Religion, Christmas And The U.s.a.

I recently read a column by someone I try to catch as often as I can, Paul Craig Roberts.

It sums up quite accurately how I feel about a couple of things; and in a way that is, frankly, a bit beyond my ability to coalesce, thought-wise.

Not that anyone should give a rats-ass what I think, but he did a rather nice job of explaining these things, in my opinion.

Here it is:


THE GREATEST GIFT FOR ALL

Christmas is a time of traditions. If you have found time in the rush before Christmas to decorate a tree, you are sharing in a relatively new tradition. Although the Christmas tree has ancient roots, at the beginning of the 20th century only one in five American families put up a tree. It was 1920 before the Christmas tree became the hallmark of the season. Calvin Coolidge was the first president to light a national Christmas tree on the White House lawn.

Gifts are another shared custom. This tradition comes from the wise men, or three kings, who brought gifts to baby Jesus. When I was a kid, gifts were more modest than they are now, but even then people were complaining about the commercialization of Christmas. We have grown accustomed to the commercialization. Christmas sales are the backbone of many businesses. Gift-giving causes us to remember others and to take time from our harried lives to give them thought.

The decorations and gifts of Christmas are one of our connections to a Christian culture that has held Western civilization together for 2,000 years.

In our culture, the individual counts. This permits an individual person to put his or her foot down, to take a stand on principle, to become a reformer and to take on injustice.

This empowerment of the individual is unique to Western civilization. It has made the individual a citizen equal in rights to all other citizens, protected from tyrannical government by the rule of law and free speech. These achievements are the products of centuries of struggle, but they all flow from the teaching that God so values the individual's soul that he sent his son to die so we might live. By so elevating the individual, Christianity gave him a voice.

Formerly only those with power had a voice. But in Western civilization, people with integrity have a voice. So do people with a sense of justice, of honor, of duty, of fair play. Reformers can reform, investors can invest, and entrepreneurs can create commercial enterprises, new products and new occupations.

The result was a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants who shared our values and reflected them in their own lives. Our culture was absorbed by a diverse people who became one.

In recent decades, we have begun losing sight of the historic achievement that empowered the individual. The religious, legal and political roots of this great achievement are no longer reverently taught in high schools, colleges and universities. The voices that reach us through the millennia and connect us to our culture are being silenced by "political correctness." Prayer has been driven from schools and religious symbols from public life. Georgetown University, a Jesuit institution, is too fearful of offending diversity to display the crucifix.

There is plenty of room for cultural diversity in the world, but not within a single country. A Tower of Babel has no culture. A person cannot be a Christian one day, a pagan the next and a Muslim the day after. A hodgepodge of cultural and religious values provides no basis for law -- except the raw power of the pre-Christian past.

All Americans have a huge stake in Christianity. Whether or not we are individually believers in Christ, we are beneficiaries of the moral doctrine that has curbed power and protected the weak. Power is the horse ridden by evil. In the 20th century, the horse was ridden hard. One hundred million people were exterminated by National Socialists in Germany and by Soviet and Chinese communists simply because they were members of a race or class that had been demonized by intellectuals and political authority.

Power that is secularized and cut free of civilizing traditions is not limited by moral and religious scruples. V.I. Lenin made this clear when he defined the meaning of his dictatorship as "unlimited power, resting directly on force, not limited by anything."

Christianity's emphasis on the worth of the individual makes such power as Lenin claimed unthinkable. Be we religious or be we not, our celebration of Christ's birthday celebrates a religion that made us masters of our souls and of our political life on Earth. Such a religion as this is worth holding on to even by atheists.

You can teach the message just fine without the christian overtones/dogma and anyway much of christianity's doctrine has been influenced by early greek philosophers notably Aristotle and Plato.

Quote:

---

This empowerment of the individual is unique to Western civilization. It has made the individual a citizen equal in rights to all other citizens, protected from tyrannical government by the rule of law and free speech. These achievements are the products of centuries of struggle, but they all flow from the teaching that God so values the individual's soul that he sent his son to die so we might live. By so elevating the individual, Christianity gave him a voice.

