Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Feeling emboldened and pledging allegiance to the Confederate flag.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gettysburg-confederate-r...

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If only he had shot himself in the foot. The irony and poetic justice would had been so sweet.

12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
the manatee
United States
Burbank
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's funny how the speakers need to keep returning to the idea that the war wasn't about slavery. It's sort of like when somebody starts off with "Not to sound racist, but..." Defensive much?
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Went about as well for them as the last time the Confederacy was at Gettysburg.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Bitter acerbic harridan
Avatar
mbmbmb
Lol, the errant shot was due to him bumping the flagpole into his gun holster. Perfect.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Although I no longer believe the idea, I was raised with the notion that the War was not about slavery. In the minds of people who believe that, the idea that the War was indeed about slavery is seen as the effect of successful Union propaganda. Namely, in that view, the South had its Great Cause-- State Sovereignty-- that it was fighting for and at first the Union was losing in the war for the hearts and minds of the American people, the intellectual war of ideals. Then, so the view goes, at Gettysburg Lincoln in his famous address put forth the idea that the war was about slavery and it caught fire-- giving the Union its own Great Cause to fight for, the end of slavery.

Learning that such was not the case, accepting that my ancestors did unspeakable things and fought a war to be able to keep doing them essentially, was hard. It took the people I'd been raised to see as heroes and made them villains-- at least until I realized they were neither of those things. They were just flawed human beings with both good and bad who'd done horrible things while telling themselves that what they were doing was right and good.

Speaking as a Jew, if so many German people these days can own up to the genuine evil their ancestors did in the Shoa, can I do any less in terms of slavery in the US?
27 
 Thumb up
0.50
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
Although I no longer believe the idea, I was raised with the notion that the War was not about slavery. In the minds of people who believe that, the idea that the War was indeed about slavery is seen as the effect of successful Union propaganda. Namely, in that view, the South had its Great Cause-- State Sovereignty-- that it was fighting for and at first the Union was losing in the war for the hearts and minds of the American people, the intellectual war of ideals. Then, so the view goes, at Gettysburg Lincoln in his famous address put forth the idea that the war was about slavery and it caught fire-- giving the Union its own Great Cause to fight for, the end of slavery.

Learning that such was not the case, accepting that my ancestors did unspeakable things and fought a war to be able to keep doing them essentially, was hard. It took the people I'd be raised to see as heroes and made them villains-- at least until I realized they were neither of those things. They were just flawed human beings with both good and bad who'd done horrible things while telling themselves that what they were doing was right and good.

Speaking as a Jew, if so many German people these days can own up to the genuine evil their ancestors did in the Shoa, can I do any less in terms of slavery in the US?


This is so mind blowing to me. The idea that introducing slavery as a Northern cause was some last bid to motivate rather than a risky venture only undertaken after military vicotry gave the political capital to introduce it is so counter historical as to be absurd.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stuart
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
the manatee wrote:
It's funny how the speakers need to keep returning to the idea that the war wasn't about slavery.

Well, I'd be willing to take them at their word. If it wasn't about slavery, then maybe they'll start treating people of color as equals? Let's start by making sure that all people of color get a chance to vote and get equal treatment and privileges under the law.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sue_G wrote:
Lol, the errant shot was due to him bumping the flagpole into his gun holster. Perfect.
This is how crazy stupid some of these gun carriers are. He had to have a round chambered and the gun cocked for that to happen. Like they were really going to need that immediate of an armed response that he'd have to draw and instantly fire without chambering first and having a heavy trigger pull for his first round. Some grade-A shitheadery going on.

EDIT: Oh, I see it was a revolver, so he just had it cocked, with the safety off if it had one. Which is an even worse decision really. You don't even need to chamber a round. No reason to cock it.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
Sue_G wrote:
Lol, the errant shot was due to him bumping the flagpole into his gun holster. Perfect.
This is how crazy stupid some of these gun carriers are. He had to have a round chambered and the gun cocked for that to happen. Like they were really going to need that immediate of an armed response that he'd have to draw and instantly fire without chambering first and having a heavy trigger pull for his first round. Some grade-A shitheadery going on.

EDIT: Oh, I see it was a revolver, so he just had it cocked, with the safety off if it had one. Which is an even worse decision really. You don't even need to chamber a round. No reason to cock it.


It's those militia fantasies again. The primary reason they were there was to fight "Antifa" who were apparently going to go to piss on confederate graves on the battlefield (Fun fact: There are no marked confederate graves at Gettysburg).

