The Founding Fathers

GEORGE WASHINGTON GOLD DOLLAR
GEORGE WASHINGTON GOLD DOLLAR
GENERAL GEORGE WASHINGTON RESIGNING HIS COMMISSION
GENERAL GEORGE WASHINGTON RESIGNING HIS COMMISSION
GEORGE WASHINGTON AS PAINTED BY REMBRANDT PEALE (1823)
GEORGE WASHINGTON AS PAINTED BY REMBRANDT PEALE (1823)
GEORGE WASHINGTON "PRAYER AT VALLEY FORGE" PAINTING BY ARNOLD FRIBERG
GEORGE WASHINGTON "PRAYER AT VALLEY FORGE" PAINTING BY ARNOLD FRIBERG

GEORGE WASHINGTON

George Washington relinquished near-absolute political power when equally ambitious but less principled men would have reached for more. He was the epitome of gravity, propriety, patriotism, and patient virtue. President Washington was morally tough, unyieldingly firm, and believed practical judgment to be of vast import for political action. Americans wanted to make him King, another Caesar or Napoleon. He abhorred this idea and said, "Banish these thoughts from your mind."

The Founding Fathers synthesized the Liberalism of John Locke, republicanism of antiquity, English common law, and Protestant Christianity. George Washington wrote that individual rights and liberty must be distinguished from license, that real liberty is ordered liberty. Washington believed that the keys to success for the American Experiment were adherence to the Constitution, subordination of the military to civil authority, statesmanship, and overall moderation. He emphasized religious faith, sacred honor, civility, prudence, character, and service to country. He hoped a "national character" would unify all states and regions. He never shifted his principles according to public opinion.

George Washington wrote: "Above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation has had a meliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of society." He believed in duty, decency, and Providence. Washington emphasized prosperity and property, tempered by Christian aims, charity, honorable and just conduct. He said to the American citizens: "I now make my earnest prayer, that God would have you and the state over which you preside in holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another; to love mercy, charity, and humility—which are characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation." George Washington absolutely believed in "fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe."

Washington said that the foundations of America were the principles of private morality. The government must abide by "the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained. There is no truth more thoroughly established than indissoluble union between virtue and happiness."

President Washington stressed the importance of responsible public finances; the need for education; and the importance of the rule of law over the passions. He wrote that religion and morality were necessary for a self-governing citizenry. He insisted on the need for moral and intellectual virtue, and the cultivation of manners, among the citizenry. Sound judgment, integrity, modesty, and dignity are required for the American Experiment to be a success. "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."

 

PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS
PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS
SIGNING OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IN PHILADELPHIA
SIGNING OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IN PHILADELPHIA
JOHN ADAMS PRESIDENTIAL DOLLAR
JOHN ADAMS PRESIDENTIAL DOLLAR
THE HOME OF JOHN ADAMS IN QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS
THE HOME OF JOHN ADAMS IN QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS

JOHN ADAMS

John Adams focused on setting up a Constitution and set of laws that would last as long as the American Republic. "No man will contend that a nation can be free that is not governed by fixed laws. All other government than that of permanent known laws, is the government of mere will and pleasure." Permanent law had to be above the control of men who held office under it. Adams quoted Cicero, "As laws are founded on eternal morals, they are emanations of the Divine mind." The people should submit to the authority not of some imperfect human legislator but to the eternal Legislator of the universe. Law is bound up with virtue, wisdom, religion, and morality. Adams said God made men for liberty.

John Adams was a strong believer in education, so men could intelligently choose their course in life. He wrote that the way anyone chooses to think about the world we perceive with our senses is itself a moral choice. Adams accepted on faith that there was one God who created and ordered the world.

Adams reasoned that a properly constructed society respected the right of individuals to think, speak, and act, but with rights came duties.

President Adams said, "Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. If property is not as sacred as the laws of God, anarchy and tyranny commence." Men have the right to the fruits of one's own labors.

John Adams and the other Founding Fathers took an enormous responsibility on themselves when they set out to create republican self-government in America. Adams wrote: "The people of America have now the best opportunity and the greatest trust in their hands, that Providence ever committed to so small a number." If they succeeded, they would vindicate the honor of man in the court of history.

Adams emphatically endorsed the notion that Americans were to be not subjects but citizens. The principle of self-government includes duty to others, and to God. "The happiness of man, as well as his dignity, consists in virtue." Liberty was the foundation principle of American government. The power was given to the legislature to write laws, the executive branch to enact them, the courts to judge under them.

John Adams knew it was inevitable that men would have contention. Men have imperfect knowledge, they exaggerate their own claims, they clash. Certain men have more true, useful, and persuasive ideas than others. Inequalities exist in human societies because of human diversity and human passions. But all men are made in God's image, and thus all should enjoy equal rights. Adams wrote: "What are we to understand about equality? Are the citizens to be all of the same age, sex, size, strength, stature, activity, courage, hardiness, industry, patience, ingenuity, wealth, knowledge, fame , wit, temperance, constancy, and wisdom? Was there, or will there ever be, a nation whose individuals are all equal in natural and acquired qualities, in virtues, talents, and riches?"

The things which helped men rise were "talents, such as education, wealth, strength, beauty, stature, birth, marriage, graceful attitudes and motions, gait, air, complexion, physiognomy, as well as genius, science, and learning." Talents help one man advance over another. They do not make any man better than another in the absolute sense.

Adams knew that men valued their material possessions, but more importantly wanted to be loved by his fellow men. "Who will love me? is a key to the human heart; to the history of human life and manners; and to the rise and fall of empires." Men have a passion for distinction, a desire to be seen in action, to place himself on stage and outshine his neighbors, to gain the notice of others. By this they hope to draw affection. Man's desire to be loved can cause political strife, because the desire for distinction rams up against the unequal distribution of talents that make certain men more useful to society than others.

Adams, and the other Founding Fathers, believed government to be by nature a moral affair. The challenge is to draw men toward the good in their natures, helping reason to guide the passions, rather than allowing the opposite to be the case. The key is for the common man to be brave, enterprising, sober, industrious, and frugal.

John Adams did not want the American idea of liberty to be associated with the French Revolution, lest the world conclude that liberty leads to violence, terror, bloodshed, and dictatorship. Adams did not believe there would ever be a universal order of peace, justice and brotherhood. In fact, he believed this idea to be dangerous, as it would hamper the ability of a society to manage natural inequalities, and give people false hope that the good life is easily obtained. Of the French Revolution he said: "Government of nations may fall into the hands of men who teach the most disconsolate of all creeds, that men are but fireflies, and that all this [the world] is without a Father." Adams feared that such doctrines were not only false, but that it would lead men to behave as beasts, for it gave them no reason to think that they were superior to animals. Adams held that men were equal only because they had exalted souls.

 

THOMAS JEFFERSON AS PAINTED BY REMBRANDT PEALE (1805)
THOMAS JEFFERSON AS PAINTED BY REMBRANDT PEALE (1805)
UNITED STATES DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
UNITED STATES DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
THOMAS JEFFERSON
THOMAS JEFFERSON
THE SIGNING OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AS PAINTED BY BY JOHN TRUMBULL
THE SIGNING OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AS PAINTED BY BY JOHN TRUMBULL

THOMAS JEFFERSON

 

Thomas Jefferson declared the American Declaration of Independence as the chief accomplishment of his life.  And what an accomplishment it was.  Jefferson put into words the political premise of a new nation with incredible concision and eloquence.  It is the authoritative statement of the American political creed—the document that best articulates the prevailing views of the American People.  The Declaration of Independence does not present the personal views of Jefferson, but a consensus he gathered from the collection of Founding Fathers.  This revolutionary document intends to present "eternal truth, applicable to all men and all times" (Abraham Lincoln). 

The Declaration owes a debt to the political thought of John Locke.  It takes account of the natural state of human beings—that all men are created equal by their Creator, which means that prior to their consent to be governed men are not naturally under the authority of other men—and articulates the purpose and limits of government.  Legitimate government is based on a true understanding of nature.  Legitimate government is based on the consent of the governed and the will of the majority.  Governments are instituted by men to secure their otherwise vulnerable natural rights.  The source of these rights is God—a standard not of human making. 

Thomas Jefferson believed the heart to be the locus of morality and the seat of the natural moral sense.  He did not believe that the moral capacities of human beings are equal, any more than their intellectual capacities.  Only some of those who are deficient in these capacities can even be improved through education. 

Thomas Jefferson believed that individual states had the right to declare a state religion, as long as the United States Congress did not impose a national religion.  The latter would cause conflict because the folks in Maryland were largely Catholics, in Pennsylvania mostly Quakers, in New England generally Puritans, in Virginia chiefly Anglicans, and so on.   Jefferson said: "Almighty God hath created the mind free."  Since individuals are compelled to affirm different religious opinions, religious freedom—not freedom from religion—becomes a fundamental moral necessity for society.  Governments are mandated to secure the natural right of religious liberty. What Thomas Jefferson was strongly opposed to was the use of civil authority to interfere in religious matters.   As for Jefferson himself, he proclaimed: "I am a Christian."

Jefferson maintained:  "The only secure basis for preserving liberty was a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from GodReligion fosters habits of mind and heart conducive to the blessings and security of self-government." 

Thomas Jefferson envisioned a system of public education with the goal of discovering and cultivating talent and virtue for positions in public leadership, and educating the general populace to where they would have the intellect and knowledge necessary to select representatives for government who would best serve the common good. 

The people would also receive a civic education through participation in local affairs, such as caring for the poor, building roads, running elections, selecting jurors, and attending to small cases of justice.  Local communities must have charge over local issues in order to bring public affairs within the grasp of ordinary citizens, which will keep alive the civic spirit necessary for self-government to succeed.  The local people must have direct political participation in those decisions that fall within their competence.  Jefferson defined a republic as:  "A government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally, according to rules established by the majority." 

PRESIDENT JAMES MADISON
PRESIDENT JAMES MADISON
JAMES MADISON AUTHORED THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
JAMES MADISON AUTHORED THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
A YOUNG JAMES MADISON
A YOUNG JAMES MADISON
JAMES MADISON AUTHORED THE BILL OF RIGHTS
JAMES MADISON AUTHORED THE BILL OF RIGHTS
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

JAMES MADISON


James Madison wrote: "All power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people." The people delegate power to their rulers. This was a shocking and revolutionary idea in the 18th Century, and was certainly not based on past experience. It is the American idea.

To James Madison, government is created as the security of pre-existing rights—"the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property; and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." The Founding Fathers of America introduced into the world an idea that became one of the most important principles of modern politics—only a democratic government is legitimate. Americans were the first people to commit themselves to this idea.

Madison said, "A just government impartially secures to every man whatever is his own. It must not seize the property which a man has. Men must not be denied the free use of their faculties and the free choice of their occupations." All equally have rights, and all have an equal right to have their property secured. This is just governance. Some have more (sometimes much more) of the external things of the world than others. All do not have equal property.

Madison, influenced by Montesquieu, set up the modern idea of the separation of powers, with checks and balances. Legislation involves the making of laws—general rules which are applied impartially across society. The executive branch has the power of coercion at its disposal but only to apply those rules enacted by the legislature. The judiciary was set up as the weakest part of the government, as a guarantor that the executive branch does not apply coercion outside the laws enacted by the legislature.

The lower house of the legislature, the House of Representatives, guarantees that the personal rights of the common man will not be overrun by the upper classes. The upper house, the Senate, protects the property of those who have it, from populist whims of the regular folks. The President is supposed to stand above this fray and remain independent of partisan politics, to provide impartial leadership and foster compromise.

All people in positions of authority are not to be to be trusted with large powers and independent range of action. Political service is not to be made into a career. After serving the country in elected office, people are to return to the life they led before being elected—before they develop an attachment to their authority and sense themselves as somehow different from those who elected them. This helps to maintain a certain level of social homogeneity.

While people are entitled to equal rights under the law, they are not entitled to equal property. Men are only entitled to the property which they have earned or inherited. The right of all men's property to be secure is fundamental to a self-governing society. The loss of this vital liberty would discourage the exercise of the unequal faculties of individuals on which a flourishing community ultimately depends. "Efforts to prevent the emergence of social differentiation through engineered homogeneity would not work, and in any case it would require a suppression of the forces that produced differentiation—the free use of human faculties."

James Madison wrote: "Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done." "The less elevated but more reliable self-interested passions, if properly channeled, produce not only more reliable but on the whole better results than behavior better motivated." "Much of politics involves a struggle among competing groups for the differential benefits of social and political life. So fierce can this struggle become that the genuine common good is frequently lost sight of and endangered because of it."


My source for this Hub is History of American Political Thought by Bryan-Paul Frost and Jeffrey Sikkenga.

More by this Author

  • The Progressive Movement
    92

    The Progressive Movement began late in the 19th Century.  Its Central Tenets are Statism, Income Redistribution, Unionism, Government Management of the Economy, womb to tomb provision for its citizens, and a...

  • Education Problems in Public Schools
    191

    Education Problems in Public Schools: John Dewey, Progressive Education, Secular Humanism, Darwinism, Moral Relativism, Social Justice, Multiculturalism, Self Esteem, feminizing boys, Anti-Americanism

  • Women of Fox News
    259

    Laura Ingraham, whom I met once, appears often on Fox News as a political commentator. She is a breast cancer survivor. Laura Ingraham is a bestselling author and the sixth most popular radio talk show host in...


Comments 287 comments

Johnb460 2 years ago

Hey very cool blog!! Guy.. Beautiful.. Wonderful.. I will bookmark your website and take the feeds additionallyKI am satisfied to search out numerous useful information right here in the publish, we want develop more techniques on this regard, thank you for sharing kebackadekcd


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

CerenaBoo1063013— Thank you very much for visiting and for your kind note. We love writing here on HubPages and I read thousands of Hubs. What an education I get!

As for your question, I would try this article:

http://hubpages.com/education/Founding-Fathers...


CerenaBoo1063013 4 years ago

What the hell do you guys spend you life on this website? im only on here to get help for my patriots pen.. and i really need help its due this friday on 10/5/12 and i need at least 300 to 400 word about the constitution and our founding fathers so if you guys have anything please notify me and type back on this web site please :)


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— Do myself a favor and publish another Hub? I have published 103 Hubs since this one. I have published 22 Hubs since you first commented on this one—exactly twice as many as you have ever published. One day next month I will celebrate one million Page Views.

Your state-by-state statistics conveniently overlook the fact that in the states with the highest percentage of out-of-wedlock births and the resultant fatherlessness; and the resultant poverty, violent crime, and low educational attainment—the most common denominator is its percentage of African-Americans; and lesser so its percentage of people of Hispanic origin. This only make sense when one considers that 77 of black babies are born out-of-wedlock; 53 percent of Latinos; and 29 percent of whites.

It should be noted that the white percentage was 2 percent before people like you began teaching children that all cultures were equal; even cultures that at the time had illegitimacy rates ten times higher. Instead of teaching the black children that a 20 percent rate for out-of-wedlock births was bad, you taught them that since it was part of their culture to have bastard children it cannot be bad. Had the right approach been taken, the black rate might have been reduced to 2 percent. The message should have been: emulate the white people—don't have out-of-wedlock babies. Instead you taught the white girls that all cultures are equal including one where out-of-wedlock births were 10 times more frequent. The blacks, with your blessing, zoomed from 20% to 77%; the whites from 2% to 29%, after you kicked God out of schools and taught multiculturalism.

For the first time in history, more than half of births to mothers under age 30 are illegitimate, thanks to the ideology of people like you. Of course, people like you see nothing wrong with it since it creates more dependents for your dreamed of future Socialist State. You see it as progress. But there is a problem Houston. Virtually every major social pathology has been linked to fatherlessness: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, teen pregnancy, suicide—all correlate more strongly to fatherlessness than to any other single factor. The majority of prisoners, juvenile detention inmates, high school dropouts, pregnant teenagers, adolescent murderers, and rapists all come from fatherless homes.

Children without their fathers living with them are more likely to go to prison by twenty times, to commit suicide by five times, to commit murder by eight times, to have behavioral problems by twenty times, to become rapists by fourteen times, to run away by thirty-two times, to abuse chemical substances by ten times, to drop out of high school by nine times, to be seriously abused by thirty-three times, to be fatally abused by seventy-three times, to be one tenth as likely to get A's in school, and to have a seventy-two percent lower standard of living. And you call this progress.

Not even transfers of wealth from men who earn it to women who don't, through massive social spending programs like welfare, AFDC, HUD, food stamps, WIC, CAPTA, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Department of Education,"child support", family law courts, the ten fold increase in prison spending, and $1.5 trillion in federal taxation, was able to reduce the social pathology surrounding single mother households.

In America today, the 30% of children who live apart from their fathers will account for 63% of teen suicides, 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions, 71% of high-school dropouts, 75% of children in chemical-abuse centers, 80% of rapists, 85% of youths in prison, 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders, and 90% of homeless and runaway children. And thanks to people of your ilk, we have progressed to the point where the next generation won't be 30%—it will be 50%.

A counselor at a juvenile-detention facility in California, which has the nation’s highest juvenile-incarceration rate, said recently, “If you find a gang member who comes from a complete nuclear family, I’d like to meet him. … I don’t think that kid exists.”

The vast majority of those from homes without fathers externalize responsibility for problems and solutions, holding others to blame for their ills, and bestowing upon the state the duty of providing basic needs and, ultimately, of arbitrating proper conduct. And you encourage this attitude. You think it a mark of progress.

Illegitimate children strongly tends to result in mental rigidity, fear, anger, aggression and insecurity, the result of low self-esteem and arrested emotional development associated, predominantly, with fatherless households in which children were not adequately affirmed. Such individuals harbor contempt for those who are self-sufficient for much the same reason. They believe that conforming to a code of non-conformity is a sign of individualism, when it is nothing more than an extreme form of conformism for those who are truly insecure. Though people like you feign concern for the less fortunate and the primacy of individual liberty, people like you are ardent statists.

The fate of the fatherless is, at best, a broken heart. At worst, it is the root cause of the social entropy we observe in contemporary American culture, because the fate of the fatherless is directly linked to the faith of the fatherless, their relationship with God the Father. Broken trust with earthly fathers often results in a lack of trust in the Heavenly Father.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

Well, I had not planned on responding anymore to your screwball comments, but I couldn't resist this.

"Well sir, 80 percent of people living in poverty are from broken homes, and this has not changed in forty years."

Well sir, I have a better stat for you. 100% of that 80% of broken homes are a result of men and women getting married in the first place. So I guess we can blame broken homes on the institution of marriage itself. You can manufacture a stat out of anything if you want to.

Furthermore; here is an interesting stat:

Variation in divorce rates by religion:

Religion % have been divorced

Jews 30%

Born-again Christians 27%

Other Christians 24%

Atheists, Agnostics 21%

And something else:

Ron Barrier, Spokespersonn for American Atheists remarked on these findings with some rather caustic comments against organized religion. He said:

"These findings confirm what I have been saying these last five years. Since Atheist ethics are of a higher caliber than religious morals, it stands to reason that our families would be dedicated more to each other than to some invisible monitor in the sky. With Atheism, women and men are equally responsible for a healthy marriage. There is no room in Atheist ethics for the type of 'submissive' nonsense preached by Baptists and other Christian and/or Jewish groups. Atheists reject, and rightly so, the primitive patriarchal attitudes so prevalent in many religions with respect to marriage."

"We hear an awful lot from conservatives in the Bible Belt and on the TV about how we all should be living. Certainly a culture that teaches the conservative religious values of the Christian right must have clean living written all over it. And lots of ripe fruit from their morally superior lives abounding."

"It doesn't. Far from it. People that talk the loudest may be the ones walking the slowest. Joining its history of Biblically correct bigotry and discrimination, it is an area with the highest divorce, murder, STD/HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, single parent homes, infant mortality, and obesity rates in the nation. As a region, the Bible Belt has the poorest health care systems and the lowest rates of high school graduation."

The highest divorce rates were found in the Bible Belt. "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people.

11 southern states (AL, AR, AZ, FL, GA, MS, NC, NM, OK, SC and TX averaged 5.1/1000 people. (LA data is not available; TX data is for 1997).

Nine states in the Northeast (CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT) averaged only 3.5/1000 people.

Some of the factors that contribute to a high divorce rate in the Bible Belt, relative to Northeastern states are:

More couples enter their first marriage at a younger age.

Average household incomes are lower (OK and AR rate 46th and 47th in the U.S.)

They have a lower percentage of Roman Catholics, a denomination that does not recognize divorce. Anthony Jordan, executive director of the Southern Baptist Convention in Oklahoma commented: "I applaud the Catholics," says Jordan. "I don't think we as Protestant evangelists have done nearly as well preparing people for marriage. And in the name of being loving and accepting, we have not placed the stigma on divorce that we should have."

Some factor in conservative Protestantism -- which is prevalent in the Bible Belt -- may causes a higher level of divorce.

The Associated Press analyzed divorce statistics from the US Census Bureau. They found that Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the U.S. at 2.4 per 1,000 population. Texas had the highest rate at 4.1 per 1,000. They found that the highest divorce rates are found in the "Bible Belt."

According to the Boston Globe:

"The AP report stated that 'the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people.' The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont."

One reason for the higher divorce rates in the Bible Belt may be the lower percentage of Roman Catholics in the South. Their denomination does not recognize divorce. Other reasons could be related more to culture than religion:

Couples in the South enter their first marriages at a younger age.

Family incomes in the South are lower.

Educational attainment is lower in the South: One in three Massachusetts residents have completed college. while only 23% of Texans have.

So...family incomes are lower indicating greater poverty, AND...lower education which of course leads to lower income and greater poverty. I argued this point before with you. Education is the key element to success in ones life. You claimed it was a family environment. With a solid education you can rise above any family environment. I've known Doctors emerge from broken families, and kids that have been raised in the lap of luxury that end up in jail or drug rehab.

So...stop your preaching James. It's really pointless. If you want to argue or debate another person, you'll need to focus on facts instead of arguing beliefs. Nobody cares about your beliefs but you. Do yourself a favor and start another Hub.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

Adagio4639- You wrote: "I've spent a lot of time arguing with you, but in order for any debate to continue in the real world, you have to live in the real world and not invoke your faith as if it is going to carry some kind of weight to your argument. It won't. Faith is not representative of a reasoned argument."

I am sorry that you cannot see it, but Faith is a part of every human being's life, even yours. It is simply that you have faith in different things than I do. Every person exhibits faith every day. You have faith that your ideas are right and mine are wrong. You have faith that scientists are right- no matter how often they change their minds, excuse me, their theories. You might have faith that what you know about Julius Caesar, or Plato, or Karl Popper, or Barack Obama, is true, though you denigrate my faith that what I know about Jesus Christ is true-as if your sources were more reliable. When you get on an airplane you exhibit faith; when you drive a car you exhibit faith; when you vote for Progressive politicians you exhibit faith. The fact is that you simply do not want to-out of free will-have faith in Christ. When you deny God exists, or that heaven and hell exist, you are exhibiting supreme faith-knowing what will happen if you are wrong in your beliefs.

By the way, a recent Gallup Poll found Ronald Reagan voted the best American President ever. Another poll the other day found that more Americans think reducing the deficit America's most pressing task-61 percent. The Misery Index since World War Two shows the worst results under President Obama of any President except for Jimmy Carter. The best? Under President Reagan.

You quoted me as saying: "But it isn't my analysis or anyone's analysis. It is plain fact that the number one predictor of poverty in the United States is the broken homes that progressive ideas encouraged."

To which you rebut: "This statement is so filled with errors that it's enough to make a sane person scream. You site a "plain fact that the number one "predictor"...As if any "predictor of any sort is in itself...a fact. All "predictors" are the result of inductive reasoning which NEVER prove a theory. There is no such thing as a factual predictor because all predictions are a result of inductive reasoning. You don't understand this at all do you? I've told you this before, but it's obviously outside your ability to grasp. You need to study logic."

Well sir, 80 percent of people living in poverty are from broken homes, and this has not changed in forty years. As a man who lives and dies on empirical evidence I am surprised this is what you have no faith in. It is entirely logical. A real family has been the foundation of human civilization at all times and in all places. To wantonly tear that down must have serious ramifications.

You write: "Secondly you offer the absurd notion that progressive ideas encourage broken homes. Do you have any idea of how completely stupid that remark is?"

In spite of ongoing personal insults, no, I do not have any idea how "completely stupid" that remark is. Progressive ideas launched all the ideas meant from the onset by Cultural Marxism to destroy the family; by the sexual revolution, the propagation of the birth control pill for every teenage girl, the uttermost bounds of hedonism-shall we say, the Playboy Philosophy in place of Christian morality, and thus the resultant filth, pornography, promiscuity and inevitable pandemic of sexually transmitted disease, the promulgation of killing babies for convenience, thus cheapening life itself in the minds of our young, the replacement of Christian ethics and in fact a Christian worldview with Secular Humanism, kicking God out of public schools, making children think there must something wrong with God and the Bible since the all -powerful state, that they look for increasingly for guidance, disapproves of him, the worship of the creature rather than the creator, the welfare state, the Leviathan bureaucracy, solving the problems of the human soul (spirituality) with social science, teaching that any combination of people under a roof is just as good as a real family, the teaching that all sexual deviancies are just as normal as a man and woman united in Holy Matrimony as one, teaching people that everybody except white heterosexual males are groups of victims that deserve reparations, thus producing chips on many shoulders the size of boulders, the teaching that people are entitled to what should, be earned, the teaching of "self-esteem" for accomplishing nothing, the denigration of human achievement, the teaching to children that they are not the Image of God but mere monkeys, the elimination of the concept that human life has meaning and purpose with the concept that we are random accidents: or shall I quote Clarence Darrow; “The purpose of man is like the purpose of a pollywog - to wiggle along as far as he can without dying."


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

I'm going to post this one more thing James, because as I stated, I'm really through with this nonsense. But before I leave, I'll put this one thing up for you to think about. It's your own words. You said this: "But it isn't my anaylsis or anyone's analysis. It is plain fact that the number one predictor of poverty in the United States is the broken homes that progressive ideas encouraged."

This statement is so filled with errors that it's enough to make a sane person screem. You site a "plain fact that the number one "predictor"...As if any "predictor of any sort is in itself...a fact. All "predictors" are the result of inductive reasoning which NEVER prove a theory. There is no such thing as a factual predictor because all predictions are a result of inductive reasoning. You don't understand this at all do you? I've told you this before, but it's obviously outside your ability to grasp. You need to study logic. Seriously.I have no intentions of wasting any more time with this kind of nonsense.

Secondly you offer the absurd notion that progressive ideas encourage broken homes. Do you have any idea of how completely stupid that remark is? You actually think that liberals or progressives get married, and have kids with the express idea of wrecking the very thing that they set out to do? Have a family? What planet did you zoom in from?

"But Satan and demons are not as you say "some imaginary thing."

Oh really? Well then, produce them for us. How about a talking snake. Show me one of those and maybe I'll buy into it.

"Belief in God is not at all irrational"

Then you should be able to give a reason as to what makes it rational. The problem of course is that you can't. You can't even demonstrate that God exists, so what makes you believe that it does? Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question...in your case, no doubt, it's the Bible) and this justification by an appropriate authority (the Bible) makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it. However this is a requirement that can never be adequetly met due to the problem of validation or the dilemma of infinite regress vs. dogmatism. In other words, what makes the Bible a valid source? It's the inspired word of God right? According to who? According to the Bible. But the Bible cannot use itself to prove itself. What is it based on? That's called a circular argument James. And that is a logical fallacy and to follow a logical fallacy when you know that's what it is...is the sign of an irrational person. You know you are being irrational, but you do it anyway.

"Hating God is sickness of the soul"

What makes you think that somebody "hates" God? Do you believe in Pink Unicorns? No? Well then you must surely hate them. Why do you hate Pink Unicorns James? People don't hate things that they don't believe exist James. Do you hate things that you don't believe exist? Do you hate Pink Unicorns? Why are you so spiteful toward Pink Unicorns?? Do you actually spend your day thinking about Pink Unicorns and why you hate them??

"a blackness of the heart, a condition of those headed to hell."

