anyone without good evidence.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Interesting discussion. I took this photo of a floor tile, which is situated in a cottage on Little St. Simons Island, Ga. The cottage was constructed in the early 20's I would guess.










Nacient Nazis, or a reference to ancient eastern symbology?

The American flag, a symbol of freedom,
or a direct reference to the often brutal imperial commercialism of the East India Company which deserved emulation?










The St. Andrews Cross....this is good...









This one good? If one likes the Russian Navy?










What about this historical flag? Bad?










Do we see through the lens darkly when viewing the recent past?

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Shaver

Peak and Pine said:


> ......*you slap a quick lapel on it knowing you're not going to be asked to testify to the veracity of your thinking*.


Hmmm.

So you concede, then, that you harbour and apply irrational prejudices which are informed by outward appearances?

That sounds a lot like.....


----------



## Big T

Shaver said:


> Oho! If your claims are indeed most obvious then it ought to be but a simple matter to provide a demonstration of their validity. I invite you to do so.


A symbol, used after the fact, by the defeated party, to show allegiance to the former cause.

In the case of the American Civil War, the war at the outset was predicated upon states rights. At the conclusion it was slavery (though it could be argued the argument for states right from the outset, was an economic argument based on the necessity of slavery to preserve the south's agrarian industry), of which the confederate battle flag represented a rallying point.


----------



## Shaver

Big T said:


> A symbol, used after the fact, by the defeated party, to show allegiance to the former cause.
> 
> In the case of the American Civil War, the war at the outset was predicated upon states rights. At the conclusion it was slavery (though it could be argued the argument for states right from the outset, was an economic argument based on the necessity of slavery to preserve the south's agrarian industry), of which the confederate battle flag represented a rallying point.


Even if we were to accept this interpretation how might it prove that every single person who now possesses such a flag is a racist?


----------



## Vecchio Vespa

Mike Petrik said:


> I completely agree, which is why I would never display the old Confederate battle flag (which is not the stars & bars by the way). That said I know people with an historic respect and affection for that flag who are not racists, and who refuse to allow racists to claim ownership of a symbol they cherish. I respect that point of view even if on balance I disagree with it. I certainly have the good sense to know that their decision does not somehow magically render them racists (and I do realize you are not suggesting such a thing).


Sorry, I should have made it more clear. I referred to the stars and bars rather than the battle flag because people who revere it usually IME revere something older and with a deeper meaning than those who sport the battle flag.

I go to a fairly old, for Texas, Episcopal church in Austin, All Saints. We have a large window over our altar, referred to as the All Saints window. Around 1930 a panel depicting Bishop Tuttle, then the Presiding Bishop, and Robert E. Lee, in uniform, was installed in that larger window. After a long and wrenching process that panel was removed, not to deny history or to condemn Robert E. Lee but because in a certain way, common to many Jim Crow era memorials, it was not welcoming to all people. The panel has been replaced by an image of Absalom Jones and Jonathan Daniels. I wonder how long it will take our parish to get over this change which was traumatic to more than a few.

The other night we had dinner with some former parishioners, both very fine lawyers. They made the point that as the law existed at the time of the Civil War the law on allegiance to the union versus allegiance to one's state was less clear and settled, and they saw this as an excuse for Lee, whom they venerate. The man is a Marine (never say was when talkIng about a Marine!), and I assumed Lee had taken an oath of allegiance when he was commissioned. How did he view that oath? I didn't press it, but as one who took such an oath I would have felt I was acting dishonorably if I had breached it, regardless of how I was viewed as a man, an officer, or anything else. These are, of course, questions we cannot definitively answer with the passage of so many years since the Civil War.


----------



## Mike Petrik

TK167 --
FWIW I suspect (though truly do not know) that Lee's oath was not to the union as such, but to the constitution of the United States of America. The constitutional arguments in favor of the right of secession were serious (even if on balance I disagree with them), and those arguments were settled not by the courts, but by our nation's most costly war. It is no accident that in both the north and south the compound noun "United States" was commonly expressed as being plural in nature until after that war. I suspect that the claim that Lee violated his oath is pretty weak.


----------



## Vecchio Vespa

Mike Petrik said:


> TK167 --
> FWIW I suspect (though truly do not know) that Lee's oath was not to the union as such, but to the constitution of the United States of America. The constitutional arguments in favor of the right of secession were serious (even if on balance I disagree with them), and those arguments were settled not by the courts, but by our nation's most costly war. It is no accident that in both the north and south the compound noun "United States" was commonly expressed as being plural in nature until after that war. I suspect that the claim that Lee violated his oath is pretty weak.


I agree it is not nearly as clear cut as it might be today.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Shaver said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> So you concede, then, that you harbour and apply irrational prejudices which are informed by outward appearances?
> 
> That sounds a lot like.....


The only reason I am bothering to respond to this is that Maxine has not yet carried in all the buckets for my afternoon bath and I sit here on the edge of the copper tub, toes dangling, and waiting.

Shaver, old pal, I will attempt to untwist my words from the semantic auger you've again misused. *Harbour *usually connotes bottled up ill will. *Prejudice* usually connotes predisposed ill will. *Irrational* can connote ill will without reason..

To believe that an aging, poorly kept vehicle plastered with right wing slogans, stickers and flouting a Confederate flag the size you would fly from your lawn could be driven by someone other than one with racist leanings is certainly possible. But as my time here has aptly shown, I'm not a deep thinker. I am a fast one tho and my head can spit out possibilities in rapid succession presenting a short menu from which to choose. Appearance is often at the top. Appearance is often chosen.

To believe someone might be a racist based on their appearnce (see list above) is neither harboring ill will or is it a prejudice or irrational. However, actions taken after such a discovery can be termed ill will. I keep a jug of that handy for just such occasions.


----------



## Big T

Shaver said:


> Even if we were to accept this interpretation how might it prove that every single person who now possesses such a flag is a racist?


Excellent point, and every single person who has such a flag is not a racist, and there are many places where the display is appropriate (museums, living history portrayers, to name two that immediately come to mind).

I am no where near a politically correct person, but in the area where I was raised, the KKK was prevalent and active during my youth...with said flag prominently displayed.


----------



## Tiger

TKI67 said:


> I agree it is not nearly as clear cut as it might be today.


The underlying issue hinges on the legality of secession. If a state possesses the legal/constitutional right to secede, then all talk of treason, et al. is nonsensical. Lee resigned his commission, and returned to his state of Virginia, which had seceded from the Union, i.e., was no longer a legal member of the confederation of states initiated under the Articles of Confederation and continued under the Constitution ratified in 1788.

If anyone here can demonstrate why secession (either the act itself, or the methodology - state conventions - used to enact it) as practiced between 1860 and 1861 was illegal and/or unconstitutional, I'd love to hear it!


----------



## Shaver

Big T said:


> Excellent point, and every single person who has such a flag is not a racist, and there are many places where the display is appropriate (museums, living history portrayers, to name two that immediately come to mind).
> 
> I am no where near a politically correct person, but in the area where I was raised, the KKK was prevalent and active during my youth...with said flag prominently displayed.


The KKK are abhorrent, not to mention foolish and feeble. A propos of nothing, let us recall for a moment HRC's devotion to Byrd.

At any rate, the KKK are also extraordinarily keen on another symbol. Shall we condemn all those who persist in its display as racist?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Good Flag....










Bad Flag....










Southern Pride Flag....










Roll Tide....










Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> The KKK are abhorrent, not to mention foolish and feeble. A propos of nothing, let us recall for a moment HRC's devotion to Byrd.
> 
> At any rate, the KKK are also extraordinarily keen on another symbol. Shall we condemn all those who persist in its display as racist?


Shaver,
While I'm confident that Big T's response will express appropriate common sense and measure, please kindly refrain from asking such provocative questions. As you well know we live in an era when many people join enthusiastically in exactly this type of condemnation and welcome invitations to continue to do so . In other words, regrettably, many people today would have no problem responding to your question with an enthusiastic YES. We do not live in informed or learned times, so please, sir, kindly refrain from stirring up the Ingsocs and their US fellow travelers.


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> Shaver,
> While I'm confident that Big T's response will express appropriate common sense and measure, please kindly refrain from asking such provocative questions. As you well know we live in an era when many people have already joined in exactly this type of condemnation and would welcome an invitation to do so again. In other words, regrettably, many people today would have no problem responding to your question with an enthusiastic yes. We do not live in informed or learned times, so please do not stir up the Ingsocs and their US fellow travelers.


Having just reread *1984 *for the first time in many years, I love the reference to Ingsoc, Mike!


----------



## Tiger

May I also add that some here are ascribing certain causes for the War for Southern Independence, when I believe they are actually making a case as to why eleven states seceded from the Union. The _cause_ of the war was the Union's refusal to accept Southern secession as legal/constitutional. I believe Lincoln failed miserably to make that case in his first inaugural address, or any other time.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> Shaver,
> While I'm confident that Big T's response will express appropriate common sense and measure, please kindly refrain from asking such provocative questions. As you well know we live in an era when many people have already joined in exactly this type of condemnation and would welcome an invitation to do so again. In other words, regrettably, many people today would have no problem responding to your question with an enthusiastic yes. We do not live in informed or learned times, so please do not stir up the Ingsocs and their US fellow travelers.


To my shame, straight white cis-male privilege temporarily overcame me.


