the American Founding
Fathers and Religion
The article "Totalitarian Collectivism" was rather interest, and there are some responses I would like to make to it, if you'd let me...
"American 18th century revolutionaries would cringe in their graves if they saw the federal government socialism state in operation." You mean like Thomas Paine? He said about Capitalism that "it is necessary that a revolution should be made in it," and "the earth, in its natural, cultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race." ("Agrarian Reform.") Paine, like Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison, did not believe in the Christian god. See "Letter to Peter Carr," by Thomas Jefferson, "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion" by Benjamin Franklin, "Letter to FA Van der Kamp," by John Adams, "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine, etc., etc., etc.. These basic facts seem to go against your assertion that "Christian ethics, values and teachings are synonymous with the founding of our nation."
If you actually read their books, instead of talking about how they need to be respected, you wouldn't be making these mistakes. Essentially, you are arguing for the exact opposite of what many of the American Founding Fathers believed: that Christianity was a false religion and, at best, it was the most murderous, destructive force on the planet. Only Thomas Paine, who was the one who owned no slaves, believed in abolishing Capitalism. But, you are stating that these revolutionaries would "would cringe in their graves" to see Socialism -- when, in fact, they listened to and admired the most ardent, well-spoken Socialist of their time, Thomas Paine.
"The 'Guns and Butter', 'Bread and Circus' crowd all believe that big government advances solutions. For them, facts, evidence and lessons from history are meaningless. They have a false dream to believe in . . ." Lessons from history, like the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by the Republican Party, the volitional withdrawal of civil defense on 9/11 according to the government's own records, military expenditure that is ten times greater than health expenditure, and the passage of the Patriot Act? That all seems like intensively Authoritarian government, and none of it had anything to do with Barrack Obama's executive powers.
Under the Republican regime, wars are launched and millions are killed; under the Democratic regime, a healthcare system is forced on the public. Honestly, I would rather have no choice in healthcare, than having no choice in living. Somehow, it seems to me, that dropping a bomb in someone's house is more authoritarian than, say, dropping a vaccine in their house. This is not a statement of support for federal healthcare, but it's just to point out your contradiction. If you're really opposed to big government, try to repeal the Patriot Act, or abolish the police, or end the war on drugs. You know, where government is full of prisons, courts, cops, executioners, camps, etc., that's what I call "big government." And that is the government that is most problematic for its people.
"The prospects for impeachment, after the Senate fix that kept Clinton in office, illustrates that the system protects the office." Impeach who for what? Before this is explained (can it be?), we should just know that impeachment is not an option. You're aware that president Nixon planned an arson attack on the Brooking Building and poisoned journalists who were critical of him, right? ("The Ends of Power," by H.R. Haldeman.) There was only a threat of impeachment there. So, you should point out the more relevant facts: the senate will not impeach the president even when committing terrorism and arson. See, that's a bit more important than a senate that won't impeach the president for passing a healthcare bill.
"The march to total tyranny is now a sprint." There is nothing done under Barack Obama that is inherently more Authoritarian than any of the previous presidents. It doesn't have anything to do with Conservative vrs. Liberal, and by focusing the struggle on this level, you're missing the whole point. Do you really think a Conservative president is going to change anything? Do you really think that wars are less authoritarian than forced healthcare? Do you really think that the government acts in any way that benefits the vast majority of the poor working class, or that it is nothing more than a scheme of the rich and wealthy?
Finally, parts of the article sounded like children's jokes. "If the answers were not on the teleprompter, he would flunk the jeopardy show audition." Sounds like you must have heard this on some recess playground, probably preceded by "You're so stupid that...." Likewise, there are so many phrases here that are simply meant as insults, like referring to Obama as "the basketball president" or a "'PC' protected mulato." I don't imagine anyone who is going to be turned into a Republican by calling Obama "the basketball president."
"JFK had standards. Just how can anyone compare Marylyn Monroe with Vera Baker?" This is another brilliant critique of the president: the form and shape of a woman that gets the president hot. If a president is not arroused by the same thing that I am, then I am not going to support him! Brilliant deduction.
Thank you for listening. I patiently await a response...
This Inherent Autonomy essay - Assault on Liberty Originate with Secular Humanism - was written for folks just like you. I'm sure the graphic will have you reaching for your meds. You must be new to BATR and have not read our outrage against the GOP. Since you are "true believer" in the latest deceiver, I'll take my leave and let you feel good with your fantasy world.
Thanks for your quick response. However, I require a little more evidence of the founding fathers' religion than, say, a photoshopped picture of the statue of liberty holding a cross.
"What is it the Bible teaches us?--rapine, cruelty, and murder. What is it the Testament teaches us?--to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith." -- Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason," Part 2, Chapter 3.
"EVERY commentary and annotation on the Bible, implicitly declares its fallibility; for if the Scriptures remained genuine and entire, they would not stand in need of commentaries and expositions, but would shine in their infallible lustre and purity without them." -- Ethan Allen, "Reason: The Only Oracle of Man," Chapter 7, Section II.
"...in the book of Joshua, we are told, the sun stood still several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus, we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, etc." -- Thomas Jefferson, "Letter to Peter Carr," 1787.
The list goes on and on, with George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams. Do you really believe that these "secular humanists," who were all offended by Christianity, made an "assault on liberty"? Probably -- you seem more interested in talking for them than you do in reading their books. I haven't heard of anything quite so insulting and I don't think they'd thank you for it.