These guys were coming in specifically keyed up to fight and to live out their macho fantasies. To fight a crime that couldn't possibly happen.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
Sue_G wrote:
Lol, the errant shot was due to him bumping the flagpole into his gun holster. Perfect.
This is how crazy stupid some of these gun carriers are. He had to have a round chambered and the gun cocked for that to happen. Like they were really going to need that immediate of an armed response that he'd have to draw and instantly fire without chambering first and having a heavy trigger pull for his first round. Some grade-A shitheadery going on.

EDIT: Oh, I see it was a revolver, so he just had it cocked, with the safety off if it had one. Which is an even worse decision really. You don't even need to chamber a round. No reason to cock it.


More guns should solve that problem ! shake

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Carter
United States
Marion
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
Sue_G wrote:
Lol, the errant shot was due to him bumping the flagpole into his gun holster. Perfect.
This is how crazy stupid some of these gun carriers are. He had to have a round chambered and the gun cocked for that to happen. Like they were really going to need that immediate of an armed response that he'd have to draw and instantly fire without chambering first and having a heavy trigger pull for his first round. Some grade-A shitheadery going on.

EDIT: Oh, I see it was a revolver, so he just had it cocked, with the safety off if it had one. Which is an even worse decision really. You don't even need to chamber a round. No reason to cock it.


If you aren't going to carry cocked and locked, then there is no point in carrying.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


whac3 wrote:
Although I no longer believe the idea, I was raised with the notion that the [Civil] War was not about slavery.

Please clarify: Exactly *where* were you brought up then?


whac3 wrote:
In the minds of people who believe that, the idea that the War was indeed about slavery is seen as the effect of successful Union propaganda.

Bullshit! The articles/ordinances of succession (the formal documents) drawn up by each of the seceding Confederate states cite the preservation of slavery as their primary cause for seceding from the Union.

The Confederate period documents don't genuinely constitute "Union propaganda".


whac3 wrote:
Namely, in that view, the South had its Great Cause -- State Sovereignty-- that it was fighting for and at first the Union was losing in the war for the hearts and minds of the American people, the intellectual war of ideals.

That's just *post-Civil War "Lost Cause" historical revisionism*.


whac3 wrote:
Then, so the view goes, at Gettysburg, Lincoln in his famous address put forth the idea that the war was about slavery and it caught fire -- giving the Union its own Great Cause to fight for, the end of slavery.

Bunk! Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address at the November 19, 1863 dedication of Soldier's National Cemetery, a cemetery for Union soldiers killed at the Battle Of Gettysburg during the American Civil War.

Eleven months earlier, Lincoln had issued the The Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863 which changed the federal legal status of more than 3,000,000 enslaved people in the South from slave to free.


whac3 wrote:
Learning that such was not the case, accepting that my ancestors did unspeakable things, and fought a war to be able to keep doing them essentially, was hard. It took the people I'd been raised to see as heroes and made them villains -- at least until I realized they were neither of those things.

Oh really? Do I understand that you believe that the Christian clergy in the antebellum South who'd reversed their original theological stances to cite supposed Biblical sanctioning of slavery in their sermons and in published tracts and pamphlets in order to cater to the interests of the slave-owning power holders weren't villains in their own right?

Or are you referring solely to Jewish slave-owners in the antebellum South?

> Excerpts from the May 17, 1992 Washington Post book review by Paul Breines of:

As American As Bagels And Lox



Interesting, too, are Sachar's remarks on relations between blacks and Jews. Although he does not necessarily see it himself, he enables one to see that from Jewish slave-owners in the American South in the 19th century through Jewish Civil-Rights activists in the 1950s and '60s to those Jews whose attitudes illustrate how swiftly "the Jewish minority [had] learned... to embrace... the racial attitudes of the white majority," a history of the Jews in America is part of the history of white people in America.

________________________________________________



whac3 wrote:
They were just flawed human beings with both good and bad who'd done horrible things while telling themselves that what they were doing was right and good.

Whether you meant it or not, you come off sounding as if those folks who advocated and supported the preservation of the institution of slavery were equal parts good and bad whereas I myself make no such disingenuously enabling defense of their unethical beliefs.


whac3 wrote:
Speaking as a Jew, if so many German people these days can own up to the genuine evil their ancestors did in the Shoa, can I do any less in terms of slavery in the US?

Well, that's just it: For more than a century after the Civil War, most white people in the American South failed to own up to the evil of their white-supremacist beliefs much less to renounce them -- beliefs that had long been and continued to be instilled from the pulpits of many, if not most, of the churches in the post-Civil War South from Reconstruction through the Jim Crow Era up through the Civil Rights Era.

> Excerpt from the book review by Curtis Wilkie entitled "How The Baptists Won The Soul of Dixie" about the book "SOUTHERN CROSS: The Beginnings of the Bible Belt" by Christine Leigh Heyrman (Knopf, 336 pages)



"Southern Cross" tells how the Baptists -- and to a lesser extent their evangelical cousins, the Methodists -- won supremacy in Dixie.....