----------



## Shaver

Peak and Pine said:


> The only reason I am bothering to respond to this is that Maxine has not yet carried in all the buckets for my afternoon bath and I sit here on the edge of the copper tub, toes dangling, and waiting.
> 
> Shaver, old pal, I will attempt to untwist my words from the semantic auger you've again misused. *Harbour *usually connotes bottled up ill will. *Prejudice* usually connotes predisposed ill will. *Irrational* can connote ill will without reason..
> 
> To believe that an aging, poorly kept vehicle plastered with right wing slogans, stickers and flouting a Confederate flag the size you would fly from your lawn could be driven by someone other than one with racist leanings is certainly possible. But as my time here has aptly shown, I'm not a deep thinker. I am a fast one tho and my head can spit out possibilities in rapid succession presenting a short menu from which to choose. Appearance is often at the top. Appearance is often chosen.
> 
> To believe someone might be a racist based on their appearnce (see list above) is neither harboring ill will or is it a prejudice or irrational. However, actions taken after such a discovery can be termed ill will. I keep a jug of that handy for just such occasions.


Plastered with right wing symbols, eh? This is the first that we are hearing of this crucial detail. Keep the embellishments coming. Was your, imaginary, driver dressed as Schutzstaffel complete with a little square 'tache? Perhaps he was repeatedly chanting "_judenrein" _to the tune of Dixie's Land? Once one begins to fantasise then why not do so with style?

At any rate my friend, as you claim it to be a bother, I release you from your self imposed obligation - an Endlösung of sorts - you need not respond to me ever again.

Although, I expect that you will be unable to resist the urge to attempt a rejoinder. Shaver Derangement Syndrome seemingly has you in its thrall.


----------



## FLMike

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Roll Tide....
> 
> View attachment 35213


I was actually in Tuscaloosa today. Had a meeting in the Rose Administration building.


----------



## richard warren

I don’t follow you guys’ politics, but the Civl War seems to have been fought over...mercantilism vs. free trade. Lincoln the railroad lawyer naturally favored autarky and tariffs and the inclusion of the South in the North’s economic hegemony. Reading his first inaugural address is rather illuminating. Yankee imperialism, now on steroids, was well under way with the conquest first of Texas then the rest of the South, went global in the war with Spain, then was transformed into the rudiments of the current financial (as opposed to purely military) model with Wilson and Morgan’s financing of the British in WW1.


----------



## Big T

Shaver said:


> To my shame, straight white cis-male privilege temporarily overcame me.


No shame, just enjoyable, spirited conversation! What a very dull world we would live in, if we were all Big Ts!


----------



## Big T

richard warren said:


> I don't follow you guys' politics, but the Civl War seems to have been fought over...mercantilism vs. free trade. Lincoln the railroad lawyer naturally favored autarky and tariffs and the inclusion of the South in the North's economic hegemony. Reading his first inaugural address is rather illuminating. Yankee imperialism, now on steroids, was well under way with the conquest first of Texas then the rest of the South, went global in the war with Spain, then was transformed into the rudiments of the current financial (as opposed to purely military) model with Wilson and Morgan's financing of the British in WW1.


You touched on a very much ignored part of Lincoln, that being he was very much the "railroad president", and an expansionist. Consummate politician, granted immortality by his assassination.


----------



## Andy

Gentlemen:

May I remind you: *Civility, Kindness, being Welcoming & Membership Information Thread!*

Thank you!


----------



## Shaver

P


Andy said:


> Gentlemen:
> 
> May I remind you: *Civility, Kindness, being Welcoming & Membership Information Thread!*
> 
> Thank you!


Thank you for your considerate intervention.

My gratitude is also extended to those contributors, forming the larger part of our membership, who are capable of debate.


----------



## Andy

Shaver:

Thank you!


----------



## Shaver

[/url]

If a person of Greta Thunberg's age is intellectually and emotionally mature enough that she is permitted to demand her views be adopted by the entire world then why was Jeffrey Epstein jailed?

Just sayin'.


----------



## drlivingston

https://babylonbee.com/news/democra...yrPEBJTI8bU0qeEKDGmM341EyoNz_uDDhmd1O9DTJzM2k


----------



## Shaver

drlivingston said:


> https://babylonbee.com/news/democra...yrPEBJTI8bU0qeEKDGmM341EyoNz_uDDhmd1O9DTJzM2k


I have added this website to my 'bookmarks' list, thank you.


----------



## vpkozel

TKI67 said:


> The other night we had dinner with some former parishioners, both very fine lawyers. They made the point that as the law existed at the time of the Civil War the law on allegiance to the union versus allegiance to one's state was less clear and settled, and they saw this as an excuse for Lee, whom they venerate. The man is a Marine (never say was when talkIng about a Marine!), and I assumed Lee had taken an oath of allegiance when he was commissioned. How did he view that oath? I didn't press it, but as one who took such an oath I would have felt I was acting dishonorably if I had breached it, regardless of how I was viewed as a man, an officer, or anything else. These are, of course, questions we cannot definitively answer with the passage of so many years since the Civil War.


His state left the United States and its Constitution. Therefore his oath was no longer binding.

Tell me, if someone born in the US takes another nationality, do you consider them as breaking some sort of bond? How about all naturalized US citizens? Especially those 1st and 2nd generation Italians, Germans, and Japanese who fought in WW2?


----------



## eagle2250

^^
That makes no sense to me. Back in the day, fifty years ago, I can tell you for an absolute fact that the officers oath of office read, "I do solemnly swear to defend the Constitution of These United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic..." I doubt that the oath taken by Robert E. Lee read much differently. To my mind, there is a big difference between a private citizen's status and a military officer who has taken the aforementioned oath. In your opening statement, you state "His State left the United States and it's Constitution" and it seems to me the prevailing opinion at the time was that said exit was not a legal action. Having having spent my entire adult life, living under such an oath, I will abide by that oath for the rest of my days. To my eyes, General Lee's choice did indeed constitute an act of treason...let us not kid ourselves!


----------



## Mike Petrik

eagle -- Lee, like the South generally, did not understand secession to be an unconstitutional act, but instead considered the North's resistance to be an act of aggression unwarranted by the constitution. On balance I don't agree with this view, but considered dispassionately it is a serious and perfectly reasonable position. After all, the States signed the constitution and admitted themselves into the Republic voluntarily, and the constitution is silent as to terms or options for separation. The fact that the War (not any objective court of law) resolved the question in favor of the North cannot fairly impugn Lee's good faith understanding.


----------



## Big T

Is "failing to understand" a legal defense and how do we project a "good faith Understanding? Regardless, Lee was offered command of the United States forces, by old "Fuss and Feathers", but chose to remain with his home state of Virginia.

Since we're "what if-ing", would the course of the war been different had Joseph Johnson not been injured and Lee had not taken command (I'm remain "not a fan of Lee")? I still contend there were far more qualified commanders in the south (maybe even Jefferson Davis!).


----------



## Vecchio Vespa

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> That makes no sense to me. Back in the day, fifty years ago, I can tell you for an absolute fact that the officers oath of office read, "I do solemnly swear to defend the Constitution of These United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic..." I doubt that the oath taken by Robert E. Lee read much differently. To my mind, there is a big difference between a private citizen's status and a military officer who has taken the aforementioned oath. In your opening statement, you state "His State left the United States and it's Constitution" and it seems to me the prevailing opinion at the time was that said exit was not a legal action. Having having spent my entire adult life, living under such an oath, I will abide by that oath for the rest of my days. To my eyes, General Lee's choice did indeed constitute an act of treason...let us not kid ourselves!


If one has a belief that they can render a sacred oath a nullity by renouncing the relationship on which the oath was predicated, it wasn't really a sacred oath in my view. I understand and appreciate legal arguments to the contrary.


----------



## Tiger

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> That makes no sense to me. Back in the day, fifty years ago, I can tell you for an absolute fact that the officers oath of office read, "I do solemnly swear to defend the Constitution of These United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic..." I doubt that the oath taken by Robert E. Lee read much differently. To my mind, there is a big difference between a private citizen's status and a military officer who has taken the aforementioned oath. In your opening statement, you state "His State left the United States and it's Constitution" and it seems to me the prevailing opinion at the time was that said exit was not a legal action. Having having spent my entire adult life, living under such an oath, I will abide by that oath for the rest of my days. To my eyes, General Lee's choice did indeed constitute an act of treason...let us not kid ourselves!


As I wrote previously, everything hinges on the legality of secession. If a state possesses the legal/constitutional right to secede, then all talk of treason, et al. is nonsensical. Lee resigned his commission, and returned to his state of Virginia, which had seceded from the Union, i.e., was no longer a legal member of the confederation of states initiated under the Articles of Confederation and continued under the Constitution ratified in 1788.

If anyone here can demonstrate why secession (either the act itself, or the methodology - state conventions - used to enact it) as practiced between 1860 and 1861 was illegal and/or unconstitutional, I'd love to hear it!

*If you wish, I can supply many reasons why secession was absolutely legal/constitutional.*


----------



## Tiger

TKI67 said:


> If one has a belief that they can render a sacred oath a nullity by renouncing the relationship on which the oath was predicated, it wasn't really a sacred oath in my view. I understand and appreciate legal arguments to the contrary.


The relationship at question is that of the states to each other via the "union." When a state legally withdraws from this union, it is nonsensical to think in terms of fealty to a union one is no longer a part of.

Did George Washington take an oath to Great Britain? Was it still valid after Virginia (and twelve other sovereign states) seceded from the British Empire on July 2nd, 1776? Will you label Washington a traitor, too?


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> eagle -- Lee, like the South generally, did not understand secession to be an unconstitutional act, but instead considered the North's resistance to be an act of aggression unwarranted by the constitution. On balance I don't agree with this view, but considered dispassionately it is a serious and perfectly reasonable position. After all, the States signed the constitution and admitted themselves into the Republic voluntarily, and the constitution is silent as to terms or options for separation. The fact that the War (not any objective court of law) resolved the question in favor of the North cannot fairly impugn Lee's good faith understanding.


