(2007-01-27) — Tens of thousands of protesters will rally today on the mall in Washington D.C. to call on President George Bush to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, and to demand better celebrity spokesmen for their cause.
Celebrities slated to speak at the rally include Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, Danny Glover and the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Three of them have made careers out of pretending to be someone they’re not, while Ms. Fonda is best known as the daughter of actor Henry Fonda.
Organizers said the biggest challenge facing the anti-war movement today is how to hold together a loose coalition of groups with divergent agendas using celebrities who peaked in popularity 10 to 30 years ago.
“The speaker roster reminds me of the old Hollywood Squares game show,” said one unnamed staffer of Vegan Lesbians for Racial and Nuclear Justice, whose dozens of members will cross the continent to join the rally today. “I mean Fonda, Sarandon, Glover and Jackson might as well be Charo, Joan Rivers, George Gobel and Paul Lynde. How am I going get my group excited about geopolitical and military strategy with these has beens leading the way?”
144 responses so far ↓
1 Scott Ott // Jan 27, 2007 at 7:19 am
D.C. Rally Demands Iraq War End, Better Celebrities…
by Scott Ott(2007-01-27) — Tens of thousand of protesters will rally today on the mall in Washington D.C. to call on President George Bush to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, and to demand better celebrity spokesmen for their cause.Celebrities……
2 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 27, 2007 at 7:19 am
God Bless America
3 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 27, 2007 at 7:21 am
4 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 27, 2007 at 7:33 am
I like the WaPo headline: “Diverse Voices To Denounce Iraq Troop Plan”.
“Diverse”
Uh-huh. They’re “diverse” alright.
5 onlineanalyst // Jan 27, 2007 at 7:41 am
Ah…The Peter Pan Club is rallying again to re-ignite those passions that deluded them that they have relevancy in the first place.
6 MargeinMI // Jan 27, 2007 at 7:52 am
Yeah, what a bunch of has-beens. I want some popular sellebrities out there. What does Paris think? How about Dakota? What about Angelina and Tom and Brad and Nicole?
How can I get behind anyone who’s not popular? They’re popular because they’re right? Right?
[YAY Scott's back!]
7 MargeinMI // Jan 27, 2007 at 7:55 am
“Vegan Lesbians for Racial and Nuclear Justice.”
Beautiful Scott. Just. Beautiful.
8 onlineanalyst // Jan 27, 2007 at 8:27 am
Will Fonda’s vegetable oil-powered vehicle be part of the circus?â„¢
D.C. pharmacies are scrambling to fill their inventory of botox, Viagra®, Depends®, and fruit smoothies kits for those on the go. (Prune juice formula optional)
Paper or plastic, those crumbling banners of all-purpose defeatism will be dusted off to demonstrate shopworn slogans and lack of depth.
Photojournalists recording this tribute to terminal narcissism are busily greasing their cameras’ lenses with Vaselineâ„¢ to give the *stars* that soft-focus look that corresponds with their mushy ideas.
9 Fred Sinclair // Jan 27, 2007 at 8:28 am
I am somewhat taken aback to see the name of The Rev. Jesse Jackson inclded in the list of “has beens”
The Rev. Jesse Jackson is not a “has been”! He was and is a “Never Was Been” who on his best day ever never amounted to as much as a pimple on the south side of a north bound donkey.To include his name in a list of real “has beens” is to besmirch their bad names.
Perhaps Mr. Harry Belafonte is “has been” enough to take Mr. Jackson’s vacated position? I’d wager that he’ll be there, with rings on his fingers and bells on his toes.
Heirborn Ranger
10 mig // Jan 27, 2007 at 8:43 am
This is so funny Scott! I can’t stop chuckling. Too funny! Sounds like the Gong Show!
OLA-
You are hilarious! ‘To Go Kits’. I bet they’re free from the lobbyists. No wonder the GOP flippers are running to the dhimmicrats! They get free stuff!
11 Darthmeister // Jan 27, 2007 at 8:49 am
I wonder if there will be an anti-aircraft gun for Jane Fonda to sit at as the celebrity-of-honor? Or maybe she’ll be holding a dummy IED.
One dummy holding another, who would have thunk it?
Okay, let’s go nuke some whales in counter-protest.
12 mig // Jan 27, 2007 at 8:51 am
If nothing happens to the Troops in Baghdad, NY Times should have this on the front page.
13 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jan 27, 2007 at 9:03 am
Our local TB, er, TV blog has a headline that looks like the followoing:
Anti-War Rally At Capitol To Include Active Troops
Oh boy, does that ever shock me or what. Gee, Mr Bush, that should stop any war, let alone bring all the terrorist back for a Circle Be Unbroken love fest.
I imagine, there is a hand full of soldiers out there that said, “Oh my garsh, I never signed up for a war, I just wanted my education.”
Funny film clips at 10
14 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jan 27, 2007 at 9:07 am
And does not the Military swear an allegiance not to give aide and comfort to the enemy or was that the Girl Scouts? I can’t remember in which cycle of life I took that oath.
15 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jan 27, 2007 at 9:08 am
er, was that Kool-Aid, aide or aid
16 seneuba // Jan 27, 2007 at 9:23 am
To quote Monty Python’s Holy Grail:
“BRING OUT YOUR DEAD! BRING OUT YOUR DEAD!”
Good grief! Jane Fonda? Are you kidding me?
17 Loki, E.NC.Z.B-K // Jan 27, 2007 at 9:24 am
The more I hear about those has-beens…
‘Diverse’ they sound.
18 boberinyetagain // Jan 27, 2007 at 9:25 am
You are still “the man” Scott
Free speech and independent thought should be discouraged at all costs. It can lead to no good, no good whatever!
Either “wit us” or “agin us”, no middle ground allowed.
19 Maggie // Jan 27, 2007 at 9:29 am
Well, we all know that Rosie O’Donnel is not a “Vegan Lesbian”.
20 RedPepper // Jan 27, 2007 at 9:37 am
Forget the celebrities!
Demand better protesters!
21 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 27, 2007 at 9:39 am
Even I blinked when I read this.
22 Darthmeister // Jan 27, 2007 at 9:53 am
More media lies on parade. There is new a video clip of Iraqi soldiers beating “civilians” after their car was stopped and a bag of mortars was found in the vehicle. Notice how the lamestream media refers to these Islamofascist thugs as “civilians” when they were caught transporting weapons that would be used to kill more American soldiers. The same thing happened when Israeli troops killed Hezbollah militants dressed in civilian clothes - Israelis were “targeting civilians” according to the tut-tutting global media.
So here is this hoity-toity “journalist” passing judgment on Iraqis taking care of business. And didn’t I say months ago this will be the new tactic of the liberal media to begin wringing their hands over the “brutal” way in which they deal with al Qaeda and insurgents who are murdering innocent Iraqi civilians and killing American and Iraqi soldiers?
Either this is utter ignorance or shameless calculation on the part of the lamestream media. What charlatans and we can only guess at how many Americans fall for this kind of “reporting.” We must be prepared for more media spin and dishonesty in reporting how the Iraqi government is winning the peace in its own country. And just who are these liberal elitist to judge the cultural methods employed by Iraqi soldiers in dealing with militants who are plying their own culture of death and destruction?
23 RedPepper // Jan 27, 2007 at 10:08 am
On June 15, 2005, Ahoskie police witnessed Hinkle and Cook throwing trash bags containing the bodies of 18 dead pets into a shopping-center dumpster. After arresting them, police recovered 13 additional dead animals from the PETA-owned van in which the two were traveling. Witnesses from the Ahoskie Animal Hospital and the Bertie County Animal Shelter confirmed that Hinkle and Cook had collected the animals, including puppies and kittens, earlier that day with the promise that PETA would find them adoptive homes.
From the Department of Irony: PETA Kills Animals
24 Deerslayer // Jan 27, 2007 at 10:29 am
The whole Iraq/Vietnam thing is starting to look familiar.
Congress trying to micro-manage the military’s actions and the same ol’ anti war protestors.
25 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 27, 2007 at 10:31 am
I’ll bet those scumbags would smile if they clicked the links in this Power Line reminder.
26 boberinyetagain // Jan 27, 2007 at 10:43 am
Congress trying to keep America’s best and brightest out af a bottomless meat grinder wherein the best possible outcome is no longer achievable (by force on our part) because of horrific bungling of the original mission and sensible Americans agreeing with and stating that position out loud.
Very much like Vietnam indeed!
27 Loki, E.NC.Z.B-K // Jan 27, 2007 at 11:01 am
Hmmm… I see, cause Non-Binding resolutions and people blanking and moaning on the Mall will “save the troops”? If they want to “save the troops” cut the purse-strings already. I mean, How often must we beat a dead llama?
Oooh, update! It’s a Top Story on Yahoo! News…
(I don’t even have to watch TV to see the LSM!)
28 bertie // Jan 27, 2007 at 11:12 am
Please disable Snap previews on your site. It’s more annoying than Jane Fonda.
29 RedPepper // Jan 27, 2007 at 11:21 am
Hi there boberin! Where ya bin?
Yes, it is certainly time that we abandon our failed policies and implement the Democrats’ Plan !
30 Darthmeister // Jan 27, 2007 at 11:29 am
Congress trying to keep America’s best and brightest out af a bottomless meat grinder …
Playing both sides of the issue, eh bober? Go tell that to John Kerry who believes only the “stupid” who couldn’t stay in school get sent to Iraq. You anti-war hacks can’t have it both ways, dude.
It will only become like Vietnam when people like you get their wish and we cut-and-run from Iraq like we did in Vietnam in 1973. Think, quit emoting.
31 myword // Jan 27, 2007 at 11:44 am
I would gladly lend D.C. some of our never-ending rain for their parade. Just doing my part.
Glad you’re back Scott. Love ya.
32 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 27, 2007 at 12:38 pm
John Kerry the Ignorant Fool demonstrates his treasonous hatred for the USA yet again with lies and more lies as he goes abroad to vilify the country that gave him the very freedom to do so.
What a piece of work.
