American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America

[twa]

Well ,let's go for three.

Getting lectured on slavery from a guy from a state that spread slavery and was built on blood money is entertaining....Must be nice to assign blame to religion while ignoring others.

[dreamingwolf]

The American Anti-Slavery Society was established in 1833, but abolitionist sentiment antedated the republic. For example, the charter of Georgia prohibited slavery, and many of its settlers fought a losing battle against allowing it in the colony, Before independence, Quakers, most black Christians, and other religious groups argued that slavery was incompatible with Christ's teaching.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/african/afam005.html

[AsburySkinsFan]

If you want to read about the ONLY religious orginization against slavery, the Society of Friends, it was an orginization in England for crying out loud.

I don't know about you, but this discussion was about the religious movement in the US, and not other countries. The people you posted were from the Society of Friends, and I do not see they set up came in the South, they probably would have been lynched and you know it. Strike one. . .

That is so much BS that its not even funny! Heck the Methodist church split over the issue of slavery for crying out loud; where do you think the Free Methodists came from also there are many Methodist churches in this country that were split on the issue and it nearly tore the church appart. Chomerics, you anti-church sentiment blind you to the very facts that you need to present a fair argument.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Not to mention the fact that John Wesley the founder of Methodism was against slavery as were many of those who followed him; Francis Asbury, Thomas Coke etc. So give me a break.

[dfitzo53]

Here's the simple fact of it:

Many people have believed slavery to be wrong. They recognized it as un-Christian and decried it as such for hundreds of years.

Others have either believed slavery to be acceptable due to a warped view of humanity and race relations, or believed it to be necessary to the antebellum South. They have used scripture wrongfully in their attempts to rationalize and justify such behavior.

[chomerics]

That is so much BS that its not even funny! Heck the Methodist church split over the issue of slavery for crying out loud; where do you think the Free Methodists came from also there are many Methodist churches in this country that were split on the issue and it nearly tore the church appart. Chomerics, you anti-church sentiment blind you to the very facts that you need to present a fair argument.

Really? Do you honestly think the church played a major role in abolishing slavery? If that is the case, then why would the methodist church have been at odds as to whether slavery was right or wrong? I know about the Free Methodists, and their backing of free slaves (Ironically, their name was derived from the fact that Methodists used to charge to sit in church, so the people who paid more money got to sit up front. . .hence the "free" Methodists).

The point was that religion was complacent, and people actually used scripture to justify owning black people. The South, which was the most religious geographically, was the group that wanted to KEEP slavery. They used religion to back their point. Were there groups from the north that wanted to end it? Yes there were, but to ignore the fact that religion was used not only as a justification for slavery, but also as a "cleansing" of the soul is ignoring the basic problems with religion to begin with. I honestly don't expect a person studying the ministry to understand how religion was used for evil, or even to acknowledge it, but it did happen in the south during the "good ole days".

And back to the original argument, for those who say society is on a "moral decline", a moral decline from what? Segregation? Slavery? Witch trials? Each and every generation actually progresses on a sociological evolutionary scale. They do this is SPITE of the people who claim society is falling apart. It will progress even further towards equality which is a GREAT thing!!! Hopefully people can come to grips with the fact that gay people will marry, because god forbid we go back to the times they want. . .women are subservient, black people are slaves, and people are tried as witches. . .yea, dems the good ole times :doh:

[PokerPacker]

in frederick douglass' personal narrative, he mentions that all of his worst owners were christians. they used the bible to back-up thier slavery and the horrendous treatment of slaves.

[dreamingwolf]

In regards to the Catholic Church, the early Church tolerated, but was critical of, the slavery that was part of the prevailing culture. The position of the Church became more firmly anti-slavery in latter years. In 1462 Pope Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime" (magnum scelus). In 1537, Pope Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians, while Pope Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Pope Benedict XIV in 1741. Pope Pius VII in 1815 demanded that the Congress of Vienna suppress the slave trade, and Pope Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839. In the Bull of Canonization of the St. Peter Claver, Pope Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Pope Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed an encyclical to the Brazilian bishops, In Plurimism [21] (On the Abolition of Slavery), exhorting them to banish the remnants of slavery from their country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Religion_and_slavery

so I guess now you love Catholicism and just hate all the other christians, nah you still hate all christians.

