"Conservative" Freedom?

[RPKESQ]

Snowman wrote:
The founding fathers were also an intolerant(sic) bunch. I have never proposed any specific treatment for gays. If they leave me alone, I leave them alone. They would be well advised to keep their (sic) activity very quiet and private, otherwise a backlash will develop from the majority of the somewhat religious people in this country that think such activity is sinful and also non religious(sic) that think it is repulsive.

As to the US, we do not have 20 percent unemployment like France. Germany started 2 world wars because of socialism.




OK, let us propose a treatment for gays. They should have the same rights and privileges are we all do. Why?, because they were born that way and had no say in the matter (If you disagree with that, than please post a peer-reviewed study that shows otherwise, or just admit your using out-of-date perceptions and bias). See, wasn’t that easy?

As for your French unemployment figures, please correct them as you are wrong (If you separate the North African population from the population at whole, it is less than 10%. You will, of course, want to see this applied to our African American population, where it will more than triple the unemployed figure compared to the population at large).

Also, since your position on the cause of WWI and WWII for Germany is completely out of sync with any historical analysis I’ve seen or read; would you please elaborate on this statement?

[snowman]

RPKESQ
Are you an american? You seem to know nothing of american history. It takes years to go thru all the details and no quick referance to any one person or group is sufficient to prove anything. I know the reasons my family came here in the early 1600's and I know the reasons many towns were founded because it is so closely tied to my family history. Some of my early relatives even made the history channel, one even made the 10 days that unexpectedly changed america special.
Bottom line is that reading thru 1000's of pages of family history yields a lot of information. Ever wonder why someone moved from here to there? How a town got its name? Most is burried with the people, and now the entire towns they founded. Jamestown comes to mind as the first experiment with socialism in this country. You should know how that turned out. Every possible form of socialism was tried in this country, all failed. Just read the LA Times or Wall St Journel when they print personal interest stories about these little towns. They have done hundreds of them.

[RPKESQ]

Snowman, I am an American, born and raised here. I also have studied history for many years professionally. Many untruths, legends and myths have made the History Channel, so that doesn't prove much. I'll be generous a give you the fact that many groups have tried some form of socialism and had failed. Just like many groups have tried democracy and failed. Please tell me how these failures should be held up as evidence that all of socialism or all of democracy have failed. You need more research than some family history.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by RPKESQ
Please post the evidence that all the Founding Fathers and early setlers were here to have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion. After all, since there were various religions across Europe, they certainly did not have to cross the dangerous Atlantic to be able to proctice the religion of their choice, they only had to go where it was practiced in Europe. A much easier, cheaper and safer solutiuon. If you read the Founding Fathers own diaries, notes, letters and official documents conected to the creation of the USA, you will find they tried to seperate all religions from government. They never as a group tried to tie to two together.

The early imigrants to North America, and their motivations for coming here, are too well documented to have to go into it here. Many, if not most, were escaping religious persecution as prosecuted by their various homelands; state religions. The Church of England, and the Catholic Church on the continent, were inextricably tied to the politics back home; they were dominated by the various governments. They were seeking escape from government sponsored religion, not from religion in its entirety. They wanted freedom to worship as they chose. They most certainly were not seeking freedom FROM religion, unless it was freedom from state sponsored religion.

And no, various religions accross Europe were not an option either. It was simply not safe to openly practice anything but whatever your particular country had "officially" (in varying degrees) adopted. It would be akin to being openly Christian in Iran today, if not worse. There was really nowhere to go when the entire continent had its various governments interfering with its churches.

That last point brings up an extremely important, but often missunderstood, distinction. They were looking for freedom from governments meddling in church affairs and trying to run their churches. Not the other way around, i.e. churches meddling in governmental affairs. They very much wanted government out of the churches; they most certainly did not want God out of government. So yes, by all means read those diaries, notes and letters. It is quite clear from them that our nation is founded on Christian principles and morals. The "seperation of church and state" was meant to protect the church from the state, not the other way around. That much is equally clear in their writings.

