Can this Bias be resolved? (on defining "Christian" or "Muslim" faith etc.)

[ding]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

If the Founders had fought hard enough for political freedom the slaves in the US would not have existed.

Learn some history. Slavery was a British institution. Not an American one. The founding fathers knew not how to end slavery at the time of founding but did put plans in place for it to perish. They wrote into the constitution the earliest date the importation of slaves could cease and stopped it on that date. In the meantime they wrote laws that halted the spread of slavery. Unlike your beloved Democratic Party which reversed those laws in the late 1820’s when they gained power.

I think you need to face the facts that the Democratic Party was responsible for the spread of slavery and the perpetuation of slavery.

Actually, slavery was a human institution, from much farther back than the British Empire, and certainly farther back than the US. It took the Judeo-Christian culture ascendant in the US and Great Britain to make the first serious inroads into ending slavery as an accepted and normal practice.

The Dutch outlawed slavery before England.

And yet no one can stand the Dutch.

 

[sparky]

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

because they're not due TO their history,as well as penchant for control

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

because they've equally disturbing histories , mainly political motivations cloaked in the guise of salvation....

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

very simple....

the recongnition that religion and faith are mutually exclusive

Just tell them that there has never been a communist state that wasn't a militant atheist state

BINGO!!!!

and there never will be

obviously any oppresive governance views religion as an insurrection waiting to happen

one can realize this historically, or just take a trip to Africa

As for the beliefs of the founding fathers of freedom and liberty, to a man they believed that freedom and liberty could not exist without virtue and morality and that religion was necessary for virtue and morality.

Which is descriptive of a diesm .....the FF's were escaping a theocracy ding, thus subscribing to faith w/out the insanity of religous control

You can see this in how all the other religions of the world have changed over time, but the Bible and Bible-based Christianity has not. Even Islam to some extent has changed over time in how they read the Qur-an. Only Judaism and Christianity have remained largely unchanged.

ever heard of the council of Nicea Andy?

the first was in 325AD , when Rome assimilated the christians

the next 1000 years of it followed suit in biblical revisionism , mainly for the sake of political interface

Once the 3 major religious groups of the world unite, it won't be hard to spread into the rest of the world. The slow but steady march toward the one world religion will continue.

You mean one world order.....sounds mighty bloody to me

~S~

 

[ding]

If DEIST means something to do with GOD (DEO)
why use that term if you are using it to mean A-THEIST?

Because I am saying that an atheist is someone who does not accept a personal god. But the more general and accepted definition is "no deities", this is true.

No. An atheist is a materialist. They don’t believe anything exists beyond the material world. Deists do.

 

[ding]

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

because they're not due TO their history,as well as penchant for control

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

because they've equally disturbing histories , mainly political motivations cloaked in the guise of salvation....

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

very simple....

the recongnition that religion and faith are mutually exclusive

Just tell them that there has never been a communist state that wasn't a militant atheist state

BINGO!!!!

and there never will be

obviously any oppresive governance views religion as an insurrection waiting to happen

one can realize this historically, or just take a trip to Africa

As for the beliefs of the founding fathers of freedom and liberty, to a man they believed that freedom and liberty could not exist without virtue and morality and that religion was necessary for virtue and morality.

Which is descriptive of a diesm .....the FF's were escaping a theocracy ding, thus subscribing to faith w/out the insanity of religous control

You can see this in how all the other religions of the world have changed over time, but the Bible and Bible-based Christianity has not. Even Islam to some extent has changed over time in how they read the Qur-an. Only Judaism and Christianity have remained largely unchanged.

ever heard of the council of Nicea Andy?

the first was in 325AD , when Rome assimilated the christians

the next 1000 years of it followed suit in biblical revisionism , mainly for the sake of political interface

Once the 3 major religious groups of the world unite, it won't be hard to spread into the rest of the world. The slow but steady march toward the one world religion will continue.

You mean one world order.....sounds mighty bloody to me

~S~

Yes, they envisioned a nation where people were free to worship God as they saw fit. No argument here. Which is exactly what a government founded by Christians should look like.

 

[Votto]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

Thomas Paine's claim to fame was "Common Sense". In it, he outlined the travesty of religion mingled with the state in the pulpit by using scripture. In 1 Samuel 8 we see that the Hebrew nation was clamoring for a king so that they could be like all the other nations. The prophet Samuel was disturbed by what they asked for, and God was as well. God told Samuel that they were really rejecting him as their king, and to give a warming to the people as to the abuses they would suffer under a human king before deciding, but the people would not be persuaded, so God gave them Saul.