[alexey]

Nationalists tend to see the world the way it truly is... Black & White.

Does not mean they see black as black and white as white

Now, the moment a man touches his wife, he has to worry that she's going to cry abuse.

err no he does not.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Really? Do you honestly think the church played a major role in abolishing slavery? If that is the case, then why would the methodist church have been at odds as to whether slavery was right or wrong? I know about the Free Methodists, and their backing of free slaves (Ironically, their name was derived from the fact that Methodists used to charge to sit in church, so the people who paid more money got to sit up front. . .hence the "free" Methodists).

Actually, the fee that was charged was simply a "pew rental" type fee, it had nothing to do with sitting up front, and if you knew anything about the church and in particular the Methodist church you would know that the best seats are always in the BACK. In my 10 years of pastoral ministry I've had but a handful of different people sit in the front 2 pews at church, and they were usually visiting pastors or special speakers.

The point was that religion was complacent, and people actually used scripture to justify owning black people. The South, which was the most religious geographically, was the group that wanted to KEEP slavery. They used religion to back their point. Were there groups from the north that wanted to end it?

I love this false dichotomy that you've created here it truely is priceless, because you paint the South as being church goers and thus equate the church with pro-slavery and then the North you present as being abivilent to church and thus anti-slavery in order to back your conclusion that the church did not stand against slavery. The problem is Chomerics that the percentage of people who went to church in the North and South was extremely high, my guess would be 80-95% regularly attended weekly service and would have considered themselves at least nominally Christian. So basically what you have is the folks in the South using scripture (IMO misusing it) to back slavery and then you have the folks in the North who are obviously heavily exposed to scripture standing against it. So please spare me the image that the church did not heavily influence the people in the North and the South was just a bunch of Bible tottin' Rednecks. Because its just plain false.

Yes there were, but to ignore the fact that religion was used not only as a justification for slavery, but also as a "cleansing" of the soul is ignoring the basic problems with religion to begin with. I honestly don't expect a person studying the ministry to understand how religion was used for evil, or even to acknowledge it, but it did happen in the south during the "good ole days".

You honestly don't expect me to understand that my faith has been misused by those who only wanted to serve themselves and oppress others. Come on Chomerics, give me a break and grant me just a little intellegence please.

And back to the original argument, for those who say society is on a "moral decline", a moral decline from what? Segregation? Slavery? Witch trials? Each and every generation actually progresses on a sociological evolutionary scale. They do this is SPITE of the people who claim society is falling apart. It will progress even further towards equality which is a GREAT thing!!! Hopefully people can come to grips with the fact that gay people will marry, because god forbid we go back to the times they want. . .women are subservient, black people are slaves, and people are tried as witches. . .yea, dems the good ole times :doh:

Yeah, Chomerics, Christians like myself want nothing more to restore slavery, eliminate women's sufferage, and kill witches, yep that's what we're all about, you got it. Sorry, but that deserves a big fat WHATEVER!

BTW, what has atheism brought us...hmmm let's see...oh how 'bout Social Darwinism...yeah that's a great advancement for humanity and equal rights.

[AsburySkinsFan]

in frederick douglass' personal narrative, he mentions that all of his worst owners were christians. they used the bible to back-up thier slavery and the horrendous treatment of slaves.

anecdotal evidence proves nothing. The vast majority of the population of the US during the 1800's were Christians, which would also mean that Fredrick Douglass would also be saying that his best owners were Christians, and also that the people fighting and dieing for his freedom were Christians, and that the President who pronounced the Emancipation Proclamation was a Christian. Come on guys, you really can do better than this.

[Sisyphus]

Chom ... you've really taken this thread off topic.

You've now managed to get Asbury arguing on the same side as Zguy and twa. :doh: :laugh:

We had them at each others throats earlier.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Chom ... you've really taken this thread off topic.

You've now managed to get Asbury arguing on the same side as Zguy and twa. :doh: :laugh:

We had them at each others throats earlier.

As I have recently told someone, this is because I'm more interested in defending and supporting the faith, and correcting its abuses, misconceptions, and misrepresentations, than I am interested in anyone person's politics whether they be on the Right, Left or Middle. Thus I want to right the wrongs that are currently within the church and those that are outside of it as well. Mostly, what my position does is increase the amount of people who are mad at me.