I love ya, Mike, which is why at some point I'll provide a list of logical/legal/constitutional/common sensical reasons why secession is perfectly legal.

The irony of the New Yorker defending secession to the Georgian is not lost on either of us. Of course, secessionist movements in the Hartford (Connecticut) Convention and among Northern abolitionists in the mid-19th century prove that the movement was far from regional...


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Big T said:


> Is "failing to understand" a legal defense and how do we project a "good faith Understanding? Regardless, Lee was offered command of the United States forces, by old "Fuss and Feathers", but chose to remain with his home state of Virginia.
> 
> Since we're "what if-ing", would the course of the war been different had Joseph Johnson not been injured and Lee had not taken command (I'm remain "not a fan of Lee")? I still contend there were far more qualified commanders in the south (maybe even Jefferson Davis!).


Jeff Davis? Good Lord no.

We also need to be aware that the political and philosophical context of "The United States" is much different today than it was in 1860. Even the most ardent unionist might blanch if he saw what we are today in Constitutional terms.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Tiger

Big T said:


> Is "failing to understand" a legal defense and how do we project a "good faith Understanding? Regardless, Lee was offered command of the United States forces, by old "Fuss and Feathers", but chose to remain with his home state of Virginia.
> 
> Since we're "what if-ing", would the course of the war been different had Joseph Johnson not been injured and Lee had not taken command (I'm remain "not a fan of Lee")? I still contend there were far more qualified commanders in the south (maybe even Jefferson Davis!).


A "legal defense"? Why not simply prove that secession is unconstitutional, and you'll obviate the need for a "legal defense." Good luck with that!

Your trashing of Lee is spurious. He was indeed a supremely talented commander. To write that there were "far more qualified commanders in the south" is an opinion devoid of knowledge.


----------



## Tiger

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Jeff Davis? Good Lord no.
> 
> We also need to be aware that the political and philosophical context of "The United States" is much different today than it was in 1860. Even the most ardent unionist might blanch if he saw what we are today in Constitutional terms.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Agree completely; the federal leviathan is monstrous, and even "nationalists" such as Hamilton, Marshall, and Morris would be stunned at its grotesque size and power.


----------



## Vecchio Vespa

Tiger said:


> The relationship at question is that of the states to each other via the "union." When a state legally withdraws from this union, it is nonsensical to think in terms of fealty to a union one is no longer a part of.
> 
> Did George Washington take an oath to Great Britain? Was it still valid after Virginia (and twelve other sovereign states) seceded from the British Empire on July 2nd, 1776? Will you label Washington a traitor, too?


I am not talking about legal issues or treason. All I am saying is that if you take an oath and can later act as if it were a nullity or had been superseded, it was not much of an oath.


----------



## eagle2250

Tiger said:


> A "legal defense"? Why not simply prove that secession is unconstitutional, and you'll obviate the need for a "legal defense." Good luck with that!
> 
> Your trashing of Lee is spurious. He was indeed a supremely talented commander. To write that there were "far more qualified commanders in the south" is an opinion devoid of knowledge.


Not to be argumentative, but didn't the Civil War and the South's eventual surrender obviate the need for what you ask be done to prove the succession was unconstitutional. To the victor go the spoils...as the saying goes. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Mike Petrik

TKI67 said:


> I am not talking about legal issues or treason. All I am saying is that if you take an oath and can later act as if it were a nullity or had been superseded, it was not much of an oath.


His oath was to uphold the constitution, which requires that he never violate it. If secession is constitutional, then he did not violate his oath. Lee almost certainly believed that secession was constitutional, and given the constitution's silence on the question such a belief is reasonable and could be held in good faith.


----------



## Mike Petrik

eagle2250 said:


> Not to be argumentative, but didn't the Civil War and the South's eventual surrender obviate the need for what you ask be done to prove the succession was unconstitutional. To the victor go the spoils...as the saying goes. :icon_scratch:


Yes. Wars settle many things, and this is a great example. But when judging Lee's loyalty to his oath one cannot judge the morality an action undertaken in good faith in 1861 by a resolution brought upon by force in 1865.


----------



## Vecchio Vespa

I apologize if i was in error, but I thought the oath was amended in 1789 to add a second paragraph reciting loyalty to the USA.


----------



## Mike Petrik

TKI67 said:


> I apologize if i was in error, but I thought the oath was amended in 1789 to add a second paragraph reciting loyalty to the USA.


Could well be, but I cannot recall encountering such an oath.


----------



## challer

Shaver said:


> The KKK are abhorrent, not to mention foolish and feeble. A propos of nothing, let us recall for a moment HRC's devotion to Byrd.
> 
> At any rate, the KKK are also extraordinarily keen on another symbol. Shall we condemn all those who persist in its display as racist?


Let's not forget the Buddhist and Hindus and all the ancient cultures that used the swastika long before the Nazis and KKK appropriated it. The symbol is fine and many continue to use it with pride. Or do we abandon every symbol appropriated by bad actors? The southern flag and the south generally celebrated Scots Irish, not slavery. BTW was in Charlottesville and largely one side came prepared for violence. The ones hiding behind masks.


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> His oath was to uphold the constitution, which requires that he never violate it. If secession is constitutional, then he did not violate his oath. Lee almost certainly believed that secession was constitutional, and given the constitution's silence on the question such a belief is reasonable and could be held in good faith.


Thank you, Mike. Very well expressed...


----------



## Tiger

eagle2250 said:


> Not to be argumentative, but didn't the Civil War and the South's eventual surrender obviate the need for what you ask be done to prove the succession was unconstitutional. To the victor go the spoils...as the saying goes. :icon_scratch:


Logic, truth, accuracy, or constitutionality is not proven by military might. All the Union victory did was prove that the Union was more powerful militarily than the Confederacy. Otherwise, we'd be in the awkward position of saying that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had right/decency/morality on their side because they dominated many other nations.

Victory in war cannot crush the _right_ to self-determination. Or, as we said as children, might doesn't make right!


----------



## Tiger

TKI67 said:


> I apologize if i was in error, but I thought the oath was amended in 1789 to add a second paragraph reciting loyalty to the USA.


...and when Virginia seceded from the Union, it was no longer a part of the USA. By the way, Lincoln took an oath to obey the Constitution, yet violated it repeatedly. Any concerns there?


----------



## Vecchio Vespa

https://angrystaffofficer.com/2017/09/01/guest-post-a-current-officers-thoughts-on-robert-e-lee/
An interesting read concerning the oath Lee took. Note especially the part about allegiance to the United States of America.


----------



## Tiger

TKI67 said:


> https://angrystaffofficer.com/2017/09/01/guest-post-a-current-officers-thoughts-on-robert-e-lee/
> An interesting read concerning the oath Lee took. Note especially the part about allegiance to the United States of America.


Historically and constitutionally inaccurate, but unsurprising. But as to the main issue discussed here, once again, when Virginia seceded from the Union, it was no longer a part of the USA. It became part of the CSA. If secession is legal, why the infatuation with this point? If it isn't, well, I'm still waiting for all of those proofs from those so quick to dole out charges of treason and oath violations.

I'll ask again: Lincoln took an oath to obey the Constitution, yet violated it repeatedly. Any concerns there?


----------



## Vecchio Vespa

Adieu.


----------



## Tiger

TKI67 said:


> Adieu.


As expected...


----------



## Mike Petrik

TKI67 said:


> https://angrystaffofficer.com/2017/09/01/guest-post-a-current-officers-thoughts-on-robert-e-lee/
> An interesting read concerning the oath Lee took. Note especially the part about allegiance to the United States of America.


It is interesting, but I would call to your attention the plural nature of the "United States of America". You might think through the implications of that as well as the implications of the gradual adoption of the singular case after the end of the Civil War.


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> It is interesting, but I would call to your attention the plural nature of the "United States of America". You might think through the implications of that as well as the implications of the gradual adoption of the singular case after the end of the Civil War.


This is true. One cannot accurately (and constitutionally) discuss any of these issues without an understanding of the nature of the union that existed between the States from the Continental Congress to the Articles of Confederation and then to the constitution ratified in 1788.


----------



## Peak and Pine

I know little of the Civil War..
The only thing I thought I knew for sure was that it's over. After reading this thread though...


----------



## Tiger

Peak and Pine said:


> I know little of the Civil War..
> The only thing I thought I knew for sure was that it's over. After reading this thread though...


Great response - I think we all needed the laugh!

No wars, though - only constitutional/logical debate!


----------



## eagle2250

TKI67 said:


> https://angrystaffofficer.com/2017/09/01/guest-post-a-current-officers-thoughts-on-robert-e-lee/
> An interesting read concerning the oath Lee took. Note especially the part about allegiance to the United States of America.


Contrary to member Tiger's opinion in his post #539, I agree with TKI67...the linked article was an interesting and relevant read. If Tiger is going to conclude the article to be "Historically and constitutionally inaccurate, but unsurprising," it would be interesting to hear his rationale for reaching said conclusions. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Tiger

eagle2250 said:


> Contrary to member Tiger's opinion in his post #539, I agree with TKI67...the linked article was an interesting and relevant read. If Tiger is going to conclude the article to be "Historically and constitutionally inaccurate, but unsurprising," it would be interesting to hear his rationale for reaching said conclusions. :icon_scratch:


I will certainly do so when I arrive home from work, Eagle. Of course, in reciprocal fairness, you and TKI67 will respond to my queries, correct, i.e., you'll provide the evidence for what the two of you have said, just like I'll support my contentions?


