I would be willing to wager that there are many people who don’t know why we have Memorial Day. Luckily I am here to either inform or refresh your memory on the topic.
Memorial Day was something that came about in the years following the Civil War. There are several towns, both in the north and south that lay claim to being the birthplace of the holiday. At its earliest it was called “Decoration Day” which is when people went to decorate the graves of those who died fighting. The first officially declared Memorial Day was on May 30, 1868 when both union and confederate graves were decorated at Arlington Cemetary. At this time people in southern states did not recognize that day as the holiday. That did not occur more fully until after World War 1, when it became a holiday for more than just Civil War soldiers. In 1971 it was actually, finally made a federal holiday.
Make a special point to remember those who didn’t even know you, but died for you. And also remember those who may not have died while fighting, but did fight for you. And don’t just remember them on Memorial Day or Veterans Day, just kick it up a notch on those days.
Also let’s not let the following hilarious video be true:
I heard about “Net Neutrality” a few years back and was not convinced by the main crux of the push for it. The people who want it say that it’s purpose is in case your Internet Service Provider decides to give more bandwidth to bigger companies, who may even pay for improved access to their site, while restricting smaller sites speeds. They want equality in site speed across the internet. It always smelled pretty weak and seemed like a made up “crisis” to me.
You see, if my ISP was throttling my access to anything (especially something specific) and annoyed me, I would switch providers, as I have done before. Not only would Net Neutrality give government more control over something that is very libertarian now, but it would slow down load times for all sites since that is the only way to truly guarantee that times are equal. Enjoy this one:
Net Neutrality {legislation} is stupid and all arguments for it are weak.
When you have run up debt and bills so high that you cannot fathom the numbers the best and quickest way to make your problem go away permanently is demonstrated in this video:
It is really that simple people, and if you disagree you are a racist who wants old people to die.
Can you believe how many people actually try to make cases for all of the above?
I am fully behind Barack Obama as candidate for president. I really want to know where I can volunteer to help out in this cause. He has already shown that he can create jobs and vastly increase exports and economic activity…
It is no secret that I am not a fan of George Soros and his many tentacle organizations. One of the most idiotic out there is “Think Progress”. I have actually never found writing on their site that is not seriously flawed in almost every paragraph and in many cases every sentence.
Today I followed a link to an article about the recent tornado activity in the south. I will not link to it as I do not wish to give them more traffic but, if you feel you must see it, the url is http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/28/tornado-global-warming/ . The article is focused on the fact that representatives from these states are “Global Warming Deniers”.
The congressional delegations of these states — Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky — overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous. They are deliberately ignoring the warnings from scientists.
The congressional delegations of those states did not vote to reject that “polluting the climate is dangerous”. They voted to not allow the EPA to regulate the crap out of them with a report that states that the very act of human breathing or farting is polluting the atmosphere and destroying the world. The linked report makes CO2 a dangerous substance and a threat to public health. I don’t know about you but if I couldn’t breath out CO2 I would be quite unhealthy. And if plants couldn’t take in CO2 they would die. This report also might as well have gone for the gold with listing the most prevalent greenhouse gas “Di-hydrogen Monoxide” as a dangerous threat to public health. The EPA wanted to regulate human behavior (not really breathing and farting, but in the future who knows?) when the overwhelming majority of these substances are not within human’s ability to control.
Following a link to a similar page (here if you must – http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/04/28/global-boiling-denier-tornadoes/) the same article author comments that “It is, in fact, #toolate for at least 247 people.“ meaning that his global warming god swooped down and killed the people because their legislators nullified something that would have stopped the “global warming”. We just had one of the coolest Marches in a long time, which may contribute to the high number of tornadoes. With this being the case having the earth warm up would be a very good thing (as if we could control the weather). Weather patterns and changes have been around as long as the earth has. The deadliest tornado in U.S. history was in 1925 when there were far fewer cars and people around than now. Were those 695 people killed by global warming and legislative mistakes too? What about the last major tornado outbreak like this in the U.S. in 1974? Scientists were still bitterly clinging to the global cooling meme when those occurred and 300+ people died.