Christine Leigh Heyrman, a history professor at the University of Delaware, has conducted some diligent research, and while she concentrates on a period 200 years ago, she provides a study of the early forces that swelled into the influential behemoth known as the "Religious Right" by the eve of the 21st century.

These Protestant fundamentalists, believing that spiritual rebirth is essential to salvation, were clever at reading political winds from the time they set foot in the South. While ties to England cost the Episcopal Church loyalty at the time of the Revolution, and the Presbyterian Church "fell far behind in the competition for new members" because of its insistence that ministers obtain a classical education, Heyrman writes that the "Baptists and Methodists refashioned their faiths to win greater acceptance among whites."

When the Baptists and Methodists first sought to proselytize the South, they were represented by itinerant circuit-riding pastors and boy preachers, known as "Young Gifts," bearing dire messages of dancing in Hell "in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone." They frowned on such worldly pleasures as "horse races and taverns, barbecues and balls," and their charismatic services not only attracted many black worshippers but also allowed women to "prophesy, pray and exhort at mixed gatherings."

It did not fit into a Southern society where the white man was the principal figure. The evangelical zealots were mocked by large portions of the population, and sometimes they were set upon physically. Clearly, adjustments were necessary.



Christine Leigh Heyrman

"All preachers shared the concern that attacks on slavery would alienate both members and prospective converts," Heyrman writes, and church leaders also feared that practices that empowered women had the effect of antagonizing men.

To convert slaveholders as well as "humbler folk," she says, the churches drastically altered "many earlier evangelical teachings and practices concerning the proper roles of men and women, old and young, white and black."

The evangelicals "shaped their behavior to the reigning norms of white southern manhood," she writes. Those who once put church over the family began tailoring their teachings to assert the authority of male heads of households and masters of slaves.

By the early 1800s, Heyrman writes, the evangelical churches that had held out hope "to the poor, the young, the female, the black... had retreated from those promises of liberation and invested their energies in upholding the equality and honor of all white men."

Ministers even adopted macho poses. A new breed of male evangelicals began to claim "red-blooded impulses" in order to connect with their target audience, Heyrman says. "The youthful dissipations to which the clergy confessed ran the predictable gamut of male passions -- swearing and gambling, dancing and drinking, fighting and hunting."

Plantation patriarchs joined the Baptist and Methodist flocks. Women were silenced, and blacks took their religious passions to their own segregated churches.

The ultimate triumph of the evangelicals in the South, Heyrman concludes, "lay in appealing to those who confined the devil to hell, esteemed maturity more than youth, put family before religious fellowship, upheld the superiority of white over black and of men over women, and prized their honor above all else."

The irony is not lost on Heyrman, who writes that the changing themes "transformed the early Baptist and Methodist movements into the evangelical culture that later generations of Americans would identify as epitomizing 'Family Values.'"

__________________________________________________



Baptists living in the antebellum South eventually formed their own denomination as the result of a schism over slavery. That breakaway began in 1845 when the then National Baptist Convention refused to ordain the son of a slave-holding southern plantation owner because of the inherant hypocrisy of sending his missionary son overseas to witness and proselytize to internationals whose very own relatives might well be held in captivity by slave holders much like that missionary's own slave-holding father -- if not that missionary's slave-holding father himself.


> Excerpt from the May 27, 2014 Politico magazine feature story by Randall Balmer entitled:

The Real Origins of the Religious Right
They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.



One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the Religious Right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.

This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.

Some of these anti-Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors in the North who had fought to eradicate slavery.

But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979 —— a full six years after the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision —— that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why?

Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the Religious Right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the "new abolitionism."

Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe vs. Wade, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and "Christianity Today", the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy.

In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe v. Wade, and again in 1976.

When the Roe vs. Wade decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas —— also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century —— was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” Criswell said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”



Rev. W.A. Criswell

Points of Information from Wikipedia: Rev. W.A. Criswell's preaching also reflected his culture as societal attitudes evolved on the issue of racial integration. While he never spoke in support of segregation from the pulpit, Criswell was at first privately critical of the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education and of federal intervention against de jure southern segregation. In 1953, he made a Curse of Ham address denouncing forced integration to a South Carolina evangelism conference, and a day later to the South Carolina legislature. (His "Curse of Ham" speech also entailed that God ordained for the races to be remain separate and that African Americans, the cursed descendants of Ham, Noah's son, should not expect to be treated with the same rights as whites.) Taken aback by negative reactions and distorted accounts of his remarks in the press, Criswell did not publicly address the issue again for over a decade, claiming he was "a pastor, not a politician." However, upon his 1968 election as president of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Southern Baptist Convention's endorsement of racial equality and desegregation, Criswell announced to the press, "Every Southern Baptist in the land should support the spirit of that statement. We Southern Baptists have definitely turned away from racism, from segregation, from anything and everything that speaks of a separation of people in the body of Christ."