---

Any evidence for the bit in bold because i think thats completely wrong. In terms of philosophy (ie its teachings) Christianity has imo been simply a carrier, it neither created nor developed the philosophical message. In fact teaching that it just comes from god stops people from actually thinking about the justification and reasoning for it.

I was reading a book on philosophy yesterday ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ilw@6 January 2004 - 06:49
In terms of philosophy (ie its teachings) Christianity has imo been simply a carrier, it neither created nor developed the philosophical message. In fact teaching that it just comes from god stops people from actually thinking about the justification and reasoning for it.

I was reading a book on philosophy yesterday  ;)

---

HUH? :huh:

People seek the origins of moral lessons continuously, ilw, and always have. If Christianity is not responsible for the message, then what?

Perhaps you believe this to be just an example of "barstool philosophy" profferred by an early patron of the Bethlehem Bar and Grill?

Better read a little more of that book. ;)

Quote:

---

This empowerment of the individual is unique to Western civilization. It has made the individual a citizen equal in rights to all other citizens, protected from tyrannical government by the rule of law and free speech. These achievements are the products of centuries of struggle, but they all flow from the teaching that God so values the individual's soul that he sent his son to die so we might live. By so elevating the individual, Christianity gave him a voice.

---

Galileo would probably disagree with the assertion that Christianity has any interest in "elevating the individual" or giving him a voice.
In fact, it seems to me that for most of it's history, organized Christianity has striven to achieve just the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@6 January 2004 - 12:07

Quote:

---

This empowerment of the individual is unique to Western civilization. It has made the individual a citizen equal in rights to all other citizens, protected from tyrannical government by the rule of law and free speech. These achievements are the products of centuries of struggle, but they all flow from the teaching that God so values the individual's soul that he sent his son to die so we might live. By so elevating the individual, Christianity gave him a voice.

---

Galileo would probably disagree with the assertion that Christianity has any interest in "elevating the individual" or giving him a voice.
In fact, it seems to me that for most of it's history, organized Christianity has striven to achieve just the opposite.

---

So, then, you believe that which we call America is nothing more or less than a manifestation of Christianity?

That Christianity and any human philosophy which springs therefrom is suspect and tainted?

That the founding documents are to be disregarded because they are the thought-product of God-fearing men?

That the ideal of current western civilization is now and always has been repression of thought and deed?

Are you not free, Clocker?

Have you been silenced?

What do you desire by way of freedom that you do not now possess?

Are you still coming to visit? :)

I promise not to muzzle you or imprison you for your intolerance of my views. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Craig Roberts
The result was a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants who shared our values and reflected them in their own lives. Our culture was absorbed by a diverse people who became one.

---

Revisionist bullshit.

http://www.combat18.org/gallery/2moregigs.jpg

Mr Roberts need to read up on American history and put a little more effort into making his theories match the facts.

What I think j2, is that this article makes sweeping claims re: the historical benefits of Christianity that are simply unsupportable.

Quote:

---

Power that is secularized and cut free of civilizing traditions is not limited by moral and religious scruples. V.I. Lenin made this clear when he defined the meaning of his dictatorship as "unlimited power, resting directly on force, not limited by anything."

Christianity's emphasis on the worth of the individual makes such power as Lenin claimed unthinkable. Be we religious or be we not, our celebration of Christ's birthday celebrates a religion that made us masters of our souls and of our political life on Earth. Such a religion as this is worth holding on to even by atheists.

---

I'll bet the indiginous peoples of the Americas have a slightly different take on Christianity's willingness to cede us mastery of the soul and "political life on Earth".
For centuries, Lenin's definition of his dictatorship was equally applicable to the Roman Catholic Church.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leftism+6 January 2004 - 12:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 6 January 2004 - 12:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Paul Craig Roberts
The result was a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants who shared our values and reflected them in their own lives. Our culture was absorbed by a diverse people who became one.