33 Bill's Bites // Jan 27, 2007 at 12:40 pm
D.C. Rally Demands Iraq War End, Better Celebrities…
See previous: The moonbats are comingD.C. Rally Demands Iraq War End, Better CelebritiesScott Ott (2007-01-27) — Tens of thousands of protesters will rally today on the mall in Washington D.C. to call on President George Bush to bring U.S. troops…
34 Old War Dogs // Jan 27, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Some things you might find interesting from Bill’s Bites…
I’ve been staying pretty busy getting my new toy up and running, as well as waiting for some site management issues to be resolved, and haven’t mentioned some things I possibly should have here. Some posts you may find interesting:…
35 mig // Jan 27, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Piddles and Puddles let the ducks swim the swamp during the love fest in DC.
I would love to see the same protest in Venezuala against one of Chavezs’ government policies. Talk about a mow down! There wouldn’t be anyone left standing. It would make the actions of terrorists look like a cake walk.
36 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 27, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Kerry: US A Pariah, Hezbollah Not So Much
Kerry criticized what he called the “unfortunate habit” of Americans to see the world “exclusively through an American lens.”
He may be ashamed to be an American but I’m sure as heck NOT.
Grrr…..
37 Rock Slatestone // Jan 27, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Say a prayer for the old has been actors. They need it. Maybe one day they will get their heads out of the sand.
38 Rock Slatestone // Jan 27, 2007 at 2:58 pm
by the way, I love the Snap previews.
39 Beerme // Jan 27, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I can see Charo now, dancing and chanting “Cuchi-Cuchi”, as all the Code Pinkers follow along…
40 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 27, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Click here to catch the latest anti-war slogan (the third pic down) in DC where dozens of protesters gathered to hear Tim Robbins say stupid stuff.
Too funny.
41 RedPepper // Jan 27, 2007 at 4:38 pm
JL3 #40: Can they do that while standing up (to Bush)? Without getting any on their shoes?!?
I’m impressed …
42 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 27, 2007 at 4:45 pm
John over at Power Line has an interesting comment about “milestones”.
I was thinking that there are probably as many MSM personnel at the rally today as there are “rallyers”…..I wonder how many were at the March for Life last Saturday…..I wonder how the actual minutes of news coverage will compare…..
43 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 27, 2007 at 4:48 pm
RE: #41~~
RedPepper~~
44 everthink // Jan 27, 2007 at 7:17 pm
“In fact the one who says their taxes are being used for war gives them the right to protest war even with lies of their own, inconveniently runs afoul of this biblical truth: “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s ministers, who give their full time to governing.†And this after the Apostle Paul just noted that government “does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s minister, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the evildoer.†Romans 13:6,4.†Comment by Darthmeister — January 27, 2007 @ 9:36 am
You have often told everyone that the United States was founded by Christian men, that it was based on Christian principles, and that we were intended to be a Christian nation.
But weren’t the founders British subjects? Didn’t they rebel against King George III? Hadn’t they pledged their fealty to the Crown! Weren’t they traitors to their oath, and to their sovereign?
Henry, if so, weren’t these “godly men†in violation of your rendering of Romans’ 13:4 & 6? Then, are you saying this nation born in violation of God’s law?
Applying your rendering once more, did we not sin in removing Saddam Hussein from power? After all, you say God placed him in power!
ET
45 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 27, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Those who know nothing of God or His Word only show their desperate, hate-filled and juvenile foolishness when they try to use Scripture as a weapon.
46 GnuCarSmell // Jan 27, 2007 at 7:48 pm
For a moment I thought it was the bar scene from “Star Wars.” I quickly realized it was only an anti-war rally.
I reached for the remote …
47 Ghoti // Jan 27, 2007 at 8:54 pm
It’s always funny when non-Christians start preaching the Gospel.
48 everthink // Jan 27, 2007 at 8:55 pm
JamesonLewis3rd,
Can you enlighten me?
Does God speak to you directly, or what?
Whose hate-filled. Jimmy, you’re kinda spooky; I don’t think you are in your right mind.
ET
49 everthink // Jan 27, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Pompoms,
Can you answer; or will you just spit at me?
ET
50 INJUSTICE PREVAILS // Jan 27, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Its De Ja Vu time again, but this time
TWO PROBLEMS SOLVED
Round up all these ANTI “AMERICAN” Protesters
and DEPORT them to IRAN
In their place grant citizenship to all the
MIGRANT FARM WORKERS who want to be American
to stay
two problems solved…
51 Godfrey // Jan 27, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Hank: (from previous thread) “…legitimate governments are ministers of God who are to bear the sword against evildoers and that the hearts of kings and rulers are in the hands of God to do as He wills.”
Whoa, back up there, my friend. Don’t take this the wrong way but that really does sound like something Ahmadinejad would say. The huge variance and potential corruptibility of Biblical interpretation is exactly what makes theocracies such horrible places to live. It could just as easily be someone else’s interpretation of the Bible that becomes the law of the land.
What you’re basically advocating above is divine right. I for one am glad we live in a country where funny looking folks in tie-dyed shirts can hold peace rallies without fear of reprisal. That is what this country is all about, even if these particular people do happen to be complete dingbats. There is nothing less American than accepting whatever the government does without question.
That’s not patriotism…it’s slavery.
52 mig // Jan 27, 2007 at 10:40 pm
#42
My daughter was at the Pro-Life March last weekend with her youth group, Dead Theologians Society. There were veterans there protesting against abortion. No comment from the peanut gallery about that. To them the only troops worth listening to are the ones that shadow Kerry, anti-war activists. They don’t really want to hear from the troops with diverse opinions.
53 mig // Jan 27, 2007 at 10:46 pm
“Despite the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are at all time highs. “What this really means is” that business is exploiting the war effort and working Americans, just to put money in their own pockets”.
Nancy Pelosi
54 INJUSTICE PREVAILS // Jan 27, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Its De Ja Vu time again,
but this time something can be done
AN AMERICAN HOW TO
Round up all these ANTI “AMERICAN” Protesters
and DEPORT them to IRAN
In their place grant citizenship to all the
MIGRANT FARM WORKERS who work hard and
want to be American to stay
55 INJUSTICE PREVAILS // Jan 27, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Like I said De Ja Vu
289 Million Americans Avoid Peace Rallies
by Scott Ott
(2003-01-19) — Police across the nation estimate the crowd that avoided yesterday’s anti-war demonstrations at about 289 million. Americans from coast-to-coast voted in absentia against criticizing the Bush administration for Iraq’s failure to comply with U.N. resolutions.
Anti-anti-war demonstrators gathered in grocery stores, shopping malls and private homes to proclaim their disagreement with protestors marching in the streets of Washington D.C. and San Francisco.”Going about my regular Saturday routine is my way of saying I disagree with the radical left-wing agenda of the anti-Bush crowd,” said college student Melanie Sampson, who spent the day preparing a term paper for a literature course.Police reported no unusual problems with the droves that stayed away from the protests.
“It was a normal Saturday in America,” said one Sheriff’s deputy.
56 Darthmeister // Jan 28, 2007 at 12:30 am
Don’t take this the wrong way but that really does sound like something Ahmadinejad would say.
No, that’s not what Ahmadaboutjihad says, that’s what the Bible says. There is nothing which recommends Muslim thugocracies and they are light years behind in equally applying their own laws equally to the infidel and the Muslim. In my view, all Muslim thugocracies should be overthrown, but I’m not holding my breath.
I am not advocating “divine right”, thank you for your presumption. And where’s the vaunted Godfrey “nuance” on this complex issue? Please keep an open-mind on this subject.
It is not for rulers (or state-supported churches) to say they rule in the name of God by divine right, but rather it is for the good people to determine if they live in fear of arbitrary government or not. And if not, then their rulers are indeed “ministers of God” lawfully dispensing justice among its members. If the people do live in fear, then the ruler or ruling class are mere tyrants, pretenders to the thrones of power and should be rejected by the good citizens of the land. The Bible doesn’t teach blind obedience to wordly princes since Christians are to ultimately serve the King of Kings. But where government rules justly, then we should give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and respect that authority that has been placed over us for good. However, we should be ever mindful that we are commanded to reserve final allegiance to a Living God who hold all men accountable to live justly - both rulers and the citizen.
Please note Romans 13 was written to individual Christians to give them a proper judgment as to what constitutes legitimate government and what doesn’t. Romans 13 isn’t a treatise on “divine right” written to justify any of Caesar’s excesses. Pax Romana was a relatively peaceful period under Augustus and other Roman emperors and it was during this historical period that Paul wrote his letter to the Roman Christians. Of course latter emperors acted more the tyrant than a principled emperor who respected justice and law. Caligula? Christians were under no illusions that he was legitimate authority simply because he was emperor. There weren’t any Christians teaching “divine right” then, now were there? “Divine right” is a human dogma based on a simplistic misunderstanding of biblical truths. I reject “divine right” but embrace “just government under God”. And that kind of government can take many forms though American constitutional democracy has a lot going for it … that is until it is fully corrupted by secular progressives who want to recast our institutions of liberty and justice into their own corrupted image where everyone is “right in their own eyes.”
57 Darthmeister // Jan 28, 2007 at 1:21 am
But weren’t the founders British subjects? Didn’t they rebel against King George III? Hadn’t they pledged their fealty to the Crown! Weren’t they traitors to their oath, and to their sovereign?
neverthink, do you ever read the Bible yourself? I know you’ve claimed to be an “evangelical Christian”, but the answer to your question is in the very same chapter of Romans 13 that I cited. Did you even bother to read that?
In verse 3 it says, “For lawful rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.” And that was the determination of the American Founders, that King George III was acting tyrannically with regard to the American colonies and was terrorizing them with his unlawful violation of English law, the arbitrary suspension of lawful charters, and usurpation of power in levying unlawful taxes upon the colonies without proper representation and consent of English subjects. The CHRISTIAN Founders went to great lengths to petition not only the King but also the Parliament. Their redress of greivances were summarily rebuffed, this occurring over a period of roughly five years.
When was the last time you read the Declaration of Independence? American Founders plainly stated their cause and gave their reasons for determining King George III was acting unlawfully and tyrannically to the extent he was causing fear among the American colonists, thus revoking their obligation of fealty to such a corrupt and arbitrary governance. Clearly the Founders didn’t believe in blindly holding to a rule by divine right. Your error is assuming I believe in divine right. I’m not responsible for what you read into my exposition.
More to the point:
… 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”
And what were those grievances?