There is no Hell James, unless you call wading through this nonsense of yours hell. I admit it probably comes close to some peoples discription...but, nope. Not even this stuff qualifies. You seem to fear the idea of Hell James. So of course you'll be a very devout evangelical Christian in hopes that you'll avoid that won't you? But from a Christian perspective, if a person is “good” because he wants to go to heaven, is he not being “bad” as he is pursuing selfish ends. By your religious belief, you MUST love God because God is jealous (a very human flaw...I would think God would be beyond human flaws)because otherwise God will send you to burn in Hell for eternity. Now theres a loving God. That's like holding a gun to somebody's head and demanding that they love you or you'll pull the trigger. And of course you can really believe them when they tell you sure, man...I love you...just don't blow my brains out.

This is all I have to say about this Hub. I've spent a lot of time arguing with you, but in order for any debate to continue in the real world, you have to live in the real world and not invoke your faith as if it is going to carry some kind of weight to your argument. It won't. Faith is not representative of a reasoned argument. So there really isn't anything more to discuss. Good luck. Study some logic, it'll help.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

I didn't say "Satan makes them do it." Satan cannot MAKE anyone do anything. But Satan and demons are not as you say "some imaginary thing." By this you call Jesus a liar. So, I believe Jesus Christ more than adagio4639. Crucify me.

I am not the least bit "repressed and uptight," Sigmund. You can spray that crap someplace else.

Belief in God is not at all irrational. Hating God is sickness of the soul, a blackness of the heart, a condition of those headed to hell.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— If the problem with the public schools was money, then we wouldn't see the historical reality that spending on public schools per student has tripled in forty years in constant dollars but results have been dismal.

Private schools spend 43 percent less per student and the results are far better.

In fact, if every American student went to a private school total costs for K-12 education would drop by approximately $150B, which could be used for something else such as job training or food.

Private school students scored on NAEP reading test and mathematics test at 1.5 times the rate of public schools students.

A reasonable person might ask, why don't we shift to all private schools then? The answer, to protect the teacher's unions and keep in place the indoctrination of the young in godlessness, socialism, and sexual permissiveness.

Using the OECD data, Figure 1 compares K–12 education expenditures per pupil in each of the world’s major industrial powers. As you can see, with the exception of Switzerland, the U.S. spends the most in the world on education, an average of $91,700 per student in the nine years between the ages of 6 and 15. But the results do not correlate: For instance, we spend one-third more per student than Finland, which consistently ranks near the top in science, reading, and math.

Government at all levels spent an average of $149,000 on the 13-year education of a high school senior who graduated in 2009, compared to $50,000 (in 2009 dollars) for a 1970 graduate.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/22/losing-the-b...


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— You try to justify half of all income in the United States being confiscated by various taxes by saying:

"In other words that you may understand...if it's good enough for each of us to accept that teaching, how can it not be good enough for a government of the people?? How can you possibly lay claim to this country being a Christian nation or holding Christian values, and deny that most basic teaching?? The fact is that you can't, without being a total hypocrite. If the words are true, they are no less true when it comes to our government. Jesus made no such distinction."

Jesus instructed us as individuals that we had a duty to God to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, shelter the shelterless, visit the sick and the prisoner, AND most importantly to TELL THEM THE GOOD NEWS—THE GOSPEL.

Your progressive ideas have already one the day by prohibiting the government from telling people the Gospel. Without that most important part of Jesus' message, the rest should not be done by the government either. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's."

If you don't mind the Gospel being preached by the government, I suggest we rework all of our social services programs to include that Good News. If the good news is prohibited, then private charity should provide social services to the needy.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— I wrote: ""U.S. Treasury Department data, following specific individuals over time shows that in terms of real people those in the bottom quintile in 1996 saw their income rise by 91 percent by 2005. Incomes of those in the top 5 percent saw their income go down."

To which you responded: "Your statement is such a ridiculous lie...or maybe it's just pure ignorance."

I got those statistics from page 101 in the section on "economics" in the Thomas Sowell Reader. His footnotes show his source as the article "Movin' On Up" from the November 13, 2007 Wall Street Journal, and WSJ's source was the United States Treasury Department.

I tried to find the WSJ article for you but you have to pay for it. I did find many articles that reference it, included one that says:

"What about claims of a disappearing middle class? Let's do some detective work. Controlling for inflation, in 1967, 8 percent of households had an annual income of $75,000 and up; in 2003, more than 26 percent did. In 1967, 17 percent of households had a $50,000 to $75,000 income; in 2003, it was 18 percent. In 1967, 22 percent of households were in the $35,000 to $50,000 income group; by 2003, it had fallen to 15 percent. During the same period, the $15,000 to $35,000 category fell from 31 percent to 25 percent, and the under $15,000 category fell from 21 percent to 16 percent. The only reasonable conclusion from this evidence is that if the middle class is disappearing, it's doing so by swelling the ranks of the upper classes.

What about the concentration of wealth? In 1918, John D. Rockefeller's fortune accounted for more than half of one percent of total private wealth. To compile the same half of one percent of the private wealth in the United States today, you'd have to combine the fortunes of Microsoft's Bill Gates ($53 billion) and Paul Allen ($16 billion), Oracle's Larry Ellison ($19 billion), and a third of Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett's $46 billion. In 1920, America's richest one percent held about 40 percent of private wealth; by 1980, the private wealth held by the richest one percent fell to about 20 percent."

And I found this one that says:

"The Treasury study found that those tax filers who were in the poorest income quintile in 1996 saw a near doubling of their incomes (90.5%) over the subsequent decade.

Only one income group experienced an absolute decline in real income--the richest 1% in 1996. Those households lost 25.8% of their income. Moreover, more than half (57.4%) of the richest 1% in 1996 had dropped to a lower income group by 2005. Some of these people might have been "rich" merely for one year."

I thought I explained to you clearly that you were presenting groups of people as if they were stagnant groups, which is not the case. Flesh and blood human beings steadily move from one statistical category to another.

I did read all of the links you sent me. All of them point out how artifically constructed groups of people have done with no recognition that there are very few people IN any group for very long—maybe 5 percent.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— You are right that to be a conservative in the mid-18th century would mean to defend a different worldview than a conservative would defend today. A conservative today defends what made America the greatest nation in the history of the earth: the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, Traditional American Values, Objective Truth, Liberty, Freedom, Tradition, Custom, Virtue, Marriage, Free Enterprise, Christian Faith, and Life.

I was trying to explain to you that the Founding Fathers, the men this Hub is about, would believe as I do about these things. Who, with a modicum of understand of American history, does not know the Founding Fathers were radical at the time they lived? That is not the same thing as being a radical today, which generally means being an Atheist and a Marxist and an immoral hedonist caught up in nihilism and narcissism—none of which describe our Founding Fathers.

If you want to argue about the ACLU, I have written an article about them and what they do and why I do not like that organization.

http://hubpages.com/politics/ACLU

It was not "my definition" of Freedom that "falls flat," "isn't true," "is lacking and simply false," is the "basic flaw in my thinking," because I "live in a vacuum," and defines "very selfish." The definition came directly, word for word, from a standard dictionary.

As I said, "The largest obstacle to overcoming poverty is not having a stable family with Mom and Dad both in the home." To which you replied, "I disagree with your analysis."

But it isn't my anaylsis or anyone's analysis. It is plain fact that the number one predictor of poverty in the United States is the broken homes that progressive ideas encouraged.

I knew you were a musician but I did not realize you have some of your music on HubPages. I will search for that and I look forward to hearing you play.

I applaud your work as a single father. I am grateful for your son's service to our country.

I do not have the least bit of "homophobia." I do not care what people do in their bedrooms. I am not against any individual because of what kind of sexual practices they have. I am against the homosexual socio-political movement because it is based on falsehoods and it is destructive and it is evil.

I do not in the least bit "feel threatened and hostility toward those that aren't white or straight."

If you have "never met a racist that wasn't a conservative," then you've never met many black progressives because many of them are quite racist.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"It is not a lie nor it is ignorant. When it comes to education spending per capita, Norway leads with an estimated $2,850 per capita spent on education, and the United States ranks second in the world at approximately $1,780.The United States spends the second most in the world per student for education, trailing only Switzerland."

James...I posted the figures and I provided a link for the statistics. Your figures are simply ridiculous. I'll post it again.

Luxembourg, with its $17,500 per student, tops the list. It easily outdistances second-place finisher Norway, which spends $13,700 on every student.

Coming in third is Denmark, which spends $11,950 per student. Other high finishers include Switzerland, $11,200; Austria, $9,940; and Sweden, $9,250.

And where does the United States come in? At seventh place, on one list actually. The United States spends $9,060 on each of its students.

Here's another list that's a bit less flattering. Education Statistics: Education spending (% of GDP) (most recent) by country

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-educ

On this list we rank tied for 37th with Austria and Estonia. And people like YOU want to cut education spending even more??? Are you nuts or just stupid??

You say this: "Norway leads with an estimated $2,850 per capita spent on education, and the United States ranks second in the world at approximately $1,780. The United States spends the second most in the world per student for education, trailing only Switzerland.

And then you offer this: "Real spending per pupil ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area.

At first you claim that we are second in spending per student at $1,780...and yet in New York we are spending $27,000 per student and $12,000 in Phoenix. How do you reconcile those figures?? Look at how far off they are.

"The entire public school system needs to be scuttled. It should have been scuttles in the 1960s after God was kicked out of school by the anti-Christ—"

Are you crazy?? You actually want to claim that the quality of our education has nothing to do with funding, and everything to do with God??? Anti-Christ????? You reject the idea of Matthew 25:40 when it comes to government but you insist that God be in the classroom. You are such a hypocrite. I have no idea how you can look yourself in the mirror.

"Well, the commies and the fools and the godless hedonists have. But I just saw a poll that says the people of Wisconsin are against the recall by 50-42 percent."

I wouldn't count on those polls. They're from conservative polling. And Walker just had two more of his associates arrested for ethics violations. That doesn't go over well in Wisconsin.

"Excuse me? Your group of evil assholes has been in charge of the schools for forty years. This is YOUR mess not mine."

Ahh yes. The evil assholes. I guess sending religious wackjobs like you packing in order to get a decent education where our kids can learn that the earth isn't flat makes us assholes. If morons like you would get out of the way, our kids might actually learn something.

"My Hub is about the Founding Fathers"

Your Hub is a stupid portrayal which is what I've been pointing out for weeks now.

"Other than quibbling about which accomplish Jefferson listed # 1 among his you haven't disputed this Hub that I can tell."

Then not only are you limited in your understanding of your own topic, you're also limited in your comprehension of what I've disputed as factually wrong.

"Who has dumbed down society?"

You have. For one thing, you've attempted to include religion as science which it clearly is not. For another you've gone as far as to rewrite the history books in Texas to eliminate the contributions of Jefferson and replace them with people like Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. That's about as stupid as it gets. Jefferson as a footnote?? This is the work of David Barton and his influence on the Texas School Board. That IS how you dumb down America.

"Washington D.C. public schools spend twice as much as public schools in Idaho, and three times as much as public schools in Utah, and yet the D.C public schools have far poorer outcomes.So much for your New Trier thesis."

I'm afraid not. New Trier spends more than both of them. Unlike you, the results don't lie.

"And as far as some sins being of higher rates where people are also more likely to be professed Christians, if you had any true knowledge of the Bible you would understand why this might be so. Demonic forces, such as those which control your mind, always attack where the Believers are. If you live in a town with few Christians why would Satan focus on you? He's already got you in his hip pocket. His enemies are the Believers and that is who he targets. No one waging war targets his friends."

Do you have any idea of how truly nuts you are? You don't do you? This is really amazing. You start feeding out this religious goulash as if it were actually true. "Satan made me do it!" That's your excuse??? So all the divorce rates that are so high in the Bible belt, and all the porn consumption among the conservatives is because Satan makes them do it??? LMAO...You are a total Fundi nut case aren't you?? You can't admit the hypocrisy that's staring you in the face. You blame it all on some imaginary thing. It can't possibly be because you are so repressed and uptight that you can't possibly live up to the things that you preach to everyone else and then you blame Satan. Like Reverent Haggard with his Jesus Camp for kids, who we find out is hiring a male prostitute and scoring some Meth. Oh but of course, now he's forgiven because Satan made him do it. He's not really gay and a drug addict. He was just weak. And now he's all cured of the "gay" and off the Meth? But you take this sanctimonious self-righteous position that a person that isn't indulging in hypocrisy of this magnitude is already possessed by Satan? I guess Satan just exposes the hypocrites. So if a person isn't getting divorced or buying porn it's because he's already with Satan?? You are completely nuts James. I have no further interest in this nonsense of a Hub. You seriously need a shrink.

"I know you are in rebellion against God. I do feel for you and I pray for you that you will come to your senses and love God again—love the Creator rather than the creature."

Do yourself a favor. Don't bother. I came to my senses many many many years ago. I think you have a very long way to go. This has been mildly entertaining but it's really digressed into such nonsense I'm not interested in indulging these asinine assumptions with any more attention then I've already given. Your absurd justifications for your hypocrisy are of no interest to me. People like you are so over the top and so far gone, there is nothing more to discuss. You are lost in a belief system. Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question) and this justification by an appropriate authority makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it.” However this is a requirement that can never be adequetly met due to the problem of validation or the dilemma of infinite regress vs. dogmatism. I'm sure you don't understand a word of that, but it's there nevertheless and you'll need to deal with it in any serious debate. The difference here is that the framework I come from permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals, and decisions, and his basic philosophical position itself, open to criticism; one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire. You cannot say the same and as a result this can go nowhere. You can never hope to find truth if you think you already possess it. When trying to engage in an intelligent discussion you resort to faith in order to justify you


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"t is interesting to see the Devil quote the Bible. As you say:"

Ahhh...so I'm the Devil?? hehe. Of course. Those things you can't understand must be from the "Devil". I'm afraid I don't believe in the Devil. I don't believe all the things in the Bible either, but those words ring true.

"But the Devil wants to claim that Jesus Christ meant to abdicate that responsibility to some far-off government. Is that what Jesus said? Is that what the Good Samaritan did?"

Ahh but James, it's you that thinks that our government should be more Christian and adopt Christian values. Since ours is a government of the people, why would you separate the government from the people? If it is right for an individual to learn this: ""Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."...and this: "‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."..how can a government of the people not be responsive to the words of Jesus? In other words that you may understand...if it's good enough for each of us to accept that teaching, how can it not be good enough for a government of the people?? How can you possibly lay claim to this country being a Christian nation or holding Christian values, and deny that most basic teaching?? The fact is that you can't, without being a total hypocrite. If the words are true, they are no less true when it comes to our government. Jesus made no such distinction. A just government would practice that.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"Unless you mean white heterosexual men who are the losers of all your programs."

You clearly have racist tendencies James as well as a severe case of homophobia. Poor white boy. So oppressed. You'll deny it I'm sure, and yet you bring up race obviously because you feel threatened and hostility toward those that aren't white or straight. My advice is to dump that because it fails to serve you well. It seems to be a part of conservative ideology. Race always comes up and the hostility is always revealed. It certainly is with you. I don't know if all conservatives have race problems, but I've never met a racist that wasn't a conservative.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"This is horsecrap and you know it. I have not a greedy bone in my body. My total net worth is less than zero. I eked out a tiny living playing in a Rock Band for twenty years."

Your words tell a different story James. As for your career in a rock band, I thought you said you owned an airline? Let me say this, I too played music professionally for over 40 years. I even have a video on this Hub website as well as a bunch on YouTube. I've taught for over 30 years. I've recorded three sole CD's, put out an instructional DVD, written a book on political logic all published by Decent Hill, gotten paid as a writer with Suite101, the Examiner, and the History News Network. Studied at the Berklee College of Music, George Mason University, and Yale. I continue my studies even today. I've been independent and self employed my entire adult life. I've raised a son as a single parent, who serves in the Special Forces. You know...the guys that wear the Green Beret? He did 3 tours of Iraq. I'm 64 and in that time I've come to take a different view of yours when it comes to what freedom means and more to the point what success means. It's not about money James. It's all about the progressive realization of a worthy ideal. It's that example that I gave to my son, and he pursued that thinking in the military all the way to the Special Forces. He's among the top 1% of the military forces that we have. You become what you think about. If you think in positive terms you'll get positive results. I did that. And so did he. So does everyone, whether they'll admit that or not. If you think in negative terms, that's what you'll get, because you become what you think about. You have control over that. That's what is called personal responsibility. You take responsibility for how you think, and stop blaming others which is exactly what you have been doing throughout this discussion. You blame the liberals. You blame the progressives. You blame the Democrats. You blame everyone that doesn't agree with your ideology which is stilted and stuck in the distant past. Time marches on, but you cling to the past. You seem to have some nostalgic idealistic view of the past that prevents you from letting go of yourself and embracing the change that is always inevitable. We aren't going backwards James no matter how badly you want that. We continue to evolve and if that doesn't fit into your religious views...too bad. Those are your beliefs. But they aren't reality, and reality doesn't really care about anybody's beliefs.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"You have been to college."

Yes. I have. And I posted the dictionary definitions of poverty, so don't try to make a bogus argument.

"I am sure you know full well this has been the classical definition of poverty for most of human history, at least until FDR made major additions to the list."

The "classical definition"? Are you suggesting that all poverty is equal? That poverty in one place is equivalent to poverty everywhere else? Why?? We live here, and the conditions that prevail in this society are the only things that matter to those of us that live here. Are we to tell people that live in the wealthiest nation on earth that can't afford to see a doctor, or pay their rent, that they shouldn't complain, because they have it so much better then people living in some third world country?? Why?? Is that what America is supposed to be about?? What happened to the American Dream?? You can't really compare apples and oranges here James. Living in American places much higher demands on all of us then living in a third world country. In order to survive we need an educated populace that is healthy and able to compete with others in the world.

"I have never placed any obstacle in front of anyone. The largest obstacle to overcoming poverty is not having a stable family with Mom and Dad both in the home."

Of course you have. Your attitude illustrates that. And I disagree with your analysis. The largest obstacle to overcoming poverty is lack of an education. Regardless of your family condition, a solid education can raise you up in spite of your family conditions.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"Anything built by the government was built with assets taken from those who earned it."

Actually EVERYTHING built by the government was built by the taxpayers which includes everyone. Not just the rich. Even you should know that.

"(As a side note: Countless libraries were built with private funds such as by Andrew Carnegie."

Countless?? Would you actually care to know where the Libraries get their funding? There are an estimated 121,785 libraries of all kinds in the United States today. There are several primary sources for library funding, starting with national funds which are distributed to states or provinces. These regions often offer additional funding when sending funds on to public libraries. Local municipalities also play an important role in providing funding to public libraries, and most librarians apply for grants to supplement these funds. Finally, private donations help to sustain public libraries; most libraries have an association of Friends of the Library who organize fund raising sales and pay annual dues to help maintain the library.

"You claim, "your ideology is contrary to our founding principles," but I think you know you are telling a lie here."

Nope. I don't lie James. I have no reason to lie. I have no ideology that requires defending. You do. It's easy to critique your ideology for its hypocrisy.

"My ideology falls perfectly in line with the Founding Fathers. It is you and your kind who want to denigrate them and overthrow the country for which they laid the foundation."

This is a perfect place to start. You are a conservative right?? You don't seem to understand your own ideology very well. Conservatism ALWAYS preserves protects and defends existing institutions. It hates change especially radical change like a revolution. It's ingrained in the ideology going back to Burke and continued through Kirk, although Burke did support our revolution, he opposed revolution in general including the French Revolution. The very idea of overthrowing the existing institution of the monarchy and the aristocracy that supported it is in complete ideological contradiction to its principles. The very idea of a revolution that would upend that tradition and the institutions that it supported was poisonous to the conservative mind. Those were the Tories and many of them left and returned to England rather than take part in something as radical as a democracy and separation from the institutions that they believed in. They Hate the idea of radicalism and that's exactly what our revolution represented. It was the single most radical revolution in history and it changed the world. It wasn't conservatism that created this country James. It was radical liberalism. Freedom of speech was NOT a conservative idea. Freedom of religion was NOT a conservative idea. A Free Press was NOT a conservative idea. A Government of the people, by the people and for the people is NOT a conservative idea. It was Liberal Democracy in action. You simply cannot try to force fit your conservatism into historical facts and expect that to fly.

"And Baldwin taught you how to dupe the American Public:"

I guess that would include Jerry Falwell. The case stemmed from a suit brought by the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Lynchburg, which challenged an 18th-century provision in the state constitution that banned churches from incorporating. Amazingly enough, the American Civil Liberties Union, backed in him the case. Said Kent Willis, edecutive director of the Virginia chapter: “In principle, churches are nonprofit organizations and should not be singled out for less-equal treatment than other nonprofit charitable organizations.” It seems that old Jerry didn't have a problem Dancing with the Devil when it worked to his advantage. He won by the way. They also supported the KKK's right to march in protest. I guess you have a problem with people that defend your civil liberties. You may not be interested in preserving them, but most of the rest of us do.

"Not so. Freedom is "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."

Yet you hate the ACLU which fights for those very Freedoms that you identify with? Interesting contradiction.

"The Progressive Left is anti-Freedom, quite obviously."

Oh of course. Quite obviously. That's why the progressive left group; the ACLU, that fights for the very Freedom you identified, and those that support those efforts are somehow...anti-Freedom. Really?? Anti-Freedom?? Hardly. What you seem to think is that Freedom means that you can do anything to anybody and get away with it. You say this: "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." Without restraint?? That isn't actually what Freedom means because you are restrained when it comes to your idea of freedom impacting another persons freedom. You are restrained for example in your Freedom to practice your religion, if by practicing it, you think you can practice human or animal sacrifice. You're restrained in your Freedom of speech when you yell Fire in a crowded theater or verbally threaten the life of the president or any member of congress. Your freedom is restricted when it threatens the lives and the freedoms of others. So your definition falls flat. It isn't true in all cases which means that the definition is lacking and simply false. The basic flaw in your thinking is that you think that you live in a vacuum where other peoples freedoms are not to be taken into account. Very selfish of you James. Very conservative.

"You declare America has "a tax code that is unfair."

It does. And I'm not the only person saying that. Warren Buffet agrees and so does Bill Gates who just said so today. Buffet said that if there is a class war going on, then it's his class that has the Nukes. They have all the money, the lobbyists and the media. Nobody has a chance against that. Gates also went on to say that tax rates have absolutely nothing to do with hiring policies. He might know something about that. It has zero impact on the creativity of Microsoft and decisions on hiring.

The argument being made by people like yourself is a losing argument that the American people are rejecting in huge numbers. Two of the three richest men in the world are saying that you're argument is a load of crap.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— Washington D.C. public schools spend twice as much as public schools in Idaho, and three times as much as public schools in Utah, and yet the D.C public schools have far poorer outcomes.

So much for your New Trier thesis.

And as far as some sins being of higher rates where people are also more likely to be professed Christians, if you had any true knowledge of the Bible you would understand why this might be so. Demonic forces, such as those which control your mind, always attack where the Believers are. If you live in a town with few Christians why would Satan focus on you? He's already got you in his hip pocket. His enemies are the Believers and that is who he targets. No one waging war targets his friends.

And all that crap you spew out about Christians being against education is utter nonsense. Christian schools and even homeschooled Christians far outshine public school students so it is not education any Christian is against, numbskull. Christians founded most of the great universities in the world, including in America. Where do you think Yale and Harvard came from? John Dewey? What Christians are against is the indoctrination of evil ideas, one of which is socialism, another of which is atheism, another of which is teaching children that they are NOT created by God but that they ARE cosmic accidents descended at random from apes. You give kids conflicted ideas: "You are nothing but an animal" and "Don't act like an animal."

I know you are in rebellion against God. I do feel for you and I pray for you that you will come to your senses and love God again—love the Creator rather than the creature. It is one thing to rebel against God but far worse is to spend as much time as you do encouraging others to rebel and trying to tear down those who love Christ. That, sir, is the road to perdition.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— I wrote: "Americans now trail far behind Europe and Asia by every measure of scholastic achievement—especially in math and science—despite spending far more than any other country [except Norway] on education for our public schools."

You responded with, "This of course is a lie. Or possibly simply ignorance on your part. Hard to tell with you where the lies end and the ignorance begins."

It is not a lie nor it is ignorant. When it comes to education spending per capita, Norway leads with an estimated $2,850 per capita spent on education, and the United States ranks second in the world at approximately $1,780.

The United States spends the second most in the world per student for education, trailing only Switzerland.

The point of this is that to simply say we don't spend enough is horse manure. Oh, our kids aren't learning much. But not because of a lack of money. Because of Leftist ideologies that half the day is spent indoctrinating when they should be learning.

http://mercatus.org/publication/k-12-spending-stud...

"Although public schools are usually the

biggest item in state and local budgets, spending

figures provided by public school officials and

reported in the media often leave out major costs

of education and thus understate what is actually

spent.

To document the phenomenon, this paper

reviews district budgets and state records for the

nation’s five largest metro areas and the District of

Columbia. It reveals that, on average, per-pupil

spending in these areas is 44 percent higher than

officially reported.

Real spending per pupil ranges from a low of

nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a

high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro

area. The gap between real and reported per-pupil

spending ranges from a low of 23 percent in the

Chicago area to a high of 90 percent in the Los

Angeles metro region.

To put public school spending in perspective,

we compare it to estimated total expenditures

in local private schools. We find that, in

the areas studied, public schools are spending

93 percent more than the estimated median

private school."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa662.pdf

The entire public school system needs to be scuttled. It should have been scuttles in the 1960s after God was kicked out of school by the anti-Christ—public morality has gone to hell ever since; and after teacher's unions took over the schools with their anti-American, Marxist worldview.

You write: " Clearly the people of Wisconsin have had it with Walker."

Well, the commies and the fools and the godless hedonists have. But I just saw a poll that says the people of Wisconsin are against the recall by 50-42 percent.

You write: " A sound education is essential to our kids succeeding in life. It's also vital to the interests of this country if our young people are going to compete in the world. You and your group would deny that to people."

Excuse me? Your group of evil assholes has been in charge of the schools for forty years. This is YOUR mess not mine.

And you have the gall to write: "It appears that you prefer a dumbing down of society. The dumber they are, the more they may vote against their own interests and become Republicans. Your Hub is a clear example of that."

My Hub is about the Founding Fathers. Other than quibbling about which accomplish Jefferson listed # 1 among his you haven't disputed this Hub that I can tell. Progressives want a dumbed down populace so that no one stands out above others and so dumb people will accept socialism—the most heinous ideology ever spawned by Satan.

Who has dumbed down society? You and your ilk, that's who. Progressive education is all about lowering standards so everybody is "included," meaning everybody has to sit through the same class no matter who bright or dumb, everybody must graduate even if they can't read, everybody should to go to college based on victim groups instead of intelligence—which can only be accomplished by a tremendous lowering of the bar, everybody should get a participation trophy just for showing up.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— adagio4639— You write: " What you want is a system that is stacked against the 99% of the country and tilted toward the 1%. Are you this greedy?"

This is horsecrap and you know it. I have not a greedy bone in my body. My total net worth is less than zero. I eked out a tiny living playing in a Rock Band for twenty years. "Stacked against the 99%" is a completely asinine phrase. There is nothing stacked against anybody in America except themselves. Unless you mean white heterosexual men who are the losers of all your programs.

U.S. Treasury Department data, following specific individuals over time shows that in terms of real people those in the bottom quintile in 1996 saw their income rise by 91 percent by 2005. Incomes of those in the top 5 percent saw their income go down. Flesh and blood human beings are constantly moving from one group to others. The top .1% of all taxpayers in 1996 saw their income drop by 50 percent by 2005. 75 percent of Americans in the bottom quintile in 1975 rose to one of the top two quintiles by 1991. Only 5 percent of people stay in the bottom quintile over the time span of any of these studies.

29 percent of the people in the bottom quintile were in the top quintile 16 years later. Only by focusing on brackets can you create a "problem" that needs your socialist "solution." AND statistics about earnings do not include welfare benefits, which represent three-quarters of economic resources for those in the bottom quintile; meaning that the bottom quintile has three times the resources than their earnings would indicate.

