A letter to the Editor, published in the Gainesville Times, revived racism as a fact in Georgia. Georgia, to put it kindly, is a segregated society. We could put that to a test by just asking white folks about the number of black folks in their Sunday School classes. Or, we could just visit any number of churches on Sunday morning. Sundays would find a clear racial majority in 97 percent of services, either black or white.
But, back to the letter published in black and white.
Jason Jones, who wants to live in a colorless society, asks, "So what is to become of affirmative action? It seems to me that it is no longer needed, if it ever truly was in the first place. Lest we forget that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution already mandates equality."
"IF it ever TRULY was" needed in the first place because the 14th Amendment mandated equality? Jason needs to borrow a time machine, some skin dye, and put that to the test. If he could return to 1961 physically as a black male while retaining his present education and attitude, would he choose that 1961 existence instead of his current existence?
Jason said, "
Formally established by President Kennedy via executive order in 1961, the primary goal of affirmative action was to ensure fair hiring and employment practices. It has since become a rallying cry among the leftovers from the Civil Rights era."
Leftovers? As in almost in the garbage leftovers? Leftover.
Jason, can you explain what you mean by leftovers? Would that be just the blacks who haven't died yet? Or, maybe you just meant the "Al Sharptons and Louis Farrakhans"of the world." I guess judging an entire race of people by looking at Louis and Al isn't an example of prejudice. Al Sharpton wasn't even ten years old when Kennedy signed his 1961 executive order. I wonder how many other Civil Rights leaders were eight years old. Oh, I forgot! Al is a leftover from the Civil Rights era.
I could choose a few "leftovers" from the Civil Rights era for 'judgement." But, I'd rather judge the white race by the examples of the Three Stooges than by David Duke. Or, maybe judge the entire United States by the life and times of one Jason Jones, Gainesville, Georgia.
I'd respect him more if he just wore white sheets and stopped pretending to be "colorless."
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Does the Mayflower Compact make us a Christain Nation
There's an ongoing cultural war or an apostate power struggle to label our country as a "Christian Nation," a nation based on the Ten Commandments. Besides the Ten Commandments, the Mayflower Compact gets quoted as one of the best proofs of a new "Christian Nation" being founded by settlers, colonists, and glory seekers.
What do the "Christian Nationists" say about the Mayflower Compact and the Pilgrims? "We all learned in school the story of the Pilgrims’ trip to the New World and their desire to live in a place where religious freedom was a fundamental right."
Someone clarify that story for me. Were the Pilgrims the only people to get off the boat?
What about the "Mayflower Compact" as a 'historical document. Who besides the 'Pilgrims' signed it? What needed to be fixed by a contract?
Why was it signed AFTER arrival?
Where did the Pilgrims come from?
What were the political beliefs of the group?
Were the "Pilgrims" the only ones to get off the boat?
No. Among the many non-Pilgrims, John Billington got off the boat. John becomes the first man executed for murder by the mixed colony. He also insulted Myles Standish, who was not a member of the "Pilgrim" sect. John got sentenced to having his heels tied to his neck for his freely spoken criticisms or insults. Billington is one of those who signed the "compact." Of the 102 passengers on the Mayflower, 28 adults were "Pilgrims," 18 adults were "servants," and 27 adults were not members of the "Pilgrims" sect.
Why was the Compact signed after arrival?
Generally, dissent driven by 'broken promises' to land in Virgina, an established colony. So, the Pilgrims weren't the first to move into the new neighborhood.
Where did the Pilgrims come from?
They first fled England to the Netherlands, illegally. Some of the early leaders of the group were executed for not following British religious laws. Some male members of the group abandoned their families, literally on the beach as they were fleeing the English (Christian) Church. Many of the English parents had Dutch children. The Dutch government let the Pilgrims worship freely in whatever manner the Pilgrims wanted.
However, in jolly ol' England, "under the 1559 Act of Uniformity, it was illegal not to attend official Church of England services, with a fine of 12d (£0.05; 2005 equivalent: about £5)[3] for each missed Sunday and holy day. The penalties for conducting unofficial services included imprisonment and larger fines. Under the policy of this time, Barrowe and Greenwood [two separatist leaders who inspired the "Pilgrim Congregation."] were executed for sedition in 1593." So to be clear, if you didn't worship in the King's church, you were committing sedition.
What were the political beliefs of the Pilgrim group?
They didn't call themselves "Pilgrims" for one thing. That name is applied decades and decades later by others. The group believed in "separatism." Separatists held that their differences with the Church of England were irreconcilable and that their worship should be organized independently of the trappings, traditions and organization of a central state church.
