Lurker > SolaFide

HylianFox posted...

also, did you SERIOUSLY just use the "sure Jackson committed genocide, but he treated his own slaves well enough" argument?

I never affirmed that Jackson committed genocide anywhere in my post. In fact, that idea is also more mythical than true. When you actually read Jackson's defenses of his Native American removal policy, it is quite clear that he never intended their death and execution, in the way that a real genocidal maniac like Hitler did for supposed inferiors. Jackson justifies his policy by pointing to the mistreatment of Native Americans under state governments like Georgia, and argues that the Native Americans will be more able to flourish if they can have federal territories to themselves where whites will no longer be able disturb them. His view of the Native Americans is paternalistic, not genocidal. He calls not for their death and destruction, but for their support from a benevolent, white federal government.

The clearest expression of Jackson's views on the Native American Removal Policy are in his Second Annual Message to Congress, where he explains why his policy should be seen as good for every party involved.

"[Native American Removal] will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the states; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will [deter] the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community... And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the general government toward the red man is not only liberal but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the states and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the general government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement.

While his views on Native American Removal deserve enormous criticism, it is a misrepresentation to say that he simply supported "genocide." He never calls for their mass execution in any document that I'm aware of, and I've read all of his major addresses and speeches.

ThyCorndog posted...

killing native americans isn't very christian of you, mister luther

You must not be aware that the Trail of Tears actually happened under Jackson's presidential successor, Martin Van Buren, and that it is quite possible that Jackson would have conducted the policy in a more humane way had he been in office. While I think the whole policy was wrong and believe that Jackson still deserves blame for pressing for it (with, by the way, a huge majority of the American populace), I want to understand these people as they understood themselves. We cannot impute to Jackson the responsibility for the deaths that occurred during the Trail of Tears, which took place after he had left office. Van Buren's heinous and irresponsible execution of the Removal policy does not, by itself, mean that Jackson's intentions with the Removal policy were simply "genocidal." Rather, they were paternalistic and racialist in a way that is, while lamentable from a modern perspective, entirely unextraordinary given the context of his own day.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

HylianFox posted...

active posts: 10

Maybe I have ten active posts because I'm too busy with my Ph.D. work, focusing primarily on the American political tradition, to spend all of my time wasting away on this God-forsaken message board, which is filled with iconoclasts who have no appreciation for the very real nuances and tragedies of American history.

HylianFox posted...

really though what most Americans are taught as "history" has been extremely white-washed with a focus on European settlers and greatly downplays the role of non-whites in the founding of the US

you probably still think Columbus was the first person to reach the Americas and was a pretty swell guy >_>

This is laughable. On the one hand, political Leftists want us to believe that the American political tradition has been one long history of oppression and injustice, since the white elites allegedly did nothing for racial minorities between 1619 and 1960. On the other hand, these same Leftists want us to believe that non-white minorities played some kind of massive role in the "founding of the US." That's a bold assertion to make, given that there were no non-whites who signed the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the American Constitution, or who even attended the Constitutional Ratification Conventions as freemen in 1787. I can look at this evidence and acknowledge that this shows that minority races have been silenced and tragically mistreated throughout U.S. history. But I can't look at the evidence and say that it shows that minorities were especially involved in the American Founding.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

Calvin Coolidge, the President of the United States at the time, chose Andrew Jackson to be the figure who adorned the Twenty-Dollar Bill. Prior to the New Left historiography of the 1960s, Jackson was not demonized and was seen as a figure who symbolized national unity and popular government. Coolidge especially appreciated Jackson for putting down the early attempts at nullification and secession in the 1830s and for asserting that these practices violated a strict reading of the Constitution.

Though Coolidge was a Republican loyalist, there was bipartisan, national support for Jackson in the 1920s. Many people who fought in the Civil War, on both the Union and Confederate side, were still alive. Given the recent memory of the Civil War, the leadership class sought a way to build a postbellum Union characterized by reconciliation, harmony, and national unity. Jackson was a great symbol of this, since many rightfully pointed to his love of the Union and his hatred of both Northern and Southern sectionalists in the 1830s. Honoring Jackson was seen as a way to bridge the traditional divide between Northerners and Southerners and to unite the country around shared principles of liberty under the federal Constitution.

But, by all means, continue to just assume that this was an entirely unreasonable decision with no rhyme or reason to it besides "racism." New Left "historiography" is not really history at all, particularly as it relates to Jackson, who adopted a Native American as his son and treated the slaves of his household with as much respect as anyone could be treated who was confined to that sordid station. He was paternalistic as it relates to the races, but was not any more racist than Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington.

