Discussion:
Report: Trump considering plan to privatize Afghanistan War
(too old to reply)
w***@gmail.com
2018-08-17 18:30:12 UTC
Permalink
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/402352-report-trump-considering-plan-to-privatize-afghanistan-war



Report: Trump considering plan to privatize Afghanistan War


President Trump has reportedly shown renewed interest in a proposal by Blackwater founder Erik Prince to privatize the United States' war in Afghanistan, according to an NBC News.

NBC News on Friday, citing current and former senior administration officials, reported the proposition would replace troops with private military contractors who would work for a government liaison, who would in turn report directly to the president.

Trump’s “advisers are worried his impatience with the Afghanistan conflict will cause him to seriously consider proposals like Prince's or abruptly order a complete U.S. withdrawal,” according to the report.

In an interview with NBC News, Prince said he thinks Trump’s advisers are painting “as rosy a picture as they can” in the war effort while claiming that peace is near.

NBC News reports that administration officials often emphasize political resolutions with the Taliban and downplay military frustrations on the ground.

Prince also told NBC News that he will soon launch a media campaign to bring the White House around to his proposal.

A spokesperson for the National Security Council pushed back at the report, telling NBC News that the president is committed to the strategy he signed off on last year and that "no such proposal from Erik Prince is under consideration.”

The proposal, if implemented, would be sure to raise eyebrows on ethical grounds. First, Prince is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

Second, Blackwater, now known as Academi, has a fraught history with human rights following its employees' involvement in the killings of unarmed civilians in Iraq.

Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai limited the use of contractors in Afghanistan in 2010, a policy the current government would have to overturn for this proposal to be viable.

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Hill.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-08-18 00:16:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/402352-report-trump-considering-plan-to-privatize-afghanistan-war
Report: Trump considering plan to privatize Afghanistan War
President Trump has reportedly shown renewed interest in a proposal by Blackwater founder Erik Prince to privatize the United States' war in Afghanistan, according to an NBC News.
NBC News on Friday, citing current and former senior administration officials, reported the proposition would replace troops with private military contractors who would work for a government liaison, who would in turn report directly to the president.
Trump’s “advisers are worried his impatience with the Afghanistan conflict will cause him to seriously consider proposals like Prince's or abruptly order a complete U.S. withdrawal,” according to the report.
In an interview with NBC News, Prince said he thinks Trump’s advisers are painting “as rosy a picture as they can” in the war effort while claiming that peace is near.
NBC News reports that administration officials often emphasize political resolutions with the Taliban and downplay military frustrations on the ground.
Prince also told NBC News that he will soon launch a media campaign to bring the White House around to his proposal.
A spokesperson for the National Security Council pushed back at the report, telling NBC News that the president is committed to the strategy he signed off on last year and that "no such proposal from Erik Prince is under consideration.”
The proposal, if implemented, would be sure to raise eyebrows on ethical grounds. First, Prince is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
Second, Blackwater, now known as Academi, has a fraught history with human rights following its employees' involvement in the killings of unarmed civilians in Iraq.
Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai limited the use of contractors in Afghanistan in 2010, a policy the current government would have to overturn for this proposal to be viable.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Hill.
Why the heck is the USA over there anyway?
I don't think that even any American billionaires
are making any money out of Afghanistan.
mg
2018-08-18 03:04:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by w***@gmail.com
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/402352-report-trump-considering-plan-to-privatize-afghanistan-war
Report: Trump considering plan to privatize Afghanistan War
President Trump has reportedly shown renewed interest in a proposal by Blackwater founder Erik Prince to privatize the United States' war in Afghanistan, according to an NBC News.
NBC News on Friday, citing current and former senior administration officials, reported the proposition would replace troops with private military contractors who would work for a government liaison, who would in turn report directly to the president.
Trump’s “advisers are worried his impatience with the Afghanistan conflict will cause him to seriously consider proposals like Prince's or abruptly order a complete U.S. withdrawal,” according to the report.
In an interview with NBC News, Prince said he thinks Trump’s advisers are painting “as rosy a picture as they can” in the war effort while claiming that peace is near.
NBC News reports that administration officials often emphasize political resolutions with the Taliban and downplay military frustrations on the ground.
Prince also told NBC News that he will soon launch a media campaign to bring the White House around to his proposal.
A spokesperson for the National Security Council pushed back at the report, telling NBC News that the president is committed to the strategy he signed off on last year and that "no such proposal from Erik Prince is under consideration.”
The proposal, if implemented, would be sure to raise eyebrows on ethical grounds. First, Prince is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
Second, Blackwater, now known as Academi, has a fraught history with human rights following its employees' involvement in the killings of unarmed civilians in Iraq.
Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai limited the use of contractors in Afghanistan in 2010, a policy the current government would have to overturn for this proposal to be viable.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Hill.
Why the heck is the USA over there anyway?
I don't think that even any American billionaires
are making any money out of Afghanistan.
Once upon a time, a long time ago, wars were awful, but now they
stimulate the economy and we pay for them with borrowed money that we
never pay back and and now days we fight wars with somebody else's
kids. It's a win-win situation for (almost) everybody.




------------------------------------------
All the war-propaganda, all the screaming
and lies and hatred, comes invariably from
people who are not fighting.
--George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
El Castor
2018-08-18 06:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by w***@gmail.com
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/402352-report-trump-considering-plan-to-privatize-afghanistan-war
Report: Trump considering plan to privatize Afghanistan War
President Trump has reportedly shown renewed interest in a proposal by Blackwater founder Erik Prince to privatize the United States' war in Afghanistan, according to an NBC News.
NBC News on Friday, citing current and former senior administration officials, reported the proposition would replace troops with private military contractors who would work for a government liaison, who would in turn report directly to the president.
Trump’s “advisers are worried his impatience with the Afghanistan conflict will cause him to seriously consider proposals like Prince's or abruptly order a complete U.S. withdrawal,” according to the report.
In an interview with NBC News, Prince said he thinks Trump’s advisers are painting “as rosy a picture as they can” in the war effort while claiming that peace is near.
NBC News reports that administration officials often emphasize political resolutions with the Taliban and downplay military frustrations on the ground.
Prince also told NBC News that he will soon launch a media campaign to bring the White House around to his proposal.
A spokesperson for the National Security Council pushed back at the report, telling NBC News that the president is committed to the strategy he signed off on last year and that "no such proposal from Erik Prince is under consideration.”
The proposal, if implemented, would be sure to raise eyebrows on ethical grounds. First, Prince is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
Second, Blackwater, now known as Academi, has a fraught history with human rights following its employees' involvement in the killings of unarmed civilians in Iraq.
Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai limited the use of contractors in Afghanistan in 2010, a policy the current government would have to overturn for this proposal to be viable.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Hill.
Why the heck is the USA over there anyway?
I don't think that even any American billionaires
are making any money out of Afghanistan.
Once upon a time, a long time ago, wars were awful, but now they
stimulate the economy and we pay for them with borrowed money that we
never pay back and and now days we fight wars with somebody else's
kids. It's a win-win situation for (almost) everybody.
I've heard Erik Prince on the subject. He wants to turn it over to the
CIA and a small group of Seals, or maybe his mercenaries -- the idea
being that we would save billions. I like the idea of saving billions,
but I'm not sure what we gain by trying to impose our values on a 7th
century culture.
Post by mg
------------------------------------------
All the war-propaganda, all the screaming
and lies and hatred, comes invariably from
people who are not fighting.
--George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
mg
2018-08-18 10:12:58 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 23:15:55 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by w***@gmail.com
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/402352-report-trump-considering-plan-to-privatize-afghanistan-war
Report: Trump considering plan to privatize Afghanistan War
President Trump has reportedly shown renewed interest in a proposal by Blackwater founder Erik Prince to privatize the United States' war in Afghanistan, according to an NBC News.
NBC News on Friday, citing current and former senior administration officials, reported the proposition would replace troops with private military contractors who would work for a government liaison, who would in turn report directly to the president.
Trump’s “advisers are worried his impatience with the Afghanistan conflict will cause him to seriously consider proposals like Prince's or abruptly order a complete U.S. withdrawal,” according to the report.
In an interview with NBC News, Prince said he thinks Trump’s advisers are painting “as rosy a picture as they can” in the war effort while claiming that peace is near.
NBC News reports that administration officials often emphasize political resolutions with the Taliban and downplay military frustrations on the ground.
Prince also told NBC News that he will soon launch a media campaign to bring the White House around to his proposal.
A spokesperson for the National Security Council pushed back at the report, telling NBC News that the president is committed to the strategy he signed off on last year and that "no such proposal from Erik Prince is under consideration.”
The proposal, if implemented, would be sure to raise eyebrows on ethical grounds. First, Prince is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
Second, Blackwater, now known as Academi, has a fraught history with human rights following its employees' involvement in the killings of unarmed civilians in Iraq.
Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai limited the use of contractors in Afghanistan in 2010, a policy the current government would have to overturn for this proposal to be viable.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Hill.
Why the heck is the USA over there anyway?
I don't think that even any American billionaires
are making any money out of Afghanistan.
Once upon a time, a long time ago, wars were awful, but now they
stimulate the economy and we pay for them with borrowed money that we
never pay back and and now days we fight wars with somebody else's
kids. It's a win-win situation for (almost) everybody.
I've heard Erik Prince on the subject. He wants to turn it over to the
CIA and a small group of Seals, or maybe his mercenaries -- the idea
being that we would save billions. I like the idea of saving billions,
but I'm not sure what we gain by trying to impose our values on a 7th
century culture.
I don't know if there's anyone who matters that wants to reduce
military spending. As I recall, military budgets usually pass quite
easily and everyone seems to want to get on the government spending
bandwagon and get as much as they can before the golden eggs run out.
Even Paul Krugman thinks we ought to get as much as we can. So who are
you and I to argue with Paul Kurgman? . . .
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/8/1557914/-Krugman-argues-to-ignore-deficit-borrow-invest

I don't think a lot of people believe in a hereafter, anymore. The
Judeo-Christian belief/value system seems to be disappearing, and I
for one, won't mourn its passing, but the question I have is what will
it be replaced with? Will it be replaced with something even worse?

America and the people who live in it need something to believe in;
Americans need some sort of ethical/moral system beyond the idea of
killing people who live in foreign countries because it's in our best
interest.

Back in the old days what people believed in was something called
"just war theory". Now those days seem to be gone. So, what do you
suppose we should believe in now?

Should webelieve, for instance, that Martin Luther King, Jr. and King
Kong died for our sins, for instance? :-)




--------------------------------
"I love the cause that slew me."
--Emily Dickinson
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
------------------------------------------
All the war-propaganda, all the screaming
and lies and hatred, comes invariably from
people who are not fighting.
--George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
me
2018-08-18 12:31:34 UTC
Permalink
I suggest there is no ‘better’ or ‘worse’. There is only ‘winning’ or ‘losing’. Someone will inspire the formation of a new social contract the masses will follow for better or worse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_theory
mg
2018-08-18 14:52:20 UTC
Permalink
I suggest there is no ‘better’ or ‘worse’. There is only ‘winning’ or ‘losing’. Someone will inspire the formation of a new social contract the masses will follow for better or worse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_theory
I admit it sounds fascinating, but the truth is that I probably won't
read any of their work.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-08-18 15:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
I suggest there is no ‘better’ or ‘worse’. There is only ‘winning’ or ‘losing’. Someone will inspire the formation of a new social contract the masses will follow for better or worse.
That's what the Nazis thought, but as one terrified German soldier
said near the end of the war, "Is it possible that we can lose this
war, after what we have done to these people?"

I've been reading up on the Nazis lately, nothing deep, just
Wikipedia. Heydrich was even more of a monster than Hitler,
but a smarter tactician. If he'd been in charge, the Nazis
might have won the war. Fortunately he was assassinated
in Czechoslovakia, but he'd already ordered thousands of
Czechs to be hanged. Hitler took vengeance for the
assassination of Heydrich, to the extent of murdering 1,300
Czechs in direct response, famously including the murder
of all males over the age of 16 in Lidice, although the town
probably had nothing to do with the assassination, sending
the rest of the population to concentration camps, and
leveling the town.

