What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

duper said:
It was not a comment one makes as part of a "simple conversation" unless one is looking to turn that conversation into an argument.
Click to expand...
Uh yeah, duper, meet Rover. Rover, meet your new toy.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

St. Clown said:
Uh yeah, duper, meet Rover. Rover, meet your new toy.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm familiar with Rover. And sadly will let you know I'm not his new toy. The funny thing is, he's such a troll that he didn't even notice (apparently) that I don't disagree with him, except that I see no reason to oversimplify the arguments of those I do disagree with.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

First, Rover said "Is there a subset of libertarians who are okay with church leaders restricting their freedoms instead of the govt doing so? Okay...I concede that's possible...but really are we talking more than a few people here?"


Then duper said:

duper said:
Maybe I did misinterpret what you said. Maybe, when you said the two states can't coexist, you actually meant that you suspect that they don't coexist in the majority of either libertarians or Christians. On the other hand, that statement is both so vague and so obvious that it probably wouldn't be worth making. What you did say was more inflammatory. It was not a comment one makes as part of a "simple conversation" unless one is looking to turn that conversation into an argument.
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Rover said:
First, Rover said "Is there a subset of libertarians who are okay with church leaders restricting their freedoms instead of the govt doing so? Okay...I concede that's possible...but really are we talking more than a few people here?"


Then duper said:



:confused:
Click to expand...

Actually, you said that second. What you said first was quite different. :)
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

duper said:
Actually, you said that second. What you said first was quite different. :)
Click to expand...

Its called "continuing a thought" duper. ;) As posters asked me about the first statement, I clarified with the second.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

This week in Republicans.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/dont-know-much-about-history-demint-edition

Heritage Foundation head Jim DeMint appeared on Vocal Point with Jerry Newcombe of Truth In Action Ministries last week, where he insisted that “no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves.”

DeMint, a former US senator from South Carolina, told Newcombe that “the conscience of the American people” and not the federal government was responsible for the end of slavery.
Click to expand...

“[A] lot of the move to free the slaves came from the people, it did not come from the federal government. It came from a growing movement among the people, particularly people of faith, that this was wrong. People like Wilberforce who persisted for years because of his faith and because of his love for people. So no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves. In fact, it was Abraham Lincoln, the very first Republican, who took this on as a cause and a lot of it was based on a love in his heart that comes from God.”
Click to expand...

Hey Jim. The Federal Government freed the slaves. You can argue that the wrong army won the war but you can't claim that small government conservatism won the Civil War. Does NOT compute.

As the article writer argues.

But slavery still existed in the United States until the Civil War because Southern states, including South Carolina, ignored the abolitionist voices. It was the federal government that won the Civil War; it was the federal government that freed the slaves; and it was the federal government that moved to change the Constitution by approving post-war amendments to ensure slavery’s end in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Nice try, Jim.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

St. Clown said:
Why would anybody care what Jim DeMint has to say these days?
Click to expand...

Lots of Republicans/Tea Partiers do. He's President of the Heritage Foundation you know.

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
Click to expand...
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

ScoobyDoo said:
Hey Jim. The Federal Government freed the slaves. You can argue that the wrong army won the war but you can't claim that small government conservatism won the Civil War. Does NOT compute.
Click to expand...

Liberal ideas and Christianity teamed up to end it. Existing laissez faire (libertarianism?) in the south did not.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Priceless said:
I guess all the slaveholders were Jewish or Muslins or something...
Click to expand...

The major abolitionist moral arguments were usually based on Christianity and key abolitionist were or inspired by Christian clergy. Here's one article that summarizes the movement:

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/amabrel.htm

Most students probably assume that the antislavery crusade that culminated in the Civil War was largely an outgrowth of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed, “All men are created equal.” The cause of immediate emancipation, as the abolitionists came to define it, had a different germ of inspiration from the rise of a fervent religious reawakening just as the new Republic was being created. That impulse sprang from two main sources: the theology and practice of Quakerism and the emergence of an aggressive, interdenominational evangelicalism.