The best reason to support removing Jackson from the $20 is simply that he despised inflationary, fiat currency that was not backed by gold. He would want nothing to do with the Federal Reserve, given his successful war against the Second National Bank and its inflationary policies.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

Tyranthraxus posted...

I'm just going to stop you right here and say he instituted martial law in 9 counties, not the whole state, and it was to squash KKK led organized violence, not elections. He did take a separate measure to stop Georgia from seceding again which is what I thought you were talking about. You are essentially just wrong in both scenarios regarding Grant's alleged abuse of powers.

I didn't say it was the whole state of South Carolina, I said that he instituted martial law 'in' South Carolina. I can understand why you misunderstood, though, given the unintentionally ambiguous language. And no, you are incorrect. Philip Leigh's Ulysses S. Grant's Failed Presidency shows beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt that all of Grant's supposedly philanthropic interventions in the South were about advancing the Republican Party's electoral prospects, not about justice for the freedmen. This is the only way to explain how this supposedly enlightened, progressive president who was oh-so-concerned about the rights of black Americans committed heinous injustices against the Native Americans using military force that make Andrew Jackson open-minded and also singled out the Chinese for discrimination with the Page Act of 1975. He was not at all racially enlightened, as much as his apologists try to prop him. It makes sense why modern day Leftists like him, though, since he is a kindred spirit with the modern Left in his support for oligarchy, corruption, and activist government. The heinous blend of corporatism and big government that we wrongfully call "capitalism" today began, for all intents and purposes, with the Grant administration. If Trump has indulged this system in important ways, it is at the very least not of a system of his own creation, so it is ridiculous to pretend that he can be called the "worst president ever."

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

Tyranthraxus posted...

Yes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/business/media/journalists-arrested-trump-inauguration.html

This is completely absurd. They were arrested for participating in violent riots, not for writing a press article criticizing the president. This also took place before Trump even got into the Oval Office, so it can hardly be blamed on him. This is a far cry from John Adams throwing people in jail for publishing newspapers that criticized his handling of the French and American crisis, or Wilson throwing Marxist essayists into jail for opposing World War I.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Yes. This actually pretty much started after WW2 though and hasn't stopped.

Trump is much more of a non-interventionist than either Barack Obama or George W. Bush were. While he has still done a lot of things in foreign policy that I disagree with, it is hypocritical to attack him and give preceding presidents a pass.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Yes.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-citizens-ice-20180427-htmlstory.html

I wouldn't deny that those arrests are injustices. I do find it interesting, though, that the political Left seems to be very concerned about this federal bureaucracy's proneness to inefficiency and abuse at the same time that they seek to expand virtually every other federal bureaucracy that exists today.

Tyranthraxus posted...

You mean stop states from trying to secede again? No he hasn't done that I guess.

Ulysses S. Grant instituted martial law in South Carolina because he didn't like the fact that the voters were not likely to vote for the Republican candidates that he liked. This is, of course, after the Fourteenth Amendment had barred former Confederates from voting, so it is spurious to suggest that, if he hadn't have done this, the South would have immediately tried to secede from the Union again. It is unsurprising that you would defend this, though, given that the political Left always seems perfectly happy with martial law and abuse of presidential power on principle so long as these deviancies empower the ideologues that they like and strip supposedly deplorable conservatives of their political voice.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Yes.
https://www.latimes.com./business/story/2020-01-16/trump-fed-nominations

I don't see how the President of the United State is supposed to just leave the Federal Reserve Board vacant. As much as I deplore that institution's existence, it is here and probably here to stay.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Anyone who puts Jackson on their list of best presidents goes immediately into the "do not listen to" pile

If that was directed at me, then you did not read very carefully. I said he was relatively decent, not that he was one of the best presidents. And he was relatively decent. He killed the National Bank, which was bad both from a policy perspective and from a strict constructionist perspective, vetoed numerous unconstitutional federal infrastructure projects, rejected early calls for expansion in the name of Manifest Destiny, and has the honor of being the only president to completely depose the national debt. Some people would also praise his handling of the Nullification Crisis since he thwarted early efforts by South Carolina to nullify federal law and secede from the Union. Unfortunately, his positive contributions to the American political tradition are greatly marred by his support for Indian Removal. Hence why I would say he was a very mixed president.

But sure, you can continue to just dismiss these historical figures as backwards and deplorable without even trying to seriously engage with their legacy. I hope that future historians treat sanctimonious people like you the same way.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

Anteaterking posted...

You start with "your historical knowledge is lacking if you think Trump is the worst president", but then proceed to disagree with most historians on who the "best" presidents are.

