The Future Right-Wingers Want....

#101
#101
Unconditional Surrender said:
Islam does not believe in natural law. You have to believe in an intelligible universe governed by these laws to get very far in science. In Islam, every action is directly caused by God. Of course Rome didn't fall until converting. That's how Christ conquered it.
Click to expand...

Islam shat the bed once its followers learned how to use it the way Christian leaders in the west were using Christianity. Organized religion of any sect can and has been used by man for evil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, Vol since 77, LouderVol and 1 other person
#103
#103
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, MemphisVol77, NurseGoodVol and 2 others
#104
#104
Unconditional Surrender said:
If you are a Christian, you don't have to lightfoot around apologizing. Christianity is the cause of every blessing we have. It established common law, birthed enlightenment science, established human rights, etc. If you think I am exaggerating, go back and read about Roman culture, the one Christ toppled.

Read The Air we Breathe by Glen Scrivener or Dominion by Tom Holland. (Holland is a secular historian)

We have forgotten our roots. Read old books (or the new ones I just posted!) Remember! Take your cues from the democracy of the dead, whose heritage we inherited and are now wrecking. Assume the center. History belongs to the Lord.
Click to expand...
God would like to have a word with you on the bolded part idolator.

your base assumption falls apart pretty quickly when you consider timelines. Most of Europe was Christian by 500AD, common law didn't start getting formed for another 300 years as the first of your items. if it was "Christianity" as the force behind your list of items they would have started a lot sooner.

It did not establish common law. and I really don't think you actually want to claim common law as it established monarchies, feudalism, taxes, and the death penalty for not paying your taxes and following your lord's commands. the basis of common law was only formed in the 800s, and didn't become "common" law until the Normans took over England and rewrote the also Christian laws of the country.

as hog pointed out the enlightenment is more attributed to the spread of ideas from other areas, largely the Middle East INTO Europe that spurned enlightenment. and the enlightenment was in the 1600s, I hardly see how that can be claimed to be a function of Christianity.

and depending on what you mean by human rights it was the Christians who fought against those the most, and it was the more secular branches actually pushing equality. which again didn't really start to form until the 1800/1900s. I have a real hard time attributing the development of our current human rights to something that started almost two thousand years before.

the development of our rights has been a largely steady climb, and if anything Christianity has been used to retard that progress. Christianity was used to support monarchies, it was used to lessen other peoples who weren't Christian, or even just not the right type. trying to twist the acts of people who might have been Christian into the direct result of the religion would also require accepting all the failures of Christians as a direct result of the religion too. which I don't think you really want to argue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, MercyPercy and hog88
#105
#105
hog88 said:
Islam shat the bed once its followers learned how to use it the way Christian leaders in the west were using Christianity. Organized religion of any sect can and has been used by man for evil.
Click to expand...

You take the good with the bad, like anything in life. Organized Christianity has given society far more good than bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel, GroverCleveland and lookoutmtn17
#106
#106
hog88 said:
I'm going to have to back up just a bit and give Volger some credit. I've done some research since me and him had those discussions and he has a point, the BoRs was meant to apply only the federal government until the ratification of the 14th. Here's a good short write up.

Now Cherished, Bill of Rights Spent a Century in Obscurity
Click to expand...
Conceding a point? Agreeing with someone who took a different opinion than you? Doing it gracefully?

Who is this and how did you get Hog's login info???
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, GroverCleveland, 85SugarVol and 1 other person
#107
#107
volbound1700 said:
I don't remember the exact year or name of the case but there was a case in the 1920s or 1930s that first reference the "Separation of Church and State" comment that started all of this. The case was about a situation where school buses used to take kids to Catholic Schools as well as the Public Schools and someone sued over that. The Supreme Court cited Separation of Church and State as their reasoning for why the School Buses shouldn't take kids to parochial schools and that started the can of worms. It was a 5-4 decision like most of them.
Click to expand...
I understand, just pointing out the absurdity of claiming how "abhorrent" the idea of any religious references is, especially over 150-160 years** after the Constitution was ratified. Sure, these cases may have been earlier, but the point holds up: took quite awhile before people noticed how "abhorrent" these things were to a free society.

** I originally said 170 but with regards to the point, the difference in time seems immaterial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, McDad and volbound1700
#108
#108
utvolpj said:
I rarely see TJ cited by modern progressives. Any examples? Most are trying to cancel him at this point. If you say classic liberals then you may have more of a point. Was Locke also a progressive?

I've read what I'm discussing as well as many others on the subject. You seem to use a very superficial understanding of these events and ideas to make your points. The gotcha attempt around the convention is an example.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I am not trying to "gotcha". That is a pointless endeavor that is reserved for trolling. I am just adding my context to your discussions to get more academic in thought.

John Locke was a massive Christian. I don't think you want to go down that rabbit hole. I have read (part of) his "Essay Concerning Human Understanding". His entire framework was that Democracy doesn't work without evoking God who he cites is responsible for giving mankind their "rights". It is apparently that the Apostle Paul, in his letters, evokes to the first recorded statement of the equality of everyone when he cites that all our equal whether Jew or Gentile, Freeman or Bondman, Male or Female, in the eyes of God and Church leadership was often not based on class. Christian Churches were not the first societies that we think were free, however. The Minoans and Sumerians likely ruled by a type of Democratic process and versions of Democracy were present in ancient Greece (notably Athens although only male rich/middle class property owners were allowed to vote).