People who do work receive income for what they produce that other people want. The point that might escape you with your fancy education is that wealth does not just exist somehow—it is produced. Those who do work are paid according to how much what they produce is valued by millions of other individuals—who pay for goods and services according to the value that recipient puts on what is received. One person's output might be worth a thousand times as much as the output by someone else. Would not 1000 times more people pay to hear Beyonce sing as they would you?

It is interesting to see the Devil quote the Bible. As you say:

"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Amen!

But the Devil wants to claim that Jesus Christ meant to abdicate that responsibility to some far-off government. Is that what Jesus said? Is that what the Good Samaritan did?


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— I wrote: " "Virtually everybody in America we call poor has food, clothes and shelter—the lack of those three being the classic definition of poverty."

To which you ask: "Really? According to who's definition?"

You have been to college. I am sure you know full well this has been the classical definition of poverty for most of human history, at least until FDR made major additions to the list. Don't act dumb when you claim to be so smugly smart.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

• Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

• Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

• Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

You rant about "the obstacles placed in front of them [the impoverished] by people like you that prevent them from getting out of their condition."

I have never placed any obstacle in front of anyone. The largest obstacle to overcoming poverty is not having a stable family with Mom and Dad both in the home. And who caused this obstacle to exist? Progressive idiots like you who espouse policies that ignore thousands of years of real human experience.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— I wrote: "Government benefits have to be created by somebody and even the poor get to use many things we would not have without the wealth created by free enterprise—roads, parks, libraries, schools, beaches, et al."

You responded: 'The last time I checked our roads, parks, libraries, schools were all built by the government through taxpayer money. They aren't private enterprises.'

Please stop being so elementary. The enormous and incredible wealth of America was made possible by Free Enterprise. Anything built by the government was built with assets taken from those who earned it. The poor benefit from this wealth by the things I listed above and then some, even besides from their welfare checks. (As a side note: Countless libraries were built with private funds such as by Andrew Carnegie.)

You claim, "your ideology is contrary to our founding principles," but I think you know you are telling a lie here. My ideology falls perfectly in line with the Founding Fathers. It is you and your kind who want to denigrate them and overthrow the country for which they laid the foundation.

As the founder of the organization you love so much, the ACLU, says, "We are for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself. We 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

And Baldwin taught you how to dupe the American Public: "We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country."

You erroneously conclude, "You seem to measure freedom in terms of material goods or property."

Not so. Freedom is "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."

The Progressive Left is anti-Freedom, quite obviously. It is they who seek to regulate every waking moment of every life from coast to coast, certainly not Conservative people. It is you who wants social engineering, which is anti-Freedom. It is the Left that seeks to restrain speech with Political Correctness, Campus Speech Codes, et al.; and "correct" thoughts with "reeducation camps" (you might call it "sensitivity training"). The Left has been attacking Freedom for at least fifty years non-stop.

You declare America has "a tax code that is unfair." 10 percent of Americans pay 70% of all Federal Income Tax. 5 percent pay 60%. 1 percent pays 46%. What would be fair to you? The gallows for the successful people as your idols Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot believed?


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"The teachers unions are the largest political campaign contributors in the United States. They donated 55 million dollars in the last election, over 90 percent of it to candidates of the Democratic Party."

Good! What do you expect them to do? Donate money to the party that wants to destroy them?? They're educated people James. They're generally a bit smarter than that.

"In other words, all Americans of all political persuasions pay the teacher salaries, out of which are deducted union dues that only support one political party. It must be great to have your campaigns financed by your political enemies."

It sure is. But that's really your own fault. If you weren't so hostile to education, they'd have no problems in supporting Republicans. But your only aim is to destroy them. You said it yourself...political enemies. See if it weren't for the teachers unions, people like you could easily fire a teacher for political reasons and that would simply be wrong. A public employee cannot be fired for their political views. You'd be able to fire a teacher over purely arbitrary reasons. You'd be able to cut their pay. You'd be able to destroy their work environment. You'd be able to do just about anything to force them out if they didn't agree with your political agenda. If you wanted to force a science teacher to teach creationism alongside evolution in a biology class...they'd either comply or be fired. It's a neat way of creating a conservative education as opposed to a liberal education, but it's a liberal education that opens minds. Conservatism closes them, and stuffs them into a rigid ideology and doctrine. That's not an education. Education challenges the status quo and accepted thinking. You would put kids into a box of your own design. Bad idea. A teachers union keeps that from happening.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"Social Liberalism contends that fathers are superfluous to the rearing of children."

Where do you come up with this crap? Who "contends" this?Was it Karl Popper?? Nope. John Stuart Mill?? Nope. You're claiming that there is a doctrine of Social Liberalism where this is part of an ideology? You really have no idea of what you're talking about do you? Did somebody tell you this crap? Some kind of manifesto akin to the conservative manifesto's of...say, Mark Levin or the canons of conservatism of Russell Kirk? The concept of Social Liberalism goes back to at least the 1700's with Jeremy Bentham. Provide this doctrine for me. Social liberals generally affirm the following principles: human rights, free and fair elections and multiparty democracy, social justice, tolerance, social market economy, free trade, environmental sustainability and a strong sense of international solidarity. You obviously have problems with these ideas. But nowhere does it contend that fathers are superfluous to the rearing of children. Or mothers for that matter. However, it does seem that you feel that it's better to have a child raised in a family with an abusive parent than a loving one. You would rather see a kid beaten to a pulp or sexually abused then have that kid live with a single parent that cared for his well being.

"This is a Moral and Spiritual Battle for the soul of America."

Well if that's the case, you and your ideology have no ground to stand on. We reject your idea of that. Are you aware that most of the porn is sold in the south in the red states. In fact, 8 out of 10 states in which most of the porn is purchased voted for McCain in the last election.

Porn in the USA: Conservatives Are Biggest Consumers.

Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.

"Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by,"

The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000.

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in the 2008 presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id...

I'm afraid your conservatism has no ground to stand on when it comes to morality or so-called "family values".

Just look at your presidential candidates. In South Carolina; a totally conservative state with "strong social conservative values" won't marry a candidate like Mitt Romney. They'd rather take a guy that prefers an Open Marriage like Newt Gingrich. How's that for family values?? And you are going to preach to us about morality?? Give me a break. You have the highest divorce rates in the conservative South, the highest consumption of porn, you prefer a candidate that is into Open Marriage and you think you have something to teach the rest of us about morality??? You don't. You're a collection of the most neurotic people in the country. Then of course you also have a real life Gordon Gecko that destroys companies and the jobs of regular people in order to make money and then puts the money in offshore accounts in the Caymens and can't seem to agree to produce his tax returns after all of you demanded that the president present his damn birth certificate? We all laugh at your idea of morality James. It's a joke. It's so filled with hypocrisy that it amounts to little more than material for late night TV.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"As with nearly every aspect of our lives that were once private affairs between citizens in America, the government under President Franklin Roosevelt decided to get involved in 1933 as a part of FDR's New Deal."

James...Glass-Steagall was put into effect to separate investment banking and commercial banking. It was replaced by Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which restored the connection and resulted in the disaster that we are now living under.

"The response of Social Liberals? Give them Ritalin. Children of divorced parents are less happy, less healthy, and more dangerous to others and themselves."

Gee James, my kids never took Ritalin and they came out of a divorced family. They are quite happy and well adjusted. In fact, my son is quite healthy although I must admit he's pretty dangerous to others. He's a Green Beret. You really don't see how you are making a boatload of generalizations do you? You apply a fallacy known as the Hasty Generalization. Example

(1) My Christian / atheist neighbour is a real grouch.

Therefore:

(2) Christians / atheists are grouches.

This argument takes an individual case of a Christian or atheist, and draws a general rule from it, assuming that all Christians or atheists are like the neighbor. THIS is exactly what you are doing in your post. You take isolated incidents and attempt to draw a general rule in order to make the characterization fit your narrative. You continually use inductive reasoning to do this in spite of the fact that as I've shown you countless times already...induction NEVER proves a theory. So...just so I can get this through your head, NEVER try to make an argument based on inductive reasoning and pass it off as a universal truth. You only serve to show me, and your readers that you are a dope.

You should know by now, that I don't argue on your terms. I don't apply emotional dogmatic ideological statements based on traditions, authorities, or any other appeals to some dogmatic theory of rationality to try and support a claim. Your method of argument requires you to go on the attack in order to defend your position. But in the process you reach for anecdotal situations in order to "prove" your theory. You rely on the Glenn Beck School of Inductive reasoning which of course is a fallacy.

The conclusions that is reached in the example hasn’t been demonstrated, because it may well be that the neighbour is not a typical Christian or atheist, and that the conclusion drawn is false.

Deductive arguments force us to choose between the truth of their conclusions and the falsity of one or more of their premises. Inductive arguments do not. This, in and of itself, does not show that anything is true or false. But if an argument is deductively valid, then we simply cannot, without contradicting ourselves, deny its conclusion unless we also deny (one or more of) its

premises. In this way, deductive arguments enable us to exercise critical control over our debates.

Far from enabling us to exercise critical control, inductive arguments deprive us of it. This is why you never have a rational argument to make to the questions that I present to you. Since their premises do not entail their conclusions, the falsity of their conclusions gives us no reason even to question, let alone to deny, the truth of their premises. This is probably going over your head, but if you can follow it, it will improve your debating ability which is sorely lacking right now.

What you're using here is a hasty generalization which draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case. Consider the situation. We assume the premises that we do because they seem to be obviously true. But their truth may suddenly seem doubtful if they are shown to entail statements that seem more obviously false. If a statement is a deductive consequence of premises, then it cannot be false without (one or more of) those premises being false. That's how deductive reasoning works and the deductive syllogism goes back to Aristotle.

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man

therefore: Socrates is mortal.

The syllogisms conclusion is infallibly correct if the premises are true. ALWAYS! Because the conclusion is also included in one or more of the premises.

But this is not true of inductive arguments. And this is why they are useless for criticism. And it's where your arguments fall flat.

The criticism aimed at the president for example by the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and others, including yourself, are all based on inductive arguments. They actually think that through an inductive argument, they are making a valid case against Obama. There are many things that we can criticize a president for, or any politician for that matter, but the criticism should at least be coming from sound logic. The fact is that if you want to make a case for something, you can draw from an unlimited number of sources to attempt to illustrate what you want your audience to believe. It doesn’t however, prove your case. You could even make the case that Obama is left handed and that "proves" that he's a radical.

The problem with inductive arguments is not that they never justify their conclusions. It is that they never give us reason to question their premises. Since their conclusions do not follow from their premises, they never place us in a position in which we have to choose

between accepting their conclusions and denying their premises.

The point of criticism is to force someone to question his assumptions, and because an argument can force someone to question his assumptions only if it is deductively valid and even then only if he recognizes its validity, and only if he is looking for truth. The biggest problem you have, is that you never question your assumptions. You consider them infallibly correct. Of course all of your assumptions are those that have been presented to you as theories of rationality to guide you, you lack the basic courage to put them up to your own scrutiny. You really don't want to know the truth, because in looking for it, you just might find holes in the things you've believed for most of your life.

And therein lies the problem. The un-willingness to look for truth. How many people are willing to question their own assumptions? We all have preconceptions of how things work. They’ve been drilled into us from an early age. They came from authority figures that we never questioned. Our parents. Our teachers. Our minsters. This is the source of what gives us the feeling of solid ground. We don’t question it out of fear of the possibility that we’ve been living a lie. So we adopt faith as our final refuge in clinging to our theories of rationality. When attempting to justify our theories of rationality we dig our heels in and to avoid infinite regress in trying to justify something without any basis, we fall into circular reasoning and ultimately, irrationality. And that's where we find James.

The goal here should never be to uphold a belief system but rather to find truth. Principles and values are great things, but the question one has to ask oneself is what do you do when your principles or values conflict with

the truth? I’m sure most of us feel that our principles are based in truth. But we can’t demonstrate that as true, so let’s examine a problem. What happens when your principles conflict with the truth? We have to decide what is most important to us: the Truth, or our principles? They aren’t necessarily the same thing, so which do you place a higher value on? Truth, or your values or beliefs which you really can't find any basis for without falling into infinite regress or circular reasoning. Either way, it's irrational.

A poster on a forum once said this:

”Obama is not a realist, I assure you.”

Why would I consider her assurance to be significant, or that she would be an authority on that subject?

Without giving me a reason to believe she has any authority on the subject, she goes on.

"I am not talking about religion, I am talking about whether a person believes in a power greater than themselves, greater than man. I am not making a value judgment on so


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"Whereas at one time in America 80% of all households were comprised of married couples, today that number is down to 51%. The marriage rate today is lower than at any time in history."

24/7 Wall St. analyzed a report just released by the Census Bureau that tracks marital events of Americans in 2009. What stood out was the high correlation between poverty and divorce.

Oklahoma now leads the nation. Overall, the report shows that people living in northeastern states have lower marriage and divorce rates. And while those in the southern states are more likely to get married, they also have higher divorce rates.

Our analysis suggests that the difficult economic conditions of many southern states drives the divorce rate higher because residents tend to be poorer. The states with particularly high divorce rates have below median household income as well as a high proportion of the population living below the poverty line.

Yeah..I'm sure it's all those Northeast Liberals that are to blame. Oh...look here. Northeast, Not Bible Belt, Has Lowest Divorce Rate In America.

A recent U.S. Census report shows the Northeast -- and New Jersey in particular -- has the lowest divorce rate in America, trailed closely by New York.

The Bible Belt, meanwhile, home to Southern hospitality, church telethons and country music, has more "shotgun" weddings and the most divorces.

"People assume that people in the Northeast divorce easily because they're less religious, but that's not the case," said Deborah Carr, a professor of sociology at Rutgers University.

In the Northeast, 7.2 per 1,000 men and 7.5 per 1,000 women got divorced. In the South, the rates were 10.2 for men and 11.1 for women. New Jersey's rates were 6.1 for men and 6 for women, according to the 2009 American Community Survey, which released the data in August.

The South sees more divorce for several reasons, Carr said:

•First, Southerners tend to marry young, partly due to a lower rate of college attendance.

•Second, couples don't usually move in together while unwed, a trend tied to religious beliefs. They often frown upon birth control, and are "more likely to have nonmarital pregnancies, which... then trigger 'shotgun' marriages."

•Third, there are simply more marriages in the South. New Jersey had the second-lowest marriage rates, just above Maine. The Census survey reported while New Jersey's marriage rate is 14.8 for men and 13.3 for women, Georgia's is 22.1 and 20.4, respectively.

Looks like all that preaching about your moral values doesn't quite stack up to the facts does it James?


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"Americans now trail far behind Europe and Asia by every measure of scholastic achievement—especially in math and science—despite spending far more than any other country on education for our public schools."

As I said, we might actually score higher if we spent as much as they did on education. Hasn't it dawned on you yet that they are going to be competing with our own kids in the world?

In Illinois, schools are funded through property taxes. What does this mean in spending? New Trier High School has 3% low income. Kelvyn Park High School has 96% low income.

New Trier High School Spending per Pupil: $19,415

Kelvyn Park High School Spending per Pupil: $12,880

New Trier High School

Average teacher salaries: $98,304

Kelvyn Park High School

Average teacher salaries: $68,679

New Trier High School Test Scores:

90% meet or exceed standards

Kelvyn Park High School Test Scores:

13% meet or exceed standards

What does the extra money buy?

What does segregation have to do with all of this?

People of color have become isolated in large parts of Chicago and the South Suburbs.

White people have become isolated in large parts of the North, Northwest and Southwest Suburbs.

New Trier offers Chinese as a foreign language.

New Trier graduated 98.5% of its senior class in 2007. The average class size is 1100. New Trier spends more than $15,000 yearly per student, well above the state average of $8,786. It has been included in the "Top Hundred" and "Most Successful" lists of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Parade magazine. The school was also identified as "quite possibly the best public school in America" by Town & Country, in a six-page article on New Trier that cited the "rich" and "demanding" curriculum, extensive arts and activities, strong participation in athletics, and faculty of the caliber typically found teaching at good colleges. Life also recognized New Trier as one of the best high schools in America with cover stories in 1950 and 1998.

Approximately 97% of the class of 2006 enrolled in college. Of these 999 students, 13 were National Merit Scholarship winners, 27 were National Merit Semifinalists, 25 were National Merit Finalists, and 75 received letters of commendation. For the class of 2006, the mean SAT verbal score was 620 and the mean SAT math score was 650. For the class of 2011, the mean ACT composite score was 27.5, the second highest score of any (public or private) school in the state, and among the top average composite scores in the nation among public open-enrollment high schools. According to an article by the University of Michigan Department of Psychology, "New Trier students outperform their Illinois classmates on every conceivable measure." The article also points out that 92% of the school's funding comes from the high property taxes of its affluent surroundings. The degree to which the school's performance is actually high given its resources is not addressed

MONEY TALKS!! If you want a great education, then spend the bucks! This isn't an ad for New Trier, but it's a great commentary on the effectiveness of funding in providing a quality education. If you think you can educate our youth on the cheap, you'll get the results that you are showing. And then people like you point your fingers at what lousy results we are getting after you take an axe to school budgets and cut them to shreds. When you commit to education, you get the kind of education that New Trier Township wants for their kids to succeed.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"Well let's see. 55 million unborn human beings have been slaughtered in the womb since 1973."

And this proves the demise of society?? How and why? I'm afraid that this doesn't prove your claim of the demise of society. I'm sure you disapprove of abortion in every instance. Would you have aborted Hitler? If you knew in advance that this zygote would produce a monster that would murder 6 million people, would you abort it? Would you allow your religious views to dictate the eventual slaughter of 6 million people? Do you think that bringing Hitler to term was more important than the lives of 6 million people? The reality of the situation of course is that we can never know what those 50 million pregnancies would have produced? Another Beethoven? Another Hitler? Another Martin Luther King? Another Charles Manson? Now there's a guy that believed in "family values". The Manson Family Values. So you can speculate all you like, but the fact of the matter is you have no idea what any of those 50 Million would have done with regards to the demise of society. So my suggestion is that you keep your values to yourself, and let the person closest to the situation make that decision for herself. What you advocate is Big Government Conservatism that steps into the center of our private lives. I'd suggest you stay out of other peoples uterus and mind your own business. Think you can manage that??

"Americans now trail far behind Europe and Asia by every measure of scholastic achievement—especially in math and science—despite spending far more than any other country on education for our public schools."

This of course is a lie. Or possibly simply ignorance on your part. Hard to tell with you where the lies end and the ignorance begins. Do you really think that you can throw that kind of BS out here without it being fact checked??

People like you argue that the United States spends too much to educate its children, however we can simply look at Luxembourg. The tiny European country spends $17,500 to educate each of the students in its public schools.

We can also point to Cuba: The island nation spends a whopping 18.7 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on education.

The United States doesn’t rank nearly as high in either category.

In fact, several countries, many of them surprising, spend more on education than does the United States. Lets take a look at what the world spends to educate its students:

Cuba leads the way in how much of its GDP it devotes to education. Behind it, though, is second-place finisher Uzbekistan, (or as Herman Cain calls it..Uz Beki Beki Beki Stan Stan) which spends 12 percent of its GDP on education. Rounding out the top five are Vanuatu, 11 percent; Lesotho, 10.4 percent; St. Vincent & the Grenadines, 10 percent; Yemen, 9.5 percent; Brunei, 9.1 percent; Mongolia, 9 percent; Denmark, 8.5 percent; and Guyana, 8.1 percent.

Of course, percent of gross domestic product isn’t the only way to measure a country’s financial commitment to education. The amount of money a country spends for every student is another useful measure of the worth it places on education.

In that category, Luxembourg, with its $17,500 per student, tops the list. It easily outdistances second-place finisher Norway, which spends $13,700 on every student.

Coming in third is Denmark, which spends $11,950 per student. Other high finishers include Switzerland, $11,200; Austria, $9,940; and Sweden, $9,250.

And where does the United States come in? At seventh place, on one list actually. The United States spends $9,060 on each of its students. That’s not terrible, of course, but it’s hardly at the top of the list when it comes to committing to education. So...your response is false and you base your assumptions on false information. Now what you need to do is backtrack to find out how much of your views are based on this false assumption and correct them. Of course that would be admitting that you might be wrong, and that's going to take something you lack. Humility. Here's another list that's a bit less flattering. Education Statistics: Education spending (% of GDP) (most recent) by country

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-educ...

On this list we rank tied for 37th with Austria and Estonia. And people like YOU want to cut education spending even more??? Are you nuts or just stupid??

Look at this: Wis. Gov. signs budget cutting education $1.85B. He signed this in June of last year. So you have the audacity to complain about the quality of our education system while you cut spending to the point of having teachers in Pennsylvania working for NOTHING so that their kids can go to school. Clearly the people of Wisconsin have had it with Walker and 1.9 Million people have signed petitions to recall the whole Walker-Koch Brothers gang of thugs and take back their state. They want their kids educated. A sound education is essential to our kids succeeding in life. It's also vital to the interests of this country if our young people are going to compete in the world. You and your group would deny that to people. It appears that you prefer a dumbing down of society. The dumber they are, the more they may vote against their own interests and become Republicans. Your Hub is a clear example of that. Of course education threatens your belief system so you would prefer eliminating the teaching of things like evolution and teaching Creationism as science. It's obvious that the more educated a person becomes, the more they question things, and that's not going to work well for you is it? They may begin to question you the very way that I am right now. That puts you on the defensive and it becomes obvious that your position has no defense. It can't justify itself. It can't be its own basis. It sits on sand. So it relies on emotionalism and irrational attacks on reason.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

" If your group succeeds in turning America into North Korea I will not be around to see it."

North Korea?? Really? North Korea??? Here's another example of the exaggerated, over-the-top crap that pours out of the twisted mind of the conservative. "Health Care Reform will lead to Armageddon". "Liberals will turn America into North Korea". You're an example of political theory that relies on one Brain-fart after another and desperately hope that there are enough irrational morons out there to buy into this nonsense. You offer up a complete set of morons as candidates to run against Obama, and look at them: Perry is perhaps the dumbest of the lot. He can't even remember the agencies that he wants to get rid of. He claims that South Carolina is at war with the Federal Government.( We saw how that worked out for them the last time they did that didn't we? )

You had Cain for comic relief. Herman was a joke, and his campaign turned into a series of one liners used on late night TV. You had Bachman with her gay husband and here pop-eyes that gets a thrill out of torturing people and appealing to her cheer leader instincts calling for making Obama a One...Term...President!!!! You have Newt...the serial marriage guy, who wanted to have an "Open marriage" going on with his ex and Calista. A full tilt condescending, arrogant racist that plays to the worst elements of every persons dark side. But hey...he gets the endorsement of the religious guy..Rick Perry. That should really help him out. He's endorsed by the dumbest guy in the pack. And the Sweater-vest guy...Santorum. He's the homophobe that wants to ban birth control. He can't even dress himself and he wants to be president?? And of course the guy you'll eventually pick...Gordon Gecko himself. Mr. Creative Destruction. Mr. 1% himself. Mr. Corporations are People too! Mr. I'm only in it for the money. "Show me the money" Mitt. Mr Offshore bank accounts. Mr. I won't show my tax records because then you'd all see that I pay nothing in taxes. And that isn't enough...I think that's too high. Mr. Let Detroit go bankrupt, and lets bomb Iran.

The problem with you and your ideological brethren James is that you're all irrational. You can't demonstrate how your ideology is true, but you demand that it be accepted by everyone. You tried this in Ohio and the people rose up and told you NO!. You tried this in Wisconsin and 1.9 Million people took to the streets and said Hell NO!!!. You're ideas are being rejected James. Maybe it's time to recognize the flaws and do something about it? You're a fallible human James. That means that your ideas also are fallible. They're prone to error. A rational person corrects his mistakes. He doesn't double down on them.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"This opportunity is readily available"

No it isn't.

"Having the federal government pick the winners and losers outside the Rule of Law (in its proper sense) is not the answer."

You're saying that having an equitable economic system in this country; one that works for everyone and allows everyone the opportunity to elevate his capabilities, amounts to the government picking winners and losers?? How?? What you want is a system that is stacked against the 99% of the country and tilted toward the 1%. Are you this greedy? Greed and gluttony? Deadly Sins James. Better re-read your Bible. You ain't livin up to it. Oh.,..yeah, you guys sort of pick and choose the parts that you can use...then tell the rest of us that it's infallibly true. But then since forgiveness is the central theme to the part of the book you subscribe to, you can violate it at will, and then claim..."I've been forgiven", only to violate it again and again and again, and then preach about values to the rest of us. Interesting belief system you have there.

"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Guess you missed that part. If you think that it's important that our country adopt a Christian viewpoint, you better think twice about what that means. Because you want to stack the deck against everyone that struggles to survive, and tilt it toward those that those benefit the most and then point your knobby fingers at them and blame them for being poor while you endorse a system that keeps them that way. Don't go measuring the poverty in this country with what exists in other countries James and then assume that you can tell me that nobody has a reason to complain. We live here, and what we experience here is relevant to the situation that exists here.

Look at this statement from you: "Not only that, but they have electricity, refrigeration, heat in winter, television, DVD players, furniture, cell phones, free transportation, free education, free health care, and $200 sneakers— They??? $200 sneakers?? Who are you talking about here? Do you think I don't hear the "Dog whistle" being blown here? $200 sneakers??


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"Virtually everybody in America we call poor has food, clothes and shelter—the lack of those three being the classic definition of poverty."

Really? According to who's definition? Here's the dictionary definition.

pov·er·ty

noun

1.the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.

2.deficiency of necessary or desirable ingredients, qualities, etc.

And here's How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty

Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).

Income Used to Compute Poverty Status (Money Income)

•Includes earnings, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, public assistance, veterans' payments, survivor benefits, pension or retirement income, interest, dividends, rents, royalties, income from estates, trusts, educational assistance, alimony, child support, assistance from outside the household, and other miscellaneous sources.

•Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) do not count.

•Before taxes

•Excludes capital gains or losses.

•If a person lives with a family, add up the income of all family members.

"Not only that, but they have electricity, refrigeration, heat in winter, television, DVD players, furniture, cell phones, free transportation, free education, free health care, and $200 sneakers"

Right. And they all drive Cadillacs too. What makes you think you know what people have and don't have? You have this stereotyped view of the poor in America don't you?

"So what are the poor up in arms about? That other Americans have more than they do, plain and simple."

Gee I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with the obstacles placed in front of them by people like you that prevent them from getting out of their condition. You know, things like cuts in education for example. Governor Walker in Wisconsin making massive cuts in education. Wisconsin has the dubious distinction of reducing state aid per student this school year the most of 24 states studied by an independent, Washington-based think tank, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Education is the key to getting out of poverty. Or didn't you know that? And The governor of PA cutting the funding of an entire school district to the point where the teachers still went to school and taught their kids without pay, or maybe it's having their jobs outsourced or eliminated so that you can make more of a profit. You have a very simplistic outlook on other people don't you. To you it's simply envy over the thought that you might have "more" than they do. Nobody envies you James. They laugh at you, and actually pity you for your ignorance.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"If Hayek said that money and possessions are the most important things in life, then I disagree with him about that. This does not mean I must disagree with his love of free enterprise."

Nobody, me included is suggesting that. What you should examine however are the motives for it and whether or not it is what defines your sense of Freedom. I don't regard Freedom as some enterprise. Enterprises are bought and sold as commodities. Is Freedom for sale? At what price?

"Government benefits have to be created by somebody and even the poor get to use many things we would not have without the wealth created by free enterprise—roads, parks, libraries, schools, beaches, et al."

The last time I checked our roads, parks, libraries, schools were all built by the government through taxpayer money. They aren't private enterprises.

"I only meant that I have not read any of his writings and I probably should."

He's considered the father of modern conservatism. It's probably a good idea to know something about him. I'm not a conservative, and I know that much. Your ideas come from him. He was the Anti-Enlightenment voice. It's the conservative position that is held today. Of course our country was founded on the Enlightenment principles of Locke and Jefferson as you probably know, so your ideology is contrary to our founding principles.

"Freedom and economic prosperity go hand in hand. It is the opposite of an either or proposition. The more freedom the more prosperity."

I'm afraid that is not necessarily true. The one doesn't require the other to exist. You can attain enormous prosperity at the expense of others freedom quite easily. Just look at the slave holders of the old south. And as Jesus own life illustrated, one doesn't need more than sandals and a robe to acquire freedom. You seem to measure freedom in terms of material goods or property. Jesus would measure it on a higher plane. "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Another example of course is Buddha who gave away all his worldly possessions to attain freedom.