Criswell's first sermon after his election as Southern Baptist Convention president in 1968 was titled "The Church of the Open Door," emphasizing that his church already had many non-white members and was open to all regardless of race. He asserted publicly, "I don't think that segregation could have been or was at any time intelligently, seriously supported by the Bible."

In 1987, however, when asked by a British documentarian why Dallas Southern Baptist Churches hadn't mainstreamed any English-speaking Hispanic Baptists into their all-white churches, Criswell responded, "Well, they have their churches and we have ours." Criswell's candor can be attributed to his presumption that the documentary being filmed would only be shown in England. When the documentary aired on PBS in 1987, Criswell was unable to satisfactory reconcile his own filmed words during a live post-show discussion hour.]

Although a few evangelical voices, including Christianity Today magazine, mildly criticized the ruling, the overwhelming response was silence, even approval. Baptists, in particular, applauded the decision as an appropriate articulation of the division between church and state, between personal morality and state regulation of individual behavior. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” wrote W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press.

So what then were the real origins of the today's Religious Right?

It turns out that the movement can trace its political roots back to a court ruling, but not Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 (Kindergarten through 12th grade) private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions. The schools had been founded in the mid-1960s in response to the desegregation of public schools set in motion by the Brown vs. the Board of Education decision of 1954. In 1969, the first year of desegregation, the number of white students enrolled in public schools in Holmes County dropped from 771 to 28; the following year, that number fell to zero.

In the Green vs. Kennedy case (David Kennedy was Secretary of the Treasury at the time), decided in January 1970, the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, which denied the “segregation academies” tax-exempt status until further review. In the meantime, the government was solidifying its position on such schools.

Later that year, President Richard Nixon ordered the Internal Revenue Service to enact a new policy denying tax exemptions to all segregated schools in the United States. Under the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbade racial segregation and discrimination, discriminatory schools were not —— by definition —— “charitable” educational organizations, and therefore they had no claims to tax-exempt status; similarly, donations to such organizations would no longer qualify as tax-deductible contributions.

_________________________________________


The story continues at: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-rig...


In June 1998, the Southern Baptists launched a "Wives, Submit To Your Husbands" campaign that was carried out in the most offputtingly misogynistic and heavy-handed manner imaginable. Only, their #1 leader at the time, Rev. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a confirmed Republican, truly showed how backward they were in the following exchange between him and Larry King and Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization of Women, on the Friday, June 12, 1998 edition of CNN's "Larry King Live Show":







Patricia Ireland of the National Organization for Women: "Rev. Mohler, how do you deal with the subsequent passage in the Book of Ephesians that slaves should submit to their masters? Is that not something that is old-fashioned or out of touch with Christianity? It's right there in the same Book of Ephesians along with that other wives,-submit-to-your-husbands passage [that your denomination is overly emphasizing]."




Rev. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention: "I'm not scared off by that passage. It's in the Word of God which I believe is God's Perfect Treasure of Truth in that text."




Larry King: "So God wanted slaves to comply with their masters?"

Rev. Albert Mohler: "Well, that text demonstrates that the apostle Paul by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said, 'Slaves, if you want to model what a Christian looks like, you graciously submit (to your masters) and thereby gain moral authority.'"

Larry King: "Do you agree with that?"

Rev. Albert Mohler: "Well, I have to agree with that. It's the Word of God. That is not an endorsement of slavery as an institution."

Larry King: "So if a foreign power took over this country, are you saying that you would graciously submit to its leadership?"




Rev. Albert Mohler: "Uhhh, the Bible tells us that we are graciously to submit to the leaders that He (God) puts in authority. Now, again, it's a distortion to claim that the Bible endorses slavery. It does no such thing. But it does say that if you are a slave, there is a way to behave. And let me just point out that slavery in America did not end by a revolt by the slaves but by the moral authority that the slaves gained as America came to see slavery as a condemned sin."

Larry King: "You don't condemn those slaves who ran away from the masters, do you?"




Patricia Ireland of the National Organization for Women: "What about the [runaway] slave Harriet Tubbman who ran away and formed the Underground Railroad as an escape route for runaway slaves?"

Rev. Albert Mohler: "Well, I want to look at this text seriously and it says, 'Submit to the master.'"




Larry King: "So those slaves who ran away from their masters were nuts???"

Rev. Albert Mohler: "I really don't see any loophole there (allowing slaves to not submit to their masters) as much as popular culture might otherwise want to see one."


