"Slavery really wasn't all that bad..."

[renie408]

"Well then we can join the Islam theocracies and crash planes into large buildings to kill innocent people. that makes more sense. Christian theocracies were tainted by Americans. We should CORRECTLY implicate Christian theocracies and we would have a better society. It truly doesn't matter what type of theocracy we have until people are perfect. Personally, I wouldn't have to vote if men were smarter. I wouldn't mind being a slave myself but Americans went about it all wrong and became violent about the whole thing. If separate bathrooms are an issue, then start using the men's bathroom, I doubt there will be as long of lines next time you use a public restroom. Women are still paid less than men so that is a mute point. Children should learn a better work ethic. Our society did not go downhill until kids lost a complete lack of respect for their elders. So until then, I will stand by my decision to revert back to a Christian theocracy!"

This is a response I got in a discussion about the risks of the US becoming a Christian theocracy that I posted on my FB wall. This was from an 18 year old girl. I had already pointed out that we have never been a Christian theocracy, so there was nothing to 'revert' back to. She had previously mentioned that we should return to the good ole days when this country ran on Christian principles. I had answered that by saying:

" ?'Again'...when did we have them before? Back when we had slavery? Or when women couldn't vote? Or was it when black people used separate bathrooms? Or when women were paid a third of what men were paid? Or when children worked in factories?

A few facts that you are not interested in, but I am going to share anyway:

1) In 1796, the Treaty of Tripoli (signed unanimously by both houses of Congress and by several men considered to be Founding Fathers) stated in Article 11: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

2) "In God We Trust" became the United States official motto as an answer to the Red Scare in 1956.

3) "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 for the same reason.

4) The only mention of religion in the Constitution was in the First Amendment and it states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.

You are a Christian and believe in Christian ideals and it would be fine with you to have the country run along Christian rules. Which ones, exactly? Leviticus? Cause there is some screwed up stuff in Leviticus. How about putting a woman to death if she is not a virgin when she marries? Should we keep that one? Or stoning someone for wearing clothing made of mixed fibers? There go the Tailored Sportsmans...

And which VERSION of Christianity should run the country? Catholicism? Baptist? Lutheran? Mormon? Cause they all have some pretty widely varied beliefs.

See, I think the Founding Fathers were pretty smart guys who felt like this country should not have religion involved in government. And I agree with that."

This kid claims to have gone to civics class. This is just completely scary to me. WTF???

[Dawson Leery]

1. Article 11:

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

Here is the photo

[renie408]

3. It is amazing to me how many people, when confronted with this information,

will just ignore it like you never said anything. This latest...whatever...just reinforces my belief that you cannot have a rational conversation with BELIEVERS.

[Justice wanted]

4. AWESOME find.

[Justice wanted]

2. This comes from Corporate America dumbing down schools and the Right Wings nuts having

control that they do have.

[renie408]

5. We live in SC, now you know why I home school my daughter.

She also claimed that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, it was just about the federal government wanting to take away state's rights. HOLY SHIT! Who believes this stuff in 2012? Who under the age of NINETY-FIVE believes this stuff in 2012???

[Justice wanted]

13. I don't blame you. If I had kids I'd some school them too just so they actually know history and

logic skills as well as other things.

[ieoeja]

48. She is close: it was about the federal government wanting to take away Civil Rights. One word off.

The South believed the right to own slaves was a Civil Right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. It was the North that believed Slavery was a State's Right to determine.

Unless she meant the North did not let the South secede because they were against the South taking away Slavery as a State's Right. Maybe you should ask her about that. I have always found that argument absurd as why would the South start a war over states's rights when they were opposed to state's rights on the only such issue being debated at the time?


In reality, it was a fight over Capitalism versus Feudalism. Plantations and Slavery was a modern adaptation of the feudal system. It is not sheer coincidence that southern leadership at the time were largely descended from Norman aristocracy. Capitalism was a new, progressive idea that enabled upward mobility through work. While the Norman warrior culture viewed manual labor as demeaning and fit only for animals and subhumans like Negroes and Anglo-Saxons. It was certainly not something to be applauded.

- Slavery
- No Public Education
- Opposition to Railroads (which would bite them in the ass when the war came)
- Opposition to Canals
- Poll Taxes
- Literacy Tests (see: no public education)

These are just a few of the steps taken by the southern states to maintain an aristocratic society.