[RPKESQ]

Sorry Jeff, that analysis doesn't hold up.
Look at the writings and show me where the Founding Fathers were NOT worried about a state sponsored religion. That is THE essential thing in “separation of church and state”. Why did one of them write a version of the bible that deliberately left out all reference to god? That hardly sounds like freedom of religion, but it sure as hell sounds like freedom from religion! A study of European history will reveal that the church and state were combined in Europe. And that's what the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent here and did so (up until Bush II).

You are misinterpreting the point of my post concerning different religions in Europe. Many groups fled religious persecution by going to different European countries, more (groups and numbers) than came here for that reason (look it up). So, in fact, it was a viable option to go to a different European country to be able to practice your religion. The vast majority who came to the New World were adventurous, re-inventing, profit seeking people that saw an opportunity and took advantage of it. Not prosecuted religious folk. Please see the commercial enterprise bylaws that form the commercial interest heart of most of the settlements in the New World.

[snowman]

Sorry dude. You must have been educated in a CA public school. They aparently didn't teach you much about our country.

As to my family history, it now covers 10,000 or more people so it sheds light into many other peoples history and why they came here. As to the state and religion, the only thing our constitution states is that there will not be a federal sponsered religion. There is NOTHING about seperation of church and state otherwise. Your understanding of all the people who came in the great migration (1600's ) as it was called is abysmal.

[trekkor]

Of course you are frustrated...Man can not rule himself successfully.

He never will.


KT

[techweenie]

Originally posted by snowman
Sorry dude. You must have been educated in a CA public school. They aparently didn't teach you much about our country.

As to my family history, it now covers 10,000 or more people so it sheds light into many other peoples history and why they came here. As to the state and religion, the only thing our constitution states is that there will not be a federal sponsered religion. There is NOTHING about seperation of church and state otherwise. Your understanding of all the people who came in the great migration (1600's ) as it was called is abysmal.

Perfect example of Ben Franklin's adage about remaining silent.

[Jeff Higgins]

Save for your first sentence, your first paragraph is the gist of what I said. I have not heard of this re-written Bible, however. Who wrote it and where would I find one? And would this somewhat unusual action necessarily reflect the widespread feelings of the time? Was it done as a statement concerning the seperation of church and state, or did he have other motives? I'm having a hard time jumping from this writing to a general statement about the politics/religion of the founding fathers. It does sound quite interesting, however. Must be a pretty thin tome.

I have to dissagree with your assesment of the religious climate in Europe during the founding years of our nation. It simply was not as easy as changing locale to one that better suited your religious preferences; the Catholic church's tentacles stretched all accross Europe.

Anyone who crossed the Atlantic in those days was certainly everything you say, and more. I can't imagine a bolder move than to cross an ocean to a new world. It seems so easy to us today that I think the gravity of that is lost on us. I would expand your "vast majority" to "every last one of them", save for the slaves and indentured servants. That does not, however, preclude religious freedom as one of the key issues deciding it for many of them. I dare say the majority; that theme is a constant in accounts of early colonial times. Not the only factor, certainly, but one of the top few. It was important enough to most of them to become indelibly imbedded in what was forming as our national psyche; important enough to make sure it got included in the foundation of our law. It was not trivial to them. Their experiences back home were with governments bullying the churches, not the other way around. That is what they were guarding against. The vast majority, not all, were Christians, and used that moral base to build our country upon. No matter how badly the revisionists would like to cloud that fact.

[trekkor]

I actually read every post on this thread.

Why would anyone remain or continue to live as a homosexual?
Dead end.

People saying that that's how they were born and have no choice is not true.
Plain and simple. You do not HAVE to engage in a behaivior. You choose.

Any supposed studies are unproven and may change at any time.

Let's say for the sake of the argument that someone *does* have a desire for the same sex.
People also have the desire to steal, light fires, rape etc.
Battling mental illness allows them to live without giving into wrong conduct.


KT

[RPKESQ]

Trekkor, your lack of understanding of psychology and biology is clear to all. Your lack of acceptance of science is known and understood by most here. The closest you came to any real insight was your comment about “Why would anyone remain or continue to live as a homosexual?”