By the way Werner, this is not addressed to you. It's
just a general comment. I want nothing to do with you,
and you're very welcome to want nothing to do with me.
Post by mg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_theory
I admit it sounds fascinating, but the truth is that I probably won't
read any of their work.
El Castor
2018-08-18 16:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 23:15:55 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by w***@gmail.com
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/402352-report-trump-considering-plan-to-privatize-afghanistan-war
Report: Trump considering plan to privatize Afghanistan War
President Trump has reportedly shown renewed interest in a proposal by Blackwater founder Erik Prince to privatize the United States' war in Afghanistan, according to an NBC News.
NBC News on Friday, citing current and former senior administration officials, reported the proposition would replace troops with private military contractors who would work for a government liaison, who would in turn report directly to the president.
Trump’s “advisers are worried his impatience with the Afghanistan conflict will cause him to seriously consider proposals like Prince's or abruptly order a complete U.S. withdrawal,” according to the report.
In an interview with NBC News, Prince said he thinks Trump’s advisers are painting “as rosy a picture as they can” in the war effort while claiming that peace is near.
NBC News reports that administration officials often emphasize political resolutions with the Taliban and downplay military frustrations on the ground.
Prince also told NBC News that he will soon launch a media campaign to bring the White House around to his proposal.
A spokesperson for the National Security Council pushed back at the report, telling NBC News that the president is committed to the strategy he signed off on last year and that "no such proposal from Erik Prince is under consideration.”
The proposal, if implemented, would be sure to raise eyebrows on ethical grounds. First, Prince is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
Second, Blackwater, now known as Academi, has a fraught history with human rights following its employees' involvement in the killings of unarmed civilians in Iraq.
Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai limited the use of contractors in Afghanistan in 2010, a policy the current government would have to overturn for this proposal to be viable.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Hill.
Why the heck is the USA over there anyway?
I don't think that even any American billionaires
are making any money out of Afghanistan.
Once upon a time, a long time ago, wars were awful, but now they
stimulate the economy and we pay for them with borrowed money that we
never pay back and and now days we fight wars with somebody else's
kids. It's a win-win situation for (almost) everybody.
I've heard Erik Prince on the subject. He wants to turn it over to the
CIA and a small group of Seals, or maybe his mercenaries -- the idea
being that we would save billions. I like the idea of saving billions,
but I'm not sure what we gain by trying to impose our values on a 7th
century culture.
I don't know if there's anyone who matters that wants to reduce
military spending. As I recall, military budgets usually pass quite
easily and everyone seems to want to get on the government spending
bandwagon and get as much as they can before the golden eggs run out.
Even Paul Krugman thinks we ought to get as much as we can. So who are
you and I to argue with Paul Kurgman? . . .
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/8/1557914/-Krugman-argues-to-ignore-deficit-borrow-invest
I don't think a lot of people believe in a hereafter, anymore. The
Judeo-Christian belief/value system seems to be disappearing, and I
for one, won't mourn its passing, but the question I have is what will
it be replaced with? Will it be replaced with something even worse?
America and the people who live in it need something to believe in;
Americans need some sort of ethical/moral system beyond the idea of
killing people who live in foreign countries because it's in our best
interest.
Back in the old days what people believed in was something called
"just war theory". Now those days seem to be gone. So, what do you
suppose we should believe in now?
Should webelieve, for instance, that Martin Luther King, Jr. and King
Kong died for our sins, for instance? :-)
Your endemic cynicism aside, America has provided the world with the
example of a constitution and 200 years of democracy. American armies
and industry saved the world from domination by Germany and Japan in
WWII, and South Korea from domination by an insane dictatorship a few
years later. America has been a stabilizing and modernizing influence
in a very unstable world.
El Castor
2018-08-18 17:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 23:15:55 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by w***@gmail.com
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/402352-report-trump-considering-plan-to-privatize-afghanistan-war
Report: Trump considering plan to privatize Afghanistan War
President Trump has reportedly shown renewed interest in a proposal by Blackwater founder Erik Prince to privatize the United States' war in Afghanistan, according to an NBC News.
NBC News on Friday, citing current and former senior administration officials, reported the proposition would replace troops with private military contractors who would work for a government liaison, who would in turn report directly to the president.
Trump’s “advisers are worried his impatience with the Afghanistan conflict will cause him to seriously consider proposals like Prince's or abruptly order a complete U.S. withdrawal,” according to the report.
In an interview with NBC News, Prince said he thinks Trump’s advisers are painting “as rosy a picture as they can” in the war effort while claiming that peace is near.
NBC News reports that administration officials often emphasize political resolutions with the Taliban and downplay military frustrations on the ground.
Prince also told NBC News that he will soon launch a media campaign to bring the White House around to his proposal.
A spokesperson for the National Security Council pushed back at the report, telling NBC News that the president is committed to the strategy he signed off on last year and that "no such proposal from Erik Prince is under consideration.”
The proposal, if implemented, would be sure to raise eyebrows on ethical grounds. First, Prince is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
Second, Blackwater, now known as Academi, has a fraught history with human rights following its employees' involvement in the killings of unarmed civilians in Iraq.
Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai limited the use of contractors in Afghanistan in 2010, a policy the current government would have to overturn for this proposal to be viable.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Hill.
Why the heck is the USA over there anyway?
I don't think that even any American billionaires
are making any money out of Afghanistan.
Once upon a time, a long time ago, wars were awful, but now they
stimulate the economy and we pay for them with borrowed money that we
never pay back and and now days we fight wars with somebody else's
kids. It's a win-win situation for (almost) everybody.
I've heard Erik Prince on the subject. He wants to turn it over to the
CIA and a small group of Seals, or maybe his mercenaries -- the idea
being that we would save billions. I like the idea of saving billions,
but I'm not sure what we gain by trying to impose our values on a 7th
century culture.
I don't know if there's anyone who matters that wants to reduce
military spending. As I recall, military budgets usually pass quite
easily and everyone seems to want to get on the government spending
bandwagon and get as much as they can before the golden eggs run out.
Even Paul Krugman thinks we ought to get as much as we can. So who are
you and I to argue with Paul Kurgman? . . .
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/8/1557914/-Krugman-argues-to-ignore-deficit-borrow-invest
I don't think a lot of people believe in a hereafter, anymore. The
Judeo-Christian belief/value system seems to be disappearing, and I
for one, won't mourn its passing, but the question I have is what will
it be replaced with? Will it be replaced with something even worse?
The Judeo-Christian belief system is a lot more than a hereafter. It's
a respect for individual rights and the basis of our system of laws
and morality. It's quite possible to be an agnostic, atheist,
Buddhist, or Hindu and whole heartedly embrace those Judeo-Christian
values.
Post by mg
America and the people who live in it need something to believe in;
Americans need some sort of ethical/moral system beyond the idea of
killing people who live in foreign countries because it's in our best
interest.
Back in the old days what people believed in was something called
"just war theory". Now those days seem to be gone. So, what do you
suppose we should believe in now?
Should webelieve, for instance, that Martin Luther King, Jr. and King
Kong died for our sins, for instance? :-)
--------------------------------
"I love the cause that slew me."
--Emily Dickinson
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
------------------------------------------
All the war-propaganda, all the screaming
and lies and hatred, comes invariably from
people who are not fighting.
--George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-08-18 17:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
The Judeo-Christian belief system is a lot more than a hereafter. It's
a respect for individual rights and the basis of our system of laws
and morality.
I'm not following how respect for individual rights, or the basis of our
system of laws and morality, came from Judaism or Christianity.
Gary
2018-08-18 18:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Judeo-Christian belief system is a lot more than a hereafter. It's
a respect for individual rights and the basis of our system of laws
and morality.
I'm not following how respect for individual rights, or the basis of our
system of laws and morality, came from Judaism or Christianity.
I have no trouble at all in understanding this. Please recall how our Anglo-Saxon
(American) culture, laws and morality came to us in America. When the Romans attacked
(what is now) England about 50 BC, please recall how Caesar described our English
ancestors. He thought them uncivilized savages.

About 1,600 year later -- those savages had created a large empire that ruled the New
World. And produced what is now "America and its people". How did they do it ?
They took the Judeo/Christian religion from the Romans -- and introduced it to all the
people they ruled. And that religion became the uniting force that civilized and guided
the Western World to the laws and morality we respect today.

BTW, I am not a religious person. But I have a tremendous respect the force that has
given us the modern Western World.
El Castor
2018-08-18 19:47:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 10:40:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Judeo-Christian belief system is a lot more than a hereafter. It's
a respect for individual rights and the basis of our system of laws
and morality.
I'm not following how respect for individual rights, or the basis of our
system of laws and morality, came from Judaism or Christianity.
"Judeo-Christian Values have a foundational role in America, beginning
with the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness..."
Since the pursuit of happiness, as Sigmund Freud surmised, is tied to
human love and to creative work and play, the principles of American
Judeo-Christian Values can rightly be summarized as the honoring of
God-given Life, Liberty and Creativity. This seed of American Social
Justice was then fleshed out in the U.S. Constitution through reason
and common sense, unencumbered by the dysfunctional religious and
secular traditions and laws of Old Europe."
More ...
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-08-18 23:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 10:40:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Judeo-Christian belief system is a lot more than a hereafter. It's
a respect for individual rights and the basis of our system of laws
and morality.
I'm not following how respect for individual rights, or the basis of our
system of laws and morality, came from Judaism or Christianity.
"Judeo-Christian Values have a foundational role in America, beginning
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness..."
Since the pursuit of happiness, as Sigmund Freud surmised, is tied to
human love and to creative work and play, the principles of American
Judeo-Christian Values can rightly be summarized as the honoring of
God-given Life, Liberty and Creativity. This seed of American Social
Justice was then fleshed out in the U.S. Constitution through reason
and common sense, unencumbered by the dysfunctional religious and
secular traditions and laws of Old Europe."
More ...
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html
Jefferson's statement in the Declaration is 1) a conclusion, not backed
by evidence that life and liberty derive from the Bible, and 2)
references a Creator, not the God of the Bible.
El Castor
2018-08-19 06:26:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 16:09:09 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 10:40:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Judeo-Christian belief system is a lot more than a hereafter. It's
a respect for individual rights and the basis of our system of laws
and morality.
I'm not following how respect for individual rights, or the basis of our
system of laws and morality, came from Judaism or Christianity.
"Judeo-Christian Values have a foundational role in America, beginning
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness..."
Since the pursuit of happiness, as Sigmund Freud surmised, is tied to
human love and to creative work and play, the principles of American
Judeo-Christian Values can rightly be summarized as the honoring of
God-given Life, Liberty and Creativity. This seed of American Social
Justice was then fleshed out in the U.S. Constitution through reason
and common sense, unencumbered by the dysfunctional religious and
secular traditions and laws of Old Europe."
More ...
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html
Jefferson's statement in the Declaration is 1) a conclusion, not backed
by evidence that life and liberty derive from the Bible, and 2)
references a Creator, not the God of the Bible.
Can you offer proof that "Creator" was not an obvious reference to the
God of the Bible? Of course not. In any case, I believe that
Judeo-Christian morality is derived from, and has its roots in
religion, but it exists on its own, without any direct connection to
religion. That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-08-19 15:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 16:09:09 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 10:40:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Judeo-Christian belief system is a lot more than a hereafter. It's
a respect for individual rights and the basis of our system of laws
and morality.
I'm not following how respect for individual rights, or the basis of our
system of laws and morality, came from Judaism or Christianity.
"Judeo-Christian Values have a foundational role in America, beginning
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness..."
Since the pursuit of happiness, as Sigmund Freud surmised, is tied to
human love and to creative work and play, the principles of American
Judeo-Christian Values can rightly be summarized as the honoring of
God-given Life, Liberty and Creativity. This seed of American Social
Justice was then fleshed out in the U.S. Constitution through reason
and common sense, unencumbered by the dysfunctional religious and
secular traditions and laws of Old Europe."
More ...
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html
Jefferson's statement in the Declaration is 1) a conclusion, not backed
by evidence that life and liberty derive from the Bible, and 2)
references a Creator, not the God of the Bible.
Can you offer proof that "Creator" was not an obvious reference to the
God of the Bible? Of course not. In any case, I believe that
Judeo-Christian morality is derived from, and has its roots in
religion,
By definition Judeo-Christian morality derives from religion. Perhaps
you meant to say that our current morality derives from the
Judeo-Christian belief system (which is what you originally said).
Post by El Castor
but it exists on its own, without any direct connection to
religion.
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
El Castor
2018-08-19 20:03:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 16:09:09 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 10:40:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Judeo-Christian belief system is a lot more than a hereafter. It's
a respect for individual rights and the basis of our system of laws
and morality.
I'm not following how respect for individual rights, or the basis of our
system of laws and morality, came from Judaism or Christianity.
"Judeo-Christian Values have a foundational role in America, beginning
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness..."
Since the pursuit of happiness, as Sigmund Freud surmised, is tied to
human love and to creative work and play, the principles of American
Judeo-Christian Values can rightly be summarized as the honoring of
God-given Life, Liberty and Creativity. This seed of American Social
Justice was then fleshed out in the U.S. Constitution through reason
and common sense, unencumbered by the dysfunctional religious and
secular traditions and laws of Old Europe."
More ...
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html
Jefferson's statement in the Declaration is 1) a conclusion, not backed
by evidence that life and liberty derive from the Bible, and 2)
references a Creator, not the God of the Bible.
Can you offer proof that "Creator" was not an obvious reference to the
God of the Bible? Of course not. In any case, I believe that
Judeo-Christian morality is derived from, and has its roots in
religion,
By definition Judeo-Christian morality derives from religion. Perhaps
you meant to say that our current morality derives from the
Judeo-Christian belief system (which is what you originally said).
Post by El Castor
but it exists on its own, without any direct connection to
religion.
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-08-19 22:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-08-19 22:44:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
They were OK for their times, but both Washington and
Jefferson were slaveowners, so they would be "immoral"
in the extreme in our times. They set up a good system
of government though, based on English Common Law.

The Supreme Court doesn't look like a good idea now
though, and perhaps it never did. Maybe justices used to
be nonpolitical. I doubt that, but at any rate they're
certainly political in the extreme now. IMO, it's time for
that institution to go away, especially now that the
Republican party managed to keep Obama from
appointing a justice when by rights it was his turn, and
now they're trying to crowd as many right-wingers as
possible into there. Hypocrisy abounds, as it always
does in politics. I won't be here, but I don't relish the
idea of supreme court packed with right-wingers
overriding all attempts at social equity for the next
fifty years.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-08-19 23:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
They were OK for their times, but both Washington and
Jefferson were slaveowners, so they would be "immoral"
in the extreme in our times. They set up a good system
of government though, based on English Common Law.
The Supreme Court doesn't look like a good idea now
though, and perhaps it never did. Maybe justices used to
be nonpolitical. I doubt that, but at any rate they're
certainly political in the extreme now. IMO, it's time for
that institution to go away, especially now that the
Republican party managed to keep Obama from
appointing a justice when by rights it was his turn, and
now they're trying to crowd as many right-wingers as
possible into there. Hypocrisy abounds, as it always
does in politics. I won't be here, but I don't relish the
idea of supreme court packed with right-wingers
overriding all attempts at social equity for the next
fifty years.
What would you propose to take the place of the Supreme Court's functions?

