If We Erase The Christian Basis Of Governance, Then What Do We Unleash?

[Kondor3]

Concession duly noted.

Don't flatter (or delude) yourself.

I'm 6-1/2 weeks past a knee replacement and popping painkillers that sap energy and make me sleepy.

Another time.

He isn't worth it man.

Yes, after seeing Post #366 (copy, below) a few minutes ago, I'm beginning to get that impression, myself.

I wasn't aware you needed your knee to refute an argument that the church royally screwed up dealing with either clergy sex abuse or who was on the right side in WWII. Those seem like kind of no-brainers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

God's will and providence necessitate the formation of Western culture and everything else.

OK.

Then let God protect and defend our culture.

I shall do nothing to interfere with the will of God on this matter. I shall do nothing at all.

God's will is absolute. Everything God wants to do is done already.

The created creature reality is the now. Therefore, we have free will. More precisely, we have an appearance of free will.


You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?Romans 9:19-24 (ESV)

But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Matthew 6:33

The Bible is a storybook written by Men.

You better hope so, you've bet the farm on it.

Well maybe your pretending that God wrote the Bible, if there is a God, will be clever enough to fool Him into thinking you're a true believer.

 

[Bfgrn]

Can you name any 'conservatives' who spoke out against eugenics?

Look here:

And yet the Progressives themselves repeatedly denied that this was the case. As Theodore Roosevelt acknowledged in a private letter near the end of his life:

I do not for one moment believe that the Americanism of today should be a mere submission to the American ideals of the period of the Declaration of Independence. . . . Such action would be not only to stand still, but to go back. American democracy, of course, must mean an opportunity for everyone to contribute his own ideas to the working out of the future. But I will go further than you have done. I have actively fought in favor of grafting on our social life, no less than our industrial life, many of the German ideals.[10]
​

The Progressives, at least, understood that their approach to reform was animated by a new conception of government or, more precisely, “the State.” Importantly, this idea, the “German idea of the State,” departs from the American Founders’ understanding of government in a couple of key respects, both of which help explain the Progressives’ enthusiasm for eugenics.[11]

For the Progressives, to begin, the power of government is NOT limited in principle to securing the natural or “inalienable” rights of man, as the Declaration of Independence has it. “It is not admitted that there are no limits to the action of the state,” as the German-trained progressive political scientist and future New Dealer Charles Merriam concludes in a 1903 survey of progressive thinking,

but on the other hand it is fully conceded that there are no ‘natural rights’ which bar the way. The question is now one of expediency rather than of principle . . . each specific question must be decided on its own merits, and each action of the state justified, if at all, by the relative advantages of the proposed line of conduct.
​

“in general,” as the German-trained progressive economist Richard T. Ely likewise affirms, “there is no limit to the right of the State, the sovereign power, save its ability to do good.”[12] The first step toward bold, experimental reform was to untie the hands of government.

For the Progressives, the government’s obligation in this regard was perfectly compatible with treating different races (whom they believed were at varying stages of development), differently in law and policy.[13] It also trumped not only the ability of individuals to exercise their now “so-called innate or ‘natural rights'” –e.g. the right to live, enjoy one’s physical liberty, acquire and use property, marry, speak, worship God according to the dictates of one’s conscience, etc.–but also an individual’s fundamental right to attain his own highest development where the prospect for development was believed to be relatively small, or his restraint was believed to be advantageous to the development of a greater number.[14]

Perhaps nowhere is the Progressives’ willingness to run roughshod over individual liberty, for the sake of improving America generally, as stark as in their support for eugenics.​

These debates are still playing out today. Progressives see no limit to the expansion of government. Progressives favor unmooring the Constitution from what the Founding Fathers intended. Conservatives are in favor of Originalist readings of the Constitution. Eugenics was to the Progressives of the era as Climate Change is to the Progressives of this era - it was "sciency" and they lapped it up.

This was an expansion of government power which was alien to conservatives.

The man who I quoted in the OP and later in the thread, wrote "Eugenics and Other Evils" in 1922. A Christian-based opposition to what Progressives were undertaking. Here is the full-text of that work.

Ironically, as the Eugenics Movement came to the United States, the churches, especially the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians, embraced it.