From then on it was a spiral downward for the Hebrew nation until they found themselves in the ovens of Nazi Germany. In fact, the plight of the Hebrew people can be traced to the church and state oppressing the Jewish people for centuries. All the abuses they suffered in Nazi Germany was nothing new, everything had been done before hand, such as the ghettos and forced to wear the star of David and rounded up and murdered, etc. The only difference was, the Holocaust was the climax of such oppression and on a much larger scale.

So what went wrong? What went wrong was the state preaching from the pulpit. Constantine conquered in the name of Christ, even though he himself was not a Christian. Instead, he used the fledgling innocent religion for his own political power. And who could blame him? The religion was spreading like wild fire even though they were being thrown to the lions by Nero, so he wanted a piece of it for himself.

Christ warned us all that his kingdom was not of this world nor could be and that if his kingdom were of this world then his followers would bear arms and rescue him, but that was not the case. Christ also evaded the multitude he fed with a few loaves of bread and a few fish because they wanted to make him king after the miracle of feeding them.

To sum up, the god of this world, who is satan, involves itself with the world governments based upon human greed and power and corruption. To put God in the mix only serves to continue in such behavior in the name of God, which is false representation.

Luckily, Christianity has learned this in large part. They no longer seek to oppress people like they did with the Catholic church and the Inquisitions and Crusades, etc. However, Islam has not learned this. In fact, it is impossible to separate the state from their religion because their religion demands Sharia law. You might even say that Islam is more of a political ideology than a religion. Their utopia is to bring about world wide governmental Islam as where Christians await Christ to return to save them from the oppressive world governments, institutions responsible for the vast majority of oppression of mankind who were either a slave of kings or murdered by them.

 

[ding]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

If the Founders had fought hard enough for political freedom the slaves in the US would not have existed.

Learn some history. Slavery was a British institution. Not an American one. The founding fathers knew not how to end slavery at the time of founding but did put plans in place for it to perish. They wrote into the constitution the earliest date the importation of slaves could cease and stopped it on that date. In the meantime they wrote laws that halted the spread of slavery. Unlike your beloved Democratic Party which reversed those laws in the late 1820’s when they gained power.

I think you need to face the facts that the Democratic Party was responsible for the spread of slavery and the perpetuation of slavery.

The positions of the parties have changed radically.
In 1860, the Democratic party split into the Northern and Southern Democrats and remained so for some years. Even when they unified, they were sharply divided over race. However they were unified when it came to small government and states rights and their opposition to republicans which was the party of big business, big government, and big spending. This continued till the great depression.

Roosevelt completely changed the direction of the democratic party from a fiscally conservative party with little interest in racial causes to the tax and spend party, willing to support labor movements and slowly moving toward a more liberal racial policy. By the 1970, the democratic party had become the liberal party we know today.

Today the two parties are the opposite of what they were a hundred years ago. Republicans were responsible for passage of women suffrage in 1919. In the 1980's they were responsible for the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment. Republicans were the champions of civil rights and getting blacks registered to vote in earlier 20th century. Now republicans are calling for repeating of Voting Rights Act and changing Civil Rights Act. Religious fundamentalists were far more likely to be democrats than republicans in early 20th century. The reverse is true today. Margaret Sanger, a campaign of women rights, birth control, and founder of Planned Parenthood was a republican and got strong support from republican allies and was constantly being attacked by democrats. The money that founded Planned Parenthood came mostly from republican donors. Today Margaret Sanger is cheered by democrats and condemned by republicans.

Nope. Democrats still believe some human lives are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. Nothing has changed.

You do realize that the Democratic Party has never apologized for their racist heritage, right?

 

[Votto]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

If the Founders had fought hard enough for political freedom the slaves in the US would not have existed.

Learn some history. Slavery was a British institution. Not an American one. The founding fathers knew not how to end slavery at the time of founding but did put plans in place for it to perish. They wrote into the constitution the earliest date the importation of slaves could cease and stopped it on that date. In the meantime they wrote laws that halted the spread of slavery. Unlike your beloved Democratic Party which reversed those laws in the late 1820’s when they gained power.

I think you need to face the facts that the Democratic Party was responsible for the spread of slavery and the perpetuation of slavery.

The positions of the parties have changed radically.
In 1860, the Democratic party split into the Northern and Southern Democrats and remained so for some years. Even when they unified, they were sharply divided over race. However they were unified when it came to small government and states rights and their opposition to republicans which was the party of big business, big government, and big spending. This continued till the great depression.

Roosevelt completely changed the direction of the democratic party from a fiscally conservative party with little interest in racial causes to the tax and spend party, willing to support labor movements and slowly moving toward a more liberal racial policy. By the 1970, the democratic party had become the liberal party we know today.