The secularist often cite to the French advocates for Democracy/Personal freedom. Secularism was heavily engrained in the French Revolution (more so than the American Revolution).

Going to your original statement, Thomas Jefferson would have been a HUGE proponent for the local government ideology that I am citing to. In fact his party was the one that pushed for localized government while the Federalist had a more Federal government approach. Jefferson could have caused havoc, however, if not for George Washington being President. His party favored siding with the French Revolutionary regime and could have pulled us into those wars (and later the Napoleonic Wars) if we weren't careful. We were eventually pulled into the war of 1812. Jefferson, however, changed his views often in his lifetime and later admitted that George Washington was right to keep us out of foreign entanglements.

The French considered us traitors as they saw us as permanent Allies based on the treaty we signed with them during the American Revolutionary Wars. We actually argued that was with Louis XVI's regime and France had betrayed the terms in the Treaty of Versailles in 1783 anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and McDad
#109
#109
McDad said:
Yes. All of that would be ok for me. Not familiar with those but I would assume they would be general guidelines on how to treat others properly and build some internal morality.
Click to expand...
at least some of them would also have to include how to treat the various god(s) of those texts too.

I still don't think the schools should be teaching morality, but I would think you could teach some historical lessons about shared thoughts/cultural items/morals across cultures using the texts as examples.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#110
#110
Not to worry, the Fed will threaten to withhold funding from the Louisiana school systems until they remove all the 10cs'. Back in the 80s, the Fed threatened to withhold highway funds from Louisiana if they didn't comply with the new drinking age (21). Louisiana eventually caved to the Fed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and Vol since 77
#114
#114
LouderVol said:
at least some of them would also have to include how to treat the various god(s) of those texts too.

I still don't think the schools should be teaching morality, but I would think you could teach some historical lessons about shared thoughts/cultural items/morals across cultures using the texts as examples.
Click to expand...
I understand. If refrences to Buddha or Allah are part of what gets posted, that's okay by me.

Japan does a good job of teaching self responsibility and morality (as it relates to society, not faith). We could adopt their model, too.
 
#115
#115
GroverCleveland said:
I understand, just pointing out the absurdity of claiming how "abhorrent" the idea of any religious references is, especially over 150-160 years** after the Constitution was ratified. Sure, these cases may have been earlier, but the point holds up: took quite awhile before people noticed how "abhorrent" these things were to a free society.

** I originally said 170 but with regards to the point, the difference in time seems immaterial.
Click to expand...
under the same argument slavery is ok. took almost 100 years for people to come to terms with that being wrong.

any type of true equality in this country was also "abhorrent" for 150+ years.

might want to be careful justifying current issues based on past acceptance.
 
#116
#116
McDad said:
I understand. If refrences to Buddha or Allah are part of what gets posted, that's okay by me.

Japan does a good job of teaching self responsibility and morality (as it relates to society, not faith). We could adopt their model, too.
Click to expand...
Everything I have seen about the japanese school systems seems pretty good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#119
#119
volbound1700 said:
To be honest, I am not trying to "gotcha". That is a pointless endeavor that is reserved for trolling. I am just adding my context to your discussions to get more academic in thought.

John Locke was a massive Christian. I don't think you want to go down that rabbit hole. I have read (part of) his "Essay Concerning Human Understanding". His entire framework was that Democracy doesn't work without evoking God who he cites is responsible for giving mankind their "rights". It is apparently that the Apostle Paul, in his letters, evokes to the first recorded statement of the equality of everyone when he cites that all our equal whether Jew or Gentile, Freeman or Bondman, Male or Female, in the eyes of God and Church leadership was often not based on class. Christian Churches were not the first societies that we think were free, however. The Minoans and Sumerians likely ruled by a type of Democratic process and versions of Democracy were present in ancient Greece (notably Athens although only male rich/middle class property owners were allowed to vote).

The secularist often cite to the French advocates for Democracy/Personal freedom. Secularism was heavily engrained in the French Revolution (more so than the American Revolution).

Going to your original statement, Thomas Jefferson would have been a HUGE proponent for the local government ideology that I am citing to. In fact his party was the one that pushed for localized government while the Federalist had a more Federal government approach. Jefferson could have caused havoc, however, if not for George Washington being President. His party favored siding with the French Revolutionary regime and could have pulled us into those wars (and later the Napoleonic Wars) if we weren't careful. We were eventually pulled into the war of 1812. Jefferson, however, changed his views often in his lifetime and later admitted that George Washington was right to keep us out of foreign entanglements.

The French considered us traitors as they saw us as permanent Allies based on the treaty we signed with them during the American Revolutionary Wars. We actually argued that was with Louis XVI's regime and France had betrayed the terms in the Treaty of Versailles in 1783 anyways.
Click to expand...
So explain again how local govt Jefferson most fits the modern progressive agenda

One does not need to believe in an active God to call things god-given (esp those with a limited understanding of the natural world). It's simply an understood adjective that some take too literally

I'm on a phone and you obviously have a lot of free time. Curiously I'm hungry for a salad for lunch. No idea why
 
#121
#121
utvolpj said:
So explain again how local govt Jefferson most fits the modern progressive agenda

One does not need to believe in an active God to call things god-given (esp those with a limited understanding of the natural world). It's simply an understood adjective that some take too literally

I'm in a phone and you obviously have a lot of free time. Curiously I'm hungry for a salad for lunch. No idea why
Click to expand...
I like the idea of putting our meal cravings as a post script in future posts. Trendsetter.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top