____________________________________________


In essence, Rev. Mohler's citing of Biblical support for the institution of slavery clicks with the attitude and stance of the original antebellum Southern Baptists' support of slavery in the Old South. And to think that Mohler made those outrageous remarks only three years after the Southern Baptist Convention had voted in June 1995 to apologize for its having as an institution been one of the chief advocates for slavery and the oppressive Jim Crow Laws in the South and for having opposed Civil Rights for African-Americans.

By the way, the Southern Methodist Church is a conservative Protestant Christian denomination with churches located in the southern part of the United States which was formed in 1940 by conservative members of the former Methodist Episcopal Church, South, which in 1939 had reunited with the Methodist Episcopal Church to form the Methodist Church, nearly 100 years after a split in 1844 that occurred due to divisions over slavery.


2 
 Thumb up
5.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:


whac3 wrote:
Although I no longer believe the idea, I was raised with the notion that the [Civil] War was not about slavery.

Please clarify: Exactly *where* were you brought up then?


whac3 wrote:
In the minds of people who believe that, the idea that the War was indeed about slavery is seen as the effect of successful Union propaganda.

Bullshit! The articles/ordinances of succession (the formal documents) drawn up by each of the seceding Confederate states cite the preservation of slavery as their primary cause for seceding from the Union.

The Confederate period documents don't genuinely constitute "Union propaganda".


whac3 wrote:
Namely, in that view, the South had its Great Cause -- State Sovereignty-- that it was fighting for and at first the Union was losing in the war for the hearts and minds of the American people, the intellectual war of ideals.

That's just *post-Civil War "Lost Cause" historical revisionism*.


whac3 wrote:
Then, so the view goes, at Gettysburg, Lincoln in his famous address put forth the idea that the war was about slavery and it caught fire -- giving the Union its own Great Cause to fight for, the end of slavery.

Bunk! Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address at the November 19, 1863 dedication of Soldier's National Cemetery, a cemetery for Union soldiers killed at the Battle Of Gettysburg during the American Civil War.

Eleven months earlier, Lincoln had issued the The Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863 which changed the federal legal status of more than 3,000,000 enslaved people in the South from slave to free.


whac3 wrote:
Learning that such was not the case, accepting that my ancestors did unspeakable things, and fought a war to be able to keep doing them essentially, was hard. It took the people I'd been raised to see as heroes and made them villains -- at least until I realized they were neither of those things.

Oh really? Do I understand that you believe that the Christian clergy in the antebellum South who'd reversed their original theological stances to cite supposed Biblical sanctioning of slavery in their sermons and in published tracts and pamphlets in order to cater to the interests of the slave-owning power holders weren't villains in their own right?

Or are you referring solely to Jewish slave-owners in the antebellum South?

> Excerpts from the May 17, 1992 Washington Post book review by Paul Breines of:

As American As Bagels And Lox



Interesting, too, are Sachar's remarks on relations between blacks and Jews. Although he does not necessarily see it himself, he enables one to see that from Jewish slave-owners in the American South in the 19th century through Jewish Civil-Rights activists in the 1950s and '60s to those Jews whose attitudes illustrate how swiftly "the Jewish minority [had] learned... to embrace... the racial attitudes of the white majority," a history of the Jews in America is part of the history of white people in America.

________________________________________________



whac3 wrote:
They were just flawed human beings with both good and bad who'd done horrible things while telling themselves that what they were doing was right and good.

Whether you meant it or not, you come off sounding as if those folks who advocated and supported the preservation of the institution of slavery were equal parts good and bad whereas I myself make no such disingenuously enabling defense of their unethical beliefs.


whac3 wrote:
Speaking as a Jew, if so many German people these days can own up to the genuine evil their ancestors did in the Shoa, can I do any less in terms of slavery in the US?

Well, that's just it: For more than a century after the Civil War, most white people in the American South failed to own up to the evil of their white-supremacist beliefs much less to renounce them -- beliefs that had long been and continued to be instilled from the pulpits of many, if not most, of the churches in the post-Civil War South from Reconstruction through the Jim Crow Era up through the Civil Rights Era.

> Excerpt from the book review by Curtis Wilkie entitled "How The Baptists Won The Soul of Dixie" about the book "SOUTHERN CROSS: The Beginnings of the Bible Belt" by Christine Leigh Heyrman (Knopf, 336 pages)



"Southern Cross" tells how the Baptists -- and to a lesser extent their evangelical cousins, the Methodists -- won supremacy in Dixie.....

Christine Leigh Heyrman, a history professor at the University of Delaware, has conducted some diligent research, and while she concentrates on a period 200 years ago, she provides a study of the early forces that swelled into the influential behemoth known as the "Religious Right" by the eve of the 21st century.