Today the two parties are the opposite of what they were a hundred years ago. Republicans were responsible for passage of women suffrage in 1919. In the 1980's they were responsible for the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment. Republicans were the champions of civil rights and getting blacks registered to vote in earlier 20th century. Now republicans are calling for repeating of Voting Rights Act and changing Civil Rights Act. Religious fundamentalists were far more likely to be democrats than republicans in early 20th century. The reverse is true today. Margaret Sanger, a campaign of women rights, birth control, and founder of Planned Parenthood was a republican and got strong support from republican allies and was constantly being attacked by democrats. The money that founded Planned Parenthood came mostly from republican donors. Today Margaret Sanger is cheered by democrats and condemned by republicans.

Nope. Democrats still believe some human lives are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. Nothing has changed.

You do realize that the Democratic Party has never apologized for their racist heritage, right?

FDR is still revered by pretty much everyone despite being the most racist in the 20th century.

What other President locked up innocent Americans simply because of their race?

 

[ding]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

If the Founders had fought hard enough for political freedom the slaves in the US would not have existed.

Learn some history. Slavery was a British institution. Not an American one. The founding fathers knew not how to end slavery at the time of founding but did put plans in place for it to perish. They wrote into the constitution the earliest date the importation of slaves could cease and stopped it on that date. In the meantime they wrote laws that halted the spread of slavery. Unlike your beloved Democratic Party which reversed those laws in the late 1820’s when they gained power.

I think you need to face the facts that the Democratic Party was responsible for the spread of slavery and the perpetuation of slavery.

The positions of the parties have changed radically.
In 1860, the Democratic party split into the Northern and Southern Democrats and remained so for some years. Even when they unified, they were sharply divided over race. However they were unified when it came to small government and states rights and their opposition to republicans which was the party of big business, big government, and big spending. This continued till the great depression.

Roosevelt completely changed the direction of the democratic party from a fiscally conservative party with little interest in racial causes to the tax and spend party, willing to support labor movements and slowly moving toward a more liberal racial policy. By the 1970, the democratic party had become the liberal party we know today.

Today the two parties are the opposite of what they were a hundred years ago. Republicans were responsible for passage of women suffrage in 1919. In the 1980's they were responsible for the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment. Republicans were the champions of civil rights and getting blacks registered to vote in earlier 20th century. Now republicans are calling for repeating of Voting Rights Act and changing Civil Rights Act. Religious fundamentalists were far more likely to be democrats than republicans in early 20th century. The reverse is true today. Margaret Sanger, a campaign of women rights, birth control, and founder of Planned Parenthood was a republican and got strong support from republican allies and was constantly being attacked by democrats. The money that founded Planned Parenthood came mostly from republican donors. Today Margaret Sanger is cheered by democrats and condemned by republicans.

Nope. Democrats still believe some human lives are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. Nothing has changed.

You do realize that the Democratic Party has never apologized for their racist heritage, right?

FDR is still revered by pretty much everyone despite being the most racist in the 20th century.

What other President locked up innocent Americans simply because of their race?

FDR was doing what he thought was best for our country during incredibly difficult times.

 

[Votto]

If the Founders had fought hard enough for political freedom the slaves in the US would not have existed.

Learn some history. Slavery was a British institution. Not an American one. The founding fathers knew not how to end slavery at the time of founding but did put plans in place for it to perish. They wrote into the constitution the earliest date the importation of slaves could cease and stopped it on that date. In the meantime they wrote laws that halted the spread of slavery. Unlike your beloved Democratic Party which reversed those laws in the late 1820’s when they gained power.

I think you need to face the facts that the Democratic Party was responsible for the spread of slavery and the perpetuation of slavery.

The positions of the parties have changed radically.
In 1860, the Democratic party split into the Northern and Southern Democrats and remained so for some years. Even when they unified, they were sharply divided over race. However they were unified when it came to small government and states rights and their opposition to republicans which was the party of big business, big government, and big spending. This continued till the great depression.

Roosevelt completely changed the direction of the democratic party from a fiscally conservative party with little interest in racial causes to the tax and spend party, willing to support labor movements and slowly moving toward a more liberal racial policy. By the 1970, the democratic party had become the liberal party we know today.

Today the two parties are the opposite of what they were a hundred years ago. Republicans were responsible for passage of women suffrage in 1919. In the 1980's they were responsible for the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment. Republicans were the champions of civil rights and getting blacks registered to vote in earlier 20th century. Now republicans are calling for repeating of Voting Rights Act and changing Civil Rights Act. Religious fundamentalists were far more likely to be democrats than republicans in early 20th century. The reverse is true today. Margaret Sanger, a campaign of women rights, birth control, and founder of Planned Parenthood was a republican and got strong support from republican allies and was constantly being attacked by democrats. The money that founded Planned Parenthood came mostly from republican donors. Today Margaret Sanger is cheered by democrats and condemned by republicans.

Nope. Democrats still believe some human lives are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. Nothing has changed.

You do realize that the Democratic Party has never apologized for their racist heritage, right?