Why indeed. Why would anyone want to incur the wrath, abuse, scorn, bigotry, hatred and prosecution willingly? Because it’s not a choice, it is not something you turn on and off at will. But you would not understand that, because you are incapable of understanding much of anything, as your bible-thumping regurgitation of this religious nonsense, blocks all ability in any kind of critical logical thinking. Sorry to be so harsh, but candy-coating your bigotry and ignorance is not possible for me.

[snowman]

offensive language removed - ns

[trekkor]

Richard, I could have prewritten your reply near word for word.

Blah, blah...

Nothing but blanket insults and loudmouthing.

I thought we were working on this.

Oh well.

I understand plenty. I think logically and am accepted by my peers.
I'm actually known to be a very accepting and friendly fellow.

I am not a bigot nor am I ignorant.
I am actually quite knowledgeable on a wide variety of subjects.

I just *see* that man doesn't have all the answers, where you seem to think you have them all.

I never said anything about hating anyone, did I?
I hate what some people do, though.


KT

[snowman]

KT your PC is showing. Its acceptable to hate the person as well as their choice for being what they are. A child molester is to be hated for what they are and what they do.

Osama LOVES us, but likes killing more.

[RPKESQ]

Jeff Higgins wrote:
1) I have not heard of this re-written Bible

2) I have to disagree(sic) with your assessment(sic) of the religious climate in Europe during the founding years of our nation. It simply was not as easy as changing locale to one that better suited your religious preferences; the Catholic church's tentacles stretched all across(sic) Europe.



1) OK, so you are not nearly as well read concerning our Founding Fathers as you think you are. No surprise there. If you do some real research you will discover this as well as their take on religion. You must read and study a lot more.

2) Your disagreement on my assessment of religion in Europe doesn’t hold much value with statements like these. For one thing it’s not my assessment. It is common knowledge among historians. Thousands of people moved from area to area, country to country for better conditions within Europe all during the 1300 through 1700’s (far more than ever came to the New World in the same period), including for religious tolerance or freedom. Again, your knowledge is quite limited. This is not revision, it is simple fact. The records are all there, just waiting for you to read and research. And by the way, please explain how Lutherans, Protestants, etc. in Germany, France, Norway, Denmark, Anglican in England, etc., show how few choices were available to Europeans. Again, your statements are easily shown as patently false.

I have pointed you in the right direction as to further understanding of these issues. But I will not do the work for you.

[RPKESQ]

Are we now comparing gays to child molesters? Are you people for real or just stuck in the muddle ages as far as thoughts go? Not “natural”? Please explain why you think being gay is not natural. What basis are you making that judgment? Your hateful words and comments do not indicate tolerance, but just the opposite. You fool no one.

[snowman]

I do not tolerate fools, open gays, child molesters or deviates of any kind. Tolerance is for people that respect the views of others. open gays do not respect the views of the majority of people.

[RoninLB]

Measure France's economy against Germany's for a clear pic. Germany started reforming in theory last yr or two. France didn't.

France's progressive and discriminatory social policies will make them the first Euro country to face a serious Muslim political backlash in coming years imo. Look at population growth figures.

The Founders wanted a clear separation of organized religion and politics. Even Mt Rushmore has no practicing religious. Thomas Paine was a religious writer before he hooked up with spreading a revolution thru the Christian churches in an underground maneuver. That said it has always been routine for US presidents to speak of and connect policy with "God".

US social policy is traditional family oriented that encourages a large middle class. Some would argue that a major Scot-Irish culture instilled self reliance, "people" strength, and Christianity.

[trekkor]

Originally posted by RPKESQ
Not “natural”? Please explain why you think being gay is not natural. What basis are you making that judgment?

You're joking right?

The answer is right behind you...



KT

[RPKESQ]

Trkkor, try to formulate a rational response. Please try. Look up the definition of the word "natural". Read all of it. Then try to at least appear to be able to converse logically.