Of course I do. Though I still enjoy reading and learning from various historians on all sides of the political spectrum, the historical academic establishment is almost monolithically progressive. The primary ideological dispute going on in historical scholarship is between New Left Marxian historians like the late Howard Zinn and more traditional New Deal progressives like H.W. Brands, Peter Onuf, and David McCullough. Historians often do a fairly good job of recounting the basic "facts" about the events that took place, but their metric for great presidential statesmanship tends to be something like: "how much did this president transform America and alter the course of the nation's life?" I reject as specious their basically liberal premise that the job of the president is to transform society, so it is no surprise that I assess someone like FDR much more negatively than the historical establishment does, even if I agree with them that he did, in fact, transform America in radical ways.

Additionally, I am a political scientist and not a historian, so it is not at all shocking that I disagree with the evaluation of the historians on American presidential history. Historians often focus so much on context and circumstances that they downplay or ignore the fundamental duties that a constitutional officeholder is meant to pursue: namely, to carry out his oath of office by defending, preserving, and protecting the American Constitution. They also tend to neglect any scrupulous examination of the political thought and principles that motivated the presidents to do what they did, preferring instead to focus on how they used their circumstances to expand executive power. The ones who did this, such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR, are routinely considered to be "great" presidents, even though it is quite clear that most if not all of the people who ratified the Constitution would have been quite dismayed at their administrations. While I certainly believe that we need to pay a lot of attention to context, I think we are fundamentally missing something about people like Woodrow Wilson and FDR if we don't turn our attention to the bizarre combination of Hamiltonian liberalism and Hegelian progressivism that influenced them to act in the ways they did. Historians don't seem to have any concern about this, whereas Ias a political theoristam very interested in this dimension of their leadership.

Lastly, I think we are lying to ourselves if we believe that these "presidential rankings" are actually objective gauges of a president's legacy. What metric are they using to measure a president's effectiveness? It certainly doesn't seem to be the amount of dutifulness that a president showed in carrying out his oath of office to defend and protect the United States Constitution. If it was, Grover Cleveland and John Tyler would be ranked much higher than petty tyrants like Ulysses S. Grant, FDR, and LBJ. Presidential rankings today of the sort put out by clowns like Max Boot and most of the people in this thread seem to be based upon the nebulous standard of "does the guy advance the progressive policies that I want him to" rather than anything truly objective or quantifiable.

TheMikh posted...

well that changes everything

i may want to dispute comparing fdr and lbj to neoconservatives; different circumstances guiding their policy, particularly fdr. perhaps a case to be made with lbj, given the cold war establishment's (and the buckleyites/fusionists) shared geopolitical interests with the right-wing trotskyists that became known as neocons

obama was closest, particularly in foreign policy where he operated in lockstep with them in parts of the middle east and north africa, but on the other hand he did butt heads with netanyahu quite a bit

i do agree though that neocons are a far fry from traditional american conservatism (where the modern torchbearers would arguably be the likes of buchanan, bannon, carlson, TAC)

To your initial point: it does change everything. Neoconservatism is inimical to traditional conservatism, for reasons that Boot himself admitted. He is just as interested in carrying out liberal social transformation using the federal government as any liberal is. In fact, the old, New Deal liberals like Harry Truman are much closer to the neoconservatives than they are to people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders (note how neocons often praise Truman and LBJ's foreign policies today, whereas New Left-informed people attack their legacies). The old New Deal liberals believed in an activist federal government, but they at least claimed to reject socialism and believed that America's moral values and inherited customs were essentially decent. Both Truman and FDR, for instance, had no problem with appealing to the traditional, Puritan imagery of America as a Christian nation to advance the nation's foreign policy agenda and give the country a sense of mission and purpose in the face of Nazi and Communist threats. The New Left, in contrast, believes the whole American political tradition to be basically evil, suggests that any universal claim to moral truth is nebulous, and sides with regimes that New Deal liberals and conservatives alike saw as inimical to traditional American values (first, the Soviet Union; today, third-world, Marxist regimes like Venezuela and Cuba). People like Max Boot simply believe that the old Progressive liberalism is better than New Leftism is.

Boot, like Truman and LBJ, is a Cold War liberal who believes that the federal government is the best means of promoting the spread of universal democracy. At the level of foreign policy, this means the expansion of American military power all over the world to promote "democracy." At the level of domestic policy, this means that he supports the "proper" management of the federal welfare state and administrative regulations. Boot doesn't call for the rollback of these institutions but calls instead for better management of them. Neoconservatism and Cold War Liberalism alike are, of course, completely at odds with traditionalist conservatism, which rejects the Messianic state, political universalism, and, often times, the very idea that liberal democracy is even valuable.

