This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Discrimination
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Bootspur, I think I am miscomunicating my points. Let me try again:
Hell in the Bible and Hell on Earth are the same thing. The Bible is really very metophorical, and very literal, depending on which part you are reading. I can't say I know the literal nature of what you would call 'Hell'.
My main point is that Hell is not an introduction of something, but a lack of something else. Hell is the absence of God.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
The correct answer is, of course, 'I don't know'. However, after an extensive amount of reading, I would tell you that I would rather take this narrow defintion of 'Hell' that the website you found describes it than how it is described in the rest of the Bible. I would rather have my entire body burned for eturnity than be shut out of God's love, which would cause unbearable agony, worse than that of flame.
Listen, Boots... I don't think you can understand it from end to begining like you are trying to do here. That would be like walking in to Star Wars, after not hearing anything about it, at the part where Darth Vader announces Luke's paternal nature. You don't have a frame of reference or understand the signifigance of it. You would need to know the nature of the death star, the rebellion, the force, yoda, obi wan, etc.... The whole story is what places it all in context.
There is a lot of the Bible that is important, but not crucial to your understanding of everything. Here are the parts I would suggest you read to get the back story. Should take you one or two days.
1)Genesis 1-3 (creation)
2)Story of Abraham having kids with his very old wife... (Genesis 15, I think)
3)The major parts of David's reign as king. Start from a little before, with Eli's prophecy and go through David's death. This is a very insightful part of the Bible.
4)The four Gospels.
So that is going to give you a very brief overview of the Jews, how $%^&ed God kept getting at them, and promising to cut them off. David's relationship with God in particular can give a lot of insight into God's nature, and what the consequences for not obeying are. David wasn't ever burned alive... but sometimes his suffering was worse. My favorite part is the part where David is told "You are that man." but not in a good way. It's really dramatic. Like 'oh snap'... kinda.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I don't think God had any more direct documented contact with any human being besides David (excluding Jesus). If you want to know how He reacted to certain things, this is your read. Later, after you are informed about David, you might also read about his predecesor, Saul, and compare and contrast 1) thier leadership abilities 2) how they were choosen to be king of isreal, and see what parallels you can draw between those two facts and your everyday life.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
As I understand it, God is not abscent in your life, yet. You simply don't believe in Him. The removal of your option to do this is within a finite range of time, as I understand it, which could be wrong.
Post by
Laihendi
MyTie, do you know much about ancient Greek mythology?
Post by
MyTie
Could someone help me fact check
this video
? I seem to be having a very hard time finding this stuff out...
Edit: I'm having some luck.... As a secret vigilante group, the Klan reacted against Radical Republican control of Reconstruction by attempting to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871 the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes. Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing Republican voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to white conservative Democrats' regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.but not much. Also it seems Wallace was a democrat, openly allied with the KKK.
National sentiment gathered to crack down on the Klan, even though some Democrats at the national level questioned whether the Klan really existed or believed that it was just a creation of nervous Southern Republican governors. Many southern states began to pass anti-Klan legislation.The above portion was after some Republican politicians had been murdered by the KKK.The Birth of a Nation included extensive quotations from Woodrow Wilson's History of the American People, as if to give it a stronger basis. After seeing the film in a special White House screening, Wilson allegedly said, "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." Wilson was a democrat.The Klan issue played a significant role at the bitterly divisive 1924 Democratic National Convention in New York City. The leading candidates were Protestant William Gibbs McAdoo, with a base in areas where the Klan was strong, and Catholic New York Governor Al Smith, with a base in the large cities.
I guess my question is, why are Republicans billed as the racists? I don't side with either Republicans or Democrats. I think they are both garbage. However, there is a really strong anti republican feel among African Americans.
Why
?
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
Not sourced because I'm in a hurry and this is from memory:
What we would today call the Democratic party has transformed a lot since the early 1900's. Most of the confederate South were Democrats during the civil war, and what we know today as the Republican Party was started around Abraham Lincoln primarily as an Anti-Slavery Movement (an evolution of the Whig party).
In the early 1900's however, the primary focus of the Republicans began to shift to the Economy, and Big Business (Franklin Roosevelt called them "Economic Royalists" in the 1930's -- quite a fitting title given some of the activities of the time --
speech
). The Democratic Party began to shift it's focus towards strong government and it's proper role in society, social safety nets, and keeping Big Business in check.
It was probably as a direct consequence of this shift that things like the civil rights movements began to occur -- the Democrats' ideas about social justice and the like led to a clash with their roots of Slavery, and so, they shifted forward, rather than backward. Through the 50's and 60's and beyond, the Democrats became, slowly but surely, the party of equality and civil rights. (It's important to note here that I'm speaking about the Party, not all of its members, as I cover more below)
The "Southern Democrats" (old Confederacy Democrats) obviously clashed with this shift, and there was a huge divide between Democrats in the Old South and everywhere else in the Nation on social issues.