The Mainline denominations which have disproportionately provided the footsoldiers of modern-day Liberalism. It's not a surprise that in an era in which everyone belonged to some Christian church that there was variation seen on the metric of how closely a group subscribed to Scripture. Then when religiosity declined the members of these Churches abandoned their Christianity and migrated over to their new religion, Liberalism. The present-day remnants of these Churches are the ones who have Gay Bishops and such.

From the book "The Encyclopedia of Religion in American Politics:

The people who fought against eugenics in the past are drawn from the same set as the people who fight against abortion today, for eugenics and abortion are thematically linked.

This discussion is laced with irony. First of all, conservatives are word bound imbeciles. The 'word' progressive in relation to the progressive movement or progressive era, and modern day progressives are not the same. I know morons like Glenn Beck like to make things real simple for your right wing puppets. If you do any in depth reading about that era, the progressive movement was not a splinter group of people. It was a huge bipartisan groundswell with many diverse groups and issues.

Can you name any 'conservatives' who spoke out against eugenics?

Look here:

And yet the Progressives themselves repeatedly denied that this was the case. As Theodore Roosevelt acknowledged in a private letter near the end of his life:

I do not for one moment believe that the Americanism of today should be a mere submission to the American ideals of the period of the Declaration of Independence. . . . Such action would be not only to stand still, but to go back. American democracy, of course, must mean an opportunity for everyone to contribute his own ideas to the working out of the future. But I will go further than you have done. I have actively fought in favor of grafting on our social life, no less than our industrial life, many of the German ideals.[10]
​

The Progressives, at least, understood that their approach to reform was animated by a new conception of government or, more precisely, “the State.” Importantly, this idea, the “German idea of the State,” departs from the American Founders’ understanding of government in a couple of key respects, both of which help explain the Progressives’ enthusiasm for eugenics.[11]

For the Progressives, to begin, the power of government is NOT limited in principle to securing the natural or “inalienable” rights of man, as the Declaration of Independence has it. “It is not admitted that there are no limits to the action of the state,” as the German-trained progressive political scientist and future New Dealer Charles Merriam concludes in a 1903 survey of progressive thinking,

but on the other hand it is fully conceded that there are no ‘natural rights’ which bar the way. The question is now one of expediency rather than of principle . . . each specific question must be decided on its own merits, and each action of the state justified, if at all, by the relative advantages of the proposed line of conduct.
​

“in general,” as the German-trained progressive economist Richard T. Ely likewise affirms, “there is no limit to the right of the State, the sovereign power, save its ability to do good.”[12] The first step toward bold, experimental reform was to untie the hands of government.

For the Progressives, the government’s obligation in this regard was perfectly compatible with treating different races (whom they believed were at varying stages of development), differently in law and policy.[13] It also trumped not only the ability of individuals to exercise their now “so-called innate or ‘natural rights'” –e.g. the right to live, enjoy one’s physical liberty, acquire and use property, marry, speak, worship God according to the dictates of one’s conscience, etc.–but also an individual’s fundamental right to attain his own highest development where the prospect for development was believed to be relatively small, or his restraint was believed to be advantageous to the development of a greater number.[14]

Perhaps nowhere is the Progressives’ willingness to run roughshod over individual liberty, for the sake of improving America generally, as stark as in their support for eugenics.​

These debates are still playing out today. Progressives see no limit to the expansion of government. Progressives favor unmooring the Constitution from what the Founding Fathers intended. Conservatives are in favor of Originalist readings of the Constitution. Eugenics was to the Progressives of the era as Climate Change is to the Progressives of this era - it was "sciency" and they lapped it up.

This was an expansion of government power which was alien to conservatives.

The man who I quoted in the OP and later in the thread, wrote "Eugenics and Other Evils" in 1922. A Christian-based opposition to what Progressives were undertaking. Here is the full-text of that work.

Ironically, as the Eugenics Movement came to the United States, the churches, especially the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians, embraced it.

The Mainline denominations which have disproportionately provided the footsoldiers of modern-day Liberalism. It's not a surprise that in an era in which everyone belonged to some Christian church that there was variation seen on the metric of how closely a group subscribed to Scripture. Then when religiosity declined the members of these Churches abandoned their Christianity and migrated over to their new religion, Liberalism. The present-day remnants of these Churches are the ones who have Gay Bishops and such.

