PART TWO
"FDR was a commie whore beholden to the bigoted Southern Democrats aka the KKK"
We last left off at the beginning of the nineteenth century with the anti-federalist anti-Constitution Thomas "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" Jefferson and his immortal (plagiarized?) incorrectly interpreted words of "separation of church and state". As we covered before he was right in his assessment and his interference with the State of Connecticut's persecution of the Baptists. The State must be removed from the Church but the Church must be allowed free exercise thereof or in about abound and around the State. For a century it worked.
The First Amendment was left unquestioned for another hundred years. God was in the public square and we became a Power as a result not in spite of it as some would suggest.. We won every war we fought. Our economic growth was unrivaled. We became a nation that was the envy of the world. We became, as my peeps in Doire would say...the talk of the town and the people of the world took notice and flocked here en masse.
Which brings me to the Irish.....
The Irish more so than most, saw the blueprint of the colonialists success against British imperialism as a gateway to better things and said farewell to the country they loved so well for a bright brand new day and adopted a new home...Amerikay. At first they were considered no better than monkeys....as in dirty hairy papist monkeys (the donkey came much later), but they saw it through without complaining. They had it rough no doubt, but Im sure if we looked back at the ship's ledgers, there werent too many that went back to Ireland. They could work, they could own land, vote, they could fight (not in the pubs you racist...but in the army) and drink (well, yeah in the pubs) and they were free thereof to practice their religion as blasphemous as it was to the natives.
The Irish being the sexual animals that they were/are coupled with their lack of regard for birth control (thank God that planned parenthood didnt exist) multiplied...and multiplied...and multiplied. This scared people. Alot. It was ok when they were cleaning sewers, digging ditches, fighting wars and building railroads...but gain political clout???? Inconceivable!
Which brings me to the obvious anti-catholic sentiment that ensued, culminating in the 1899 landmark (at the time but never mentioned again by secularists) Supreme Court case of Bradfield versus roberts which questioned the constitutional legality of federal funding of a Catholic Hospital. Its late and Im tired (also known as drunk) so I will wrap it up. The court ruled in favor of the hospital as it was just a building and did not inherently discriminate against other religions.....as it WAS JUST A FUCKIN BUILDING and not state sanctioned or an endorsement of a particular religion. The funding was allowed.
It was the correct ruling. A physical building or object did not imply a preferential treatment of a particular religion back then no more than a stone tablet of the ten commandments or a manger scene does today. Get over yourselves you big frickin crybabies.
Anti-Catholicism continued among other evils known as to be the faults and the fallacy of man, but we continued to grow as a nation kicking ass, growing economically exponentially, a Superpower if you will, and yes God remained in the public square for the next half century. America Ruled!
...and then the commies came.
PART THREE
"I know I got sidetracked but I will get to the commies and klan next"
to be continued...
EE-Aw!!!
12 comments:
God was in the public square and we became a Power as a result not in spite of it as some would suggest.. We won every war we fought. Our economic growth was unrivaled. We became a nation that was the envy of the world.
you mistakenly assume that correlation equals causation.
this is the same as me arguing that the the decline of church attendance caused the unprecedented technological progress of the late 20th century. there's a correlation, but no cause and effect relationship.
and on bradfield versus roberts
It was the correct ruling.
agreed. it was the correct ruling.
but...
A physical building or object did not imply a treatment of religion back then no more than a stone tablet of the ten commandments or a manger scene does today.
did you even think this out before writing it? it's a totally illogical analogy.
the ten commandments on govt property implies endorsement of a religion.
giving money to a catholic hospital that treats all comers is a completely different story.
it involves no religious symbols on public property.
but, ultimately, this post is disturbing because its an example (albeit a very mild one) of how christian fundamentalists have decided to rewrite american history.
december's harpers has a great piece on it.
and while i'm debunking all of the gross distortions of your piece, i thought i'd inform my fellow readers with this enlightening (no pun intended) FAQ on secularism:
Secularism 101
You debunked nothing...you gave us your wrong and biased opinion...I presented facts.
There can be no doubt that our religious freedoms contributed heavily to the success of this nation, to deny that is to deny the truth.
You are wrong about the 10 commandos in every way, but I find it interesting that you would willingly contradict yourself and imply that you are in agreement with federal funding of religious activities as long as they dont discriminate.
it involves no religious symbols on public property
That is a made up argument by modern day secularists.Religious imagery is everywhere you look throughout our history it wasnt until the commies infiltrated FDR's Washington that it became a problem.
...and if you ever reference Harpers again on my blog I will hunt you down and stab you with your own guitar.
dude, you are so confused on this issue, i can't help but post these FAQs.
you've really bought the revisionist christian lie about what secularism is.
1) you're confusing religious liberty with religosity. no doubt religious liberty made this country great, and there's no doubt the only way to ensure religious liberty is through secularism.
2) providing medical care is not a religious activity.
3) i'll use your logic on religious symbols on public property to show how absurd it is: racism didn't become a problem until those uppity black people made it one.
i honestly think you have no idea what secularism is.
so here's another FAQ:
America's Godless Public Square
Heres the problem and why you and I will never see eye to eye.