----------



## eagle2250

Tiger said:


> I will certainly do so when I arrive home from work, Eagle. Of course, in reciprocal fairness, you and TKI67 will respond to my queries, correct, i.e., you'll provide the evidence for what the two of you have said, just like I'll support my contentions?


Well, my friend, if we are going to be responding on a quid pro quo basis, I should tell you up front that my posts were based on a couple of quick Google inquiries, but mostly on personal opinion based on my experience. I wore the uniform for just a smidge over three decades and took a very similar oath of office and to my eye I consider Colonel Lee's resignation to be arguably treasonous. I can't claim to have ever made Flag Rank, but the oath we all took is a lifetime commitment. Years back we had a President who acted in what many believed to be a lotharios way. Several of my contemporaries resigned their commissions because they didn't feel they could serve with that individual as their Commander in Chief. I considered resigning, but couldn't bring myself to do it. As naive as it may sound, my oath of office was a lifetime commitment to this country and not to an individual! 

However I do look forward to reading your rationale....rumor has it that while I may frequently be found in error, I am in fact educable!


----------



## Tiger

eagle2250 said:


> Well, my friend, if we are going to be responding on a quid pro quo basis, I should tell you up front that my posts were based on a couple of quick Google inquiries, but mostly on personal opinion based on my experience. I wore the uniform for just a smidge over three decades and took a very similar oath of office and to my eye I consider Colonel Lee's resignation to be arguably treasonous. I can't claim to have ever made Flag Rank, but the oath we all took is a lifetime commitment. Years back we had a President who acted in what many believed to be a lotharios way. Several of my contemporaries resigned their commissions because they didn't feel they could serve with that individual as their Commander in Chief. I considered resigning, but couldn't bring myself to do it. As naive as it may sound, my oath of office was a lifetime commitment to this country and not to an individual!
> 
> However I do look forward to reading your rationale....rumor has it that while I may frequently be found in error, I am in fact educable!


Hope you won't mind, but my evidence that will be submitted tonight will be based on many years of study, primary source documents, and logic. I hope I can present an accessible (but not too protracted) historical/constitutional case for what I've previously written!


----------



## Tiger

*Re: Secession*

I copied and pasted the arguments below from a much longer list that I compiled years ago (I left out Mr. Lincoln referring to secession as a "sacred right" in 1848 because I didn't want to pile on!); it contains arguments from logic, constitutionality, and of course history. So, here's my (abbreviated) list of reasons why secession from the confederated republic that we call the United States is constitutionally permissible:

1.  States are "free and independent" as per the Declaration of Independence
2. The British Ministry in the Treaty of Paris of 1783 refers to the "free, *sovereign* and independent states&#8230;"
3. First three articles of the Articles of Confederation refer to a confederacy of *sovereign*, free, and independent States which "entered into a firm league of friendship with each other"
4. *Nothing* in the Constitution ratified in 1788 changed any of the above; states retained their _*sovereignty*_
5. Constitution ratification conventions of Virginia, New York, Maryland and Rhode Island all reserved the right to leave the Union (_*proof of a voluntary compact) *_in their ratification statements
6. Tenth Amendment to the Constitution is _ipso facto_ proof that the concept of state sovereignty was not abandoned by the Founding Fathers. *In addition, since no power to re: secession is delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment reserves the power to secede to the states*
7. George Mason of Virginia - a prime author of the Virginia Constitution, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution - argued that as states could ratify the Constitution when seeking to join the Union, that very same statutory power allows them to undo that ratification and secede from the Union
8. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, in his book entitled _Life of Webster_, wrote that, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system _as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw_."
9. In the 19th century, some members of the U.S. Congress proposed amendments to the Constitution that would limit the right of a state to secede; this clearly implies that the right to secede had to exist!
10. *Intuitive argument:* Is it likely that the framers of the Constitution, having lived through a war against Great Britain fought less than a decade earlier primarily for the right to be self-governing, would so soon after that war's conclusion bind themselves in an inviolable union of states with no possibility of _ever_ leaving?
11. Political unions *must* be voluntary; a "union" based on compulsion is in actuality an autocracy

Feel free to attack the logic, constitutionality, and history. Please, no appeals to emotion; let's keep this evidentiary!


----------



## Tiger

eagle2250 said:


> Contrary to member Tiger's opinion in his post #539, I agree with TKI67...the linked article was an interesting and relevant read. If Tiger is going to conclude the article to be "Historically and constitutionally inaccurate, but unsurprising," it would be interesting to hear his rationale for reaching said conclusions. :icon_scratch:


*Why I believe the opinion piece on Robert E. Lee by a writer (using a pseudonym!) is historically and constitutionally inaccurate:*

The War for Southern Independence was about far more than slavery. Such a statement ignores political, economic, constitutional, and even cultural differences between the two regions. In addition, slavery existed in the North during the war, and wasn't made unconstitutional (by amendment) until 1865.
The Republican Party of 1860 was not anti-slavery; it was against the spread of slavery. Those are two different positions. Many abolitionists decried this fact (and Mr. Lincoln)!
Since slavery was indeed constitutional, the Lincoln Administration and the Republican Party of the period could not end it, despite what the author claims. Only a constitutional amendment could do that
The use of words such as "country" and "nation" is disingenuous, as the history of the republic screams out that the United States was a confederated republic of sovereign states, not a "country" such as France or Spain. Recognition of this fact explodes the "treason" argument
When Virginia seceded from the Union in 1861, it was no longer a part of the confederated republic. Lee then resigned his commission - there is nothing traitorous about this!
The author refers to Lee as a murderer responsible for Union military deaths, but every commander was responsible for such deaths on both sides. More importantly, why did Lee take up arms? Wasn't it the Lincoln Administration that sent an invading army into Virginia? If we're going to blame leadership for "murder" then no one bears more blame than the one who initiated it (and without just cause, as secession was constitutional!)
The ad hominem "logic" of associating Lee with neo-Nazis is too absurd and undignified to ponder, and unworthy of comment
If Virginia seceded constitutionally (it certainly did!), and the Union then invaded Virginia (it did), how the heck is Lee a "rebel" for defending Virginia when it was attacked?
The "Union Army saved the United States"? How ridiculous - after Southern secession took place, the United States still existed with 23 states (I think) in it. There was no need to "save" the Union by launching a calamitous war under false pretenses! The U.S. wasn't "saved" - the CSA was destroyed. Too very different things, and the latter far less noble
The above not only proves that Lee was not guilty of "crimes" as the unnamed author writes, but that the piece was overall historically and constitutionally inaccurate (whether due to incompetence or deceit, I do not know), as I initially claimed after reading it!
Again, feel free to respond to the contrary, but use evidence, not emotion!


----------



## challer

Every one embroiled in this should read Jack Webb's Born Fighting. Largely the war was a result of the Scots Irish, who were very dirt poor and owned no slaves, would not allow others to tell them how to live. Scots Irish are intertwined with characters such as William Wallace. The Confederate flag is the adopted icon of this independent spirit. It's not intended to be racist in any way. In fact, these dirt poor southern Scots Irish suffered the same harassment and discrimination as slaves AND were the majority of lynching victims.


----------



## Dhaller

Tiger said:


> The relationship at question is that of the states to each other via the "union." When a state legally withdraws from this union, it is nonsensical to think in terms of fealty to a union one is no longer a part of.
> 
> Did George Washington take an oath to Great Britain? Was it still valid after Virginia (and twelve other sovereign states) seceded from the British Empire on July 2nd, 1776? Will you label Washington a traitor, too?


George Washington (IIRC) was a civilian when he accepted command of the Continental Army, having resigned from the Virginia militia in 1759.

(Note too that his allegiance while serving in the Virginia militia was to George II, not to the Kingdom of Great Britain, so by the time of the revolution, there was a king - George III - whom Washington had never sworn any kind of fealty to, so even if one reaches (and it's a reach), there's no treason.)

DH


----------



## eagle2250

Tiger said:


> *Why I believe the opinion piece on Robert E. Lee by a writer (using a pseudonym!) is historically and constitutionally inaccurate:*
> 
> The War for Southern Independence was about far more than slavery. Such a statement ignores political, economic, constitutional, and even cultural differences between the two regions. In addition, slavery existed in the North during the war, and wasn't made unconstitutional (by amendment) until 1865.
> The Republican Party of 1860 was not anti-slavery; it was against the spread of slavery. Those are two different positions. Many abolitionists decried this fact (and Mr. Lincoln)!
> Since slavery was indeed constitutional, the Lincoln Administration and the Republican Party of the period could not end it, despite what the author claims. Only a constitutional amendment could do that
> The use of words such as "country" and "nation" is disingenuous, as the history of the republic screams out that the United States was a confederated republic of sovereign states, not a "country" such as France or Spain. Recognition of this fact explodes the "treason" argument
> When Virginia seceded from the Union in 1861, it was no longer a part of the confederated republic. Lee then resigned his commission - there is nothing traitorous about this!
> The author refers to Lee as a murderer responsible for Union military deaths, but every commander was responsible for such deaths on both sides. More importantly, why did Lee take up arms? Wasn't it the Lincoln Administration that sent an invading army into Virginia? If we're going to blame leadership for "murder" then no one bears more blame than the one who initiated it (and without just cause, as secession was constitutional!)
> The ad hominem "logic" of associating Lee with neo-Nazis is too absurd and undignified to ponder, and unworthy of comment
> If Virginia seceded constitutionally (it certainly did!), and the Union then invaded Virginia (it did), how the heck is Lee a "rebel" for defending Virginia when it was attacked?
> The "Union Army saved the United States"? How ridiculous - after Southern secession took place, the United States still existed with 23 states (I think) in it. There was no need to "save" the Union by launching a calamitous war under false pretenses! The U.S. wasn't "saved" - the CSA was destroyed. Too very different things, and the latter far less noble
> The above not only proves that Lee was not guilty of "crimes" as the unnamed author writes, but that the piece was overall historically and constitutionally inaccurate (whether due to incompetence or deceit, I do not know), as I initially claimed after reading it!
> Again, feel free to respond to the contrary, but use evidence, not emotion!