From the book "The Encyclopedia of Religion in American Politics:

The people who fought against eugenics in the past are drawn from the same set as the people who fight against abortion today, for eugenics and abortion are thematically linked.

In your first sentence, what was it that TR denied Rikurzhen ?

And yet the Progressives themselves repeatedly denied that this was the case. As Theodore Roosevelt acknowledged in a private letter near the end of his life:

 

[JoeB131]

Concession duly noted.

Don't flatter (or delude) yourself.

I'm 6-1/2 weeks past a knee replacement and popping painkillers that sap energy and make me sleepy.

Another time.

He isn't worth it man.

Yes, after seeing Post #366 (copy, below) a few minutes ago, I'm beginning to get that impression, myself.

I wasn't aware you needed your knee to refute an argument that the church royally screwed up dealing with either clergy sex abuse or who was on the right side in WWII. Those seem like kind of no-brainers.

Again, your concession is duly noted. And taht you seem to want to accept praise from someone who mocks someones dead mother says a lot.

 

[Kondor3]

Concession duly noted.

Don't flatter (or delude) yourself.

I'm 6-1/2 weeks past a knee replacement and popping painkillers that sap energy and make me sleepy.

Another time.

He isn't worth it man.

Yes, after seeing Post #366 (copy, below) a few minutes ago, I'm beginning to get that impression, myself.

I wasn't aware you needed your knee to refute an argument that the church royally screwed up dealing with either clergy sex abuse or who was on the right side in WWII. Those seem like kind of no-brainers.

Again, your concession is duly noted. And taht you seem to want to accept praise from someone who mocks someones dead mother says a lot.

That psychological fault of yours - always needing to get-in the last word - can be controlled nowadays with medication.

No concession was served-up - neither explicit nor implicit - merely your flawed attempt to pounce upon a drug-induced state of exhaustion at the time.

As to somebody mocking dead mothers - I have no frigging idea what you're talking about, nor do I much care to get involved in some pissant tiff of yours in the past.

Back off.

 

[Antares]

Googling isn't the same as "fishing".

Poor Joe

You get to do these things when you go out and earn your own way.

Dude, I go fishing all the time. I own a fishing cabin in N. Wisconsin. (The one my dad left me when we used to have a middle class.)

So this is your idea of 'opulance", catching a fish once in a while?

LOL, so you've gone from 6 figures making me rich to this?
Weak Joe, but then that's what you are, weak.

Where did the words "opulence" and "rich" come from?
They came from you pop.
I simply said I was happy with what I "earned", YOU came out with the word "rich".
The very fact that YOU see those 6 figures as "rich" reveals what a emotionally/culturally stunted old man.

It all circles to my original post....I earn what I want/need and am content.
YOU whine like a little child about things being"not fair",you are in a state of arrested developeent, you will never be an adult.

 

[Antares]

God's will and providence necessitate the formation of Western culture and everything else.

OK.

Then let God protect and defend our culture.

I shall do nothing to interfere with the will of God on this matter. I shall do nothing at all.

God's will is absolute. Everything God wants to do is done already.

The created creature reality is the now. Therefore, we have free will. More precisely, we have an appearance of free will.


You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?Romans 9:19-24 (ESV)

But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Matthew 6:33

The Bible is a storybook written by Men.

You better hope so, you've bet the farm on it.

Well maybe your pretending that God wrote the Bible, if there is a God, will be clever enough to fool Him into thinking you're a true believer.

Poor Card, as I have stated many times.....
I practice no religion.....I know it hurts when you can't pigeon hole someone...when they just don't fit any of your little cubby holes.

 

[Kondor3]

OK.

Then let God protect and defend our culture.

I shall do nothing to interfere with the will of God on this matter. I shall do nothing at all.

God's will is absolute. Everything God wants to do is done already.

The created creature reality is the now. Therefore, we have free will. More precisely, we have an appearance of free will.


You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?Romans 9:19-24 (ESV)

But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Matthew 6:33

The Bible is a storybook written by Men.

You better hope so, you've bet the farm on it.

Well maybe your pretending that God wrote the Bible, if there is a God, will be clever enough to fool Him into thinking you're a true believer.

Poor Card, as I have stated many times.....
I practice no religion.....I know it hurts when you can't pigeon hole someone...when they just don't fit any of your little cubby holes.