---

Revisionist bullshit.

http://www.combat18.org/gallery/2moregigs.jpg

Mr Roberts need to read up on American history and put a little more effort into making his theories match the facts.[/b][/quote]
You forgot all the pictures of similar lynchings of Italians, Jews and Irishmen.

One could argue the slaves were not, per se, immigrants, insofar as they might have chosen to stay where they were, had not the practice of slavery been so insidious and prevalent.

However, leftism, Mr. Roberts is neither a racist nor a revisionist, he merely chooses to focus on what he sees as the positive aspects of religion and the U.S., without taking the time and space you and your like demand for the requisite apology and mea culpa that you deem necessary whenever someone gives thanks for what they have.

Should whitey suffer pangs of guilt on your say-so?

You are a guilt-mongerer who refuses to arise from the seat upon which lies the tack irritating your buttocks.

Get over it.

Clocker-

You are, as ever, correct.

You might consider continuing this banter with Mr. leftism; I am going to leave it alone now. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Mr. Roberts is neither a racist nor a revisionist, he merely chooses to focus on what he sees as the positive aspects of religion and the U.S., without taking the time and space you and your like demand for the requisite apology and mea culpa that you deem necessary whenever someone gives thanks for what they have[/b]

---

I demand no apology. I am white and feel no responsibility for what my ancestors may or may not have done.

I merely like to see peoples theories match the facts.

If the dominance of Christianity in America "made the individual a citizen equal in rights to all other citizens", then how do you explain American history? How do you explain the fact that as the influence of Christianity in the US has decreased, the level of equal rights has increased?

You cant. So you avoid the issue.

btw allow me to translate for you...

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Mr. Roberts is neither a racist nor a revisionist, he is an advocate for the dominance of Christianity in the US over all other religions. He merely ignores the negative aspects of religion and the U.S., because he will never be able to square his arguments with the facts. If anyone does bring up any of these facts they are to be labelled as "guilt-mongerers" in order to avert attention away from the dissonance between his theories and the facts. [/quote]

If you are going to offer these illogical "theories" in public then you should be prepared to defend them without sulking. :)

Talking as a mild Pagan who rather enjoys both Yule and Christmas i have no problem with someone celebrating their religious cultural background.

Although, as I said, somewhat unorthodox in my views I happily send Christmas cards and receive them equally happily. I was delighted to receive one from a close Hindu friend whose wedding I attended recently. My own personal experience is that the idea that other religions are offended by the religious trappings of another faith is over-played (well, ok I cede I know a couple of Protestants who would rather slit their own throats than enter a Catholic chapel but this is the West of Scotland). I am not sure who is running around offended but I have luckily avoided bumping into them so far - if they really exist outside the heads of a handful of troublemakers.

The piece that J2 quoted had some interesting points to make about faith and a time of giving and contemplation. It would have done better without the geo-political embellishments which rather hobble it in both time and place. Whilst it might be rather fun to consider that the US (possibly in some previous incarnation) was the culmination of all God has ever tried to achieve; it lacks a certain humility that does not sit easily with aesthetic simplicity of the words spoken 2000 years ago.

The truth is that the history of religion, rather than faith, is the history of the State and Power. To question the Church in say the 16th century was to sign your death warrant (and usually a pretty grisly death at that). The empowerment of the individual in 1820s America was only a reality for certain groups of people not the slaves, Native Americans nor poor Jewish immigrants - in fact the Irish and Poles had a pretty rough time of it initially too.

Nevertheless, I am not going to be a curmudgeon over this. It is good to observe seasons and this is an appropriate time to obseve goodwill to all men. For the Pagans it is the time to celebrate the new born sun and the promise of life - the parallels are obvious which is why the early Church chose this time to celebrate the birth of Christ (his actual birth date being unknown).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leftism+6 January 2004 - 14:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 6 January 2004 - 14:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@
Mr. Roberts is neither a racist nor a revisionist, he merely chooses to focus on what he sees as the positive aspects of religion and the U.S., without taking the time and space you and your like demand for the requisite apology and mea culpa that you deem necessary whenever someone gives thanks for what they have

---

I demand no apology. I am white and feel no responsibility for what my ancestors may or may not have done.