"I never said anybody envied me. But envy and covetousness are the dark emotions plied upon by progressive levelers."

You didn't have to say it. You think it. You even qualify your statement with "but", and attribute it to "progressive levelers" which must be some new term you've coined. So while denying it on the one hand, you prove it on the other. Let me assure you that nobody is envious of you, Mitt Romney, or anybody else. That's your own ego working overtime. What the vast majority of the country is looking at today is the inequity of our system which provides for a tax code that is unfair and tilted on behalf of the most wealthy in our country. That's simply not fair. Nobody gives a damn how much money you have or how many houses you own. But for the regular working man to be paying a tax rate of 28% while a guy like Romney is paying 15% (probably a lot less than that) is simply wrong. People measure success in many different ways. They don't need a mansion to be happy. For conservatives to actually think that people envy them is the epitome of hubris. You may look at envy as a deadly sin. You seem to overlook gluttony.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— The unionization of public employees has undermined America:

http://hubpages.com/politics/Public-Employee-Labor...

The vast majority of liberals who can afford private schools send their children to them, while voicing the greatness of the public school system for everybody else. Since 1971, public schools have increased their spending per student by more than double—in constant dollars. But the public schools have not only shown no improvement, results have gotten worse. Among 8th graders, only 21 percent are proficient at grade level in math; only 27.5 percent proficient in reading. 2,000 high schools in the nation—8 percent of all of them—are described as nothing more than dropout factories.

The worst schools in the United States? In our nation's capital, of course. Washington, D.C. is also the place where we find the nation's the most progressive city government. Grade point averages in DC drop two whole points between 5th and 7th grade. The Washington, D.C. schools were spending the 3rd most of any schools in the nation but only 8 percent of 8th graders could do math at grade level. The school district also had twice the national average of classroom space.

Catholic Schools and other Christian Schools far outperform unionized public schools for half the money. Consider that 68 percent of prison inmates are high school dropouts. And it costs society (taxpayers) $33,000 a year to house, guard, and feed them. For that same amount of money—based on an average prison term of four years—each of them could have attended private schools for 13 years (@$8300 per year). Why don't we do that? The teachers unions—and their lackeys, progressive legislators— won't allow it.

The teachers unions are the largest political campaign contributors in the United States. They donated 55 million dollars in the last election, over 90 percent of it to candidates of the Democratic Party. In other words, all Americans of all political persuasions pay the teacher salaries, out of which are deducted union dues that only support one political party. It must be great to have your campaigns financed by your political enemies.

One study mentioned shows that if the worst 10 percent of teachers were fired tomorrow, America would have public schools second to none in the world the next day—but teachers unions won't allow it. In Illinois, out of 876 school districts only 61 have ever tried to fire a teacher. 38 were successful. One out of 57 doctors in America lost their license last year. One out of every 97 lawyers was disbarred last year. Only one out of 2500 teachers lost their jobs. Imagine if every job in America was guaranteed for life and no one could be fired. That is the Marxist dream. Professional baseball hitters could hit .100 year after year and still be guaranteed a spot on the team.

America had the best Public Schools in the world, and the brightest children, until the 1970s. What changed in the 1970s? Having attended public schools, and having had three children graduate from public school decades after me, I can tell you the answer to that question. When I went to public schools, the focus was on English, Math, Science, History, Vocational Classes, and Physical Fitness. The focus today is on Multiculturalism, Tolerance, Social Justice, Inclusiveness, and Political Correctness. It is on implanting "right-thoughts" as perceived by Radical Progressives who run the teachers unions and the schools—not on learning.

http://hubpages.com/entertainment/Waiting-for-Supe...


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— You wrote: "Let me know when you have empirical evidence to support your claims, rather than one mans opinion of the demise of society and its causes."

Out of wedlock births to white women in the United States before the Sexual Revolution were 2%. Today that number is 26%. 70% of all black babies are born to unmarried mothers—up from 23% before the Sexual Revolution.

Whereas at one time in America 80% of all households were comprised of married couples, today that number is down to 51%. The marriage rate today is lower than at any time in history.

Radical Feminism (hostile to men and religion) taught us that all of this was simply freeing women from their chains of slavery to their families. Exorbitant rates of child support had to be confiscated from men, at the point of a gun, to make divorce an attractive choice for women. The feminization of men was required to implement this agenda. Welfare was required to promote illegitimacy (taxpayer support of illegitimacy).

Rampant promiscuity has caused unprecedented levels of Sexual Transmitted Diseases. 95% of all cervical cancers in women are the result of STDs. 19 million persons are infected with a STD each year in America—4 million of them teenagers. 65 million Americans have a contagious Sexually Transmitted Disease right now. 25% of all American adults have a lifelong incurable STD.

In the grocery line Americans of all ages are exposed to magazines touting sexually themed headlines and scantily clad women. Our culture sexualizes even teenagers via magazine ads and music videos. One look at high school cheerleading routines, or nightclub dancing, shows us how the human female has been degraded to a gyrating animal.

Social Liberalism contends that fathers are superfluous to the rearing of children. But do fathers matter in the lives of children? ALL sociological surveys EVER conducted say resoundingly, YES! Children reared without their natural fathers show incredibly higher rates of criminal behavior, drug use, dropping out of high school and unemployment as adults. Boys in particular, show extremely higher rates of cognitive problems, hyperactivity, hostility, and suicide.

The response of Social Liberals? Give them Ritalin. Children of divorced parents are less happy, less healthy, and more dangerous to others and themselves.

The removal of fathers from the home by Social Liberals has led to an epidemic of spousal abuse and child abuse in the last 40 years.

A serious by-product of the Sexual Revolution is a massive decline in the birth rate of native born Americans. American women had an average of 3.8 children before the Pill and Abortion. Today 1.4 is the average number of children allowed to live. Since the death rate is 2.1, at least that many children per woman is required to replace those who die—or an entire society is committing slow suicide. This creates an economic crisis for us. The 55 million aborted children would have become payers of Income Tax; and Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. It shouldn't take a mathematical genius to calculate how this vanquished generation has caused our current shortfalls in funding of entitlement programs.

This is a Moral and Spiritual Battle for the soul of America. Our misguided generation came to see God's Rule of Sexual Conduct as somehow for His benefit. No. His Command is for our benefit. Some of you may not even know what it is. It is that no sex is permissible outside of marriage (and no divorce). This means each person would have only one sexual partner in their lifetime. Sounds boring and restrictive, doesn't it? Imagine for one moment if all people obeyed God's rule for Sexual Conduct. There would be no such thing as sexually transmitted disease, would there? No broken homes, no fatherless children (except by death), no illegitimate births, no adultery, and none of the attendant social problems that plague our nation. Would this not be a better world?

http://hubpages.com/relationships/Sexual-Revolutio...


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— You wrote: "Let me know when you have empirical evidence to support your claims, rather than one mans opinion of the demise of society and its causes."

It is unequivocally proven—empiraclly—that no arrangement of the rearing of human children produces healthy, productive citizens as does living one's life with your natural mother and father into adulthood. Even though it is the accepted fact that children who grow up without both of their parents are far more prone to crime, imprisonment, depression, drug use, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, suicide and the perpetuation of more generations of the same—the destruction of the American family by progressive ideologies is not lamented by the Left. In fact, destroying everything that is good is what Leftist true believers desire above all else:

"Destroy the family, destroy the country." Vladimir Lenin

Beginning in the 1920s, a group of Marxist Atheists calling themselves The Frankfurt School began plotting the corruption and overthrow of Capitalist countries by systematically undermining their cultures. Their strategy is called Cultural Marxism. Its goal is the use of art, music, education, and media to condition people to accept the essential elements of Marxism without identifying them as such. After a few generations of this conditioning, Marxism becomes the new reality without a violent revolution and even without awareness that a revolution has occurred.

http://hubpages.com/politics/Multiculturalism-in-A...


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— You wrote: "Let me know when you have empirical evidence to support your claims, rather than one mans opinion of the demise of society and its causes."

The home mortgage business was once the exclusive domain of the banking industry. As with nearly every aspect of our lives that were once private affairs between citizens in America, the government under President Franklin Roosevelt decided to get involved in 1933 as a part of FDR's New Deal.

President Franklin Roosevelt established the Home Owners Loan Corporation, one of the many of FDR's New Deal bailout programs, to buy troubled mortgages from banks. Within a few years this government program of President Franklin Roosevelt had a payroll of over $26,000,000 in 1936 dollars—$388,000,000 today.

20% of the loans FDR's New Deal issued ended up in default (with taxpayers' money) compared with the accepted standard rate of 3% in the home mortgage industry. Within a dozen years 40% of all mortgages were guaranteed by the United States government with taxpayers money.

In the 1960s, The Great Society of President Lyndon Johnson included laws to grant poor people home loans guaranteed by the government—meaning the taxpayers.

One out of five of these loans in some major cities under the Great Society of President Lyndon Johnson went to welfare mothers.

The losses to the taxpayers of this policy of the Great Society was $1,400,000,000 in 1971 dollars as they were foreclosed at an astonishing rate of 1100% higher than ever before.

President Carter signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977. The Community Reinvestment Act of President Carter was designed to force banks to issue home mortgages in poor, primarily black neighborhoods. The loans were guaranteed by the government—meaning the taxpayers—through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. When loans given to people who were not creditworthy were not paid back Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would cover them with funds confiscated from taxpayers.

In the late 1980s ACORN exerted pressure that resulted in the government passing a law that guaranteed 30% of all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans would go to low-income people backed by money confiscated from taxpayers.

These and other stupid progressive ideas caused the worldwide financial meltdown.

http://hubpages.com/education/Mortgage-Crisis-caus...


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— Your ideas have been tried again and again with nothing but utter failure, human misery and suffering, and death. The 20th century is littered with the corpses of failed utopias.

http://hubpages.com/education/Experiments-in-Socia...

You wrote: "Let me know when you have empirical evidence to support your claims, rather than one mans opinion of the demise of society and its causes."

The country that was bequeathed to the Baby Boomers had the highest standard of living ever seen on Earth. The traditional family was the foundation of American society. The women of the time lavished love on their children; they focused on creating the best possible home environment for their families.

Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth were seriously discouraged until the 1970s, when both became celebrated as casting off the shackles of old-fashioned, out dated values. Since then both have increased by 800%.

The effect of this has been the creation of the most troubled, confused, unknowledgeable citizenry America has ever had; an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases; fractured families; and millions of children with no idea who their daddy is.

The policies of Social Liberals have directly led to a concentration of power in Washington, D.C. States, counties, and local governments have less and less control over their own communities as the federal government usurps their jurisdiction. This has led to the powerful lobbyists who last year spent $3B to influence 536 people.

The Social Liberals have created mountains of regulations—and the bureaucracies to enforce them—that have stifled American business. The largest corporations have welcomed this movement because it squashes all of the smaller, innovative players who cannot comply, or even understand, the regulatory requirements.

The United States is now over $15T in debt—with 2/3 of that owed to foreigners. Our entire national wealth is $50T and about that amount is owed in future payments for Social Security and other entitlements to the Baby Boomers.

http://hubpages.com/politics/Generation-Zero...

You don't think our people are mentally ill? 20 percent of all American adults rely on psychiatric drugs to "make it through the day."


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— It is acceptable to capitalize "Atheism" if I want to for emphasis.

You wrote: "Let me know when you have empirical evidence to support your claims, rather than one mans opinion of the demise of society and its causes."

Well let's see. 55 million unborn human beings have been slaughtered in the womb since 1973.

In the 1960s Playboy had to struggle and pay well to persuade good looking girls to pose showing only their breasts and buttocks. Today forty million American men regularly view videos of people having sex. 89% of all internet pornography is produced in the United States. 8% of all emails sent contain pornography—perhaps five billion of them every day. 72% of hits on internet pornography web sites occur between 9 am and 5 pm—while people are at work. The loss of productivity from employees watching pornography at work is in the tens of billions of dollars. 10% of American adults admit to being addicted to watching people having sex on the internet.

Americans now trail far behind Europe and Asia by every measure of scholastic achievement—especially in math and science—despite spending far more than any other country on education for our public schools. The top 5% of our students are matched academically by 50% of those in Japan. In algebra and calculus, the Japanese and the Chinese double our academic success.

25% of our high school graduates can barely read their diplomas. Nationally, 40 percent of fourth graders cannot read a simple children's book; among blacks and Hispanics, that proportion is as high as 65 percent. America has seen a 50 percent drop in the number of students who score over 700 on the SAT verbal test in the last 45 years—back to exactly when the teachers' unions rose to power through changes in state laws regarding collective bargaining.

But at least all that "self esteem" training works. Despite trailing the rest of the civilized world in academic achievement, studies show that American kids THINK they are smarter than the rest of the civilized world. They lead the world in only one category: self-esteem. They vastly overestimate themselves.

http://hubpages.com/politics/Education-Problems-in...

To quote Thomas Sowell: "In this latest round of international tests, American students led the world in one department: "self-esteem." As in previous international tests, American students had the highest perception of how well they had done. Seventy percent said that they thought they had done well. This would be comic if it were not so tragic."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell022698...


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— You wrote: "The ONLY thing that matters to you James, is your own self interest."

You are 180 degrees off base here. None of my political views have in mind my own self-interest. If your group succeeds in turning America into North Korea I will not be around to see it. My interest is that something that should be loved and treasured—America—is being denigrated and demolished to the detriment of Americans and the world. I care about my children and grandchildren and "1984" future you want to see.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— You write: "You're writing a Hub on history and you don't know about Edmund Burke?"

This Hub is about the Founding Fathers of the United States. I do not find much reference to Burke in my research about them, other than he supported their ideas. I have of course read about Burke in passing, here and there, and read some marvelous solitary quotes by him. I only meant that I have not read any of his writings and I probably should.

You write: "you have this absurd notion that "envy" is the issue. You actually think that others "envy" somebody like you??"

I never said anybody envied me. But envy and covetousness are the dark emotions plied upon by progressive levelers. I once read a psychological study that found 90 percent of people would be happy with $50,000 a year if their neighbors made $25,000. Only 10 percent would be happy with $50,000 a year if their neighbors made $100,000.

Virtually everybody in America we call poor has food, clothes and shelter—the lack of those three being the classic definition of poverty. Not only that, but they have electricity, refrigeration, heat in winter, television, DVD players, furniture, cell phones, free transportation, free education, free health care, and $200 sneakers—while billions in this world live on $1 a day outside America. So what are the poor up in arms about? That other Americans have more than they do, plain and simple.

You write: "What people care about is having the opportunity to develop their talents so they too can excel and achieve their dreams. They want the opportunity that is the promise of America."

This opportunity is readily available. Having the federal government pick the winners and losers outside the Rule of Law (in its proper sense) is not the answer. It only leads to political access being the key to success instead of your own efforts in a free marketplace.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— If Hayek said that money and possessions are the most important things in life, then I disagree with him about that. This does not mean I must disagree with his love of free enterprise. Free enterprise makes life far better for everybody, even freeloaders. Government benefits have to be created by somebody and even the poor get to use many things we would not have without the wealth created by free enterprise—roads, parks, libraries, schools, beaches, et al.

You ask: "But which is more important to you James? Freedom or economic prosperity?"

Freedom and economic prosperity go hand in hand. It is the opposite of an either or proposition. The more freedom the more prosperity. As the government leviathan has steadily curbed our freedoms our national prosperity has gone down.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

James, it's very apparent that you have real issues with Gays. You strike me as deeply homophobic. Phobias are irrational fears. Perhaps it's some latency in you that you have unresolved issues with. Whatever it is, borders on obsession. I don't share your fears. I don't feel the least bit threatened by Gays and they have nothing to fear from me. I think there are far more pressing matters to deal with in America than whether two gay people want to get married.

Marriage is a civil contract between two people. It requires a license. You can get married by a Justice of the Peace. It requires filing in court to dissolve that contract. A wedding takes place in a church. If a church doesn't want to perform that ceremony they certainly have that right. But a contract between two people has no religious requirement. On that basis alone what you're doing is saying that two citizens of this country do NOT have a right to enter into a civil contract because they are gay. And you're using religious grounds for your objection. Do you not understand that you're fighting a losing battle on this? You can't win this argument. Gay people are here. They're queer and they aren't going away. They've been with us since the beginning of time. Alexander the Great was gay. It goes back a long long way. Maybe you should focus on something else for your cause, because this one ain't going back in the closet.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

" In 2001 the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom stated its aim to reform sexual laws in the United States by bringing the full weight of the government down on those who hold to Biblical standards of sexuality regarding sodomy, adultery, pornography, sadomasochism, and sex in public."

Sex in public?? Oh brother. Sex in public has no place in any form. Gay or straight. Ok? As for the rest of this stuff, I say good. Your Biblical standards regarding sexuality have no place in any form of legislation. We don't legislate religion in this country. Your Bible has no place in my bedroom. If you want it in yours...go for it. Hope you aren't too offended by that.

"“Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western Civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.” Who do you think made this statement? Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson? No. Liberal Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1986 (Bowers v. Hardwick)."

And this is somehow supposed to impress me? What on earth would I care what some old man with sexual hangups thinks about this regardless of his position. Obviously his views weren't the majority views of the court. We don't legislate from the Bible. Don't you understand that yet?? We have a separation of Church and State in this country. The Chief Justice himself is suggesting something that is unconstitutional. It's a violation of the first Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor the free exercise thereof;" You can't pass a law on some religious grounds without establishing religion. Get IT??


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

" In “The Overhauling of Straight America” they wrote:"

I'm fully aware of this. But let me ask you a question. If you were among the most persecuted groups in society, what would you do to combat the existing ideas of what you are? How would you go about changing the prevailing attitudes about you such that others consider you a threat to them and consider you fair game to violence or denying you the same rights that everyone else enjoys? You might consider mounting a publicity campaign designed to convince people that you're actually human too and not the threat that they see you as. You might see that desensitizing people is the best way to go. In the past, the idea of blacks eating in the same restaurant or drinking from the same water fountain or staying at the same hotel was unthinkable to some people. Once it became common practice, over time, nobody gave it any thought. Today, we wonder what the fuss was all about. People became desensitized to racial differences. Do you actually believe that Gay people are out to turn the world Gay??


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"To say that only your Atheistic worldview should have a say in the affairs of men is a truly awful stance and one that reflects poorly on your character."

I don't have an atheistic worldview. (BTW...atheism isn't capitalized.) I simply don't have your view of "God". Why should my view not have any say in the affairs of men and yours should? Religious states or Theocracies have proven to be failures in the world. They are authoritarian and dictatorial and undemocratic. Show me an example of a religious state that is democratic. The fact is, that you have no idea what my view is because I haven't even told you. Can you prove that yours is right or true?? If you can, then do it. The problem of course is that nobody can do that. In fact, your view actually offers nothing more than any other superstition. My view is reality based. Why should superstitions have a dominant role in the affairs of men?? What makes adhering to a superstition a rational way of thinking? I prefer rational minds at the controls of my government. Why would I want it turned over to irrational minds?


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"Why should your worldview of Atheism rule the day? There is nothing factual about Atheism. And this Hub is about the Founding Fathers. They were not Atheists."

It doesn't. And the issue isn't about whether atheism is factual, although it's probably accurate to say that atheism is fact based. Atheists can be as wrong about things as anybody else. They're fallible as well. But this isn't about legislating atheism. Atheism has no belief to legislate. It's about maintaining secularism rather than any given belief system and you can't do that if you legislate somebody's religious beliefs. It's about legislating things that are factually based rather than subjective belief systems that are not factually based. Your question illustrates your ignorance of this subject. Facts aren't subjective. That's why they call them facts. They don't have any religious bias so they apply to everyone regardless of their beliefs. Atheists simply have no belief system so they have no issues with something that maintains our secularism. As for our founders, your statement has no relevance. Their own personal religious beliefs were not involved for the obvious reason that there were too many differing views to allow any one of them to take a superior position to their own. The Declaration of Independence itself was written by a deist. What the founders were capable of doing that you could never do, is leave their own personal beliefs at the door when it came to our constitution. Their responsibility was to create something for the entire country. Not for their own special religious interests. Unlike you...they weren't selfish men. Their patriotism extended beyond their own self interest.

"Do you believe the United States from 1789 to 1963 was a nation living under "religious tyranny?""

Not the entire nation. Only pockets of it. The disenfranchisement of State Churches in the US began in the late 18th century in a movement championed in Virginia by Thomas Jefferson and continued until the late 19th century when the last state church was eventually disenfranchised. The increasing religious pluralism of the citizens of the several states made state churches unwieldy and increasingly unpopular institutions among its non-adherants. What rights the state churches had varied but the general idea was that all citizens of that state should be members of that church. Some states went further to prohibit certain religious groups from establishing bodies within their state. For example Virginia while it's state church was enfranchised used to prohibit the Quaker religion. Other state churches carved out various conscience exclusions for members of other faiths. The largest benefit state churches enjoyed beyond a certain prestige position was that they were supported by state taxes.

This aspect of the State Church was considered unhelpful by James Madison who considered that the necessary social component of public religion would flourish with greater purity in the absence of establishment within the government. "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." - James Madison

He also appealed to the states to disestablish themselves.

"Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions". - James Madison

"Atheism is a world view that there is no God, there is no purpose or meaning to life, people are accidental animals, there is no objective truth, everything is merely a social construct, morality is relative, rights come from the State."

Your ignorance of atheism comes as no surprise. People's misunderstanding about the nature of atheism can sometimes be traced to a misunderstanding about the nature of disbelief. You just proved that. Comprehensive dictionaries generally define atheism as the 'disbelief in or denial of the existence of gods,' and atheists commonly refer to atheism as simply not believing in any gods - but is not believing something the same as denying it?

Certainly disbelief and denial aren’t considered the same in the dictionaries, otherwise they wouldn’t need to list both. In the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, the primary definition of “disbelieve” is simply “not believe” and the secondary definition is “reject belief in.” Both of these meanings are distinct from “deny,” which is not listed. Both of these also match the definition used for “weak atheism,” which is to lack belief in the existence of any gods.

Logically speaking, mere disbelief in the truth of a proposition cannot be treated as equivalent to the belief that the proposition is false and that the opposite is true. If you make a claim and I disbelieve it, I am not necessarily saying that your claim is false. I may not understand it well enough to say one way or the other. Or I may lack enough information to test your claim. Or I may simply not care enough to think about it.

All of these are, of course, possible reactions of an atheist to theistic claims. The atheist may not understand what the theist means by “god” or by certain characteristics of the god (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.). The atheist may not have enough information to determine whether the claim is credible. Or, perhaps, the atheist may find the claim so incredible that it simply isn’t worth thinking about more deeply.

Consider the following analogy: if I tell you that I visited Canada last week, would you believe me? Certainly visiting Canada is common and unremarkable, so there is no reason to think that my statement is inaccurate. However, you also have no reason to think it is true — so, although you may accept me at my word, you may just as easily accept my claim as plausible but then not give it further thought because it just isn’t important.

This describes the most basic level of disbelief: you don’t actively believe my claim, but you don’t deny it either. Many atheists take this position with respect to theistic claims when those claims are too vague or incoherent to adequately evaluate. Obviously such claims don’t merit rational belief, but there simply isn’t enough substance to say anything more about them.

We can also go a bit further by modifying my claim to state that I crawled from my house to Canada. Again, such a feat is certainly possible — but on the other hand, it also isn’t very likely. Why would anyone do such a thing? While you might step right up to assert that my claim is false, a more likely position would be to “reject belief in” my claim pending further evidence and support. You aren’t actively believing it (because it seems implausible) but you aren’t denying it either (because it’s not impossible).

This is a narrower form of disbelief which is also a common atheistic reaction to theistic claims. In these cases, the claims are coherent and understandable, but there is a lack of substantive support — for example, actual evidence to back the claims up. Because the evidence to warrant rational belief is lacking, the atheist does not adopt the belief — but the atheist also does not necessarily deny the claim due to a similar lack of contrary evidence. The reaction, then, is to simply “reject belief in” the claim because the theist offers no good reasons to believe.

As even you can see, not only are disbelief and denial different things, but there are different levels to disbelief, just as there are to belief. If you are interested in learning in what sense a particular atheist “disbelieves” in a god, you will have to ask. Different atheists disbelieve in different ways and for different reasons.

So...now that I've shown you that your dogmatic view of ath


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

In a democratic nation, it is the citizens who hold the right to elect their representatives and their governing authorities. According to a common observation, not all the citizens are fully aware of the political scenario in their country. The common masses may not be aware of the political issues in society. This may result in people making the wrong choices during election.

As the government is subject to change after every election term, the authorities may work with a short-term focus. As they have to face an election after the completion of each term, they may lose focus on working for the people and rather focus on winning elections.

Another disadvantage of democracy is that mobs can influence people. Citizens may vote in favor of a party under the influence of the majority. Compelled or influenced by the philosophies of those around, a person may not voice his/her true opinion.

Every form of government is bound to have some shortfalls. Different people have different views about the various political systems. The advantages and disadvantages of any political system have to be weighed carefully in order to arrive at any conclusion.

These disadvantages are remedied with a Bill of Rights. The Will of the People can easily devolve into Mob Rule. That isn't anything that the founders sought.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"He writes: 'our age, despite its extraordinary technological capabilities, is . . . a time of cultural sunset, depleted energies and moral confusion.' He does not regard decadence as a neutral historical fact but as a cultural, moral, and political disaster of the first order. Decadence has triumphed in various facets of modern life."

My...how opinionated of him. So here we have another example of some authoritarian figure which you subscribe to, preaching of the gloom and doom of society which is something I think that anybody with the desire to do so, could have been saying at least for the past 1,000 years. Each age has its prophets of doom and this is merely the latest that you've latched onto. Let me know when you have empirical evidence to support your claims, rather than one mans opinion of the demise of society and its causes. The problem you have James is your reasoning ability. It's overwhelmed by induction as it's guide and induction never proves a theory. You should know that.

"adagio4639— I agree with you totally that the right to vote is far more important than cashing a check, driving an automobile, or boarding an airplane. So if I need identification to do the things of lesser importance, all the more why I should need identification for the most important."

I already explained that to you. The things you mention which are of lessor importance are not RIGHTs. Get it? They are privileges and privileges can always be denied. You should NEVER be required to do something more to exercise your right, then to exercise a privilege. The only people that would deny that, are those that would look for a way of denying or blocking a right.

"the very notion of rights in Western society has devolved into farce, with everyone demanding his voice be heard. All this takes place under the rousing rebel yell of democracy, when the fundamental principle of democracy is majority rule."

Well this quote tells me what I need to know about your source. Although the fundamental principle of democracy is indeed majority rule, that is the very reason why we don't live in a pure democracy. Madison knew this. I'm surprised that a person writing a "History" blog on our founders doesn't. Ours is NOT a pure democracy. We have a Bill of Rights. That is the very thing that makes it different from a pure democracy. Majority rule leads to tyranny of the minority and that is exactly the thing the Bill of Rights was designed to avoid. Your author is ill informed or...simply promoting BS. Which is it do you think??


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

" How can you claim I am against the right to vote? That is ludicrous."

Because of your earlier comments on obstructing voting rights in states like South Carolina and others. Your justification made no sense and I pointed out why it made no sense. You arguments about drivers license and check cashing requiring ID's are simply stupid and uninformed. You don't have a right to either. Those are privileges. You can take away privileges. You can't take away rights.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

" It is Progressives not Conservatives who disdain the Founding Fathers and void Democracy by seeking to implement their wants through nine unelected judges over the wishes of We the People."

Ok...time for the gloves to come off. This is a stupid stupid argument to make. The wishes of "We the People" are NOT without limits. You don't get that do you Mr.Historian?? We deliberately set up a Democratic Republic but with a HUGE difference. We included a Bill of Rights specifically designed to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of a majority that would exist under a pure democracy. In a pure democracy, the majority rules. End of story. The Founders and the people knew that would result in a form of tyranny. The self interests of the majority of people of one Faith for example would deny the religious freedom that they set out to provide for. That is precisely WHY we included a Bill of Rights. If the Will of the People were this simple an idea, then Segregation and slavery would be fine since the majority of people in the south were white. The Will of the People could be used to deny others their basic rights. What would you say about this in 20 years when Hispanics become the majority race in America and decide that the majority Will of the People is to discriminate against people like you?? Therefore our laws MUST be able to cover ALL the people. Not a select group such as a bozo like you would want. The ONLY thing that matters to you James, is your own self interest. People like you are sick, ego driven and frankly obnoxious and you tend to give this country a black eye over and over again.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"That is true. Once you had to be smart. Today you need to have dark skin."