[renie408]

49. Huh?

That sounds completely backwards of anything I have ever heard on this subject before. And I am from South Carolina...believe me, I have heard just about every version of what started the Civil War that you can imagine.

Southerners like John C. Calhoun believed in nullification. They were strong State's rights proponents who felt that if the federal government would not allow them the right of nullification of federal laws that they should secede. The southern states were the ones that were the strong believers in state's rights; not the federal government. That doesn't even make sense.

[ieoeja]

55. On most subjects, maybe. But on Slavery the South opposed States Rights at every turn.

The South dominated Federal politics for decades before the Civil War. And they continuously used that power to erode the northern states' bans on slavery: Fugitive Slave laws, Dredd Scott decision, etc.

The North wanted each new state to choose yes/no on slavery. The South opposed it each and every time. The Missouri Compromise wasn't enacted to guarantee new Free States north of the line. It was enacted because there was NEVER a majority in any new state that wanted slavery. So the only way the South could ever get any new Slave States was through federal intervention.

And, yes, southern politicians made the point frequently that slavery was about property rights. And they argued that the federal, not state, constitution protected those rights.

There certainly was a *lot* of talk about States Rights after secession. Mostly about the right to seceed. But for the most part, this is after the fact, and *not* on the subject of slavery.

Even so, the same people arguing in favor of States Rights today oppose the rights of states to enact Gay Marriage, Assisted Suicide or Medical Marijuana. People say lots of things as long as it supports their position. In the case of Slavery, States Rights went against their position. So they were mum about States Rights where that was concerned.

The big push before they lost the 1860 election was the right for them to bring slaves with them to the north. While the Dredd Scott case had already decided that point in their favor, northern states ignored it and the feds hadn't taken any action. So they were pushing for federal action to force the northern states to recognize their property rights when travelling in the north. Or even if they wanted to setup a business in the north and use slave labor.

This is not south bashing. But I've had enough experience with the south to know just how horribly censored the history on the Civil War is down south. Post Civil War it was joked that "author" was the most common profession in the south as volumes and volumes of "history" books were written to explain away the Lost Cause. And these books were often full of some serious bullshit. And much of that bullshit is so much a fabric of society that nobody even questions it.

A lot of that was due to their Norman Supremacy beliefs. They were superior to the Anglo-Saxon. So how could Anglo-Saxon defeat them? If you start with the premise that you are an inherently superior race, then you have to concoct some weird ass theories to explain your loss to an inferior race.


Question: why did Sherman confiscate far more crops than his army required on their march to the sea?

Answer: they found the people starving in the first southern city they came to. Here they were, in the breadbasket of the south, and the people were starving to death because the average southerner could not afford the price of the food. So he ordered his army to just take the damn food and feed these poor people. You hear Sherman get much praise in the south for that? Of course, not. It doesn't fit the propoganda.

[Sheepshank]

6. Roots...should be required viewing for all middle schoolers. n/t

[Enrique]

7. America did have theocracy, but it was well before the Revolution

your young friend might be longing for the good old days of Cotton Mather.

[renie408]

9. You know, I wasn't even thinking about the Puritans. n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

8. "CORRECTLY implicate Christian theocracies" WTF does that even mean? Oh never mind. This kind

of stupidity is beyond any reasoning.

[renie408]

11. I think she meant 'correctly implement', but by that time I was so

freaked out I just unfriended her and went off and hugged my kids.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

14. .

after being subjected to that level of idiocy anyone could use a hug.

[Fuzz]

10. This is what we get when we tell kids everyone is smart and special and their ideas matter when

clearly they are just stupid. They grow up so confident that their insanity is the moral and just thing for all and vote for the same insane idiots.

[renie408]

12. +1

[hifiguy]

16. +2

[JNathanK]

36. +3

I think that's where all these notions of unconditional American exceptionalism originate from too.

[flexnor]

42. so we should tell kids they're dumb, and that they should defer to others?

frankly, i think your thinking is kinda scary

[Neoma]

52. That hasn't ever been the opposite viewpoint to that coin.

You should emphasize their effort and hard work instead of saying how smart they already are. That way, they continue to work hard at gaining knowledge instead of sitting back and thinking they've already achieved being smart.