Apparently to get the earth back to a good healthy place we should drastically reduce the human population since we breath and fart so much. There are people who say that the optimum human population for earth is 50,000,000. Using that premise it’s a decent start that 247 people were killed by the wrath of Gaia.
Let’s look at some of the other sweet condolences left by think progress commenters:
Well, those global climate-change deniers are losing voters by the hundreds.
Mother Nature’s plan to deal with the two-legged cockroaches has begun to be implemented.
Yeah – God is trying to tell them that they’re idiots. Not surprisingly, they’re not getting it.
Give it a decade, and when the weather completely ravages the South, they won’t be able to participate politically, and the rest of the country can pass intelligent legislation to save itself.
I do not share the religious belief with these people that humans are making weather change. I think it is natural changes that have always happened relating to things like ocean currents, ground and air temperatures, releases of substances by the earth and, of course most obviously, heat and activity levels of the sun. I believe that we need to take good care of the earth and that what comes out of my tailpipe is obviously not a good thing, however, I do not have the faith or confirmation from the holy spirit of gaia that it is causing earthquakes. I personally would like to see cleaner energy sources that can perform as well as current fuels. But I still do not think humans are causing tornadoes.
I send my real condolences and support to those who have lost loved ones and have had their lives ravaged by this Natural Disaster.
Hayek and Keynes. Most people have never heard of either of them. At the pointless “Rally to Restore Sanity” a great many geniuses were infuriated and flummoxed by a sign asking if Obama was Keynesian:
Leaving this embarrassing ignorance aside, Keynes and Hayek are metaphorically duking it out every day. Viewing historical examples Hayek has beaten Keynes into a bloody pulp. Despite the historical beat-downs powerful people still love and use Keynes. I really appreciate the series of videos that have been put out by EconStories explaining the differences between the two. The latest video is well worth the educational watch:
The fact that Hayek is so disrespected, first by a cavity search then by being declared the loser after knocking Keynes out, is downright hilarious to me as it rings very, very true. Good to see Hayek get a little respect from non-Federal Reserve types at the end. Even though what is represented here has serious consequences in the real world the video is pretty dang funny and even has a Bernanke look alike.
This week in his address, President Obama went after everybody’s favorite scapegoat, Big Oil. Regarding gas prices he called out speculators and got after oil companies for taking subsidies. Let it be known that these “subsidies” are tax breaks for exploration and extraction. So what’s his big solution that will send fuel prices back down quickly, just like the ocean levels, and with them prices for food, clothing and other necessities?
Instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy sources, we need to invest in tomorrow’s. We need to invest in clean, renewable energy. In the long term, that’s the answer. That’s the key to helping families at the pump and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. We can see that promise already. Thanks to an historic agreement we secured with all the major auto companies, we’re raising the fuel economy of cars and trucks in America, using hybrid technology and other advances. As a result, if you buy a new car in the next few years, the better gas mileage is going to save you about $3,000 at the pump.
So his solution to our current short-term problem is one that cannot be realized today. All of these renewable technologies are most likely decades away from energy production anywhere near the scale that oil has now, which means that we will be dealing with higher gas prices for quite a while to come. Oh, but did you notice that in his solution he never even pretended to want to do something to help lower gas prices soon? He only wants to make you buy a new car so you can save $3,000. How about lower prices and more efficient cars? This is a case of making invention the mother of necessity. What about people like me who already have a fuel efficient vehicle? Where is our savings? He already made it clear that we should not complain about high gas prices if we are getting bad mileage. I get 32mpg in a Jeep, can I complain?
Perhaps my favorite part of this story is the fact that he has put together a task force to get to the bottom of these skyrocketing gas prices and maybe find out whose a** to kick. Ooh, I like a good mystery. Maybe Barack should send the task force over to his Secretary of Energy’s office to get to the bottom of this. In 2008 Secretary Steven Chu said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”. Maybe Mr. Chu will tell us if he has figured out how to do that yet.
