Ed Brayton at his blog, and other secular progressives(positive liberty) make their living attacking anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with their views, calling them ignorant, nutball, etc. But they aren't the only ones, there are many liberal blogs that hate. The hatred for George Bush is an example. Most hard core liberals do not just disagree with Bush's policies, they despise everything about him. This is liberalism to the core, intolerance for any viewpoint contrary to their own, but yet they love to label conservatives bigotted, intolerant, etc., when they are the true bigots! I do not agree with the Presidents policies, nor do I hate him like liberals do, or believe he is a true Christian. There are some people on their websites that do wish evil upon George Bush, I don't ever recall conservatives acting like this to Bill Clinton.
An example on Ed Brayton's blog:
I'm afraid I've tired of Mr. Goswick's ignorant ravings already. We banned him from Positive Liberty (the only one ever banned from there, I might add) and his performance will be no less irritating here. He has his own blog, which I've linked to; let him rant there.
Posted by: Ed Brayton August 13, 2007 08:36 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/08/the_irony_of_david_barton.php#commentsArea
Mr. Brayton, obviously thinks the Founding Fathers ignorant as well, since it is their quotes that bring out his anger, rejecting the obvious will of the Framers to promote his revisionist agenda. There are hundreds of the framers' quotes affiming religion, and morality the foundation of Republican Government, with the religion being Christianity is beyond dispute. Only dishonest liberals reject the United States WAS formed a nation of Christian states, for the state constitutions, besides Virginia, and Pennsylvania mandated Christianity as the religion of their states. It's a wonder I was the only person banned at positive liberty, with the Gospel the most irritating to them.
More hate from Brayton and his blog, this seems a daily occurance:
I hate Carman. Hate him, hate him, hate him. He makes my skin crawl. You simply can't get more fake and ridiculous. He makes Jan Crouch look credible by comparison.
Posted by: Ed Brayton August 11, 2007 07:23 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/08/robert_obrien_trophy_winner_al_1.php
It sounds like Brayton has an issue with a guy named Carman. I doubt Carman hates him. Mr. Brayton should know, hate is a strong word. Jesus said to hate your brother is committing murder in your heart.
The Postive Liberty blog is no exception to intolerance:
# Jason Kuznicki on 18 Jun 2007 at 5:23 pm
James Goswick wrote,
really and truly believe that people should be put to death for loving another person of the same sex?>>
I’m only affirming what the Creator has ordained.
To which I reply,
If someone appeared at my doorstep pushing this line, I’d tell him to get lost. If he didn’t leave, I’d close the door in his face. If he still didn’t leave, I’d call the cops. A blog is just the same, and you are no longer welcome here, Mr. Goswick. You can’t say I didn’t warn you, either. Further posts by you will be deleted.
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/06/let-maryland-be-next.html#comments
Notice this, not only did he ban me, but he is actually banning EVERY Founding Father that gave him the right to ban someone. Consider why he would ban the Founding Fathers from his website. Most likely he would persecute, our Framers for executing justice of biblical law, of which he would be a victim:
That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. CONNECTICUT
The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), Book I, p. 295.
[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. SOUTH CAROLINA
Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statute Laws of South-Carolina (Charleston: John Hoff, 1814), Vol. I, p. 99.
That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. VERMONT
Statutes of the State of Vermont (Bennington, 1791), p. 74.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101
These statutes, one, declare matters of religion, and morality for the most part, are reserved to the states, and two, their morality was based on the bible, enforcing the belief our Republican government is based on biblical natural law, not the law of reason, or any other law. The conscience inside man does not repeat word for word Lev 20:13, for the prohibition and penalty of homosexuality. This is another proof reason does not refer to the Divine Law.
Some quotes from the Framers on religion and morality mandatory for government:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, dated October 11, 1798.
Adams similarly explained:
Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.
Ibid, Vol. IX, p. 401, dated June 21, 1776.
Of all the dispositions and habits which leads 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 to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity [happiness]. Let it simply be asked, "Where is the security for property, for reputation for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert . . . ?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. 'Tis substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it [free government] can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
George Washington
Address of George Washington . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: Christopher Jackson, 1796), pp. 22-24.
It is sad to think what these people would do to George Washington, yet alone Jesus Christ.
7 comments:
Thanks for pointing me to your blog.
You've made some excellent points in this post and in your others. On the subject of "key founders," I wrote a post in my other blog (I have four) on the subject. My point was that certain Founding Fathers are emphasized while others are allowed to drift into oblivion so that those whose images are preserved can be used by revisionists to make the Founders as a group look opposed to the Bible and Christianity.
Hercules Milligan wrote:
You've made some excellent points in this post and in your others. On the subject of "key founders," I wrote a post in my other blog (I have four) on the subject. My point was that certain Founding Fathers are emphasized while others are allowed to drift into oblivion so that those whose images are preserved can be used by revisionists to make the Founders as a group look opposed to the Bible and Christianity.
August 20, 2007 2:54 PM
Yes, that "key founders" label isn't that convincing.