These Protestant fundamentalists, believing that spiritual rebirth is essential to salvation, were clever at reading political winds from the time they set foot in the South. While ties to England cost the Episcopal Church loyalty at the time of the Revolution, and the Presbyterian Church "fell far behind in the competition for new members" because of its insistence that ministers obtain a classical education, Heyrman writes that the "Baptists and Methodists refashioned their faiths to win greater acceptance among whites."

When the Baptists and Methodists first sought to proselytize the South, they were represented by itinerant circuit-riding pastors and boy preachers, known as "Young Gifts," bearing dire messages of dancing in Hell "in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone." They frowned on such worldly pleasures as "horse races and taverns, barbecues and balls," and their charismatic services not only attracted many black worshippers but also allowed women to "prophesy, pray and exhort at mixed gatherings."

It did not fit into a Southern society where the white man was the principal figure. The evangelical zealots were mocked by large portions of the population, and sometimes they were set upon physically. Clearly, adjustments were necessary.



Christine Leigh Heyrman

"All preachers shared the concern that attacks on slavery would alienate both members and prospective converts," Heyrman writes, and church leaders also feared that practices that empowered women had the effect of antagonizing men.

To convert slaveholders as well as "humbler folk," she says, the churches drastically altered "many earlier evangelical teachings and practices concerning the proper roles of men and women, old and young, white and black."

The evangelicals "shaped their behavior to the reigning norms of white southern manhood," she writes. Those who once put church over the family began tailoring their teachings to assert the authority of male heads of households and masters of slaves.

By the early 1800s, Heyrman writes, the evangelical churches that had held out hope "to the poor, the young, the female, the black... had retreated from those promises of liberation and invested their energies in upholding the equality and honor of all white men."

Ministers even adopted macho poses. A new breed of male evangelicals began to claim "red-blooded impulses" in order to connect with their target audience, Heyrman says. "The youthful dissipations to which the clergy confessed ran the predictable gamut of male passions -- swearing and gambling, dancing and drinking, fighting and hunting."

Plantation patriarchs joined the Baptist and Methodist flocks. Women were silenced, and blacks took their religious passions to their own segregated churches.

The ultimate triumph of the evangelicals in the South, Heyrman concludes, "lay in appealing to those who confined the devil to hell, esteemed maturity more than youth, put family before religious fellowship, upheld the superiority of white over black and of men over women, and prized their honor above all else."

The irony is not lost on Heyrman, who writes that the changing themes "transformed the early Baptist and Methodist movements into the evangelical culture that later generations of Americans would identify as epitomizing 'Family Values.'"

__________________________________________________



Baptists living in the antebellum South eventually formed their own denomination as the result of a schism over slavery. That breakaway began in 1845 when the then National Baptist Convention refused to ordain the son of a slave-holding southern plantation owner because of the inherant hypocrisy of sending his missionary son overseas to witness and proselytize to internationals whose very own relatives might well be held in captivity by slave holders much like that missionary's own slave-holding father -- if not that missionary's slave-holding father himself.


> Excerpt from the May 27, 2014 Politico magazine feature story by Randall Balmer entitled:

The Real Origins of the Religious Right
They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.



One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the Religious Right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.

This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.

Some of these anti-Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors in the North who had fought to eradicate slavery.

But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979 —— a full six years after the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision —— that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why?

Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the Religious Right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the "new abolitionism."

Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe vs. Wade, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and "Christianity Today", the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy.

In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe v. Wade, and again in 1976.

When the Roe vs. Wade decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas —— also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century —— was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” Criswell said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”



Rev. W.A. Criswell

Points of Information from Wikipedia: Rev. W.A. Criswell's preaching also reflected his culture as societal attitudes evolved on the issue of racial integration. While he never spoke in support of segregation from the pulpit, Criswell was at first privately critical of the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education and of federal intervention against de jure southern segregation. In 1953, he made a Curse of Ham address denouncing forced integration to a South Carolina evangelism conference, and a day later to the South Carolina legislature. (His "Curse of Ham" speech also entailed that God ordained for the races to be remain separate and that African Americans, the cursed descendants of Ham, Noah's son, should not expect to be treated with the same rights as whites.) Taken aback by negative reactions and distorted accounts of his remarks in the press, Criswell did not publicly address the issue again for over a decade, claiming he was "a pastor, not a politician." However, upon his 1968 election as president of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Southern Baptist Convention's endorsement of racial equality and desegregation, Criswell announced to the press, "Every Southern Baptist in the land should support the spirit of that statement. We Southern Baptists have definitely turned away from racism, from segregation, from anything and everything that speaks of a separation of people in the body of Christ."