Clearly not a honest example of a desire to form a "Christian nation" or a country. It's the story of a single congregation that was in three countries. The first, England, had a state church. That government executed men for having separatist beliefs. The separatist congregation was stable and secure in Amsterdam. But, the original members were aging, had never fully fit in with the Dutch, and were upset with how well their children were adapting to the languages and traditions of the Dutch. When the congregation left their Dutch city, they weren't fleeing religious persecution or seeking a safe place to worship freely.
How did that get turned into, "We all learned in school the story of the Pilgrims’ trip to the New World and their desire to live in a place where religious freedom was a fundamental right." Or, twisted into a proof the Pilgrims were seeking to found a new, Christian Nation by leaving Amsterdam.
Not a story the apostate Christian politicians want repeated.
Just as a footnote. Myles Standish wasn't a captain, more like a mercenary soldier hired by the investors in the adventure. I wonder how come no one mentions the investors when trying to use the Pilgrims as founding a Christian Nation?
What do the "Christian Nationists" say about the Mayflower Compact and the Pilgrims? "We all learned in school the story of the Pilgrims’ trip to the New World and their desire to live in a place where religious freedom was a fundamental right."
Someone clarify that story for me. Were the Pilgrims the only people to get off the boat?
What about the "Mayflower Compact" as a 'historical document. Who besides the 'Pilgrims' signed it? What needed to be fixed by a contract?
Why was it signed AFTER arrival?
Where did the Pilgrims come from?
What were the political beliefs of the group?
Were the "Pilgrims" the only ones to get off the boat?
No. Among the many non-Pilgrims, John Billington got off the boat. John becomes the first man executed for murder by the mixed colony. He also insulted Myles Standish, who was not a member of the "Pilgrim" sect. John got sentenced to having his heels tied to his neck for his freely spoken criticisms or insults. Billington is one of those who signed the "compact." Of the 102 passengers on the Mayflower, 28 adults were "Pilgrims," 18 adults were "servants," and 27 adults were not members of the "Pilgrims" sect.
Why was the Compact signed after arrival?
Generally, dissent driven by 'broken promises' to land in Virgina, an established colony. So, the Pilgrims weren't the first to move into the new neighborhood.
Where did the Pilgrims come from?
They first fled England to the Netherlands, illegally. Some of the early leaders of the group were executed for not following British religious laws. Some male members of the group abandoned their families, literally on the beach as they were fleeing the English (Christian) Church. Many of the English parents had Dutch children. The Dutch government let the Pilgrims worship freely in whatever manner the Pilgrims wanted.
However, in jolly ol' England, "under the 1559 Act of Uniformity, it was illegal not to attend official Church of England services, with a fine of 12d (£0.05; 2005 equivalent: about £5)[3] for each missed Sunday and holy day. The penalties for conducting unofficial services included imprisonment and larger fines. Under the policy of this time, Barrowe and Greenwood [two separatist leaders who inspired the "Pilgrim Congregation."] were executed for sedition in 1593." So to be clear, if you didn't worship in the King's church, you were committing sedition.
What were the political beliefs of the Pilgrim group?
They didn't call themselves "Pilgrims" for one thing. That name is applied decades and decades later by others. The group believed in "separatism." Separatists held that their differences with the Church of England were irreconcilable and that their worship should be organized independently of the trappings, traditions and organization of a central state church.
Clearly not a honest example of a desire to form a "Christian nation" or a country. It's the story of a single congregation that was in three countries. The first, England, had a state church. That government executed men for having separatist beliefs. The separatist congregation was stable and secure in Amsterdam. But, the original members were aging, had never fully fit in with the Dutch, and were upset with how well their children were adapting to the languages and traditions of the Dutch. When the congregation left their Dutch city, they weren't fleeing religious persecution or seeking a safe place to worship freely.
How did that get turned into, "We all learned in school the story of the Pilgrims’ trip to the New World and their desire to live in a place where religious freedom was a fundamental right." Or, twisted into a proof the Pilgrims were seeking to found a new, Christian Nation by leaving Amsterdam.
Not a story the apostate Christian politicians want repeated.
Just as a footnote. Myles Standish wasn't a captain, more like a mercenary soldier hired by the investors in the adventure. I wonder how come no one mentions the investors when trying to use the Pilgrims as founding a Christian Nation?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
How to handle Domestic Terrorists ... aka Democrats.
Since this is the third post on violent threats, some by children and some by the childish, I thought we should look at how Democratic activists have been treated by the police.
