- Time
- Post link
Warb certainly needs to invest in a sarcasm detector.
maybe I can find an app for that for my new smart phone.
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 422
This topic has been locked by a moderator.
- Time
- Post link
Apparently there exists a thing called “The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.”
WTF
JEDIT:
https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement/
Jesus Christ.
- Time
- Post link
More.
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was founded in 1987 to “to help the church defend against the accommodation of secular feminism,” according to its website. The council focuses on outlining the differences between male and female roles in the home and church. It supports the biblical teaching that men must be Christlike leaders at home and in the church, and upholds wives’ submission in marriage.
The group asserted its belief in these separate gender roles in its 1987 manifesto, “The Danvers Statement,” which affirmed a “complementarian” view of gender roles in a push against secular feminism and egalitarian marriages.
It came in response to an increasingly feminist society (and church), where conservative leaders feared men and women were losing their biblical distinctions,” according to an article in Christianity Today, a prominent evangelical publication.
So they we stuck in the 50’s then and they are still stuck in the 50’s now. How lovely.
- Time
- Post link
More.
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was founded in 1987 to “to help the church defend against the accommodation of secular feminism,” according to its website. The council focuses on outlining the differences between male and female roles in the home and church. It supports the biblical teaching that men must be Christlike leaders at home and in the church, and upholds wives’ submission in marriage.
The group asserted its belief in these separate gender roles in its 1987 manifesto, “The Danvers Statement,” which affirmed a “complementarian” view of gender roles in a push against secular feminism and egalitarian marriages.
It came in response to an increasingly feminist society (and church), where conservative leaders feared men and women were losing their biblical distinctions,” according to an article in Christianity Today, a prominent evangelical publication.
So they we stuck in the 50’s then and they are still stuck in the 50’s now. How lovely.
so they we all
- Time
- Post link
More.
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was founded in 1987 to “to help the church defend against the accommodation of secular feminism,” according to its website. The council focuses on outlining the differences between male and female roles in the home and church. It supports the biblical teaching that men must be Christlike leaders at home and in the church, and upholds wives’ submission in marriage.
The group asserted its belief in these separate gender roles in its 1987 manifesto, “The Danvers Statement,” which affirmed a “complementarian” view of gender roles in a push against secular feminism and egalitarian marriages.
It came in response to an increasingly feminist society (and church), where conservative leaders feared men and women were losing their biblical distinctions,” according to an article in Christianity Today, a prominent evangelical publication.
So they we stuck in the 50’s then and they are still stuck in the 50’s now. How lovely.
so they we all
so say we all
- Time
- Post link
Argh. I can’t even blame phone.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
In happier news, both Daniel Borden and Alex Michael Ramos have been arrested for that white supremacist attack in Charlottesville (the one with the pipes in the garage). There were lots of attackers, and two is often the magic number to start identifying the rest. Let’s hope they’re all caught, especially the one who pulled the gun but ran when he realized he was being photographed.
The bad news is that the charge is malicious wounding.
- Time
- Post link
More.
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was founded in 1987 to “to help the church defend against the accommodation of secular feminism,” according to its website. The council focuses on outlining the differences between male and female roles in the home and church. It supports the biblical teaching that men must be Christlike leaders at home and in the church, and upholds wives’ submission in marriage.
The group asserted its belief in these separate gender roles in its 1987 manifesto, “The Danvers Statement,” which affirmed a “complementarian” view of gender roles in a push against secular feminism and egalitarian marriages.
It came in response to an increasingly feminist society (and church), where conservative leaders feared men and women were losing their biblical distinctions,” according to an article in Christianity Today, a prominent evangelical publication.
So they we stuck in the 50’s then and they are still stuck in the 50’s now. How lovely.
Wow. And I thought Goreans were weird! 😉
I’m sure city officials are thrilled with the possible negative effects this is going to have on tourism.
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
I don’t post this because I agree with it. I post it show that maybe, just maybe the cause of secession was bit more complicated than we think, just maybe.
- Time
- Post link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
I don’t post this because I agree with it. I post it show that maybe, just maybe the cause of secession was bit more complicated than we think, just maybe.
I don’t think your argument really make sense. You keep on saying that “maybe the Civil War wasn’t about slavery,” (which sounds a hell of a lot like a conspiracy theory) but never have the courage of your convictions to follow that theory through.
All of the other explanations for the Civil War make no sense.
States’ rights? A state’s right to what, Mr. Warbler?
Economic differences? Economic differences because of what?
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
I don’t post this because I agree with it. I post it show that maybe, just maybe the cause of secession was bit more complicated than we think, just maybe.