Apparently, atheism has its share of narrow dogmatics, as well...

 

[Antares]

God's will is absolute. Everything God wants to do is done already.

The created creature reality is the now. Therefore, we have free will. More precisely, we have an appearance of free will.


You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?Romans 9:19-24 (ESV)

But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Matthew 6:33

The Bible is a storybook written by Men.

You better hope so, you've bet the farm on it.

Well maybe your pretending that God wrote the Bible, if there is a God, will be clever enough to fool Him into thinking you're a true believer.

Poor Card, as I have stated many times.....
I practice no religion.....I know it hurts when you can't pigeon hole someone...when they just don't fit any of your little cubby holes.

Apparently, atheism has its share of narrow dogmatics, as well...

OOO fun, were you going to try and pigeon hole me too?

 

[Kondor3]

The Bible is a storybook written by Men.

You better hope so, you've bet the farm on it.

Well maybe your pretending that God wrote the Bible, if there is a God, will be clever enough to fool Him into thinking you're a true believer.

Poor Card, as I have stated many times.....
I practice no religion.....I know it hurts when you can't pigeon hole someone...when they just don't fit any of your little cubby holes.

Apparently, atheism has its share of narrow dogmatics, as well...

OOO fun, were you going to try and pigeon hole me too?

Hell no, I don't much care, one way or the other...

...and I was referring to the others, not you.

 

[Antares]

You better hope so, you've bet the farm on it.

Well maybe your pretending that God wrote the Bible, if there is a God, will be clever enough to fool Him into thinking you're a true believer.

Poor Card, as I have stated many times.....
I practice no religion.....I know it hurts when you can't pigeon hole someone...when they just don't fit any of your little cubby holes.

Apparently, atheism has its share of narrow dogmatics, as well...

OOO fun, were you going to try and pigeon hole me too?

Hell no, I don't much care, one way or the other...

...and I was referring to the others, not you.

My most humble apologies kind sir/madame.

 

[JoeB131]

[

LOL, so you've gone from 6 figures making me rich to this?
Weak Joe, but then that's what you are, weak.

Where did the words "opulence" and "rich" come from?
They came from you pop.
I simply said I was happy with what I "earned", YOU came out with the word "rich".
The very fact that YOU see those 6 figures as "rich" reveals what a emotionally/culturally stunted old man.

It all circles to my original post....I earn what I want/need and am content.
YOU whine like a little child about things being"not fair",you are in a state of arrested developeent, you will never be an adult.

Uh, guy, six figures is doing pretty well. Not that I think for a moment you are, but i'm sure six figures was the most your limited imagination could come up with.

I earn what I need. That wasn't my point.

My point is that SOCIETIES with wealth inequality as severe as ours are doomed, pretty much as soon as the majority realizes it can vote to redistribute wealth or otherwise force it.

I'm sorry you are too dumb to get this.

 

[JoeB131]

That psychological fault of yours - always needing to get-in the last word - can be controlled nowadays with medication.

No concession was served-up - neither explicit nor implicit - merely your flawed attempt to pounce upon a drug-induced state of exhaustion at the time.

As to somebody mocking dead mothers - I have no frigging idea what you're talking about, nor do I much care to get involved in some pissant tiff of yours in the past.

Back off.

You know, your best new bud, Antares... check it out.

Anyway, sorry, man, you are spending more time complaining that you didn't get your ass whupped than actually refuting the claim.

The Catholic CHruch is primarily interested in its own wealth and power- NOT the morality that it claims to preach. So it throws in with dictators and hides pedophiles in their clergy.

All well and good, but it has no business passing itself off as an arbiter or morality.

 

[Antares]

[

LOL, so you've gone from 6 figures making me rich to this?
Weak Joe, but then that's what you are, weak.

Where did the words "opulence" and "rich" come from?
They came from you pop.
I simply said I was happy with what I "earned", YOU came out with the word "rich".
The very fact that YOU see those 6 figures as "rich" reveals what a emotionally/culturally stunted old man.

It all circles to my original post....I earn what I want/need and am content.
YOU whine like a little child about things being"not fair",you are in a state of arrested developeent, you will never be an adult.

Uh, guy, six figures is doing pretty well. Not that I think for a moment you are, but i'm sure six figures was the most your limited imagination could come up with.