The best way to keep the Court from being packed with right wingers is
to flip the Senate in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.
El Castor
2018-08-20 00:23:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 16:40:04 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
They were OK for their times, but both Washington and
Jefferson were slaveowners, so they would be "immoral"
in the extreme in our times. They set up a good system
of government though, based on English Common Law.
The Supreme Court doesn't look like a good idea now
though, and perhaps it never did. Maybe justices used to
be nonpolitical. I doubt that, but at any rate they're
certainly political in the extreme now. IMO, it's time for
that institution to go away, especially now that the
Republican party managed to keep Obama from
appointing a justice when by rights it was his turn, and
now they're trying to crowd as many right-wingers as
possible into there. Hypocrisy abounds, as it always
does in politics. I won't be here, but I don't relish the
idea of supreme court packed with right-wingers
overriding all attempts at social equity for the next
fifty years.
What would you propose to take the place of the Supreme Court's functions?
The best way to keep the Court from being packed with right wingers is
to flip the Senate in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.
Yes, and that is why some of us do not want to see that happen. (-8
b***@gmail.com
2018-08-20 01:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
They were OK for their times, but both Washington and
Jefferson were slaveowners, so they would be "immoral"
in the extreme in our times. They set up a good system
of government though, based on English Common Law.
The Supreme Court doesn't look like a good idea now
though, and perhaps it never did. Maybe justices used to
be nonpolitical. I doubt that, but at any rate they're
certainly political in the extreme now. IMO, it's time for
that institution to go away, especially now that the
Republican party managed to keep Obama from
appointing a justice when by rights it was his turn, and
now they're trying to crowd as many right-wingers as
possible into there. Hypocrisy abounds, as it always
does in politics. I won't be here, but I don't relish the
idea of supreme court packed with right-wingers
overriding all attempts at social equity for the next
fifty years.
What would you propose to take the place of the Supreme Court's functions?
The best way to keep the Court from being packed with right wingers is
to flip the Senate in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.
Maybe add a few members to the USSC court? Why does it have to be 9? Why not 15? Another idea is to add a new court member for every old member who refuses to retire after age 80. Get rid of the old geezers.
El Castor
2018-08-20 06:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
They were OK for their times, but both Washington and
Jefferson were slaveowners, so they would be "immoral"
in the extreme in our times. They set up a good system
of government though, based on English Common Law.
The Supreme Court doesn't look like a good idea now
though, and perhaps it never did. Maybe justices used to
be nonpolitical. I doubt that, but at any rate they're
certainly political in the extreme now. IMO, it's time for
that institution to go away, especially now that the
Republican party managed to keep Obama from
appointing a justice when by rights it was his turn, and
now they're trying to crowd as many right-wingers as
possible into there. Hypocrisy abounds, as it always
does in politics. I won't be here, but I don't relish the
idea of supreme court packed with right-wingers
overriding all attempts at social equity for the next
fifty years.
What would you propose to take the place of the Supreme Court's functions?
The best way to keep the Court from being packed with right wingers is
to flip the Senate in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.
Maybe add a few members to the USSC court? Why does it have to be 9? Why not 15? Another idea is to add a new court member for every old member who refuses to retire after age 80. Get rid of the old geezers.
FDR tried that. Didn't go over too well.

"1937 Roosevelt announces “court-packing” plan"
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan
rumpelstiltskin
2018-08-20 05:24:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 16:40:04 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
They were OK for their times, but both Washington and
Jefferson were slaveowners, so they would be "immoral"
in the extreme in our times. They set up a good system
of government though, based on English Common Law.
The Supreme Court doesn't look like a good idea now
though, and perhaps it never did. Maybe justices used to
be nonpolitical. I doubt that, but at any rate they're
certainly political in the extreme now. IMO, it's time for
that institution to go away, especially now that the
Republican party managed to keep Obama from
appointing a justice when by rights it was his turn, and
now they're trying to crowd as many right-wingers as
possible into there. Hypocrisy abounds, as it always
does in politics. I won't be here, but I don't relish the
idea of supreme court packed with right-wingers
overriding all attempts at social equity for the next
fifty years.
What would you propose to take the place of the Supreme Court's functions?
The state courts, if we really need courts to weigh in
on political matters at all. Every state would be different,
but every state is already different in things like liquor
laws. The US Supreme court as it is just isn't working,
IMV, for the reason I gave. It's inadequate IMV to
pretend that a political entity isn't political, just for the
sake of stilling the waters.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The best way to keep the Court from being packed with right wingers is
to flip the Senate in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.
It's going to be a long, long, long time before the
Supreme court members installed by Bush II and by
Trump are out of the way, long past 2024 or 2028.
Meanwhile, we'll have a right-wing unelected
political body ruling the roost as ultimate arbiter,
giving the country special gifts like the "Citizen's
United" decision, whose name would be funny if it
weren't so serious.

I've said in this group that IMV it's the worst
Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott, but
something else I read lately reminded me of the
Bush/Gore decision to stop the vote count in
Florida. That decision IMO rivals those two in the
seriousness of its consequences.

Don't some other countries get by without a
court whose decisions can't be overturned by
elected officials or by plebiscite if they're felt to
be unfair, or downright bizarre as with the
"money is speech" contention?
islander
2018-08-20 12:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 16:40:04 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
They were OK for their times, but both Washington and
Jefferson were slaveowners, so they would be "immoral"
in the extreme in our times. They set up a good system
of government though, based on English Common Law.
The Supreme Court doesn't look like a good idea now
though, and perhaps it never did. Maybe justices used to
be nonpolitical. I doubt that, but at any rate they're
certainly political in the extreme now. IMO, it's time for
that institution to go away, especially now that the
Republican party managed to keep Obama from
appointing a justice when by rights it was his turn, and
now they're trying to crowd as many right-wingers as
possible into there. Hypocrisy abounds, as it always
does in politics. I won't be here, but I don't relish the
idea of supreme court packed with right-wingers
overriding all attempts at social equity for the next
fifty years.
What would you propose to take the place of the Supreme Court's functions?
The state courts, if we really need courts to weigh in
on political matters at all. Every state would be different,
but every state is already different in things like liquor
laws. The US Supreme court as it is just isn't working,
IMV, for the reason I gave. It's inadequate IMV to
pretend that a political entity isn't political, just for the
sake of stilling the waters.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The best way to keep the Court from being packed with right wingers is
to flip the Senate in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.
It's going to be a long, long, long time before the
Supreme court members installed by Bush II and by
Trump are out of the way, long past 2024 or 2028.
Meanwhile, we'll have a right-wing unelected
political body ruling the roost as ultimate arbiter,
giving the country special gifts like the "Citizen's
United" decision, whose name would be funny if it
weren't so serious.
I've said in this group that IMV it's the worst
Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott, but
something else I read lately reminded me of the
Bush/Gore decision to stop the vote count in
Florida. That decision IMO rivals those two in the
seriousness of its consequences.
Don't some other countries get by without a
court whose decisions can't be overturned by
elected officials or by plebiscite if they're felt to
be unfair, or downright bizarre as with the
"money is speech" contention?
Personally, I do not like life appointments for anything whether it be
court appointments or faculty tenure. There is a certain ego that goes
with the belief that a decision can be made in an appointment that can
be valid for the life of the appointee. That ego is distasteful to me.
the assumption is that the appointee can be freed from the influence of
a threat of being fired. While there are extreme measures for removing
someone from a life appointment, this would necessitate the
acknowledgement that the decision to appoint them was flawed.

There may be people who are above all that, but they are rare and there
is no assurance that we can find them much less assure that they will
not change, given corrupting influences. We need a better way.

Alternatives: In some states, judges are elected and I don't think that
is an improvement. It just pushes the appointment into the political
arena. It would be nice to believe that an independent body could be
set up to screen candidates but we are all witnessing the impact of
politics in the form of the recommendations made by the Federalist
Society. Perhaps the only solution is term limits. Some federal
appointments are for 10 years in the belief that that is long enough to
survive a Presidency. That doesn't seem to be working either in the
current administration.

One thing is clear to me. It is impossible to escape the corrupting
influence of money on politics. If we do anything to weaken the
possibility of an impartial arbiter of law we only strengthen the
influence of wealth and corporate power. Corporations are, after all,
entities that can survive for an unlimited period of time and extend
their influence on government forever.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-08-20 15:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 16:40:04 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
They were OK for their times, but both Washington and
Jefferson were slaveowners, so they would be "immoral"
in the extreme in our times. They set up a good system
of government though, based on English Common Law.
The Supreme Court doesn't look like a good idea now
though, and perhaps it never did. Maybe justices used to
be nonpolitical. I doubt that, but at any rate they're
certainly political in the extreme now. IMO, it's time for
that institution to go away, especially now that the
Republican party managed to keep Obama from
appointing a justice when by rights it was his turn, and
now they're trying to crowd as many right-wingers as
possible into there. Hypocrisy abounds, as it always
does in politics. I won't be here, but I don't relish the
idea of supreme court packed with right-wingers
overriding all attempts at social equity for the next
fifty years.
What would you propose to take the place of the Supreme Court's functions?
The state courts, if we really need courts to weigh in
on political matters at all. Every state would be different,
but every state is already different in things like liquor
laws. The US Supreme court as it is just isn't working,
IMV, for the reason I gave. It's inadequate IMV to
pretend that a political entity isn't political, just for the
sake of stilling the waters.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The best way to keep the Court from being packed with right wingers is
to flip the Senate in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.
It's going to be a long, long, long time before the
Supreme court members installed by Bush II and by
Trump are out of the way, long past 2024 or 2028.
Meanwhile, we'll have a right-wing unelected
political body ruling the roost as ultimate arbiter,
giving the country special gifts like the "Citizen's
United" decision, whose name would be funny if it
weren't so serious.
I've said in this group that IMV it's the worst
Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott, but
something else I read lately reminded me of the
Bush/Gore decision to stop the vote count in
Florida. That decision IMO rivals those two in the
seriousness of its consequences.
Don't some other countries get by without a
court whose decisions can't be overturned by
elected officials or by plebiscite if they're felt to
be unfair, or downright bizarre as with the
"money is speech" contention?
Personally, I do not like life appointments for anything whether it be
court appointments or faculty tenure. There is a certain ego that goes
with the belief that a decision can be made in an appointment that can
be valid for the life of the appointee. That ego is distasteful to me.
the assumption is that the appointee can be freed from the influence of
a threat of being fired. While there are extreme measures for removing
someone from a life appointment, this would necessitate the
acknowledgement that the decision to appoint them was flawed.
There may be people who are above all that, but they are rare and there
is no assurance that we can find them much less assure that they will
not change, given corrupting influences. We need a better way.
Alternatives: In some states, judges are elected and I don't think that
is an improvement. It just pushes the appointment into the political
arena. It would be nice to believe that an independent body could be
set up to screen candidates but we are all witnessing the impact of
politics in the form of the recommendations made by the Federalist
Society. Perhaps the only solution is term limits. Some federal
appointments are for 10 years in the belief that that is long enough to
survive a Presidency. That doesn't seem to be working either in the
current administration.
One thing is clear to me. It is impossible to escape the corrupting
influence of money on politics.
That corruption is going to increase In spades, now that
we have "Citizens United". The Supreme Court created the
problem of corporations overwhelming the legislature with
bribe money when it validated "Citizens United" but the actual
damage from "Citizens United" won't be done by the courts.
it will be done by a bribed legislature that regards "the people"
just as something to be "played", not to be "served". The only
cure for that is for "the people" wake up and smell the heroin,
as the French did when they stormed the Bastille, but I see
no sign of that happening. There's nothing on antenna TV
on Saturday and Sunday nights now except commercials, so
advertising at a barrage level must work, or we wouldn't be
getting it so incessantly.
Post by islander
If we do anything to weaken the
possibility of an impartial arbiter of law we only strengthen the
influence of wealth and corporate power. Corporations are, after all,
entities that can survive for an unlimited period of time and extend
their influence on government forever.
We don't have an impartial arbiter of law anymore,
if we ever did.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-08-20 15:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 16:40:04 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
They were OK for their times, but both Washington and
Jefferson were slaveowners, so they would be "immoral"
in the extreme in our times. They set up a good system
of government though, based on English Common Law.
The Supreme Court doesn't look like a good idea now
though, and perhaps it never did. Maybe justices used to
be nonpolitical. I doubt that, but at any rate they're
certainly political in the extreme now. IMO, it's time for
that institution to go away, especially now that the
Republican party managed to keep Obama from
appointing a justice when by rights it was his turn, and
now they're trying to crowd as many right-wingers as
possible into there. Hypocrisy abounds, as it always
does in politics. I won't be here, but I don't relish the
idea of supreme court packed with right-wingers
overriding all attempts at social equity for the next
fifty years.
What would you propose to take the place of the Supreme Court's functions?
The state courts, if we really need courts to weigh in
on political matters at all. Every state would be different,
but every state is already different in things like liquor
laws. The US Supreme court as it is just isn't working,
IMV, for the reason I gave. It's inadequate IMV to
pretend that a political entity isn't political, just for the
sake of stilling the waters.
What makes you think state courts are any less political? Also if we
let state courts make the decision, then as you noted things will be
different in each state. Alabama could refuse to let gays marry or make
it very hard for blacks to vote.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The best way to keep the Court from being packed with right wingers is
to flip the Senate in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.
It's going to be a long, long, long time before the
Supreme court members installed by Bush II and by
Trump are out of the way, long past 2024 or 2028.
Meanwhile, we'll have a right-wing unelected
political body ruling the roost as ultimate arbiter,
giving the country special gifts like the "Citizen's
United" decision, whose name would be funny if it
weren't so serious.
The current court has four liberals. If Trump is reelected in 2020, it
will get a lot worse.
Post by El Castor
I've said in this group that IMV it's the worst
Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott, but
something else I read lately reminded me of the
Bush/Gore decision to stop the vote count in
Florida. That decision IMO rivals those two in the
seriousness of its consequences.
Don't some other countries get by without a
court whose decisions can't be overturned by
elected officials or by plebiscite if they're felt to
be unfair, or downright bizarre as with the
"money is speech" contention?
rumpelstiltskin
2018-08-20 15:53:48 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 08:13:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 16:40:04 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
They were OK for their times, but both Washington and
Jefferson were slaveowners, so they would be "immoral"
in the extreme in our times. They set up a good system
of government though, based on English Common Law.
The Supreme Court doesn't look like a good idea now
though, and perhaps it never did. Maybe justices used to
be nonpolitical. I doubt that, but at any rate they're
certainly political in the extreme now. IMO, it's time for
that institution to go away, especially now that the
Republican party managed to keep Obama from
appointing a justice when by rights it was his turn, and
now they're trying to crowd as many right-wingers as
possible into there. Hypocrisy abounds, as it always
does in politics. I won't be here, but I don't relish the
idea of supreme court packed with right-wingers
overriding all attempts at social equity for the next
fifty years.
What would you propose to take the place of the Supreme Court's functions?
The state courts, if we really need courts to weigh in
on political matters at all. Every state would be different,
but every state is already different in things like liquor
laws. The US Supreme court as it is just isn't working,
IMV, for the reason I gave. It's inadequate IMV to
pretend that a political entity isn't political, just for the
sake of stilling the waters.
What makes you think state courts are any less political?
I didn't write anything that suggested that state courts
would be less political. I just said that they might be less
leviathan, and thereby perhaps easier for "the people"
within their purview to influence.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Also if we
let state courts make the decision, then as you noted things will be
different in each state. Alabama could refuse to let gays marry or make
it very hard for blacks to vote.
That's true. Homosexuals would be imprisoned or
worked to death in work camps in the Deep South.
Personally I'd be willing to resurrect the Confederacy.
Maybe the USA is just too big for its britches. We
can't control the USA as it is, but if it splinters there
will be some islands of liberalism that liberal
people can go to without having to knuckle under to
the rest of the country.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The best way to keep the Court from being packed with right wingers is
to flip the Senate in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.
It's going to be a long, long, long time before the
Supreme court members installed by Bush II and by
Trump are out of the way, long past 2024 or 2028.
Meanwhile, we'll have a right-wing unelected
political body ruling the roost as ultimate arbiter,
giving the country special gifts like the "Citizen's
United" decision, whose name would be funny if it
weren't so serious.
The current court has four liberals. If Trump is reelected in 2020, it
will get a lot worse.
Trump's got another nomination coming up right
now. The Republicans blocked Obama from
appointing anybody more liberal when he was
president.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
I've said in this group that IMV it's the worst
Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott, but
something else I read lately reminded me of the
Bush/Gore decision to stop the vote count in
Florida. That decision IMO rivals those two in the
seriousness of its consequences.
Don't some other countries get by without a
court whose decisions can't be overturned by
elected officials or by plebiscite if they're felt to
be unfair, or downright bizarre as with the
"money is speech" contention?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-08-20 16:44:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 08:13:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 16:40:04 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The best way to keep the Court from being packed with right wingers is
to flip the Senate in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.
It's going to be a long, long, long time before the
Supreme court members installed by Bush II and by
Trump are out of the way, long past 2024 or 2028.
Meanwhile, we'll have a right-wing unelected
political body ruling the roost as ultimate arbiter,
giving the country special gifts like the "Citizen's
United" decision, whose name would be funny if it
weren't so serious.
The current court has four liberals. If Trump is reelected in 2020, it
will get a lot worse.
Trump's got another nomination coming up right
now. The Republicans blocked Obama from
appointing anybody more liberal when he was
president.
If he is reelected, Trump will get to name Ginsburg's replacement.
Gary
2018-08-20 11:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
They were OK for their times, but both Washington and
Jefferson were slaveowners, so they would be "immoral"
in the extreme in our times. They set up a good system
of government though, based on English Common Law.
The Supreme Court doesn't look like a good idea now
though, and perhaps it never did. Maybe justices used to
be nonpolitical. I doubt that, but at any rate they're
certainly political in the extreme now. IMO, it's time for
that institution to go away, especially now that the
Republican party managed to keep Obama from
appointing a justice when by rights it was his turn, and
now they're trying to crowd as many right-wingers as
possible into there. Hypocrisy abounds, as it always
does in politics. I won't be here, but I don't relish the
idea of supreme court packed with right-wingers
overriding all attempts at social equity for the next
fifty years.
What would you propose to take the place of the Supreme Court's functions?
The best way to keep the Court from being packed with right wingers is
to flip the Senate in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.
The Court was designed by the Founders for one reason. And that reason was ---- to
protect the elected politicians from being thrown out of office due to controversial laws.