The next stop on the task force’s mission should be looking into the permitorium in the Gulf of Mexico. Since the BP spill, average gas prices have increased by about $1.00 a gallon. The drilling moratorium and the current permitorium have not only destroyed jobs and part of our economy, but have impacted the spike in prices we are seeing. Not even the extra drilling that foreign companies get to do now because of U.S. funds and our increased importation of foreign oil (which we are supposed to be getting off of, by the way) can stop the price increase that we are now seeing.
Another good thing to look into would be the weakening of the U.S. dollar. Oil prices use the dollar so it just makes sense that with a weaker dollar comes higher prices. This also helps record profits for “Big Oil” come into focus. Obviously if they must charge more, because of the weakened dollar that is pegged to the commodity, then they will have more of those weak dollars. Places like the Fed and the U.S. Treasury would be good places for the task force to pop by. They could ask how those Quantitative Easing (aka printing more money) rounds are going and what effect they are having on the dollar. Maybe they could wait for Wednesday’s Federal reserve press conference to get some answers, but I doubt it. By the way that is a first-ever Federal Reserve press conference, that should tell you how bad things are.
All of these policies have earned our good president a re-design of one of my classics:
If you know anything about me then you know that I enjoy a good debate, with the caveat that I enjoy a good debate that is free of logical fallacies. I like to debate for several reasons such as; it might change my mind on a given topic if I am incorrect in my current position, it might help someone else change their mind on a subject (yeah right), it helps everyone involved know where the other person is coming from and I gain more knowledge when I do it. I would feel comfortable saying most people do not share my view. Most people do not enjoy having their world view questioned as I do. I like to question all views respectfully and assess their merit. Such debate and questioning usually occurs, for me, in a one on one situation. Last week I found myself in a situation with several people making points at and even attacking me while I presented fact after fact shutting them down. Needless to say I was in hog heaven.
I find the exchange interesting enough to post here. I am changing the names to cute little nicknames and I am changing the order of posts to more closely match the order I saw them in and to make more sense in displaying responses. I will also add extra commentary. It began regularly enough with a friendface friend, who currently supports the slaughter of babies at Planned Parenthood and the continued government funding of said organization, saying this:
FRIENDFACE FRIEND Sen John Kyl said (on the floor of the Senate) that “90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions.” The problem is, that number is actually only 3%. When Kyl’s office was asked to clarify, they said that his statement was “not meant to be taken as factual.” Ha ha ha ha!!!
So to rain on the laugh parade I said:
ME Sounds like a great place to cut some spending. 97% of what they do is already covered under medicare/medicaid and the other 3% “doesn’t use” federal funding anyway. Good find.
To which Friendface Friend replied:
FRIENDFACE FRIEND I think Kyl’s job would be a great place to cut some spending. Anyone who says what he said is either in it for the wrong reason or doesn’t believe that we deserve the truth. Lastly, I already knew all of the extra info you shared.
MILITANT BABYKILLER Wow, what a moron. So nice to know that idiots like that control serious issues that affect millions of lives. And all these MEN for that matter making decisions about family planning and abortion. They don’t have a uterus! I’m a little radical, but I don’t think it’s fair that men get to tell us what we can and can’t do. Sh***y men abandon their families, and aren’t left with the caring for unplanned pregnancies. If they skip out-are they judged? Not enough. MEN aren’t having to incubate a human inside them for 9 months. MEN don’t get stuck having to raise children and pay for daycare if they don’t want to. Oh, but I guess they do have the right to make up statistics.
Militant Babykiller is a goldmine of moronic points. I could go on for hours about this one post alone. Let’s just hit the highlights.
“And all these MEN for that matter making decisions about family planning and abortion. “
Whether she or anyone else likes it or not, it takes a man and a woman to make a family, with children and all the trimmings. Why would a man not be allowed to have a say in planning his family?
“They don’t have a uterus!”
This is one of the dumbest arguments for anything ever devised by anyone (more on that in my actual response to her).
“MEN aren’t having to incubate a human inside them for 9 months.”