You can always find someone who will retroactively apply some less ignoble cause onto the Confederacy. But the fact still stands that when the very people who seceded chose to publicly document exactly why they seceded, they cited slavery and white supremacy as their principal reasons, and also explicitly stated their direct opposition to the general principle of States’ Rights, only supporting it in a narrow sense as it applied specifically to the ownership of slaves. Looking for additional evidence when such plain and unambiguous documentation already exists seems like searching for a way to support a conclusion that’s already been reached. It’s like calling World War II “The War of Polish Aggression” long after everyone knows Germany fired the first shots, or that the Poles were the real aggressors because they failed to surrender quickly enough after Germany laid claim to their territory. There’s a really clear agenda behind the ridiculous level of re-framing and denial you see around the Civil War. The Confederacy was the aggressor and attacked the United States, that part’s indisputable. And it was about slavery and white supremacy, based on what the Confederates said it was about at the time.
All of that is a little beside the point of Confederate statues, which were erected during the Reign of Terror (the Jim Crow era), not by Confederates themselves, but by those who had largely given up on the idea of slavery and instead focused on white supremacy, suppressing voting rights, segregation, lynching, etc. The cause of the Confederate statues has very little to do with slavery and more to do with supporting the domestic terror campaign that erupted after the end of Reconstruction.
- Time
- Post link
It came from Prager U so it must be true.
The Person in Question
- Time
- Post link
It came from Prager U so it must be true.
I don’t think I’ve found a more intellectually dishonest channel. They make Fox look Fair and Balanced.
You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
It’s so bad. I once saw a video of theirs where they went so far beyond climate change denial that they outright claimed burning fossil fuels was good for the environment.
The Person in Question
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
I don’t post this because I agree with it. I post it show that maybe, just maybe the cause of secession was bit more complicated than we think, just maybe.
I don’t think your argument really make sense.
It wasn’t may argument. I made clear I wasn’t agreeing with the video.
You keep on saying that “maybe the Civil War wasn’t about slavery,”
no that is not what I have been saying, I have being that maybe it wasn’t JUST about slavery.
(which sounds a hell of a lot like a conspiracy theory) but never have the courage of your convictions to follow that theory through.
I don’t have any conspiracy theory. Maybe the Civil War only about slavery. Maybe there were other reasons. I don’t know. At this point I am simply asking questions.
All of the other explanations for the Civil War make no sense.
Here is one thing that doesn’t make sense to me. Everyone says the south fought the war to preserve slavery. Yet seems to clear that the push in the North to end slavery really didn’t begin until the middle of the war. I have been told in this thread that the North wasn’t fighting to free the slaves, but preserve the union. To quote Lincoln:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that
So here is the thing. If the North didn’t care all the much early in the war about freeing the slaves, and slavery is all the south was fighting for, Why couldn’t they make agreement? The south returns to the union and slavery will be preserved.
Sounds like it would have made both sides happy and prevented war, right? So why didn’t this happen?
States’ rights? A state’s right to what, Mr. Warbler?
I agree one of the major things they wanted was a state’s right to decide the slavery issue for themselves.
Economic differences? Economic differences because of what?
Slavery, yes I know.
- Time
- Post link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
I don’t post this because I agree with it. I post it show that maybe, just maybe the cause of secession was bit more complicated than we think, just maybe.
You can always find someone who will retroactively apply some less ignoble cause onto the Confederacy. But the fact still stands that when the very people who seceded chose to publicly document exactly why they seceded, they cited slavery and white supremacy as their principal reasons,
true.
and also explicitly stated their direct opposition to the general principle of States’ Rights, only supporting it in a narrow sense as it applied specifically to the ownership of slaves.
They stated opposition to states’ rights in their secession documents? Didn’t know this.
Looking for additional evidence when such plain and unambiguous documentation already exists seems like searching for a way to support a conclusion that’s already been reached.
I am just trying to get at the truth.
It’s like calling World War II “The War of Polish Aggression” long after everyone knows Germany fired the first shots, or that the Poles were the real aggressors because they failed to surrender quickly enough after Germany laid claim to their territory.
perhaps.
There’s a really clear agenda behind the ridiculous level of re-framing and denial you see around the Civil War. The Confederacy was the aggressor and attacked the United States, that part’s indisputable.
Fort Sumter was in the south. When south seceded, they thought the area was in their country. I think they gave the north time to get out of the fort, but of course the north was going to recognize the Confederacy. To the north, Fort Sumter was in America, to the South it was in the Confederacy. Thus disagreement and fighting ensued.
And it was about slavery and white supremacy, based on what the Confederates said it was about at the time.