In Maryland:
Now, how does that match up to the comments being made about Obama? Should those folks be put on a terrorist list until proven innocent?
Don't ask me. I have an opinion and I will share it!
In Maryland:
An independent report by former Maryland Attorney General Stephen Sachs found that state police violated federal regulations and intruded on the First Amendment rights of residents by spying on the groups. He also found that police did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct the surveillance.
It's unclear whether the activists ended up on a national terror watch list as a result of being labeled terrorists. Maryland's senators, Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin, have asked federal agencies to look into whether any information about the activists was passed on to them.
What were the activists doing? Typical Democratic themes like the environment, Peace, and animal rights.
How were they treated? Well, we don't know everything yet in this case. In this case, 53 tree huggers, and their peace loving friends were labeled terrorists by police investigators.
"Other files reveal that an undercover trooper attended a meeting of a socialist student organization at the University of Maryland. The founder of that organization, Shane Dillingham, and its faculty adviser, Laura Lising, were among the so-called terrorists. Such infiltration "has a chilling effect" on the formation of student groups, Dillingham said.
The files were also riddled with errors, Rocah said. Nadine Bloch's file identifies her as a participant in an animal rights conference in Washington in July 2005. Bloch said Wednesday that she is not an animal rights activist, and she was in Hawaii at the time of the conference."
So what could happen to someone labeled a "terrorist" by the State Police. Lose your job when a background check is done? Not get a job because your background check labels you a terrorists.
Now, how does that match up to the comments being made about Obama? Should those folks be put on a terrorist list until proven innocent?
Don't ask me. I have an opinion and I will share it!
Kill Obama NOW! Says the GOP base.
No, that's not what I want, but like the letter in the Gainesville Times, some people want Obama dead and as soon as possible.
How do I know?
Let's start slowly with events that don't make our local North Georgia newspapers. That would exclude nationally publicized assassination plots.
But what about the gun shop in Hull, Georgia that advertised an Obama Gun Sale within hours of the election results? A call to murder?
Here's the full text of the story in the Savannah papers.
The link is here for as long as the paper keeps the link open.
Now, was that just too stupid for words? Or, did the gun shop owner really think President Obama could change the Constitution with his magic marker? Just in case, I don't believe Obama uses a magic marker. Some gun shop owners do use magic markers, I'm sure.
What did the hard line GOP supporters have to say about the sign?
"Every gun owner knew the meaning of that sign." I'm a gun owner. There are so many possible meanings of that sign that I wouldn't try to guess the intent. That includes the intent of the human heart versus the intent of the human mind.
"Obama’s view on gun ownership should worry everone." But, what are those views and if you're worried about that view, what can you change with a gun? Regime change? Isn't that assassination by another name? And, the 2nd Amendment Sale, was that a call to form a militia and then cause regime change? To win with violence what couldn't be won by a vote?
"I think I am going to join 'the resistance.'" Ouch! There's an organized resistance? To what? Why?
"For all the gunowners out there - political signs make great targets." Is that especially true if the sign has a picture of Obama?
"It’s OBAMA BInlaDEN!" So when Obama and Biden are combined, they're wanted Dead or Alive, just like bin Laden?
"Eff the stupid, pansy Dems who want a disarmed America so that their candle-light vigiled heroes can roam the streets without fear of someone killing them if they attack someone." That statement is confusing. Or, just stupid and ignorant. Or, irrational. Murder is an irrational act, isn't it? Eff you, too, buddy. Whatever that really means.
So, am I wrong to quote these few comments, made on a prominent right wing Georgia blog? None of the comments directly say, "It's time to kill us a ________."
But, what kind of people would do that? People who shoot political signs? White resistance fighters? People who equate Obama with Osama? People who shoot political signs?
Should we judge potential domestic terrorists in the same way as potential Islamic Terrorists? Send them to GitMo for six years of interrogation?
I'm going to ignore the threats for now. I think the threats are as hollow as the heads making the threats. I'm going to have a George Bush pretzel sale. It will be open to George Bush and anyone who wants to come have fun. An Obama gun sale doesn't sound like fun or like an event open to Obama's attendance.
How do I know?
Let's start slowly with events that don't make our local North Georgia newspapers. That would exclude nationally publicized assassination plots.
But what about the gun shop in Hull, Georgia that advertised an Obama Gun Sale within hours of the election results? A call to murder?
Here's the full text of the story in the Savannah papers.