Instead of Congress having to make new laws -- the Court was given the authority to make
"decisions" based on things that they recently discovered -- was already in the
Constitution. Things such as the "Dred Scott" decision (1857) and public school
desegregation (1954). And many others -- over the years.

(Just because nobody noticed for 200 years, does not mean that was not what the Founders
intended)
El Castor
2018-08-20 00:22:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
"... the origin of common law in the U.S. can be traced back to
various sources such as the common law principles of England, the
equity principles, Christianity and ecclesiastical courts."
https://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/

"Christianity is a major influence in the shaping of Western
civilization. Christianity originated in the eastern Mediterranean as
a Jewish sect and spread to Europe becoming the dominant religion
within the Roman Empire."
"Christianity was and is a part of the common law and is interwoven
into the texture of the society. Similarly, common law is based on
Christian principles. However, courts have never recognized the
religion to be controlling in their decision making."
https://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/christianity/
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
Good, so do I. Let me make clear, I am not claiming that US law is
ecclesiastical, but rather that English, and then American, attitudes
toward law and morality were inevitably influenced by the Judeo
Christian society that our system of justice evolved in.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-08-20 02:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
"... the origin of common law in the U.S. can be traced back to
various sources such as the common law principles of England, the
equity principles, Christianity and ecclesiastical courts."
https://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/
"It was observed that even if Christianity is not a part of the law of
the land, if it is the popular religion of the country, then an insult
to it can disturb the public peace."

That's pretty much the *opposite* of the modern concept of separation of
church and state.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
"Christianity is a major influence in the shaping of Western
civilization. Christianity originated in the eastern Mediterranean as
a Jewish sect and spread to Europe becoming the dominant religion
within the Roman Empire."
"Christianity was and is a part of the common law and is interwoven
into the texture of the society. Similarly, common law is based on
Christian principles. However, courts have never recognized the
religion to be controlling in their decision making."
https://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/christianity/
That's a claim without evidence. Common law is based on what Christian
principles? And, nothing in there about Judaism.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
Good, so do I. Let me make clear, I am not claiming that US law is
ecclesiastical, but rather that English, and then American, attitudes
toward law and morality were inevitably influenced by the Judeo
Christian society that our system of justice evolved in.
But, you can't name the Christian or Jewish principles that have shaped
our law or morality.
El Castor
2018-08-20 06:52:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 19:59:44 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
"... the origin of common law in the U.S. can be traced back to
various sources such as the common law principles of England, the
equity principles, Christianity and ecclesiastical courts."
https://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/
"It was observed that even if Christianity is not a part of the law of
the land, if it is the popular religion of the country, then an insult
to it can disturb the public peace."
That's pretty much the *opposite* of the modern concept of separation of
church and state.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
"Christianity is a major influence in the shaping of Western
civilization. Christianity originated in the eastern Mediterranean as
a Jewish sect and spread to Europe becoming the dominant religion
within the Roman Empire."
"Christianity was and is a part of the common law and is interwoven
into the texture of the society. Similarly, common law is based on
Christian principles. However, courts have never recognized the
religion to be controlling in their decision making."
https://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/christianity/
That's a claim without evidence. Common law is based on what Christian
principles? And, nothing in there about Judaism.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
Good, so do I. Let me make clear, I am not claiming that US law is
ecclesiastical, but rather that English, and then American, attitudes
toward law and morality were inevitably influenced by the Judeo
Christian society that our system of justice evolved in.
But, you can't name the Christian or Jewish principles that have shaped
our law or morality.
Read it for yourself.

"The Judeo-Christian Values of America"
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html

If you still disagree, and I am sure you will, so be it.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-08-20 15:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 19:59:44 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
"... the origin of common law in the U.S. can be traced back to
various sources such as the common law principles of England, the
equity principles, Christianity and ecclesiastical courts."
https://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/
"It was observed that even if Christianity is not a part of the law of
the land, if it is the popular religion of the country, then an insult
to it can disturb the public peace."
That's pretty much the *opposite* of the modern concept of separation of
church and state.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
"Christianity is a major influence in the shaping of Western
civilization. Christianity originated in the eastern Mediterranean as
a Jewish sect and spread to Europe becoming the dominant religion
within the Roman Empire."
"Christianity was and is a part of the common law and is interwoven
into the texture of the society. Similarly, common law is based on
Christian principles. However, courts have never recognized the
religion to be controlling in their decision making."
https://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/christianity/
That's a claim without evidence. Common law is based on what Christian
principles? And, nothing in there about Judaism.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
Good, so do I. Let me make clear, I am not claiming that US law is
ecclesiastical, but rather that English, and then American, attitudes
toward law and morality were inevitably influenced by the Judeo
Christian society that our system of justice evolved in.
But, you can't name the Christian or Jewish principles that have shaped
our law or morality.
Read it for yourself.
"The Judeo-Christian Values of America"
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html
If you still disagree, and I am sure you will, so be it.
That's the Declaration of Independence argument which claims, once again
without evidence, that respect for life liberty come from
Judeo-Christian values.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-08-20 15:53:48 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 08:12:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 19:59:44 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
"... the origin of common law in the U.S. can be traced back to
various sources such as the common law principles of England, the
equity principles, Christianity and ecclesiastical courts."
https://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/
"It was observed that even if Christianity is not a part of the law of
the land, if it is the popular religion of the country, then an insult
to it can disturb the public peace."
That's pretty much the *opposite* of the modern concept of separation of
church and state.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
"Christianity is a major influence in the shaping of Western
civilization. Christianity originated in the eastern Mediterranean as
a Jewish sect and spread to Europe becoming the dominant religion
within the Roman Empire."
"Christianity was and is a part of the common law and is interwoven
into the texture of the society. Similarly, common law is based on
Christian principles. However, courts have never recognized the
religion to be controlling in their decision making."
https://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/christianity/
That's a claim without evidence. Common law is based on what Christian
principles? And, nothing in there about Judaism.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
Good, so do I. Let me make clear, I am not claiming that US law is
ecclesiastical, but rather that English, and then American, attitudes
toward law and morality were inevitably influenced by the Judeo
Christian society that our system of justice evolved in.
But, you can't name the Christian or Jewish principles that have shaped
our law or morality.
Read it for yourself.
"The Judeo-Christian Values of America"
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html
If you still disagree, and I am sure you will, so be it.
That's the Declaration of Independence argument which claims, once again
without evidence, that respect for life liberty come from
Judeo-Christian values.
“The government of the United States is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion.”
—John Adams

https://tinyurl.com/yd83o8fc
El Castor
2018-08-20 18:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 08:12:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 19:59:44 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
"... the origin of common law in the U.S. can be traced back to
various sources such as the common law principles of England, the
equity principles, Christianity and ecclesiastical courts."
https://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/
"It was observed that even if Christianity is not a part of the law of
the land, if it is the popular religion of the country, then an insult
to it can disturb the public peace."
That's pretty much the *opposite* of the modern concept of separation of
church and state.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
"Christianity is a major influence in the shaping of Western
civilization. Christianity originated in the eastern Mediterranean as
a Jewish sect and spread to Europe becoming the dominant religion
within the Roman Empire."
"Christianity was and is a part of the common law and is interwoven
into the texture of the society. Similarly, common law is based on
Christian principles. However, courts have never recognized the
religion to be controlling in their decision making."
https://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/christianity/
That's a claim without evidence. Common law is based on what Christian
principles? And, nothing in there about Judaism.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
Good, so do I. Let me make clear, I am not claiming that US law is
ecclesiastical, but rather that English, and then American, attitudes
toward law and morality were inevitably influenced by the Judeo
Christian society that our system of justice evolved in.
But, you can't name the Christian or Jewish principles that have shaped
our law or morality.
Read it for yourself.
"The Judeo-Christian Values of America"
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html
If you still disagree, and I am sure you will, so be it.
That's the Declaration of Independence argument which claims, once again
without evidence, that respect for life liberty come from
Judeo-Christian values.
“The government of the United States is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion.”
—John Adams
https://tinyurl.com/yd83o8fc
Your quote is one line from the Treaty of Tripoli -- a treaty designed
to guarantee US shipping rights in the Mediterranean -- shipping that
was to be free from attacks by Muslim pirates. That treaty was
re-drafted and superseded in 1805. The new draft omitted that line.

"Treaty of Tripoli"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

On the other hand ...