FDR is still revered by pretty much everyone despite being the most racist in the 20th century.

What other President locked up innocent Americans simply because of their race?

FDR was doing what he thought was best for our country during incredibly difficult times.

So is Trump. Trump tried to issue a travel ban for countries with the most terrorism. They just happened to all be Muslim. Imagine that.

Well then the press said that it was a Muslim ban, which was a lie. The ban would have let well over 90% of other Muslims to immigrate who were not from these countries. In fact, Obama had a similar travel ban at one time but nothing was said about it.

But now we are to believe the FDR was a much better President than Trump and that Trump cuz he is the racist one? I don't think so.

I call BS.

FDR also wanted to implement the Court Packing Scheme in order to get SOCTUS to do as he wanted, a clear repudiation and disdain for the Constitution. It should then be of no surprise that Democrats today want to do the exact same thing.

FDR was a little tyrant and evil racist. It was so bad, Congress implemented term limits for the role of President.

 

[sparky]

What other President locked up innocent Americans simply because of their race?

oh i dunno, anyone been to our southern borders lately?

~S~

 

[sparky]

Luckily, Christianity has learned this in large part. They no longer seek to oppress people like they did with the Catholic church and the Inquisitions and Crusades, etc. However, Islam has not learned this. In fact, it is impossible to separate the state from their religion because their religion demands Sharia law. You might even say that Islam is more of a political ideology than a religion. Their utopia is to bring about world wide governmental Islam as where Christians await Christ to return to save them from the oppressive world governments, institutions responsible for the vast majority of oppression of mankind who were either a slave of kings or murdered by them.

Seperation of church/state vs, theorcracy being the point, Votto, but also the quagmire when religmo's insist a society can not assume morality or virture w/o celestial intervention

congitive dissonance betrays them

~S~

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

can you please explain how you are getting that "DEISTS" are more like "atheists"

Yes. They do not believe in a personal god, or a god that intervenes. Its just papered-over atheism.

 

[BreezeWood]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

.

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

4th century christianity's accusation that everyone is born a sinner, and remains sinners alleviates them of any justified role they would impose on society by the very nature of their unjustified religion as in itself being biased without cause.

??? Dear BreezeWood

1. if 4th century Christianity was teaching inaccurately or incompletely
isn't it the responsibility of believers today to fix this misteaching and not follow it?
Does this require renouncing Christianity altogether in order to fix past teaching
or why can't the correction be made while claiming and promoting CORRECT faith and teaching
and still call it Christianity. (Similar to correcting mathematical or scientific errors,
does that mean we throw out "math and science" and call the corrected system by a different name?
Can't we replace the errors using the same system of math/science and still call it math/science?

2. How are human biases without cause "unfixable"?
If you have no faith that unjustly biased people can ever resolve this
so they COULD play a meaningful constructive "role in society"
isn't that an issue of YOU LACKING FAITH in correction. How is YOUR lack
of faith a reflection on other people, isn't that a reflection on YOU?

3. As for the idea "everyone is born a sinner and remains a sinner"
Why can't this be interpreted to mean
everyone is BORN to be BIASED and will always be influenced by our personal BIASES and preferences.
Thus we are NOT PERFECT. we are not universally equal in treatment and understanding
of all other people as God is who IS perfect and all inclusive, knowing and treating all people justly.
No person is able to do that, save the representation of Jesus as Perfectly EQUAL Justice under Law
universally for all humanity.

Do you agree no one person is so perfectly just as to be able
to solve all problems with all people and speak perfect justice and solutions to all the world's problems?
That nobody is God?

Given that interpretation, isn't it true that we are all born to be imperfect as humans
and will remain limited in that way.

In the spirit of Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice, with Mercy and Peace,
we can all work around our imperfect biases and limits,
and still follow God's will despite our mistakes in perception and judgment
(which we can help each other correct).

Do you agree that we can be "perfect even as our Heavenly Father is perfect"
by uniting in agreement in Christ Jesus, agreeing to forgive and confess our
faults that we may receive correction and healing to remedy those imperfections.

Thus, even though man is made in the image of God,
our physical lives and relations are going to be flawed and biased.
We are not omniscient and will not be able to "read each other's minds"
so we make mistakes in communication, perception and action towards each other.

Don't all people continue to make mistakes?
So if sin means separation from God who is perfect,
aren't all people imperfect and influenced by bias that makes us
"less" than universally selfless and inclusive of all people equally as God is?

.

1. if 4th century Christianity was teaching inaccurately or incompletely
isn't it the responsibility of believers today to fix this misteaching and not follow it?

Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.