Did you notice the adulation that the late John McCain and George W. Bush, both of whom were premier examples of neoconservatism, rec

Antifar posted...

He is not a leftist in any way. But his track record includes supporting every war possible, and the suggestion that we treat our interminable middle eastern conflicts the way we treated wars with the Native Americans.

No, he is. The quote that I just posted from him explicitly admits that he believes in every significant, progressive and egalitarian policy imaginable, including marriage equality, federal intervention to stop climate change, unrestricted abortion rights, mass immigration, and free trade absolutism. None of these policies are associated with historic American conservatism, as expressed by people like Calvin Coolidge and Robert Taft. Boot and other neoconservative thinkers have much more in common with FDR, LBJ and Obama than anyone in the history of American conservatism.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

Also, if you believe that Trump is the worst president in United States history, then your historical knowledge is so lacking that you dont even deserve to be engaged in a serious intellectual discussion. I wouldnt be shocked if Boot believes that American presidential history begins with Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

In truth, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, James K. Polk, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon all abused power in ways that make the current presidents overreaches appear insignificant. Is he throwing citizens in jail for criticizing his administration, as did Adams, Lincoln and Wilson? Is he raising an army to invade foreign territories and spread democracy, as did Polk, McKinley, Wilson, JFK, and LBJ? Is he throwing American citizens into internment camps because they have an ethnicity that he doesnt like, as FDR did? Is he using the federal military to shut down the elected legislatures in states, as Grant did? Is he taking it upon himself to manage the economy, as Hoover, FDR and LBJ did?

I dont believe that this country has had a president worth voting for since Calvin Coolidge almost a hundred years ago. In the 19th century, only Thomas Jefferson and Grover Cleveland really stand out to me as being thoroughly devoted to the rule of law. Even relatively decent presidents like Washington, Madison, Jackson, and Van Buren were responsible for some abuses of the presidential office. But, then again, Im a grumpy Jeffersonian who believes that the whole constitutional system has been destroyed by progressive tyrants and abusers going all the way back to John Marshall. Trumps problems appear relatively unremarkable to me, given the fact that weve inherited a system that has long been unmoored from constitutional government. Ironically, the supposedly great presidentsAbraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilsonare the ones most responsible for our beleaguered and corrupt presidential system. The Left, though, laughably believes that our problems began with Trump.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

Max Boot is a neoconservative and a Leftist. His most recent book is about why he doesnt even identify as a Rightist or a conservative anymore. Aside from that, hes a warmonger who has never seen an American military intervention that he didnt like. To take his viewpoint on the Trump administration seriously is to reveal a radical ignorance about what historic conservatism even is. After all, Boot himself asserts:

I am socially liberal: I am pro-LGBTQ rights, pro-abortion rights, pro-immigration. I am fiscally conservative: I think we need to reduce the deficit and get entitlement spending under control. I am pro-environment: I think that climate change is a major threat that we need to address. I am pro-free trade: I think we should be concluding new trade treaties rather than pulling out of old ones. I am strong on defense: I think we need to beef up our military to cope with multiple enemies. And I am very much in favor of America acting as a world leader: I believe it is in our own self-interest to promote and defend freedom and free markets as we have been doing in one form or another since at least 1898."

Do these sound like the words of a serious and principled conservative political theorist? Of course not. He admits that he is essentially a liberal in all of his foundational commitments. Anyone who takes Max Boots recent essay seriously as indicative of conservative disillusionment with Trump doesnt know anything about Boots long history of progressivism or about conservatism more generally.

While I think there are reasons to be critical of Trump from a classically conservative perspective, the fact that neoconservatives like Max Boot hate him so much isif anythinga point in Trumps favor.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

https://www.papermag.com/hannah-bates-panty-masks-coronavirus-2645631800.html

The coronavirus pandemic has brought on a plethora of difficulties, from shortages of masks to attacks on a woman's right to a safe abortion. New York-based artist Hannah Bates is confronting both of these issues with her latest project, @pantyrespirator

Bates' @pantyrespirator is an ongoing social media performance piece that examines crisis, economics and sex work to emphasize how reproductive rights are an essential form of health care. Bates, who studied pornography during her MFA, was inspired by how sex work and sexuality can coexist with feminism and women's rights. "It informs my art practice in that pornography and sex work and people's perceptions of it reflect a lot of stereotypes that people have," she tells PAPER.