I merely like to see peoples theories match the facts.

If the dominance of Christianity in America "made the individual a citizen equal in rights to all other citizens", then how do you explain American history? How do you explain the fact that as the influence of Christianity in the US has decreased, the level of equal rights has increased?

You cant. So you avoid the issue.

btw allow me to translate for you...

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Mr. Roberts is neither a racist nor a revisionist, he is an advocate for the dominance of Christianity in the US over all other religions. He merely ignores the negative aspects of religion and the U.S., because he will never be able to square his arguments with the facts. If anyone does bring up any of these facts they are to be labelled as "guilt-mongerers" in order to avert attention away from the dissonance between his theories and the facts.

---

If you are going to offer these illogical "theories" in public then you should be prepared to defend them without sulking. :)[/b][/quote]
I do not sulk.

Ask anyone here.

What, exactly, was your graphic image in aid of?

At a time when religion is making a bit of a comeback in a solidly secular society, you would ignore the larger effect of Christianity on the continuing gestation of the U.S.

I would say to you, "fear not, your secularism is safe."

What do you feel you have to fear from religion, generally?

Or is it just Christian religion?

I would be the first to admit the practice of religion has been sloppy on many occasions, but never with the sanction of the state, such as was the case in Merry Olde England, or other environs historically.

Men have brutalized others in the name of religion; they have, for example, in the case of the Ku Klux Klan, even tried to claim vindication for this brutality in the name of religion.

However, such is not the case today, as you state, but not because of equal-rights legislation.

The speed with which you posted the image you chose made me think you keep it at the front of your documents file, for the purpose of taking the issue immediately to the extreme edge, rhetorically.

Your post had the effect of exposing you as a poster of inflammatory content and intent.

One would be hard put to say the same of Mr. Roberts&#39; column.


Are you anti-religion generally, or just with regard to Christianity?

BTW-what exactly have I avoided?

Your accusation is analogous to attempting to introduce a reminder to cover the subject of cancer while extolling the virtues of eating a nice juicy steak.

If you choose to answer, use care: I may label you as intolerant, in the name of extremist rhetoric-that is, unless you would like to bring the conversation back down to earth, where it belongs.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What, exactly, was your graphic image in aid of?[/b]

---

To show you that your/Mr Roberts hypothesis, that christianity in the US created "a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants who shared our values and reflected them in their own lives. Our culture was absorbed by a diverse people who became one.", is clearly wrong.

If this hypothesis was correct I wouldnt be able to produce such evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>At a time when religion is making a bit of a comeback in a solidly secular society, you would ignore the larger effect of Christianity on the continuing gestation of the U.S.[/b]

---

Christianity has had an effect on the US but it isnt what you claim it to be. As the popularity of Christianity diminished the level of equality in the US increased. I am not saying one caused the other but it does totally refute your hypothesis. Otherwise we would have seen a positive correlation between the two, not an inverse correlation. To support your theory you need to explain this anomaly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4
I would say to you, "fear not, your secularism is safe."

---

And I would give you a rather bemused look in return&#33;

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4
What do you feel you have to fear from religion, generally?

---

Nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4
Or is it just Christian religion?

---

See above.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4
I would be the first to admit the practice of religion has been sloppy on many occasions, but never with the sanction of the state, such as was the case in Merry Olde England, or other environs historically.

Men have brutalized others in the name of religion; they have, for example, in the case of the Ku Klux Klan, even tried to claim vindication for this brutality in the name of religion.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4
However, such is not the case today, as you state, but not because of equal-rights legislation.

---

I never stated that equal rights legislation caused that. You stated that Christianity caused it, yet you havent explained the mechanism of how this came about and you cant explain the serious &#39;anomaly&#39; I mentioned earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4
The speed with which you posted the image you chose made me think you keep it at the front of your documents file, for the purpose of taking the issue immediately to the extreme edge, rhetorically.