Criswell's first sermon after his election as Southern Baptist Convention president in 1968 was titled "The Church of the Open Door," emphasizing that his church already had many non-white members and was open to all regardless of race. He asserted publicly, "I don't think that segregation could have been or was at any time intelligently, seriously supported by the Bible."

In 1987, however, when asked by a British documentarian why Dallas Southern Baptist Churches hadn't mainstreamed any English-speaking Hispanic Baptists into their all-white churches, Criswell responded, "Well, they have their churches and we have ours." Criswell's candor can be attributed to his presumption that the documentary being filmed would only be shown in England. When the documentary aired on PBS in 1987, Criswell was unable to satisfactory reconcile his own filmed words during a live post-show discussion hour.]

Although a few evangelical voices, including Christianity Today magazine, mildly criticized the ruling, the overwhelming response was silence, even approval. Baptists, in particular, applauded the decision as an appropriate articulation of the division between church and state, between personal morality and state regulation of individual behavior. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” wrote W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press.

So what then were the real origins of the today's Religious Right?

It turns out that the movement can trace its political roots back to a court ruling, but not Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 (Kindergarten through 12th grade) private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions. The schools had been founded in the mid-1960s in response to the desegregation of public schools set in motion by the Brown vs. the Board of Education decision of 1954. In 1969, the first year of desegregation, the number of white students enrolled in public schools in Holmes County dropped from 771 to 28; the following year, that number fell to zero.

In the Green vs. Kennedy case (David Kennedy was Secretary of the Treasury at the time), decided in January 1970, the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, which denied the “segregation academies” tax-exempt status until further review. In the meantime, the government was solidifying its position on such schools.

Later that year, President Richard Nixon ordered the Internal Revenue Service to enact a new policy denying tax exemptions to all segregated schools in the United States. Under the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbade racial segregation and discrimination, discriminatory schools were not —— by definition —— “charitable” educational organizations, and therefore they had no claims to tax-exempt status; similarly, donations to such organizations would no longer qualify as tax-deductible contributions.

_________________________________________


The story continues at: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-rig...


In June 1998, the Southern Baptists launched a "Wives, Submit To Your Husbands" campaign that was carried out in the most offputtingly misogynistic and heavy-handed manner imaginable. Only, their #1 leader at the time, Rev. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a confirmed Republican, truly showed how backward they were in the following exchange between him and Larry King and Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization of Women, on the Friday, June 12, 1998 edition of CNN's "Larry King Live Show":







Patricia Ireland of the National Organization for Women: "Rev. Mohler, how do you deal with the subsequent passage in the Book of Ephesians that slaves should submit to their masters? Is that not something that is old-fashioned or out of touch with Christianity? It's right there in the same Book of Ephesians along with that other wives,-submit-to-your-husbands passage [that your denomination is overly emphasizing]."




Rev. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention: "I'm not scared off by that passage. It's in the Word of God which I believe is God's Perfect Treasure of Truth in that text."




Larry King: "So God wanted slaves to comply with their masters?"

Rev. Albert Mohler: "Well, that text demonstrates that the apostle Paul by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said, 'Slaves, if you want to model what a Christian looks like, you graciously submit (to your masters) and thereby gain moral authority.'"

Larry King: "Do you agree with that?"

Rev. Albert Mohler: "Well, I have to agree with that. It's the Word of God. That is not an endorsement of slavery as an institution."

Larry King: "So if a foreign power took over this country, are you saying that you would graciously submit to its leadership?"




Rev. Albert Mohler: "Uhhh, the Bible tells us that we are graciously to submit to the leaders that He (God) puts in authority. Now, again, it's a distortion to claim that the Bible endorses slavery. It does no such thing. But it does say that if you are a slave, there is a way to behave. And let me just point out that slavery in America did not end by a revolt by the slaves but by the moral authority that the slaves gained as America came to see slavery as a condemned sin."

Larry King: "You don't condemn those slaves who ran away from the masters, do you?"




Patricia Ireland of the National Organization for Women: "What about the [runaway] slave Harriet Tubbman who ran away and formed the Underground Railroad as an escape route for runaway slaves?"

Rev. Albert Mohler: "Well, I want to look at this text seriously and it says, 'Submit to the master.'"




Larry King: "So those slaves who ran away from their masters were nuts???"

Rev. Albert Mohler: "I really don't see any loophole there (allowing slaves to not submit to their masters) as much as popular culture might otherwise want to see one."


____________________________________________


In essence, Rev. Mohler's citing of Biblical support for the institution of slavery clicks with the attitude and stance of the original antebellum Southern Baptists' support of slavery in the Old South. And to think that Mohler made those outrageous remarks only three years after the Southern Baptist Convention had voted in June 1995 to apologize for its having as an institution been one of the chief advocates for slavery and the oppressive Jim Crow Laws in the South and for having opposed Civil Rights for African-Americans.