OK so it’s alright to end the human life just because someone doesn’t want inconvenience. Thank goodness for her inconsistency or everyone would be in danger of getting killed by others who are inconvenienced in some other way. My actual response to her and Friendface Friend was:
ME First, just know I don’t care at all about Kyl. You presented a false dichotomy and I hate it when options are presented as the only ones when they are clearly not the only options. Kyl is either “in it for the wrong reason” or he “doesn’t …believe that we deserve the truth”. He might have just been ill-informed, that is a possibility is it not? You have made factually incorrect statements to me before, should you lose your job? Besides we could not save money on Kyl’s job since the people that elected him must be represented. Unless you are advocating the dismantling of our system of elected representatives and checks and balances.
I don’t have a uterus but I used to live in one. The uterus argument is one of the stupidest arguments ever. What about women who had hysterectomies? Taken further this line of logic could be used to exclude women who have never had children or even women who have never had an abortion from making any points about it. I have never murdered anyone but I will gladly tell other people not to, even without the experience of ending a life myself. If a woman doesn’t want a child we have something called adoption which is much better than killing. Or there is also not sleeping with the wonderful “sh***y” gentlemen that keep skipping out on these sluts. It is good to see though, that even though it is only 3% (according to their own numbers) Planned Parenthood is still the go-to location for slaughtering babies.
Bonus Factoid: Did you know Sanger’s first incarnation of Planned Parenthood was called the “Negro-Project” and was formed to get rid of black people?
FRIENDFACE FRIEND I didn’t present the uterus argument. So, no response there from me. Sluts is a pretty strong word, Dale. Not only promiscuous women find themselves in these situations. If he just got his info wrong, why didn’t he say that? Nope, didn’t know that about PP.
ME When was the last time you heard a politician admit they were wrong? Again I care nothing about Kyl and know nothing about him besides that he is a politician and it generally takes a certain type to be one, oh and he is a lousy fact checker. As for “slut”, tomayto tomahto.
Extra Factoid: Did you know that until recently you could specify that pp donations could go specifically towards killing black babies only?
HOOKED ON PHONICS Does anybody know the cost of adoption in the US? I do. The going rate is 30 grand. Women keep their babies even when it is not in the best interest of the child. Friendface Friend I love you sugar for so many reasons. We agree on so much and I love the fact that you are fearless! Keep up the good work!
ME So, human life = $30,000. Got it, good to know. I know where you could give a baby away for free.
Extra Extra Factoid: Margaret Sanger on occasion referenced black people as “human weeds”, “reckless breeders” and as “human beings who never should have been born.”
HOOKED ON PHONICS Really Dale please tell me. My best friend lost her baby 3 days before her due date and would love to have one of those free babies you think are out there for the taking.
ME Learn to read, Hooked on Phonics. I said, “give a baby away”. We were talking about the slut side of things and not the adopter side. There is no reason it would ever cost someone $30,000 to put a baby up for adoption.
I later checked her and found a screaming deal on adoption starting at $4,000.
FRIENDFACE FRIEND: Jeez. I only thought it was laughable that one of our over-paid, under-qualified “representatives” was making a very erroneous statement about numbers, which were the entire point of the statement. The statement happened to be about an issue that was moments away from causing a govt. shutdown. In a situation like that, getting the numbers right is pretty important. When asked about his statement, he basically shirked responsibility. And, that made me laugh.
FRIENDFACE FRIEND This is such a sensitive issue, and everyone has their own reasons for how they feel. None are more important than another.
HOOKED ON PHONICS No need to worry! The brow beating has made me change my mind completely.
FRIENDFACE FRIEND Dayna, you made me laugh out loud!
FRIENDFACE FRIEND Also, Dale, just because politicians don’t usually admit that they are wrong doesn’t mean that now wouldn’t be a great time to start….for ALL of them.
^That last one contributes nothing. Just because I can’t fly doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a great time to start.
Here’s my reply:
ME @Phonics – Oh, I didn’t think you would be able to read the brow beating.
@Friendface – Not killing people is much more important than all other reasons.
FRIENDFACE FRIEND What about women who would die if they didn’t receive said service?
ME Just as you can kill a full grown adult in self defense there are exceptions to all rules. That’s just common sense.
FRIENDFACE FRIEND: Yes, it is. It is the exception that in a black and white situation can make all the difference.
Uuuuuuh…ok…that’s a weird response.