I earn what I need. That wasn't my point.

My point is that SOCIETIES with wealth inequality as severe as ours are doomed, pretty much as soon as the majority realizes it can vote to redistribute wealth or otherwise force it.

I'm sorry you are too dumb to get this.

No back tracking now Joe, your "point" is that YOU are always jealous of what others have.....you've typed it again and again.

Now like Jake, you are trying to hide it...not going to happen
You are no more than a child crying about "fairness".

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK.

Then let God protect and defend our culture.

I shall do nothing to interfere with the will of God on this matter. I shall do nothing at all.

God's will is absolute. Everything God wants to do is done already.

The created creature reality is the now. Therefore, we have free will. More precisely, we have an appearance of free will.


You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?Romans 9:19-24 (ESV)

But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Matthew 6:33

The Bible is a storybook written by Men.

You better hope so, you've bet the farm on it.

Well maybe your pretending that God wrote the Bible, if there is a God, will be clever enough to fool Him into thinking you're a true believer.

Poor Card, as I have stated many times.....
I practice no religion.....I know it hurts when you can't pigeon hole someone...when they just don't fit any of your little cubby holes.

So your childish shot at me made even less sense than I assumed. You people never disappoint.

 

[JoeB131]

[

No back tracking now Joe, your "point" is that YOU are always jealous of what others have.....you've typed it again and again.

Now like Jake, you are trying to hide it...not going to happen
You are no more than a child crying about "fairness".

Uh, no, guy, i"m probably the least materialistic person you'd ever want to meet. I don't measure the value of my life on the amount of stuff I have.

I do have a reasonable expectation that if you are going to make people work for their health coverage, then you actually provide the health coverage.

I know, what a silly notion, right?

 

[Coyote]

Let's stick to the topic folks - personal food fights need to be taken to the FZ.

 

[JoeB131]

[

No back tracking now Joe, your "point" is that YOU are always jealous of what others have.....you've typed it again and again.

Now like Jake, you are trying to hide it...not going to happen
You are no more than a child crying about "fairness".

Uh, no, guy, i"m probably the least materialistic person you'd ever want to meet. I don't measure the value of my life on the amount of stuff I have.

I do have a reasonable expectation that if you are going to make people work for their health coverage, then you actually provide the health coverage.

I know, what a silly notion, right?

Keep trying to deflect and hide Joe......one must remember what one typed yesterday

Or your bizarre interpretation of it?

Here's the thing, guy. I'd be happy to go back to what we had in the 1990's. The rich made plenty of money and the working stiffs got their fair share.

Oh, gosh, FAIRNESS! Don't you realize life is supposed to be unfair?

 

[Antares]

[

No back tracking now Joe, your "point" is that YOU are always jealous of what others have.....you've typed it again and again.

Now like Jake, you are trying to hide it...not going to happen
You are no more than a child crying about "fairness".

Uh, no, guy, i"m probably the least materialistic person you'd ever want to meet. I don't measure the value of my life on the amount of stuff I have.

I do have a reasonable expectation that if you are going to make people work for their health coverage, then you actually provide the health coverage.

I know, what a silly notion, right?

Keep trying to deflect and hide Joe......one must remember what one typed yesterday

Or your bizarre interpretation of it?

Here's the thing, guy. I'd be happy to go back to what we had in the 1990's. The rich made plenty of money and the working stiffs got their fair share.

Oh, gosh, FAIRNESS! Don't you realize life is supposed to be unfair?

Nothing to interpret Joe

When ones says"Wait until we vote to take more of your money" it's clear what one means.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Nothing to interpret Joe

When ones says"Wait until we vote to take more of your money" it's clear what one means.

It means you're too dumb to realize that you've created the political situation where that happens?

Riddle me this, Batman. Do you think a guy like Obama could have won in 1992?

Now, to focus this a bit more on topic, yes, you have the traditional "Protestant Work Ethic", where you work, you get what you need to get by.

And frankly, once upon a time in this country, you could do this with a job that really didn't require a whole lot of technical skill.

Now you have Engineers who have to work in the Home Depot while Wal-Mart employees need to collect MedicAid, SNAP and Section 8 vouchers.

YOu do get that's going to create more government, not less, right?