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
[Twenty-two other grievances were edited here!]
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Sorry for posting these excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, but like in everything else, neverthink has proven his unwillingness to even look up the source documents to which I refer. So I made it easy for him.
neverthink, it sounds like an unjust ruler who causes fear among good people to me. Even if there was some embellishment I believe the American Founders adequately justified their reasons for “dissolv(ing) the political bands” which bound them to the Crown. It is far more than what atheists and pagans have done when they’ve taken up the sword of revolution with little attempt to petition government for redress of greivances. Just read the history of the 1917 Russian Revolution and how the Tsarist government (as weak and corrupt as it was) was abruptly overthrown by force of arms and the subsequent cloak-and-dagger October Revolution in which the Marxist Bolsheviks subsequently overthrew the Provisional Government.
Note: The American founders did not depose King George III. They were rejecting the unjust colonial reach of the Crown and its many corruptions which were demonstrably tyrannical and arbitrary.
58 everthink // Jan 28, 2007 at 2:05 am
DumpMunster,
What rubbish! Pax Romana; my Altoids!
So, what say you of the colonials, were they traitors? George III did less harm to them, than “Georgie the Thurd”, has done to us!
By what right did we attack Iraq? You say all our reasons were false, but it worked out well because we removed Saddam from power?
Well, I think the jury’s still out on that one. I really think, all the king’s horses, and all the king’s men won’t be able to put Iraq back together again! What do you think will happen when we finally do leave?
Bush backed Rumsfeld, and lied to the American people for three and a half years; he even lied about how happy he was with him just before the elections. Then, after the elections, he fired him; and now he wants a fresh start.
Our military can win any war; but what we have in Iraq is not warfare! The Iraqi’s don’t trust us. We are not seen in the world as an “honest broker”, because we have not been honest in our dealings under Bush, and the rest of the world knows it!
If Dumbyah manages to put this plan of his in place, and the worst happens, which with him, it always does; we will impeach him and remove him from office.
ET
INJUSTICE PREVAILS - Don’t let your elephant mouth, overload your hummingbird backside!
59 Godfrey // Jan 28, 2007 at 2:20 am
Hank: I’m not saying you are advocating divine right; I’m only saying that your application of that particular Biblical tenet to the anti-war movement gives government a divinely-inspired legitimacy that it ought to earn on it’s own.
Has it? That is, as you say Paul intended, something to be determined by the “individual”…including the individuals who, perhaps naively, rally around Jane “Hollywood Squares” Fonda and her ilk.
“…where’s the vaunted Godfrey “nuance†on this complex issue?”
My nuance is intact, alive and well. Vaunt away!
60 Godfrey // Jan 28, 2007 at 2:29 am
ET: “Our military can win any war; but what we have in Iraq is not warfare!”
That’s sort of a silly remark. Care to retract it?
61 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 28, 2007 at 6:37 am
“Bush lied.” blah-blah
“The Bible is not the Word of God.” blah-blah
62 mig // Jan 28, 2007 at 8:03 am
Good Morning y’all. I see the usual banter from Rev. Evers.
I love the 289 million Americans avoid the Anti
AmericanWar rally. So what do they figure, 100,000 folks were out there supportingterroristsappeasesment.Well it didn’t work well for us the first time around:
As early as 1784 Congress followed the tradition of the European shipping powers and appropriated $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states, directing its ministers in Europe, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to begin negotiations with them. Trouble began the next year, in July 1785, when Algerians captured two American ships and the dey of Algiers held their crews of twenty-one people for a ransom of nearly $60,000.
Thomas Jefferson had this to say:
As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, “I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro’ the medium of war.” Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, …
One source is here here but it’s no secret, information is readily available on this subject. History should be mandatory in
Government Education CampsAmerican Public Schools.63 Chris Broe // Jan 28, 2007 at 9:36 am
If the War on Terror is NOT about 911, then W invented a war. Iraq cant be the front lines in the war on terror, if the War on Terror is about 911.
What is the mission of US troops in Iraq? Is Al Queda in the Anbar Province? Where’s the mission to go get them? Is Anbar Province a Sunni stronghold? Did the Saudis warn us not to attack the Sunnis? Is Bush’s war plan being designed by the Saudi Royal Family?
Every mission has the “after-mission” end game scenario. Does the After-Mission of US troops in Iraq have anything about…”and then we ask the Saudis what to do with Al Queda in the Anbar Province?”
Still think W is the commander in chief?
64 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jan 28, 2007 at 9:16 am
So did they have the anti-war rally yesterday? It must have been a flop since I didn’t see anything on the news about it.
Why doesn’t Jane Fonda hook up with Nancy Sinatra and go hang out at a karaoke bar. There they may find fame
65 Darthmeister // Jan 28, 2007 at 9:31 am
Godfrey,
Just compare the grievances the Founding Fathers raised against King George III regarding his unlawful despotism toward the colonists to that of the “grievances” raised by those liberals today who are little more than perpetual protestors and whiners, and the distinctions and legitimacy are striking.
These modern professional protestors are invariably disputing policy differences, not unlawful despotism. Not to say they don’t have a right to carp - which they seem to endlessly engage in to the point of a pathological obsession - but rather the weight of their of “grievances” strike me as more the complaints of rebellious partisan spoilt brats and not people who have a real visceral fear of unlawful government. Given how they are always railing against government, I for one certainly see them as either partisan hacks or borderline anarchists, neither of which is pleasing to God since they simply don’t know how to live at peace with their own benign government. Though this isn’t the only measuring stick but how many Wacos has the Bush Administration committed?
“Peaceful resistance” should be a very, very serious activity to engage in on rare occasions, but it has been way overdone by our spoilt brat liberal generation. Every liberal now thinks themselves some kind of morally superior Gandhi wannabee when indeed their actions and agenda border on seditious rebellion, particularly during time of war against an implacable enemy.
Representative government doesn’t automatically empower every citizen to have the right to condemn in the streets every policy difference they might have with that government. Representative government ITSELF is the means for change in both laws and policy. I say cut the incessant “liberal street” showboating and let our form of democratic republicanism work. If the liberal spent as much time hating Islamofascism as much as they hate President Bush, we’d be much further along in this GWOT.
66 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jan 28, 2007 at 11:50 am
What ever happened to the new reformed Jane Fonda who became a born again church lady after her chauffeur introduced her to the Gospel. Was he a Unitarian or a Quaker?
Supposedly she apologized to the Vietnam Vets. Guess there isn’t much money in being an apologetic old lady.
Buddy can you spare a dime?
67 Beerme // Jan 28, 2007 at 11:59 am
If Bush lied in order to take us to war, why did he do it? If anyone thinks this has been politically effective for Bush or the Republican party, they’re nuts!
The reasons for going to war in Iraq were clearly explained at the time and there was no lying involved. Not only that, but the congress, including the Democrats, were on board with those reasons. No invention of war, no lying. A mistake, perhaps, but a mistake on the part of the entire government, not just Bush.
Nothing would be easier than for Bush to admit his mistakes and sneak out of Iraq. He could have done so without a problem, politically, over the past two years. He has chosen the more difficult road. Another mistake? Possibly.
Finally, whatever the reasons for going to war, Iraq is most certainly the front line of the WOT. If it weren’t, Iran and Syria wouldn’t be so involved and there wouldn’t be an organization calling itself Al Queda in Iraq.
The mission in Iraq is also abundantly clear. The prosecution of that mission has not been so. Perhaps that will change, now. I hope so. A lot depends upon it succeeding…
68 Beerme // Jan 28, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Push…
69 Darthmeister // Jan 28, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I see the “religion of peace” is busily at work in Lebanon now.
Oh, that’s right, it’s Bush’s fault. Never mind.
70 Loki, E.NC.Z.B-K // Jan 28, 2007 at 12:28 pm
We must pull out of Lebanon now! While we’re at it, we should pull our troops out of occupied Germany! If we wern’t so close to France the young member of the Religion of Pieces wouldn’t be burning cars!
Oh, and we killed Santa Clause too…
What else is the US’s fault? Did I miss anything?
71 Effeminem // Jan 28, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Darth,
I basically agree with you that the anti-war people are idiots with no valid grievances. They believe so strongly in their own importance that they act out paranoid fantasies where they’re the underdog fighting tyranny. In the process, they’ve cause the deaths of an unknown number of our military and Iraqi civilians.
But if they weren’t so actively supporting the terrorists, I’d have to say that the anti-war protests are a good thing. You know Mill’s most famous essay on free speech? Maybe at some point it will be a good idea to abandon the Iraqis. How will we know when that day arrives if there’s no anti-war faction? Not that I place much value on public opinion, but ideas tend to arise from the primordial idiocy, much like Darwin’s finches crawled out of the ooze.
Hm, maybe that didn’t happen. But without some opposition group we’ll stop analyzing the war effort.
In practice, their lies and irrational anger just make things worse, I guess.
72 Darthmeister // Jan 28, 2007 at 12:43 pm
A-Chord, the global war on terror is against Muslim fanaticism in its various incarnations. Muslim fanaticism takes many forms from individual Muslim terrorists, to global Islamic terrorist networks, to Arab Muslim rogue regimes. Your attempt in making false distinctions between radical Muslim kooks like bin Laden and Sodamn Insane is even more tedious than trying to make overgeneralized distinctions between the depradations of Nazism, Italian Fascism and Japanese Imperialism - all “different” enemies being fought in different theaters AS THE SAME ENEMIES OF FREEDOM. Quit being so narrow-minded.
The Administration never claimed (though it certainly looked into the possibility) Saddam’s regime actually helped al Qaeda/bin Laden plan 9/11 any more than the German Nazis help plan the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Sometimes the complexity of human interactions have a way of creating what can be considered historical nodes, a confluence of events whose influence can cause greater conflicts than what the initial historical event seems to dictate. Who would have ever thought that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914 would have ended with America entering into an European War. Are you now going to argue that America’s involvement in World War I was illegal and immoral? 53,405 American soldiers were killed in that war with a total death toll of 16 million people killed, half of which were innocent civilians. Over 427,000 American soldiers were killed in World War II with 65 million people killed, again nearly half of which were innocent civilians. How about getting some perspective on this Global War on Terror.