ME All situations are black and white. Each individual one has it’s own correct answer and every subset of that possible situation has it’s own correct black and white answer. There is never a gray.
I am ok with a procedure in cases where a life is at risk, or where a crime has been committed such as rape or incest. Those are hard situations with hard decisions to be made. Much the same as I am ok with snuffing out full grown lives for self defense, war (which should only be for defense) or possibly criminal situations. Although I would prefer to not have the death penalty really.
As has been said before, in person would be a better way for such discussion and would more than make up for my non-use of emoticons. Also Kyl sounds like a real winner but if you think politicians giving fake numbers is funny, pay more attention and you will laugh your a** off all the time.
Speaking of black and white/right and wrong, apologies to {Phonics} about the “learn to read” thing. But seriously it’s called “Hooked on Phonics”. Joking joking. Apologizing starting now.
FRIENDFACE FRIEND I think there’s a gray….
MS KNOWITALL regardless of how anyone feels about abortions, they are 100% privately funded. It is, in fact, illegal to utilize any Title X funding on abortions. (and has been since 1976, I believe) And, that is all that matters when we speak of federal funding for a very important organization that is essential to women’s health.
OK, so nevermind that killing babies is wrong. “All that matters” is that tax dollars don’t pay for the slaughter. Phew.
ME @Friendface – Nope. No gray.
@Knowitall – you just reiterated my good reason for de-funding. Hooray!!!
Although you do overlook Kathleen Sebelius’ statement about all funding going to the same pot and having no guarantee that tax dollars don’t pay for abortions. Oh and you overlook the fact that killing babies is wrong.
MILITANT BABYKILLER Yeah, there’s a gray. Thank goodness some people believe that or we’d all be f’d.
Uuuuuh, how exactly would we be “f’d”, genius?
BLAH GUY It’s not up to us to pass judgment on grey areas God will ultimately do that. How ever God says in the Bible that I knew your voice in your mothers womb.
If there are truly gray areas then how would a just God pass a black and white judgment on anyone? The reason He can judge is that He knows each black and white correct answer and all the facets of each situation.
ME I’d like an example of a moral situation where there is no clear right and wrong then. Show me this gray. Open my eyes to this hazy light/darkness. I hope it’s not like the gray area used to justify slavery or mass slaughter or other horrible acts throughout the ages. Gray areas are only for those trying to get away with something while their conscience bothers them.
BLAH GUY Black and white a baby does not create major organs while in the womb it’s known that when the child comes out it’s going to die immediately. I think that’s a grey area.
ME @Blah Not gray. If it is fully known that no organs will ever develop it is a very easy choice.
MS KNOWITALL so, I just read some of the thread above…and I see that you already know funding does not cover abortions, Dale. I do have to ask you this why do you assume the other 97% of the services offered by Planned Parenthood is covered by medica…id/medicare? Btw, I am speaking to PP only because you used 97%, which is only a number specific to PP, where as Title X does not only fund PP. So, please…tell me, I am interested in an off the cuff response~
ME @Knowitall – Missed your earlier question post – Quick answer: unless PP has a purple nurple service that they charge for that I don’t know about then every other service can be taken care of with insurance or medicaid or found down at free clinics all over the place. No need for special funding. Of course that need would never ever possibly exist anyway.
Also, it is currently legal for tax money to fund abortions because of the 2009 omnibus bill nullification of the Dornan amendment.
The placement of this one is strange because I read it in this order. The next section actually happened right before my last reply.
MS KNOWITALL Leaving black/white, or gray out of this….you still did NOT answer my question. I wonder why that is?? Because you’re statement was absolutely false!! The majority of PP patients are NOT eligible to be covered by medicare/medicaid darlin’! Furthermore, you are so cookie-cutter “right” in your sad excuse for a rebuttal in vomiting some bs about Sebelius, please provide proof of this statement, I’d love to see it. And, btw, if you seriously think that every single medical service paid for by the government is not completely audited you have lost your mind (which is clear in everything you say anyway). I bet you think Obama is an Alien, and his not American as well eh? hahaha…
Oh, I will shut her up.