Very possible. It is just that a few things don’t add up to me, read what I wrote to yhwx.
All of that is a little beside the point of Confederate statues, which were erected during the Reign of Terror (the Jim Crow era), not by Confederates themselves, but by those who had largely given up on the idea of slavery and instead focused on white supremacy, suppressing voting rights, segregation, lynching, etc. The cause of the Confederate statues has very little to do with slavery and more to do with supporting the domestic terror campaign that erupted after the end of Reconstruction.
It does look that way, more and more.
- Time
- Post link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
I don’t post this because I agree with it. I post it show that maybe, just maybe the cause of secession was bit more complicated than we think, just maybe.
I don’t think your argument really make sense.
It wasn’t may argument. I made clear I wasn’t agreeing with the video.
You keep on saying that “maybe the Civil War wasn’t about slavery,”
no that is not what I have been saying, I have being that maybe it wasn’t JUST about slavery.
OK. You caught me there.
(which sounds a hell of a lot like a conspiracy theory) but never have the courage of your convictions to follow that theory through.
I don’t have any conspiracy theory. Maybe the Civil War only about slavery. Maybe there were other reasons. I don’t know. At this point I am simply asking questions.
Here’s the answer to your questions: The Civil War was about slavery. Period.
All of the other explanations for the Civil War make no sense.
Here is one thing that doesn’t make sense to me. Everyone says the south fought the war to preserve slavery. Yet seems to clear that the push in the North to end slavery really didn’t begin until the middle of the war. I have been told in this thread that the North wasn’t fighting to free the slaves, but preserve the union. To quote Lincoln:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that
So here is the thing. If the North didn’t care all the much early in the war about freeing the slaves, and slavery is all the south was fighting for, Why couldn’t they make agreement? The south returns to the union and slavery will be preserved.
Sounds like it would have made both sides happy and prevented war, right? So why didn’t this happen?
No.
First of all, a compromise had already been reached a decade earlier. It didn’t really make anybody happy. In fact, it’s divisiveness made the country more prone to war. Not a great solution.
Second of all, I actually think that Lincoln and Co. might have been hiding their real internal opinions on slavery when talking about the possibility of war to appeal to a broader section of the population. I have no evidence on this. This is just a hypothesis that I think might be true.
States’ rights? A state’s right to what, Mr. Warbler?
I agree one of the major things they wanted was a state’s right to decide the slavery issue for themselves.
Economic differences? Economic differences because of what?
Slavery, yes I know.
Thank you.
The bell has rung. You are dismissed.
- Time
- Post link
It came from Prager U so it must be true.
Prager U really is horrible.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
They stated opposition to states’ rights in their secession documents? Didn’t know this.
Yes. Many of the Confederate States listed their “causes for secession” as sort of a formality/justification/PR effort. South Carolina and Georgia certainly included this language, and others may have as well, although I’m not sure about those. Basically, they stated that they (as states) had the right to have slavery without having to defer to the federal government (pro-states’ rights), but also that northern states (as states) had no similar right to decide their own policies about so-called fugitive slaves (anti-states’ rights). Basically the concept of states’ rights extends to the right to own slaves, but no further, as far as the Confederates were concerned. It was an “a la carte” style of Constitutional interpretation, take what you like, discard what you don’t.
I am just trying to get at the truth.
Sorry, I’m not referring to you, so much as the professional Confederate apologists out there trying to muddy the waters for fun and profit.
It’s like calling World War II “The War of Polish Aggression” long after everyone knows Germany fired the first shots, or that the Poles were the real aggressors because they failed to surrender quickly enough after Germany laid claim to their territory.
perhaps.
There’s a really clear agenda behind the ridiculous level of re-framing and denial you see around the Civil War. The Confederacy was the aggressor and attacked the United States, that part’s indisputable.
Fort Sumter was in the south. When south seceded, they thought the area was in their country. I think they gave the north time to get out of the fort, but of course the north was going to recognize the Confederacy. To the north, Fort Sumter was in America, to the South it was in the Confederacy. Thus disagreement and fighting ensued.
If you ignore the fact that Fort Sumter was federal property and wasn’t part of South Carolina to begin with (which is often done), then that’s what leads to the “the United States failed to surrender quickly enough after the Confederacy laid claim to their territory, therefore the North was the real aggressor” argument I referred to earlier.
The problem is that once you make the jump to the Constitutional right to secession, you’re already just making shit up, so why not add more like “states have the right to just take over federal property” while you’re at it, which people do. There is only one legal way to secede from the US – call a Constitutional Convention and re-write the Constitution to create this right. But that’s an intentionally high hurdle, and the Confederates decided to invent another lower legal standard known as “I can because I say so and I have an army”.