??? - is that because I have referenced the fraud to you, I would suppose so ... they spent the entire 4th century writing your book, there is nothing in your writings that does not reflect its corruption.

what are the sins you are unable to not commit, lynghton ...

the 1st century was a reaffirmation of the original religion of antiquity prescribed by the Almighty - The Triumph of Good vs Evil, that is all there is - your 10000 pg. document is itself nothing more than a political manifesto disguised as a religion.

your presumptive post is in itself an indictment christianity has orchestrated since the 4th century, your indifference for the truth is exemplative of that corruption.


whatever the party that has been referenced, what has always remained the same is the christianity of the "bible belt" responsible for the crimes against humanity they have perpetuated uninterrupted throughout their history. slavery, one kind or another.

 

[emilynghiem]

Obama dared say America was not a Christian nation. It is, but he's a Commie Muslim traitor narcissistic faggot, so he said it wasn't because he isn't.

If conservatives aren't contriving ridiculous lies they're propagating ridiculous rightwing lies, this post being one of many examples.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
and Conservatives complain similarly about Liberals promoting leftwing lies in the media and party propaganda.

Who is going to make the first move to correct this mutual dilemma?

What I offered as a first step, let's address the issue that only the OTHER party is pushing THEIR beliefs through govt
and discriminating against people of other beliefs.

Could we agree to call a truce on this mutually objectionable pattern of politics?

I ask advocates on both left and right
* if the rightwing wants their right to life to be respected as a belief, and to defund programs they find violate their beliefs
can't the leftwing argue for their right to fund "right to health care" as a belief and to defund
the Death Penalty they don't believe in so those resources can be redirected to health care instead
* if the leftwing wants their LGBT beliefs to be respected and protected, including in public schools and institutions,
can the rightwing argue for their expressions of God, Christian prayer, Jesus, spiritual healing, etc.
to be taught and included in public institutions equally as a choice of belief or cultural expression or IDENTITY

Can we admit that these constitute BELIEFS
and that everyone wants their beliefs to be protected from any imposition, infringement or obstruction by other beliefs.

Can we quit lying to ourselves and others,
professing that it's acceptable and lawful to impose our beliefs
on others through govt, when in fact we oppose when this is done to us.
Thus, it ISN'T okay to abuse majority or judicial rule to establish beliefs
that WE believe in if OTHERS don't. It's actually unconstitutional
and discriminatory, so why don't we just admit this isn't lawful or ethical practice?

Can we be that political honest and transparent?
Would that help both sides to drop their fronts and quit pretending
only one side is right?

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The Republican president of the United States does nothing but lie, with his conservative supporters defending and propagating those lies – a comprehensive policy of lies, misinformation, and fake news unique to the right.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
The lies that Trump mouths off are more easily corrected
than the constant prevailing DAMAGE done by liberal propaganda.

I wish you could see what I find happening, just in these past few weeks.

As you well know on USMB, I had long argued that it was Unconstitutional
to pass ACA mandates by majority rule in Congress against dissenting
Members and also Citizens whose "constitutional beliefs were violated."

You among other liberals did NOT see or TEACH that such law violated
due process, and deprived citizens of liberty (including free exercise of
Constitutional beliefs, and protection from Discrimination by Creed).
You specifically did NOT see that the law violated "freedom of choice"
for people of opposing beliefs to yours, but in fact established the
"freedom of choice" for only believers that health care is a right through govt.
So it clearly discriminated by creed, even penalizing dissenters who didn't
or couldn't comply due to Constitutional beliefs such citizens SWORE to uphold and defend from violations.
But YOU (among others, including apparently Obama, Pelosi and other Democrats)
believe YOUR belief and interpretation is correct, so you did not see it as "discrimination"
but "those opposing beliefs are wrong."

^ Is this fair and accurate so far, please clarify if this isn't ^

So C_Clayton_Jones as long as these Democrats and advocates of pushing
"health care as right through govt" REFUSE to acknowledge this constitutes a BELIEF,
and that people have a right NOT to believe in it, and NOT to be forced to comply
with it by force of law, govt and penalty through taxes,

then YOU and other Democrats (including Obama, Pelosi and even Republicans
and Conservatives such as Justice Roberts who also failed to correct this)
are CONTINUING to preach and teach that it is "lawful" and/or Necessary
to enforce such tax mandates and force health care through govt as a right.

This is CLEARLY a POLITICAL BELIEF.

So the issue is YOU believe it is okay (or even essential)
to push this Political Belief through govt because you
believe it is Universal Truth and is necessary for equal protection of all people.

The "only way" to guarantee equal protection of health care for all
IS to "establish it through federal govt" and that's why you defend this.

IF that's your belief, I understand you have the right to defend, believe, express and practice it

But what's missing C_Clayton_Jones
then so do OTHER PEOPLE AND GROUPS have EQUAL right as YOU to
defend, believe, express, and practice THEIR political beliefs
including Constitutionalism which "health care as a right through govt" VIOLATES.