MS KNOWITALL p.s. to be clear, I think killing babies is wrong too, I would never have an abortion. And, thankfully, believing in another woman’s choice is not contradictory to my own personal moral code.
What a stupid “moral code”. I also believe in other people’s choice. I think we should ask the babies if they would like to live or not and wait for a response. I also believe that a woman can still “choose” to murder someone because of inconvenience. I just want to live in a society where there is a swift consequence for such a choice.
ME @Knowitall Wow so much hatred and venom. All over a comment I never saw. So much ad hominem was “vomited” by your clearly, lost long ago, mind; judging by “everything you say anyway”.
Next one is out of place as well. It belongs after my “learn to read” statement but I didn’t see it til now. Seriously though, how hard is it to read what someone wrote and respond accordingly?
FRIENDFACE FRIEND Also, it is possible to make a point/statement without being derogatory.
HOOKED ON PHONICS Okay Friendface you win! Longest personal thread I have ever seen on FB. Way to GO!
FRIENDFACE FRIEND Yikes. This was not my intention. And, um, I love you all. The end!
Then I thought I would finish with these, which I think answer pretty much everything:
ME …was headed out the door earlier. I have more. ( I never quit)
Obama as an alien – Born in Hawaii, jus soli.
I also added the video evidence for Sebelius pool of funding talk. You know the BS that doesn’t exist.
Sebelius BS –
Government meticulously auditing –
I also threw in a shot at the original post. I know that technically Kyl was wrong with his numbers, but he may have wanted to say this:
Anyone who actually knows that a “troll” is not someone who comments and shares opinions about something, but rather, is someone who posts things that can evoke an emotional response and detract from a discussion will see the huge irony from Troll Lady.
HOOKED ON PHONICS I thought of it as poking the bear myself.
ME So…Party at Friendface’s house?
FRIENDFACE FRIEND Party at my house. The only rules are that elephants have to talk to donkeys, and vice versa. And if you are neither donkey or elephant, you’re responsible for drinks.
LATE FOR THE SHOW Ok. Killing is evil. So let’s save lives and money by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
ME I am neither an elephant or donkey but I don’t drink. Anybody like milk? We can do the gallon challenge.
@LATE – Iraq/Afghanistan – Amen!!!
I hate the assumption that I am a Republican because I hold certain views. And I hate that one might assume that I want our troops to be in Iraq or Afghanistan because of my views on slaughtering babies. I also don’t like political parties and will probably never join one.
ENTERTAINED LADY Thanks for the entertainment!!
“BOOM WINNING” GUY Wow Friendface… You should start a blog.. Have a feature column for Dale.. Kind of like Andy Rooney. I think he’s great.
That was the last I saw of it for a few days until I went back to it for writing this up and saw the following:
KILLING BABIES IS FUNNY GUY Just think… if Planned Parenthood had aborted John Kyle, I wouldn’t be reading this awesomely long thread.
You also wouldn’t be reading it if they had aborted you. Don’t make it right.
FRIENDFACE FRIEND Ha ha ha ha ha!!! Thanks, KBIFG, I needed that.
Oh yeah LOL!!! All the people who never got a chance to breath think it’s real funny too.
CROWDED MASS MURDERER the population continues to grow, why would anyone cut spending at PP? I am ProChoice, If I were rich, I would be a philanthropist and donate money for women who can’t afford abortions.
If I were to reply to the new statements I might say this:
ME Some groups of people hold no value for the human lives of other groups. Some people look down on the infidels, some on the Jews, some on those with different skin color and some people don’t value the lives of anyone of an opposing view. Other people don’t value those who have yet to make their own choices and voice their own opinions. Each of these are human lives and each contribute to the population that “continues to grow”. Why pick the most innocent and fragile group of these to slaughter en masse? Because it’s easy? Because the others have been tried before? Who else can we destroy to make some more elbow room in this crowded place, as though we can currently barely breath or move about? Expand your list to really solve this problem, you philanthropist you.
If you can’t tell I am very passionate about some things and I have facts and principles to back me up. Roe v. Wade is the Dred Scott case of modern times, as it is so blatantly against the principles of our nation’s founding.
