DezNat (Deseret Nation) = White Nationalism? - Part 2

[Calm]

On 12/8/2020 at 11:07 AM, Ipod Touch said:

If these were my kids, they would get a big pop in the mouth.

If by this you mean punch, that is unlikely to change their minds. Might shut them up so you end up not knowing them as well as you think. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

The DHS document does not explicitly talk about "nationalists," but there are other organisations who do in their research: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-usa-extremism-analysis-idUSKBN25V2QH

 

Quote

The New York-based Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has documented here 3,566 "extremist propaganda incidents" and events in 2020, compared to 2,704 in the same period of 2019. Almost 80% of this year's cases involve white nationalist ideology, the civil rights advocacy organization found. Anti-Semitic incidents and plots and attacks of terrorism among others made up the rest, the ADL said.

 

[Dan McClellan]

10 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

I don't think this appeal to authority is very convincing. In the 1960s, the FBI thought the civil rights movement was a big threat to our domestic tranquility. 

I don't think your hasty generalization is very convincing either. Congrats on naming a fallacy. They've provided plenty of data, though. White supremacists have committed the overwhelming majority of extremist killings in this country over the last several years, and white supremacists organizations, events, and crimes have all spiked since Trump won the election. I'd say that's pretty suggestive of where the problem is. 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Dan McClellan

[Dan McClellan]

10 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

You assumed I was white.

Yes, I did. That's not insisting no brown person could disagree, that's just an assumption based on my own biases and my experiences arguing about racism with people online. 

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

That website's position is quite problematic. 18th-century conceptualizations of "religion" can't just be imported wholesale into 21st-century discourse without any kind of reorientation. They meant very different things. Deists and other rationalists very commonly appealed to "religion," Providence, the Divine, and many other concepts without referring remotely to a biblical and revelatory concept of Christianity. Adams refers to "Providence" in the very letter from which that "moral and religious people" quote is drawn. Adams identified as a Christian through most of his life, but he viewed reason as supreme (a thoroughly deist position), explicitly blamed organized Christianity for many of society's woes, and rejected the divinity of Christ in favor of Unitarianism. People who blithely deploy quotes from the founders about religion in order to defend Christian nationalism don't understand what the founders were saying. Until we make a concerted effort to actually understand them in their contexts, we're just playing naive identity politics.

Very well.  I will bow to your superior erudition, and that of your acolytes, and out of the thread.  I'm not all that interested in the topic, and this is probably a tangent from the topic set by the opening post, anyway.  Thanks.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Dan McClellan]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

Very well.  I will bow to your superior erudition, and that of your acolytes, and out of the thread.  Thanks.

I hold you in the highest regard, and I apologize if I came off curt in that response. 

[Damien the Leper]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

John Adams was 100% inspired when he said "our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people," and that "it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Thanks,

Smac

Notice he said nothing about Christianity. You should also check out the book The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American .

Edited December 17, 2020 by Damien the Leper

[Bob Crockett]

15 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Notice he said nothing about Christianity. You should also check out the book The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is a Myth.

I think it is silly to say that the Constitution was not based upon Christian principles.  One can cherry pick to reach a conclusion both in support and opposition to the theory.  See his Heritage Foundation article:  https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-christian-founding.

As a libertarian, I say it shouldn't matter one way or the other.

 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Quote

John Adams was 100% inspired when he said "our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people," and that "it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Notice he said nothing about Christianity. You should also check out the book The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is a Myth.

Well, we also have Noah Webster:

Quote

Noah Webster, author of the first American Speller and the first Dictionary said,

"[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence."

And also:

Quote

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. . . All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."

And Gouverneur Morris:

Quote

Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution.

"[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. [T]herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God."

And Fisher Ames:

Quote

Fisher Ames author of the final wording for the First Amendment wrote,

"[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind."

And John Jay:

Quote

John Jay, Original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court,

"The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts."

And James Wilson:

Quote

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice,

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."

And Robert Winthrop:

Quote

Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U. S. House,

"Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet."

And George Washington:

Quote

George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation,

"Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

And Benjamin Franklin:

Quote

Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

I'm grateful to live in a nation that allows and encourages and protects religious pluralism.  But I think it's incorrect to characterize the Founding Fathers as uniformly hostile or indifferent to religion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I think it is silly to say that the Constitution was not based upon Christian principles.  One can cherry pick to reach a conclusion both in support and opposition to the theory.  See his Heritage Foundation article:  https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-christian-founding.