Ok. So now we know that you have race issues. This comes as no surprise. Prejudice is built into your ideology. It says, "racists have a home here" and of course you feel right at home. I suspected you were a racist James, but now you've confirmed it for me and everyone else.

"You are completely off base here. I do not think economics the most important thing in the world by any means. The most important part of life is spiritual, not money or things."

So then you disagree with Hayek? The guy that you quoted? If you disagree with him, why would you use him as a source? You probably didn't really know that you were sharing a view promoted by Marx. It also means that you disagree with free market theory. Who knew?? I'll bet you didn't even know that. So now we know that not only are you a racist, you're a hypocrite as well. Interesting. But it hardly represents your ideas as something worthy of subscribing to does it?

"You have misinterpreted what I think. I agree that Freedom is an end to itself. I also think that Free Enterprise is the means to economic prosperity."

Yes of course. But which is more important to you James? Freedom or economic prosperity? Would you be willing to give up your freedom to attain economic prosperity? The reason that I doubt you're being honest here is because up till now, you've been talking in terms of the economic issues are the ONLY issues that matter. If our spiritual life matters more as you now say, then you would have to agree that that is an entirely individual issue that you have no right to intrude on with your religious views. Your values are YOUR values. They aren't mine. So perhaps you should think about simply keeping them to yourself and allow others the same right that you enjoy. You can't prove that your values are true and the only values that matter, so that's not really an issue that is worthy of debating. That's not really too much to ask is it??

"Why not? If God thinks homosexual behavior is an abomination, why shouldn't I?"

Who says that God thinks that? How do you know that's the case? What do you base that on?

"But don't demand that I approve of such things. I have the right not to approve. Don't force such things on children in the first grade as just as wonderful as the marriage bed. Don't pass laws making perverts a special category of citizen or victim."

Nobody is doing that. The issue is people passing laws AGAINST what others may do. Passing laws against sodomy in Texas is an example. You said yourself, people should be able to do what they want among themselves. Why would you pass a law preventing that. We have candidates now talking about passing laws against birth control. I thought you opposed Big Government.

"I am not as up on Edmund Burke as I should be. I can't say I am "enamored" with him. I do like the political philosophy of Russell Kirk."

Well you should be. You're writing a Hub on history and you don't know about Edmund Burke? You should at least know as much about your ideology as I do, and I'm not a conservative. Burke is the father of modern conservatism. He was anti-Enlightenment. He supported the American Revolution but opposed the French Revolution. He was a monarchist, and an aristocrat. He was the leading voice in opposition to liberal enlightenment thinking. He would shudder at the notion that he was a Tory but is considered to be the father of modern conservatism and the source that Kirk drew from. I though you were a history guy? So...you like Kirk huh?

The Ideology of Conservatism

In his lecture on “The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement” given to the Heritage Foundation in 2003, Dr. Lee Edwards cited Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind as providing the central idea upon which American conservatism is essentially based, calling it ordered liberty.

Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:

1.A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;

2.Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;

3.Civilized society requires orders and classes;

4.Property and freedom are inseparably connected;

5.Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason; and

6.Society must alter slowly.

Edwards states that “the work established convincingly that there was a tradition of American conservatism that had existed since the Founding of the Republic. With one

book, Russell Kirk made conservatism intellectually acceptable in America. Indeed, he gave the conservative movement its name.

Ok...that's a thumbnail on Kirk. I wrote a book that critiques Kirk and could go into very lengthy detail which I will if necessary. He draws from Burke, and you as a "history buff" should have known that. The conservative movement may have begun with Kirk, but it has its roots in Burke.

"I think Ayn Rand is right that if the talented people of the world disappeared the world would be in dire straights and therefore to hate them out of envy is a certain kind of sickness."

Ayn Rand wrote comic books. Here charactors are all black and white. I read Rand in my 20's and found it not just tedious but amusing back then. I began with the Fountainhead, then Atlas Shrugged, then Anthem, then The Virtue of Selfishness. By that time I was through with Ayn Rand and her Objectivism Philosophy. First; take a look at your comment: "if the talented people of the world disappeared the world would be in dire straights and therefore to hate them out of envy is a certain kind of sickness." It's ridiculous on its face. For one thing, you aren't about to remove all the talented people in the world because there are more than you can imagine. Everyone has a "talent". Even you. I know that comes as a surprise but it's true. Nobody is indispensable. Everyone can be replaced. Secondly you have this absurd notion that "envy" is the issue. You actually think that others "envy" somebody like you?? You need to check your ego dude. Nobody cares really cares about that. We don't covet what others have. I don't care about Warren Buffet's Billions. All his money can't buy what I can do. He doesn't have that specific talent. What people care about is having the opportunity to develop their talents so they too can excel and achieve their dreams. You build Straw Man arguments instead of recognizing what people really want. They want the opportunity that is the promise of America. Without that, what is the reason for being here? What makes America so special?

"You seem to lambast the idea that "this social contract is multi-generational between the dead, the living, and those who are yet to be born." I think that is a very important concept and one that I agree with. I understand that to a narcissist and a nihilist it doesn't make sense."

Actually it didn't make any sense to Thomas Paine either. Paine wrote the Rights of Man in response to Edmund Burke's pamphlet on the French Revolution. In his critique he wrote:

" Dr. Price does not say that the right to do these things exists in this or in that person, or in this or in that description of persons, but that it exists in the whole; that it is a right resident in the nation. Mr. Burke, on the contrary, denies that such a right exists in the nation, either in whole or in part, or that it exists anywhere; and, what is still more strange and marvellous, he says: "that the people of England utterly disclaim such a right, and that they will resist the practical assertion of it with their lives and fortunes." That men should take up arms and spend their lives and fortunes, not to maintain their rights, but to maintain they have not rights, is an entirely new species of discovery, and suited to the paradoxical genius of Mr. Burke."

"The method which Mr. Burke takes to prove that the people of England have no such rights, and that such rights do not now exist in the nation, either in whole or in part, or anywhere at all, is of the same marvellous and


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

The first great challenge to the definition of marriage came from people who have demanded the right to marry those of the same sex. As these people have been granted some legal privileges by the state that are similar to those who are married, yet another cry has arisen from cohabiting couples that they too should have the same privileges without having to be married. In addition, there are even more voices being raised by those who believe that the laws against polygamy should be overturned. Others, they want marital law opened up to include various combinations of people (polyamory). In the background, there are lurking those who desire the lifting of age restrictions, the right to marry their siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles and perhaps even their own parent or child.

Douglas Farrow writes: 'What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?' The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact.. . . [and] has left both parents and children without a lawful institution that respects and guarantees their natural rights to each other. Opening up marriage in principle to non-generative unions really means closing it in principle to the inter-generational interests on which it has always been based. From now on, the handling of those interests will be entirely dependent, legally speaking, upon the good graces of the state. Every citizen will stand naked before the state, unclothed by his most fundamental community, unbuffered by any mediating institution with its own inherent rights. Nor should it be overlooked that, what the state has the power to define, it has the power to define again and again, and even to dispense with."

Proponents of polyamory demand freedom from any sexual restraints believing that the pleasure of the individual is the ultimate goal of human beings. The polyamory lifestyle requires the existence of an awesome welfare state to care for the results of its irresponsible citizenry. The entertainment industry promotes polyamory as a great joy. The results in the real world are tens of millions of aborted babies and even more out-of-wedlock births. Illegitimate births are up 900% in the past 50 years. The results of polyamory in the real world are an inordinate amount of broken homes, and what has become a pandemic of sexually transmitted diseases.

Children who are reared without an intact family that includes both their natural fathers and mothers are vastly more prone to promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, depression, drug usage, suicide, crime and imprisonment. It is unequivocally proven that no arrangement of the rearing of human children produces healthy, productive citizens as does living one's life with your natural mother and father into adulthood.

Robert George writes, "The bodily unity of spouses is possible because human males and females, like other mammals, unite organically when they mate—they form a single reproductive principle. Although reproduction is a single act, in humans (and other mammals) the reproductive act is performed not by individual members of the species but by a mated pair as an organic unit. What is unique about marriage is that it truly is a comprehensive sharing of life, a sharing founded on the bodily union made uniquely possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman—a complementarity that makes it possible for two human beings to become, in the language of the Bible, one flesh—and thus possible for this one-flesh union to be the foundation of a relationship in which it is ¬intelligible for two persons to bind themselves to each other in pledges of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity."

The Catholic Theologian Germain Grisez: "Though a male and a female are complete individuals with respect to other functions—for example, nutrition, sensation, and locomotion—with respect to reproduction they are only potential parts of a mated pair, which is the complete organism capable of reproducing sexually. Even if the mated pair is sterile, intercourse, provided it is the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species, makes the copulating male and female one organism."

Hadley Arkes, a political scientist at Amherst, writes: "There is finally no getting around the fact that marriage cannot be detached from what we might call the "natural teleology of the body": namely, the inescapable fact that only two people, not three, only a man and a woman, can beget a child. The hard, obdurate fact here is that if marriage is detached from this natural teleology of the body, it loses the defining features, in principle, that cabin its meaning and establish its coherence.

"Children must come into being through the only kind of family that nature knows. A "natural teleology" is at work there -- that something in the nature of sex, in the strictest sense, must be at the core of marriage, or the understandings that have sprung up around marriage, and that these understandings are likely to be largely the same in all places, quite regardless of the local culture, because the intrinsic meaning of sex -- and the moral understandings surrounding sex -- are likely to be in all places the same. Why that point should be so obscure to us today is indeed one of the mysteries of our age, or it is a measure of how the inventiveness of political argument may obscure the plainest facts of our nature."


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— In 2001 the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom stated its aim to reform sexual laws in the United States by bringing the full weight of the government down on those who hold to Biblical standards of sexuality regarding sodomy, adultery, pornography, sadomasochism, and sex in public. By increasing exposure and acceptance of homosexuality this group hoped to bring about the “normalization” of other sexual deviancies. If you are going to tolerate one you must tolerate them all. They called for an end to all government statutes and regulations regarding marriage. This agenda required an attack on the traditional family and religious freedom.

“Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western Civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.” Who do you think made this statement? Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson? No. Liberal Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1986 (Bowers v. Hardwick).

86% of pedophiles identify themselves as homosexuals. 46% of adult male homosexuals report they had been victims of homosexual molestation as children.

The media downplays the link between homosexuality and pedophilia, but many homosexual activists proudly proclaim their support for sex with children. The San Francisco Sentinel, a gay newspaper, wrote, “The love between men and boys is the foundation of homosexuality.” The Journal of Homosexuality wrote, “Parents should view pedophiles not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in their boy’s upbringing, someone to welcome into their home.” Guide magazine stated: “We can be proud that the gay movement has had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual and deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including sex with children. We must do it for the children’s sake.”

John Money, professor emeritus of Pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University wrote, “Those who oppose pedophilia do so because of self-imposed moralistic ignorance.” At Penn State, Patrick Califia-Rice stated, “Boy lovers and lesbians who have young lovers are not child abusers. The child abusers are preachers, teachers, therapists, cops, and parents who force their stale morality on to young people in their custody. Instead of condemning pedophiles for their involvement with youth, they should be commending them.”Professor Harris Mirkin of the University of Missouri wrote, “Moral panic about pedophilia can be compared to previous panics about feminism and homosexuality. Today’s heresy often becomes tomorrow’s orthodoxy.”


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— Homosexual activists and authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen set forth the strategy of the homosexual movement over 20 years ago. In “The Overhauling of Straight America” they wrote:

“Almost all behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. In the early stages of the campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. The average American watches seven hours of television daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan Horse might be passed.

"We can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times, and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional religion, one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on topics such as divorce and abortion. We intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to distance themselves from such types. We are talking about propaganda.”

Eric Pollard, founder of the militant homosexual group ACT-UP openly admitted that lying was part of the strategy of homosexual activists. He even went as far as to say that Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf was the model used for their strategy.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— A lot of this stuff seems outside the subject at hand. However, I do have a Hub that addresses the larger themes on which we seem to disagree:

http://hubpages.com/education/Who-Are-Human-Beings...

Also, for the full text from which I drew the quotes above by Dr Samuel Johnson, go here:

http://hubpages.com/literature/Dr-Johnson


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— "All cannot live in the perpetual dissipation of successive diversions, nor will enslave their understandings to their senses, and seek felicity in the gross gratifications of appetite.

"There is no action, how unreasonable or wicked soever it may be, which those, who are guilty of it, will not attempt to vindicate.

"Such is the state of a man abandoned to the indulgence of vicious inclinations. He justifies one crime by another; invents wicked principles to support wicked practices; endeavors rather to corrupt others, than own himself corrupted, and to avoid that shame which a profession of his crimes would bring upon him, calls evil good, and good evil, puts darkness for light, and light for darkness.

"There is danger lest in time we come to approve what we do, though for no other reason but that we do it. A man is always desirous of being at peace with himself; and when he cannot reconcile his passions to his conscience, he will attempt to reconcile his conscience to his passions.

"For this conduct they admire themselves . . . loudly boasting their superiority to the advocates of religion.

"Thus he soon grows indifferent to truth or falsehood, and almost incapable of discerning one from the other.

"Let it be remembered, that the nature of things is not alterable by our conduct. We cannot make truth; it is our business only to find it."

DR SAMUEL JOHNSON


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— You write: "why should your world view dictate the structure of an entire country for everyone else? That is what is in question here. When you are establishing a nation like this one, it's absolutely necessary since the country is far too diverse for any one belief system to be promoted without establishing religious tyranny. Oh and btw, an atheist world view has no religious doctrine to follow. So it only deals with facts."

Here is the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Only Atheism deals with facts? Why should your worldview of Atheism rule the day? There is nothing factual about Atheism. And this Hub is about the Founding Fathers. They were not Atheists.

Do you believe the United States from 1789 to 1963 was a nation living under "religious tyranny?"

Atheism is a world view that there is no God, there is no purpose or meaning to life, people are accidental animals, there is no objective truth, everything is merely a social construct, morality is relative, rights come from the State.

A Christian has worldview that God exists, that He created the world, that human beings are created in His image, that life has meaning and purpose, that there is objective truth, that moral laws are similar to the laws of physics (they are real, actions have reactions [or consequences]), and our rights come from our Creator.

Now you are free to disagree with my world view and I am free to disagree with yours. But when you claim that yours should rule the world while mine should be silenced then you are exhibiting the worst attribute of Progressives.

These are different—opposite really—ways of seeing the world. These opposite worldviews affect the way you feel about everything, from culture to economics to government to law to life and death. To say that only your Atheistic worldview should have a say in the affairs of men is a truly awful stance and one that reflects poorly on your character.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

Lone Ranger— Welcome to my HubPages on The Founding Fathers. I appreciate the visit and your comments.

You write: "A high percentage of our founding fathers were Free Masons"

Yes, that is true.

You write: "The New World Order is being launched from the shores of the United States. The New World Order may not be an American invention, but the U.S.A. is being used as the catalyst to bring the world under the thumb of the New World Order . . ."

That might be true as well.

Thank you for your remarks, L.R. And it was good of you to extend your compliments, too.

JAW


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— I agree with you totally that the right to vote is far more important than cashing a check, driving an automobile, or boarding an airplane. So if I need identification to do the things of lesser importance, all the more why I should need identification for the most important.

The very idea that "minorities" don't carry identification is racist.

Democrats are famous for systematic voter fraud. If you don't know that you don't know squat. LBJ sure fixed some elections. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that JFK was made president by voter fraud. In Chicago "vote early and vote often" was the Democrats slogan. You don't think ACORN was engaged in voter fraud? You lose credibility when you deny the most basic facts.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— One writer I am enamored with is Jacques Barzun. He writes: 'our age, despite its extraordinary technological capabilities, is . . . a time of cultural sunset, depleted energies and moral confusion.' He does not regard decadence as a neutral historical fact but as a cultural, moral, and political disaster of the first order. Decadence has triumphed in various facets of modern life.

"When people accept futility and the absurd as normal, the culture is decadent." But futility and absurdity only seem normal to a damaged sensibility.

One result is what Mr. Barzun refers to as the "Great Switch," "the reversal of Liberalism into its opposite." If Liberalism originally "triumphed on the principle that the best government is that which governs least," today "for all the western nations political wisdom has recast the ideal of liberty into liberality."

"the very notion of rights in Western society has devolved into farce, with everyone demanding his voice be heard. All this takes place under the rousing rebel yell of democracy, when the fundamental principle of democracy is majority rule. . . . it is the lamentable rise of the "demotic," not "democratic," in fashion, music, and the arts--a decline expedited by the Lowest Common Denominator strategies propagated by the monolithic advertising and television industries."

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/history/historian/J...


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— You wrote: "The competition for getting into Harvard then is not quite the same thing as getting into it today."

That is true. Once you had to be smart. Today you need to have dark skin.

You wrote: "You're an economic reductionist. . . . And you practice what is called economism."

You are completely off base here. I do not think economics the most important thing in the world by any means. The most important part of life is spiritual, not money or things.

You wrote: "I contend that Freedom is an end in itself. You think that it's a means to an end, which is economic prosperity."

You have misinterpreted what I think. I agree that Freedom is an end to itself. I also think that Free Enterprise is the means to economic prosperity.

You write: "Why would you use Biblical reference to support your anti-gay attitude?"

Why not? If God thinks homosexual behavior is an abomination, why shouldn't I?

I do not care a whit what kind of perversions people do behind closed doors. I think it is nobody's business. I am the last to pry into someone's bedroom. If people want somebody to poop in their mouth, or get into sado-masochisism, or have orgies, or wife-swap, or be fisted, or enjoy golden showers, or stick their penis into the exit hole for feces, I say let them have at it. But don't demand that I approve of such things. I have the right not to approve. Don't force such things on children in the first grade as just as wonderful as the marriage bed. Don't pass laws making perverts a special category of citizen or victim.

You say: "You're probably enamored with the likes of Edmund Burke, perhaps Russell Kirk, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul."

I am not as up on Edmund Burke as I should be. I can't say I am "enamored" with him. I do like the political philosophy of Russell Kirk. I think Ayn Rand is right that if the talented people of the world disappeared the world would be in dire straights and therefore to hate them out of envy is a certain kind of sickness. Rand is too extreme for me in the end, and of course I am not "enamored" by her atheism. I do admire Ron Paul. I agree with much of what he says but not all.

You seem to lambast the idea that "this social contract is multi-generational between the dead, the living, and those who are yet to be born."

I think that is a very important concept and one that I agree with. I understand that to a narcissist and a nihilist it doesn't make sense.

I am a big fan of Ronald Reagan and Bill Buckley. There you are correct. I think these may have been the greatest two men of the 20th Century.

But you go far too far when you make the outrageous claim that: "It's an ideology that was in complete opposition to the Enlightenment and Liberal Democracy. This is why conservatives hate democracy so much. . . . Except they take it even farther right into a totalitarianism that is more in line with Fascism and bears no resemblance to the philosophy of Jefferson or Madison. They despise Democracy. They hate the idea of allowing people to vote."

I don't know what sort of diabolical mind can come up with such crazy thoughts. Modern conservative thought is perfectly in line with Liberal Democracy. Progressives are dead set against Liberal Democracy. It is Progressives not Conservatives who disdain the Founding Fathers and void Democracy by seeking to implement their wants through nine unelected judges over the wishes of We the People. How can you claim I am against the right to vote? That is ludicrous. And it is insane to claim Conservatives are for totalitarianism when they are at the opposite end of the political scale. Totalitarianism is the extreme Left; next to it is Fascism or Authoritarianism; then comes Progressives. On the far right would be Anarchists; next to them would be Libertarians; then comes Conservatives. For you to say that Conservatives favor totalitarianism is asinine. The former is small government and the latter total government—total as in totalitarian. Over 40 percent of Americans self-identify as Conservatives but the born liars on the Left call them extremists. Lunacy.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"Nobody leaves their world view "at the door" when they vote are take public office. It goes with them wherever they go. Does an Atheist have to leave his world view "at the door" or only Christians?"

Wrong. They do if they are charged with the responsibility of creating a structure that serves everyone as opposed to their own narrow point of view. In other words, why should your world view dictate the structure of an entire country for everyone else? That is what is in question here. When you are establishing a nation like this one, it's absolutely necessary since the country is far too diverse for any one belief system to be promoted without establishing religious tyranny. Oh and btw, an atheist world view has no religious doctrine to follow. So it only deals with facts. That's the difference. The default position of every human being is atheism. You are Taught a religion. You aren't born with it in your blood cells. It isn't part of your genetic makeup. You don't inherit a religion. You decide on what religion you will accept or reject. You are taught to believe something that isn't even demonstrable. You are taught to accept beliefs. Atheism simply rejects those beliefs and deals with facts as they relate to reality.YOU decide what to believe and what not to believe. That's called Freedom of Conscience which is what the first amendment is all about. In the creation of the nation state, our founders did in fact, leave their religion at the doors. The very fact that a Deist wrote the Declaration of Independence is proof of that.

"When Christmas was named a Federal Holiday, was that "legislating religion?"

That's a pretty dumb question. Of course it is. Isn't Christmas a Christian holiday?? I would assume that you agree that it is. If it was named as such through legislation, then we legislated religion. There is no way of denying that. It's pretty basic. Christmas IS a Christian holiday. If we named Ramadan as a Federal holiday we would be legislating religion. If we claimed it as such through legislation, then we legislated religion. Or perhaps you are denying that Christmas is a Christian holiday. Is that what you're suggesting/?

"But this is true of all groups if you replace your words "religious views" with "world view."

But we aren't. You are. My world view has nothing to do with religion. You're simply attempting to conflate the two to serve your own purposes. Your religion may have an effect on your world view, but it isn't required for it. You probably can't imagine that since your religion is so vital to you. But it isn't for others.

"To claim that only the world view devoid of God is legitimate when it comes to politics is ridiculous"

I never made that claim. You're building another Straw Man. I'm saying that ones "world view" doesn't depend on religion for it's position. The point of any world view is that it must have a way of justifying why it's true. But what makes it rational? You can't do that with yours. I don't try to, or have to do it with mine. Because mine is always open to criticism. I have no ideology or theory of rationality that needs to be defended. You do. And unfortunately you cannot demonstrate the truth of yours. Whenever you try, you fall into the dilemma of infinite regress vs. your dogma, OR...circular reasoning. What makes a world view rational is not that it can be justified, but that it can be criticized. Scientific knowledge cannot, and need not, be justified at all and we say that it is rational not because we have justified it, but because we can criticize it. That's because somebody who lived about 300 years before you named David Hume, came up with a logical and philosophical problem called the Problem of Induction. Hume then argued that the attempt to ground our scientific knowledge upon sense experience leads to irrationalism. Hume pointed out that there is no ‘middle term’ that allows us to validly infer future events from past experiences, and that such inductive inferences provide only psychological, as opposed to rational, justification through custom and habit. That problem plagued philosophers for several centuries until Popper redefined the problem. It wasn't justification that made our science rational. It was our ability to criticize it that made it rational. Those subjects that fell outside the bounds of criticism were not scientific. They were metaphysical and never demonstrable. They couldn't be falsified or verified. Religion is one of those things. There is no rational justification for it. It's not open to criticism since it relies on things outside of physical nature. It's Metaphysical. Therefore, there is no rational justification for basing any legislation on religious views. Our founders lived at the time of David Hume and certainly were aware of him as well as Descarte and shaped this country under the philosophical views of the time. They certainly determined that this would NOT be a religious state. Those already existed in Europe and they did not set out to replicate something that wasn't working in other places. This is understood by people that you don't like, but fortunately I think it's the majority view in this country.


Lone Ranger 4 years ago

You are a talented writer, James, and it is always a pleasure to read your work.

I, however, see our founding fathers in a different light. A high percentage of our founding fathers were Free Masons at the signing of the Declaration of Independence and U.S Constitution or became Free Masons shortly thereafter.

And, as you know, Free Masonry is a society with many secrets and most of their doctrines and tenets are either Luciferian in name or by practice, which, of course, runs contrary to the Christian perspective and Biblical ideal.

It is also my contention that America is a bastion and safe haven for Free Masonic enterprise, with over 80% of the world's Free Masons living right here (over 5,000,000).

The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by the Free Masonic president, George Washington, and unanimously signed by Congress in 1797, was a guarantee to the Muslim King of (present day Algeria) that America was "NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION"!!!

The New World Order is being launched from the shores of the United States. The New World Order may not be an American invention, but the U.S.A. is being used as the catalyst to bring the world under the thumb of the New World Order and America is little more than a Free Masonic base camp and training ground. The American people are just cash cows who supply these Luciferian secret societies with an abundance of cash and military might.

Please be careful, James, because things are rarely what they seem to be and sometimes the Devil parades around as an Angel of light. What better way to conceal oneself than work one's dastardly deeds under the guise of a "Christian" nation.

Best wishes - L.R.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"Of all the thousands of people I have met who believe in this orthodox definition of what a Christian is, only a handful are Liberals. How could they be when the Liberal agenda is to subvert the teachings of the Bible, banish Christians from the public square, kill babies, promote sin and rebellion, and eventually vanquish the Christian Faith to replace it with a religion of man—Secular Humanism?"

I'd advise you not to try to use Appeals to Faith in an argument with me or anybody else if you hope to make your case. It simply amounts to preaching and nobody is going to take you seriously with regards to anything logical or rational. I mean just take this statement for example: "banish Christians from the public square". Nobody has banished you from the public square. If you're a Christian go down to your public square tonight. Walk around it. Pray if you must. Then let me know if a cop comes up and tells you to leave because you're a Christian(ist). And you are a Christianist.[A member of the Christian faith who seeks to use a religion of peace and tolerance for political and personal gain.]" Your desperate plea for attention in the public square is exactly that. Using your religion for political and personal gain. Your complaints have nothing to do with being a Christian, and everything to do with parading your religion in the public square for political recognition. Nobody ever hears this crap from Buddhists or Jews, or Muslims or Hindu's. Only you guys who are "Oh so persecuted" despite the fact that you have a church on every street corner, your own radio stations and TV networks. Save your preaching for somebody who actually gives a crap. I mean...just look at this garbage, " promote sin and rebellion, and eventually vanquish the Christian Faith to replace it with a religion of man—Secular Humanism?" Really??? You take yourself way too seriously. Your idea of "sin" is based on your religion and your values. In case you didn't know it, not everybody shares either one. If a person decides that they want to be a secular humanist, what is it to you?? Does that threaten you in some way?? What a sick bunch you guys are.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"If 99 percent of the people are represented by Democrats then it is obvious every election everywhere at all times would be won by Democrats. 1 percent cannot vote anybody into office."

Not true. Too many people continually vote against their own interests. You assume that the electorate is really well informed about the conditions that effect their lives. That's truly laughable. People are inundated with advertising and radio and TV propaganda on a daily basis and it's so much easier to believe what you're told than to do the hard work of sifting through the crap. And if you don't believe that's true, then you might consider the fact that an entire Billion dollar industry of advertising exists to convince you of what soap to buy or what car you should drive or what politician to vote for. And it works or they wouldn't exist. The entire cottage industry of motivational speakers wouldn't exist. Newt Gingrich is suffering from the results of the so-called "Americans United" decision from the right wing Supreme Court. Millions of dollars are now flooding into campaigns to convince the public that somebody is a scumbag or..conversely, a saint. Gingrich soared in the polls for about 2 weeks. Now, he's practically finished because of a bombardment of advertising that has destroyed him. Frankly, I think he deserved it, but nevertheless...that is the power of advertising and the media.

The 99% includes ALL the people that aren't Mitt Romney who by the way, doesn't want to show us his tax returns. I suspect with very good reason. This is a guy that calls for cutting taxes. He IS Mr.1%. If the public saw that he paid hardly any taxes at all, and you add that to pictures of him with money coming out of his ears...it's a little hard for him to convince the electorate that he's "one of us". You know, just a regular guy. He has no clue about what the middle class is all about, and that would be too obvious.