So why did they secede when even Lincoln may not have wanted to end slavery in the first place? They saw the writing on the wall – a long-term trend that was not in their favor, and Lincoln’s election was a strong indicator of that trend. By that point, the US had held onto slavery far longer than practically any other Western nation, but worldwide and national opinions were hardening against slavery and eventually the US would catch up. They saw that there would be a time – maybe not now, but soon – when white rule was not even seen as a desirable thing, let alone possible even for the people who did see it as desirable. Wait, no, I started writing about the 2016 election again. Dangit.
- Time
- Post link
The bell has rung. You are dismissed.
Take it to the Impscum Furious Taxes thread.
- Time
- Post link
Attempts to plumb the depths of stupid have failed. There is no bottom.
My home state, everyone.
- Time
- Post link
Attempts to plumb the depths of stupid have failed. There is no bottom.
My home state, everyone.
Yeesh.
- Time
- Post link
Hey, as a former mayor, he’s at least (possibly) more qualified for public office than Trump.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Hey, as a former mayor, he’s at least (possibly) more qualified for public office than Trump.
Plus he’s already got the prostitution scandal thing down, just without the pee. I’m starting to see where I was being unfair to Mr. Springer. After all, after his free-for-all carnivals of televised vile behavior, he’d stop and have a Jerry’s Moment where he pretended to be decent for 38 seconds. That would be an improvement over today’s political norms.
- Time
- Post link
They stated opposition to states’ rights in their secession documents? Didn’t know this.
Yes. Many of the Confederate States listed their “causes for secession” as sort of a formality/justification/PR effort. South Carolina and Georgia certainly included this language, and others may have as well, although I’m not sure about those. Basically, they stated that they (as states) had the right to have slavery without having to defer to the federal government (pro-states’ rights), but also that northern states (as states) had no similar right to decide their own policies about so-called fugitive slaves (anti-states’ rights). Basically the concept of states’ rights extends to the right to own slaves, but no further, as far as the Confederates were concerned. It was an “a la carte” style of Constitutional interpretation, take what you like, discard what you don’t.
perhaps they were arguing that because of the of the fugitive slave clause, the 10th amendment and/or states rights, did not apply to fugitive slaves.
I am just trying to get at the truth.
Sorry, I’m not referring to you, so much as the professional Confederate apologists out there trying to muddy the waters for fun and profit.
I would certainly be against that.
It’s like calling World War II “The War of Polish Aggression” long after everyone knows Germany fired the first shots, or that the Poles were the real aggressors because they failed to surrender quickly enough after Germany laid claim to their territory.
perhaps.
There’s a really clear agenda behind the ridiculous level of re-framing and denial you see around the Civil War. The Confederacy was the aggressor and attacked the United States, that part’s indisputable.
Fort Sumter was in the south. When south seceded, they thought the area was in their country. I think they gave the north time to get out of the fort, but of course the north was going to recognize the Confederacy. To the north, Fort Sumter was in America, to the South it was in the Confederacy. Thus disagreement and fighting ensued.
If you ignore the fact that Fort Sumter was federal property and wasn’t part of South Carolina to begin with (which is often done),
true, but it was physically in South Carolina.
then that’s what leads to the “the United States failed to surrender quickly enough after the Confederacy laid claim to their territory, therefore the North was the real aggressor” argument I referred to earlier.
The problem is that once you make the jump to the Constitutional right to secession, you’re already just making shit up, so why not add more like “states have the right to just take over federal property” while you’re at it, which people do.
I could be wrong, but I think Jefferson himself thought states that the right to secede from the union. There is also the text of the 9th amendment to consider:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
There is only one legal way to secede from the US – call a Constitutional Convention and re-write the Constitution to create this right.
that would definitely work.
But that’s an intentionally high hurdle, and the Confederates decided to invent another lower legal standard known as “I can because I say so and I have an army”.
So why did they secede when even Lincoln may not have wanted to end slavery in the first place? They saw the writing on the wall – a long-term trend that was not in their favor, and Lincoln’s election was a strong indicator of that trend. By that point, the US had held onto slavery far longer than practically any other Western nation, but worldwide and national opinions were hardening against slavery and eventually the US would catch up. They saw that there would be a time – maybe not now, but soon – when white rule was not even seen as a desirable thing, let alone possible even for the people who did see it as desirable.
What you say makes sense. Sometime, I would like to read the secession documents for myself. I also wonder if there is any documentation of the debates and discussion in the US House and Senate prior to session. Same with the southern state houses and senates.
Wait, no, I started writing about the 2016 election again. Dangit.
lol!