As a libertarian, I say it shouldn't matter one way or the other.

 

Christianity was married to monarchy at the time. The idea that democracy and republicanism came from Christianity is silly. The ancient world deserves more credit for giving the founders a prototype to play with. The Constitution was built out of an amalgamation of British "democracy", classical political theory, Enlightenment thinking, and a ton of pragmatism. What did come from Christianity came from the Christianity of heretics who either fled or turned their noses up at most of Christianity.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

That website's position is quite problematic.

I think it has some flaws, but also that it makes some very solid points.

6 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

18th-century conceptualizations of "religion" can't just be imported wholesale into 21st-century discourse without any kind of reorientation.

I don't think anyone was suggesting a wholesale import.

6 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

They meant very different things. Deists and other rationalists very commonly appealed to "religion," Providence, the Divine, and many other concepts without referring remotely to a biblical and revelatory concept of Christianity. 

And a number of the founding fathers referred expressly to the Bible, to Christianity, etc.

6 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

Adams refers to "Providence" in the very letter from which that "moral and religious people" quote is drawn. Adams identified as a Christian through most of his life, but he viewed reason as supreme (a thoroughly deist position), explicitly blamed organized Christianity for many of society's woes, and rejected the divinity of Christ in favor of Unitarianism.

I think organized Christianity had some real disfunction in Adams' day.  

Religion in the civic sphere is a toughie, but in the main I'm pretty happy with where things stand in 2020 vis-à-vis religious tolerance and pluralism in the U.S.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Damien the Leper]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 

Nevermind. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Damien the Leper

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I think it is silly to say that the Constitution was not based upon Christian principles.  One can cherry pick to reach a conclusion both in support and opposition to the theory.  See his Heritage Foundation article:  https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-christian-founding.

As a libertarian, I say it shouldn't matter one way or the other.

 

Hopefully we can still agree that many of the modern notions of America's connection to Christianity lack a great deal of nuance. The founders relied on reason in ways some modern political discourse does not.

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Christianity was married to monarchy at the time. The idea that democracy and republicanism came from Christianity is silly. The ancient world deserves more credit for giving the founders a prototype to play with. The Constitution was built out of an amalgamation of British "democracy", classical political theory, Enlightenment thinking, and a ton of pragmatism. What did come from Christianity came from the Christianity of heretics who either fled or turned their noses up at most of Christianity.

Revisonist history.  Not even history.

[The Nehor]

Just now, Bob Crockett said:

Revisonist history.  Not even history.

If you mean not the cutesie histories I got as a kid than yeah.

 

You suggest the tenets of Christianity were behind the drive for equality, individual liberty, and democracy? 

Christianity had existed for over 17 centuries and hadn't spawned a nation dedicated to equality, individual liberty, and democracy in that time. In fact the major nation during that time period that probably gave the most liberty to its individual inhabitants (speaking generally) was Rome and it predated Christianity and was getting less free. It adopted Christianity and became even less free.

What took so long?

[Dan McClellan]

19 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Revisonist history.  Not even history.

No, The Nehor's summary is real history. 

[Bob Crockett]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you mean not the cutesie histories I got as a kid than yeah.

 

You suggest the tenets of Christianity were behind the drive for equality, individual liberty, and democracy? 

Christianity had existed for over 17 centuries and hadn't spawned a nation dedicated to equality, individual liberty, and democracy in that time. In fact the major nation during that time period that probably gave the most liberty to its individual inhabitants (speaking generally) was Rome and it predated Christianity and was getting less free. It adopted Christianity and became even less free.

What took so long?

No. I mean your history.  Your posts are very disingenuous.  It must be plain that I have never suggested any such thing.  

I don't suggest anything about Christianity as the basis for the constitution.  I think the  notion is absurd although the constitution excepts Sundays as days for counting deadlines, a Christian notion solely.  My point was that anything can be argued by citing to different founding fathers.  They ranged from atheists (Jefferson) to Deists to Christian.  

Edited December 18, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

No. I mean your history.  Your posts are very disingenuous.  It must be plain that I have never suggested any such thing.  

I don't suggest anything about Christianity as the basis for the constitution.  I think the  notion is absurd although the constitution excepts Sundays as days for counting deadlines, a Christian notion solely.  My point was that anything can be argued by citing to different founding fathers.  They ranged from atheists (Jefferson) to Deists to Christian.  

What?