Through @pantyrespirator, Bates is challenging these stereotypes. The masks, an increasingly essential resource, are made from her underwear. They "come to life" by Bates photographing them. The photos of the masks are then posted on Depop, for roughly the same price as an abortion $950. Bates explains that this is anything but a thoughtless stunt. "The project uses a capitalist model to hold reproductive rights to the same standard as universal health," Bates says, thus pointing out the hypocrisy in not doing so. It's true: universal health is something we need right now.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

MarqueeSeries posted...

Being a politician was never meant to be a career

It's supposed to be an honor, and to be a position that serves the public; not some elite class above the common man

Bingo. Career politicians invert the republican vision of politics. In old republicanism, the only people who made it into politics were those whom the people directly called to serve them. Campaigning for office was considered to be an unrepublican practice back in those days because it suggested that you wanted it for your own ambitious purposes and did not place the needs of the citizens ahead of yourself. If you turn politics into a career, then it fundamentally destroys its status as something that every citizen needs to partake of in some way. Politics is about living together with other people. You can never just outsource it to "career politicians" and expect things to work out.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

The argument against "career politicians" goes back to a debate between republicans and classical liberals at the time of the American Founding. The liberals made an argument roughly similar to your own. Namely, that since the job of government is simply to protect and secure individual rights, we need to do is have periodic elections to keep the officials somewhat accountable, but they can otherwise be distant from the people. Term limits / rotation in office was explicitly rejected by such eminent liberals as Alexander Hamilton on these grounds. If we limit terms, we make career politicians impossible. For Hamilton, that is a bad thing because we actually want to see the "best people" (i.e., the rich and ambitious) take charge of the political process.

Republicans saw the matter differently. The fundamental assumption of republicanism was that man is a political animal who needs to be able to participate in the political process to cultivate his virtue and improve his character. Republicans thought that career politicians were bad news because they shift ordinary people out of political life. Career politicians ensure that the "middling classes" of society--the doctors, the small businessmen, the fishermen, the farmers, etc.--would not have any meaningful say in the workings of the republic, since liberal politics would inevitably be dominated by powerful, rich and ambitious elites. Central to this republican vision, then, was the idea that representation needs to actually represent the people who make up society. Republicans charged that acceptance of the liberal vision would ultimately kill any desire for popular participation in political life and lead to a state that Alexis de Tocqueville would later diagnose as "individualism."

There is more to be said on this, but this question really does strike to the core dispute that has divided classical liberals and civic republicans for centuries.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Sir, this is an Arby's

The comment was entirely germane to the discussion. I explained my reasons for not celebrating Lent. Pardon me if it bothered you that I didn't respond to the question with a trite and simplistic anti-religious sentence, as others here did.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

As is obvious from my username, I am a very devoted Reformed Protestant, so I have serious problems with the ritual of Lent. I find it to be equivalent to the worldly, unbiblical sanctimoniousness that the Apostle Paul denounces in Colossians 2:20-23:

"If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulationsDo not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch (referring to things that all perish as they are used)according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh."

Lent takes our eyes off of the salvation that Christ has already secured for those who believe in Him and places so much weight on an empty ritual that is no where sanctioned in Scripture. Jesus also commands his disciples to fast in secret and to not go around displaying their supposed holiness in the way that the Pharisees do (Matt. 6:18). This is far removed from "Ash Wednesday" and "Lent" in which those who participate place ashes on their forehead and advertise their participation in the ritual in various ways.

The joy that the Christian should experience in celebrating the resurrection is not the joy that comes from saying, "hey, now that Lent is over I can eat chocolate again," but is instead the joy that comes from a recognition that the Lord Jesus conquered sin, temptation, and death and saved believers from condemnation under the law. The trivial things that we could give up for Lent are absolutely insignificant in relation to the sacrifice made by the eternal God who, out of love for his people, came into the world, took on a fleshly body, and fulfilled the requirements of the law so that those who believe in his name shall not perish but obtain everlasting life. In taking our eyes off of the person of Christ and placing them onto dead works, rituals, and arbitrary rules, the celebration of Lent betrays the message of the Gospel.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

"What is the highest of all practical goods? So far as the name goes there is pretty general agreement. "It is happiness" say both ordinary and cultured people; and they identify happiness with living well or doing well. But when it comes to saying in what happiness consists, opinions differ, and the account given by the generality of mankind is not at all like that of the wise. The former take it to be something obvious and familiar, like pleasure or money or eminence, and there are various other views... The utter servility of the masses comes out in their preference for a bovine existence. Happiness... is acquired by moral goodness and by some kind of study or training"

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

TL/DR: No, and if you think that money is happiness, then you are embracing a dangerous kind of superficial, hedonistic, and materialistic philosophy.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

modena posted...