HULL, Ga. - An east Georgia gun shop has stopped using President-elect Barack Obama's name to sell weapons after some passers-by interpreted it as a call to violence against the country's first black leader.
The Georgia Outdoor Sports shop in Hull used an outdoor sign to advertise an "Obama Sale" on guns and ammo Wednesday morning just hours after his victory was announced.
Shop owner Carrie Mentel said she was trying to capitalize on gun owners' concerns that their right to bear arms will be limited under a Democratic administration. On Thursday, she changed the message on the outdoor sign to "Support the 2nd Amendment Sale."
Hull is about 80 miles east of Atlanta.
The link is here for as long as the paper keeps the link open.
Now, was that just too stupid for words? Or, did the gun shop owner really think President Obama could change the Constitution with his magic marker? Just in case, I don't believe Obama uses a magic marker. Some gun shop owners do use magic markers, I'm sure.
What did the hard line GOP supporters have to say about the sign?
"Every gun owner knew the meaning of that sign." I'm a gun owner. There are so many possible meanings of that sign that I wouldn't try to guess the intent. That includes the intent of the human heart versus the intent of the human mind.
"Obama’s view on gun ownership should worry everone." But, what are those views and if you're worried about that view, what can you change with a gun? Regime change? Isn't that assassination by another name? And, the 2nd Amendment Sale, was that a call to form a militia and then cause regime change? To win with violence what couldn't be won by a vote?
"I think I am going to join 'the resistance.'" Ouch! There's an organized resistance? To what? Why?
"For all the gunowners out there - political signs make great targets." Is that especially true if the sign has a picture of Obama?
"It’s OBAMA BInlaDEN!" So when Obama and Biden are combined, they're wanted Dead or Alive, just like bin Laden?
"Eff the stupid, pansy Dems who want a disarmed America so that their candle-light vigiled heroes can roam the streets without fear of someone killing them if they attack someone." That statement is confusing. Or, just stupid and ignorant. Or, irrational. Murder is an irrational act, isn't it? Eff you, too, buddy. Whatever that really means.
So, am I wrong to quote these few comments, made on a prominent right wing Georgia blog? None of the comments directly say, "It's time to kill us a ________."
But, what kind of people would do that? People who shoot political signs? White resistance fighters? People who equate Obama with Osama? People who shoot political signs?
Should we judge potential domestic terrorists in the same way as potential Islamic Terrorists? Send them to GitMo for six years of interrogation?
I'm going to ignore the threats for now. I think the threats are as hollow as the heads making the threats. I'm going to have a George Bush pretzel sale. It will be open to George Bush and anyone who wants to come have fun. An Obama gun sale doesn't sound like fun or like an event open to Obama's attendance.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Letter in Gainesville Times
A voice of reason in the Gainesville Times.
As a nation, we have overcome great adversity by pulling together in times of crisis to make our nation stronger. The adversity that we now face -- including two wars, economic turmoil, lingering threats of terrorism and declining civility -- appears to be intensified by another monster that has been asleep for some time: open racial strife.
As a nation, we have overcome great adversity by pulling together in times of crisis to make our nation stronger. The adversity that we now face -- including two wars, economic turmoil, lingering threats of terrorism and declining civility -- appears to be intensified by another monster that has been asleep for some time: open racial strife.
Although Barack Obama's election made a powerful statement around the world that reinforces our standing as the world's last best hope, an ugly underside is being revealed in our local community that does not bode well for our future. I was not surprised when both of my high school-aged children came home saying that many of their classmates were unhappy regarding Obama's election. However, I was shocked to hear that young people are spewing venom of ages past.
On at least eight separate occasions their classmates said that our president-elect should be assassinated, or expressed casual expectations that he would be assassinated within coming months. One young "lady" who comes from an apparently respectable family in our neighborhood said she would be willing to carry out the act herself!
Do we have to wonder what these young people are learning from mom and dad?
I have also heard unreasonable fears expressed by adults in our community following Obama's election, even from some who are pillars in our community. You have probably heard the same. Like hatred, such fear drives hysteria, strife and unrest. For all those who are worked up, relax! If our federal government is your primary source of security, you have been in trouble a long time anyway.
On the other hand, I have heard others in our community express a patriotic and godly desire to support and pray for our president-elect in spite of the fact that they do not agree with all of his policies. These are our true patriots and these will be the true winners regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.
I encourage all people of good will to refuse to stand by in passive agreement with those that would tear us apart. As we have heard repeatedly, all evil needs to prevail is to have good men stand by and do nothing.
Jonathan Rucker
Flowery Branch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