---

If I were to describe that type of thing in words the inevitable "that didnt really happen, it wasnt that bad" argument would have to be addressed. So all in all I probably saved 10-20 minutes of off the point discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4
Your post had the effect of exposing you as a poster of inflammatory content and intent.

---

Are you aware that you havent mentioned anything to support your theory at all? You&#39;ve said that Christianity has been practised "sloppily" and then stated that equal rights legislation isnt responsible for "a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants etc etc".

Then you&#39;ve picked up where you left off and went straight back to the topic of moi. While I understand that I may be an infinitely interesting individual, ;) I didnt realise I was so interesting that people would happily go OT from a topic they themselves introduced.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4
One would be hard put to say the same of Mr. Roberts&#39; column.

---

No, his column is simply illogical and makes great bounds from dubious non-factual premises to even more dubious conclusions.

For example..

Premise A

Quote:

---

Formerly only those with power had a voice. But in Western civilization, people with integrity have a voice. So do people with a sense of justice, of honor, of duty, of fair play. Reformers can reform, investors can invest, and entrepreneurs can create commercial enterprises, new products and new occupations.

---

This has been clearly shown to be rubbish, lynching black people, jews, Irish etc is not how I would define "a sense of justice, of honor, of duty, of fair play" or "integrity".

Conclusion A

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4
The result was a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants who shared our values and reflected them in their own lives. Our culture was absorbed by a diverse people who became one.

---

He&#39;s describing a fantasy. None of this is based on reality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4
Are you anti-religion generally, or just with regard to Christianity?

---

I&#39;m "anti-this article". Your friend Mr Roberts doesnt seem to have much time for other religions though..

Quote:

---

There is plenty of room for cultural diversity in the world, but not within a single country

---

1 religion per continent seems a bit miserly to me. <_<

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4
BTW-what exactly have I avoided?

---

Precisely the same thing you&#39;ve avoided in this post.

"How do you explain the fact that as the influence of Christianity in the US has decreased, the level of equal rights has increased?"

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
Your accusation is analogous to attempting to introduce a reminder to cover the subject of cancer while extolling the virtues of eating a nice juicy steak.[/quote]

If you didnt understand what I was accusing you of avoiding then I fail to see how you can judge said accusation.

This post has been pure window dressing on your behalf. I suspect you care more for the "heat of battle" than about any topic mentioned in this thread. You certainly spend more time talking about your &#39;opponents&#39; than the topic.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
If you choose to answer, use care: I may label you as intolerant, in the name of extremist rhetoric-that is, unless you would like to bring the conversation back down to earth, where it belongs.[/quote]

After this latest offering from you I suggest you steer well clear of talking about bringing conversations back down to Earth. Your on thin ice my friend, very thin ice indeed.

:)

If you do choose to answer my queries about the factual and logical inconsistencies in this hypothesis try and bear these 3 words in mind as you type.

Efficiency, honesty, integrity.

Your previous 2 posts have been severely lacking in all 3 areas.

QUOTE (j2k4)
What, exactly, was your graphic image in aid of?



To show you that your/Mr Roberts hypothesis, that christianity in the US created "a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants who shared our values and reflected them in their own lives. Our culture was absorbed by a diverse people who became one.", is clearly wrong.

Clearly wrong? Because you say so? I think, in order that you may practice the integrity you demand of others, you should backstop your pronouncement with reason.

If this hypothesis was correct I wouldnt be able to produce such evidence.

What you "produced" doesn&#39;t rise to the level of evidence.


QUOTE (j2k4)
At a time when religion is making a bit of a comeback in a solidly secular society, you would ignore the larger effect of Christianity on the continuing gestation of the U.S.



Christianity has had an effect on the US but it isnt what you claim it to be.

Pray tell then: What effect? Oh, right...lynchings.

As the popularity of Christianity diminished the level of equality in the US increased.

Exactly when and how? By what mechanisms?

I am not saying one caused the other but it does totally refute your hypothesis.

You haven&#39;t yet said anything other than to pronounce me wrong. Where is this refutation you speak of?