[dfitzo53]

As I have recently told someone, this is because I'm more interested in defending and supporting the faith, and correcting its abuses, misconceptions, and misrepresentations, than I am interested in anyone person's politics whether they be on the Right, Left or Middle. Thus I want to right the wrongs that are currently within the church and those that are outside of it as well. Mostly, what my position does is increase the amount of people who are mad at me.

It's not easy being reasonable, is it?

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's not easy being reasonable, is it?

LOL, yeah, it's no wonder that it doesn't catch on. :laugh:

[AJ_Skins]

The abolitionist movement was primarily motivated by evangelical Christians in the wake of the Second Great Awakening. The same segment of the Republican base was later responsible for Prohibition, which ultimately failed. In the present, that part of the Republican base is represented by the pro-life movement. While modern day Democrats would like to believe that they have somehow swapped places with the Republicans, the truth is that the parties have changed very little over the years, even though they have swapped places geographically. Rather than being changed by the regions they have adopted, the regions they have adopted have primarily been changed by the parties.

With an undistorted knowledge of history, it is easy to see that the Democrats have always been the party of populist economics, and a general mentality that says "I'm going to do whatever I want, and you're not going to stop me!", while the Republicans have always been a nationalistic coalition of business interests and religious voters. In the past, the Democrats defended people's right to hold slaves if the felt like it. Today it's abortion, gay marriage, legalized drugs and so on. Nothing has changed.

[twa]

Chom ... you've really taken this thread off topic.

You've now managed to get Asbury arguing on the same side as Zguy and twa. :doh: :laugh:

We had them at each others throats earlier.

Chom has to work his own agenda.

I would actually agree with you (and have} on abuses by some in the christian right, but declaring them fascists is going a bit too far.

BTW I don't recall differing with Asbury in this thread other than his overly broad description of the religious right.

[dreamingwolf]

As I have recently told someone, this is because I'm more interested in defending and supporting the faith, and correcting its abuses, misconceptions, and misrepresentations, than I am interested in anyone person's politics whether they be on the Right, Left or Middle. Thus I want to right the wrongs that are currently within the church and those that are outside of it as well. Mostly, what my position does is increase the amount of people who are mad at me.

Im not a christian, but I follow the same desire. The Neo-Humanist machine has christianity in its sights for destruction, and for sport I defend them. Im not claiming these guys who hate christianity with a passion know what this movement is or are members, but they are certainly doing their bidding and theres many outlets of information that incourage them to do so.

[PokerPacker]

anecdotal evidence proves nothing. The vast majority of the population of the US during the 1800's were Christians, which would also mean that Fredrick Douglass would also be saying that his best owners were Christians, and also that the people fighting and dieing for his freedom were Christians, and that the President who pronounced the Emancipation Proclamation was a Christian. Come on guys, you really can do better than this.

no, i guess you never read the book. he specificly described that his christian owners were much worse than the other owners he'd had, as he had experienced both.

i guess you also didn't know that he had escaped to the north before the emancipation proclamation se people weren't exactly fighting and dieing for his freedom since he was already a free man. also, the religion of Abraham Lincoln has nothing to do with the emancipation. the only reason he made the emancipation was to save the union. he once said that if he could preserve the union without freeing the slaves, he would. if he could preserve the nation with freeing the slaves, he would. what he did was for preservation of the nation. also, if he was so worried about the slaves, he would have abolished slavery throughout the country, not just confederate states.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Im not a christian, but I follow the same desire. The Neo-Humanist machine has christianity in its sights for destruction, and for sport I defend them. Im not claiming these guys who hate christianity with a passion know what this movement is or are members, but they are certainly doing their bidding and theres many outlets of information that incourage them to do so.

Neither Nero, nor Domitian, nor Constantine could destroy the church, so a few philosophers with an agenda don't concern me. The church and authentic Christian faith has always been at odds with the world around it. My feeling is that the church for many years thought that it had actually tamed the world, but what really happened was that the church was in fact tamed by the world, thus it is my belief that it is not the world that needs renewing but instead the church. And as far as those Neo-Humanists are concerned, well I cannot allow myself to be surprised that the night is actually dark.