[renie408]

53. I agree, but would also add...

that not all self-esteem is created equally. Earned self-esteem is better than self-esteem based on a lifetime of being patted on the head and told how great you are for simply existing. Unearned self-esteem is the precursor to entitlement and the feeling that your every idea and whim has merit simply because it is yours. It is one thing to feel good about yourself because you have worked hard to achieve something, which is a healthy emotion. It is quite another to be willfully ignorant and hateful and STILL feel good about yourself because, hey, you are just so damn special.

[progress2k12nbynd]

15. There's more to the separation issue than this though isn't there?

"Congress shall make no law" doesn't really apply to a nativity on the courthouse lawn does it? There's no law being made when you put a plastic Jesus on some grass.

Can't we just say it makes good sense not to mix religion and government?

[renie408]

20. As long as you don't ask atheists, Jews and Muslim to pay taxes, no problem.

But if you expect people of ALL faiths to be contributing members of this society, then they should all be represented or all left out of it. That is why I went to the school and bitched so often. The sixth grade teacher put Bible quotes on the blackboard, but nothing from the Koran or even anything Buddhist. The eighth grade teacher read an email in class that said that the people who didn't believe in God in this country should just sit down and shut up. And that was the SOCIAL STUDIES teacher.

No, you put all the crosses, creches, commandments and whatever in YOUR yard all you want. I will fight to the death for your right to do so. But keep those things off government property when the government claims to represent us all.

[progress2k12nbynd]

23. I agree with the principle, but again, I don't see it...

in the constitution one side OR the other. Was "separation of church and state" a legal opinion or just a generally-accepted principle of democracy?

[renie408]

26. Huh?

You don't see it in the Constitution 'one way OR the other'?

See, the First Amendment seems pretty clear to me. Americans were leery of religion getting a toehold in government. And how many democracies were around in 1787 that they had 'generally held principles' to go by?

Welcome to the DU and I hope you have a long, educational and enjoyable stay. But I am thinking you are not going to gently chide me into saying, "Aw shucks, it's just a NATIVITY SCENE...what can it hurt??" So, on this we must agree to disagree.

[progress2k12nbynd]

28. You said the constitution says no law can be made...

What law is made by putting a plastic Jesus on the lawn?

We both agree it shouldn't be there, nothing to get snotty about. But u seem to be saying that it creates some law by putting it there. It's just bad governmental policy: period.

[renie408]

29. Ok. Welcome to the DU! Enjoy your stay!

[StarsInHerHair]

33. you mean what religion is being established, dont you?

by putting a plastic budda OR jesus on a court or school lawn-what RELIGION is being established?

[progress2k12nbynd]

37. No I mean what LAW...

The OP says that the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law." We can all agree that politics and religion shouldn't mix. I'm asking what LAW is being made by someone, anyone putting a religious symbol on public property.

[pokerfan]

40. Technically, all a government does is pass "laws"

Resolutions, acts, rules, charters, codes, decrees, measures, regulations, orders, etc. are all "laws" in the general sense of the word. To argue that say, an act allowing a religious display in the state capitol is not a law because it doesn't contain the word 'law' is somewhat disingenuous as words come and go and language is constantly evolving. To determine the meaning behind the establishments and free exercise clauses one has infer the founders' intention and there is no better place to begin than with Jefferson's own words on the matter.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1]

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

[progress2k12nbynd]

41. Excellent, thank you for clarifying, this was very helpful! nt

[lastlib]

24. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Establishment clause apply to the states...

...and thereby the municipalities. So when you put a manger scene on public property, it becomes a state action, thus a violation of the Establishment clause.

I would whole-heartedly agree with your last statement, though.

[Initech]

17. I think Bill Maher is onto something - The Christian right lives in a bubble.

[lastlib]

18. On your Point 4, there is another clause in the Constitution:

Art. 6 paragraph 3: "...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Which still basically supports your viewpoint, and pretty much destroys anything left of hers....

As far as "slavery wasn't so bad..." she should watch the recent PBS program "Slavery By Another Name". Also, Ken Burns' "Civil War" series...just for starters...

[renie408]

21. That was actually floating around in my mind, but

honestly? I figured she would never call me on it. I am also not completely certain that the Treaty of Tripoli was signed unanimously by both houses, but it sounded good and I knew I was arguing with a conservative Republican, so...eh.