Lol! I needed a good Florida man story today. The speeding is just....I cant even.

I'm still trying to uncover why all of the most hilarious crime stories take place in Florida.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/florida-troopers-find-narcotics-in-bag-labeled-bag-full-of-drugs/

SANTA ROSA COUNTY, Fla. (WFLA) Two men were not discreet in their plans to sell drugs in the Florida Panhandle, according to officials.

The Florida Highway Patrol arrested two men suspected of drug trafficking after troopers pulled them over on Saturday and found drugs in a bag labeled Bag Full of Drugs

Troopers made the discovery after the men were pulled over for speeding on I-10.

The Santa Rosa County Sheriffs Office assisted in the search of the vehicle, which turned up methamphetamine, GHB (also known as the date rape drug), cocaine, MDMA and fentanyl.

Note to self- do not traffic your illegal narcotics in bags labeled Bag Full Of Drugs. Our K-9s can read, the Santa Rosa County Sheriffs Office posted Monday night on social media.


---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

I used to wear FOTL briefs, but I switched to Calvin Klein brand last summer and have been really pleased with that decision. It has a more comfortable fabric and looks more sleek.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

I typically just wear my briefs to bed, with no undershirt or socks. Hot/Cold isn't usually a consideration since I keep my apartment the same temperature every night.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

I'm not sure that something like this would really have a clear answer. Certain fields of study come naturally to some people and not to others. For example, I am in a Ph.D. program studying normative political theory and American politics. I have friends who studied engineering who think that doctoral work in politics sounds like the hardest thing in the world, whereas I personally think their field of engineering sounds more nightmarish.

I suppose, though, that there is evidence that some fields really are just "easy." No one is praised for getting a degree in gender studies, for instance. I'm not sure which one I would say is necessarily the "hardest." I imagine that, for me, it would be something in the hard sciences, like biology, chemistry, or physics.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

RebelElite791 posted...

Thats cool, interesting they have that kind of language requirement for government, but I guess it makes sense if youre looking at government and its development throughout history, in which case those languages are definitely good choices, as you may be able to use knowledge from one to build on the other.

That said, the most important factor in language acquisition is interest and motivation, and if theres a language you are more interested in even if it might not be as beneficial to your research itll likely be easier for you to pick up. But thats something youve gotta decide for yourself

Latin would be useful for classical writers like Cicero, Sallust and Livy, Christians such as Augustine, Aquinas, and John Calvin, and even more recent English figures like John Milton and Thomas Hobbes. French would also be helpful since many political thinkers whom I am interested in originally wrote in the French, including Charles de Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Alexis de Tocqueville. Still, I do fear that I will learn these languages and then rely on the English translations anyways, causing me to forget them as soon as I pass the language competency tests, lol.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

RebelElite791 posted...

Also just out of curiosity, whats your field/research direction?

Government, focusing on American politics and political theory.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Over a single summer, I don't think you really can, especially not two languages at the same time

It wouldn't be two in one summer. It would be one this summer and one next summer. It is definitely possible, since all the Ph.D. students get their language requirements done during the summers. The question is what the best software would be to help me do it.

CommunismFTW posted...

Latin is going to be difficult without a tutor or, I imagine, expensive software or online lessons.

I heard it would be best to start with French since that may be easier, though I'm open to starting with Latin if there is any real reason to (i.e., maybe I'll find a better summer program for Latin).

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

This week, I found out that my graduate institution approved my application to transition into the doctoral program. The first three semesters of my experience here have been ostensibly as a M.A. student, even though it was always my intention to be promoted to the Ph.D. program. While this is exciting, it means that I will have some additional responsibilities this summer. The chief of them is that I need to achieve reading competency in an ancient language and a modern language before my coursework is finished in December 2021. Out of the options, I am gravitating towards Latin and French since I see those as being the most useful to me in my research. Normally, the school offers a summer intensive language course for its graduate students, but this summer it will not, so I will have to get this done independently.

Has anyone here ever worked to learn a foreign language over a summer? Does anyone know of any thorough but accessible programs that could help me when the time comes?