"“Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for
their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by
the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in
conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice,
kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and
reverence toward Almighty God … What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would
this region be.”
—Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9"

"My first act as President is a prayer. I ask you to bow your heads.
Heavenly Father, we bow our heads and thank You for Your love. Accept
our thanks for the peace that yields this day and the shared faith
that makes its continuance likely. Make us strong to do Your work,
willing to heed and hear Your will, and write on our hearts these
words: “Use power to help people.” For we are given power not to
advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world, nor a
name. There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people.
Help us to remember it, Lord. The Lord our God be with us, as He was
with our fathers; may He not leave us or forsake us; so that He may
incline our hearts to Him, to walk in all His ways… that all peoples
of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other."
... George Washington

"“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the
Bible.”
– George Washington"
https://americasfoundingfathers.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/what-a-eutopia/
El Castor
2018-08-20 18:40:32 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 08:12:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 19:59:44 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:07:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:14:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know what it means to say our current morality exists on its own
*and* has it roots in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Just what I said. Judeo-Christian morality is the foundation on which
we built our current system of justice and morality.
I'm still not following how our current system of justice and morality
came from Judaism or Christianity. Your appeal to the Declaration of
Independence isn't in the least bit persuasive.
"... the origin of common law in the U.S. can be traced back to
various sources such as the common law principles of England, the
equity principles, Christianity and ecclesiastical courts."
https://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/
"It was observed that even if Christianity is not a part of the law of
the land, if it is the popular religion of the country, then an insult
to it can disturb the public peace."
That's pretty much the *opposite* of the modern concept of separation of
church and state.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
"Christianity is a major influence in the shaping of Western
civilization. Christianity originated in the eastern Mediterranean as
a Jewish sect and spread to Europe becoming the dominant religion
within the Roman Empire."
"Christianity was and is a part of the common law and is interwoven
into the texture of the society. Similarly, common law is based on
Christian principles. However, courts have never recognized the
religion to be controlling in their decision making."
https://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/christianity/
That's a claim without evidence. Common law is based on what Christian
principles? And, nothing in there about Judaism.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
That you find that concept disturbing is a manifestation of
our irreconcilable political differences.
This discussion isn't about politics. It's about religion.
It's all about politics. As an agnostic I have no religion, but I
respect those who do, and those who constructed our Constitution and
our attitudes towards democracy, law, and morality.
I respect our founders as well.
Good, so do I. Let me make clear, I am not claiming that US law is
ecclesiastical, but rather that English, and then American, attitudes
toward law and morality were inevitably influenced by the Judeo
Christian society that our system of justice evolved in.
But, you can't name the Christian or Jewish principles that have shaped
our law or morality.
Read it for yourself.
"The Judeo-Christian Values of America"
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html
If you still disagree, and I am sure you will, so be it.
That's the Declaration of Independence argument which claims, once again
without evidence, that respect for life liberty come from
Judeo-Christian values.
Some reading material for you ...

"“Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for
their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by
the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in
conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice,
kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and
reverence toward Almighty God … What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would
this region be.”
—Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9"

"My first act as President is a prayer. I ask you to bow your heads.
Heavenly Father, we bow our heads and thank You for Your love. Accept
our thanks for the peace that yields this day and the shared faith
that makes its continuance likely. Make us strong to do Your work,
willing to heed and hear Your will, and write on our hearts these
words: “Use power to help people.” For we are given power not to
advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world, nor a
name. There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people.
Help us to remember it, Lord. The Lord our God be with us, as He was
with our fathers; may He not leave us or forsake us; so that He may
incline our hearts to Him, to walk in all His ways… that all peoples
of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other."
... George Washington

"“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the
Bible.”
– George Washington"

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the
religion of Jesus Christ.”
– George Washington

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the
Bible.”
– George Washington

“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of
Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and
humbly to implore His protection and favor.”
– George Washington

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable.”
– George Washington We beseech [God] to pardon our national and other
transgressions…
– George Washington, Thanksgiving Proclamation 1789

“Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work.
Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the Lamb and purge my
heart by Thy Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the
likeness of Thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in Thy fear, and dying
in Thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of
the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of
mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy
son, Jesus Christ.”
– George Washington, Prayer

“True religion affords to government its surest support.”
– George Washington

Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

“I … [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my
sins.” – Samuel Adams

“We have this day [Fourth of July] restored the Sovereign to whom all
men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and from the rising to
the setting of the sun, let His Kingdom come.”
– Samuel Adams

“The name of the Lord (says the Scripture) is a strong tower; thither
the righteous flee and are safe (Proverbs 18:10). Let us secure His
favor and He will lead us through the journey of this life and at
length receive us to a better.”
– Samuel Adams

United States Congressional Endorsement of the Bible and God

Congress printed a Bible for America and said:
“The United States in Congress assembled … recommend this edition of
the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States … a neat edition of
the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.”
– United States Congress 1782

“Congress passed this resolution: “The Congress of the United States
recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.”
– United States Congress 1782

“By Law the United States Congress adds to US coinage:”
“In God We Trust”– United States Congress 1864

John Adams, President of the United States of America, First Vice
President, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Signer of the
Bill of Rights, and Signer of First Amendment

“We recognize no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus.”
– John Adams and John Hancock

“The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human
government upon the first precepts of Christianity.” – John Adams

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence
were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then
believed, and now believe, that those general principles of
Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and
attributes of God.”
– John Adams

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected,
in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the
principles of Christianity.”
– John Adams

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It
is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

– John Adams

“I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is
the best book in the world.” – John Adams

“The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever
prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of
wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.”

– John Adams

“[The Fourth of July] ought to be commemorated as the day of
deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.” – John Adams

“As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially
depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the
national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable
duty which the people owe to Him.” – John Adams

Abigail Adams, Wife of John Adams

“The Scriptures tell us righteousness exalteth a Nation.”
– Abigail Adams

Patrick Henry, Early America Leader

There is a book [the Bible] worth all the other books ever printed.–
Patrick Henry

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great
Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on
religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.– Patrick Henry

John Jay, First Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it
is their duty – as well as privilege and interest – of our Christian
nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
– John Jay

The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and
teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue
therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.
– John Jay

John Hancock, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

We recognize no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus.
– John Adams and John Hancock


Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

“The only foundation for . . . a republic is to be laid in Religion.
Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be
no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican
governments.”
– Benjamin Rush

John Witherspoon, Continental Congress

“He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and
active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself
with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of
every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call
him an enemy to his country.”
– John Witherspoon

John Dickinson, Signer Constitution of the USA, Continental Congress

“The rights essential to happiness. . . . We claim them from a higher
source — from the King of kings and Lord of all the earth.”
– John Dickinson

Benjamin Franklin

“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”
– Benjamin Franklin

Thomas Jefferson, President

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be
secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the
gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God
is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.
– Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Memorial

The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given
to man
– Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Memorial

Daniel Webster, Early American Politician

Education is useless without the Bible.
– Daniel Webster

Noah Webster, American Schoolmaster

Education is useless without the Bible. The Bible was America’s basic
text book in all fields. God’s Word, contained in the Bible, has
furnished all necessary rules to direct our conduct.
– Noah Webster

In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of
the first things in which all children, under a free government ought
to be instructed … No truth is more evident to my mind than that the
Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to
secure the rights and privileges of a free people.
– Noah Webster, Preface Noah Webster Dictionary, 1828

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
“I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil
society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is
that Christianity is a part of the Common Law … There never has been a
period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying
its foundations.”
– Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Harvard Speech, 1829

National Anthem of the United States of America, Francis Scott Key
“And this be our motto, ‘In God is our trust’” – USA National Anthem,
Third Verse

Andrew Jackson, President of the United States of America

“[The Bible] is the rock on which our Republic rests.”
– Andrew Jackson

Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America

“In regards to this great Book [the Bible], I have but to say it is
the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to
the world was communicated through this Book. But for it we could not
know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare,
here and hereafter, are found portrayed in it.”
– Abraham Lincoln

“I am busily engaged in study of the Bible.” – Abraham Lincoln

“I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming
conviction that I had absolutely no other place to go.” – Abraham
Lincoln

“This nation under God”
– Abraham Lincoln, Gettysberg Address and inscribed on Lincoln
Memorial

“And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their
dependence upon the overruling power of God … and to recognize the
sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all
history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.”
– Abraham Lincoln

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the
courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln Memorial

“Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the
Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the
affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the
President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and
humiliation…”
– Abraham Lincoln

United States Supreme Court

“This is a Christian nation”

– United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity
v. United States, 1892

“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and
embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that
it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our
civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…This is a
Christian nation”
– United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity
v. United States, 1892

“We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power
of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our
political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to
govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten
Commandments.”
– James Madison

“Religion [is] the basis and foundation of Government”
– James Madison
“Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.”
– James Madison

“The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the
teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if
faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in
our country.”
– Calvin Coolidge
https://americasfoundingfathers.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/a-christian-nation/
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-08-20 21:08:49 UTC
Permalink
On 8/20/2018 11:40 AM, El Castor wrote:

{snip}

That's a lot of quotes to go over and I haven't looked at each of them.
The first few are long on conclusions but short on argument. An
argument would include the passages from the Bible that are the
forerunners of the pillars (*) of our laws and morality. But since I
didn't read many of them, please highlight the two or three best and I
will respond.

(*) Majority rule, individual liberty, equal protection, pluralism, free
exercise of religion.

Being Jewish, I can tell you the Old Testament isn't the source for free
exercise. To the contrary, God was a jealous God who cast those who
worshiped idols into the hell pits of fire.
Post by El Castor
Some reading material for you ...
"“Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for
their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by
the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in
conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice,
kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and
reverence toward Almighty God … What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would
this region be.”
—Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9"
"My first act as President is a prayer. I ask you to bow your heads.
Heavenly Father, we bow our heads and thank You for Your love. Accept
our thanks for the peace that yields this day and the shared faith
that makes its continuance likely. Make us strong to do Your work,
willing to heed and hear Your will, and write on our hearts these
words: “Use power to help people.” For we are given power not to
advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world, nor a
name. There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people.
Help us to remember it, Lord. The Lord our God be with us, as He was
with our fathers; may He not leave us or forsake us; so that He may
incline our hearts to Him, to walk in all His ways… that all peoples
of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other."
... George Washington
"“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the
Bible.”
– George Washington"
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the
religion of Jesus Christ.”
– George Washington
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the
Bible.”
– George Washington
“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of
Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and
humbly to implore His protection and favor.”
– George Washington
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable.”
– George Washington We beseech [God] to pardon our national and other
transgressions…
– George Washington, Thanksgiving Proclamation 1789
“Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work.
Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the Lamb and purge my
heart by Thy Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the
likeness of Thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in Thy fear, and dying
in Thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of
the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of
mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy
son, Jesus Christ.”
– George Washington, Prayer
“True religion affords to government its surest support.”
– George Washington
Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“I … [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my
sins.” – Samuel Adams
“We have this day [Fourth of July] restored the Sovereign to whom all
men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and from the rising to
the setting of the sun, let His Kingdom come.”
– Samuel Adams
“The name of the Lord (says the Scripture) is a strong tower; thither
the righteous flee and are safe (Proverbs 18:10). Let us secure His
favor and He will lead us through the journey of this life and at
length receive us to a better.”
– Samuel Adams
United States Congressional Endorsement of the Bible and God
“The United States in Congress assembled … recommend this edition of
the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States … a neat edition of
the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.”
– United States Congress 1782
“Congress passed this resolution: “The Congress of the United States
recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.”
– United States Congress 1782
“By Law the United States Congress adds to US coinage:”
“In God We Trust”– United States Congress 1864
John Adams, President of the United States of America, First Vice
President, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Signer of the
Bill of Rights, and Signer of First Amendment
“We recognize no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus.”
– John Adams and John Hancock
“The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human
government upon the first precepts of Christianity.” – John Adams
“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence
were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then
believed, and now believe, that those general principles of
Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and
attributes of God.”
– John Adams
“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected,
in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the
principles of Christianity.”
– John Adams
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It
is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
– John Adams
“I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is
the best book in the world.” – John Adams
“The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever
prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of
wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.”
– John Adams
“[The Fourth of July] ought to be commemorated as the day of
deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.” – John Adams
“As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially
depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the
national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable
duty which the people owe to Him.” – John Adams
Abigail Adams, Wife of John Adams
“The Scriptures tell us righteousness exalteth a Nation.”
– Abigail Adams
Patrick Henry, Early America Leader
There is a book [the Bible] worth all the other books ever printed.–
Patrick Henry
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great
Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on
religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.– Patrick Henry
John Jay, First Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it
is their duty – as well as privilege and interest – of our Christian
nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
– John Jay
The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and
teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue
therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.
– John Jay
John Hancock, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
We recognize no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus.
– John Adams and John Hancock
Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“The only foundation for . . . a republic is to be laid in Religion.
Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be
no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican
governments.”
– Benjamin Rush
John Witherspoon, Continental Congress
“He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and
active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself
with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of
every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call
him an enemy to his country.”
– John Witherspoon
John Dickinson, Signer Constitution of the USA, Continental Congress
“The rights essential to happiness. . . . We claim them from a higher
source — from the King of kings and Lord of all the earth.”
– John Dickinson
Benjamin Franklin
“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson, President
God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be
secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the
gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God
is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.
– Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Memorial
The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given
to man
– Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Memorial
Daniel Webster, Early American Politician
Education is useless without the Bible.
– Daniel Webster
Noah Webster, American Schoolmaster
Education is useless without the Bible. The Bible was America’s basic
text book in all fields. God’s Word, contained in the Bible, has
furnished all necessary rules to direct our conduct.
– Noah Webster
In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of
the first things in which all children, under a free government ought
to be instructed … No truth is more evident to my mind than that the
Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to
secure the rights and privileges of a free people.
– Noah Webster, Preface Noah Webster Dictionary, 1828
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
“I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil
society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is
that Christianity is a part of the Common Law … There never has been a
period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying
its foundations.”
– Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Harvard Speech, 1829
National Anthem of the United States of America, Francis Scott Key
“And this be our motto, ‘In God is our trust’” – USA National Anthem,
Third Verse
Andrew Jackson, President of the United States of America
“[The Bible] is the rock on which our Republic rests.”
– Andrew Jackson
Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America
“In regards to this great Book [the Bible], I have but to say it is
the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to
the world was communicated through this Book. But for it we could not
know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare,
here and hereafter, are found portrayed in it.”
– Abraham Lincoln
“I am busily engaged in study of the Bible.” – Abraham Lincoln
“I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming
conviction that I had absolutely no other place to go.” – Abraham
Lincoln
“This nation under God”
– Abraham Lincoln, Gettysberg Address and inscribed on Lincoln
Memorial
“And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their
dependence upon the overruling power of God … and to recognize the
sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all
history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.”
– Abraham Lincoln
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the
courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln Memorial
“Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the
Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the
affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the
President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and
humiliation…”
– Abraham Lincoln
United States Supreme Court
“This is a Christian nation”
– United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity
v. United States, 1892
“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and
embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that
it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our
civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…This is a
Christian nation”
– United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity
v. United States, 1892
“We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power
of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our
political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to
govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten
Commandments.”
– James Madison
“Religion [is] the basis and foundation of Government”
– James Madison
“Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.”
– James Madison
“The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the
teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if
faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in
our country.”
– Calvin Coolidge
https://americasfoundingfathers.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/a-christian-nation/
b***@gmail.com
2018-08-21 02:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
That's a lot of quotes to go over and I haven't looked at each of them.
The first few are long on conclusions but short on argument. An
argument would include the passages from the Bible that are the
forerunners of the pillars (*) of our laws and morality. But since I
didn't read many of them, please highlight the two or three best and I
will respond.
(*) Majority rule, individual liberty, equal protection, pluralism, free
exercise of religion.
Being Jewish, I can tell you the Old Testament isn't the source for free
exercise. To the contrary, God was a jealous God who cast those who
worshiped idols into the hell pits of fire.
Here's a video from Prager University about morality. Why it comes from some source other than just reasoning.