Very interesting read. Tiger, your words certainly illustrate that there was apparently a basis for a vigorous discussion of succession to take place, but the fact that many of the States stated in their succession statements the primary cause for succession was to preserve the institution of slavery, as did the Confederacy's formative documents seems to make clear the real cause for seperation. Your assumptions and conclusions reflected in your comments 6 through 10 are disputed by the fact we fought a war to restore the union and at the conclusion of that war, while the vast majority of Lee's army were immediately pardoned at the time of his surrender, Lee and three (or four) of his immediate subordinates were refused the blanket pardon and were required to individually apply for clemency/pardons through General Grant and President Johnson (#17) for treason and other war crimes. Lee applied for a pardon for his "crimes against the USA" and was subsequently pardoned and he (Lee) signed an Amnesty Oath, dated 2 October 1865. It was interesting to note that full citizenship was never restored to Robert E. Lee during his lifetime. (Note much of this was reported in a Prologue Magazine article in the Spring of 2005) It would certainly appear that the 'powers that were, back in the day would strongly disagree with your conclusions as to the causes for succession and of Lees character. I think I will stick with my original statement...Robert E. Lee was an extraordinary military leader, but he was also a traitor! On that point I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

The “causes” are oft debated and disagreed on, but the reasons individuals fought and participated as first hand witnesses to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands is what really holds my interest.

My people are all pre revolution immigrant Protestant Scots (no Irish!  ), English, and Germans, and they all fought for the Confederacy. As southerners they owned no slaves (I have read many of their wills) and consistently migrated deeper into the mountain wilderness interior to practice subsistence farming. 

The areas they settled in Appalachia had virtually no enslaved people, as slaves were far too expensive for dirt farmers and the topography did not suit the plantation model. Almost all of their counties voted against secession. These are not the masters of plantation economy who wrote the Georgia Constitution. So why did these people, ******* hillbillies of the original type, fight and die in overwhelming numbers for the Confederacy. 

Invasion: Southerners saw their country being invaded by a foreign power consisting of people holding vastly different socio-economic beliefs. They saw themselves as fighting the Second American Revolution and as the true inheritors of the founding fathers.

Rebellion: These are people who had been in a state of perpetual rebellion against Britain and Imperial persecution on the continent for several hundred years. They wanted to be free and left alone. Plus they were hot blooded, knew how to fight, enjoyed fighting, and were damn good at it. They were spoiling for it. 

The Adventure: Here was a chance to be a hero and see the country like their revolutionary grandfathers.

Social Advancement: In the south, the old revolutionary vets were revered and had social advantages. Men in uniform command respect and gain distinct mating and economic advantages.

Racism/Fear for Social Order: If slaves were freed en masse, the entire white social dynamic and hierarchy of the region would be thrown into chaos. Millions of unskilled, uneducated, and impoverished slaves would suddenly be freed to do what? This was an impossible concept for them to swallow since it blew their entire operating reality to bits. 

Social Pressure: only cowards and invalids stayed home when ones friends and family all signed up. Plus better to fight with friends and brothers than strangers.


The Great Awakening: These were hard shell Protestants who believed that they were ordained by God to exert dominion over this land and they had a personal relationship with their Lord and savior. “This world is not my home” is a very explosive concept when held tightly in a person with a millennialist mindset. 

I could go on and on, but this is a good stopping place for now and commerce calls.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Tiger

Dhaller said:


> George Washington (IIRC) was a civilian when he accepted command of the Continental Army, having resigned from the Virginia militia in 1759.
> 
> (Note too that his allegiance while serving in the Virginia militia was to George II, not to the Kingdom of Great Britain, so by the time of the revolution, there was a king - George III - whom Washington had never sworn any kind of fealty to, so even if one reaches (and it's a reach), there's no treason.)
> 
> DH


Agreed...and I was being rhetorical.


----------



## Vecchio Vespa

I certainly cannot disagree with these well organized and articulated facts or that they support the assertions made. I have a completely different question. Below is a link to the Army website that chronicles the various oaths of officers used by the U S Army. It appears that Robert E. Lee was commissioned by the US Army in June 1829. Assuming that to have been the case, I looked at what appears to have been the oath he took. I believe, subject always to illuminating correction, that at that time the "second paragraph" oath was in effect, but I leave that to each to read and decide for themselves. If Robert E. Lee swore an oath including that second paragraph, does that have an impact on the way one views his personal actions in the War of Northern Aggression?

https://history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html


----------



## Tiger

eagle2250 said:


> Very interesting read. Tiger, your words certainly illustrate that there was apparently a basis for a vigorous discussion of succession to take place, but the fact that many of the States stated in their succession statements the primary cause for succession was to preserve the institution of slavery, as did the Confederacy's formative documents seems to make clear the real cause for seperation. Your assumptions and conclusions reflected in your comments 6 through 10 are disputed by the fact we fought a war to restore the union and at the conclusion of that war, while the vast majority of Lee's army were immediately pardoned at the time of his surrender, Lee and three (or four) of his immediate subordinates were refused the blanket pardon and were required to individually apply for clemency/pardons through General Grant and President Johnson (#17) for treason and other war crimes. Lee applied for a pardon for his "crimes against the USA" and was subsequently pardoned and he (Lee) signed an Amnesty Oath, dated 2 October 1865. It was interesting to note that full citizenship was never restored to Robert E. Lee during his lifetime. (Note much of this was reported in a Prologue Magazine article in the Spring of 2005) It would certainly appear that the 'powers that were, back in the day would strongly disagree with your conclusions as to the causes for succession and of Lees character. I think I will stick with my original statement...Robert E. Lee was an extraordinary military leader, but he was also a traitor! On that point I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree.


I did not write that slavery was not a cause; it was one of many. South Carolina nearly seceded in 1832, and it wasn't about slavery. Some of the New England states kicked around secession in 1815, neither was that about slavery.

With all due respect, Eagle, you did not refute any of the historical points I posted. Why did the Union need to be restored? Why was it unacceptable for some states to constitutionally secede and form a new confederation? Why should that condemn them to attack...and destruction? When did political self-determination become a crime worthy of obliteration?

Lee and the CSA had little bargaining power post-war. However, it is interesting to note that no CSA leader - not even Jefferson Davis! - was tried for treason. To do so would've put the legality of secession on trial, and much like Eagle, the Union would not have any evidence against it!

I'll state it again: If secession was illegal or unconstitutional, where's your evidence of this? If secession is constitutional, then those states that left did so legally, and Lee cannot be a "traitor" to a political union that neither he nor his state was no longer a part of. It's also myopic to only look at 1850s and 1860s Union arguments on these topics, but not those of the Confederacy or the Founding generation.

Did you read my arguments for the legality of secession? Wouldn't that be the place to begin?


----------



## Tiger

TKI67 said:


> I certainly cannot disagree with these well organized and articulated facts or that they support the assertions made. I have a completely different question. Below is a link to the Army website that chronicles the various oaths of officers used by the U S Army. It appears that Robert E. Lee was commissioned by the US Army in June 1829. Assuming that to have been the case, I looked at what appears to have been the oath he took. I believe, subject always to illuminating correction, that at that time the "second paragraph" oath was in effect, but I leave that to each to read and decide for themselves. If Robert E. Lee swore an oath including that second paragraph, does that have an impact on the way one views his personal actions in the War of Northern Aggression?
> 
> https://history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html


I'll have to read/respond later...I need to get back to work!


----------



## eagle2250

Tiger said:


> I did not write that slavery was not a cause; it was one of many. South Carolina nearly seceded in 1832, and it wasn't about slavery. Some of the New England states kicked around secession in 1815, neither was that about slavery.
> 
> With all due respect, Eagle, you did not refute any of the historical points I posted. Why did the Union need to be restored? Why was it unacceptable for some states to constitutionally secede and form a new confederation? Why should that condemn them to attack...and destruction? When did political self-determination become a crime worthy of obliteration?
> 
> Lee and the CSA had little bargaining power post-war. However, it is interesting to note that no CSA leader - not even Jefferson Davis! - was tried for treason. To do so would've put the legality of secession on trial, and much like Eagle, the Union would not have any evidence against it!
> 
> I'll state it again: If secession was illegal or unconstitutional, where's your evidence of this? If secession is constitutional, then those states that left did so legally, and Lee cannot be a "traitor" to a political union that neither he nor his state was no longer a part of. It's also myopic to only look at 1850s and 1860s Union arguments on these topics, but not those of the Confederacy or the Founding generation.
> 
> Did you read my arguments for the legality of secession? Wouldn't that be the place to begin?


Once again Tiger, I disagree with your conclusions. For instance I did contest/rebut your first comment (in your post #551) when I pointed out the Southern States that put preserving the institution of slavery as their primary reason for succession and that the Confederate States put the same type of language in the Confederacy's formative documents. With all due respect, Tiger, I think that constitutes a body of thought that refutes your claim that slavery was but a minor point of many reasons for succession. It was certainly a primary reason, sir.