The worst thing we can do is to prematurely walk away from Iraq. But apparently you people still can’t make the connection between what happened in South Vietnam after we betrayed them by cutting-and-running in 1973-75 and the bloodbath which will almost certainly occur not only in Iraq but elsewhere in the Middle East when the full insanity of Islamic militantism is unleashed among a people who consider it an honor to blow up innocents in shopping malls, in restaurants or on the streets.
I suppose we need to pull our troops out of Lebanon, too …. wait, we don’t have any troops there! See the pattern?
73 Darthmeister // Jan 28, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Effeminem,
That’s why I’m opposed to the present state of the anti-war movement. It’s as you say, their rhetoric has only emboldened (”supported”) terrorists. With hindsight we know now that the 1960s Peace Movement was infiltrated by radical communists. David Horowitz, the man most responsible for starting the campus protests in 1965, himself has documented that reality. But we don’t have to wait for history. We already see how the anti-war rhetoric and even the worldview of Western “pacifists” regarding the Bush Presidency, the GWOT, and America in general (evil America = Great Satan America) have already converged. When the peace movement finds itself arguing the same points as does our Islamic enemies, there’s something very, very wrong with that picture.
If the left wasn’t always crying wolf AGAINST THEIR OWN COUNTRY, I would have a much higher opinion of these people. Their shrill hate-Bush/blame-America diatribes are rife with their own lies and mischaracterization of what is actually in the GWOT. In my view, they have no more moral authority than the enemies of America, particularly since their talking points are virtually identical now … Bush is a terrorist (Hugo Chavez, Ahmadaboutjihad, the American left, Zawahiri, and other loons have all said it), America has imperialistic ambitions, America is going to war for Middle Eastern oil, blah, blah, blah.
74 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 28, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Ah, my friends from the prison, they ask unto me,
“How good, how good does it feel to be free?”
And I answer them most mysteriously,
“Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?”
Bob Dylan
Copyright © 1964; renewed 1992 Special Rider Music
75 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 28, 2007 at 1:48 pm
HRC threatens an aggravated assault (a felony) upon her opponents!
76 myword // Jan 28, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Neverthink, what say you? You can always claim amnesia.
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
77 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 28, 2007 at 2:05 pm
A Culinary and Cultural Staple in Crisis
Mexico Grapples With Soaring Prices for Corn — and Tortillas
78 Beerme // Jan 28, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Darth,
Yes the leftist protestors have much in common with America’s enemies. This is of course, nothing new. Such protests have long been organized and infiltrated by communists and socialists and are no less so, today. A.N.S.W.E.R. and Code Pink are closely alligned with several other, more overtly socialist organizations.
No new thing under the sun. For an example, see a new post at Beer and Firkins. Especially interesting is the Time article linked to in the post, from 1957. Enlightening and dismaying in its possible portent to the events of today…
79 TouchyFeely // Jan 28, 2007 at 2:14 pm
They should take up collections at all these sites for “Iranium”, the new nickname for “Uranium for Iran.”
80 myword // Jan 28, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I neglected to credit aforementioned quotes to Atlas Shrugged.
81 Darthmeister // Jan 28, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Iranium, nice touch TouchyFeely. We should begin our own deliveries to Iran within the year unless the Israelis beat us to it.
82 mig // Jan 28, 2007 at 2:35 pm
In an attempt to add to #69, Lokis’ list in the making; globesity is also the USA’s fault. It seems that our way of eating has caused our genes to mutate into a red, white and blue obesity.
Super sized me to a Tubby!
83 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jan 28, 2007 at 2:46 pm
JamesonLewis3rd
Re:73
I saw that article in the WSJ. The escalating price of Corn Flakes is also causing an inflationary disaster for my Cowboy Cookies, causing the ingredients cost to soar also.
What Cowboy Cookies has to do with Jane Fonda, I have no idea
84 RedPepper // Jan 28, 2007 at 3:08 pm
JL3 #74: Man, why you dissin’ our Senate sistah? Ol’ Hill’s just adapting to the attitudes of her adopted ‘hood …
Well, New York City’s a friendly old town,
From Washington Heights to Harlem on down.
There’s a-mighty many people a-millin’ all around,
They’ll hit you when you’re up and they’ll kick you when you’re down.
And it’s hard times from the country,
Livin’ down in New York town.
(originally appeared on a bootleg in the mid-sixties;
official release on The Bootleg Series, © Bob Dylan 1991)
85 Godfrey // Jan 28, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Hank: I agree with everything you’ve said since my last post except for this:
“Representative government doesn’t automatically empower every citizen to have the right to condemn in the streets every policy difference they might have with that government.”
Even here you are technically correct: it’s not representative government that gives us that right, it’s the First Amendment.
The way I look at it is this; if the anti-war crowd is doing one thing that is patriotic (and I cringe to apply that word to them) it is that they are exercising their Constitutional rights. Even though they are annoying as hell these actions help ensure that these rights are intact in the future.
Another man said it better:
“Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will. - Fredrick Douglass
86 RedPepper // Jan 28, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Ms RW: I think you meant #76.
I’m expecting Harry & Nancy to begin bitterly denouncing Big Corn any minute now …
87 Darthmeister // Jan 28, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Even more technically, it is God who endows man with the right to free expression, the First Amendment merely enumerates it.
“The Sacred Rights of Mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments of musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of the Divinity himself, and can never be erased or obscured by (political) power.” The Federalist Papers, Response to the Farmer by Alexander Hamilton.
I’m all for anti-war protestors exercising their Constitutional rights to dissent, I just won’t support their right to sow divisive lies in the name of that “dissent”. The Top Ten Lies/Myths of The Iraq War sown by the anti-war crowd.
The peace-at-any-cost-niks claim they only want to do what is right and moral, yet they consistently advance their cause on the basis of half-truths, mischaracterizations and outright lies. History and facts eventually catches up with their claims. And when these new facts and discoveries are pointed out to them (the link above, for example), they do the very same thing they accuse the Bush Administration of doing, they simply deny they lied. And unlike President Bush, I believe they really do know the truth but for very partisan reasons they ignore the truth placed right before their very eyes and continue to spew their venom. We see it here all the time.
If their cause is so just and so self-evident, why do they have to resort to myths and lies to advance their cause?
88 kajun // Jan 28, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Evidence of Santa Claus killing is clearly shown to have been perpetrated by Socialist Communists.
89 RedPepper // Jan 28, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Effeminem #70 and Godfrey #84: If these protestors were actually contributing any ideas to the debate, their activities actually could be a good thing! In their modern incarnation, they might as well be chimpanzees flinging their feces at visitors to the zoo - or perhaps, strippers doing a pole dance, which if nothing else would satisfy the Supreme Court’s concept of “free speech”!
90 kajun // Jan 28, 2007 at 3:44 pm
The Missing Link from my previous comment # 87…Maybe!
If not, cut and paste this:
http://www.kajunnews.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_kajunnews_archive.html
91 Godfrey // Jan 28, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Hank: Even more technically, it is God who endows man with the right to free expression, the First Amendment merely enumerates it.”
I wonder where you could have possibly gotten that idea? Except insofar as Christians think *everything* comes from God (in which case he also came up with, for instance, evolutionary theory), you couldn’t be more demonstrably wrong. Religion and its dogma has done more to stifle freedom of expression throughout human history than any totalitarian regime could possibly have hoped to do.
The passage most people point to when they make this claim is John 8:32, but that has a feeble connection at best. “The truth shall set you free” sounds all well and good but in the Biblical context it has very little to do with actual freedom of expression.
Where, then, would you get he idea that the Christian God is in favor of free speech? Hamilton was a deist until shortly before his death so he’s not exactly a proper source.
No, the idea of freedom of expression was born of the Rennaisance and the Enlightenment, when humanity finally began to unchan themselves from religion.
Free speech is an idea of men.
92 mig // Jan 28, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Hey Kajun-
Do you have a copy of the picture Mrs. Kajun took of us when we visited?
I sure would like to see a copy of it if I can…
93 Godfrey // Jan 28, 2007 at 4:31 pm
RepPepper: I agree…these people for the most part are clueless buffoons, regurgitating inane propaganda (intenionally or otherwise). They are useful idiots for the enemy.
But they’re within their rights…and they do serve a purpose in that their actions preserve the tradition of freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and…most importantly…the freedom Gandi elucidated in this famous quote:
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.” - Mahatma Gandi
So we must tolerate them.
94 onlineanalyst // Jan 28, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Re the D.C. rally of the “give peace (retreat/surrender) a chance” protesters-for-hire crowd: Did Sean Penn perform the official baptism of the believers with his red cup of sacred Katrina waters?
What exactly was Tim Robbins’s incoherent rant about?
The outtakes of the *stars’* moments on the stage as recorded for posterity by CNN were posted at LGF (I think), and their empty rhetoric unsupported by any facts are an embarassment to them. Good grief! There was even a rallying cry in support of the American Taliban, Lindh.
Pitiful…
95 RedPepper // Jan 28, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Godfrey #92: You haven’t seen me demanding that they be silenced, have you?
Not even 60 days before an election …
I refer you to my original comment on this thread (#20).
Peace!
96 mig // Jan 28, 2007 at 4:57 pm
All this talk of has beens got me thinking what ever happened to Taliban Johnny? Well there’s a web site to free Johnny . And of course it’s the gov’t fault for one and another reasons but this line just makes me smirk…
Americans of all political stripes should be deeply troubled when politics enters the courtroom.
Again it only matters when justice doesn’t swing the way they want.
97 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 28, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Actually, it is the knowledge of the truth that will set you free.
98 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 28, 2007 at 5:11 pm
The mistake godless people make is trying to rationalize Almighty God to suit their own egocentric, subjective agenda (which Almighty God permits them to enjoy, by the way).
Also, it is always a grievous error to mix man’s (especially a godless man’s) concept of “religion” with any attempt to understand the attributes of Almighty God.
99 Godfrey // Jan 28, 2007 at 5:34 pm
RedPepper: “You haven’t seen me demanding that they be silenced, have you?”
Not at all: I’m merely pointing out that even at their worst these people serve the purpose of maintaining liberty for the rest of us.