"Only 11 percent of all Americans belong to labor unions."

That's completely irrelevant. The members of labor unions are themselves part of the middle class. Whether the middle class are in the unions or not isn't the point.

"That is not representative of the "middle class." Is not the Middle Class considered, in general terms, to be the 60 percent of Americans that are neither in the top nor bottom quintile?"

No. You're living in some fantasy land. The middle class is disappearing. Poverty has increase in this country. It's eroding the middle class. They are losing everything that made them middle class. At the very same time, the top 1% has increased it's wealth by almost 300%. Where do you think that increase is coming from?? Wages in this country have been stagnant for the past 30 years, while wealth has increased disproportionately. I can show you this. Over the past 20 years the salaries of corporate executives have grown by a factor of more than 10. In 1982 the average corporate executive was paid about 42 times the salary of the average employee. In 2002 that figure had increased to 500 times the compensation of the average employee. http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/american_in...

"Unions are a Marxist idea. Marx said, "Workers of the world unite!" Unite to do what? To overthrow democracy, capitalism, and Christianity. Marx said, "Unions are the first step to Communism."

You are presenting yourself as a simpleton. Unions are NOT a Marxist idea. Marx published Das Kapital in 1867. He began writing on Dialectical Materialism in 1843.

However, Primitive unions, or guilds, of carpenters and cordwainers, cabinet makers and cobblers made their appearance, often temporary, in various cities along the Atlantic seaboard of colonial America. Workers played a significant role in the struggle for independence; carpenters disguised as Mohawk Indians were the "host" group at the Boston Tea Party in 1773. The Continental Congress met in Carpenters Hall in Philadelphia, and there the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. In "pursuit of happiness" through shorter hours and higher pay, printers were the first to go on strike, in New York in 1794; cabinet makers struck in 1796; carpenters in Philadelphia in 1797; cordwainers in 1799. In the early years of the 19th century, recorded efforts by unions to improve the workers' conditions, through either negotiation or strike action, became more frequent. So...how is it that these unions could have existed before Marx was even born if they are a "Marxist Idea?" Can you enlighten us on that?? By the 1820s, various unions involved in the effort to reduce the working day from 12 to 10 hours began to show interest in the idea of federation-of joining together in pursuit of common objectives for working people.

Aside from all of that, why would you disparage any idea from Marx when you live by his ideas everyday?? You're an Economic Reductionist. You subscribe to Historicism. It's obvious from the very fact of this Article. His Historicism is also called Economism. Bet you didn't know that. It's because Marx, in opposition to Hegel,contended

that the clue to history, even to the history of ideas, is to be found in the development of the relations between man and his natural environment, the material world; that is to say, in his economic life, and not in

his spiritual life. The term economism describes “the claim that the economic organization of society, the organization of our exchange of matter with nature, is fundamental for all social institutions and especially for their historical development. It is important, however, to understand that economism is not peculiar to Marx, and that it is entirely consistent with a freemarket approach to economics.

Economism, is not a theory in economics. It is the

philosophical stance that economic facts, interests, and goals are the facts, interests, and goals that should matter most when it comes to policy decisions. This philosophical stance is often bolstered by the claim that economics is a science, and that its theories and predictions have the cognitive authority that only a science can have.

The most obvious proponents of economism are economic reductionists, who believe that all facts, interests, and goals can ultimately be defined in economic terms or, in other words, that economic facts, interests, and goals are the only ones that really exist. Marx is probably the best-known proponent of this view, and the prevalence

of economism in contemporary thought is undoubtedly due to his in?uence. But Hayek, was ultimately a proponent of economism as well. And that means so is Ron Paul who is an advocate of the Vienna School of Economists of which Hayek is the most notable, as well as Paul Ryan, and just about the entire Conservative fold that exists in today's America that adheres to the idea of economism.

The clear logical and philosophical problem here and what is, perhaps, more to the point is that Hayek held that freedom is important ?rst and foremost for its economic consequences. This is the hallmark of the economic recutionism of conservatives in America. Freedom brings wealth. Karl Popper on the other hand, thought that

it was wrong to base the rejection of tyranny on economic arguments. Hayek was ready to sacri?ce individual freedom and to adopt a form of totalitarianism, if his analysis of the economic consequences of socialism proved wrong.

The difference in their priorities is striking. What is at issue between them ( as well as you and I ) is the relative value of freedom and economic prosperity. It is a matter of priority, or what comes ?rst. The question is whether we should value freedom because freedom is valuable or because it is profitable; whether we should regard it as an end in itself that is valuable for its own sake, or as a means to economic prosperity that

we may dispense with if and when it no longer works to achieve its end.

Hayek thought that individual freedom is valuable for its economic consequences, and that its economic consequences are valuable for human survival. Many people, since Darwin, have accepted the idea that

valuing something for


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

" I took the time to reread this article that I published. I think the article itself is great, if I do say so myself. I believe every word of it rings true."

LOL...how subjective of you. Reviewing your own article and proclaiming its "greatness". I'm sure that you "believe" that every word rings true, the problem is that you cannot demonstrate how it is. If you could, then we wouldn't be debating the subject now would we? It would be demonstrably true. Now that we've cleared up that little issue, lets see what you have to say now in your defense of your greatness.

"I disagree with this entire premise. If you have to show identification to cash a check or board an airplane or legally drive an autumobile; why on earth shouldn't you have to prove who you are to exercise a far more important right: to vote?"

Because your right to vote IS far more important than those things you mention. And because none of those things are Rights. They are privileges granted to you by either the owner of a private business or the state. You have no legal right to drive a car. Driving a car is a privilege. Your license can be suspended can it not? That privilege can be taken from you. You can be denied access to flying on a plane at the discretion of the airline. You can be denied check cashing privileges. You have no RIGHT to any of that stuff. Your rights cannot be suspended. They are inalienable. You have a Right to vote. Ever hear of the Voting Rights Act? It was implemented to insure that people like you could not interfere with the RIGHTS of others when it came time to vote. Poll Taxes were unconstitutional. There is no such thing relating to privileges that you are granted by others. As long as you aren't discriminating against a persons race or religion or gender or age you can deny a person access to a service or a privilege based on their behavior which may be deemed disruptive or threatening to others. Do you understand the difference between a privilege and a right?? Apparently not.

"What is really happening here is that the Left wants to continue its habitual voter fraud."

There is no voter fraud. Other than the attempts at electronic fraud committed by the Right. The amount of voter fraud that you seem to suggest amounts to nothing. A recent study by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice found just seven cases of voter fraud out of three million votes cast in Wisconsin during the 2004 election, a fraud rate of 0.0002 percent. All seven of these cases involved persons with felony convictions who weren’t eligible to vote after being released from prison. Research has found that voters are 39 times more likely to be struck by lightning than commit voter fraud at the polls, and 3,500 times more likely to report a UFO encounter. And based on these findings, you would disenfranchise millions of people from voting?? I've heard of throwing out the baby with the bathwater but true to form, Wingnuts always go to extremes in pushing their absurd ideas.

For some real voter fraud, check out this: Computer Programmer Testimony He Was Requested to Write Code to Rig U.S. Elections. "US elections, rigged and computer code," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7R1_ixtlyc.

Clinton Eugene Curtis, a computer programmer from Florida, testified before a congressional panel that there are computer programs that can be used to secretly fix elections. He explains how he created a prototype for Florida Congressman Tom Feeny that would flip the vote 51%-49% in favor of a specified candidate. (Tom Feeny is a Republican from Florida.)Mr Curtis goes on to name US Representatives who attempted to pay him to rig their election vote counts.

Despite your "belief" that your article is filled with greatness, you exhibit the self-congratulatory symptoms of a real wingnut, that is supremely full of himself. You lack any degree of critical thinking. You post "stuff" without ever thinking beyond your surface claims which when held under a microscope amount to...nothing but wind.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— In 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President of the United States of America—the head of the federal government, which according to the anti-Christ must be non-religious, spoke to America with a radio address in which he said: "My fellow Americans . . . I ask you to join with me in prayer." [To whom you might ask?] To "Almighty God" FDR said. What!! How dare he!? A schoolteacher would be imprisoned for such a violation of the Constitution.

President Roosevelt asked the nation to pray with him to God. But to pray for what? "Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization . . . Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith. They will need Thy blessings." Now wait a minute—is he addressing Buddha or Allah or some Hindu deity or some plant or mysterious unidentifiable spiritual force here? When he says "to preserve our Republic, our religion, our civilization" I wonder to what he refers?

He goes on: "Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom. . . . And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas -- whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice." FATHER!? He can't say that! It must be a violation of the Wall of Separation of Church and State.

FDR adds: "Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts. . . . And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee"

By now the anti-Christ is apoplectic. "O Lord give us Faith in Thee!?" He should have been shot on the spot. President Barack Obama recently had one of his officials, Robert Abbey, deliver an opinion to a Congressional committee last week that adding Franklin Roosevelt's D-Day prayer to the nation's World War II Memorial would "TARNISH THE ELEGANCE OF THE MEMORIAL AND HAMPER VISITORS FROM BEING MOVED, EDUCATED, AND INSPIRED BY THE MEMORIAL." [caps mine]

The secularist left, which Mr. Obama belongs, finds any prayer repugnant, but Roosevelt's D-Day prayer must be particularly galling. A public prayer by the nation's chief executive that so clearly calls for a military victory over an enemy... that just doesn't fit with the left's indoctrination of today's Americans. A high school football coach praying out loud over the radio even just that nobody on his team gets hurt tonight would get him fired and fined. He has a much smaller set of rights to freely exercise his religion apparently.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— The core principle of America is that individual rights come from God. The idea of the Founding Fathers was that Church and State were separate entities but working toward the same goal: virtuous citizens, a moral people, civic virtue, an orderly and peaceful society. The Progressive take on this is the opposite. The Progressives are so anti-Christ that they see the State and the Church working at cross-purposes to each other.

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

I find it ironic that Thomas Jefferson wrote these words but you would have us believe that he would approve of a school teacher being thrown in jail for saying them to students.

I find it odd that the Ten Commandments are on the wall of the Supreme Court and on the floor of the National Archives but any new display of them anywhere in America on public land brings a lawsuit from the ACLU. Doesn't it seem that since the federal Congress could not establish a federal religion that perhaps the federal government should have been the entity prohibited from displaying the Ten Commandments, not some little municipality in Iowa?

At the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin said, " I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men." I find it strange that if a school principle said these same words he could be arrested.

George Washington said: "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Would you protest a school teacher repeating these words?

"Laus Deo"—Praise be to God—is inscribed on the Washington Monument, which was built with public funds and sits on public land. If a small town in Idaho wanted to replicate it tomorrow with public money on public land, would you object?

At the inauguration of our first American President, he requested to say his oath on a Bible that he later kissed in front of the audience. He wanted to say his oath with his hand placed on a specific verse, Deuteronomy 28: “Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the Lord your God will set you high above all nations of the earth." Do you think it should be against the law to repeat these words in a classroom? Do you think George Washington would think it was illegal according to the Constitution he swore to uphold?

On Dec. 3, 1803, the U.S. Congress, following the request of President Jefferson, ratified a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians. This treaty was significant because Congress voted to provide federal funds for the support of a priest during a seven-year period. That priest, as the Congress noted, was to perform "the duties of his office, and ... instruct as many ... children as possible." The treaty, signed by President Jefferson, stated: "The United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist ... in the erection of a church." So, the U.S. Congress of 1803, at the request of President Thomas Jefferson, allocated federal funds for the salary of a minister and for the construction of a church. The Congress of 1803 was not hostile to Christianity. The members understood the value of imparting Judeo-Christian values. This makes me wonder how any intelligent person could think that Thomas Jefferson would favor anti-Christ undertakings in America. It is Jefferson whom the godless generally cite as their hero among the Founding Fathers.

Thomas Jefferson would not approve of being used by Atheists. On the Christian Faith, he said his views " are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions."

The forces of the anti-Christ would have us believe that the Danbury Baptist Church was plotting a takeover of the federal government and therefore Thomas Jefferson had to warn them off. These forces take their cue from one of their prophets, Saul Alinsky. And who was his hero? "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history, the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer." How will Lucifer work his magic to destroy the United States? Alinsky says, "Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future." But what is it Alinsky was against? "Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class."

Thomas Jefferson wrote: " God, who gave us life, gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are a gift of God?" I think you guys need a different hero.

George Washington said: "The man must be bad indeed who can look upon the events of the American Revolution without feeling the warmest gratitude toward the great Author of the Universe whose divine interposition was so frequently manifested in our behalf." BAD INDEED. I agree with George, the Father of our country.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— You write: "the point at which it made that clear is that the United States is NOT a Christian Nation."

This is simply not so. It made clear that the United States is not officially a Christian State, meaning its government, as were most European States. Everyone at the time knew America was a Christian Nation (in the true meaning of the word "nation").

You write: "they were smart enough to realize that if the new nation were to have religious freedom, they had to leave their religious convictions at the door. They couldn't legislate them without removing the very religious freedom they sought. What you seek is religious tyranny."

Nobody leaves their world view "at the door" when they vote are take public office. It goes with them wherever they go. Does an Atheist have to leave his world view "at the door" or only Christians?

I do not seek religious tyranny, unless you consider the history of the United States from 1774 to 1964 to be a State of Religious Tyranny. I am not saying religious belief should be legislated, nor do I know anybody that does. When Christmas was named a Federal Holiday, was that "legislating religion?"

You write: "There's even a voting bloc that calls itself Christian Conservatives. The Religious Right. It's because their religious views and their political views have merged into one."

But this is true of all groups if you replace your words "religious views" with "world view." Everybody has a world view that frames how they see life and the world, and therefore how they see political issues. To claim that only the world view devoid of God is legitimate when it comes to politics is ridiculous. Though that was the view of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— You write: "You might find it enlightening to know that there are a whole lot of liberals that happen to be Christians. And they detest what you're doing to their religion. You aren't a Christian. You're a Christianist.

[A member of the Christian faith who seeks to use a religion of peace and tolerance for political and personal gain.]"

The most common definition of a Christian is: A person who believes Jesus is Christ.

This means a person who believes that Jesus was God Incarnate; that He performed supernatural miracles (no surprise since He Himself was a supernatural person); that He was born of a Virgin; that He is the example that human beings should emulate as best they can; that He sacrificed Himself on the cross as an Atonement; that He was resurrected from the Dead; that by believing Jesus is the Christ, along with repentance for our sins (meaning contrition and changing our ways), we are forgiven by God and will live eternally. Those who reject this free gift (Grace) will be burned up after Judgment Day and be no more.

Of all the thousands of people I have met who believe in this orthodox definition of what a Christian is, only a handful are Liberals. How could they be when the Liberal agenda is to subvert the teachings of the Bible, banish Christians from the public square, kill babies, promote sin and rebellion, and eventually vanquish the Christian Faith to replace it with a religion of man—Secular Humanism?


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— "The Middle Class consistently supports Republicans" is a true statement.

You respond with: "LMAO....no they don't you moron. They hate Repukes. They know that the Repugs are all about the 1%. The Dems stand with the 99%. The middle class. Labor. Unions. . . . Labor is what makes up the middle class."

If 99 percent of the people are represented by Democrats then it is obvious every election everywhere at all times would be won by Democrats. 1 percent cannot vote anybody into office.

Only 11 percent of all Americans belong to labor unions. That is not representative of the "middle class." Is not the Middle Class considered, in general terms, to be the 60 percent of Americans that are neither in the top nor bottom quintile?

You write, laughingly: "It's all those rich liberals that sent Obama to the White House. lmao"

The 6 percent of Americans who earn more than $200,000 voted for Obama 52-46. Of those worth more than $30 million, two-thirds supported Sen. Obama in his run for the presidency. Not only that, but Wall Street and Corporate America gave far more money to Obama's campaign. Yet the Left continues its propaganda that rich folks, Corporate America, and Wall Street are Republicans.

The most dependable voters for Democrats are: Marxists; Atheists; "spiritual" people who reject the Creator God of the Holy Bible; people addicted to licentiousness and hedonism; sexual deviants; people who are nihilists; people who are anti-Christ; people who hate America; people who favor "Central Planning" and "Collectivism;" people who never intend to work for a living; people who believe other people owe them a comfortable life out of the fruit of their labors simply because they are breathing; people who have no intention of contributing anything to the world.

I am not saying these are your only voters. I am saying these are your most dependable voters—your core constituency. I doubt that more than 1 percent of any of these groups of people will ever vote for a Conservative candidate for public office.

Unions are a Marxist idea. Marx said, "Workers of the world unite!" Unite to do what? To overthrow democracy, capitalism, and Christianity. Marx said, "Unions are the first step to Communism."

Closed Shop states are not growing jobs. Right to Work states are. What should be more basic than a "right to Work"? Companies that are newly unionized show zero job growth. A Closed Shop Union is a monopoly on labor that primarily protects the worst workers. A solid, productive worker never has need of a labor union.

Being from Michigan, I have personal experience with labor unions:

http://hubpages.com/education/Unions-killed-Michig...


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— I took the time to reread this article that I published. I think the article itself is great, if I do say so myself. I believe every word of it rings true.

You claim that: "If we could survive attempts by people like you to limit voting rights, and destroy democracy, we can probably survive anything. BTW..the Justice Dept just revoked South Carolina's voter ID law on discrimination grounds. As expected it discriminates against minorities."

I disagree with this entire premise. If you have to show identification to cash a check or board an airplane or legally drive an autumobile; why on earth shouldn't you have to prove who you are to exercise a far more important right: to vote? Having to show ID destroys democracy? Preposterous. I fail to see how this discriminates against minorities. Why would a "minority" be less apt to carry identification? Does having to have ID to cash a check, drive a car, or board an airplane discriminate against minorities?

What is really happening here is that the Left wants to continue its habitual voter fraud. Whenever you hear of voter fraud it is from the Left. ACORN registering Mickey Mouse to vote; the Democratic Machine having dead voters on the rolls and people voting multiple times; giving out crack to the homeless for their votes; busing in severely mentally handicapped people and pressing the levers for them.


adagio4639 4 years ago

"The Left is dictatorial, authoritarian, and totalitarian."

Except when you live in Michigan I guess. Or when you try to eliminate the separation of church and state. Or when you try to dictate to women what they can do with their own bodies. Or when you try to have government legislate against things like birth control. I could go on, but it would go over your head.

"You also make the absurd claim the conservatives have no "guts""

They don't. They're afraid of their own shadows. F.A. Hayek wrote an essay titled "Why I'm not a Conservative". In it he said this: "“As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. The conservatives are inclined to use the

powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about. The conservative feels safe and content only if he is

assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change “orderly.” ( The sheep in the corral ). And that's from the guy that conservative ideologue Mark Levin loves to quote. Levin doesn't even understand that Hayek would have nothing to do with his ideology.

A conservative is authoritarian by nature and his entire ideology is an appeal to authority. His very acceptance of a theory of rationality such as conservative ideology is an appeal to authority. Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true. So not only are they timid, they're hopelessly illogical.

Hayek adds : “This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither

understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-operating, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern advocates, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal.

The conservative lives on, and in fear. No guts. Don't believe me? Ask Hayek.

"You write: "the middle class trusts him and despises the Republicans." You ignoramus! The Middle Class consistently supports Republicans."

LMAO....no they don't you moron. They hate Repukes. They know that the Repugs are all about the 1%. The Dems stand with the 99%. The middle class. Labor. Unions. Look how they overturned the right wing agenda in Ohio. Look at the re-call in Wisconsin. The middle class is witnessing it's own destruction. They can see what class warfare is really all about. It's war waged on them. It's more class genocide. The middle class is being destroyed by Republicans and they know it. Repugs have always favored business over labor and labor is what makes up the middle class.

" The support for Democrats comes from rich liberals who suffer from White Guilt Syndrome and poor folks who are government-dependent for their crack money."

Oh yeah. That's it. It's all those rich liberals that sent Obama to the White House. lmao. And of course it must be government Dependent crack heads. Yeah that's it. Must be. I mean this conservative idiot said it so it must be true. This is exactly why you lost the election and why you'll lose next Nov. You alienate everyone that isn't an uptight Whitey. Who wants to be associated with a bunch of bigots?? You're completely out of touch. You stereotype everyone into these neat little catagories. Everyone that votes Democrat must be a crack head and dependent on the government. That's the world you live in. Totally out of touch with school teachers, cops, firemen, sanitation workers, labor in general. Everyday people. You think they're all crackheads on government welfare. What a little world you live in.

"And of course the homos, the felons, illegal aliens, and other assorted people who hate America and hate Jesus."

Oh man. I hardly need to say anything. You say it all and prove my point with each comment. You're a bigot. Homo's? Felons? Illegal aliens? and of course other assorted flotsam who hate America and lets not leave out Jesus. LMFAO...Get a clue junior. We don't hate America. We hate what people like are trying to do to it. As for Jesus, nobody hates Jesus that I'm aware of. We just don't throw Jesus in everyone's face. We leave the Tebowing to people like you. You might find it enlightening to know that there are a whole lot of liberals that happen to be Christians. And they detest what you're doing to their religion. You aren't a Christian. You're a Christianist. You practice Christianism. That's a bit different than Christianity. Figure it out if you can. Fundamentalism is a dangerous thing at home and abroad.

"You are the only tea-bagger in this room."

Oh really?? I don't think they'd agree with you. I can spell. Nobody's ever confused me with a Teabagger. Until now. I think you probably need a break. You're losing it.

"If you are right, America will be gone within a decade to be replaced by a totalitarian atheist Marxist state that hunts down and kills Christians"

Who told you that? Glenn Beck?? hehe. You just validated my statement that conservatives live in fear. You actually think we care enough about you to hunt you down and kill you?? We have something worse in mind for you. We'll ignore you. That's a fate worse then death. But seriously, what you're showing here is just how irrational you actually are. This country has survived over 230 years of turmoil. It survived Nixon. It survived Bush II. And most notably it survived the traitor Cheney. I have more faith in my country than what you are showing. If we could survive attempts by people like you to limit voting rights, and destroy democracy, we can probably survive anything. BTW..the Justice Dept just revoked South Carolina's voter ID law on discrimination grounds. As expected it discriminates against minorities. Sorry. Foiled again I guess.

" I think there are still enough Americans who love their country and see the Truth and love what is good, right, true, and virtuous to stop your evil juggernaught."

There are. And they hate what you're trying to do to it. They've taken to the streets and demanded redress of their grievances. You know...that first Amendment thing. They're protesting YOU and you're evil ways pal. As I pointed out before, you don't know the Truth. I don't think you ever will. You're too indoctrinated into your theory of rationality. We tend to pity you.

"Jesus Christ said, " the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth." To which adagio sneered, "Truth! What is truth?"

Nice try sonny, but Adagio never said that. And quoting Jesus or the Bible isn't going to win you an argument with me. You're trying to use the Bible as your weapon. Unfortunately the Bible won't work. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.


adagio4639 4 years ago

"Conservative philosophy believes in individual freedom."

LMAO...who told you that one? You know very little about your own ideology. Do you know that the father of conservatism is Edmund Burke? I have to assume that you know that much. Ok... then reconcile this for us. Burke said this; ""Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom. Among these wants is to be reckoned the want out of civil society, of a sufficient restraint upon their passions." We have a right to be restrained, a very different notion than a right to create things over which we have authority, a right to be restrained.

He went on to say,

"Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individuals, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can only be done by a power out of themselves, and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will and to those passions which it is its office to bridle and subdue. In this sense the restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights."

"The restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights. So we have a right to be restrained." We have a right, most importantly, that others are going to be restrained, and that our passion should be controlled is something that he insists is an important part of what we should think of under the general heading of what it is that people have rights to.

And conservatives embrace this restriction to our rights of Freedom. They cling to their institutions like a child clings to it's teddy bear or sucks on its pacifier.

For Locke, we never lose the right to revolution if society doesn't protect us, and that's what he thought was triggered in 1688. Burke says no. "He advocates all right to be his own governor. He inclusively, in a great measure, abandons the right of self-defense, the first law of nature. Men cannot enjoy the rights of an uncivil and of a civil state together. That he may obtain justice, he gives up his right of determining what it is in points the most essential to him. That he may secure some liberty; he makes a surrender in trust of the whole of it."

This, to some extent, has a Hobbesian flavor that Hobbes says, "If we don't have law we'll have civil war, and so we have to give up freedom to authority." The difference is even in Hobbes's formulation there's ultimately the recognition that if society does not provide you with protection you have a reasonable basis for resistance and for overthrowing it. But in Burke's case he doesn't want to concede even that. Because we cannot, once we've made the transition into civil society, we cannot go back. There is no turning back. We are part and parcel of this system of entailed inheritances and that is the human condition all the way to the bottom. It's about Preserving an institution regardless of the damage that institution brings be it slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, or whatever the conservative feels needs protecting. And they will do it to the extent of fighting a Civil War over it, or blocking the entrance to a school house.

Burke says "He says, "Once we see that this social contract is multi-generational between the dead, the living, and those who are yet to be born, who are you (any given individual), who are you to think that you can upend it? What gives you the right to pull the rug out from under this centuries-old evolving social contract? What gives you the right to take it away from those who haven't even been born who are part of this (he even uses the word eternal) eternally reproducing social contract."

So society is not subordinate to the individual, which is the most rock-bottom commitment of the workmanship idea, and the basis of the Enlightenment. On the contrary, the individual is subordinate to society. Obligations come before rights. We only get rights as a consequence of the social arrangements that give us our duties as well. So whereas the Enlightenment tradition makes the individual agent the sort of moral center of the universe, this god-like individual creating things over which she or he has absolute sovereign control, is replaced by the exact mirror image of the idea of an individual as subordinate to inherited communities, traditions, social arrangements, and political institutions to which he or she is ultimately beholden. That is the Conservative Ideology in a nutshell. It was laid out by Edmund Burke and regurgitated by Russell Kirk in 1953, adopted by Ronald Reagan, Bill Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and of course today is being polluted with the infusion of Ayn Rand comic book Identity Philosophy. It's an ideology that was in complete opposition to the Enlightenment and Liberal Democracy. This is why conservatives hate democracy so much. Burke was a monarchist and an aristocrat and it's the model for all conservatives today. Except they take it even farther right into a totalitarianism that is more in line with Fascism and bears no resemblance to the philosophy of Jefferson or Madison. They despise Democracy. They hate the idea of allowing people to vote. The opposed getting rid of slavery, they opposed child labor laws, they opposed a womans right to vote, they opposed civil rights. They're really a disgusting group of people.


adagio4639 4 years ago

"No this is false. I have studied world religions and the ideas of Atheists and Agnostics; I have spent a lifetime studying political systems and world history. I read the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica when I was a teenager—from A to Z. You don't know shit from shinola."

You're attempting to justify your position by telling me about all the things you studied, which nobody can actually know if anything you're claiming is true. However, If any of that were true, you didn't learn much. Everything you rely on is bullshit. Take this statement from YOU. " I do not believe what anybody tells me. ( that's a false statement. You believe what the Bible tells you. You even resorted to it when you cited the destruction of Sodom, from Genesis. You actually toss this out to justify your anti-gay position, but you ignore the part in which Lot engages in incest which apparently is fine with you. You apparently think that the Old Testement is true. You think that this makes sense:

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night: and the evening and the morning were the first day.

But the sun and moon aren't created until later;

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night: and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.

1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also. 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth.

1:18 And to rule over the day, and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it [was] good.

So..light is created before the sun?? The cart before the horse?? How does light happen without a source? How does a day happen before the sun and moon are in place to measure what a day actually is?

So don't tell me that you don't believe what you're told when it's obvious that you do from your own mouth. You simply lie when you do that. If you don't believe what you're told, why would you use Biblical reference to support your anti-gay attitude? You were told that. You didn't invent a rational reason for your view.