As for your conclusions regarding Robert E. Lee being a traitor to the country to which he pledged his allegiance, the point I was making is if he wasn't truly guilty, why apply for a pardon, why sign an amnesty oath, and why was his citizenship never restored during his lifetime.

Tiger, I am insulted by your condescending response to my post #554 and this is all the effort I am going to put into trying to placate you. I have no intention of getting into a contest with you to see who can write the best historical research paper on this subject I do however, as do all our members have the right to express my opinion without incurring insult from you or anyone else.


----------



## Tiger

eagle2250 said:


> Once again Tiger, I disagree with your conclusions. For instance I did contest/rebut your first comment (in your post #551) when I pointed out the Southern States that put preserving the institution of slavery as their primary reason for succession and that the Confederate States put the same type of language in the Confederacy's formative documents. With all due respect, Tiger, I think that constitutes a body of thought that refutes your claim that slavery was but a minor point of many reasons for succession. It was certainly a primary reason, sir.
> 
> As for your conclusions regarding Robert E. Lee being a traitor to the country to which he pledged his allegiance, the point I was making is if he wasn't truly guilty, why apply for a pardon, why sign an amnesty oath, and why was his citizenship never restored during his lifetime.
> 
> Tiger, I am insulted by your condescending response to my post #554 and this is all the effort I am going to put into trying to placate you. I have no intention of getting into a contest with you to see who can write the best historical research paper on this subject I do however, as do all our members have the right to express my opinion without incurring insult from you or anyone else.


I made approximately twenty comments in two elongated posts, most of which were ignored. That speaks volumes about the desire for truth and accuracy.

Again, I never said that slavery was "a minor point" - you have added that, and it is both unrepresentative of what I wrote and unfair to me to use a "straw man" argument. Slavery _was_ a crucial issue, but so were many other reasons. In fact, some historians have made the case that the Southern states should have remained in the Union, as that would have provided the best protection _for_ the institution of slavery!

The Reconstruction period essentially stripped away the rights of the seceded/returned states - even to the point of living under martial law. To act as if Southerners - including Lee - had much of a choice in anything is simply inaccurate. That no CSA officer or politician was tried for treason is telling; so much for "traitors" and "rebellion."

I had no intention to insult you or anyone else, Eagle, and believe I did not. I reread my message, and I do not see any insults or condescension. And of course everyone has the right to express their opinion. However, what _I _find insulting is your attempt at scolding me, when I laid out two evidence-filled posts on a) why secession is legal/constitutional and b) why the article posted the other day was filled with historical and constitutional inaccuracies - as promised - and you have chosen to ignore almost all of it, or twist my words, despite asking me to support my position! Don't ask the question if you can't or won't be able to handle the response.

This is not a contest of "historical research papers" Eagle; it's a matter of historical and factual accuracy. You are *not* entitled to your own facts - we're not discussing suit colors or shoe styles, where opinion is part and parcel of the discussion. I made what I believe to be an extensive and factually/historically sound case for my beliefs, and you chose to ignore them or perhaps felt unfamiliar with the territory covered. That's fine with me, but please understand that when you're going to make inaccurate and false claims - even malicious ones - in this type of historical discussion, you ought to a) supply evidence that's not easily proven false, or b) make an honest attempt at grappling with the myriad facts presented. You did neither.

This discussion required something beyond what you've admitted - a couple of quick Google searches and your own beliefs (really based on emotion, not historical fact). You may not like the historical truth, but your predilections don't change that truth. I could have cited a thousand people praising Lee or in support of the right to secede, but instead chose to use evidence, because I assumed it would be more effective. I was fully prepared to defend anything I wrote from every member involved or soon to be involved in this discussion, assuming it was logically/constitutionally challenged. I realize now that you weren't interested in a fact-based exchange of ideas, but rather your goal was to stick to your script, historical truth be damned. Again, fine with me, but not something I'd want to invest quality time in, which I've already done far too much of...


----------



## Tiger

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> The "causes" are oft debated and disagreed on, but the reasons individuals fought and participated as first hand witnesses to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands is what really holds my interest.
> 
> My people are all pre revolution immigrant Protestant Scots (no Irish!  ), English, and Germans, and they all fought for the Confederacy. As southerners they owned no slaves (I have read many of their wills) and consistently migrated deeper into the mountain wilderness interior to practice subsistence farming.
> 
> The areas they settled in Appalachia had virtually no enslaved people, as slaves were far too expensive for dirt farmers and the topography did not suit the plantation model. Almost all of their counties voted against secession. These are not the masters of plantation economy who wrote the Georgia Constitution. So why did these people, ******* hillbillies of the original type, fight and die in overwhelming numbers for the Confederacy.
> 
> Invasion: Southerners saw their country being invaded by a foreign power consisting of people holding vastly different socio-economic beliefs. They saw themselves as fighting the Second American Revolution and as the true inheritors of the founding fathers.
> 
> Rebellion: These are people who had been in a state of perpetual rebellion against Britain and Imperial persecution on the continent for several hundred years. They wanted to be free and left alone. Plus they were hot blooded, knew how to fight, enjoyed fighting, and were damn good at it. They were spoiling for it.
> 
> The Adventure: Here was a chance to be a hero and see the country like their revolutionary grandfathers.
> 
> Social Advancement: In the south, the old revolutionary vets were revered and had social advantages. Men in uniform command respect and gain distinct mating and economic advantages.
> 
> Racism/Fear for Social Order: If slaves were freed en masse, the entire white social dynamic and hierarchy of the region would be thrown into chaos. Millions of unskilled, uneducated, and impoverished slaves would suddenly be freed to do what? This was an impossible concept for them to swallow since it blew their entire operating reality to bits.
> 
> Social Pressure: only cowards and invalids stayed home when ones friends and family all signed up. Plus better to fight with friends and brothers than strangers.
> 
> The Great Awakening: These were hard shell Protestants who believed that they were ordained by God to exert dominion over this land and they had a personal relationship with their Lord and savior. "This world is not my home" is a very explosive concept when held tightly in a person with a millennialist mindset.
> 
> I could go on and on, but this is a good stopping place for now and commerce calls.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


What a fantastic post! Thank you, BSR...


----------



## eagle2250

Tiger, this subject is clearly a passion of yours and that's fine. However, while many of us may have some level of interest and opinions regarding the Civil War, causes, execution and resolution, we may not have your level of passion. Way back several pages in this thread I offered two general opinions, one reguarding the succession issue and the other an opinion of the nature of Lee's choices. I also agreed with the comments of another member with whom you were, it seems, in disagreement. You responded condescendingly to my opinion and my agreement with the other member. Because I was genuinely interested in the historical basis for your conclusions I did comment that I would be interested in reading them. Your response was that you would offer such, but that you expected myself and the other member to do likewise inresponding to debate challenges you might offer. I responded to you saying if you were looking for a quid pro quo exchange, that that was just not going to happen and that I was simply interested in what you had to say. I would think that would be flattering to someone as passionate about a subject as you seem to be. You then went on to express great umbradge when the exchange debate you demanded didn't occur. Clearly some of us do not enjoy debate as much as you seem to do, but as I've said before we have earned the right to our opinions on a surprising array of issues. BTW, I know you will conclude me to be an overly sensitive sort of guy, but your post above (#561) sure sounds like a public scolding. Please, don't do that again. I rarely get angry in reading literally thousands of posts herein, but honestly, the blood pressure rose just a bit on that one!


----------



## Tiger

TKI67 said:


> I certainly cannot disagree with these well organized and articulated facts or that they support the assertions made. I have a completely different question. Below is a link to the Army website that chronicles the various oaths of officers used by the U S Army. It appears that Robert E. Lee was commissioned by the US Army in June 1829. Assuming that to have been the case, I looked at what appears to have been the oath he took. I believe, subject always to illuminating correction, that at that time the "second paragraph" oath was in effect, but I leave that to each to read and decide for themselves. If Robert E. Lee swore an oath including that second paragraph, does that have an impact on the way one views his personal actions in the War of Northern Aggression?
> 
> https://history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html


Thank you for your kind words, TKI67!

"War of Northern Aggression" - an understandable phrase, but I believe "War for Southern Independence" works best, as it seems to me to be the least volatile while still maintaining accuracy.

Three thoughts, re: "_I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic._" (I think that's the phrase you're asking about.) First, this presupposes that the U.S. Constitution was under attack, or that the United States were under attack. However, if secession is legal/constitutional, then no such attack took place. States freely exercised their sovereign right to withdraw from a union that they had previously sovereignly chosen to join. (See post #550)

Second, if it can be demonstrated that the federal government had been in violation of that Constitution (pick any decades you wish!), wouldn't action against the federal government be warranted, in order to _preserve and protect_ the Constitution? Shades of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions!

Finally, it was the Lincoln Administration - in violation of the U.S. Constitution in multiple ways - that launched an invasion of the sovereign state of Virginia, not the other way around. *Points to ponder:* If secession was legal, then the Lincoln Administration attacked another confederated republic without a declaration of war - a violation of the U.S. Constitution. If secession wasn't permissible, then the Lincoln Administration launched an attack against other states in the Union - a power that does not exist in the U.S. Constitution, and a direct violation of Article IV, Section 4's pledge that the federal government would _protect_ states against invasion...not do the invading!

Hope that makes sense, and please let me know if I was using the correct paragraph...