Otherwise we would have seen a positive correlation between the two, not an inverse correlation. To support your theory you need to explain this anomaly.


To the extent I need to explain anything, your place is not to determine that. There is a cause-and-effect relationship between the two, but not one which could be described strictly as correlative.

The "theory" you speak of (less religious influence/effect=equality of rights) is yours alone, and you may explain it to yourself if you like.


QUOTE (j2k4)
I would say to you, "fear not, your secularism is safe."



And I would give you a rather bemused look in return&#33;

Why? Is this funnier than I think?


QUOTE (j2k4)
What do you feel you have to fear from religion, generally?

Nothing.

This is obviously facetious.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Or is it just Christian religion?

See above.

See Above.


QUOTE (j2k4)
I would be the first to admit the practice of religion has been sloppy on many occasions, but never with the sanction of the state, such as was the case in Merry Olde England, or other environs historically.

Men have brutalized others in the name of religion; they have, for example, in the case of the Ku Klux Klan, even tried to claim vindication for this brutality in the name of religion.

Agreed.

Why, thank you.


QUOTE (j2k4)
However, such is not the case today, as you state, but not because of equal-rights legislation.



I never stated that equal rights legislation caused that.

That is true, you did not. You, like so many others, apparently believe the very idea of rights and equality rise out of some philosophically yeasty ether, magically appearing in the minds of certain enlightened people such as yourself, unbidden and uninformed by religious or other precursives.

You stated that Christianity caused it, yet you havent explained the mechanism of how this came about and you cant explain the serious &#39;anomaly&#39; I mentioned earlier.

I stated no such thing, but, if pressed, will say that the nascent ideas about religious rights (NOT religion, proper) in the minds of the founders paved the way for your equality, not the decline, perceived or otherwise, of religion.

Any anomalies are in your head, leftism.


QUOTE (j2k4)
The speed with which you posted the image you chose made me think you keep it at the front of your documents file, for the purpose of taking the issue immediately to the extreme edge, rhetorically.



If I were to describe that type of thing in words the inevitable "that didnt really happen, it wasnt that bad" argument would have to be addressed. So all in all I probably saved 10-20 minutes of off the point discussion.


Bullshit.

You still haven&#39;t explained the relevance of your "picture". It wouldn&#39;t have occurred to me to counter it with any sort of &#39;"that didnt really happen, it wasnt that bad" argument&#39; , and your attempt to provoke by your inclusion of it is shameful.

You made no point by reproducing it here, and to demand I countenance it is nonsense.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Your post had the effect of exposing you as a poster of inflammatory content and intent.



Are you aware that you havent mentioned anything to support your theory at all? You&#39;ve said that Christianity has been practised "sloppily" and then stated that equal rights legislation isnt responsible for "a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants etc etc".

This makes no sense and has no discernable context.

Then you&#39;ve picked up where you left off and went straight back to the topic of moi. While I understand that I may be an infinitely interesting individual, I didnt realise I was so interesting that people would happily go OT from a topic they themselves introduced.

You are mistaken in this regard. Your photo constituted the initial OT breech.


QUOTE (j2k4)
One would be hard put to say the same of Mr. Roberts&#39; column.



No, his column is simply illogical and makes great bounds from dubious non-factual premises to even more dubious conclusions.

Your entire post certifies you as an expert on the subject of illogic, great bounds, and dubious conclusions.

For example..

Premise A


QUOTE
Formerly only those with power had a voice. But in Western civilization, people with integrity have a voice. So do people with a sense of justice, of honor, of duty, of fair play. Reformers can reform, investors can invest, and entrepreneurs can create commercial enterprises, new products and new occupations.

All true. How does this inform your picture? Or vice-versa?

This has been clearly shown to be rubbish, lynching black people, jews, Irish etc is not how I would define "a sense of justice, of honor, of duty, of fair play" or "integrity".

You inserted the picture, apropos of nothing, yet you expect me to make sense of your having done so?

Who said anything about lynching Jews or the Irish? Or etc. (Whomever that might be)?