You choose to look at the last 50 years of this country, I look at the entire history. You see what you want to see to fit your agenda.
Your racism analogy is just flat out retarded.
...and you can stop sending atheist written links...what exactly do you think youre proving? An atheist disagrees with me? Shocker thanks for the link.
First of all, the "uppity black people" analogy doesn't apply because the ten commandments or a teacher wearing a cross doesn't enslave anyone or oppress anyone.
secondly, i scanned your Godless public square link and the guy is wrong on a few points not the least of which is where he says Godless public square is not enforced atheism. The examples are everywhere. School teachers sued for wearing a cross, school children being told they're not allowed to pray during or after the pledge of allegiance, a student denied a govt. scholarship because he was going to take seminary classes, the FORCED acceptance of homosexuality, etc.
There truly is an anti-christianity movement in this country being spearheaded by the aclu and others. I can cite specific examples if you would like, but i'm sure you can see it for yourself.
The "forced acceptance of homosexuality"? If you don't like homosexuality then I suggest you not have sex with men.
As for religion vs. secularism, no one is forcing atheism on the public, are they? By the way, no one answered my question of yesterday: if a future Congress were to mandate that "There is no God" be placed on currency, would it be constitutional, and if not, why not? Or what if a future Congress were to mandate that "Jesus Saves" be put on currency?
It is the Religious Right that is trying to impose its values and doctrines on the rest of us. They want to ban abortion, stop stem cell research, put religion (their brand, of course) in the public schools and court rooms. Fuck 'em.
No one who matters is trying to totally ban abortion, except for late term abortion which is murder, pure and simple, I know, because I've done it and will feel guilty for the rest of my life. It should be illegal in every case except to save the mother's life.
The American people should be allowed to vote as to whether their tax dollars go towards abortion or stem cell research. The question is whether the American people should be forced to fund what they consider to be murder with their hard earned tax dollars.
We vote locally. The state of California has voted to allow funding of stem cell research and to allow medical marijuana. I may not like it but I have to lump it, because the voters have spoken. Oregon has voted to allow doctor assisted euthanasia. When we pass bills against gay marriage state by state they should also be respected, just as medical marijuana bills should be. The problem is that the feds don't like the medical marijuana bills and they try to thwart them. The gays don't like the anti gay marriage bills and they try to thwart them. The illegal immigrant advocacy groups don't want to abide by the bills states pass denying tax dollars to care for illegals.
None of these issues were covered in the constitution, period, no matter how often the left or right may claim it so, or try to stretch so called rights to privacy to cover every little damn thing. The founding fathers were not even interested in such crap, because they had way more important things to consider. So let the voters speak and accept their votes.
Miss C, may I ask why did you have a late term abortion? Why not take care of it earlier?
It is not true that no one wants to ban abortion totally. The Religious Right does. That's why they are against stem cell research also.They think the clump of cells is a person. I am all for the voters deciding on that, because most Americans don't think it is murder.
I understand the argument against late term abortion, which is why I am for banning it, except in the most serious medical cases. The embryos from which stem cells are taken, which would be otherwise discarded, do not have brains or even neurons.
A hypothetical: you are walking past a fertility clinic. You see that it is on fire and hear a little girl screaming. You only have time to save her, or a whole rack of hundreds of frozen embryos. Which do you save?
going to the evangelical christians for definitions of secularism and what a godless public square means is like asking the nazis to give you the tenets of judaism.
and here's why the racism analogy works: you say that the ten commandments on public buildings weren't a problem until secularists made it one.
...the guy is wrong on a few points not the least of which is where he says Godless public square is not enforced atheism.
that's the most commonly misunderstood idea about the godless public square--it's only godless in the sense that the govt does not endorse a particular god. the people in it are free to be faithful or skeptics or whatever.
There truly is an anti-christianity movement in this country being spearheaded by the aclu and others.
paranoid, anyone? zontar is spot on--it's the religious right who's on the offensive.
an example: the outrage over bush sending "seasons greetings" cards last year instead of "merry christmas" cards. eisenhower, kennedy, johnson, nixon, reagan, and clinton all issued similar cards at some point in their administrations. where was the outrage then?
another example: christmas has been essentially secular since the 1920s, and evangelicals are determined to "put the christ back in christmas."
another example: at the seattle airport this year, a rabbi correctly pointed out that the airport, as a public facility, is required by federal law to have an inclusive holiday display if it is to have one. the airport decided it would rather not have one at all than include a menorah, for whatever reason. so the x-ians in the area got all huffy and puffy and tried to blow the house down. the result: the rabbi backs down after receiving death threats. way to get into the christmas spirit, assholes!
evangelical christians want to destroy religious freedom.
secularists (and atheists) want to protect it.
why? because without religious freedom, it's the atheists who are the first ones persecuted.
donkey, as an atheist, you should really look into all of the discrimination we face in the US--there are many states where we can't hold public office, for instance.
by the way, donkey, my two favorite current events magazines: harpers and the weekly standard. the economist follows.
and in case i forget:
MERRY CHRISTMAS, AURORANS!
Post a Comment