I have sought the Truth for myself." More Crap! Do you think that truth is subjective? That makes you a relativist. Your approach to finding truth is through an inductive argument. That will NEVER get you there. EVER. You can't own it. You can only hope to acquire it incrementally. It's too huge to own. It requires Deductive reasoning in order to get a glimpse of it. If the premises are true, then the conclusion is always Infallibly true. You've adopted a theory of rationality in hopes to find it. It's your conclusion that Christianity will provide it for you. You fail when it comes to Critical thinking. You never turned that inward to examine your own beliefs.

You say this. "I grew up in the sixties too; I know all about hippies and Eastern religions; I lived in a Commune; I have read thousands of books of all persuasions. Through much study, conversation, thought, and reflection, I have gradually come to the conclusion that I believe the Christian Message—the Good News—the Gospel. Not because I am blind but because I see." How does anybody know that what you're saying is true? Just because you say it?? If that is True; and we know that you are all interested in Truth, then tell me what your conclusion was based on? Surely you can do that since you gave it so much thought and consideration over such a long period of time. What made you conclude that a belief system that cannot be demonstrated as being true, is something that you base your life on?

"I suppose I am Conservative politically—or even Libertarian. Not because somebody someone told me I ought to be. You presume to know me."

I don't presume to know you at all. What I know is from what you write, and I presume that you mean what you say. However you seem to think that you know me since you call a host of things and ascribe an assortment of ideologies such as Marxist all the time. I suppose I could simply call you a fascist, but I prefer to avoid that kind of crap. It adds nothing to the argument which is over ideas. To me, that shows me that you haven't a clue about me. I don't subscribe to ideologies of any sort. You do. You just called yourself a conservative/libertarian. That's an ideological position with an entire doctrine that it follows. So...not only do you subscribe to a religious ideology and its theory of rationality, You're probably enamored with the likes of Edmund Burke, perhaps Russell Kirk, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul. That's your orientation by your own description. I follow no ideology. NONE! Each decision I make is decided on via logic or reason. Not doctrine. I see each Republican candidate trying to Out-conservative the next guy. It's all about how many conservative credentials you can present. It's not about anything that's reasoned or rational or logical. It's about following in lock step with the doctrine. It's so ridiculous. There's even a voting bloc that calls itself Christian Conservatives. The Religious Right. It's because their religious views and their political views have merged into one. Neither one can demonstrate why it's the least bit rational. What justify's being locked into this kind of ideological position??


adagio4639 4 years ago

"Like a true Marxist you continue to spout nonsense despite hard evidence. You follow Marx in claiming a few people hold all the power in the United States and all the wealth."

Marx has really nothing to do with this James. It's a fact that a small handful of people control all the power in the United States. And as for being a Marxist, it's actually you that has something in common with Marx which you don't even realize. You're an economic reductionist. Your entire argument on this thread is in support of something called "historicism". And you practice what is called economism.

Marx was criticized for his “historicism,” which is the belief that the course of history is predetermined by scienti?c laws. But Marx’s historicism is known as “economism,” since “Marx, in opposition to Hegel, contended that the clue to history, even to the history of ideas, is to be found in the development of the relations between man and his natural environment, the material world; that is to say, in his economic life, and not in his spiritual life.”

It's “the claim that the economic organization of society, the organization of our exchange of

matter with nature, is fundamental for all social institutions and especially for their historical development.”

It is important, however, to understand that economism is not peculiar to Marx, and that it is entirely consistent with a free-market approach to economics.

Economism, is not a theory in economics. It is the philosophical stance that economic facts, interests, and goals are the facts, interests, and goals that should matter most when it comes to policy decisions. This philosophical stance is often bolstered by the claim that economics is a science, and that its theories and predictions have the cognitive authority that only a science can have.

The most obvious proponents of economism are economic reductionists, who believe that all facts, interests, and goals can ultimately be defined in economic terms or,in other words, that economic facts, interests, and goals are the only ones that really exist. Marx is probably the best-known proponent of this view, and the prevalence of economism in contemporary thought is undoubtedly due to his in?uence. So you have a lot in common with Marx. You rely on historicism as your guide as did Marx. But Hayek, was ultimately a proponent of economism as well and so is Friedman.

Hayek argued that scienti?c study has shown that socialist economic theories and aims are both empirically and logically mistaken, and he said that the fact that the socialists were wrong about the eco-

nomic facts was crucial to his critique of socialism. But what is, perhaps, more to the point is that Hayek held that freedom is important ?rst and foremost for its economic consequences. Whereas a person like Popper thought that it was wrong to base the rejection of tyranny on economic arguments, Hayek was ready to sacri?ce individual freedom and to adopt a form

of totalitarianism if his analysis of the economic consequences of socialism proved wrong.

I hold that it is wrong to base the rejection of tyranny on economic arguments. What is at issue between Hayek and Popper, is the relative value of freedom and economic prosperity. It is a matter of priority, or what comes ?rst. The question is whether we should value freedom because freedom is valuable or because it is profitable or whether we should regard it as an end in itself that is valuable for its own sake, or as a means to economic prosperity that we may dispense with if and when it no longer works to achieve its end.

I contend that Freedom is an end in itself. You think that it's a means to an end, which is economic prosperity.


adagio4639 4 years ago

"The "dictator" now running the town was appointed not by Governor Snyder as your carpet-munching source for the news might have you believe."

"Carpet-munching"?? Wow man. You are a real genuine bigot aren't you?? You present slurs like this to bolster your case for removing a democratically elected government and installing a dictatorship, and lets not try to suggest it's anything other than that. This doesn't help your argument at all James. It just illustrates what kind of bigoted moron you actually are. Everything you write is a justification for Big Government takeover of the election process. No matter what you may think of the corruption of the town of Benton Harbor or the other towns that are now being taken over, it is through a modification of the law that you are talking about. This is NOT a law from 20 years ago. The bill, introduced by State Rep. Al Pscholka of Stevensville, Mich., in Feb of 2011, calls for more power to be given by state-appointed emergency financial managers, and was passed the Michigan House.

State Rep. Pscholka proposed the bill after actions taken by Benton Harbor, Mich.’s leadership to strip their EFM of power.

The proposed bill would give all financial authority to EFM's and dissolve the city commissions of communities in financial emergency.

The bill then went to the Michigan Senate.

Benton Harbor's commissioners have accused Pscholka of having no respect for their duties in their troubled city.

It's the Corporatization of Michigan.

Corporatization refers to the transformation of state assets or agencies into state-owned corporations in order to introduce corporate management techniques to their administration. Corporatization is sometimes a precursor to partial or full privatization, which almost always refers to a process by which formerly public assets or functions are sold or given to corporate entities by listing the shares of the state-owned corporation on publicly-traded stock exchanges.

This a very serious situation in Michigan. Democracy is being undermined. This is a very dangerous trend developing. Please share this post with as many people as possible. This my friends is what corporatization looks like.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder will cut aid to local towns and cities so drastically that he can then declare them in a state of fiscal emergency and then strip the local governments of their duly elected officials and inserting his own appointed financial managers with specific authority. His bill will authorize the emergency manager to reject, modify, or terminate the terms of existing contracts or collective bargaining agreements. It's easy to declare a town is in emergency. Just cut off funding to them, and then declare them in a financial emergency. Then you impose your corporate manager and bust all unions and lay off all workers. Done! Democracy in Michigan is over.

Because the bill establishes no process for how appointees can carry out their new powers and specifically lays out that Emergency Managers need not consult with a community’s elected representatives, some worry that corporate managers, appointed by the governor, could liquidate community assets to cover debt and leave towns no better off than they were. And that's exactly what is happening.

What's amazing is that while you oppose the Federal government of interceding on state matters, you have no problem with the state interceding on local community matters. If you are ok with the State Executive (Governor) imposing Emergency Managers on the local communities, do you have a problem with the Federal Executive (President) imposing Emergency Managers on the States?? If a state is under water is it ok for the Federal Government to take over the state?? And how is all of this consistent with your objection to Big Government? How exactly is this NOT an imposition of Big Government...the very thing you hate??


adagio4639 4 years ago

"I quoted two of the first Supreme Court Justices, four of the most important Founding Fathers, and 14 American Presidents. I quoted the U.S. Congress and the U.S Supreme Court. You come back with the preposterous idea that these men offer "mere opinions" while you, the great "adagio4639," offer Truth. Wow! You are really something."

Thank you. I take that as a compliment. I am capable of distinguishing between "opinion" and "fact". I don't allow personal feelings to influence that distinction. Personal feelings and truth are not the same thing. It's not an easy thing to do for many people. I realize that. You have to be able to criticize your own views. How many people hold their own views up to self-criticism? Most people don't, or won't do that. They follow the theories of rationality that they were given by their parents, their church, their schools. These wind up being the building blocks and foundations of their personality. What I always look for is the man that can set his own personal views aside and look for truth over his personal opinion. He can set aside his own greed or self interest or self-indulgence for the truth. That's why I'm not interested in the religious views of anybody. They can't be demonstrated as being true, so clearly they are all "based" upon something that requires justification. When you do that, you are merely kicking the can down the road to another basis which requires another justification. This is the problem of infinite regress and if a person is going to be honest with himself and with others, he needs to recognize that his beliefs cannot ultimately be justified. But they can be criticized. And criticism is a good thing. It's what you need in order to get closer to the truth, even if it means you find your ideas can't be justified. If truth matters to you, then you won't have a problem with putting your own views up to criticism. There are no sacred cows. There is only the Truth and everything else is bullshit. All views are open to criticism. Most religious people don't like doing this. They don't like their beliefs being challenged. You seem to take opinions as fact and the men that offered those opinions as infallible. Can you tell me, who is infallible?? All men are fallible, and that means that their views are prone to error. So instead of taking their words as "gospel" you should examine what they are based upon. Witness the Alien and Sedition Act signed by Adams. Also the Dred Scott Decision. Or the institution of slavery itself. We have made errors in our thinking over the course of time. The real beauty of this country is its ability to recognize it's mistakes and correct them. We aren't perfect. We didn't set out to create a Perfect Union, but a MORE perfect union. Our founders recognized that, even if you guys don't. Each time we make a stupid move you scream your heads off that we are apologizing for our mistakes. But a man, or a country that can't recognize it's mistakes is doomed to repeat them.


adagio4639 4 years ago

"adagio4639— I am well aware that John Quincy Adams was a mere boy when the Declaration of Independence was penned. I said he was there when America was founded and you weren't so just maybe he knew more about those years than you do."

Maybe?? Maybe he was just a boy who did what he was told. Maybe you should simply refer to others who actually WERE there (as in...involved??). Maybe his religious views prove nothing, since NOBODY's religious views can be proved. Maybe your grasping at straws, since his religious views have nothing to do with our law in the constitution.

" By the time the Constitution was ratified, Adams had graduated from Harvard Phi beta Kappa"

Very impressive, except that Harvard was the only college in MA at the time and the school his dad went to. The competition for getting into Harvard then is not quite the same thing as getting into it today. Especially when your father went there.

"The Treaty of Tripoli hardly stands equal to the Treaty of Paris in significance. The Treaty of Paris established America as a nation. The Treaty of Tripoli is a special case as it was a treaty with Muslims who had made war against Christians for 1200 years non-stop because they were Christians"

I'm afraid you're wrong about that. All treaties the United States enters into become LAW in this country. NO treaty has any more significance than any other. They are all law under the constitution. In fact, the Treaty of Paris took place before we had a constitution. What it did was end the war between England and the United States and its allies. Look it up. Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;". So...you are wrong once again. There is no law more Supreme than Supreme.

"What this clause of the treaty did was make it clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."

Of course, and the point at which it made that clear is that the United States is NOT a Christian Nation and therefore no cause for hostility on any religious basis. This is remarkable. You would actually attempt to dismiss the wording of the Treaty as insignificant when it's the primary point that is made in the clause. I'm afraid that isn't going to work.

You're referring to this? " It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution."

That may be true for the man of "Pious reflection". But it's an abstract and general statement. Not all men engage in "Pious reflection". It should also be noted that we don't govern according to the Federalist Papers. We govern according to the Constitution. What you don't seem to understand is that no matter what these men's personal views on religious matters might have been, they were smart enough to realize that if the new nation were to have religious freedom, they had to leave their religious convictions at the door. They couldn't legislate them without removing the very religious freedom they sought. What you seek is religious tyranny. Madison made certain that would not be the case in the first Amendment. And since you're offering up Madison's words, you might consider these: From Madison's Detached Memoranda

"The danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S. They have the noble merit of first unshackling the conscience from persecuting laws, and of establishing among religious Seas a legal equality. If some of the States have not embraced this just and this truly Xn principle in its proper latitude, all of them present examples by which the most enlightened States of the old world may be instructed; and there is one State at least, Virginia, where religious liberty is placed on its true foundation and is defined in its full latitude. The general principle is contained in her declaration of rights, prefixed to her Constitution: but it is unfolded and defined, in its precise extent, in the act of the Legislature, usually named the Religious Bill, which passed into a law in the year 1786. Here the separation between the authority of human laws, and the natural rights of Man excepted from the grant on which all political authority is founded, is traced as distinctly as words can admit, and the limits to this authority established with as much solemnity as the forms of legislation can express.

The law has the further advantage of having been the result of a formal appeal to the sense of the Community and a deliberate sanction of a vast majority, comprizing every sect of Christians in the State. This act is a true standard of Religious liberty: its principle the great barrier agst usurpations on the rights of conscience. As long as it is respected & no longer, these will be safe. Every provision for them short of this principle, will be found to leave crevices at least thro' which bigotry may introduce persecution; a monster, that feeding & thriving on its own venom, gradually swells to a size and strength overwhelming all laws divine & human.

Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions.

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.

It's a plea to all the states to incorporate the 1st Amendment's religious freedom clause into their state constitutions and cleanse each one from religious tyranny. In other words; be more like Virginia. It took a while, but it eventually happened.

"You claim that "the religious clause of the 1st Amendment separates church and state," but that is merely your erroneous opinion."

No it isn't. It's also Madison's opinion and he wrote the Amendment. It's very simple logic which I realize is a problem for you. Your own religious requirements can't accept it because it seeks and demands some kind of recognition over and above all other religions, but that doesn't deny the logic as real. You cannot have religious freedom without separating religion from Government. It's impossible. Madison knew that, even if you don't. Your own religious views are trying to override logic, but I'm afraid you'll lose on that. In fact, you have for many years now. You have no logical basis for your religion, and there is a logical basis for the Amendment. Since we desired a more rational form of government than anything that you might have in mind, logic and true common sense understood that religious freedom required it.

" It prohibits the Federal Government from interfering with the Free Exercise of Religion"

This is the argument from ignorance. The first Amendment doesn't say anything about the Free Exercise of Religion. What you're referring to is the second clause of the Amendment ( known as the Free Ex clause ) It says this; "or the free exercise thereof" Thereof what?? Religion of course. But the problem you have is that of understanding the English language. In order to understand what "thereof" means you must refer BACK to the "Establishment clause" for its definition. For example the sentence "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" makes absolutely no sense. An overlooked aspect of the free exercise clause is that it looks back to the establishment clause for its definition of "religion;" the establishment clause says that Congress may make no law respecting the establishment of


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

You make the false claim that I am "dictatorial" when I am totally for individual freedom and liberty. The Left is dictatorial, authoritarian, and totalitarian.

You also make the absurd claim the conservatives have no "guts" when most heroic deeds are done by conservative people and the vast majority of military men are conservative who put their very lives on the line as an accepted duty. Progressives are pussies—everybody knows that. You got your Alan Alda and Barney Frank; we've got our John Wayne and Charlton Heston. Boy you refuse to speak the truth no matter what.

You wrote: "the fact that one out of two people live at or under the poverty line." And you a damn liar too, imbecile.

You write: "the middle class trusts him and despises the Republicans." You ignoramus! The Middle Class consistently supports Republicans. The support for Democrats comes from rich liberals who suffer from White Guilt Syndrome and poor folks who are government-dependent for their crack money. And of course the homos, the felons, illegal aliens, and other assorted people who hate America and hate Jesus.

You dreamed that "By next November the TeaBaggers will be gone and the Dems will have retaken the House and added to the Senate and Obama will be re-elected. Also the Governor of Wisconsin will be recalled, and South Carolina has just been told their voting laws are under challenge from the justice department."

You are the only tea-bagger in this room. But your predictions are wrong. If you are right, America will be gone within a decade to be replaced by a totalitarian atheist Marxist state that hunts down and kills Christians. I think there are still enough Americans who love their country and see the Truth and love what is good, right, true, and virtuous to stop your evil juggernaught.

Jesus Christ said, " the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth." To which adagio sneered, "Truth! What is truth?"

Adagio "exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator."

Adagio and his fellow sodomites refused to see "all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute."

You write: "But do you know what's worse and far more dangerous? Identity Philosophers such as yourself. For them and you, it isn't that truth isn't a value, it's simply not the most important value. Solidarity to the group has a higher value. When that becomes more important than truth, you're willing to lie if necessary as long as it keeps the group together."

More horseshit. man you are full of it. Who plays Identity politics? Conservatives?! Give me a break. Leftist political philosophy is full of separating people into groups—groups of the oppressers (heterosexual white men)—and groups of victims of oppression (everybody except heterosexual white men). Truth is the most important value not to moral relativists who sneer like Pilate, "Truth! No such thing!" but to people who believe objective truth exists—not you and your ilk, in other words. The "Collective" is what your Atheist Marxism is all about—solidarity to your little group of America-haters and God-haters and your world of envy and covetousness toward people who make it in life through their own efforts.

You write: "You're not a Critical thinker James. Critical thinkers do not justify their beliefs; they criticize them. You would never think of putting your own beliefs up to your own criticism. They question and test the beliefs that others take for granted."

I already explained Critical Theory to you. No, I am not interested in destroying my country, my culture, my society, my neighbors, and all that is good, true, right, and virtuous. Of course, you claim that virtue does not exist. No wonder you are so confused and have so many open portals to demonic influences. I will pray for you. Merry Christmas.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— You write: "They tell people exactly how they must judge the truth, so that they need *not* judge the truth. For you it's your religion. It tells you how to judge truth. Therefore you don't need to judge it for yourself. The heavy lifting has already been done for you. It's the same thing with Conservative ideology. They tell you what is conservative, and if you're a conservative..then you accept it."

No this is false. I have studied world religions and the ideas of Atheists and Agnostics; I have spent a lifetime studying political systems and world history. I read the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica when I was a teenager—from A to Z. You don't know shit from shinola. I do not believe what anybody tells me. I have sought the Truth for myself. I grew up in the sixties too; I know all about hippies and Eastern religions; I lived in a Commune; I have read thousands of books of all persuasions. Through much study, conversation, thought, and reflection, I have gradually come to the conclusion that I believe the Christian Message—the Good News—the Gospel. Not because I am blind but because I see.

I suppose I am Conservative politically—or even Libertarian. Not because somebody someone told me I ought to be. You presume to know me. I had no parents who took any interest in my rearing. I raised myself. I learned for myself. If there ever was a Tabula rasa I am it. I have witnessed the destruction of my country during my lifetime caused by "progressive" ideas—mostly deconstruction. I know where these ideas came from and what the aims are of them. Actually walking in lockstep is a Leftist concept anyway. Conservative philosophy believes in individual freedom. The reason that perhaps only 250,000 Progressive ideologues have been able to turn this country upside down is that they are highly organized—collectively. Conservatives are individualistic than collective so they have a harder time with collective action. Collectivism and central planning—these are natural domains of the godless Marxist.

Of course I am my brother's keeper. That is why conservative people give far more time and money to charities. Nobody outgives or outvolunteers Christians. The difference is that progressives want to give up their personal responsibility to their brothers by having the government take the task from them. Jesus never said to implement huge government programs. He told US to help the poor both physically and spiritually. We are to teach them to "Seek first the Kingdom of God" and your physical needs will be met. Only Atheist Marxists want the government to be all powerful and all responsible—totalitarianism runs deep in the blood of folks such as you.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— Most reasonable steps to restrain public-sector employment costs are smothered by the unions. Study after study has shown that states and cities could shave 20% to 40% off the cost of many services—fire fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative functions, even prison operations—through competitive contracting to private providers. But unions have blocked many of those efforts.

The not-so Golden State now has an incredible 2.4 million government employees—twice as many as people at work in manufacturing. New Jersey has just under two-and-a-half as many government employees as manufacturers. Florida's ratio is more than 3 to 1. So is New York's.

Even Michigan, at one time the auto capital of the world, and Pennsylvania, once the steel capital, have more government bureaucrats than people making things.

If you want to understand better why so many states—from New York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487040...


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— Like a true Marxist you continue to spout nonsense despite hard evidence. You follow Marx in claiming a few people hold all the power in the United States and all the wealth.

There are over 27 million commercial businesses in the United States. That is a commercial enterprise for every 11 people, including babies. That at the least implies the possibility of a wide distribution of wealth but to make it in business you first have to be a good business person. It is ludicrous to think a bureaucrat can central plan business activities better than an entreprenuer or qualified business manager—who has a stake in the outcome.

There are 20 million businesses staffed only by the owner and their family members. 31 percent of all Americans have owned their own businesses.

Half of all Americans own stock in corporations.

There are over 500,000 Americans who hold elective public office.

22 million Americans work for government.

That hardly sounds like power in the hands of the few to me.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— You write: "Then explain to me how the conservative Governor of Michigan can take the authoritarian position to dismiss elected officials at his discretion in towns in Michigan and install a "manager" of his choosing to run everything thereby nullifying democratically elected officials."

This is about my hometown, Benton Harbor, Michigan! I have fond memories of growing up there. It was once a booming town with a packed commercial district where it was difficult to find a parking space. Blacks and whites got along very well when I was a boy.

Severe race riots happened in Benton Harbor in the 1960s—after the enactment of the Civil Rights Laws. White-owned businesses were burnt down, whites were beaten and raped, whites had bricks thrown through their car windows and rocks thrown through their home windows. My grandmother had stained-glass windows that had stood in place over 100 years that black thugs shattered.

Blacks wanted the whites to go away. "This is our town now!" The white people simply left the town.

The first black administration that was elected stole millions of federal dollars given to Benton Harbor to repair its infrastructure. Thus started a legacy of corruption you had to see to believe. There is probably no town in America that has received so much federal money per capita. Most of the money simply disappeared.

The "dictator" now running the town was appointed not by Governor Snyder as your carpet-munching source for the news might have you believe. Joseph Harris, the former chief financial officer of Detroit, is one of four emergency managers appointed by the former governor, Jennifer Granholm, under a 20-year-old law. And she is an ultra-liberal Democrat.

At some point it is incumbent on states to ensure financial stability at the local level. I believe the governor really cares about helping Michigan (by not taking a salary, for example) and I also believe he's applying what he believes are sound business practices to get the job done. Snyder sized up a failing enterprise — the state — and worked to create a plan to quickly return Michigan to profitability.

The changes are designed to get the state turned around in the least amount of time.

A survey by the local Newspaper of the citizens of Benton Harbor shows that 51.6 percent of Benton Harbor respondents support the nullification of Benton Harbor’s labor agreements if it would help decrease the city’s deficit, while 27.4 percent don’t support it.

The people of Benton Harbor by a 2 to 1 margin support the Emergency Financial Manager. Apparently, they care more about whether a fire truck will show up at their house, or a cop will respond to an armed robbery than whether the city council’s feathers are ruffled—or whether the city’s garbage collectors will continue to make about 4 times the average income (plus benefits) of the people who pay their wages.

"Most people believe that a bankruptcy petition would initiate a cascade of events that would result in all local units of government in the state having more difficulty selling bonds, more difficulty accessing the credit markets and having to pay higher rates for debt. So it would have repercussions statewide," Bettie Buss, a senior research analyst at the nonpartisan Citizens Research Council, told me last year. "Most people believe municipal bankruptcy is a horrible, horrible idea."

"It all boils down to this: granting an emergency financial manager the ability to break union contracts - whether you love it or hate it - seems to be the only way to avoid municipal (or school district) bankruptcies, which would have cataclysmic effects for the whole state. Just one Chapter 9 filing would downgrade the credit rating of every neighboring local government (just ask Oakland County Executive Brooks Patterson why he's so anxious to see Detroit succeed) and possibly the state itself. Plummeting credit ratings could effectively bar Michigan from the credit market by making the cost of borrowing money astronomical."

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20110425/STAF...

A state review found the city's pension system was underfunded by $4 million, its cash reserves dwindled from $1.7 million to $300,000 in three years and the city was spending between $80,000 to $100,000 annually in overdraft fees. The same week that Benton Harbor officials forcefully told state officials at a hearing that they didn't need an emergency financial manager, they had to ask the state treasury for an advance on funds to make their payroll. Benton Harbor's public safety expenses were more than its tax revenue. The city hadn't filed audit reports on time in eight years.

For more on this matter:

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2011...

I am sure you will come back with some wild claim that you know the truth about Benton Harbor even though you have never been there and all I offer is mere opinion—even though I lived there over 20 years, still have a mother, four childen, and a large extended family that lives there, and I visit the town maybe four times each year and read its newspaper on line every day.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— You wrote: " Because everything you offered is nothing but opinion based on somebody's religious views which can never be demonstrated as true. This isn't hubris. This is only about establishing truth from opinion."

I quoted two of the first Supreme Court Justices, four of the most important Founding Fathers, and 14 American Presidents. I quoted the U.S. Congress and the U.S Supreme Court. You come back with the preposterous idea that these men offer "mere opinions" while you, the great "adagio4639," offer Truth. Wow! You are really something.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— I am well aware that John Quincy Adams was a mere boy when the Declaration of Independence was penned. I said he was there when America was founded and you weren't so just maybe he knew more about those years than you do.

In 1779, Adams began a diary that he kept until just before he died in 1848. The massive fifty volumes are one of the most extensive collections of first-hand information from the period of the early republic, and are widely cited by modern historians.

Much of Adams' youth was spent accompanying his father overseas. Before the Constitution was ratified, Adams had spent years overseas as part of diplomatic missions. By the time the Constitution was ratified, Adams had graduated from Harvard Phi beta Kappa. He is, as I said, an eyewitness to these events.

The Treaty of Tripoli hardly stands equal to the Treaty of Paris in significance. The Treaty of Paris established America as a nation. The Treaty of Tripoli is a special case as it was a treaty with Muslims who had made war against Christians for 1200 years non-stop because they were Christians. Muslims were taught that they had a right and a duty to kill or enslave Christian "infidels." Every European country had had an official State Church of the Christian Faith. The Muslims viewed themselves as in a holy war against Christian States.

As you say, Article 11 does say: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

What this clause of the treaty did was make it clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.

As for the James Madison quote, see Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, & James Madison, The Federalist (Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1818), p. 194, James Madison, Federalist #37; see also Federalist #2 (p. 12) and Federalist #20 (p. 105) for other acknowledgments of the blessings of Providence upon America.

You claim that "the religious clause of the 1st Amendment separates church and state," but that is merely your erroneous opinion. It does no such thing. It prohibits the Federal Government from interfering with the Free Exercise of Religion, such as the right for States to have State religions, which they did with no interference from the central government. It prohibits Congress—if you know what that is—from establishing a federal religion.

You write: "There could never be freedom without the freedom of ones own conscience. That of course is the most basic logical position to understand, which you clearly can't figure out, and you cannot present a logical argument against it."

Here you are arguing with yourself. I never said you do not or should not have Freedom of Conscience.

You further claim that I "want so much to legislate your beliefs." I want no such thing.

You then tie yourself in knots by disputing that ""America's first Presidential Inauguration incorporated 7 specific religious activities," which it did. You add "This of course is Bullshit of the highest order. You obviously don't know the constitution at all." Apparently you do not know the difference between a "Constitution" and a "Presidential Inauguration."


adagio4639 4 years ago

"An "open-mind" lets in a ton of garbage."

So this is your justification for a closed mind?? Oh man!. Don't you have enough confidence in your reasoning ability to separate truth from garbage?? You really do need help don't you? Well it does require some degree of critical thinking. That might prove to be a problem for you.

"You have no spine, therefore you cannot acknowledge any right or wrong."

LMAO...it seems that I have a lot more spine than you sonny. I'm not the one that's afraid of an open mind.

"Moral relativists are chickens, weaklings."