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington

Ryuko_Chan posted...

the founding fathers werent even christian, idk why americans think that america was intended to be a christian country
(almost?) all of them were deists

This is only true if you know nothing about Founding Era American history and thus reduce "the Founding Fathers" to a handful of elite heretics. In this category, it is quite clear that Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were unbelievers. James Madison is debatable in that, while he initially intended to become a Presbyterian minister as a young man, he seems to have become extremely private about his religious beliefs later on and never really spoke about the extent of his fidelity. Alexander Hamilton, who for much of his career was a secular deist, actually converted to Christianity later in life, writing:

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitantly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

And:

"Mortals hastening to the tomb, and once the companions of my pilgrimage, take warning, and avoid my errors. Cultivate the virtues I have recommended. Choose the Savior I have chosen. Live disinterestedly, and would you rescue anything from final dissolution, lay it up in God."

George Washington also spoke frequently about the importance of Christianity to the operation of American republicanism:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them.

While it is true that he was quite ecumenical in his mindset, paying little attention to matters of theological dogma and emphasizing the capacity of religion to elevate the morals of citizens, there is indisputable evidence that Washington often prayed and attended church. Whether he accepted the divinity of Christ is disputable, but his respect for the Christian religion is not. On his tombstone is engraved John 11:25: "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die." I struggle to see how a Deist could have allowed anyone to put this passage on his tombstone, and he himself requested it.

Most importantly, it is undeniable that deeply important Founders such as Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Witherspoon, John Dickinson, Roger Sherman, John Hancock, Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton, and James Wilson were all orthodox Protestant Christians who spoke frequently about the relationship between Christianity and the free society. "All those concerned in consulting and labouring for the redemption of their country, must be very exemplary Christians," Samuel Adams explained, "For no political measures can possibly be reasonable or just, which are not dictated by men of piety and real Christianity." Before you arbitrarily retort that these people do not matter because they are less famous than Washington or Jefferson, it is worth considering that they were all signers of the Declaration of Independence--a document of no small significance--and also that many of them were deeply involved in the writing and ratification of the Constitution. The Declaration itself makes its religious sentiment quite clear, invoking the Puritan sense of dedication to others for the glory of God:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent StatesFor the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Even the blatant unbelievers who I listed above often spoke of their deep respect for Christianity and their conviction that a free society depended upon citizens defined by Christian morality. While Jefferson denied Christian truths such as the Trinity and the resurrection, for example, he nonetheless insisted that the morals of Jesus presented the "the most perfect and sublime system that has ever been taught by man." In Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson wrote:

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."

John Adams, in like manner, said that "our constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." And: "The Christian religion is, above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and Humanity. Let the Blackguard Paine say what he will; it is Resignation to God, it is goodness itself to man."

The "Deist Founding" is far more mythical than the Christian America theory. But modern day Atheists find comfort in the idea that the Founders were all deists because, if they were men who respected Christian beliefs and found them important for the flourishing of a republican society, it would obviously suggest that they are bad citizens who are rebelling not only against God, but against the nation's guiding principles.

---

"There is not now, ever was, nor will be, any man in the world enlightened but by Jesus Christ."
-Jonathan Edwards

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Yeah, the Puritans were pretty theocratic. Priests weren't literally in charge of government, but they had a ton of influence, and "secular" authorities based a lot of laws on religious mores. Providence, Rhode Island was actually founded by a priest the Puritans exiled, IIRC.

Puritans did not have "priests" as do the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. They embraced the Protestant notion of the priesthood of all believers. There is a key difference between Protestant pastors and Roman Catholic priests. RC priests offer up the sacrifice of the Mass to atone for the sins of people and they also serve as direct intermediaries to God. You confess your sins to the priest, for example, and he absolves you. Protestant pastors are not anything like that. They preach the Word of God under the assumption that all believers--not just a select group of priests--have the capacity to perceive the ultimate divine truths in the pages of Scripture and to interact directly with God. Ordinary people do not have to go through the papacy or the priesthood to receive solace and the assurance of forgiveness. They find it in the words of Jesus Christ recorded in Scripture, taught by pastors.

Duncanwii posted...

People came to the new world to practice freedom of religion. That is to say freedom to practice their religion. Not others.

This is one of the classic fallacies in the popular mind about Puritanism. It is the result of an effort to simultaneously cast the Puritans as devotees of nascent liberalism ("they wanted to practice freedom of religion") and then to punish them for not living up to the liberal principles that supposedly informed them. But this fails to understand the Puritans on their own terms--to understand them as they understood themselves. They did not come to America to create a society informed by modern notions of freedom of religion. They came to America, as John Winthrop explained in his Model of Christian Charity, to create a Christian Commonwealth that could show the world that an unabashedly Protestant republic could succeed where other pagan and Roman Catholic societies had failed. Their frustrations with England were less about being unable to believe what they wanted to, but were more due to their reticence with the capacity to reform a church that seemed hopelessly committed to quasi-Romanist practices. A fresh start in a new place was seen as a better prospect for Protestant Christians than further efforts to change an unchangeable society.