Oh and the National Humanities Center is one of the world's top humanities based institutions and has no religious affiliation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Humanities_Center

Its the same in many critical movements that have formed modern compassionate society...Jesus got us here.
 
5mn_Major said:
Its the same in many critical movements that have formed modern compassionate society...Jesus got us here.
Click to expand...

It just took almost two Millennia...And I thought Moses wandered through the desert with the Jews for a long time. I'm sure if I had time to look it up I could find John Calhoun or other champions of the "states rights" movement citing the Bible to justify the practice of slavery. But of course, the "War of Northern Aggression" was not fought over the issue of slavery, right?



Edit:
Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it.
Click to expand...

Defenders of slavery argued that the institution was divine, and that it brought Christianity to the heathen from across the ocean. Slavery was, according to this argument, a good thing for the enslaved. John C. Calhoun said, "Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually."
Click to expand...

JAMES THORNWELL, a minister, wrote in 1860, "The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other."
Click to expand...
http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Hall_Association
 
Last edited:
Priceless said:
It just took almost two Millennia...And I thought Moses wandered through the desert with the Jews for a long time. I'm sure if I had time to look it up I could find John Calhoun or other champions of the "states rights" movement citing the Bible to justify the practice of slavery. But of course, the "War of Northern Aggression" was not fought over the issue of slavery, right?
Click to expand...
Some thoughts

I think it was James Michener who wrote that if Moses had walked a mile a day in the right direction for 40 years he would have ended up in England.

The O'Hara's of Gone With the Wind fame were Catholic.

There was slavery in the Bible. As was incest, sodomy, and adultery. There was also admonishment, smiting and forgiveness. And one can never forget the history.

Slavery was not the proximate cause of the Civil War, but it became the Northern "cause" around the war's third year.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

From the Wikipedia article on slavery and Christianity

Christian views on slavery are varied both regionally and historically. Slavery has been an integral part of Christianity for much of its history, spanning well over eighteen centuries. In the early years of Christianity, slavery was a normal feature of the economy and society in the Roman Empire, and well into the Middle Ages and beyond.[1] Most Christian figures in that early period, such as Saint Augustine, supported continuing slavery whereas several figures such as Saint Patrick were opposed. Both the Old Testament and New Testament sanction and endorse slavery which presents a difficult challenge for Christians advocating against slavery. About eighteen centuries after the birth of Christianity, as the abolition movement took shape across the globe, groups who advocated slavery's abolition struggled to use Christian teachings in support of their positions, instead turning to the vague concept of the 'spirit of Christianity' and textual argumentation.[2]

The issue of Christianity and slavery is one that has seen intense conflict. Passages in the Bible have historically been used by both pro-slavery advocates and slavery abolitionists to support their respective views.
Click to expand...
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

joecct said:
Some thoughts

I think it was James Michener who wrote that if Moses had walked a mile a day in the right direction for 40 years he would have ended up in England.
Click to expand...
Then he should stick to writing since he can't do math. :) Cairo to London = 2200 miles. 40*365 = 14,600 miles, more than half the world's circumference, so he could have gotten to literally any point on earth.
 
LynahFan said:
Then he should stick to writing since he can't do math. :) Cairo to London = 2200 miles. 40*365 = 14,600 miles, more than half the world's circumference, so he could have gotten to literally any point on earth.
Click to expand...

He should have had God part the Atlantic Ocean and walked to Boca.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Slavery isn't, nor has been, an "integral" part of Christianity. Yes, it has existed through time and in societies that were significantly Christian. But, it's existence doesn't have any specific tie to Christianity, but was rather part of cultures at through time, whether Christian or not. And yes, the Bible has been used to justify it by some, as the Bible has been misused in many other ways to justify all sorts of things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top