100 RedPepper // Jan 28, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Hey there mig! How’s it going?
I went looking for some stories on the anti-war protests, thinking that perhaps I was judging them too harshly. Here’s what I learned:
Jane Fonda, who once brought her daughter to these protests, has added her grandchildren to her entourage (all for the chirrun, y’know …)
Sean Penn threatens, “If they don’t stand up and make a resolution as binding as the death toll, we are not going to be behind those politicians … “. Perhaps he’s saying they’ll stop contributing their money? If so, maybe he can use some of the funds he’ll save to buy that fella in New Orleans a boat that doesn’t leak ; might come in handy next hurricane season …
Tim Robbins led the crowd into a chant of “Impeach Bush, impeach Bush, impeach Bush!” How original!
As ola noted above, support was expressed for Johnny Walker Lindh, the American Taliban, who, as I recall, was particularly excited at the thought of acquiring more than one wife, back in the day … oh well, as Waylon observed, ” … ladies love outlaws … “
I could not find a lot of stories on the protests, frankly; I think even the LSM was having a hard time keeping a straight face while gushing about the huge crowds (oh, yeah!) …
Didn’t see any mention of the Ditzy Chix; I was sure they would show up and raise the average I.Q. level on the dais; they may never have that opportunity again …
That’s about all that I could learn. I’ll have to check the reports on T.V. a bit later. Film at 11:00!
101 Godfrey // Jan 28, 2007 at 5:46 pm
JL3: “it is always a grievous error to mix man’s (especially a godless man’s) concept of “religion†with any attempt to understand the attributes of Almighty God.”
And yet that is exactly what theology is…an attempt to understand the attributes of “Almighty God”. So while it may be a “grievous error” (and you haven’t explained why that is the case) it is nonetheless exactly what organized Christianity has tried to do for the past two thousand years.
You might be surprised to find that I actually agree with you on one score; it is futile indeed to understand attributes of an entity for whom so many conficting attributes have been posited, whether in the Bible itself or through subsequent rhetoric.
Most recently, apparently, he’s a champion of the First Amendment. Is it any wonder there are so many versions of Christianity?
102 Godfrey // Jan 28, 2007 at 5:50 pm
RedPepper: in reading my last post to you I realize that I chose my words poorly: “even at their worst these people serve the purpose of maintaining liberty for the rest of us.”
The people who are truly “maintaining liberty for the rest of us”, of course, are our soldiers…the peaceniks don’t deserve the same distinction.
However through their exercise of First Amendment rights they do in fact serve the cause of liberty…albeit unwittingly.
103 Mrs. Kajun // Jan 28, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Hi Mig
I was glancing thru comments & saw your request to Kajun about the pics. Gee, I am so sorry. I wasn’t aware that we had not gotten a copy to you-a definite oversight on our part. Does Kajun have your email address? (He is resting at the moment or I would ask him.) If not you can get mine from Maggie and email me. We will email you a copy. Please accept my apologies for this oversight.
104 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 28, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Alas! Theology and religion are two different things.
105 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 28, 2007 at 6:12 pm
There is but one version of Christianity.
106 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 28, 2007 at 6:16 pm
The Bible is quite clear regarding the attributes of Almighty God and shows no conflict whatsoever in that respect-it is straightforward, concise, succinct.
107 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 28, 2007 at 6:24 pm
This is good for a laugh.
Sorta.
108 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 28, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Hm. Links not working?
109 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 28, 2007 at 6:31 pm
I wish they’d deny JFKerry’s plane permission to land-let him move in with Iran’s former President Seyed Mohammad Khatami-they seem kind of “tight”.
110 Godfrey // Jan 28, 2007 at 6:35 pm
JL3: “Theology and religion are two different things.”
Barely. One (religion) is based on the other (theology).
“The Bible is quite clear regarding the attributes of Almighty God and shows no conflict whatsoever in that respect–it is straightforward, concise, succinct.”
Sure. He’s forgiving but vengeful, jealous but wise, omniscient but occasionally regretful, loving but prone to genocide…and he requires charred animal flesh or blood as a price for forgiveness.
Yep, clear as a bell.
“This is good for a laugh.”
Or two.
“There is but one version of Christianity.”
Put. The. Crack. Pipe. Down.
111 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 28, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Typical.
I wouldn’t expect any less.
112 onlineanalyst // Jan 28, 2007 at 6:55 pm
San Francisco has been dubbed “Baghdad by the Bay” for years. Now our traveling Madame Speaker Pelosi in her whirlwind travels to the ME and in-depth knowledge of international affairs and diplomacy offers Prime Minister Maliki some advice from her experience: “Make love, not jihad”. Through her plan, Baghdad could become the San Francisco of the desert.
113 RedPepper // Jan 28, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Godfrey #101: Glad you saw fit to update that thought!
Frankly, I don’t give the folks on the Left a great deal of credit for “serving the cause of liberty” - even unwittingly (witlessly, perhaps …). Leaving aside the truly dismal record of the liberal members of the Supreme Court on this issue (a subject I look forward to discussing with you another day …), the Left’s attitude toward “free speech” is better illustrated by such things as speakers being routinely shouted down at our universities, the current interest in re-instating the so-called “fairness doctrine” (I don’t see Wolf Blitzer and Christianne Amanpour getting nervous, though, do you?), or the current style of “debate” - which mainly seems to consist of utterly ignoring any opinions, or facts, other than those which support your position. Of course, you can accuse people on either side of the political divide of not listening - but actual attempts to shut down your opponents speech by force? Where do you see that approach being taken?
How about it, Godfrey? Do you see legions of people on the Left who you would trust to fight for your right to say things that would offend them?
I’ll give you Nat Hentoff. And Joan Baez! Go!
114 onlineanalyst // Jan 28, 2007 at 7:33 pm
While we’re all talking at cross purposes on different topics, I’d like to make a few observations about John Kerry, who thinks that he is the shadow president.
First, he buzzes by the World Economic Forum, taking time off from his skiing trip -Gee, I hope he didn’t fall- to drop a few outright lies about the Bush administration concerning the Kyoto Accords and funds for hunger and AIDs relief in Africa. (See powerlineblog and captainsquarters threads for details.)
More recently, he is proving to be Iran’s former president Khatami’s poodle and mouthpiece. The ME press is eating up Kerry’s anti-American criticism of our foreign policy.
Kerry seems capable of embracing the POV of every nation (including that which dubs us “the Great Satan”) but that of his own. Seeing the world through our own national “lens” is wrong to him. Duh! Doesn’t every nation see the world through its own national interest? Unfortunately, this poser fop refuses to admit how the US has protected the national interests of much of the free world.
Truly, isn’t it about time someone inquires about the Constitutional limits imposed on him as a member of the legislative branch? Isn’t it about time that he face some consequences under provisions of the Logan Act?
115 Godfrey // Jan 28, 2007 at 7:36 pm
RedPeppoer:
I find neither right nor left deserving of any merit badges for defense of free speech. It seems to me that both sides are guilty of that which you accuse merely the left of doing…namely of defending only speech with which they either agree or by which they dont happen to be offended
The left is infamously opposed to “speech” which they deem non-egalitarian, something that I find to be in direct contravention of the First Amendment. It goes beyond the “n” word…and it boils down to a misguided, vaguely Orwellian attempt at thought policing. And of course there are the “fairness doctrine” and campaign finance reform.
The right rails against speech that it deems “immoral” or “indecent”; foul language or sexual references, “distasteful” art, etc.-and they also tend to disregard concepts they don’t like, such as the establishment clause (which isn’t free speech per se but is invoked by the same Amendment).
I often find that I agree with neither side…but I’m glad that we have both, each keeping the other from getting completely out of hand and ruining everything.
In fact when it comes to free speech, that is probably our best protection yet…the fact that nobody can agree on what “free speech” really means.
116 Godfrey // Jan 28, 2007 at 7:44 pm
OLA: “Doesn’t every nation see the world through its own national interest? “
Wise words.
I would rather have a lying, plotting, ruthlessly Machiavellian president who had America’s best interests at heart than a wishy-washy former-hippy president whose greatest ambition was to “feel the pain” of countries who hate everything America stands for.
Now that Kerry knows he’ll never be president, pay close attention; the real Slim Shady is about to stand up.
117 mig // Jan 28, 2007 at 8:34 pm
That would be Miz Slim Shady to you!
118 Godfrey // Jan 28, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Werd.
119 conserve-a-tips // Jan 28, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Well, the so-called peace activists convinced me. They are so peaceful that they defaced the beautiful Capitol with spray paint. That’s really telling ‘em, eh?
What a bunch of maroons.
120 Darthmeister // Jan 28, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Hamilton was a deist until shortly before his death so he’s not exactly a proper source.
Absolutely false and is typical of the revisionist history of hyper-seculars. Hamilton is “not a proper source” in your mind because he and other American founders state an opinion contrary to yours … and yours, my dear friend, is based on the warped revisionism shoveled into your mind by hyper-secular revisionist professors. Of course this should not come as a surprise, like professor/teacher, like student.
Here are the real religious views of Alexander Hamilton”
“I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.†[July 12, 1804 at his death]
“I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated ‘The Christian Constitutional Society,’ its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.” In an 1802 letter to James Bayard.
“I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.”
“For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” Hamilton was quoted by a reporter in 1787 after the Constitutional Convention
Despite his foibles, Alexander Hamilton was a mainstream American founder and a restrained Christian man who was educated in the principles of Christianity and in American and English liberty founded in large part upon the earlier works of the Christian Sir William Blackstone.
Awwww, it looks like the Taliban can’t meet its recruitment goals. I guess there is a limit to which Muslim families are willing to watch tens of thousands of their young sons getting chewed up in a jihad. I suppose litte girls are next in line to be jihad cannonfodder.
121 Darthmeister // Jan 28, 2007 at 11:13 pm
I would rather have a lying, plotting, ruthlessly Machiavellian president who had America’s best interests at heart than a wishy-washy former-hippy president whose greatest ambition was to “feel the pain†of countries who hate everything America stands for.
Godfrey, never truer words spoken during such perilous times in which we find ourselves. Very well put, sir.
122 RedPepper // Jan 28, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Godfrey # 115: Perhaps, we can agree on withholding the merit badges …
… but, I fear, not too much else!