[lastlib]

22. Treaties are ratified by the Senate...

...but you're probably correct that this particular wingnut wouldn't have known it.

[renie408]

31. What is really aggravating..

is that I KNOW that. When I stop to think about it. One of the things my daughter did last semester was rewrite the whole Constitution in our own words. I told her it was like the NIV Bible, LOL.

[niyad]

19. too bad this was a fb posting. when I hear this kind of stupidity, I look at the person with a very

concerned expression, and ask, in a very soft, pained voice, "does it hurt much?"


"does what hurt?"

"does it hurt to be this unbelievably stupid?"

[surrealAmerican]

25. Since she's 18, and apparently from a conservative christian household ...

... I'd try to be gentle with her. Yes, her "opinions" are moronic nonsense, and her writing skills are severely lacking, but it will take years for this kid to learn how to actually use her brain.

[renie408]

27. I just gave up.

I unfriended her and went about my business. For one thing, I have a small business in SC and a lot of my clients and potential clients are friends of mine on FB. I try to limit myself to one political post every other day, but here lately I have been breaking my own rule. I can't help myself. But anyway, I didn't think arguing with this obviously ignorant kid in public was doing either of us any good.

[Matariki]

30. I'm not sure quoting some 18yr old idiot on Facebook

is worth that provocative subject line. Some people are better off ignoring. Does this friend of yours have any sort of public platform to spout this nonsense? Or are you helping to provide her one?

[renie408]

32. Well, I was sure.

So I guess we just disagree, huh?

And since the 'public platform' I gave here was here on the DU, I am thinking she is not really converting anybody to her ideas.

Have a nice day!

[Union Scribe]

34. "Christian rules. Which ones, exactly? Leviticus?"

Sounds like both sides of that conversation could use some fact checking.

[pokerfan]

43. All 613 of them of course

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments#Maimonides.27_list

[StarsInHerHair]

35. No Child Left Behind education-behold its' result!

[LeftinOH]

38. "Revert" all the way back to Salem in 1692. Theocracy kills.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

39. Holocaust denial is COMMON

throughout this country when it comes to our shameful murderous unspeakable 400 year history of slavery.

IMO this comes from no radical Reconstruction after the Civil War, systematic use of police and incarceration to continue widespread enslavement of African=Americans to this day, and longstanding political resistance to official recognition of the American holocaust until this very week's breaking ground for a new mueum on the National Mall.

[librechik]

44. at least slaves get their room and board paid for--we have to come up w the scratch

arguably wage slavery is worse than the other kind.

[renie408]

45. Uhhh...NO, it isn't.

At least if you are a wage slave, your boss cannot beat you to death legally with a cat o'nine tails or sell your kids or 'breed' you to whoever they choose.

Seriously, people need to THINK before they make these comparisons. Nobody, not even GWB, is even CLOSE to being as bad as Hitler and wage slavery is nowhere near as bad as REAL slavery.

[librechik]

46. if no one ever spoke metaphorically and only strictly factually

conversation would be the poorer for it. But I appreciate your party-dampening impulse--I'm sure you censor for good, not evil. I apologize if my hyperbole offended you.

[renie408]

47. I think there are some things about which you need to use hyperbole very carefully.

The Holocaust, Hitler, slavery...those things come to mind. I am sorry that you feel that I rained on your hyperbole party, but your particular metaphor runs the risk of seriously offending a lot more people than me.

[Marrah_G]

51. No... no it isn't

Slavery isn't some glorified people working for room and board. It is repeated rape, beatings, mutilations, killings all of which you have zero recourse.

Imagine being raped every night by someone you find disgusting. Or, maybe beaten and then raped, at will by your owners and/or their underlings. Bearing their children or not bearing their children, depending on their will. Having your children ripped from you, or your spouse ripped from you forever without ever knowing if they are even alive or dead.

I'll stick with working 2 crappy jobs and still owning my body thanks.

And I would also add there are some things that should never be spoken of so loosely, even in jest, hyperbole or any other way.

[Marrah_G]

50. She is young and ignorant

She doesn't understand what slavery is and nor does she have any idea of actual history.

Hopefully she will grow up and learn.

[Neoma]

54. There are dumbasses in every age group.

Don't kid yourself.