From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Apr 27 2005 - 18:48:54 BST
Platt, Mark, All...
>>Since Ham is exhausted, I'll pick on my friend Platt for awhile...
>>But only on a couple of points in this very long post since Arlo
>>seems to be doing fine...
>>
>>
>
>If he's doing so fine, how come you feel the need supply reinforcements?
>
>
>
Platt's just upset because no one is rushing in to defend his
distortions and deliberately manipulated "skews" of history. So, let's
be fair and ask outright... is there anyone else on this list that
believes (1) "brutality" emerged only with the advent of "secular"
power, (2) "freedom" is a "christian concept" given to us by "christian
theology" and not reason (or, for that matter, any "other" theology),
(3) the benevolent years during which the "church" wielded power were
the freest, most democratic, wonderful years of utopic peace known in
history??
If so, please come to Platt's aid. He is feeling lonely.
>>platt to arlo:
>>I find your "win for rational-secular idea of freedom" unsupported by fact.
>>Because men are "endowed by their Creator with liberty" puts God right at
>>the center of freedom. In other words, your right and mine to liberty comes
>>from God, not from a government permit based on some rational-secular idea,
>>whatever that may be.
>>
>>msh says:
>>Am I reading this correctly? You're saying that Arlo's
>>interpretation is not supported by fact because God gives us freedom?
>>
>>
>
>Read the Declaration" " . . .endowed by our Creator." What part of that
>don't you understand?
>
>
>
This has got to rank up in the Top 10 Platteral Distortions of all-time.
Why did it take "nearly" two thousand years of christian theology before
these "rights" became "self-evident"? Why did the "church" not dissolve
the monarchical system throughout the era 360-1800 when it wielded the
power to do so? Why do we see no historical evidence for either
"democracy" or "freedom" in the years the church held power?
It is indisputable history that the Greeks used various systems of
representative democracy long before the advent of "christianity". These
variances ran from Cleisthenes (510 bce) to Roman Domination (102 bce).
Our word "political" derives from the Greek term for city-states, Polis.
Platt's "claim" that because the "founders" used christian terminology
to justify the revolution, then the concepts must've been "christian".
The Library of Congress disagrees: "Reli******gion played a major role
in the American Revolution by offering a moral sanction for opposition
to the British--an assurance to the average American that revolution was
justified in the sight of God. As a recent scholar has observed, "by
turning colonial resistance into a righteous cause, and by crying the
message to all ranks in all parts of the colonies, ministers did the
work of secular radicalism and did it better."
Was the American Revolution in some ways a battle between two static
social patterns of religion (Anglicanism v. Evangelicalism)? This is
probably likely (as was it a battle of economic interests). But in the
formation of the "representative government" that was to replace
"monarchical patterns", the "founders" could turn to no theologic
doctrine or historical advent of "representative democracy". Indeed,
until this time, during the years the christian church held power, the
only governmental structures that emerged were the papacy itself, and
papacy support monarchical patterns (of which Henry VIII split from but
continued the monarchy). "Representative democracy" or "freedom" is
nowhere to be found in christian theology or its history or power.
Instead, governed by reason, and turning to the pre-Christian Greeks and
witnessing the Iroquios Nation's representative structure, the founders
were able to craft this type of government. Ben Franklin's letters and
the involvement of the Iroquiois in the early stages of planning are
well documented and available for anyone to read.
>> msh says:
>>
>>Why is a brutal implementation of a pseudo--communist system
>>sufficient for you to detest communism? The pseudo--capitalist
>>system best represented by the US has its own clear record of
>>genocide, and, far from fearing this system, you apparently LOVE it.
>> I think this goes a long way toward explaining why the memory hole
>>is so important to you.
>>
>>
>
>Your "clear record of genocide" is nothing compared to the record set by
>your communist friends. Have you no sense of proportion?
>
>
Hey! At least Platt is finally admitting it happened!!!! Now if we could
only get him to admit that napalming the civilians on the streets of
Iraq, or supporting brutal dictators that supported US economic
interests constitutued power-brutality, we may be getting somewhere.
>
>"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic system of
>exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its
>unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property
>instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to
>destroy this system under all conditions." Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1,
>1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p.306)
>
>
Well, thank god we have the champions FOR exploitation of the
economically weak, its unfair salaries, its unseemly evaluation of a
human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility
and performance, such as you Platt.
Of course, because Hitler said this, and Hitler was a tryannical despot,
then the logical conclusion is that the only possible alternative to
"exploitation of the economically weak, etc" is dictatorship. Set up a
false dichotomy, then use fear and xenophobia to keep people supporting
the power that gives you power, eh?
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 28 2005 - 15:47:17 BST