So you are basically "discriminating by CREED"
by only defending YOUR political belief at the expense of violating others.

It violates Constitutional beliefs including limited govt, not depriving people of
liberty and choice without due process to prove which people were convicted of which abuses meriting penalty,
and Constitutional process of passing Amendments through states and voting before adding or
expanding the duties of federal govt beyond the 18 enumerated powers originally defined
(among other principles that could be cited as well).

So C_Clayton_Jones
how this is a LIE causing personal and public harm
1. The Democratic party, leaders, members, voters, supporters and donors
and the media propaganda spreading and enforcing this "teaching"
that it is acceptable/lawful to abuse govt to impose the political belief
that "health care is a right requiring going through federal govt"
TEACHES discrimination against other political beliefs including Constitutionalism.

it fails to teach that this is unconstitutional.
So it is promoting "lies" or misrepresentation on multiple levels

2. When I started researching and sharing statistics I found
through a nonprofit cooperative system that cuts health care costs in half
without interfering but actually using Medicare pricing as its base,
I am finding that only the people of the "independent" belief about health care,
who are able to understand it as a choice that people have without going through govt,
ARE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE of the program and start using it and teaching it
as more cost effective.

This SEVERELY disadvantages those people who either believe, or have been
taught or conditioned, that "govt is the only way to ensure equal protection and provision of health care."

Thus, the Democrats like you have disadvantaged and disenfranchised people
who cannot participate, until and unless the same Democratic Party leaders
CHAMPION the cooperative system of health care and
TEACH people it is the most Cost Effective way to ensure Sustainable benefits
(ie without fear that these can be changed at a whim by depending on govt reps to vote or rule on it)
and/or start teaching and supporting the education necessary
for people to learn this by free choice instead of preaching it
as the Democrats preached the opposite previously.

Currently I'm finding only the extreme Independents among the progressives
can see the advantages of free choice in cooperatives while increasing ability
to negotiate "medicare pricing" for all doctors, clinics, hospitals and providers
who choose freely to participate because cooperatives remove the HIGHER cost
of insurance claims, administration, profits going elsewhere, and hassle.

Having to re-educate people either takes
1. teaching everyone that cooperatives cut the costs of health and medical care
to AT COST pricing, based on medicare pricing, but without going through govt or insurance companies
2. it does NOT violate anyone's free choice or beliefs including political beliefs,
but allows equal access to people of prochoice, prolife, right to health care, free market health care, etc.
to participate and benefit equally
PROVIDED they are educated and able to use the program to benefit their own members to manage
and own themselves.

^ so this is where I have found the LIES taught by Democrats
have caused GREATER harm that is a LOT harder to rectify
than lies told by Trump that are easier to dissuade people from believing.

C_Clayton_Jones you naturally believe health care is a right,
and that's fine - the Cooperative system can accommodate that without infringing on anyone else's beliefs.

But your insistence on
1. going through federal govt to establish this
2. teaching that's the ONLY WAY to ensure equal protection
is lying about the discrimination against other creeds
you refuse to acknowledge because you are so convinced
those other beliefs are either wrong or "need to change anyway"

And you see nothing wrong with abusing govt and force of law
to FORCE that change and compliance on people of other beliefs
because you BELIEVE your way is right, is the only way, and
the other way of believing is wrong and doesn't deserve "equal protection
of the laws" from "discrimination by creed"

That in itself is "discrimination by creed" and you don't see it.
So you and other Democrats teaching this "discrimination by creed"
are teaching a lie by refusing to acknowledge it is violating equal rights of others.

You either don't see it, or you don't care if it is causing harm.
You are so sure you are right.

More people understand when Trump is mouthing off, it's not the truth.

I've been contesting and objecting to the ACA mandates and passage/enforcement
as unconstitutional since it was originally passed through Congress,
and I STILL find people don't know that this is unconstitutional
to discriminate by creed, penalize people for not complying when this violates their beliefs,
and keep pushing this as if it is lawful use of democratic govt process.

I find this MISREPRESENTATION of the govt process and LIMITS
that AREN'T supposed to allow "establishment" of religion/beliefs through govt
is the more dangerous, harmful propaganda or "lies" more expensive to rectify.

I believe it will take a multi-party lawsuit or petition to Democratic party leaders
to acknowledge the damage from discrimination by creed,
and ask for restitution and correction through mass education
and restoration of free choice in beliefs and health care
by promoting the Cooperative model that solves the problems,
ensures the most cost effective sustainable choices, and
doesn't violate anyone's beliefs. Even the people like you
who insist on going through govt, that can be a choice also
but can't be the only one. That part is a lie - only the people
who require or believe health care is a right need to do this
through govt for their own beliefs or requirements.