Conclusion A


QUOTE (j2k4)
The result was a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants who shared our values and reflected them in their own lives. Our culture was absorbed by a diverse people who became one.

Undeniably true.

He&#39;s describing a fantasy. None of this is based on reality.

Really? Prove it-no pictures allowed, this time.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Are you anti-religion generally, or just with regard to Christianity?



I&#39;m "anti-this article". Your friend Mr Roberts doesnt seem to have much time for other religions though..

Because he is speaking in chronological context, as Islam and Buddhism, etc. were not present here at the time the founders were doing their thing.

This is basic, leftism: What they had to consider was the spectrum of Christianity; they are not liable for your mis-perceptions as re: circumstance.


QUOTE There is plenty of room for cultural diversity in the world, but not within a single country

Lack of a common culture is a divisive force, and is constantly exploited to foment class envy by politicians and others.

People are free to practice their individual cultures-there needs to also be a concomitant national identity to provide for the meshing and comingling of these cultures.

Another basic fact you ignore, leftism.



1 religion per continent seems a bit miserly to me.

Who said that? Not me. Not Mr. Roberts.

Don&#39;t try to twist meanings, leftism-I won&#39;t let you.



QUOTE (j2k4)
BTW-what exactly have I avoided?

Precisely the same thing you&#39;ve avoided in this post.

"How do you explain the fact that as the influence of Christianity in the US has decreased, the level of equal rights has increased?"

This is your concoction, not mine; YOU explain it.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Your accusation is analogous to attempting to introduce a reminder to cover the subject of cancer while extolling the virtues of eating a nice juicy steak.

If you didnt understand what I was accusing you of avoiding then I fail to see how you can judge said accusation.

I have enlisted the aid of others in attempting to assess this accusation.

Nobody can make head nor tail of it.

This post has been pure window dressing on your behalf. I suspect you care more for the "heat of battle" than about any topic mentioned in this thread. You certainly spend more time talking about your &#39;opponents&#39; than the topic.

Another mis-apprehension; I know nothing about dressing windows-though I will admit to an affinity for the "heat of battle" as you call it.

I will speak of YOU no more, leftism.


QUOTE (j2k4)
If you choose to answer, use care: I may label you as intolerant, in the name of extremist rhetoric-that is, unless you would like to bring the conversation back down to earth, where it belongs.



After this latest offering from you I suggest you steer well clear of talking about bringing conversations back down to Earth. Your on thin ice my friend, very thin ice indeed.

Spoken like a true alien.

I must insist, in any case, that you not refer to me as "friend".



If you do choose to answer my queries about the factual and logical inconsistencies in this hypothesis try and bear these 3 words in mind as you type.

Efficiency, honesty, integrity.

Your previous 2 posts have been severely lacking in all 3 areas.

What you said.

Thin ice, huh?

Indeed.

yuck, how tedious.

Instead of going through each and every one of your bizarre, inane, childish comments lets move onto the only piece of your post that was worth typing. (I never indulge attention seekers, and you sir are a &#39;fine&#39; example)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There is a cause-and-effect relationship between the two[/b]

---

Explain this "cause-and-effect relationship".

If you are unwilling to explain your crackpot theories (MY religion is the root of all morality&#33;&#33; No no MY religion is&#33;&#33;) then I suggest that you not post them on public forums. People may have this shocking tendency to ask questions and disagree with you.

:rolleyes:

PS

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@
Who said anything about lynching Jews or the Irish? Or etc. (Whomever that might be)?

---

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
You forgot all the pictures of similar lynchings of Italians, Jews and Irishmen.[/quote]

See what I mean? You&#39;re so wrapped up in this "battle" you cant even remember what you&#39;ve said let alone answer a simple question&#33;

You have shown your &#39;quality&#39; sir. Pathetic.

The equality for all, was imo more a product of the variety of people who were represented in the production rather than their religious background.

Quote:

---

People seek the origins of moral lessons continuously, ilw, and always have. If Christianity is not responsible for the message, then what?