By the way, the Southern Methodist Church is a conservative Protestant Christian denomination with churches located in the southern part of the United States which was formed in 1940 by conservative members of the former Methodist Episcopal Church, South, which in 1939 had reunited with the Methodist Episcopal Church to form the Methodist Church, nearly 100 years after a split in 1844 that occurred due to divisions over slavery.



Since you never listen to other people the complete inability to understand what they actually said is typical of you.
Moshe was brought up in Texas as any fule kno.
He clearly says he no longer believes what he was brought up to believe and explains the rationalisations that people use to justify those erroneous beliefs.
He also explains how hard it is to change one's mind set.
In return you cry bullshit when he mentions these non-espoused views, and then produce a gratuitous aside about Jewish slave owners because you know he is Jewish.
Why don't you take more care saying what you mean and stop your absurd walls of quotes?
12 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Any fule kno". Anyone outside the UK recognise that? Anyone younger in the UK recognise that come to think of it.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mutton Chops
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dearlove wrote:
"Any fule kno". Anyone outside the UK recognise that? Anyone younger in the UK recognise that come to think of it.


Define "younger". Chiz, chiz.

Mind you, Molesworth did come up with a highly apposite quote for the times we're living through: "History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Carter
United States
Marion
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:


Totally serious. Revolvers shouldn't be carried cocked, but almost every semi-auto is designed to be carried cocked and locked. With many revolvers you want to carry with the hammer on an empty chamber, but semi-autos have hammer blocks that only allow the hammer to strike when the trigger is pulled.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:

Since you never listen to other people the complete inability to understand what they actually said is typical of you.
Moshe was brought up in Texas as any fule kno.
He clearly says he no longer believes what he was brought up to believe and explains the rationalisations that people use to justify those erroneous beliefs.
He also explains how hard it is to change one's mind set.
In return you cry bullshit when he mentions these non-espoused views, and then produce a gratuitous aside about Jewish slave owners because you know he is Jewish.
Why don't you take more care saying what you mean and stop your absurd walls of quotes?


Good luck stopping him with his wall-of-quote-ing. He's dropping into every thread with them right now, regardless of topic or how meaningful/meaningless any distinction is, and he is on a roll. My guess is something hard is happening in his personal life at the moment and him taking it out on the rest of us with one wall of quotes after another is his coping mechanism.

Also, be the change you want to see in the world. It took me a while to learn not to quote his wall of text. But it makes a difference.

But as for what you said... spot on. Another data point in the irrefutable case that James reads what he wants to read in others words, and what he wants to read is something that lets him suit up for another quixotic jaunt through some windmills.

And James, if you're reading this, I hope things pick up for you soon. Life gets hard from time to time. It'll pass.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:

Moshe was brought up in Texas as any fule kno.…

I did grad school in Massachusetts. A rav there (one of two partners who ran a synagogue, the one doing the fundraising with the other officiating, as is a common practice) told me once after coming back from a fundraising trip to Texas that he had thought my mannerisms and way of speaking were peculiar to me. When he went to Texas though, it seemed everybody there talked and had body language just like mine.
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:

Good luck stopping him with his wall-of-quote-ing.

But we can stop wall-of-quote-ing quoting. Snip out everything but his name and the first handful of words.

Just a thought.



7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Donald wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:

Good luck stopping him with his wall-of-quote-ing.

But we can stop wall-of-quote-ing quoting. Snip out everything but his name and the first handful of words.

Just a thought.





GameCrossing wrote:

Also, be the change you want to see in the world. It took me a while to learn not to quote his wall of text. But it makes a difference.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Donald wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:

Good luck stopping him with his wall-of-quote-ing.

But we can stop wall-of-quote-ing quoting. Snip out everything but his name and the first handful of words.


That's actually quite tricky on a phone, as I usually post on. It's simpler just to not reply.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mlcarter815 wrote:
Shadrach wrote:


Totally serious. Revolvers shouldn't be carried cocked, but almost every semi-auto is designed to be carried cocked and locked. With many revolvers you want to carry with the hammer on an empty chamber, but semi-autos have hammer blocks that only allow the hammer to strike when the trigger is pulled.


The dude was carrying a revolver though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Donald wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:

Good luck stopping him with his wall-of-quote-ing.

But we can stop wall-of-quote-ing quoting. Snip out everything but his name and the first handful of words.

Just a thought.




I left it in to show the absurdity.
But when I clipped out two videos that were not relevant to my point he took it as a comment that I disagreed with them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.