[AsburySkinsFan]

no, i guess you never read the book. he specificly described that his christian owners were much worse than the other owners he'd had, as he had experienced both.

i guess you also didn't know that he had escaped to the north before the emancipation proclamation se people weren't exactly fighting and dieing for his freedom since he was already a free man. also, the religion of Abraham Lincoln has nothing to do with the emancipation. the only reason he made the emancipation was to save the union. he once said that if he could preserve the union without freeing the slaves, he would. if he could preserve the nation with freeing the slaves, he would. what he did was for preservation of the nation. also, if he was so worried about the slaves, he would have abolished slavery throughout the country, not just confederate states.

This is what I have understood, but my point is still valid because this is still isolated anecdotal evidence being used to form a generalization of a people, which may or may not accurately reflect the entire reality of the time period. Also, his escaping before or after the fighting began really is irrelevant, because it was Christians who fought and died on those fields, and it was a Christian leader who many years later stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and proclaimed that he had a dream. There were many Christans on both sides some more faithfully represented the faith than others. So, to say that Christians and the church played no part in standing against slavery, is simply erroneous. Because the very reality is that there were MANY Christians who because of their faith joined with the abolitionist movement and paid the price for it.

[PokerPacker]

This is what I have understood, but my point is still valid because this is still isolated anecdotal evidence being used to form a generalization of a people, which may or may not accurately reflect the entire reality of the time period. Also, his escaping before or after the fighting began really is irrelevant, because it was Christians who fought and died on those fields, and it was a Christian leader who many years later stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and proclaimed that he had a dream. There were many Christans on both sides some more faithfully represented the faith than others. So, to say that Christians and the church played no part in standing against slavery, is simply erroneous. Because the very reality is that there were MANY Christians who because of their faith joined with the abolitionist movement and paid the price for it.

i didn't say that no christian contributed to the fight against slavery, my point is that they were on both sides of the issue, and the fact that they existed on one side does not make them all on that side. you credit christianity with the abolition of slavery when it was MEN who should get credit for the abolition of slavery.

edit: also, Douglass did not use his experience with slave owners to decide that all christians were evil, he did make a point in saying that it was christian slave-owners that were the worst, not christians in general, so he does not hold ill-will against christianity.

[AsburySkinsFan]

i didn't say that no christian contributed to the fight against slavery, my point is that they were on both sides of the issue, and the fact that they existed on one side does not make them all on that side. you credit christianity with the abolition of slavery when it was MEN who should get credit for the abolition of slavery.

edit: also, Douglass did not use his experience with slave owners to decide that all christians were evil, he did make a point in saying that it was christian slave-owners that were the worst, not christians in general, so he does not hold ill-will against christianity.

Ok, I think we are in agreement, I think what threw me was that you responded so close to Chomerics post about the same issue, that it looked as if you were adding proof to his fire.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Does not mean they see black as black and white as white

Well, whether anyone sees black as black and white as white is always a matter of opinion/viewpoint so there's really nothing new there. That's part of the problem with American society at this point in time. We DON'T have a single, common morality/set of values to follow and it's rapidly assisting in the destruction of this society

err no he does not.

I think there are more women out there today willing to leave their husband, file charges against him, or to file for divorce over the most ridiculous of reasons than ever before. That's a significant sign of the decline in our society so far as I am concerned.

[alexey]

Well, whether anyone sees black as black and white as white is always a matter of opinion/viewpoint so there's really nothing new there. That's part of the problem with American society at this point in time. We DON'T have a single, common morality/set of values to follow and it's rapidly assisting in the destruction of this society

Yep. It seems a big reason for that is lack of leaders and uniters... what's your positon on marching together vs marching in a 100% correct direction?

As for black and white... there are many kinds of white and many kinds of black. Saying that there is only black and white does not do that little fact justice... unless you are talking about that as it relates to decisiveness, of course.

I think there are more women out there today willing to leave their husband, file charges against him, or to file for divorce over the most ridiculous of reasons than ever before. That's a significant sign of the decline in our society so far as I am concerned.

Yeah I think both sexes became weaker on average when it comes to taking responsibility for one's action, working on problems instead of running away from them, etc.