So if that is your way, you would be required to create
Cooperatives through govt if you are going to truly provide
this option for all people who believe as you do.

The others who believe in free market choice of health care
have equal right to create Cooperatives OUTSIDE of govt,
and they have greater freedom to do so while the people
waiting on govt have a lot harder battle to fight to teach
people this better way to achieve universal health care.

Source: www.patientphysiciancoop.com

 

[emilynghiem]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

.

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

4th century christianity's accusation that everyone is born a sinner, and remains sinners alleviates them of any justified role they would impose on society by the very nature of their unjustified religion as in itself being biased without cause.

??? Dear BreezeWood

1. if 4th century Christianity was teaching inaccurately or incompletely
isn't it the responsibility of believers today to fix this misteaching and not follow it?
Does this require renouncing Christianity altogether in order to fix past teaching
or why can't the correction be made while claiming and promoting CORRECT faith and teaching
and still call it Christianity. (Similar to correcting mathematical or scientific errors,
does that mean we throw out "math and science" and call the corrected system by a different name?
Can't we replace the errors using the same system of math/science and still call it math/science?

2. How are human biases without cause "unfixable"?
If you have no faith that unjustly biased people can ever resolve this
so they COULD play a meaningful constructive "role in society"
isn't that an issue of YOU LACKING FAITH in correction. How is YOUR lack
of faith a reflection on other people, isn't that a reflection on YOU?

3. As for the idea "everyone is born a sinner and remains a sinner"
Why can't this be interpreted to mean
everyone is BORN to be BIASED and will always be influenced by our personal BIASES and preferences.
Thus we are NOT PERFECT. we are not universally equal in treatment and understanding
of all other people as God is who IS perfect and all inclusive, knowing and treating all people justly.
No person is able to do that, save the representation of Jesus as Perfectly EQUAL Justice under Law
universally for all humanity.

Do you agree no one person is so perfectly just as to be able
to solve all problems with all people and speak perfect justice and solutions to all the world's problems?
That nobody is God?

Given that interpretation, isn't it true that we are all born to be imperfect as humans
and will remain limited in that way.

In the spirit of Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice, with Mercy and Peace,
we can all work around our imperfect biases and limits,
and still follow God's will despite our mistakes in perception and judgment
(which we can help each other correct).

Do you agree that we can be "perfect even as our Heavenly Father is perfect"
by uniting in agreement in Christ Jesus, agreeing to forgive and confess our
faults that we may receive correction and healing to remedy those imperfections.

Thus, even though man is made in the image of God,
our physical lives and relations are going to be flawed and biased.
We are not omniscient and will not be able to "read each other's minds"
so we make mistakes in communication, perception and action towards each other.

Don't all people continue to make mistakes?
So if sin means separation from God who is perfect,
aren't all people imperfect and influenced by bias that makes us
"less" than universally selfless and inclusive of all people equally as God is?

.

1. if 4th century Christianity was teaching inaccurately or incompletely
isn't it the responsibility of believers today to fix this misteaching and not follow it?

Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.

??? - is that because I have referenced the fraud to you, I would suppose so ... they spent the entire 4th century writing your book, there is nothing in your writings that does not reflect its corruption.

what are the sins you are unable to not commit, lynghton ...

the 1st century was a reaffirmation of the original religion of antiquity prescribed by the Almighty - The Triumph of Good vs Evil, that is all there is - your 10000 pg. document is itself nothing more than a political manifesto disguised as a religion.

your presumptive post is in itself an indictment christianity has orchestrated since the 4th century, your indifference for the truth is exemplative of that corruption.


whatever the party that has been referenced, what has always remained the same is the christianity of the "bible belt" responsible for the crimes against humanity they have perpetuated uninterrupted throughout their history. slavery, one kind or another.

Dear BreezeWood

I find both the Biblical Scriptures (and the Constitutional laws)
check themselves, and have built in principles and process
for resolving wrongs so that practices can be corrected.

See Matthew 18:15-20 about addressing rebukes and trespasses
to correct any false actions or false teachings so this is made right by God's laws

See also First Amendment to the US Constitution which contains
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances" using "freedom of speech, or of the press"
The rest of the Bill of Rights includes the right to DUE PROCESS.

So using those principles is enough to redress the grievances over slavery.

And the process in the Bible is enough to correct any past misteachings
involving SINS, so that CORRECTION process is INCLUDED
in this Bible you reject as flawed propaganda.

 

[Votto]

What other President locked up innocent Americans simply because of their race?

oh i dunno, anyone been to our southern borders lately?

~S~

So you are suggesting that the issue is race and not citizenship?

Really?

 

[Cecilie1200]

General and accepted definition" = The actual meaning of the fucking word, despite your long-term misuse of it.

Yes, thank you, I said that already. When i need a retard to follow me around and repeat what i say, i will give you a call.