The Republican Party saw this as their opportunity to steal back some semblance of control (after the Great Depression and Franklin Roosevelt, Republicans were simply not very popular). They started to employ what is commonly known as the "Southern Strategy" (worth googling if you're not familiar) where they attempted to pick off Southern States by appealing to the racist sentiments that ran rampant in the region.
This "Southern Strategy" is why, in modern terms, the Republican Party is considered the more racist of the two, and why the Democratic Party is generally far more popular among minority demographics. In what would probably be historically considered a purely political decision -- the Republican Party openly and purposefully aligned themselves with the shadows of Slavery in order to win political power -- and it worked (Southern States are Bright Red on any recent political map).
Since the 1950's, the Democrats (nationally) have been the party of Pro-choice, Civil rights, Anti-war, Social justice, Women's rights, etc. The Republicans on the other hand, have largely been the party of "If you hate those crazy Lefties and their 'equality' nonsense, come over here." The Democrats are, historically, the party of Slavery -- but in recent times, the Republicans have been all too willing to adopt that title and everything that comes with it (namely, Southern votes).
It is true that some of the radicals of the 50's-70's identified themselves as Democrats, but it is precisely this time in history when that identification had many different possible meanings. The party as a whole has shown itself to be the ones who stick up for the little guy, the middle class, the poor, etc. The Republicans (especially since the 1980's) have consistently been the "trust in the free market" and "trickle-down" party -- which has at its roots an implication that those with money should have the power, and those without are not fit to judge them, or do anything other than be grateful for the economy they've built which allows the existence of the "middle class".
Post by
Kibbles
Public housing is public. Thus a private religion/corporation cannot interact in any way with it. They can find their own place to preach, like a church.
Post by
MyTie
@Heckler -
A larger percentage house and senate of the Republicans in the 60s voted for the Civil Rights bill that FDR signed than Democrats. This 'shift' you talk about is popular, but statistics and voting patterns show that it didn't exist. Even Pro Segregationalists during the Civil Rights movements were Democrats. Only VERY recently has the Democrats been aligned with the minorities. This has been since the 80s or so. The only reasoning I can see is that the Democrats have run a series of advertisment campaigns designed to show the Republicans voting AGAINST social benefits, such as welfare, and making pretty strong incinuations that this is due to racism. Some figures have been very vocal about this link.
I mean, we can look back and think that Republicans aligned themselves with racist sentiments during the Civil Rights movement. However, when we look at voting patterns, and party affiliations of high profile racists and segregationalists (such as Wallace), we see that this simply isn't the case.
Most of what you listed is contrary to factual history, as far as I can see. Perhaps you can give some sources? I know you said you were in a hurry. I look forward to reading them when you get time to post them.
Post by
Heckler
I will start looking for sources and post them if / when I find them, I'll concede now that you may well be right. As far as many segregationists being Dems, that actually is the point I was trying to make. African Americans were largely Republicans and the South was the Democratic "base" in the early 1900s, and by the end of the 1900's it had flipped completely opposite. Strom Thurmond (Mr. 'Filibuster'd the Civil Rights Bill' himself) was a Democrat before he ran for President as the "States' Rights
Democratic
Party" or "Dixiecrats" , largely identified by their stance on segregation (then he switched to Republican).
But anyways, I just got home from a trip and I probably won't get anything substantial up till at least tomorrow.
Okay, first:
A larger percentage house and senate of the Republicans in the 60s voted for the Civil Rights bill that FDR signed than Democrats.
I'm not sure which Bill you're referring to, as I've never known that FDR signed a civil rights bill. My knowledge on that subject only extends far enough to know that FDR dodged the issue of Race repeatedly in order to keep the support of Southern Democrats (who constantly asked him to keep his programs segregated, which he pretty much did), but even so, many of his programs were designed to equally help minorities as well as whites find work -- the only thing I know of that FDR signed that had a direct "civil rights" feel was
ExecOrder 8802
, but since this was an executive order, I doubt it was what you were referring to. (It should be here noted that FDR's VP Harry Truman and his wife Elanor were both very supportive of civil rights reform -- more on this later).
I'll assume you're talking about the Civil Rights Act of of 1964, which was the most sweeping of the Civil Rights Acts of the 50's and 60's. The fact that a larger percentage of Republicans voted for this bill doesn't surprise me - the real dividing line on this vote was more regional than partisan, and most Southern states were still blue in 1964 (and the few Republicans from the South joined most Democratic filibusters on these topics). It would be just as proper to say "A large fraction of the old South voted against the bill, while the rest of the Country largely supported it" -- It's worth noting that if you don't look at any of the Southern states, a larger percentage of Democrats supported the bill than Republicans (although both were over 80%, which should be the real takeaway here).