---

"There is not now, ever was, nor will be, any man in the world enlightened but by Jesus Christ."
-Jonathan Edwards

The early New England Colonies, and even the Anglican settlement at Jamestown, were all Christian Commonwealths that punished heresy, blasphemy, and dissent from the Protestant religion. Strictly speaking--however--this isn't the same as a theocracy because there was not any direct rule by the institutional church. For example, pastors were not typically invested with direct political power as they would be in a theocracy. The Puritan Commonwealths believed in the cooperation between church and state, but they also believed that church and state had distinct roles that could not be conflated. The Puritan leader John Cotton explained it thusly:

"The Word, and Scriptures of God do contain a short platform, not only of theology, but also of other sacred sciences, [such as] ethics, economics, politics, church government, prophecy, academy. It is very suitable to God's all-sufficient wisdom, and to the fulness and perfection of Holy Scriptures, not only to prescribe perfect rules for the right ordering of a private man's soul to everlasting blessedness with himself, but also for the right ordering of a man's family, yea, of the commonwealth too, so far as both of them are subordinate to spiritual ends, and yet avoids both the churches' usurpation upon civil jurisdictions, and the commonwealth's invasion upon ecclesiastical administrations, in ordine to civil peace, and conformity to the civil state."

Here we see a basic principle of Puritan political thought. Namely, that both the political society and the church are directly ruled by the Word of God, even if those two spheres are technically separate. There is here no acceptance of the secularist principle, espoused by Thomas Jefferson and many others, that "it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The end of government is not simply the protection of an individual's natural right to life and property as Jefferson implies, but it is to cultivate a spirit of Christian community in which men can love God and, in doing so, learn to live with others in a way exemplifying Christian virtues of charity, grace and mercy. For the most illustrative exposition of Puritan political principles, I'd recommend reviewing John Winthrop's famous Model of Christian Charity, in which he outlines the Puritan vision of a Christian community.

The spirit of Puritanism was profoundly illiberal in that it rejected modern notions of individual rights and believed that there was a final end that political society should aspire to direct citizens to. For the Puritans and for Christians more generally, Christianity is the one right way of life. Puritanism suggests that it is impossible to accept the chimerical liberal principle of the "morally neutral" society because moral neutrality itself would undermine the dedication to Christian virtue that makes a flourishing and harmonious society possible. The Puritans assumed that the Bible was true and that its words proscribed binding rules for political life. At the same time, its illiberalism was not informed by feudalist or medieval concepts of monarchy. The Puritans were deeply committed to republican and even classically democratic principles. The English Puritan John Milton, for instance, connected biblical principles of servant leadership to republican simplicity, frugality and equality:

And what government comes nearer to [the political precepts] of Christ, than a free commonwealth; wherein they who are the greatest, are perpetual servants and drudges to the public at their own cost and charges, neglect their own affairs, yet are not elevated above their brethren; live soberly in their families, walk the street as other men, may be spoken to freely, familiarly, friendly, without adoration? Whereas a king must be adored like a demigod, with a dissolute and haughty court about him, of vast expense and luxury, masks and revels, to the debauching of our prime gentry both male and female; not in their pastimes only, but in earnest, by the loose employments of court-service, which will be then thought honourable.

The famous New England town meeting was the direct outgrowth of the Puritan commitment to republicanism and teaches us lessons about their concept of the cooperation between church and state. Because they believed the Bible to be the only way to organize a Commonwealth, they made it mandatory to be a church member to participate in political life. Both the church and the state were organized along democratic lines, with new church members making professions of faith and being voted into church membership by the congregation. The state, comprised of church members, allowed citizens to directly participate in the making of their own laws and to elect magistrates to enforce them. The Puritans have been presented as both radical theocrats and as proto-liberals, but neither of these presentations does justice to the actual beliefs that these people had in my view. If you are interested in exploring this subject further, let me know and I'd be happy to forward some documents and secondary sources on it.

---

"There is not now, ever was, nor will be, any man in the world enlightened but by Jesus Christ."
-Jonathan Edwards

No, because I am an arch-conservative Protestant Christian whose entire career is built around destroying communism, socialism and even assumptions of classical liberalism that no political party disputes.

---

"There is not now, ever was, nor will be, any man in the world enlightened but by Jesus Christ."
-Jonathan Edwards

Briefs are better than Boxer-Briefs or Boxers and I already wear them. So those.

---

"There is not now, ever was, nor will be, any man in the world enlightened but by Jesus Christ."
-Jonathan Edwards