---

I was just saying you made it sound like christianity (ie jesus) was the originator of the message whereas i find it easier to believe that the message is older and is simply spread by christianity. The book i was reading claimed Aristotle was responsible for a very large part of the morals in Christianity and the examples given were convincing. It also means that i now partially blame aristotle for retarding science for centuries, as it was (apparently) his espousing of deductive rather than inductive logic that led to galileo and various other scientists being persecuted.

I agree christianity was a useful carrier for a mostly sound philosophy, but the original article seems to claim (without a shred of proof or reasoning) so much more.

j2,

As you are a long time poster and board friend, I know you had the best of intentions in your post.
Biggles, as usual, did a beautiful job of discerning your original intent I think, and who can quibble with his conclusions?
Unfortunately, I believe that you chose a real Hindenburg of a vehicle to carry your sentiment.
Your debate with Leftism (BillyDean?), while entertaining and very reminiscent of the early days of this section, are ultimately going nowhere.
You are defending the spirit of Mr Roberts&#39;s mini-essay and Leftism ( and I, admittedly) are picking at the details.
Touche?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@7 January 2004 - 10:30
j2,

As you are a long time poster and board friend, I know you had the best of intentions in your post.
Biggles, as usual, did a beautiful job of discerning your original intent I think, and who can quibble with his conclusions?
Unfortunately, I believe that you chose a real Hindenburg of a vehicle to carry your sentiment.
Your debate with Leftism (BillyDean?), while entertaining and very reminiscent of the early days of this section, are ultimately going nowhere.
You are defending the spirit of Mr Roberts&#39;s mini-essay and Leftism ( and I, admittedly) are picking at the details.
Touche?

---

As usual sir, you render the board a great service.

As you say: Touche&#33; :)

ilw-

You have also managed to hit the nail on or about it&#39;s head.

The great minds of any age have a tendency to leave in their wake a certain sludge which entraps those who would (and should) progress.

I think this unfortunate, as, while tremendous strides are made in certain areas of philosophical endeavor, others cannot see the boundries implied by certain schools of thought.

A particularly clumsy and inappropriate example of this occurs to me:

Muhammad Ali/Cassius Clay was, in his prime, arguably the best heavyweight boxer who ever lived.

His singular style, of movement, grace and speed, had never been seen in the heavyweight division.

In my opinion, he ruined a whole generation of heavyweights who followed, believing their path to greatness was signified by the extent to which they could emulate him.

None have succeeded, because none have been blessed with the physical gifts he had.

So it is with thinkers, also. ;)


BTW-Having reread this post, I would posit the notion I seem to have climbed onto a particularly high horse since the New Year.

I am afraid of heights-

Could somebody help me down before I become absolutely insufferable? :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@7 January 2004 - 09:38



BTW-Having reread this post, I would posit the notion I seem to have climbed onto a particularly high horse since the New Year.

I am afraid of heights-

Could somebody help me down before I become absolutely insufferable? :D

---

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~qs7e-kmy...0922/rifle.jpg
Help is on it&#39;s way.

What did you mean by "becoming" insufferable?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker+7 January 2004 - 12:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 7 January 2004 - 12:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@7 January 2004 - 09:38



BTW-Having reread this post, I would posit the notion I seem to have climbed onto a particularly high horse since the New Year.

I am afraid of heights-

Could somebody help me down before I become absolutely insufferable? :D

---

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~qs7e-kmy...0922/rifle.jpg
Help is on it&#39;s way.

What did you mean by "becoming" insufferable?[/b][/quote]
Ooooooh....I can&#39;t wait.

She bears a striking resemblance to Jeanette Lee (the Black Widow); even more so if you substitute a pool cue for the gun.

As to your last, pardon me, I should have said &#39;...even more completely and irretrievably absolutely insufferable than usual." ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@7 January 2004 - 09:58
I should have said &#39;...even more completely and irretrievably absolutely insufferable than usual." ;)

---

Just so. :P

Precision in thought and deed is a goal worthy of your continued efforts.

I like Santa.