But again, none of this is contrary to what I wrote above, and the largest point that remains is the rift that these issues caused within the Democratic party between the South and everywhere else. Here'a quote from
Time Magazine in 1956
concerning the '
Southern Manifesto
' and the "party splitting" effect it had just to emphasize this rift:
Many signers regretted the manifesto and its party-splitting implications . . . during the week, a succession of Northern Democrats attacked the manifesto. Not a Southerner arose in reply.
An analogous answer to your question can probably be found by reading a biography of Strom Thurmond, who was really the fire at the base of the internal split and eventual transformation of the Democratic Party. Thurmond was elected to Congress during Truman's term. Truman signed three civil rights centered executive orders, one of them forced the desegregation of the Armed Forces.
Thurmond was so against the "so-called Civil Rights" being pushed by Truman that he ran against him in 1948 as a third-party Pro-Segregation candidate (Dixiecrat), and won 4 states (all southern) -- His views are very clearly stated in the
Dixiecrat Keynote speech
he gave that same year (worth perusing).
When he failed to oust Truman, he didn't abandon the Party, as he considered the Democrats of the South to be the "true" Democrats. With the Civil Rights bills (of which Thurmond filibustered every one) of '57, '60, and '64 passed, and Pro-Civil-Rights Democrats such as JFK and LBJ in power -- Strom finally decided to switch parties and joined the Republicans.
He was a major voice for Richard Nixon in the 1968 election, and this is probably the first election where the "Southern Strategy" was employed by Republicans. Strom Thurmond was a very outspoken person against Integration and Civil Rights -- having him speak for you is just about enough to justify your party being labeled as "the racist one." The only reason his presence didn't more fully hand the election to Nixon was because of George Wallace who was more willing to explicitly say racist things than were Republican officials (and therefore won more votes in the South).
The votes in the South in
the 1968 Election
are telling. George Wallace won much of the South, and he ran not as a Democrat, but as an "American Independent" -- and in those Southern States, Nixon won 2nd place, not Humphrey (also worth noting is that over 60% of Humphry's votes came from African Americans -- but were you in their shoes, who would you have voted for?).
Starting in 1948, the Deep South vote was no longer reliably Democratic, and seemed only to vote Democratic when Republican was the only other choice (as you pointed out earlier, Republicans were largely in support of Civil Rights as well). In 1948 and 1968 when a 3rd party alternative existed, only the South voted for them. The 1964 Election is also an important look into the motives of the South, here they voted Republican over Democrat, because the Democrat was Lynden Johnson. Between 1970 and 1990 most of the South converted to the Republican Party (Jimmy Carter's results in '76 were more likely a result that he was from Georgia than his Party).
Alright, I'm getting kinda tired of typing, and I'm sure you're just going to say most of my info is still "contrary to factual history" anyways, so I'll just wait for a response. As a last note,
here's a link to a NY Times
article from 1970 about Kevin Phillips, one of Nixon's advisor's from 1968, and a quote from him:
All the talk about Republicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage. . . From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that . . . Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Rebublicans. That's where the votes are. Without prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
Post by
Heckler
My argument is basically, neither party is inherently Racist, but the Deep South
is
; whichever party carries the allegiance of the Deep South whites will also carry the title of "the racist ones." Right now that's the Republicans, whether by design or otherwise.
(This was actually the last part of my previous post, but since I edited a previous post to make that one, this is meant to serve as a bump to show that I've made a reply)
Post by
MyTie
Thanks for the bump, and the info. I think you're right that either can be labeled as racist. One little remark you made really caught my eye though:whichever party carries the allegiance of the Deep South whites will also carry the title of "the racist ones."
I would like to take note that I have been to the deep south, on more than one occasion. I can say that there is racism there, strong racism, from both white and black folk. However, there are stronger beliefs held commonly by the people there than their feelings on race.
Post by
Heckler
I would like to take note that I have been to the deep south, on more than one occasion. I can say that there is racism there, strong racism, from both white and black folk. However, there are stronger beliefs held commonly by the people there than their feelings on race.
I lived in the South for a little over a year, and my comment was less meant to insult the South (although there are many views on Race, from all races in the area as you said, that deserve to be insulted), and more meant to point out that the South has been on the wrong side of history many many times throughout the years, and they don't have the best reputation to the rest of the nation.
I'm not necessarily trying to generalize the entire opinion of the South, but instead I am generalizing the national
view
of that opinion, correct or not -- since that's probably a better way to answer the original question you posed.
Post by
MyTie
I'll agree with that.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.