rumpelstiltskin
2018-08-21 04:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
That's a lot of quotes to go over and I haven't looked at each of them.
The first few are long on conclusions but short on argument. An
argument would include the passages from the Bible that are the
forerunners of the pillars (*) of our laws and morality. But since I
didn't read many of them, please highlight the two or three best and I
will respond.
(*) Majority rule, individual liberty, equal protection, pluralism, free
exercise of religion.
Being Jewish, I can tell you the Old Testament isn't the source for free
exercise. To the contrary, God was a jealous God who cast those who
worshiped idols into the hell pits of fire.
Here's a video from Prager University about morality. Why it comes from some source other than just reasoning.
http://youtu.be/xliyujhwhNM
Morality is a "value" and therefore it can't possibly come
from just "reason". Was somebody here proposing that it
did come from just "reason"?

I do object to the "higher" than reason "propaganda" in
that video. We eat animals, and if we truly valued only
"reason", we would realize that animals have feelings,
and therefore we should not kill them, or their embryos.
Most of us would starve.

"Above" is a value judgment, not anything that comes
from "reason". Religious people love to try to sneak
that kind of stuff in, hoping we won't notice. They're
evil, evil, evil.

That guy may teach at Boston college, but like all
religious people, he's full of shit. And like all religious
people, he tries to shrug off the "evil" that religious
belief has done and still does, "necessarily" does
because it is, and cannot avoid being, based on
"doctrine". As a homosexual, I've seen it all before,
all my life. I saw it even before puberty, but with
immense visceral amplification SINCE I entered
puberty and got to experience the evil of at least the
Christianity firsthand, in an intensely personal way.

As I've said pretty much since I was old enough
to start to free myself from the terror and
devastating feelings of worthlessness that were
placed on me by religious society, of which I still
bear the scars to this day at age 73, the best gift
that homosexuality has to give to society at large
will be to help awaken people to just how ugly
and nasty religious belief is, right at the very root.
FUCK religion! Of all the ugly and nasty things
that natural selection reinforced by "culture" have
instilled into the wildly imperfect and arbitrary
human organism, religion is one of the ugliest
and nastiest of all - IMO quite arguably the VERY
ugliest an nastiest of all.

---

I admit I didn't pay much attention to the video
from the religious guy, because I was typing and
there's nothing new in it. On my computer, that
video was followed by a non- bullshitty, and much
more admirable, "human" and "humane", video
from Christopher Hitchens.

b***@gmail.com
2018-08-22 01:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
That's a lot of quotes to go over and I haven't looked at each of them.
The first few are long on conclusions but short on argument. An
argument would include the passages from the Bible that are the
forerunners of the pillars (*) of our laws and morality. But since I
didn't read many of them, please highlight the two or three best and I
will respond.
(*) Majority rule, individual liberty, equal protection, pluralism, free
exercise of religion.
Being Jewish, I can tell you the Old Testament isn't the source for free
exercise. To the contrary, God was a jealous God who cast those who
worshiped idols into the hell pits of fire.
Here's a video from Prager University about morality. Why it comes from some source other than just reasoning.
http://youtu.be/xliyujhwhNM
Morality is a "value" and therefore it can't possibly come
from just "reason". Was somebody here proposing that it
did come from just "reason"?
I do object to the "higher" than reason "propaganda" in
that video. We eat animals, and if we truly valued only
"reason", we would realize that animals have feelings,
and therefore we should not kill them, or their embryos.
Most of us would starve.
"Above" is a value judgment, not anything that comes
from "reason". Religious people love to try to sneak
that kind of stuff in, hoping we won't notice. They're
evil, evil, evil.
That guy may teach at Boston college, but like all
religious people, he's full of shit. And like all religious
people, he tries to shrug off the "evil" that religious
belief has done and still does, "necessarily" does
because it is, and cannot avoid being, based on
"doctrine". As a homosexual, I've seen it all before,
all my life. I saw it even before puberty, but with
immense visceral amplification SINCE I entered
puberty and got to experience the evil of at least the
Christianity firsthand, in an intensely personal way.
As I've said pretty much since I was old enough
to start to free myself from the terror and
devastating feelings of worthlessness that were
placed on me by religious society, of which I still
bear the scars to this day at age 73, the best gift
that homosexuality has to give to society at large
will be to help awaken people to just how ugly
and nasty religious belief is, right at the very root.
FUCK religion! Of all the ugly and nasty things
that natural selection reinforced by "culture" have
instilled into the wildly imperfect and arbitrary
human organism, religion is one of the ugliest
and nastiest of all - IMO quite arguably the VERY
ugliest an nastiest of all.
---
I admit I didn't pay much attention to the video
from the religious guy, because I was typing and
there's nothing new in it. On my computer, that
video was followed by a non- bullshitty, and much
more admirable, "human" and "humane", video
from Christopher Hitchens.
http://youtu.be/iG-JLmc4Krw
After thinking about it, I think morality is absolute but it takes reason to figure it out.. Morality can't evolve since then it could evolve either way. Slavery may hve been moral at one time due to incorrect reasoning of morality and then banned and may resurface in the future. But the absolute morality remains the same. Life is a value and preservation of life relates to morality. An example is a drowning child in a muddy pond where a passerby has to make a decision out of reason to rescue the child and get his clothes dirty or let the child die and keep his clothes clean. He uses reason to weigh the value of the child against his dirty wet clothes and which decision fits into absolute morality. A slave owner in the south uses reason to weigh the immorality of owning slaves against the graranteed negative outcome of trying to compete with his neighbors without owning slaves. He would immediately go out of business and so keeps the slaves. The best he can do is treat his slaves with respect the best he can and even pay them a little bit if he can afford it.

As to religion effecting your life, I never witnessed a single event concerning gays in the Episcopal Church where I attended for 7 years. The first gay person I ever heard of was an English Literature teacher in HS who some of the other students said was gay. And that was in 1959. I think the Christian church has come a long way since then and a gay person can feel comfortable in most any Christian church today. They don't follow the old mean testament and use the new testament. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
rumpelstiltskin
2018-08-22 03:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
That's a lot of quotes to go over and I haven't looked at each of them.
The first few are long on conclusions but short on argument. An
argument would include the passages from the Bible that are the
forerunners of the pillars (*) of our laws and morality. But since I
didn't read many of them, please highlight the two or three best and I
will respond.
(*) Majority rule, individual liberty, equal protection, pluralism, free
exercise of religion.
Being Jewish, I can tell you the Old Testament isn't the source for free
exercise. To the contrary, God was a jealous God who cast those who
worshiped idols into the hell pits of fire.
Here's a video from Prager University about morality. Why it comes from some source other than just reasoning.
http://youtu.be/xliyujhwhNM
Morality is a "value" and therefore it can't possibly come
from just "reason". Was somebody here proposing that it
did come from just "reason"?
I do object to the "higher" than reason "propaganda" in
that video. We eat animals, and if we truly valued only
"reason", we would realize that animals have feelings,
and therefore we should not kill them, or their embryos.
Most of us would starve.
"Above" is a value judgment, not anything that comes
from "reason". Religious people love to try to sneak
that kind of stuff in, hoping we won't notice. They're
evil, evil, evil.
That guy may teach at Boston college, but like all
religious people, he's full of shit. And like all religious
people, he tries to shrug off the "evil" that religious
belief has done and still does, "necessarily" does
because it is, and cannot avoid being, based on
"doctrine". As a homosexual, I've seen it all before,
all my life. I saw it even before puberty, but with
immense visceral amplification SINCE I entered
puberty and got to experience the evil of at least the
Christianity firsthand, in an intensely personal way.
As I've said pretty much since I was old enough
to start to free myself from the terror and
devastating feelings of worthlessness that were
placed on me by religious society, of which I still
bear the scars to this day at age 73, the best gift
that homosexuality has to give to society at large
will be to help awaken people to just how ugly
and nasty religious belief is, right at the very root.
FUCK religion! Of all the ugly and nasty things
that natural selection reinforced by "culture" have
instilled into the wildly imperfect and arbitrary
human organism, religion is one of the ugliest
and nastiest of all - IMO quite arguably the VERY
ugliest an nastiest of all.
---
I admit I didn't pay much attention to the video
from the religious guy, because I was typing and
there's nothing new in it. On my computer, that
video was followed by a non- bullshitty, and much
more admirable, "human" and "humane", video
from Christopher Hitchens.
http://youtu.be/iG-JLmc4Krw
After thinking about it, I think morality is absolute but it takes reason to figure it out.. Morality can't evolve since then it could evolve either way. Slavery may hve been moral at one time due to incorrect reasoning of morality and then banned and may resurface in the future. But the absolute morality remains the same. Life is a value and preservation of life relates to morality. An example is a drowning child in a muddy pond where a passerby has to make a decision out of reason to rescue the child and get his clothes dirty or let the child die and keep his clothes clean. He uses reason to weigh the value of the child against his dirty wet clothes and which decision fits into absolute morality. A slave owner in the south uses reason to weigh the immorality of owning slaves against the graranteed negative outcome of trying to compete with his neighbors without owning slaves. He would immediately go out of business and so keeps the slaves. The best he can do is treat his slaves
with respect the best he can and even pay them a little bit if he can afford it.
Morality, as you note, has changed over time, so that would argue
against morality being "absolute". That also means that morality
has "evolved", which isn't itself a value judgment since a person at
a given time and place may "reason" that morality has "evolved" to be
better or worse. Many people in Germany in the 1940's, including of
course Hitler, would have regarded killing the mentally or physically
unfit, and "impure" (read "Jews"), as a higher morality because they
were thereby improving the genetic pool. Most people in the USA at
exactly the same time would have regarded that as a decline in
morality within Germany. Evolution just means "changing", not
necessarily changing for the better or for the worse. Fitness
depends on circumstances. The dodo was evolving very successfully
until circumstances changed - humans unexpectedly showed up.
The trees that evolved seeds with a casing so tough that it was
indestructible until it was ground down by passing through the
gizzard of a dodo, which dodo would then excrete the essential
parts in what might be a fertile new place, were successful at that
strategy until the dodo unexpectedly went extinct.

One can use "reason" as part of one's morality of course. The
Nazis reasoned that eliminating the Jews would improve the human
race, so it was better in the long run to remove them from the
genetic pool. The slave owner in the South was doing something
very similar based on his own "reasoning" at making things better
for his own people (white people). Since "reasoning" has over
and over proven to be susceptible to judgment based on one's
own convenience (and it's easy to see how and why), he managed
to make himself think this was really the best for black people too.
Gary, in this group, still does that.
Post by b***@gmail.com
As to religion effecting your life, I never witnessed a single event concerning gays in the Episcopal Church where I attended for 7 years. The first gay person I ever heard of was an English Literature teacher in HS who some of the other students said was gay. And that was in 1959. I think the Christian church has come a long way since then and a gay person can feel comfortable in most any Christian church today. They don't follow the old mean testament and use the new testament. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Gary
2018-08-22 11:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
As I've said pretty much since I was old enough
to start to free myself from the terror and
devastating feelings of worthlessness that were
placed on me by religious society, of which I still
bear the scars to this day at age 73, the best gift
that homosexuality has to give to society at large
will be to help awaken people to just how ugly
and nasty religious belief is, right at the very root.
FUCK religion! Of all the ugly and nasty things
that natural selection reinforced by "culture" have
instilled into the wildly imperfect and arbitrary
human organism, religion is one of the ugliest
and nastiest of all - IMO quite arguably the VERY
ugliest an nastiest of all.
After thinking about it, I think morality is absolute but it takes reason to figure it out.. Morality can't evolve since then it could evolve either way. Slavery may hve been moral at one time due to incorrect reasoning of morality and then banned and may resurface in the future. But the absolute morality remains the same. Life is a value and preservation of life relates to morality. An example is a drowning child in a muddy pond where a passerby has to make a decision out of reason to rescue the child and get his clothes dirty or let the child die and keep his clothes clean. He uses reason to weigh the value of the child against his dirty wet clothes and which decision fits into absolute morality.
A slave owner in the south uses reason to weigh the immorality of owning slaves
They saw nothing "immoral" about owning slaves. No different from owning other
livestock.
Post by b***@gmail.com
against
the graranteed negative outcome of trying to compete with his neighbors without owning
slaves. He would immediately go out of business and so keeps the slaves.
A very big mistake. His desire to have his cotton picked -- laid the groundwork for 90%
of the crime that is being experienced by his great-great-grandchildren.
Post by b***@gmail.com
The best he
can do is treat his slaves with respect the best he can and even pay them a little bit if he
can afford it.
Respect them ? He respected them as much as he respected his cows.