I can name, with no effort at all, several examples of conservatives who have been shouted down at America universities: Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, and the spokesman for the Minutemen (at Columbia University), and I’m quite confident a modicum of searching would expand that list considerably. These people were invited to appear by organized student groups at the institutions involved; the people who disrupted the events were not trying to debate the “issues”, they were determined to prevent the presentation of ideas by people they disagreed with. Would you care to cite some specific action by conservatives that you believe would justify your “they all do it!” argument?
I can recall two specific examples of a governmental attempt to supress “distasteful art” - both from about 40-50 years ago! I’m thinking of the series of arrests, and subsequent court cases, that effectively ended the career of comedian Lenny Bruce - and the obscenity case that was brought against William S. Burrough’s novel, Naked Lunch. Would you care to cite specific, more recent attempts by conservatives that illustrate your thesis? Besides the so-called “fairness” doctrine, one (recent) additional attempt by the Left to supress “disagreeable” concepts that I’d like to mention has been the use of threats to attempt to silence those who still refuse to accept (human-induced) “global warming” as “settled science”. Can you think of similar offenses that were perpetrated by conservatives?
I’ll save any discussion of the establishment clause for a future discussion of the curious logic the Supreme Court
applies to the “free speech” issue - at present, I will only mention that I consider the series of cases stemming from this portion of the Bill of Rights to be a perfect illustration - the very model, really - of how the Court has abused its powers and over-stepped its function.
RSVP.
123 everthink // Jan 29, 2007 at 12:41 am
myword , what say you? You can always claim diminished capacity.
Re: 76
In your several quotes, I didn’t see the word “invade”.
ET
124 Effeminem // Jan 29, 2007 at 1:33 am
Off topic, but when people oppose gay marriage they usually give polygamy as an example of the next thing to be legalised. Um, what is wrong with polygamy? It is one of the only things where I see clear negative effects on society, but no specific “sin” as such. Usury, perhaps? Is there a specific point where God said to knock it off, or is it understood to be reserved for times of population instability?
Just wanted to get today’s arguing off to a good start.
125 Godfrey // Jan 29, 2007 at 1:39 am
Hank: Hamilton is “not a proper source†in your mind because he and other American founders state an opinion contrary to yours…
My own opinion has nothing to do with my statement; my point is merely that if Hamilton is a deist he cannot be used as an ironclad example of a Christian founder.
As for whether he was a deist, please note that I said he “was a deist until shortly before his death”…which takes into account his probable conversion in the late 1700s. I say “probable” because nobody can really know a man’s heart two hundred years after the fact, keeping in mind that convictions (especially religious convictions) are subject to change through a person’s life.
So perhaps I should have been more precise and said that “according to numerous biographers” (here’s one) Hamilton was a deist for a good portion of his adult life. He seems to have fully adopted Christianity around 1800. If you’ll look at the dates on your quotes you’ll notice a telling difference between the pre-1800 and the post-1800 quotes (note: the undated quote is from his deathbed in July, 1804). His earlier quotes tend use terms like “Providence” and “Deity” and “Creator”…distinctly deist terms, especially at the time. His later words espouse Jesus and Christianity quite specifically.
There is zero doubt that Hamilton was a Christian in the early nineteenth century, the final years of his life, but that was years after the Constitution was written.
As for the rather insulting assertion that my opinion was “shoveled into [my] mind by hyper-secular revisionist professors”, please do me the courtesy of assuming, until proven otherwise, that I have the wherewithal to discern for myself the merits of a given issue, especially since you quite understandably have no clue as to the extent of my formal education or whether I’ve ever even spoken to a professor before.
I believe I have always extended this same courtesy to you.
126 Godfrey // Jan 29, 2007 at 2:42 am
RedPepper: I can name, with no effort at all, several examples of conservatives who have been shouted down at America universities
You are certainly right about that. The obnoxious shout-down does seem to be a tactic that the left uses almost exclusively. I attribute this to the fact that they are generally more “passionate” and less rational people than conservatives (with the exception of religious issues). All of the left’s “big issues” seem to require hand-wringing and tearful tirades as a selling point. How else could you justify socialism but by appealing to the masses about “hungry children” and “the downtrodden poor”.
No. No disagreement there.
As for a list of situations in which conservatives have attempted to quell freedom of speech…as usual it depends on how you define the term. Largely it has been conservatives who have fought against what they consider “obscenity”, a fairly malleable concept. The most obvious case of this is Miller v. California back in ‘73 and its political aftermath. But there have been a lot of instances since then where conservative groups have tried to control obscenity based on “moral” grounds, most recently by the now retired John Ashcroft. And of course there was the whole McCarthyism thing, but that was a long time ago.
I think I was fairly clear in my post above but I could have been clearer on one thing: I do think that today’s left is far more egregious in its abuse of free speech than their counterparts on the right…which is a shame since they used to be must stronger in this area than they are now. I guess that’s why so many libertarians vote conservative.
Personally I think our agreement extends beyond the adamant non-issuance of merit badges.
127 Godfrey // Jan 29, 2007 at 2:54 am
Eff: Good question. Check out the Wikipedia entry on polygamy…it seems to cover the issue.
Two highlights: St. Augustine noted that polygamy was not practiced during his time “in keeping with Roman custom and Martin Luther noted that he could not “forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture.”
So it sounds to me like it is mostly a matter of custom and societal preference rather than sin. Perhaps others will differ.
128 mig // Jan 29, 2007 at 6:16 am
c.a.t.
I wanted to see where they defaced the capitol, so I googled it and it seems that this is habitual with them. So much for the historic society saving old biuldings. You would think these people would be vocally outraged but I guess again, the blind eye is turned.
129 RedPepper // Jan 29, 2007 at 7:32 am
Godfrey #126: Fair enough; I would indeed expect that we agree, more than not, on these issues. Regrettably, the Left used to be much stronger in their defense of many principals, and they continue to “talk the talk” … but they don’t match their rhetoric with actions. A shame, and a pity.
130 Darthmeister // Jan 29, 2007 at 8:51 am
His earlier quotes tend use terms like “Providence†and “Deity†and “Creatorâ€â€¦distinctly deist terms, especially at the time. His later words espouse Jesus and Christianity quite specifically.
Buwahahahaha, do you know what “Providence” means? It means the foreseeing care AND GUIDANCE of Almighty God. God’s interacting and superintending power displayed in human history.
The use of the term “Providence” means exactly the opposite of what Deists and you claim to believe. Sheesh!
I suppose you are going to tell me that the phrase “Great Governor of the Universe” is a Deistic ter too, eh? Think about it, Deists believe God created the universe, wound it up and walked away from it like some kind of cosmic watchmaker. But in actuality all these titles of God ARE CHRISTIAN in nature. They give a PERSONAL dimension to God instead of some cold concept of a guiding force somewhere at their in the cosmos. I use the terms myself, some of them even here! Doh! I guess that makes me a Deist, right?
The problem with your sources and your “scholarship” is assuming that Deism has the same profound effect on the American founders as it did on the European intellectuals. It simply didn’t. You and other “historical scholars” forget an inconvenient fact, there was a huge spiritual movement called The Great Awakening in the 1840s which blunted the influence of Deism in America. It’s pure bunk when modern “scholars” claim Jefferson, Franklin and Hamilton were “deists”.
Jefferson may have been a uni-theist Unitarian of sorts but he clearly considered himself a mainstream Christian. I can give you the quotes and documentation.
Ben Franklin in his own diary referred to Deism as little better than atheism and Hamilton was a Christian, believing as he did that Jesus was the Savior of mankind and God had a providential hand in bringing such great men of Christian character together to forge this new city on the hill, America.
Godfrey, have you ever done a personal study of the source documents from the founding era or have you merely glommed onto what “scholars” today say about that period? Having myself majored in early American history and also subsequently conducting my own on-again-off-again ten year independent study of the American founding period, I am simply appalled at the endless layers of ahistorical commentary by hyper-seculars that has essentially mischaracterized the Christian heritage and nature of the American founders. Quit regurgitating other people’s biased thoughts on this issue and conduct your own independent study OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION FROM THAT PERIOD. Then get back with me. You don’t know how wrong you are.
131 Darthmeister // Jan 29, 2007 at 9:23 am
Godfrey, explore more what has been historical meant by God’s Providential Care here at this site.
There are a few nits I would pick, but in general this sums up my own views. Excerpt:
From the Scriptures we find basic truths that may serve as the foundation of our teaching of history. The first basic truth is that God is in control of history. “Remember the former things of old,” the book of Isaiah says, “for I am God, and there is none else; I am God and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure” (46:9-10).
God’s control may take the form of caring, governing, protecting, sustaining, and preserving. He exercises His will through divine superintendence or by divine intervention; it may involve God’s “general” care as evidenced through His creation or by His “special” care, as demonstrated by His supernatural power.
God’s rule is over all-nature, animal life, people, and nations. We must be careful not to assign the providence of God solely to His dealings with the people of God. There is a danger in overemphasizing “sacred” history to the neglect of “secular” history. In doing so, we might give our students the wrong impression that God is only in control of those things related to the church. All history is under God’s control, both secular and sacred.
Another foundational truth is that God has a plan for history. History is providential, not accidental. Etymologically, the word providence means “to foresee.” This carries the connotation of forethought or foresight to attain a particular end or goal. What a beautiful picture this is of God’s role in history. His omniscient foresight orders, sustains, and cares for His creation, accomplishing His divine purpose. “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18).
132 Darthmeister // Jan 29, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Godfrey, I’m not denying that Alexander Hamilton had gone through a period in his life where he could have been defined as some kind of “secular utopian”. But to say that during that period the guiding light of his earlier exposure to Christendom did not form a basis for own sentiments which parallel the basic Christian principles of liberty is wrong.
It would be more correct to say that Mr. Hamilton, like many Christians, renewed his commitment to Christ in his later life, not that he “became” a Christian. He never repudiated his earlier commitment to the Christian faith as a young man. I went through such a period myself.
We simply may be dealing with a disagreement in historical interpretation, but Hamilton said what he said about our unalienable rights being inscribed upon our very nature by the hand of Deity Himself. You can “read into” or “read out of” what you want but only at your own peril of defending someone else’s historical theory.