----------



## Tiger

eagle2250 said:


> Tiger, this subject is clearly a passion of yours and that's fine. However, while many of us may have some level of interest and opinions regarding the Civil War, causes, execution and resolution, we may not have your level of passion. Way back several pages in this thread I offered two general opinions, one reguarding the succession issue and the other an opinion of the nature of Lee's choices. I also agreed with the comments of another member with whom you were, it seems, in disagreement. You responded condescendingly to my opinion and my agreement with the other member. Because I was genuinely interested in the historical basis for your conclusions I did comment that I would be interested in reading them. Your response was that you would offer such, but that you expected myself and the other member to do likewise inresponding to debate challenges you might offer. I responded to you saying if you were looking for a quid pro quo exchange, that that was just not going to happen and that I was simply interested in what you had to say. I would think that would be flattering to someone as passionate about a subject as you seem to be. You then went on to express great umbradge when the exchange debate you demanded didn't occur. Clearly some of us do not enjoy debate as much as you seem to do, but as I've said before we have earned the right to our opinions on a surprising array of issues. BTW, I know you will conclude me to be an overly sensitive sort of guy, but your post above (#561) sure sounds like a public scolding. Please, don't do that again. I rarely get angry in reading literally thousands of posts herein, but honestly, the blood pressure rose just a bit on that one!



I think I've been dispassionate in these messages, albeit scrupulously trying to adhere to historical accuracy
It was never my intent to be condescending, nor do I think I was. It _is_ my intent for us to be accurate
In actuality, you asked me to support my positions, after not bothering to respond to my queries. I only thought it fair that if I am being asked to give support/evidence, others should, too, when they are asked to do so. We should all defend our positions, especially on American history (a subject eviscerated by the "progressives" but I'm sure I'll be attacked by someone for that, too!)
I never asked for a "debate." I made some assertions, and thought it proper and respectful to all involved in the thread (and future readers) to support with evidence those assertions. That you chose to make unsupported assertions, and then ignore the refutations I offered to those unsupported assertions, damaged the dialogue, and serves to end the discussion
It is not about opinion, it is about historical truth. "Hancock was a better corp commander than Longstreet" is an opinion, as it is a bit too elusive for factual analysis (perhaps). What I've written is not opinion. You are indeed free to opine, but I'm not sure that opinions have the same place as fact in a factual discussion (especially one where an officer's character and reputation are being ripped apart with accusations of being a "traitor.")
Sounds like you are angry at me for being angry at you for being angry at me! For the record, I am not angry with anyone - frustrated, yes, but not angry


----------



## Vecchio Vespa

Tiger said:


> Thank you for your kind words, TKI67!
> 
> "War of Northern Aggression" - an understandable phrase, but I believe "War for Southern Independence" works best, as it seems to me to be the least volatile while still maintaining accuracy.
> 
> Three thoughts, re: "_I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic._" (I think that's the phrase you're asking about.) First, this presupposes that the U.S. Constitution was under attack, or that the United States were under attack. However, if secession is legal/constitutional, then no such attack took place. States freely exercised their sovereign right to withdraw from a union that they had previously sovereignly chosen to join. (See post #550)
> 
> Second, if it can be demonstrated that the federal government had been in violation of that Constitution (pick any decades you wish!), wouldn't action against the federal government be warranted, in order to _preserve and protect_ the Constitution? Shades of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions!
> 
> Finally, it was the Lincoln Administration - in violation of the U.S. Constitution in multiple ways - that launched an invasion of the sovereign state of Virginia, not the other way around. *Points to ponder:* If secession was legal, then the Lincoln Administration attacked another confederated republic without a declaration of war - a violation of the U.S. Constitution. If secession wasn't permissible, then the Lincoln Administration launched an attack against other states in the Union - a power that does not exist in the U.S. Constitution, and a direct violation of Article IV, Section 4's pledge that the federal government would _protect_ states against invasion...not do the invading!
> 
> Hope that makes sense, and please let me know if I was using the correct paragraph...


I was actually focusing on the 1789 and 1830 versions. In those versions the first paragraph speaks to the defense of the constitution but in the next paragraph there is a reference to bearing true allegiance to the United States of America. It appears to me that Lee swore that allegiance.


----------



## Tiger

TKI67 said:


> I was actually focusing on the 1789 and 1830 versions. In those versions the first paragraph speaks to the defense of the constitution but in the next paragraph there is a reference to bearing true allegiance to the United States of America. It appears to me that Lee swore that allegiance.


I see what you're referring to, TKI67. I think the chronology was that Virginia seceded from the Union, then Lee resigned from the U.S. Army (I assume that was performed according to military regulations, but I don't know), Lee was then hired by the Davis Administration, and then goes to battle after General Joseph Johnston's injury in the Peninsular Campaign as part of the Union invasion of Virginia/the CSA. So, I think resigning first keeps the oath from being violated.

Interestingly, as Lincoln ordered the invasion of Virginia without a congressional declaration of war, was it incumbent upon every Union officer to "obey the orders of the President of the United States" as per the oath? That is, must a president (or any other military or civilian leader) be obeyed, even when acting unconstitutionally? I think that's still an issue in today's world - when does fealty end?

My belief is that any unconstitutional action can correctly be ignored (dare I say, "nullified"?). I'll avoid the obvious dilemma lurking on the horizon...


----------



## Vecchio Vespa

That is a crafty conclusion. As long as you mutter the magic words "I hereby resign my commission" first, the oath is no longer applicable. Sounds like a great loophole with other useful applications!


----------



## Tiger

TKI67 said:


> That is a crafty conclusion. As long as you mutter the magic words "I hereby resign my commission" first, the oath is no longer applicable. Sounds like a great loophole with other useful applications!


The times were unprecedented, though, adding enormous complications for so many!


----------



## vpkozel

TKI67 said:


> That is a crafty conclusion. As long as you mutter the magic words "I hereby resign my commission" first, the oath is no longer applicable. Sounds like a great loophole with other useful applications!


well, the side that you are proposing is that you can never break an oath once taken, no matter what the situation may be. Which of course makes many of our Founders traitors because they had been in or fought with the Royal Army.

And what happens if your president gives you an order you think is unconstitutional? Shooting prisoners for instance. Or say locking up American citizens of Japanese decent without cause?


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> well, the side that you are proposing is that you can never break an oath once taken, no matter what the situation may be. Which of course makes many of our Founders traitors because they had been in or fought with the Royal Army.
> 
> And what happens if your president gives you an order you think is unconstitutional? Shooting prisoners for instance. Or say locking up American citizens of Japanese decent without cause?


Good points. I have raised this issue re: obedience to an oath/president/commander when that obedience would be complicit in a clear violation of law or the Constitution multiple times now. Look forward to a response...


----------



## Vecchio Vespa

vpkozel said:


> well, the side that you are proposing is that you can never break an oath once taken, no matter what the situation may be. Which of course makes many of our Founders traitors because they had been in or fought with the Royal Army.
> 
> And what happens if your president gives you an order you think is unconstitutional? Shooting prisoners for instance. Or say locking up American citizens of Japanese decent without cause?


I did not think i took that position. I thought i said it was a crafty conclusion. This thread is so needlessly acrimonious that once i hit "post" I am taking AAAC off my list of sites i enjoy.


----------



## Tiger

TKI67 said:


> I did not think i took that position. I thought i said it was a crafty conclusion. This thread is so needlessly acrimonious that once i hit "post" I am taking AAAC off my list of sites i enjoy.


I think the word _crafty_ has the connotation of being deceitful/filled with guile. I didn't mind it, but I can see how some would view this as accusing Lee of being deceitful. Additionally, that some have repeatedly referred to Lee as a "traitor"is bound to cause acrimony. Whether that acrimony is "needless" or not I cannot say, but stinging attacks on venerated objects/people will no doubt lead to the very acrimony presumably we would wish to avoid.

Imagine if I posted a list of all of Abraham Lincoln's constitutional violations, his _ipso facto_ violation of his presidential oath, and the historical/logical inaccuracies of his first inaugural address. Or if I pointed out the dishonesty, constitutional violations, and violation of _his_ presidential oath committed by Franklin Roosevelt. You don't think that would engender acrimony on the part of some AAAC members? Even if I supported all of the contentions above with a bevy of factual data, I would still be vilified!

I'll add that, in light of the "oath obedience" topic that became so prominent in this thread, I purposely sought to see if we would be willing to explore Mr. Lincoln's violations of his oath of office and all of his unconstitutional actions. Unsurprisingly, no responses were offered. Seems like only some sacred cows can be skewered, but not others.

For the record, I try to operate on a non-partisan basis on these historical issues - as alluded to above, I'll point out the violations of Lincoln and FDR (among many others) equally, because I am far more concerned with truth than political partisanship.


----------



## smmrfld

TKI67 said:


> This thread is so needlessly acrimonious that once i hit "post" I am taking AAAC off my list of sites i enjoy.


What an odd response.


----------



## Big T

smmrfld said:


> What an odd response.


Left me a bit puzzled also, except the phrase "needlessly acrimonious", to which I would add "overly wordy" and "condescending" (not your reply).


----------



## Tiger

Big T said:


> Left me a bit puzzled also, except the phrase "needlessly acrimonious", to which I would add "overly wordy" and "condescending" (not your reply).


Or, perhaps we could say that the thread required detail and depth to counter inaccuracies and lack of precision.

Maybe you could point out the condescension that I can't find, Big T? I won't find you condescending for doing so!


----------



## Shaver

Tiger said:


> Or, perhaps we could say that the thread required detail and depth to counter inaccuracies and lack of precision.
> 
> Maybe you could point out the condescension that I can't find, Big T? I won't find you condescending for doing so!