What one man did more to cause the present crime wave in America ? His name was John
Rolfe. In 1619 -- in Jamestown VA -- he made a diary note which reads:

"About the last of August, came in a dutch man of warre that sold us twenty Negars."
El Castor
2018-08-21 06:04:13 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:08:49 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
That's a lot of quotes to go over and I haven't looked at each of them.
The first few are long on conclusions but short on argument. An
argument would include the passages from the Bible that are the
forerunners of the pillars (*) of our laws and morality. But since I
didn't read many of them, please highlight the two or three best and I
will respond.
This is a waste of time. Read, or not -- your choice. As I've said, I
am an agnostic. I am not promoting religion -- just stating the
obvious fact that Western culture, laws, and government, owe a great
deal to the Jewish and Christian religions from which our
understanding of justice and morality largely evolved. Your rejection
of that indisputable fact has nothing to do with religion or history,
and everything to do with your politics, which for you is a pseudo
religion. Sad and illogical, but true, nonetheless.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
(*) Majority rule, individual liberty, equal protection, pluralism, free
exercise of religion.
Being Jewish, I can tell you the Old Testament isn't the source for free
exercise. To the contrary, God was a jealous God who cast those who
worshiped idols into the hell pits of fire.
Post by El Castor
Some reading material for you ...
"“Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for
their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by
the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in
conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice,
kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and
reverence toward Almighty God … What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would
this region be.”
—Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9"
"My first act as President is a prayer. I ask you to bow your heads.
Heavenly Father, we bow our heads and thank You for Your love. Accept
our thanks for the peace that yields this day and the shared faith
that makes its continuance likely. Make us strong to do Your work,
willing to heed and hear Your will, and write on our hearts these
words: “Use power to help people.” For we are given power not to
advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world, nor a
name. There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people.
Help us to remember it, Lord. The Lord our God be with us, as He was
with our fathers; may He not leave us or forsake us; so that He may
incline our hearts to Him, to walk in all His ways… that all peoples
of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other."
... George Washington
"“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the
Bible.”
– George Washington"
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the
religion of Jesus Christ.”
– George Washington
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the
Bible.”
– George Washington
“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of
Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and
humbly to implore His protection and favor.”
– George Washington
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable.”
– George Washington We beseech [God] to pardon our national and other
transgressions…
– George Washington, Thanksgiving Proclamation 1789
“Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work.
Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the Lamb and purge my
heart by Thy Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the
likeness of Thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in Thy fear, and dying
in Thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of
the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of
mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy
son, Jesus Christ.”
– George Washington, Prayer
“True religion affords to government its surest support.”
– George Washington
Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“I … [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my
sins.” – Samuel Adams
“We have this day [Fourth of July] restored the Sovereign to whom all
men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and from the rising to
the setting of the sun, let His Kingdom come.”
– Samuel Adams
“The name of the Lord (says the Scripture) is a strong tower; thither
the righteous flee and are safe (Proverbs 18:10). Let us secure His
favor and He will lead us through the journey of this life and at
length receive us to a better.”
– Samuel Adams
United States Congressional Endorsement of the Bible and God
“The United States in Congress assembled … recommend this edition of
the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States … a neat edition of
the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.”
– United States Congress 1782
“Congress passed this resolution: “The Congress of the United States
recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.”
– United States Congress 1782
“By Law the United States Congress adds to US coinage:”
“In God We Trust”– United States Congress 1864
John Adams, President of the United States of America, First Vice
President, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Signer of the
Bill of Rights, and Signer of First Amendment
“We recognize no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus.”
– John Adams and John Hancock
“The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human
government upon the first precepts of Christianity.” – John Adams
“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence
were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then
believed, and now believe, that those general principles of
Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and
attributes of God.”
– John Adams
“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected,
in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the
principles of Christianity.”
– John Adams
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It
is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
– John Adams
“I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is
the best book in the world.” – John Adams
“The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever
prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of
wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.”
– John Adams
“[The Fourth of July] ought to be commemorated as the day of
deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.” – John Adams
“As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially
depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the
national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable
duty which the people owe to Him.” – John Adams
Abigail Adams, Wife of John Adams
“The Scriptures tell us righteousness exalteth a Nation.”
– Abigail Adams
Patrick Henry, Early America Leader
There is a book [the Bible] worth all the other books ever printed.–
Patrick Henry
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great
Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on
religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.– Patrick Henry
John Jay, First Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it
is their duty – as well as privilege and interest – of our Christian
nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
– John Jay
The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and
teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue
therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.
– John Jay
John Hancock, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
We recognize no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus.
– John Adams and John Hancock
Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“The only foundation for . . . a republic is to be laid in Religion.
Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be
no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican
governments.”
– Benjamin Rush
John Witherspoon, Continental Congress
“He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and
active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself
with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of
every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call
him an enemy to his country.”
– John Witherspoon
John Dickinson, Signer Constitution of the USA, Continental Congress
“The rights essential to happiness. . . . We claim them from a higher
source — from the King of kings and Lord of all the earth.”
– John Dickinson
Benjamin Franklin
“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson, President
God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be
secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the
gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God
is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.
– Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Memorial
The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given
to man
– Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Memorial
Daniel Webster, Early American Politician
Education is useless without the Bible.
– Daniel Webster
Noah Webster, American Schoolmaster
Education is useless without the Bible. The Bible was America’s basic
text book in all fields. God’s Word, contained in the Bible, has
furnished all necessary rules to direct our conduct.
– Noah Webster
In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of
the first things in which all children, under a free government ought
to be instructed … No truth is more evident to my mind than that the
Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to
secure the rights and privileges of a free people.
– Noah Webster, Preface Noah Webster Dictionary, 1828
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
“I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil
society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is
that Christianity is a part of the Common Law … There never has been a
period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying
its foundations.”
– Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Harvard Speech, 1829
National Anthem of the United States of America, Francis Scott Key
“And this be our motto, ‘In God is our trust’” – USA National Anthem,
Third Verse
Andrew Jackson, President of the United States of America
“[The Bible] is the rock on which our Republic rests.”
– Andrew Jackson
Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America
“In regards to this great Book [the Bible], I have but to say it is
the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to
the world was communicated through this Book. But for it we could not
know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare,
here and hereafter, are found portrayed in it.”
– Abraham Lincoln
“I am busily engaged in study of the Bible.” – Abraham Lincoln
“I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming
conviction that I had absolutely no other place to go.” – Abraham
Lincoln
“This nation under God”
– Abraham Lincoln, Gettysberg Address and inscribed on Lincoln
Memorial
“And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their
dependence upon the overruling power of God … and to recognize the
sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all
history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.”
– Abraham Lincoln
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the
courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln Memorial
“Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the
Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the
affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the
President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and
humiliation…”
– Abraham Lincoln
United States Supreme Court
“This is a Christian nation”
– United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity
v. United States, 1892
“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and
embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that
it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our
civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…This is a
Christian nation”
– United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity
v. United States, 1892
“We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power
of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our
political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to
govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten
Commandments.”
– James Madison
“Religion [is] the basis and foundation of Government”
– James Madison
“Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.”
– James Madison
“The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the
teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if
faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in
our country.”
– Calvin Coolidge
https://americasfoundingfathers.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/a-christian-nation/
Gary
2018-08-21 11:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:08:49 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
That's a lot of quotes to go over and I haven't looked at each of them.
The first few are long on conclusions but short on argument. An
argument would include the passages from the Bible that are the
forerunners of the pillars (*) of our laws and morality. But since I
didn't read many of them, please highlight the two or three best and I
will respond.
This is a waste of time. Read, or not -- your choice. As I've said, I
am an agnostic. I am not promoting religion -- just stating the
obvious fact that Western culture, laws, and government, owe a great
deal to the Jewish and Christian religions from which our
understanding of justice and morality largely evolved. Your rejection
of that indisputable fact has nothing to do with religion or history,
and everything to do with your politics, which for you is a pseudo
religion. Sad and illogical, but true, nonetheless.
Like you -- I am agnostic. But even as a non-believer -- I have to give credit to
religion for Western Civilization. Without the shared belief that religion provided --
men could never have come together enough to have formed a civilization. Once the
civilized community had been formed -- then men were able to disagree on philosophy.
Thanks to the protection their community gave them.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-08-21 15:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:08:49 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
That's a lot of quotes to go over and I haven't looked at each of them.
The first few are long on conclusions but short on argument. An
argument would include the passages from the Bible that are the
forerunners of the pillars (*) of our laws and morality. But since I
didn't read many of them, please highlight the two or three best and I
will respond.
This is a waste of time. Read, or not -- your choice. As I've said, I
am an agnostic. I am not promoting religion -- just stating the
obvious fact that Western culture, laws, and government, owe a great
deal to the Jewish and Christian religions from which our
understanding of justice and morality largely evolved. Your rejection
of that indisputable fact has nothing to do with religion or history,
and everything to do with your politics, which for you is a pseudo
religion. Sad and illogical, but true, nonetheless.
An indisputable fact can be supported with evidence. So far, you have
provided conclusory statements devoid of evidence.

I will help you out by naming three things in our morality which derive
from the Ten Commandments: proscriptions against murder and theft, and
disgust with adultery. The problem is that's not a whole lot and none
are among the pillars of our laws and morality.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
(*) Majority rule, individual liberty, equal protection, pluralism, free
exercise of religion.
Being Jewish, I can tell you the Old Testament isn't the source for free
exercise. To the contrary, God was a jealous God who cast those who
worshiped idols into the hell pits of fire.
El Castor
2018-08-21 19:31:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 08:41:07 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:08:49 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
That's a lot of quotes to go over and I haven't looked at each of them.
The first few are long on conclusions but short on argument. An
argument would include the passages from the Bible that are the
forerunners of the pillars (*) of our laws and morality. But since I
didn't read many of them, please highlight the two or three best and I
will respond.
This is a waste of time. Read, or not -- your choice. As I've said, I
am an agnostic. I am not promoting religion -- just stating the
obvious fact that Western culture, laws, and government, owe a great
deal to the Jewish and Christian religions from which our
understanding of justice and morality largely evolved. Your rejection
of that indisputable fact has nothing to do with religion or history,
and everything to do with your politics, which for you is a pseudo
religion. Sad and illogical, but true, nonetheless.
An indisputable fact can be supported with evidence. So far, you have
provided conclusory statements devoid of evidence.
I will help you out by naming three things in our morality which derive
from the Ten Commandments: proscriptions against murder and theft, and
disgust with adultery. The problem is that's not a whole lot and none
are among the pillars of our laws and morality.
In all fairness, I am sure that religion evolved along with our
culture, each earning something from the other. As Gary pointed out,
religion provided a fabric that gave society a structure in which to
grow. I remember many years ago driving over a hill in France. There
in the valley was the city of Chartres -- dominated, and just
overwhelmed, by an enormous cathedral.
Loading Image...

It took the people of Chartres 57 years to build that cathedral. It
dominated their lives, brought the community together, and gave them a
purpose. The same phenomenon happened all over France and Europe. I
lived for two years not too far from Seville. Their great cathedral is
another social and cultural center. Easter is a huge event for the
cathedral and the whole city. There on the main floor of the cathedral
is the casket of Columbus resting on the shoulders of four Spanish
kings and queens. Awesome. The influence of religion in our culture,
art, architecture, and understanding of morality has been enormous.

Modern liberalism finds itself in competition with religion.
Liberalism wants to replace religion as the focus of our culture --
the center of wisdom and morality -- a kind of modern religion. That
is what this discussion is about.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
(*) Majority rule, individual liberty, equal protection, pluralism, free
exercise of religion.
Being Jewish, I can tell you the Old Testament isn't the source for free
exercise. To the contrary, God was a jealous God who cast those who
worshiped idols into the hell pits of fire.
mg
2018-08-19 12:35:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 12:47:40 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 10:40:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Judeo-Christian belief system is a lot more than a hereafter. It's
a respect for individual rights and the basis of our system of laws
and morality.
I'm not following how respect for individual rights, or the basis of our
system of laws and morality, came from Judaism or Christianity.
"Judeo-Christian Values have a foundational role in America, beginning
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness..."
Since the pursuit of happiness, as Sigmund Freud surmised, is tied to
human love and to creative work and play, the principles of American
Judeo-Christian Values can rightly be summarized as the honoring of
God-given Life, Liberty and Creativity. This seed of American Social
Justice was then fleshed out in the U.S. Constitution through reason
and common sense, unencumbered by the dysfunctional religious and
secular traditions and laws of Old Europe."
More ...
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html
I'm still having difficulty reading, but I wonder if some of the
things you are talking about could more appropriately be called WASP
values rather than Christian, or Biblical principles. When I do an
internet search on WASP values, here's an example article that comes
up (which I haven't read:
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-defining-traits-of-the-WASP-White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant-socio-cultural-identity

Depending on how one defines the words, I think that most people would
say that the US has done some bad things and good things historically
and has sometimes used the Bible to justify the bad things, like
slavery, for instance.

Some of the ideas that you are talking about remind me of the
"Manifest Destiny" philosophy which loosely definded probably meant
that anything that the US did was justified simply because it was the
US that did it. As I recall, Manifest Destiny was used as
justification for the Mexican-American war.

