Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know, I used to believe that to some degree as well. However, some of the most religious societies produced great scientific breakthroughs - think of the ancient Greeks, the ancient Babylonians, the Persians... And of course let's not forget the advances the Crusaders took back with them from the Islamic world that led directly to the Renaissance.
Despite Galileo's experiences, great advances were made during the Renaissance when ancient works were (re)discovered and expanded upon. Of course we can speculate on how much more could or would have been 'discovered' but we cannot discount the importance of what was accomplished during some of the most religio-centric periods of human history.
I will toss one of my faves (some consider him to be the founder of the Big Bang theory) into the ring who seemed to be able reconcile science with religion, as he was a priest:
The world doesn't have to be black and white -- we can enjoy shades of grey, should we allow ourselves. Einstein, Lemaître, and others were able to it, and we really limit ourselves when we dismiss one or the other.
The schools aren't teaching things they should be! And its intentional, the result of a carefully planned attack on our country by socialists and commies. JohN dewey is one of the more notable marxists involved in that.
Read the communist goals, they're widely available and I posted them here. They include dumbing down our schools, thus making children stupid and easily misled by the communists.
Well, in my father's and grandfather's day, they actually taught kids to read, they taught the basics of our history and our government, they enforced basic morality fairly strictly...
I had to be taught by my father to read because the public school I went to made little effort to do so. Then I became the best reader in my class. I went to Catholic schools after that year and did quite well (and the students overall did better too, and few of us were well off financially before anyone tries that angle). The public schools are doing miserably, and a lot of people think the schools here (VT) are better than many states, which is rather scary to me.
the "hedonism" of the 60's? gee women were able to work outside the home in other areas besides being a teacher, nurse or secretary. women were able to get credit cards. domestic violence and child abuse were brought out into the open and people were able to experience sex without the worry of becoming pregnant. the list of much needed growth that the 60's gave us is not hedonism but progress that comes with a more open society. yes it brings with it some bad, but in the repressed world prior to the 60's we had bad then as well. the church didn't do much to stop it or change the bad values, that is why people revolted against the old and made changes
Women deserved equal rights as did Blacks, but the 60's produced more bad than good. Abuse of credit, is a good example of that. Abuse of drugs on a larger scale. Sexual promiscuity leading to STD's, children in broken homes, etc. A new ideology in schools that has dumbed down kids.
is everything a conspiracy? sounds like you would prefer us all learning in school about "your" god and how to live our lives according to the "right" teachings. talk about belong to the stepford wife world.
This conspiracy is well documented. It's something the far left doesn't like to face, after the fall of the USSR how secret documents proved the communists were indeed infiltrating our government, etc.
We weren't a theocracy 60 years ago yet religion was not entirely barred from schools like today.
This conspiracy is well documented. It's something the far left doesn't like to face, after the fall of the USSR how secret documents proved the communists were indeed infiltrating our government, etc.
We weren't a theocracy 60 years ago yet religion was not entirely barred from schools like today.
Hey , when the wall fell the psychologists here in the bay area along with other eggheads started defragmenting /debriefing folks from the USSR. Perhaps not the same as assimilating Nazi Scientists ala Paperclip but it was assimilation just the same. The national paradigm has been anti messianic for some time and I mean that in a general sense as well as specific. Anyone with strong leader traits has to be "Handled" if not neutered.Take a look at You got Paul Watzlawick who was the MRI Mental Research Institute, Palo Alto, California Then you got the NIMH and SRI. All in Palo Alto. Thing is wherever you find this kind of thing you find Torah scrolls being read and Christians in the wakes of the process. Trying to snuff out the faithful becomes self destruction.
Religion always played a big role in this country.
Yes, and so have taverns. Indeed, much of history can be interpreted within the context of an ongoing battle between churches and taverns for the hearts and minds of the people. These are the two entities that were all but ubiquitous since our earliest history and they served as the places where people met and talked and debated the issues of the world as they knew it. It was in no small part for their contributions to social cohesion that religion and alcohol were each held in esteem in our history, the former perhaps moreso among women, and the latter moreso among men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
It was still a very weak government, but strong enough to fix the Articles' problems.
That was very much questionable early on as the nullification debates after the Alien and Sedition Acts would have illustrated. The US Constitution might at that time have been similar to the old Soviet Constitution -- strong on paper but weak in practice. It took time for the principals to adapt to their new powers and roles, but this was accomplished -- even when only by necessity -- as the years rolled on, Marbury v Madsion having been one important step along the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
Are you telling me from the time it was ratified until the 1940's everyone had it all wrong on the first amendment and religion?
Again, the Constitution did not apply to the states at all until the adoption of the 14th Amendment and much of its effects were shortly to be mitigated by the decision in the Slaughter House Cases. The various decisions that began in the 1940's were important not because they invented any new or novel interpretation of the limits built into the Establsihment and Free Exercise Clauses, but rather because they applied those long-standing limits to the states for the first time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
The 1940's interpretation wa sby radical progressives with no basis in our history.
You can say that only because of the distorted view that you hold of each.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
The ACLU submitted an Amicus curiae for Arch Everson in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) among others.
Is it your opinion that amici are parties to an action???
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
Actually it was thought of even less highly in this country then than now. The "Red Scare" was rampant and anti-communist feelings were rabid.
That was the 1950's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
It was no different then either, communism was the same as communism now; the leading communists supported the Soviet Union. Founders of the ACLU in fact praised the Soviets. The communists were more open then than later on but they were a tiny minority. Obviously there were abuses of workers going on but communism was not the answer.