In an argument in a different venue someone referred me to a video that is, as the title tells you, one of the most ignorant videos I have ever seen. Our discussion was about religious principles in the system of government for the United States. The video presented to me, as an argument that the U.S. government and Constitution are not based on religious principles, was a wonderful opportunity to present many fallacies, foolish ideas and deceptions commonly used by those who disagree with me. I was salivating as I watched it. Critical thinkers watching the video should be able to quickly pick up on many of the aforementioned types of problems.
Let’s dissect this puppy piece by piece:
Our Constitution, our founding fathers and our heritage have been hijacked by the lunatic fringe. They are either lying or they’re too stupid to know any better.
No argument there.
But the Glenn Becks, the Palins and the Limbaughs are claiming our founding fathers based the Constitution on religious principles. It’s simply not so.
Wrong. It is not based on a specific religion, but it is based on religious principles. The respect for one’s fellow man and the rights of the same, are most definitely fruits of Christianity and religious principles. Most major movements to help people outside of one’s own group have been religious movements, and the American Revolution is no different. The abolition movement in the U.S. and Britain, the civil rights movement and the fight to save Indians and central Americans from slaughter have all been religious movements. The teachings of Christ really did revolutionize the world and even the most ‘rabid’ non-believer benefits from that today. In today’s world we are “born on a moral third base, and think we hit a triple.” If we look back in time at Greeks, Romans and other civilizations we will see that they would enslave those who were not Greeks or Romans and they would slaughter newborn babies for being female or less than desirable. (Granted, babies are still slaughtered in the U.S., which is unconstitutional) The abhorrence for enslavement and slaughter of those not in one’s own group is rooted in religious teaching and correct understanding of that teaching.
Not enough? OK. The phrases “taxation without representation”, “consent of the governed” and “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” can be traced to the Reverend John Wise. The coining of these phrases is attributed to the Reverend studying his Bible and preparing sermons. Nearly 50 years after his death his sermons were printed as pamphlets and passed around the colonies. 51 years after his death a certain Declaration was made containing many of his words. The principles (taken from sermons created from Bible study for religious purposes) in the Declaration are the basis for the Constitution, thus the Constitution is based on religious principles.
Still not enough for you? OK. When drafting the Constitution the delegates relied heavily upon John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government which references the Bible roughly 1500 times regarding government. Locke extracted principles and wrote about them, after which, our founders based the Constitution on them.
Still, even now, not enough for you? Take a look at the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights which, anyone who knows that little bit of history would also know that the U.S. Bill of Rights(1789) was based on it. Article 16 reads “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” Sounds a bit like religious principles when it says, “Christian forbearance, love, and charity”.
I could go on……
Let me introduce you to the founding father and the gentleman from Virginia, Thomas Jefferson. The very person who drafted our Constitution after the things he said at the time. “Christianity neither is, nor ever was part of the common law” – Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.
The first big problem any critical thinker might come to is the fact that he says that Jefferson is “the very person who drafted our Constitution…” If you are going to single out one person, and ignore all the other delegates, as having drafted the Constitution, anyone who knows a tiny bit about history would put James Madison way out above the rest.
For the second problem let’s ignore the first. The video man says, “the very person who drafted our Constitution after the things he said at the time.” then proceeds to give a quote supporting his position. The problem is that the quote is from 1814, well after 1787 when the Constitution was completed. How could Jefferson draft the Constitution after this statement if he had not made it.
The third problem is that Christianity is not part of the common law, but that does not exclude religious principles from the common law. In fact there are specifically Christian references in the Constitution itself, but that does not make Christianity the law of the land. It only makes certain ‘principles’ found in Christianity the law of the land.
” In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” – Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814.
First off – again with an 1814 quote.
Secondly, anyone who would deny that there have been bad priests who sought power and control over people knows nothing of history. That does not mean that all priests have been bad. And even if Jefferson did mean that all priests, ever, are bad, that does not make it true. This once again has nothing to do with the Constitution not being based on religious principles.
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” Thomas Jefferson Notes on Virginia 1782.