Funnt thing it, it was always reigious freaks like you that called exists "atheists", due to their lack of belief in a personal god. I thi k there is truth to what they say. I think deists are just feckless atheists, myself.

Yes, thank you, you DIDN'T say that. You were attempting to pretend that you weren't dead wrong, and you're still trying to pretend it.

What you think something is doesn't matter a damn to what it actually is, which seems to be a concept that endlessly confuses leftists, who are stuck on believing that their half-formed, uneducated opinions and their "feelz" somehow shape reality. What YOU think REALLY doesn't matter, because even in a field of melodramatic, immature imbeciles, you stand out as their king.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

Tell them to read this book:

Then remind them that Jesus did not have very kind things to say about people who aren't willing to stand proudly on His behalf, rather than cowering and apologizing . . . or worse, denying Him entirely.

We will never reach any sort of common understanding until we stop allowing our children to be taught insane lies about our history and culture. That's gonna be tough at this point, since so many parents and even grandparents were ALSO taught the same lies and misinformation.

As always, the solution is knowledge and education.

I actually have that book.

Some atheists, especially militant ones, don’t realize that their righteous indignation only exists because of the values of justice and fairness that Christianity established in western civilization.

It's rather ironic, how ingrained Judeo-Christian culture and thought is on them without them even being aware of it, to the point that their attacks on it are based in it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

If the Founders had fought hard enough for political freedom the slaves in the US would not have existed.

Learn some history. Slavery was a British institution. Not an American one. The founding fathers knew not how to end slavery at the time of founding but did put plans in place for it to perish. They wrote into the constitution the earliest date the importation of slaves could cease and stopped it on that date. In the meantime they wrote laws that halted the spread of slavery. Unlike your beloved Democratic Party which reversed those laws in the late 1820’s when they gained power.

I think you need to face the facts that the Democratic Party was responsible for the spread of slavery and the perpetuation of slavery.

Actually, slavery was a human institution, from much farther back than the British Empire, and certainly farther back than the US. It took the Judeo-Christian culture ascendant in the US and Great Britain to make the first serious inroads into ending slavery as an accepted and normal practice.

Agreed. But what I find interesting is the British waited until right before the US could abolish the importation of slaves to abolish it themselves. They could have done it 20 years earlier.

Maybe, maybe not. History is never simple and straightforward. Could be that it required the right build up of circumstances at the right time with the right people to spark the movement. It is certainly my contention that it required the long build-up of Judeo-Christian culture to bring Western Civilization to that epiphany. Maybe Great Britain needed the example of the US's struggle.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the Founders had fought hard enough for political freedom the slaves in the US would not have existed.

Learn some history. Slavery was a British institution. Not an American one. The founding fathers knew not how to end slavery at the time of founding but did put plans in place for it to perish. They wrote into the constitution the earliest date the importation of slaves could cease and stopped it on that date. In the meantime they wrote laws that halted the spread of slavery. Unlike your beloved Democratic Party which reversed those laws in the late 1820’s when they gained power.

I think you need to face the facts that the Democratic Party was responsible for the spread of slavery and the perpetuation of slavery.

The positions of the parties have changed radically.
In 1860, the Democratic party split into the Northern and Southern Democrats and remained so for some years. Even when they unified, they were sharply divided over race. However they were unified when it came to small government and states rights and their opposition to republicans which was the party of big business, big government, and big spending. This continued till the great depression.

Roosevelt completely changed the direction of the democratic party from a fiscally conservative party with little interest in racial causes to the tax and spend party, willing to support labor movements and slowly moving toward a more liberal racial policy. By the 1970, the democratic party had become the liberal party we know today.

Today the two parties are the opposite of what they were a hundred years ago. Republicans were responsible for passage of women suffrage in 1919. In the 1980's they were responsible for the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment. Republicans were the champions of civil rights and getting blacks registered to vote in earlier 20th century. Now republicans are calling for repeating of Voting Rights Act and changing Civil Rights Act. Religious fundamentalists were far more likely to be democrats than republicans in early 20th century. The reverse is true today. Margaret Sanger, a campaign of women rights, birth control, and founder of Planned Parenthood was a republican and got strong support from republican allies and was constantly being attacked by democrats. The money that founded Planned Parenthood came mostly from republican donors. Today Margaret Sanger is cheered by democrats and condemned by republicans.

Nope. Democrats still believe some human lives are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. Nothing has changed.

You do realize that the Democratic Party has never apologized for their racist heritage, right?

FDR is still revered by pretty much everyone despite being the most racist in the 20th century.

What other President locked up innocent Americans simply because of their race?

FDR was doing what he thought was best for our country during incredibly difficult times.

There's a reason why it's the road to Hell, not the road to Heaven, that's paved with good intentions.