Oh, that was probably me. Something of a Leitmotif I'm afraid. One especially pronounced when interacting with the obstinately ignorant.


----------



## Big T

Tiger said:


> Or, perhaps we could say that the thread required detail and depth to counter inaccuracies and lack of precision.
> 
> Maybe you could point out the condescension that I can't find, Big T? I won't find you condescending for doing so!


Writing as if we are children in need of a lecture, is condescending, no matter how many words or citations used.


----------



## Mike Petrik

As Tiger well knows I do not agree with his Civil War thesis, even if do think he is correct in regards to Lee's conduct. I also thought that his exchange with Eagle was somewhat encumbered by unfair expectations on his part. That said, I do think he has acted in good faith throughout this thread. IMO his detailed and precise responses do not do much so reveal condescension as superior knowledge, and apparently for some of us that is a bit pride-wounding.


----------



## Tiger

Big T said:


> Writing as if we are children in need of a lecture, is condescending, no matter how many words or citations used.


So encouraging to see that some distort historical _and_ modern events equally.

Some posters wrote inaccurate/incendiary things. When I challenged this, I was asked to support _my_ assertions, even though the posters refused to support _their_ assertions. I did so - thoroughly, logically, and accurately, as the importance of the topic required it. Now, I'm accused of giving those posters "lectures" and being "condescending."

Not sure who needs a lecture, but it certainly is obvious that some need a heck of a lot more knowledge about the topics that they choose to write about, and the targets they choose to inveigh against.


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> As Tiger well knows I do not agree with his Civil War thesis, even if do think he is correct in regards to Lee's conduct. I also thought that his exchange with Eagle was somewhat encumbered by unfair expectations on his part. That said, I do think he has acted in good faith throughout this thread. IMO his detailed and precise responses do not do much so reveal condescension as superior knowledge, and apparently for some of us that is a bit pride-wounding.


Thank you, Mike, for your kindness and wisdom.


----------



## Big T

Condescending opinions, nothing more, nothing less, made obvious by posting/passing judgements "that some need a heck of a lot more knowledge....".


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> Oh, that was probably me. Something of a Leitmotif I'm afraid. One especially pronounced when interacting with the obstinately ignorant.


Don't think so, Shaver - no doubt I'm the one with the bull's eye on my back! But I do hope that it's not a continuing pattern on AAAC, or we'll be relegated to discussing the value of navy trousers and not much else!


----------



## drlivingston




----------



## SG_67

drlivingston said:


> View attachment 36645


perhaps. But then again, he did not have her as his representative.


----------



## Shaver

Not particularly current but, nevertheless, amusing:


----------



## Odradek




----------



## eagle2250

Odradek said:


> View attachment 55683


Indeed, in addition to the Covid 19 pandemic, we also seem to be in the throws of a culture cancel pandemic as well. Will it ever end and if so where and when?


----------



## David J. Cooper

Having had Asian friends almost my whole life, I found Dr Seuss to be troubling at a very young age.

As an adult I found that one of my very close friends spent his childhood in an Internment Camp and then poverty because of our Canadian Government’s fear of Asians. I can’t help but think that Seuss‘s humour wouldn’t have made his childhood easier.

Violence against Asian people is still a thing even in Vancouver sadly.


----------



## eagle2250

David J. Cooper said:


> Having had Asian friends almost my whole life, I found Dr Seuss to be troubling at a very young age.
> 
> As an adult I found that one of my very close friends spent his childhood in an Internment Camp and then poverty because of our Canadian Government's fear of Asians. I can't help but think that Seuss's humour wouldn't have made his childhood easier.
> 
> Violence against Asian people is still a thing even in Vancouver sadly.


Your post saddens me, but in a good way, I think. Over a great many years I read the Dr Seuss books to our kids and then to our Grand kids and I never realized the pain that they might be causing others. Your post enlightened me regarding the subject and I do appreciate that. In this country the words and actions of our former President seem to have ignited an ever increasing number of hostile acts on Asian Americans. This saddens me to, as well as embarrasses me...I thought we were better than that!


----------



## Gurdon

eagle2250 said:


> Your post saddens me, but in a good way, I think. Over a great many years I read the Dr Seuss books to our kids and then to our Grand kids and I never realized the pain that they might be causing others. Your post enlightened me regarding the subject and I do appreciate that. In this country the words and actions of our former President seem to have ignited an ever increasing number of hostile acts on Asian Americans. This saddens me to, as well as embarrasses me...I thought we were better than that!


Eagle, Thank you for making this point.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Far more Asian-Americans are injured by discrimination in higher education than by Dr. Seuss children's books, and it is getting worse.


----------



## Tiger

In the United States, the assaults against Asians and Asian Americans have been disproportionally committed by African Americans. I hardly think that this is Trump-inspired behavior - do Trump's words magically resonate with that demographic group but not others? This is ludicrous. Even if so, why wouldn't we hold those culpable for the attacks responsible, rather than blaming Trump? My political sentiments lie with politicians such as Thomas Massie and Rand Paul (more so his dad, actually) and not Trump, but the Trump-blaming has become a form of irrationality.

Maybe we should hold all of those who blame "white people" for the ills of the world responsible for every assault against white people...or does the blame game somehow not apply under those circumstances?

The abdication of personal behavior and responsibility has been a ruinous force in the United States, and I'm appalled by all of this nonsense.


----------



## eagle2250

Regardless of who it is that sits in the Oval Office, that person has the 'bully pulpit' and they are listened to by many. All those times the former President referred to "that Asian virus or Kung Flu, etc." he was heard by so many and his incriminating words did have an impact. To think otherwise is naive at best and misleading at it's worst. However, I do agree with your conclusions pertaining to the abdication of personal responsibility.


----------



## Mike Petrik

eagle2250 said:


> Regardless of who it is that sits in the Oval Office, that person has the 'bully pulpit' and they are listened to by many. All those times the former President referred to "that Asian virus or Kung Flu, etc." he was heard by so many and his incriminating words did have an impact. To think otherwise is naive at best and misleading at it's worst. However, I do agree with your conclusions pertaining to the abdication of personal responsibility.


Trump would have been better off using the term "ChiCom virus" since the Chinese Communist government was his real target. but verbal precision was never his strong suit. I agree with Tiger though that the impact of his language on either prejudice or hate crimes was probably miniscule. All the Trump supporters I know, including quite a few Asians, knew exactly whom he was targeting.

Trump's language likely did have an impact, but it is doubtful that that impact involved hate crimes in any meaningful way. Instead, the impact was to foster distrust of the Chinese government and its role in connection with the virus. Whether that distrust was appropriate or disordered is a separate question.


----------



## Tiger

eagle2250 said:


> Regardless of who it is that sits in the Oval Office, that person has the 'bully pulpit' and they are listened to by many. All those times the former President referred to "that Asian virus or Kung Flu, etc." he was heard by so many and his incriminating words did have an impact. To think otherwise is naive at best and misleading at it's worst. However, I do agree with your conclusions pertaining to the abdication of personal responsibility.


Not once have I heard anyone disparage the Chinese people specifically or the Asian community in general. Nor have the crimes committed against Asians been perpetrated by a large and diversified swath of the public, as one would rationally assume a president's utterances would have if they were as impactful as you indicate.

But what would someone as naive and misleading as I am know about such things? (Note: Aren't you the one who attacked me for supposedly disparaging you re: your knowledge of U.S. history? I guess only you have the power and right to insult!)


----------



## smmrfld

Tiger said:


> Not once have I heard anyone disparage the Chinese people specifically or the Asian community in general. Nor have the crimes committed against Asians been perpetrated by a large and diversified swath of the public, as one would rationally assume a president's utterances would have if they were as impactful as you indicate.


If you truly believe this, you should try to get out more and see what's going on in the real world rather than just your online or TV bubble...you may learn something. Your increasingly unhinged posts don't reflect well on you at all.


----------



## Tiger

smmrfld said:


> If you truly believe this, you should try to get out more and see what's going on in the real world rather than just your online or TV bubble...you may learn something. Your increasingly unhinged posts don't reflect well on you at all.


The comment was meant in the context of COVID-19 and related blame for it. Perhaps you travel in circles that include anti-Asian fanatics, but I don't.

I imagine anything that deviates from your ridiculous left wing ideology must seem"unhinged." I notice - as always with you - there's an attack but never evidence to support what you write. Fortunately, not all of us ascribe to the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School...


----------



## smmrfld

Tiger said:


> The comment was meant in the context of COVID-19 and related blame for it. Perhaps you travel in circles that include anti-Asian fanatics, but I don't.
> 
> I imagine anything that deviates from your ridiculous left wing ideology must seem"unhinged." I notice - as always with you - there's an attack but never evidence to support what you write. Fortunately, not all of us ascribe to the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School...


Oh come on, Bro...you just phoned in that reply. I'm shocked you didn't trot out your Mother Jones trope...that chestnut never gets old!


----------



## Tiger

smmrfld said:


> Oh come on, Bro...you just phoned in that reply. I'm shocked you didn't trot out your Mother Jones trope...that chestnut never gets old!


You'll have to settle for that tepid response. At least I didn't mention your Che Guevara t-shirt collection!


----------



## RogerP

eagle2250 said:


> Your post saddens me, but in a good way, I think. Over a great many years I read the Dr Seuss books to our kids and then to our Grand kids and I never realized the pain that they might be causing others. Your post enlightened me regarding the subject and I do appreciate that. In this country the words and actions of our former President seem to have ignited an ever increasing number of hostile acts on Asian Americans. This saddens me to, as well as embarrasses me...I thought we were better than that!


Very well said my friend.


----------