Finally, one that could have possibly been drafted into the Constitution, but it once again has nothing to do with the Constitution not being based on religious principles. This is merely a statement of fact that religions and/or people in any beliefs, are not uniform.
Why would our founding fathers want to forge a new nation under the same religious ethos that had supported the divine rights of kings and the class system that oppressed human endeavor, dignity and freedom for centuries? Still there were those who tried.
In answer to his question I just reply, “They didn’t, you idiot.” As for his follow up statement of, “Still there were those who tried.” it is moronic, unsupported here and doesn’t fit with his question.
The Reverend Dr. Jonathan Mayhew famously preached repeatedly against the divine right of kings and class systems. Mayhew is noted by John Adams as being one of the “most conspicuous, the most ardent, and influential in the awakening and revival of American ‘principles’ and feelings”.
“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it would read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the Holy Author of our religion;’ the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the gentile, the Christian and Mohammeddan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.” Thomas Jefferson in reference to the Virgina act for religious freedom.
Idiots the world over think that if the Constitution is based on religious principles that a theocracy is what must result. This is an absolute abandonment of all reason, especially when a religious principle is: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” If you wish to be allowed to believe as you do you must allow others the same.
Once again this statement does not support the Constitution not being based on religious principles.
Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers weren’t anti-religious, but they recognized the inherent dangers in religious fanaticism and the importance of keeping it out of politics.
The video man seems to be conflating religious principles with religious fanaticism. Referring to religious principles as “fanaticism” is dishonest and stupid. Of course, any kind of fanatic can be dangerous; especially in politics. That still has nothing to do with “religious principles” in the Constitution.
The separation of church and state is a basic and essential tenet of our Constitution.
Wrong. The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution at all. Rather we have, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. By not using the real text of the Constitution people focus on keeping church away from state rather than state(congress) not being allowed to make a law respecting the establishment of religion(church) or prohibit the free exercise thereof. That is all it says.
To demonstrate the inaccurate interpretation of Jefferson’s words (“separation of church and state”), in the famous Danbury baptists letter, I must inform you that two days after the letter was written Jefferson went to church. He attended services at the U.S. capitol building and listened to John Leland give a sermon there. (As an interesting side note to this, since 1865 the U.S. capitol building has had a painting in the rotunda of George Washington becoming a god. That sounds pretty religious and actually very akin to Mormon teachings.)
Our Constitution does not belong to the lunatic fringe or a bunch of silly people playing dress up in 18th century costumes or shooting off replica muskets.
False; it does belong to them if they are citizens of this fine nation.
It belongs to all Americans whether your forebears came with the pilgrim fathers or on an immigrant ship from Europe or Asia. Whether your forebears were shanghaied and brought out in chains from Africa or they were of Hispanic descent and were overwhelmed by the rapacious greed of manifest destiny. The promise of the Constitution belongs to all of us and it’s about time we raise our voices in protest against those who would corrupt it’s message for their own opportunistic purposes or because they are simply to simple to understand the safeguards and the principles therein.
The principles in the constitution do belong to anyone. Even though they are based on religious principles, they can be claimed by irreligious people as well.
There is far too much of this ill-informed, poorly-argued media floating around and there are far too many simpletons ready to throw out links to such garbage in youtube comment arguments or message boards. It makes for plenty of ammo against such historically inaccurate or irrelevant arguments. This video is an atrocious example of many fallacies. To sum up this video’s argument:
There are no religious principles(A) in the Constitution(B). Thomas Jefferson(C) wrote the Constitution according to what he said. Thomas Jefferson said that Christianity(D) is not part of the common law. Thomas Jefferson said bad things about priests(E) and Thomas Jefferson noted the non-uniformity(F) of mankind, therefore there are not religious principles(A) in the Constitution. Or to put it more simply
Main Point = A is not in B C wrote B according to what C said. (which is at the very least misleading, at most just false) C said D is not in B at a date after C wrote B C said bad things about E at a date after C wrote B C said something about F Therefore A is not in B
Awful, just awful and weak. What kind of unthinking idiot would fall for this dung heap of an argument? Probably the same kind of person who thinks that simply having “religious principles” in the Constitution would make us a theocracy.