Even no less of a founder than John Adams put the founding period in this historical context which is pointedly ignored by hyper-secular “historians” today:
“Who composed that army of fine young fellows that was then before my eyes? There were among them Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socianians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists and Protestants who believe nothing. Very few, however of several of these latter species; nevertheless, all educated in the general principles of Christianity, and the general principles of English and American liberty … And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity in which all those sects were united … in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now 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; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system … I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles.” Adams reminescing in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813
Within the pantheon of hyper-seculars founding Deists, Thomas Jefferson is portrayed as being a classic example of Founding Deism. But Jefferson himself pooh-poohed such a mischaraterization of his true sentiments:
“The Priests, indeed, have heretofore thought proper to ascribe to me religious, or rather anti-religious sentiments of their own fabric, but such as soothed their resentments against the Act of Virginia for establishing religious freedom. They wish (me) to be thought an atheist, deist, or devil, who could advocated freedom from their religious dictations, but I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences for which we were accountable to Him, and not to priests.” To Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith, August 6, 1816
Still not convinced?
“My religious beliefs are a result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and are very different from the anti-Christian system attributed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus Himself. I am a Christian. I am a Christian in that sense in which I believe Jesus wished anyone to be, sincerely attached to his doctrine in preference to all others.” In a letter written to good friend, Rev. Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803
Oooooo, I see the wheels turning, but please don’t go down the road which attempts to explain away Jefferson’s own Christian faith with the last sentence in his letter. For what Christian couldn’t say that they are sincerely attached to Jesus doctrine in preference to all others? Don’t apply your a priori commitment to explaining away the Christian foundations of the American Founders with the hyper-seculars’ European Deism template.
133 Godfrey // Jan 30, 2007 at 4:05 am
Hank: two things: first, I think you should revisit the term “deism” and keep in mind these two points:
1. There was no widespread organization to the Deism movement. It was more a tendency among post-Enlightenment thinkers to try to add some rationality to the baseless revelatory claims organized religion had been making unchallenged for centuries.
2. Many, many people embraced some extent of deism during the time of America’s founding. It’s not as if we’re talking about Scientology here.
Also, when I spoke of words like “providence” being favored by deists at the time-yes, I know what it means; that’s not the point-I think if you look into the matter a little further you’ll find that scholars support that assertion. I’m not saying they were exclusively the province of deists but they did favor certain words and “providence” was among them. Again, you can look that up.
No, I’m not going to spend ten years in dimly lit archives poring over original documents as you apparently did…unlike you I do have some understanding of the neutrality of scholarship. Do you understand the process of peer review? Do you understand how harsh and exacting that process can be?
Godfrey, I’m not denying that Alexander Hamilton had gone through a period in his life where he could have been defined as some kind of “secular utopianâ€.
Great. That’s really all I was saying. There’s an end to it.
Which is just as well because the Alexander Hamilton thing was really a bit tangential anyway. What you should address (and haven’t) is my point that any mention of free expression in the Bible is sparse at best (actually it’s nonexistent). So how do you arrive at the assertion that God endows people with the right to free expression? If, as you claim, the Bible (and not Alexander Hamilton) is the source of God’s word, you’d think he would have mentioned free expression right there in the Bible if it had been important to him.
No, the truth is rather obvious to anyone who is willing to consider it; the men who wrote the Bible had never so much as considered such notions of “free expression”. And why would they? They lived in a time where slavery and subjugation to a king was the norm.
It was not until many centuries later, during the Renaissance, that the concept of free expression began to take shape…and it did so in the minds of men.
134 Darthmeister // Jan 30, 2007 at 10:16 am
Just why did you bring up that controversial point about Hamilton having becoming a Christian only in his latter years? You brought it up because clearly you rejected out of hand my contention that our rights are a gift from a transcendant by everpresent God because you took me to task with:
I wonder where you could have possibly gotten that idea? Except insofar as Christians think *everything* comes from God (in which case he also came up with, for instance, evolutionary theory), you couldn’t be more demonstrably wrong.
Putting aside the fact that the Declaration of Independence itself says that men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, the common thread which run through virtually every mainstream Founder is that God has a personal interest in what happens in His creation and that God can and does come to our aid. Ah, but of course, in your world the Declaration of Independence is a document framed by Deists and so LITTLE IF ANY CREDIT should go to Christianity’s pervasive influence upon the Founders lest fundamentalist Christian extremists like me actually get the idea that our Founders were Christian and their belief in the Bible actually influenced how the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution was eventually framed. How convenient.
I say “probable†because nobody can really know a man’s heart two hundred years after the fact, keeping in mind that convictions (especially religious convictions) are subject to change through a person’s life.
Probable? Yet you flatly claimed he was a “deist” on the basis of “biographers” and therefore he experienced some sort of CONVERSION to Christianity when indeed the possibility exists that he merely REDEDICATED his life to the person of Jesus Christ. And why do you and other hyper-seculars hold this view? Clearly it was with the intent to deistically reinterpret everything Hamilton thought or believed concerning our rights being a gift from God, written by the hand of Deity himself upon our very nature.
So, would you listen to another founding authority from that era as to the true nature of our rights, that they aren’t rummaged for among musty manuscripts?
No bigger authority in the hyper-secular’s world than Thomas Jefferson observed, “Can the Liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that their liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” Jefferson’s Query XVIII from his “Notes on Virginia”, 1781
But of course Thomas Jefferson is also a Deist in your world despite he himself clearly saying he wasn’t!
And George Washington? “The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this (the Revolutionary War), that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his religious obligations, but it will be time enough for me to turn preacher when my present appointment (as General) ceases.” Letter to Thomas Nelson, August 20, 1778.
And …
“Whereas 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 implore His protection and favor, both Houses of Congress have requested me to ‘recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.” First Thanksgiving Day Proclamation under the Constitution, October 3, 1789
Of course George Washington was a Deist because he used the term “Providence”. Forget the fact he’s speaking of a Deity Who actually deigns to interact with mankind. Better yet, President Washington was a religious nut. What does he know about man’s and nation’s obligations to a God which does not exist. Kook!
And John Adams? “I agree with you in sentiment, that religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free governments, but of social felicity under all governments.” Letter to Benjamin Rush, August 28, 1811
And …
“Mr. Paine’s political statements, I am singular enough to believe, have done more harm than his irreligious ones. He understood neither government nor religion. From a malignant heart he wrote virulent declamations … His billingsgate, stolen from Blount’s Oracles of Reason, from Bolingbroke, Voltaire, Berenger, etc., will never discredit Christianity, which will hold its ground in some degree as long as human nature shall have anything moral or intellectual left in it. The Christian religion, as I understand it, is the brightness of the glory and the express portrait of the character of the eternal, self-existent, independent, benevolent, all powerful and all merciful Creator - preserver and father of the universe.” Letter to Benjamin Rush, January 21, 1810.
I almost get the sense that John Adams might have anticipated today’s hyper-secular. But then Mr. Adams was a Deist, right? So what he says or thinks has nothing to do with the Bible or the founding of this nation.
And the father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison? “And the belief in a God All Powerful, Wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which support it cannot be drawn from too many sources … But whatever effect may be produced on some minds by the more abstract train of ideas which you so strongly support, it will probably always be found that the course of reasoning from the effect to the cause, ‘from Nature to Nature’s God,’ will be the more universal and persuasive application.” Letter to Frederick Beasley, November 20, 1825
Closet Christian kook … wait, actually Madison is a Deist just spouting some flowery prose.
And let’s not forget that great orator and senior statesman during the founding period, Samuel Adams: “That God would be pleased to guide and direct the administration of the federal government, and those of several states, in union, so that the whole people may continue to be safe and happy in the constitutional enjoyment of the rights, liberties and privileges … that God would graciously be pleased to put an end to all tyranny … and that the nations who are under the yoke of oppression may be free; and that the nations who are contending for freedom may still be secured by His Almighty aid, and enabled under His influence to complete wise systems of civil government.” October 14, 1795
Another Deist ignorant of the fact that Deists don’t believe that God has any personal interest or guiding hand in the affairs of men.
And of course founder and first Supreme Court Justice John Jay was merely deluding himself when he stated: “I believe God governs this world, and I believe it to be a maxim in His as in our court, that those who ask for equity ought to do it. Until America adopts some such measure, her prayers to heaven for liberty is impious.” February 10, 1785
And Jay’s remarkable prescience which applies to this very debate we are having: “I was at a large party (in France) and they spoke freely and contemptuously of religion. In the course of it one of them asked me if I believed in Christ. I answered that I did, and I thanked God that I did … I very concisely remarked that if there is no God there could be no moral obligations, and I did not see how society could subsist without them. (They) did not hesitate to admit if there was no God there could be no moral obligations, but insisted that they were not necessary, for that society would find a substitute for them in enlightened self-interest.” Letter to John Bristed, April 23, 1811
Lots of smoke and indignation from you, Godfrey, but so little light. You can always accuse me of cherrypicking, but I have another one hundred or so documented founding opinions to “cherrypick” on this issue.
135 Darthmeister // Jan 30, 2007 at 10:30 am
Clearly you can’t be that ignorant of the Bible, Godfrey. As to the issue of free expression, the common thread throughout the entire fabric of Scripture is when God gave man the ability to speak, along with that gift came the right to speak. Sure tyrants down through the ages and even in the biblical histories denied man this fundamental right, but it wasn’t done because the Bible was opposed to free speech. You think the Bible is going to read like some Magna Carta or something? The Book of Psalms is an excellent case study how man even has a right to speak and question his Creator! How much more the right to speak to man and unjust governments, eh?
Similarly, God giving life to man means we have the right to life does it not. That no man can take that right except God and His ministering rulers. Do we really need an engraved invitation to understand the nuances of Scripture? Quit straining at gnats and swallowing camels, Godfrey.
You really do need to read Sir William Blackstone. You’ll begin to understand Biblical nuance.
136 Darthmeister // Jan 30, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Excellent video link about the biblical faith of our forefathers
Of course some would simply say its propaganda without producing any original historical sources to prove otherwise.
My opinion of peer review: Except for hard science evaluation like reviewing claims about room temperature fusion or some such, “peer review” is often little more than a sophisticated echo chamber of like-minded people. When it comes to historical evaluation, peer review is used far too often in maintaining the secular orthodoxy.