And that was the conclusion that most former sympathizers came to after Lenin died and the brutality of Stalin began to become evident. Keep in mind that the well informed of 1920 were well aware of the abuses of czarist Russia and of the abuses of capitalist America. It was hardly surprising under the circumstances that so many took an interest in this new idea and new experiment across the sea. To say that communism then was understood in the same way as communism is today is simply silly.
The founder of the ACLU said this: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." (Roger Baldwin).
Well, you might have done a better job of preserving context. There are actually introductory words to that quote that you didn't reproduce...
My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. Therefore...
Like a great many of his era aghast at the rapacious and dehumanizing excesses of laissez-faire free market capitalism, Baldwin personally explored many alternative social and political ideologies, founding and supporting a number of what are usually termed leftist organizations supporting the rights of workers and individuals against repressive corporations and governments. But as communism in particular revealed itself to be in practice very different from what it was in theory, Baldwin woudl become outspoken in his criticism of it.
So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy.
-- Roger Baldwin
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
Earl browder, general secretary of the communist party in America, stated the ACLU was a "transmission belt" for the party. Every founder of the ACLU was a communist or extreme socialist.
This is meaningless slop copied from WorldNetDaily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
Now, in Congress in 1963, the goals of the communists were listed by a Democrat, Albert Herlong Jr., I'll bold those portions relevant to this:
You don't have to. Enough zombies have posted this in the past for me to be familiar with it. As you probably know, Congresspersons can read almost anything they want into the record, and the Floridian Herlong read off this bit of paranoia at the request of one Patricia Nordman, a noted Commie-fearer of the day and perhaps a Michele Bachmann equivalent. The list itself was written by notorious John Birch Society whackjob W. Cleon Skousen. Maybe you find this sort of garbage to your liking. No sensible person does.
That was very much questionable early on as the nullification debates after the Alien and Sedition Acts would have illustrated. The US Constitution might at that time have been similar to the old Soviet Constitution -- strong on paper but weak in practice. It took time for the principals to adapt to their new powers and roles, but this was accomplished -- even when only by necessity -- as the years rolled on, Marbury v Madsion having been one important step along the way.
The Constitution itself creates a weak federal government.
Quote:
Again, the Constitution did not apply to the states at all until the adoption of the 14th Amendment and much of its effects were shortly to be mitigated by the decision in the Slaughter House Cases. The various decisions that began in the 1940's were important not because they invented any new or novel interpretation of the limits built into the Establsihment and Free Exercise Clauses, but rather because they applied those long-standing limits to the states for the first time.
The first amendment by its own wording only applies to Congress.
The SCOTUS since the 1940's has taken the limits in the first amendment to a level that did not exist against the federal government for most of our history.
Quote:
You can say that only because of the distorted view that you hold of each.
No, it's facts.
Quote:
Is it your opinion that amici are parties to an action???
No, the point is they had their fingers in it. They didn't always bring suits directly anyways in the early years because of the known ties to communism working against them.
Quote:
That was the 1950's.
No, after WWI there was fear all over the West in response to the communist takeover in Russia. This saw the first wave of gun control laws in the northeastern states, aimed at disarming communists/anarchists. Suspected communists were rounded up in the years immediately following the revolution in Russia.
Quote:
And that was the conclusion that most former sympathizers came to after Lenin died and the brutality of Stalin began to become evident. Keep in mind that the well informed of 1920 were well aware of the abuses of czarist Russia and of the abuses of capitalist America. It was hardly surprising under the circumstances that so many took an interest in this new idea and new experiment across the sea. To say that communism then was understood in the same way as communism is today is simply silly.
The interest in communism incl. with the ACLU continued well after the atrocities were well known.
Well, you might have done a better job of preserving context. There are actually introductory words to that quote that you didn't reproduce...
My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. Therefore...
Changes nothing about his communism.
Quote:
Like a great many of his era aghast at the rapacious and dehumanizing excesses of laissez-faire free market capitalism, Baldwin personally explored many alternative social and political ideologies, founding and supporting a number of what are usually termed leftist organizations supporting the rights of workers and individuals against repressive corporations and governments. But as communism in particular revealed itself to be in practice very different from what it was in theory, Baldwin woudl become outspoken in his criticism of it.
So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy.
-- Roger Baldwin
Baldwin was not particularly against communism in his later years, he only publicly distanced himself from it for political gain, that he may continue operating.
The communists wanted to turn us into a democracy that they may take over by mob rule as in Russia, but we are a republic with limits on the government and limits on the people, in order to preserve liberty.
Quote:
This is meaningless slop copied from WorldNetDaily.
Nope. Prove it. Is it false?
Quote:
You don't have to. Enough zombies have posted this in the past for me to be familiar with it. As you probably know, Congresspersons can read almost anything they want into the record, and the Floridian Herlong read off this bit of paranoia at the request of one Patricia Nordman, a noted Commie-fearer of the day and perhaps a Michele Bachmann equivalent. The list itself was written by notorious John Birch Society whackjob W. Cleon Skousen. Maybe you find this sort of garbage to your liking. No sensible person does.
And despite the far left trying to call the communism issues of the 50's and so paranoia, everything that was said about them by people such as McCarthy, has been proven correct. There were even communists in the Manhattan Project, the state department was full of them, etc. Inconvenient to those on the far-left but it's true. One can start with the Venona Documents if one wishes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
