Are Frustrated American-Anti-American Extremists Becoming Secessionists... YES (campaign, soldiers, regular)

[ProudCapMarine]

Are Frustrated American-Anti-American Extremists Becoming Secessionists... YES

The American Left is so frustrated with themselves that they are trying to join forces with the American extreme Right. This is something like the Left and Right did during World War II. Hitler, who was considered Far-Right joined forces with Joseph Stalin (Far-Left) to start World War II.

In the end, we all know the outcome. Hitler even turned on Stalin and the two extremists ended up killing millions of each other civilians and troops out of their pure hate for each other.
Sadly, the two sides killed many more millions, who got caught between their hatreds for each other.


Read about this new union of Anti-American-Americans at: Are Frustrated American-Anti-American Extremists Becoming Secessionists... YES

[ParkTwain]

Moderator cut: insult

AlterNet: Rights and Liberties: Birth of the Christian Soldier: How Evangelicals Infiltrated the American Military

//
Aside from being a bulwark against godless communism, the military was perceived as a target-rich environment for missionary outreach. In 1959, the [National Association of Evangelicals:National Association of Evangelicals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ] NAE asserted, "Fifty percent of all who pass through the military service have no religious background or church connection." The implication was clear. "This is the ripe harvest field in which our chaplains are working."

They weren't the only ones intent on reaping the souls of unsuspecting soldiers. Early in the decade, mainline Protestant denominations aggressively promoted annual "preaching missions" on U.S. military bases, and in 1952, the year the campaign was initiated, nearly a hundred weeklong events were launched around the theme "Christ Is the Answer."

Competition between liberal Protestantism and fundamentalist evangelicals for influence within the military was fierce, focused primarily on inserting as many chaplains as possible into all available postings. A battle quickly shaped up between the rival commissioning arms of various denominations, with the evangelicals fighting on two fronts against both mainline Protestants and Catholics. "Evangelicals must not fail the proportionately large number of men in the armed forces who are anxious that the New Testament gospel be preached," warned the NAE. "... Real evangelistic work must be carried on by our chaplains."

Evangelicals were also at the forefront of what author Anne C. Loveland in her pioneering study, American Evangelicals and the U.S. Military, 1942-1993, calls "an unprecedented religious and moral welfare program" instituted by the Truman administration, largely in response to a widespread outcry against drunkenness and immorality among Korean War conscripts. Dubbed Character Guidance, the program was in force throughout the fifties, and while ostensibly nonsectarian, the curriculum reveals a rigorous religious agenda, bristling with exhortations that "service to the nation is most effective only when religion becomes part of individual life," and that in the "covenant nation" of America, "public institutions and official thinking reflect a faith in the existence and importance of divine providence," with God as "the final source of authority."

The most effective wedge for the insertion of evangelicals into every rung of military life was the NAE and its influential chaplain-endorsing agency, the Commission on Chaplains, which worked tirelessly as a liaison for a wide array of fundamentalist denominations, from the Assemblies of God to the Southern Baptist Convention to the full index of offshoot and splinter congregations. Notwithstanding the military's policy of allotting chaplaincies on a quota system designed to roughly reflect the religious affiliations of society as a whole, by the late '60s evangelical denominations were regularly exceeding their allotments.
//

[LancasterNative]

Considering it was the states that voluntarily entered into a compact to birth the FedGov in the first place, who's to say a given state doesn't have the right to revoke its membership if/when the FedGov grows utterly outta control? It's all right out of John Locke—i.e. the social contract.

This is basically what happened in 1776 and in 1861.

Government is a necessary evil at best, so the less of it there is, the better.

Whether federalist or anti-, every one of our Founders would tell us that government against the will of the people is tyranny.

Do we still agree with our Founders? ...Or have we become so accustomed to obeying Almighty Government that we're already little more than serfs?

Deo Vindice!

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by LancasterNative

Considering it was the states that voluntarily entered into a compact to birth the FedGov in the first place, who's to say a given state doesn't have the right to revoke its membership if/when the FedGov grows utterly outta control? It's all right out of John Locke—i.e. the social contract.

This is basically what happened in 1776 and in 1861.

Government is a necessary evil at best, so the less of it there is, the better.

Whether federalist or anti-, every one of our Founders would tell us that government against the will of the people is tyranny.

Do we still agree with our Founders? ...Or have we become so accustomed to obeying Almighty Government that we're already little more than serfs?

Deo Vindice!

"Almighty Government" is good.

It forms the basis for the argument that all Liberals should be forbidden to hold public office, as way of maintaining the separation between church and state.

[fishmonger]

Personally I prefer the Religion of The Invisible Hand Of God's Righteous Market.

[skytrekker]

Secession as an idea in some parts of the nation is growing. From both left and right.

Lincoln preserved the Union- but at what cost? Slavery even in the south would have been eventually outlawed if the Confederacy has been allowed to secede. World wide pressure would have caused them to abolish slavery anyway, on the grounds of human principal, and world wide condemnation.

The union was preserved- but the USA is still a very divided country anyway; and is still split on a variety of social and cultural issues more so now then before, during and after the civil war. The geographic chasms that existed in the 1850's- look the same as today! Look at a map of the USA- The north east and upper mid west are politically alike, and the Pacific coast states are similar. While the south, border states remain what they once where on political and social/cultural ideology as well. The inter mountain states except perhaps Colorado are aligned with the deep south on some issues. But the deep south and northern and far western states seem very different on a wide variety of cultural issues.

The country will likely split in the near future. And no American President will be able to stop it.

[Marodi]

I find it hypocritical that the US found it alright to force the southern states back into the union, yet we support taiwan leaving china.

[ArizonaBear]

Originally Posted by skytrekker

Secession as an idea in some parts of the nation is growing. From both left and right.

Lincoln preserved the Union- but at what cost? Slavery even in the south would have been eventually outlawed if the Confederacy has been allowed to secede. World wide pressure would have caused them to abolish slavery anyway, on the grounds of human principal, and world wide condemnation.

The union was preserved- but the USA is still a very divided country anyway; and is still split on a variety of social and cultural issues more so now then before, during and after the civil war. The geographic chasms that existed in the 1850's- look the same as today! Look at a map of the USA- The north east and upper mid west are politically alike, and the Pacific coast states are similar. While the south, border states remain what they once where on political and social/cultural ideology as well. The inter mountain states except perhaps Colorado are aligned with the deep south on some issues. But the deep south and northern and far western states seem very different on a wide variety of cultural issues.

The country will likely split in the near future. And no American President will be able to stop it.

Serious question: how would one classify my state, Arizona?

Why I wonder is that between Phx and Tucson there also seems to be a 'divide' between 'North and South'------in the 19th Century Prescott was the territorial capital due to so-called 'Confederate' sentiment in the Tucson area.

For whatever it is worth: despite my 'Southern' lineage (on my mother's side), I consider myself definitely 'West Coast', culturally

[Philip T]

Originally Posted by ArizonaBear

Serious question: how would one classify my state, Arizona?

Northern Mexico

[LancasterNative]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

"Almighty Government" is good.

It forms the basis for the argument that all Liberals should be forbidden to hold public office, as way of maintaining the separation between church and state.

He he he... I like it