By the way, your AH Patriot blog wouldn't let me post without a google username and password.
What do you think of this blog:
Words of Wisdom From Alexander Hamilton:
These are the words that Hamilton had when recommending a military chaplain:
“He is just what I should like for a military parson except that he does not whore or drink,...”
-- July 6, 1780 letter to General Anthony Wayne.
Hamilton, as you could probably tell, was not an orthodox Christian during the time he helped "found" the nation. Rather, like the other key Founders, he was a theistic rationalist. He didn't become an orthodox Christian until after 1801 after his son died in a duel.>>
The sources I found don't include it.
TO GENERAL ANTHONY WAYNE
July 6, 1780.
DEAR GENERAL:
Doctor W. Mendy is one of those characters that for its honesty, simplicity, and helplessness interests my humanity. He is exceedingly anxious to be in the service, and, I believe, has been forced out of it not altogether by fair play. He is just what I should like for a military parson, except that he does not drink. He will fight, and he will not insist upon your going to heaven whether you will or not. He tells me there is a vacancy in your brigade. I should be really happy if, through your influence, he can fill it. Pray take care of the good old man.1
Footnotes for Part II, Chapter LXII
1. Now first printed from the original in the Wayne MSS. I owe this letter to the kindness of the Hon. George Bancroft.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/HTML.php?recordID=0249.09#LF-BK0249-9pt02ch62_ftnref1
The phrase that was omitted in Lodge's reproduction, which you quoted, is in dispute. Mr. Rowe said that Lodge probably lied in order to make Hamilton look good. This statement is not beyond the realm of possibility, but it is mere speculation that the original says this or not. I have never seen it, and I am not sure where to find it (in a place nearby or online), so I cannot say whether or not for sure.
I don't think that there is evidence enough to prove that "Hamilton wasn't an orthodox Christian at the time he founded the nation." Hamilton didn't talk as much about religion during that time, although he did make pretty strong statements in favor of Christianity, and other statements that give implication that he believed in it. You can see this and more archived on my AH Patriot blog.
I hope to answer your question about Wilson in the very near future. I won't stretch your patience :) .
Hercules Mulligan said...
The phrase that was omitted in Lodge's reproduction, which you quoted, is in dispute. Mr. Rowe said that Lodge probably lied in order to make Hamilton look good. This statement is not beyond the realm of possibility, but it is mere speculation that the original says this or not. I have never seen it, and I am not sure where to find it (in a place nearby or online), so I cannot say whether or not for sure.
Granted, it is in 1780, but the use of the word "whore" I don't get. I'll try and check Webster's and see what the definition of it was back then. Was that normal for military back then?
Yes, this quote was from 1780, but what that implies concerning Hamilton's religion I don't know. I have seen no evidence in favor of the idea that Hamilton became a deist or a non-Christian, though I will admit he did not always act with stupendous piety. However, It would be a wonder to logically reconcile the fact that Elizabeth Schuyler, who was definitely a strong and devout Christian, would marry a supposed libertine like Hamilton. She never viewed him as immoral, and yet she was (from my knowledge of her) a person who faced reality and lived with it.
One note on Hamilton's religion: I can't say with 100% assurance that everything in his life was regulated in godly fear. There have been times in every Christian's life where we have failed, yes, but Hamilton did make some pretty bad choices in life. In the late 1790s, he voluntarily made a public admission that he had, on one occasion, breached his marital fidelity. He clearly repented of it , and I think that at THAT point, he came closer to God, and had a renewed faith, but there is no evidence (that I have uncovered) that he ever rejected the Bible (or even parts of it) or Christianity. King David too had fallen into that kind of sin, but no one speculates that he became a "theistic rationalist" or the like at that time.
As to your question about the military:
I don';t know for sure whether or not that was common in the American military, which was brand new at the time of the Revolution, but I can tell you that it was not acceptable. Aaron Burr, who had served on Washington's staff before Hamilton joined, was dismissed from the staff by Washington himself for "immoralities" which, apparently, Washington considered so disgraceful as not to be specified.
Soon, I shall reply about Wilson, but at the immediate moment, I am a bit pressed for time. Perhaps I will post about it on my Meet the Founders blog.
I agree that the worst infractions of intolerance come from the left. Try preaching about Jesus on a sidewalk in Hollywood or speaking publicly against affirmative action on a college campus and you will see the true "tolerance" that lefties have for Christians. Lefties hold a blatant double standard when it comes to tolerance. They demand it from others, yet they are the last to extend it themselves. If I criticize gay "marriage", it is deemed hateful and homophobic. Yet there is not a peep from the left when Christians are insulted by bigoted displays such as "Piss Christ". No, that would be considered a form of art by your average lefty.
viagra australia buy online viagra viagra canada viagra over the counter buy online viagra viagra for sale without a prescription can viagra causes legs to ache does viagra really work viagra free pills herbal viagra viagra rrp australia viagra herb alternative sample of viagra viagra rrp australia cost
Post a Comment