Yes they are. I have no respect for them. But I'm not one of them. I actually accept Truth as real. However I also know that it can't be possessed. You obviously haven't figured that out yet since you claim to own it via your religious addiction. It can however be acquired incrementally. We get glimpses of it when we eliminate what is false. That's how we arrive at truth. Through Deductive reasoning, rather than inductive. But do you know what's worse and far more dangerous? Identity Philosophers such as yourself. For them and you, it isn't that truth isn't a value, it's simply not the most important value. Solidarity to the group has a higher value. When that becomes more important than truth, you're willing to lie if necessary as long as it keeps the group together.

You're not a Critical thinker James. Critical thinkers do not justify their beliefs; they criticize them. You would never think of putting your own beliefs up to your own criticism. They question and test the beliefs that others take for granted. In so doing, they oftentimes clarify how some of their beliefs are based upon others. But this basing of beliefs one upon another must ultimately end. It's called infinite regress and it runs directly up against all dogma. And you sonny have a lot of dogma to deal with. Bon Apitite.

Our Founding Fathers would be more ashamed of you than you are of them."


adagio4639 4 years ago

" and you say "Here is what my plan will achieve" and it fails to achieve what you said it would that is failure."

That's true, but in saying that you are insuring failure. Nobody can predict exactly what something will achieve for the simple reason that they are fallible and every idea is by extension, fallible. If that weren't true, there wouldn't be a dozen versions of Windows at Microsoft. They'd have had everything right the first time. Making a claim such as you are framing it is stupid and I'm not suprised that you would make it. When you lay out a plan and tell me what it will do, I will ask you what you are basing that assumption on. How can you know it will do what you claim? You can't. In order to try, you'll need to employ inductive reasoning and that NEVER proves anything. You can tell me about all the similar things that have been attempted, and show me how your plan is different and WILL achieve the desired result, but the problem you ignore is that you can't possibly have examined every conceivable problem that could occur. There's no way of you knowing all the potential problems that may effect your plan. We were certain that Iraq had WMD. Absolutely certain. So we committed to a costly war that killed over 4,000 Americans. Of course that certitude was flawed. Every General will tell you that a plan for war goes out the window once the first shot is fired. There are simply too many variables to consider and as a human you can't possibly see them all.

You also fail to recognize that a time frame for success would have to be factored in before you could accurately claim that something succeeded or failed. If you put a plan into place, and the results you want don't materialize within a month, can I say that you failed? How much time do you need for me to determine if you failed or succeeded? The Bush administration, Rumsfeld in particular said the war would last no longer than 3 months. Wolfowitz said that the Iraqi oil would pay for the war. 8 years later and about a trillion dollars spent, we'd have to conclude then, that it was a failure. In the end, the Iraqi's will do what they want to do and as a sovereign nation there isn't much we can do about it now. Perhaps if they'd read Sun Tzu's Art of War, they might have reconsidered the invasion.

The difference between you and I is that I would say, "here is my plan, and this is what we hope to achieve over a certain period of time". Here are the positives and here are the negatives. In weighing the two, we think that the positives outweigh the negatives. In the best situation the plan is not a one sided win. It's a win-win. The benefits are not simply one way. Our society has been set up for a one way win, and the fact that one out of two people live at or under the poverty line tells us that tax cuts for the rich don't "trickle down". The only thing to show for it is mammoth increases in wealth at the top, while the rest of the country remains stagnant. That isn't what a majority of Americans today see as unjust.

"Only an imbecile would say "But you can't define success!"

You still haven't defined it. So go ahead. Success is a relative and subjective word. What you may see as a success I may see as a huge failure. You may achieve your ends, but those ends may have a negative impact on people.So you were successful in making others miserable. You call that a success? In that case, Hitler was a success. Making that stupid statement shows that you haven't thought through the idea of success at all. You can't define it in any universal sense. You live in a very black and white world, so I don't expect you to understand this, but success is simply the progressive realization of a worthy ideal. It's not an end in itself. If you are working toward something and getting closer to realizing what you intended, you're successful. You can measure the degree of success by how you improve and fine tune your idea or skill. When a musician records a song, is the final take a perfect take? No. He could always do another and make it more perfect. At some point he decides that the take conveys the idea effectively and he can't do it any better. He can simply do it differently. But that doesn't make it better. Better is a subjective notion. Better according to who and what standard? If he tries for perfection, he'll never stop and always say, "I can do it better".

"That's odd, because every program introduced in government HAS a stated goal."

Of course they have a stated goal. And they always hope to achieve that goal. Nobody can predict with any assurance that the goal is achievable. You weigh the odds against what you would consider failure. You guys predicted that cutting $1.3 trillion in taxes was a good idea. A decade later we see the results. It failed.

"if somebody said "Give me a trillion dollars for my latest program." And you asked "What do you intend to accomplish with the trillion dollars?' And they answered "Oh nothing" or "I don't know" or "I will decide what it was for after I spend it" You would appropriate the trillion dollars? That is not how life works. I'd get my head out of that bong if I were you."

The problem here is obvious. Your example is completely ridiculous and outside any kind of reality. Nobody would ever do that. So you've just put up a really dumb Straw Man. Nobody has ever said "Give me a trillion dollars" and I'll figure out what I want to do with it later. (Except maybe a conservative that demands 1.3 Trillion in tax cuts).

I think it's safe to say those days are over. Those tax cuts will expire at the end of next year. The Republicans have completely come apart at the seams. They can't find a suitable candidate. They just caved on the extension of the payroll tax cuts and have effective turned over the tax credibility to the president as the tax cutter. So not only is he winning on national security, he's now winning on taxes and the middle class trusts him and despises the Republicans. By next November the TeaBaggers will be gone and the Dems will have retaken the House and added to the Senate and Obama will be re-elected. Also the Governor of Wisconsin will be recalled, and South Carolina has just been told their voting laws are under challenge from the justice department. Bad ending of the year for Repugs. Happy Holiday's :)


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

CMerritt— Chris, you can depend on the fact that I do not delete any comments. I strongly believe in Free Speech. I am glad you came back to voice your opinion here.

"If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."—Ronald Reagan

That is surely the Truth, my friend.

No need for any apology. I appreciate your affirmation and encouragement, brother. I am well pleased you list this among your favorite Hubs. Thank you for saying so.

Merry Christmas!

And God Bless You.

James


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

SirDent— Thank you for both of your comments, Brother.

You wrote: 'The Bible states, "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." This means also that if the spirit of the Lord is not here, there is no liberty.'

The history of the world shows this to be true clearly. Excellent point! The officially Atheistic countries have undoubtedly been massive oppressors of human liberty. And why should this surprise anyone? If there is no God and people are mere animals why not treat them as animals?

There is still hope for the United States. We can regain our spot as "The City on the Hill." But godlessness will plunge us into moral anarchy—already has. If this trend is not reversed, America will go onto the ash heap of history. And the world will be far worse because of it.


adagio4639 4 years ago

" But it is intolerant of anything that is virtuous. We cannot have any of that. There are two spiritual forces in the world, whether you recognize them or not. One is good , one is evil."

The question then becomes which is which. The dogma that you adhere to which you cannot demonstrate as True. Or Truth itself? Which is more important to you? Your dogma..your beliefs..your idea of what is virtuous..or Truth? Because they aren't necessarily the same things. If they were, you could prove that through some demonstration.

Truth is demonstrable” logically entails that “truth is not determined by humans”. If you hold that “humans decide about the truth” then you can’t hold that “truth is demonstrable.” These are mutually contradictory ways of viewing the world. To make it clearer we could instead say, “truth is determined by human judgment” or “truth is determined unequivocally by demonstration.” Not only are these two ideas incompatible, as truth is a value we as humans place on certain ideas or viewpoints, it makes no sense to say it can be determined by demonstration. It is determined by humans.

Truth is determined by humans, not criteria or standards or bases. Moreover, a criteria cannot be its own criteria. Again, it is an issue of responsibility. Even assuming you have a criteria you think is adequate, how did you determine that? Are you responsible for that judgement, or is the criteria responsible? Merely claiming a standard ( the Bible, the Koran ) or a criteria or a basis does not help one to demonstrate the truth of values. Instead, it creates a certain amount of hypocrisy. If we claim a basis gives us truth, we then are making the implicit claim that truth requires bases. But then it is plainly obvious our own basis lacks a basis, as it cannot be its own basis. By claiming truth must be demonstrated by bases we undermine our own moral integrity. A similar case might be made for the Christian who says that miracles support his faith in God. Is that not hypocritical? After all, faith is faith. It does not require proof. Similarly, from a Christian perspective, if a person is “good” because he wants to go to heaven, is he not being “bad” as he is pursuing selfish ends. While I think that one can be willing to question “humans have values”, and therefore hold the position non-dogmatically, I don’t think that the notion that “humans have values” is logically compatible with “values are determined by demonstrations.”

You require a positive methodology for determining truth. Well, positive methodologies have about as much humanity as a software program. Positive methodologies are automatic. They tell people exactly how they must judge the truth, so that they need *not* judge the truth. For you it's your religion. It tells you how to judge truth. Therefore you don't need to judge it for yourself. The heavy lifting has already been done for you. It's the same thing with Conservative ideology. They tell you what is conservative,and if you're a conservative..then you accept it.

I’ve never known a positive methodology that actually works. What I have known are several people, like you, who are dogmatic and dictatorial because they think they have a positive methodology. Moreover, as I pointed out before, the positive methodology can’t demonstrate it’s own truth. It’s own standards can’t justify it’s own standards. So those with positive methodologies either have to resort to circular arguments or hypocrisy or both.

The problem you have here is that truth is a value that we must determine for ourselves, and that requires more courage than what you exhibit. It means that YOU must determine that devoid of what you've been told to believe. It requires you to question what you've been told, even if that means that you find something wrong with it. You challenge beliefs. That's what an educated person does. That's what education does. It's the very thing that moves us forward. But that takes guts. That's not a thing that conservatives have an abundance of.


adagio4639 4 years ago

"Here we have a Leftist lecturing about how scary freedom is. Of all things. Will your deceptions never end, son?"

Of course it is sonny. The very idea of real freedom scares the crap out of you. As long as you're told what to do, and what to think, you're fine. Thinking for yourself??? Holy shit...that's a scary thought.

"Let me explain the basics to you: more government=less freedom; less government=more freedom. You clearly want less freedom."

Prove it. Don't just say it. Demonstrate it for us. Tell me how putting power into the fewest hands gives us more freedom junior. By dispersing power in a greater number, power is diluted. By reducing it to the fewest or smallest number, power is more concentrated in the hands of the fewest. How does that give you more freedom? So..you're in the process of explaining to me...explain that. Use logic for a change. That way I'll know that you're using your brain.

"I am for self-reliance, you are for dependence on the government titty."

I've been self employed for over 30 years sonny. How self-relient are you? lol. Don't talk to me about self-reliance. The difference is that I recognize there are those that aren't in the same position that I'm in. Their health and welfare matter to me. Am I my brothers keeper?? Yes. You may recall that the question "Am I my brothers keeper?" came from Cain in his response to God about his brother Abel. I would think that a non-Christian wouldn't have to remind a "christian" about that. But there is a difference between a Christian, and a Christianist isn't there?


adagio4639 4 years ago

"You write: "you are by all observation, an authoritarian. "....That is ridiculous"

No it isn't. Look at what you wrote. """The Authoritarian Personality" became the most influential book upon the minds of those who would destroy America". You clearly said that in the context of your criticism of Liberal/progressive views. It's a critique of authoritarianism. Now, if by this you mean the authoritarianism that is most commonly associated with conservatism, then I'd agree with you. But, you aren't. Accordingly, you are suggesting that authoritarianism is a Good thing since you suggest that the book is designed to destroy America. By default you must logically be defending authoritarianism as a positive attribute in America.

The book and study was written by Theo Adorno. The personality type Adorno et al. identified can be defined by nine traits that were believed to cluster together as the result of childhood experiences. These traits include conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intellectualism, anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and "toughness", destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and exaggerated concerns over sex. All of these things dominate conservative ideological thinking. There are also examples of authoritarianism from the left as within the Soviet Union, however it is more rare than what we see from the right. This country is a clear example of the authoritarianism from the right. Just look at the conservatives in this country. In fact, just look at yourself. You need the authority of Biblical references to justify your arguments, without ever asking what justifies the reference?? Each one of them relies on some authority figure or another. You NEVER cite any instance of your own reasoned thinking. Not one instance of independent thought. No ability whatsoever to analyze the things you are told as to their logic or reasoned thought. You simply pump out the crap that you're told. You are an authoritarian by anybody's definition.

"You know that the larger the government the more authoritarian and the smaller the government the more individual freedom. That is Government 101. You care nothing about Truth."

Oh Really?? Then explain to me how the conservative Governor of Michigan can take the authoritarian position to dismiss elected officials at his discretion in towns in Michigan and install a "manager" of his choosing to run everything thereby nullifying democratically elected officials. Selling off property owned by the towns. Cancelling out contracts with Unions. How's that for conservative small government? Take away the right to vote in democratic elections. Turn the state of Michigan into a dictatorship. Elections no longer matter when the Governor can cancel them and put in his own man at $180 G's. When you reduce the size of government, you put the power of that government into fewer hands. That's simple math my friend. The less people running the show, the more power those people have to impose their will on your life. Less = more. It's the very principle of a Plutarchy. Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. Oligarchy is a form of power, governmental or operational, where such power effectively rests with a small, elite group of inside individuals, sometimes from a small group of educational institutions, or influential economic entities or devices, such as banks, commercial entities that act in complicity with, or at the whim of the oligarchy, often with little or no regard for constitutionally protected prerogative. The combination of both plutocracy and oligarchy is called plutarchy. You think you have more freedom with smaller government?? Think again. How can you have more freedom when the power of the government is concentrated in the hands of only a few people? Answer that one for me. Look at the disparity of wealth in this country today. The top 1% controls 50% of the wealth of the nation. Meanwhile 1 out of every 2 people live at or below poverty. What kind of freedom do you have when everything is in the hands of the fewest people? According to Madison the greatest amount of freedom comes from having the largest number of cross cutting cleavages of interest within the society. That way no one group could ever dominate over another. That goes for government as well, especially when we're tasked with governing a nation of over 300 million. Government MUST serve the interests and needs of those it governs. It is government by the consent of the the people. In Michigan that principle no longer exists. A conservative authoritarian majority has removed that.


adagio4639 4 years ago

"I have no idea why you think you know more about the founding of America than do the men I have quoted above. It is the ultimate in hubris."

Because everything you offered is nothing but opinion based on somebody's religious views which can never be demonstrated as true. This isn't hubris. This is only about establishing truth from opinion. You fail because you offer one appeal to authority after another without realizing that Appeals to Authority are invalid arguments. They're logical fallacy's. Even an expert can be wrong. Didn't you know that?? And look at the sources of authority that you appeal to. Discredited historical revisionists. Sheeeshh..You can't distinguish between truth and fiction. You offer garbage from WallBuilders and stupid House resolutions with a bunch of quotes from...who else..Wallbuilders which is David Barton who is a discredited historical revisionist. And you actually think that by offering a resolution in congress, that that in itself would make the resolution true. How about getting a bunch of conservative morons in congress offering a resolution that Jesus sits on top of the Capital building. If it passes with a bunch of like minded idiots...it makes it true. A majority vote doesn't make something true. It just means that a majority of idiots could get something stupid passed. You claim to be strict constitutionalists but you avoid the constitution when it fails to serve your narative. I mean...who can ever take you seriously when you are so obviously inconsistant?


adagio4639 4 years ago

"America's first Presidential Inauguration incorporated 7 specific religious activities, including— the use of the Bible to administer the oath; affirming the religious nature of the oath by the adding the prayer `So help me God!' to the oath"

This of course is Bullshit of the highest order. You obviously don't know the constitution at all. Article II. Section 1. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The words "So Help me God" are not in the oath. That was allegedly added by Washington, and others have done so at their own discretion. Also, because of Article VI there is no religious requirement for holding office therefore swearing an oath on the Bible wouldn't really mean very much to a person that didn't believe in it, would it. We have two muslims in congress. Do you think they were sworn in on the bible??

Franklin Pierce was the only president known to use the word affirm rather than swear. Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, and Richard Nixon swore the oath on two Bibles. John Quincy Adams ( the man you cited earlier ) swore on a book of law. Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One. Washington kissed the Bible afterwards,[3] and subsequent presidents followed suit, up to Harry Truman,[4] but Dwight D. Eisenhower broke that tradition by saying his own prayer instead of kissing the Bible.[5]

Each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It is uncertain how many Presidents used a Bible or added the words "So help me God" at the end of the oath, or in their acceptance of the oath, as neither is required by law; unlike many other federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me God." There is currently debate as to whether or not George Washington, the first president, added the phrase to his acceptance of the oath. All contemporary sources fail to mention Washington as adding a religious codicil to his acceptance.

Don't make dumb arguments like this. Just look at the oath as it's shown in the Constitution. It would save you a lot of embarrassment.


adagio4639 4 years ago

"I am saying that you do not know as much about the founding of America as does John Quincy Adams"

J.Q. Adams?? Adams?? Oh man...you sound as dumb about this as Michelle Bachmann. J.Q Adams was not a founder. He was a 10 year old boy at the time of the founding. He was not consulted at the founding of our country. He was not a founder pal. (No wonder this country is in such trouble.) And BTW...the Revolution didn't begin in New Hampshire either. Let Ms Bachmann know about that when you see her.

"I quoted the United States government website that features these words"

You quoted from an exhibit from the exhibit at the Library of Congress which states up front, "The exhibition was made possible by grants from The Pew Charitable Trusts, Mr. and Mrs. Henry J. (Bud) Smith, and the Lilly Endowment Inc. The national tour of the exhibition was made possible by the Lilly Endowment Inc."

In other words, the exhibit was created out of private funding to express it's own viewpoint. NOT the official position of the United States Government. Get it yet?? No?? Probably not. Maybe this will sink in; It's a disclaimer by the LoC itself. It refers to the links that support the exhibit.

"These links are being provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only; they do not constitute an endorsement or an approval by the Library of Congress of any of the products, services or opinions of the corporation or organization or individual. The Library of Congress bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external site or for that of subsequent links. Contact the external site for answers to questions regarding its content.

Anybody can present an exhibit at the LoC. The LoC doesn't endorse the exhibits claims. I can't believe you don't know this.

You really do have no ability to tell the difference between truth and opinion do you?

" He was there; you were not."

He was 10 years old. He was alive at the time, but that's hardly the same thing as saying "he was there". His father was THERE. He had nothing to do with the founding of the country.

You can try to revise history to suit your secular philosophy all you want, but John Quincy Adams said:

"From the day of our Declaration of Independence . . . the American people were bound by the laws of God, and the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all acknowledge as the rules of their conduct."

Now, just to make things as clear as I can to you, what makes you think that simply because J.Q. Adams expressed his view on this...that his view is true? First of all, Mr. Adams has not demonstrated that a God even exists let alone the "laws of a Gospel" carry any weight when they are the laws of a God which cannot be demonstrated to even exist in the first place and are found in a book that can't demonstrate what makes itself true? So..at best, Mr.Adams is expressing a religious belief and not a demonstrable fact. His belief that this is the case, does not make that belief true. It makes it an opinion. And Mr. Jefferson, who was there at the time and in fact drafted the Declaration of Independence said this in his letter to the Danbury Baptists: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. Do you think it's possible for you to grasp what he said here? Your opinions are opinions. They are only opinions. Mr. Adams stated an opinion according to his beliefs. That doesn't make his beliefs a fact that the United States is to be governed by.

"The 1783 Treaty of Paris,"

Now you cite a treaty?? Ok, how about the Treaty of Tripoli which Adams father signed as President.

"ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion. That is the official position of the United States Government.

"James Madison declared that he saw the finished Constitution as a product of `the finger of that Almighty Hand."

Really? I have the complete writings of Madison and I don't see it. What is your source for it? From what I can tell, you're citing from the H.R.888?? In fact, you're citing a ton of garbage from H.R. 888. What is the source of that quote attributed to Madison? Where and when did Madison say this?? Offering that as a factual statement from Madison requires you to supply a source. Otherwise it means squat. And assuming that Madison had said it, what proof would he have that there is some finger of an Almighty anyway? Perhaps you need to read Madison's Detached Memoranda in which he thoroughly explains his views on just about everything. Look it up.

There is one and only one source that matters in this argument between us and that is the Constitution of the United States. Not the religious opinions of ANYBODY that was president or a chief justice or a Senator or Representative. None of their opinions really matter. Everyone has an opinion. They're like assholes. We all have them. And our own prejudices come into play each time that opinion is expressed. They're theories of rationality that we use to justify who we are and how we think. The Constitution however, is the source of our laws that govern this country. We are governed by a godless constitution. We did that for a reason. Which God is the True God. Roger Williams understood that when he founded Rhode Island and established the first democratic Non-religious state in the colonies. That is obviously hard for you and your minions to swallow but it's factually true. You can look for it all day long but you will find nothing in it that claims a religious view. The only reference to religion is in the religious clause of the 1st Amendment which separates church and state, and in Article VI which says, "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States".

We are and always have been a secular state, and for a very good reason. Religious freedom was the most important issue to a free country. It was the first clause of the first amendment. Without that right, we could be subject to religious tyranny and the entire structure would crumble. There could never be freedom without the freedom of ones own conscience. That of course is the most basic logical position to understand, which you clearly can't figure out, and you cannot present a logical argument against it. You haven't yet, and you never will be able to. The founders obviously understood this. At least Madison and Jefferson did and their views prevailed. There was no way that a constitution that would govern all the people could ever lean in favor of any particular sect. Your own selfishness and insecurity blinds you to that logical and reasoned view. You want so much to legislate your beliefs as if that endorsement will make them true. It's clear to me that you have no faith at all. If you did, you'd stop attempting to prove something that doesn't exist. You aren't trying to convince me. You're trying to convince yourself. I find that sad. It makes you a hypocrite. It also makes you an authoritarian. You need some authority to direct your life, since you are incapable of directing it yourself. But then, conservatives really have no guts do they. They're basically timid sheep and need the safety of the corral and an authority figure to tell them what to do and when to do it.

In this entire debate, you have never really addressed anything I've said. You simply supply a bunch of quotes that are merely the opinions of others. These are the authorities that you accept. You never question their opinions as long as the fit the narrative that you are trying to promote. To do so would shake your foundation. It would put your theory of rationality into question. Here's the most glaring problem that you have: You cannot justify your belief in anything that you offer. In other words, what is that belief based on? You offer a position without telling me what you base that position on? There's a reason why you won't go there. It's because


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

Abraham Lincoln warned that the greatest threat to the future of America was not foreign enemies but certain people from within who, being unable to build anything worthwhile in the world, will not be satisfied with maintaining an edifice built by others, no matter how wonderful. No, they will seek to tear down what was built by others to build up their own egos.

Your revolution has devoured its children. A society with no hope for the future is marked by a lack of reproduction. Our birth rate does not come close to our death rate. Thus, the West is committing demographic suicide. The levels of abortion, divorce, single-parent homes, suicides. school shootings, drug abuse, child abuse, spousal abuse, violent crime, incarceration rates, sexually transmitted disease, falling scholastic achievement, mental illness, obesity, dependence on government handouts, dependence on psychotropic drugs shows a decaying and decomposing society. Or what you would call: Progress.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— The New Left came to fruition in the late 1960s, full of bizarre, extreme social theories. By transference, they call anyone who believes in traditional Americans values they seek to destroy—as believed by hundreds of millions of real people for centuries—an extremist.

The Progressive Left is a movement for nihilistic narcissists determined to tear down—"deconstruct" is their word for it—American society along with all of its treasured institutions, customs and values. Any value that helped make America great must be destroyed and the opposite value put in its place.

For just one example—I could give you twenty pages worth—if America valued self-reliance and independence, let's make its people dependent on the government trough and eventually unable and unwilling to fend for themselves. If marriage is a social good, let's make it bad—some sort of slavery, man. If becoming a successful businessman is seen as good, let's call them capitalist pigs. And so on and so forth. Let us make up down and down up.

The Progressive Left plays word games to make "up" seem "down" and "right" to mean "wrong." Perhaps it started when "bad" came to mean "good" in the counterculture.

As American cities went up in flames in the late 1960s, the New Left did not blame the destroyers of the cities—they blamed the people who escaped the cities as "racists" for leaving.

The Progressive Left made heroes out of predatory criminals. Psychopaths were the new heroes since they rebelled against the "conformist society." Much better to make heroes out of sociopathic murderers with rap sheets a mile long and demonize "squares" who run a successful business or are captains of industry.

R.D. Laing came along to teach us that there was no such thing as "insanity" or "evil" but just mistreated people who need our understanding. Anybody who misbehaves is a just a victim of an oppressive society. uh huh.

B.F. Skinner gave the New Left the ideas of moulding citizens like rats—the complete opposition of what you falsely claim is the mission of the public schools today.

Leading Humanist John Dunphy went public in 1983 with the plan of the godless Left:

"The battle for humankind's future must be fought and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as prosyltizers of a new faith, a religion of humanity. . . . These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey Humanist values in whatever subject they teach. . . . The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of Humanism."

This new faith of Secular Humanism has as its first order of business to kick Christianity completely out of not only the schools but the entire public square.

But this new gospel has its own dogmas: There is no God; and there are no absolute values in the universe. EXCEPT: All life began completely by accident. Human Beings have ape ancestors. Life has no meaning or purpose for random forms of life such as people. All "lifestyles" are equal. All forms of sexual behaviors are equal. Abortion is great. Homosexual behaviors must be glorified. Public schools must indoctrinate children into Progressive ideologies. Holy Days such as Christmas and Easter must be replaced by "Winter Break" and "Spring Break." The new Holy Day is Earth Day.

Western History must be taught as nothing but a catalogue of wicked, shameful crimes—slavery, genocide, imperialism, colonialism, atrocities, and massacres. All its heroes from Columbus to Custer must be remade into villains. The West attained wealth only by exploiting the Third World—People of Color. As Susan Sontag, darling of the New left said: "The white race is the cancer of human history."

America became the greatest and most beneficient civilization in the history of this planet. But that must be covered up. Where it is so glaringly obvious that it is hard to cover up, claim America was built by "crimes against humanity."

All nations and all cultures are equal. So how could one get so far ahead of the others? "Through evil means—hatred and bigotry" is the only answer that will hold the false logic of multiculturalism together.

But the new faith is tolerant of anything that does not contradict the tenets above. It teaches non-judgmentalism but go outside the lines one time and you will see the most intolerant reaction since Chairman Mao.

What the new faith is tolerant of is blasphemy, vulgarity, obscenity, pornography, promiscuity, filthy language, bad manners, slovenly attire, and sacriligious art. But it is intolerant of anything that is virtuous. We cannot have any of that.

There are two spiritual forces in the world, whether you recognize them or not. One is good , one is evil. One fosters virtue, the other vice. Even if you disavow these spiritual forces altogether, YOU are still doing the bidding of one or the other.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

adagio4639— You write: "So you are going to be the person that defines the proper sense of success and failure?? Why would I accept your definition?"

You can confuse yourself all you want, bud. If you present a plan to me, a committee, a Congress, or company board meeting, or bank for a loan, that costs a lot of money and you say "Here is what my plan will achieve" and it fails to achieve what you said it would that is failure. Gee whiz—no wonder you Leftists can't make it in the real world. The people you demand the right to live off know the difference between a plan that succeeds and a plan that fails. You should thank your lucky stars that they do or you would have no one to be envious of and no one's possessions to covet.

Your stupidity exemplifies the Left's ignorance in general. You actually said: "Nobody can predict the outcome of any program. "

That's odd, because every program introduced in government HAS a stated goal. Every marketing campaign or new product launch in business has projections, goals, stated aims. I have written many business plans pal. If you fail to achieve the results you predicted you failed. That's it.

If you say "Sex Education will reduce venereal disease" and it goes up 900 percent, you failed! Only an imbecile would say "But you can't define success!"

Programs are introduced for a specific purpose. If they weren't NOBODY would vote for them. What do you think, if somebody said "Give me a trillion dollars for my latest program." And you asked "What do you intend to accomplish with the trillion dollars?' And they answered "Oh nothing" or "I don't know" or "I will decide what it was for after I spend it" You would appropriate the trillion dollars? That is not how life works. I'd get my head out of that bong if I were you.


    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working