Abraham Lincoln, incidentally disapproved. Here's something that he
said regarding that war and wars in general:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall
deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so
whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a
purpose, and you allow him to make war at his pleasure.... The
provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress
was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had
always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars,
pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was
the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive
of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the
Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing
oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and
places our President where kings have always stood."
rumpelstiltskin
2018-08-19 13:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 12:47:40 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 10:40:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Judeo-Christian belief system is a lot more than a hereafter. It's
a respect for individual rights and the basis of our system of laws
and morality.
I'm not following how respect for individual rights, or the basis of our
system of laws and morality, came from Judaism or Christianity.
"Judeo-Christian Values have a foundational role in America, beginning
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness..."
Since the pursuit of happiness, as Sigmund Freud surmised, is tied to
human love and to creative work and play, the principles of American
Judeo-Christian Values can rightly be summarized as the honoring of
God-given Life, Liberty and Creativity. This seed of American Social
Justice was then fleshed out in the U.S. Constitution through reason
and common sense, unencumbered by the dysfunctional religious and
secular traditions and laws of Old Europe."
More ...
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html
I'm still having difficulty reading, but I wonder if some of the
things you are talking about could more appropriately be called WASP
values rather than Christian, or Biblical principles. When I do an
internet search on WASP values, here's an example article that comes
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-defining-traits-of-the-WASP-White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant-socio-cultural-identity
Depending on how one defines the words, I think that most people would
say that the US has done some bad things and good things historically
and has sometimes used the Bible to justify the bad things, like
slavery, for instance.
Some of the ideas that you are talking about remind me of the
"Manifest Destiny" philosophy which loosely definded probably meant
that anything that the US did was justified simply because it was the
US that did it. As I recall, Manifest Destiny was used as
justification for the Mexican-American war.
Yep, and that was my favourite one-term president who
said that he was going to do that if elected, and then when
he did get elected, he did do it. I like it because I like
living in California and that's largely because California is
part of the USA now. I can't justify that any more than
if Germany had won WWII and annexed Poland, that
Germans living in Poland a century later could justify the
German annexation of Poland.

As I've mentioned before, Thoreau was jailed for
refusing to pay taxes imposed to pay for the war against
Mexico. Emerson walked past the jail and Thoreau
called out to him from a barred window. Emerson
asked in astonishment "What are you doing in there?"
Thoreau replied "What are you doing out there?"
Post by mg
Abraham Lincoln, incidentally disapproved. Here's something that he
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall
deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so
whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a
purpose, and you allow him to make war at his pleasure.... The
provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress
was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had
always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars,
pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was
the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive
of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the
Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing
oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and
places our President where kings have always stood."
mg
2018-08-19 15:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 12:47:40 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 10:40:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Judeo-Christian belief system is a lot more than a hereafter. It's
a respect for individual rights and the basis of our system of laws
and morality.
I'm not following how respect for individual rights, or the basis of our
system of laws and morality, came from Judaism or Christianity.
"Judeo-Christian Values have a foundational role in America, beginning
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness..."
Since the pursuit of happiness, as Sigmund Freud surmised, is tied to
human love and to creative work and play, the principles of American
Judeo-Christian Values can rightly be summarized as the honoring of
God-given Life, Liberty and Creativity. This seed of American Social
Justice was then fleshed out in the U.S. Constitution through reason
and common sense, unencumbered by the dysfunctional religious and
secular traditions and laws of Old Europe."
More ...
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html
I'm still having difficulty reading, but I wonder if some of the
things you are talking about could more appropriately be called WASP
values rather than Christian, or Biblical principles. When I do an
internet search on WASP values, here's an example article that comes
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-defining-traits-of-the-WASP-White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant-socio-cultural-identity
Depending on how one defines the words, I think that most people would
say that the US has done some bad things and good things historically
and has sometimes used the Bible to justify the bad things, like
slavery, for instance.
Some of the ideas that you are talking about remind me of the
"Manifest Destiny" philosophy which loosely definded probably meant
that anything that the US did was justified simply because it was the
US that did it. As I recall, Manifest Destiny was used as
justification for the Mexican-American war.
Yep, and that was my favourite one-term president who
said that he was going to do that if elected, and then when
he did get elected, he did do it. I like it because I like
living in California and that's largely because California is
part of the USA now. I can't justify that any more than
if Germany had won WWII and annexed Poland, that
Germans living in Poland a century later could justify the
German annexation of Poland.
As I've mentioned before, Thoreau was jailed for
refusing to pay taxes imposed to pay for the war against
Mexico. Emerson walked past the jail and Thoreau
called out to him from a barred window. Emerson
asked in astonishment "What are you doing in there?"
Thoreau replied "What are you doing out there?"
Back in the days when the USA was new, or at least newer than it is
now, it appears that there were at least some people, and some
congressman, who had the guts to stand up against war mongers. That
was, of course, before the days when the politicians had all been
bought and paid for.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Abraham Lincoln, incidentally disapproved. Here's something that he
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall
deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so
whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a
purpose, and you allow him to make war at his pleasure.... The
provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress
was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had
always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars,
pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was
the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive
of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the
Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing
oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and
places our President where kings have always stood."
islander
2018-08-18 22:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Judeo-Christian belief system is a lot more than a hereafter. It's
a respect for individual rights and the basis of our system of laws
and morality.
I'm not following how respect for individual rights, or the basis of our
system of laws and morality, came from Judaism or Christianity.
Personally, this has been an important part of my questioning of
organized religion, its claims for the moral high ground, and blind
belief in the face of the many aspects of organized religion that fly in
the face of moral justification.

The research psychologist who cleared this up for me is Ara Norenzayan
at UBC. He looked at the transition from hunter-gatherer tribes to the
evolution of larger groups that was made possible through specialization
and increased agricultural production, a time that is approximately the
same as the origins of civilization.

As Norenzayan explains it, hunter-gatherer tribes were essentially
limited to groups of up to approximately 150 members. In a group of
this size, it was possible to know everyone in the group and those who
misbehaved were banished from the group or even killed. While there is
evidence of religion, it was typically an attempt to explain things that
were otherwise not explainable, for example the event of a catastrophe
like an earthquake, flood, or other natural disaster were blamed on the
various gods being displeased with the people. Polytheism was the
religion of the era.

When hunter-gatherer groups transitioned to larger groups made possible
by increased agricultural production, an important problem emerged. It
was no longer possible to know everyone in the group. How did you know
who to trust? This contributed to the creation of monotheistic beliefs
where an all-seeing, all-knowing God with the ability to punish
wrongdoers was an answer to the problem of who to trust. Simple trust
in a God who was on-duty 24/7/365 and who had horrible means of
punishing wrong-doing. The extent to which rules were created to define
what was good behavior was the origin of moral rules. Unfortunately, it
came with enormous overhead and questionable or at least inconsistent
definition of what is a wrong-doing and how it might be punished. This
was a primitive form of rule-of-law and all major organized religions
suffer from these flaws. Lacking an effective legal system, it has
flourished for several millennia. We now have a much more robust legal
system and the question that I raise is whether there is still a role
for religion. The current debate seems to center on the differences
between legality and morality. Neither seems to be able to fully
justify their existence by addressing both. In fact, the hangover of
organized religion seems to be grasping at what exactly is morality.
me
2018-08-18 12:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Setting aside the reasons for war in Afghanistan would this idea, if implemented, not be an interesting test of efficiency and effectiveness?
rumpelstiltskin
2018-08-18 12:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by w***@gmail.com
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/402352-report-trump-considering-plan-to-privatize-afghanistan-war
Report: Trump considering plan to privatize Afghanistan War
President Trump has reportedly shown renewed interest in a proposal by Blackwater founder Erik Prince to privatize the United States' war in Afghanistan, according to an NBC News.
NBC News on Friday, citing current and former senior administration officials, reported the proposition would replace troops with private military contractors who would work for a government liaison, who would in turn report directly to the president.
Trump’s “advisers are worried his impatience with the Afghanistan conflict will cause him to seriously consider proposals like Prince's or abruptly order a complete U.S. withdrawal,” according to the report.
In an interview with NBC News, Prince said he thinks Trump’s advisers are painting “as rosy a picture as they can” in the war effort while claiming that peace is near.
NBC News reports that administration officials often emphasize political resolutions with the Taliban and downplay military frustrations on the ground.
Prince also told NBC News that he will soon launch a media campaign to bring the White House around to his proposal.
A spokesperson for the National Security Council pushed back at the report, telling NBC News that the president is committed to the strategy he signed off on last year and that "no such proposal from Erik Prince is under consideration.”
The proposal, if implemented, would be sure to raise eyebrows on ethical grounds. First, Prince is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
Second, Blackwater, now known as Academi, has a fraught history with human rights following its employees' involvement in the killings of unarmed civilians in Iraq.
Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai limited the use of contractors in Afghanistan in 2010, a policy the current government would have to overturn for this proposal to be viable.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Hill.
Why the heck is the USA over there anyway?
I don't think that even any American billionaires
are making any money out of Afghanistan.
Once upon a time, a long time ago, wars were awful, but now they
stimulate the economy and we pay for them with borrowed money that we
never pay back and and now days we fight wars with somebody else's
kids. It's a win-win situation for (almost) everybody.
------------------------------------------
All the war-propaganda, all the screaming
and lies and hatred, comes invariably from
people who are not fighting.
--George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
Stimulating the economy with the blood of young people
is great for oligarchs who profit from war, I guess. Not
so good for the kids who get killed, or their parents, or
the people they kill, assuming those people aren't utter
barbarians like the Afghani soldiers from whose camps
the screams of young boys being raped can be heard
every night, while the American soldiers are ordered to
turn a deaf ear to it, because it's a different culture and
the Afghanis are our friends.
me
2018-08-18 12:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Who are you to condemn Afghanistan‘s culture? Didn’t you move to SF for its ‘friendly’ culture which most others disdain?
mg
2018-08-18 15:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by w***@gmail.com
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/402352-report-trump-considering-plan-to-privatize-afghanistan-war
Report: Trump considering plan to privatize Afghanistan War
President Trump has reportedly shown renewed interest in a proposal by Blackwater founder Erik Prince to privatize the United States' war in Afghanistan, according to an NBC News.
NBC News on Friday, citing current and former senior administration officials, reported the proposition would replace troops with private military contractors who would work for a government liaison, who would in turn report directly to the president.
Trump’s “advisers are worried his impatience with the Afghanistan conflict will cause him to seriously consider proposals like Prince's or abruptly order a complete U.S. withdrawal,” according to the report.
In an interview with NBC News, Prince said he thinks Trump’s advisers are painting “as rosy a picture as they can” in the war effort while claiming that peace is near.
NBC News reports that administration officials often emphasize political resolutions with the Taliban and downplay military frustrations on the ground.
Prince also told NBC News that he will soon launch a media campaign to bring the White House around to his proposal.
A spokesperson for the National Security Council pushed back at the report, telling NBC News that the president is committed to the strategy he signed off on last year and that "no such proposal from Erik Prince is under consideration.”
The proposal, if implemented, would be sure to raise eyebrows on ethical grounds. First, Prince is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
Second, Blackwater, now known as Academi, has a fraught history with human rights following its employees' involvement in the killings of unarmed civilians in Iraq.
Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai limited the use of contractors in Afghanistan in 2010, a policy the current government would have to overturn for this proposal to be viable.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Hill.
Why the heck is the USA over there anyway?
I don't think that even any American billionaires
are making any money out of Afghanistan.
Once upon a time, a long time ago, wars were awful, but now they
stimulate the economy and we pay for them with borrowed money that we
never pay back and and now days we fight wars with somebody else's
kids. It's a win-win situation for (almost) everybody.
------------------------------------------
All the war-propaganda, all the screaming
and lies and hatred, comes invariably from
people who are not fighting.
--George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
Stimulating the economy with the blood of young people
is great for oligarchs who profit from war, I guess. Not
so good for the kids who get killed, or their parents, or
the people they kill, assuming those people aren't utter
barbarians like the Afghani soldiers from whose camps
the screams of young boys being raped can be heard
every night, while the American soldiers are ordered to
turn a deaf ear to it, because it's a different culture and
the Afghanis are our friends.
Stimulating the economy with the blood of young people?

Yup, I think that's what we are doing to a large extent and I think
that's what my late grandson did, who served two tours of duty in
Afghanistan.
m***@my-deja.com
2018-08-21 11:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/402352-report-trump-considering-plan-to-privatize-afghanistan-war
Report: Trump considering plan to privatize Afghanistan War
President Trump has reportedly shown renewed interest in a proposal by Blackwater founder Erik Prince to privatize the United States' war in Afghanistan, according to an NBC News.
NBC News on Friday, citing current and former senior administration officials, reported the proposition would replace troops with private military contractors who would work for a government liaison, who would in turn report directly to the president.
Trump’s “advisers are worried his impatience with the Afghanistan conflict will cause him to seriously consider proposals like Prince's or abruptly order a complete U.S. withdrawal,” according to the report.
In an interview with NBC News, Prince said he thinks Trump’s advisers are painting “as rosy a picture as they can” in the war effort while claiming that peace is near.
NBC News reports that administration officials often emphasize political resolutions with the Taliban and downplay military frustrations on the ground.
Prince also told NBC News that he will soon launch a media campaign to bring the White House around to his proposal.
A spokesperson for the National Security Council pushed back at the report, telling NBC News that the president is committed to the strategy he signed off on last year and that "no such proposal from Erik Prince is under consideration.”
The proposal, if implemented, would be sure to raise eyebrows on ethical grounds. First, Prince is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
Second, Blackwater, now known as Academi, has a fraught history with human rights following its employees' involvement in the killings of unarmed civilians in Iraq.
Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai limited the use of contractors in Afghanistan in 2010, a policy the current government would have to overturn for this proposal to be viable.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Hill.
This is a very stupid idea for the US, and hopefully Trump will not
fall for it.
Govt contractors love to get hooked up to the taxpayer gravy train.
They have a customer that will always pay and not argue the cost.
Think about the private prison situation.
If the US hires a group like Blackwater, then it will become the
new norm and they will persist along with others that crop up to
get their piece of the taxpayer pie.
If it happens there will be no end to the war in Afghanistan.
They will look to keep it going and likely create new wars since
it will be good for stockholders and their business in general.
Loading...