WHERE’S THE ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS EXTOLLING THE CLASSIC PRINCIPLES OF DEISM DURING THE AMERICAN FOUNDING PERIOD? (crickets still chirping)
137 Godfrey // Jan 31, 2007 at 3:52 am
Hank: Re: #136: Hmm…hand-picked religious quotes superimposed over pictures of American monuments to the tune of “Glory, Glory Hallelujah”… nope, no propaganda here. Move along, folks.
Re: 135: …when God gave man the ability to speak, along with that gift came the right to speak.
As elucidated in which book of the Bible? Surely such a fundamental human right would have been specifically expounded in the Word of God. Which passage, please?
No…even if your god was real it would be obvious from the Bible that free expression is a concept of men who lived many centuries later. God never bothers to mention it.
I’m pretty sure Biblical nuance is the invention of men too.
Similarly, God giving life to man means we have the right to life does it not.
Hm… I see what you’re saying but I don’t know if I’d call it a “rightâ€. Assuming it was a “gift”…do gifts come with rights attached? Not implicitly.
Also, given his many genocidal actions against innocent people (mostly in the pre-Christian Jewish part of the Bible) I think it’s difficult to support that the Biblical God considers life a “right”. It seems more like a bequest: the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. He also permits men to slaughter indiscriminately, with no repercussion…I’d cite chapter and verse but I’ve already done that here many times so I assume you know the passages to which I refer.
Do we really need an engraved invitation to understand the nuances of Scripture?
There’s a really huge problem with “Biblical nuance”. Think about it: the people God supposedly intended the Bible for lived in an age of pre-literacy. Literacy (and with it the ability to comprehend literary nuance) was very, very rare. Only the priests and scholars could do it and they still never agreed on much.
Omniscient as he is supposed to be, God surely knew that men would slaughter many thousands of innocents over the centuries through erroneous interpretation of his “word”. And yet he threw it on out there in its present form: a hodge-podge clutter of primitive tradition, conflicting accounts and outright absurdities, presumably with full knowledge of the horrific, bloody consequences.
Sounds more like malice than nuance.
RE: #134: And of course founder and first Supreme Court Justice John Jay was merely deluding himself…
and:
I very concisely remarked that if there is no God there could be no moral obligations, and I did not see how society could subsist without them. [Your quote from John Jay]
Yes, he was deluding himself. I always get a kick out of people who say that without Biblical morality there would be no morality at all…as if Biblical morality is anything but primitive and bloodthirsty in the first place. Men are moral in spite of many passages in the Bible, not because of them. Other passages enshrine morality that exists independent of the Bible (for instance in other cultures which have never heard of it).
I usually ask people who say this: so if you stopped believing in God, you’d rape children and eat babies?
What about you, Hank? Would you do these things? I think not. And the next question always seems to give them pause: why not?
No, it’s never them who would go around committing evils in the absence of God, they say. It’s always someone else. Hm…food for thought, huh?
…and so LITTLE IF ANY CREDIT should go to Christianity’s pervasive influence upon the Founders…
That’s a straw man. I didn’t say that Christianity had no influence upon the Founders: it clearly did. I said that Alexander Hamilton’s views were deistic at the time of our nation’s founding…and you’ve admitted this much. There were other men with Christian backgrounds who embraced a deistic worldview during the same era, including Jefferson. This doesn’t mean they ran around calling themselves “deists”…as I mentioned above, deism didn’t really have a church of it’s own. It was a merely conceptual leap many men were taking at the time.
And again, you’re missing one very key element which lies at the heart of the matter: if they had meant for this to be a nation founded on Christianity THEY WOULD HAVE MENTIONED IT IN THE CONSTITUTION. But they didn’t…not even once. It would have been very easy to do so…a single sentence could have made this a Christian nation. But they chose not to.
Read the Iraqi Constitution if you want to see how the constitution for a nation founded on religion is supposed to read.
No, it’s very, very clear that they intended this to be a secular nation peopled by folks who were free to worship as they chose. They only mention religion once and that is to permanently separate it from the sphere government. They’d had quite enough of government religion with the Church of England.
My original source documents? Don’t be silly. Are you claiming that certainty only comes from direct experience? I hope not, unless you yourself read ancient Greek and Aramaic.
I’ve already told you, I have enough confidence in the overall neutrality of scholarship to at least take their work into account and weigh the probabilities for myself. I don’t need to reinvent the wheel every time I take a road trip.
Nothing you’ve presented has convinced me that historical academia has a hyper-secular agenda to stifle Christianity but every word you write convinces me that you have an agenda of your own, whether you comprehend it or not.
You are a defender of the faith, Hank…and I have no problem with that. But it influences everything you say and that’s plain for everyone to see…everyone who’s paying attention, anyway.
138 Godfrey // Jan 31, 2007 at 3:54 am
Yikes, Hank…I think we should tip the jar again.
139 JTD // Jan 31, 2007 at 6:49 am
Jane Fonda, AKA Hanoi Jane has said that she has been afraid to speak out because of the lies told about her during the vietnam war.
But if you search Jane Fonda, you will come up with a site and pictures of her, aiding and abetting the enemy.
I guess pictures do lie,according to Ms. Fonda.
140 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 8:33 am
Where are your “handpicked” quotes? (cricket chirpings), Godfrey. They aren’t there are they? Mine are and I didn’t “cherrypicked”. I quoted them in context and they are part of the historical record. Nice try.
Until you provide original source documentation for your argument as I have for mine as coming from the mouths of the mainstream founders themselves, I’m the only one with quotes in this dog fight. Your poodle doesn’t hunt, dude!
Surely if our Founding Fathers were such Deists, the historical record would be rife with clear quotations to that effect. Instead, all we have is modern connect-the-phantom-dots “scholarship”. And you’re confident in that? Might that not be like the blind leading the blind … you know, echo-chamber syndrome?
I suppose you’ll start embracing the global-warming-is-man-made argument simply because it passes “peer review”. Hmmmmmm?
141 Godfrey // Jan 31, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Hank: You spend a lot of time ridiculing and chiding…you would do better to stick to the topic.
Again, quotes don’t really tell the whole story but you seem to be stuck on the idea so here are a few:
Thomas Jefferson
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding…”
—Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
“Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.”
—-Letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
Does this sound like a Christian to you…denying the divinity of Jesus? Hardly! But that’s understandable since virtually every educated person in Europe at the time was a deist and many of our forefathers were educated there.
Jesus only appeared to have value to Jefferson as a moral teacher. He even made his own “ Bible”, where he deleted all the absurd supernatural claims (like walking on water and being born to a virgin) to isolate the moral teachings of Jesus. Not exactly the actions of a devout Christian.
You also mentioned John Adams. Here are a few quotes from him on the subject of religion and more importantly on the nature of our great nation:
“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
—Letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents.
—Letter to Thomas Jefferson, December 3, 1813
Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.
—Letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
—Letter to Thomas Jefferson, date unknown
God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.
—John Adams, (this awful blashpemy” that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ).
And of course there is the time Mr. Adams and a unanimous senate declared in the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, a mere 9 years after the Constition was written:
“…the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.”
If you really want “original source material” on whether the framers intended this to be a “Christian nation” you should try reading the Constition itself.
When you’re done, answer me this: if the men who wrote it wanted the United States to be a Christian nation why does the Constition only mention religion twice…and then only in exclusionary terms?
Their intention was absolutely clear, Hank; they wanted a secular government. Period. The religious men among them wanted to protect religion from government and the freethinkers wanted to protect government from religion. Don’t you see the wisdom of that? Everybody wins.
Why do you find it necessary to rewrite our Constitution and try to imbue it with religion? As you’ve pointed out, many of our framers were religious to some degree or another but they understood the necessity of separating church and state. Why don’t you?
The framers were wise men. Give them some credit.
142 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 6:25 pm
I am completely aware, and have in my founding database, the quotes you cite. So what’s your point? It certainly doesn’t prove Jefferson is a deist. There are any number of sincere Christians today who discount the miracles of Jesus but that does not make them unsaved or Deists? I would vehmently beg to disagree with Mr. Jefferson about the incarnation and the Trinity if we could yet exchange correspondence today. Keep in mind, Jefferson himself strenuously maintained he was a Christian, not a Deist, committed to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Crickets are still chirping.
I also provided an answer to the classic historical misrepresentation by seculars of the Treaty of Tripoli on the Specter Bill thread. You really need to tighten up your logic. I wish you weren’t so wedded to very sophisticated secular dogmatism which keeps you from seeing the forest because of the trees.
143 Godfrey // Jan 31, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Yeah…um…you didn’t answer most of my post, Hank. Such as:
“If the men who wrote [the Constitution] wanted the United States to be a Christian nation why does the Constition only mention religion twice…and then only in exclusionary terms?
Why? It would have been so simple…
144 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Easy, Godfrey. The simple fact of the matter is, unlike European states which had state-funded churches, the American federal government was not going to have an ecclesiastical component to it. That was why the Congress could make no law respecting an establishment of religion. What the amendment was pointed to was that no religious establishment (i.e. The Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church, the Lutheran Church, the Congregational Church, etc.) could be supported by an act of Congress passing a law officially recognizing or funding the clergy of a particular sect/denomination.
Even in the European mind that was what constituted the establishment of a state religion - government supporting the clergy of a particular religious persuasion. I’ve never advocated that our federal government do the same, it’s simply unconstitutional.
And a careful reading of founding opinion reveals that was also their understanding of not wanting the federal government establishing an official Christian denomination, though that option was certain left open to the States themselves. But not a single founder ever raised the alarm of Christians influencing politics or laws at the local, state or federal level. Atheists do it all the time today, why not Christians?
The mainstream founders also never stated that we must be wary of Christian faith/religion having full sway in either the public debate or in the hearts and minds of legislators who make law. Neither did they say Christians should be restricted in how much influence they can have on the body politick. Nor did they advocate the Christian religion be disenfranchised or censored in the public domain as has unconstitutionally happened in America today.
The fact still remains that it was largely Christian men schooled in general Christian principles who framed the U.S. Constitution. As much as you seem loathed to admit this transparent fact of history, your stubborn refusal to accept this reality is most curious indeed. Unreasoned fears of what might happen if Americans recognize again that it was Christians which shaped and founded this constitutional republic, doesn’t give anyone the right to revise history as you and others have.
Crickets still chirping.
You must log in to post a comment.