Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View With All Due RESPECT
4 years ago  ::  Sep 17, 2009 - 8:29AM #11
davelaw40
davelaw40
Posts: 19,145

Sep 16, 2009 -- 1:03PM, amcolph wrote:


Sep 16, 2009 -- 12:22PM, Vistronic wrote:


Sep 15, 2009 -- 4:39PM, Heretic_for_Christ wrote:


I am absolutely opposed to any link between politics and religion--it ends up corrupting both. Yes, that means I would ideally like to see all references to God removed from governmental products and processes.


And no, I am not an atheist.


This forum is important NOT to promote any church-state link but for people like me to argue the issue with people whose main source of knowledge is the Gospel According to O'Reilly, who have been tricked into believing that America was founded to be a Christian nation, that the Constitution is based on the Bible, and other arrant nonsense.




So do you propose taking jack hammers to all the government "domes" that have scripture in  and on them?




Only if the presence of those scriptures appears to be giving some kind of advantage to the fascist traitors of the Reconstructionist movement.




 


Now, you have degenerated into name calling-unless you have evidence that they support Mussolini's proposal of binding govenment and industry together like the fasces of wheat or that they propose in enacting their beliefs in manner other than having public elections

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 17, 2009 - 9:21AM #12
Heretic_for_Christ
Heretic_for_Christ
Posts: 4,777

amcolph referred to: "fascist traitors of the Reconstructionist movement," and davelaw40 responded:


"Now, you have degenerated into name calling-unless you have evidence that they support Mussolini's proposal of binding govenment and industry together like the fasces of wheat or that they propose in enacting their beliefs in manner other than having public elections."


 


Actually, the rhetoric of the Bush years skirted dangerously close to the characteristics associated with fascism, and the statements that have come out of the Dominionist movement (which is the designated I have heard more often) are far worse. Indeed, although I detest any casual use of the term Nazi as "name calling," because it trivializes one of the greatest horrors in human history, the Dominionists qualify.

I prayed for deliverance from the hard world of facts and logic to the happy land where fantasy and prejudice reign. But God spake unto me, saying, "No, keep telling the truth," and to that end afflicted me with severe Trenchant Mouth. So I'm sorry for making cutting remarks, but it's the will of God.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 17, 2009 - 9:43AM #13
amcolph
amcolph
Posts: 13,396

Sep 17, 2009 -- 8:29AM, davelaw40 wrote:


Now, you have degenerated into name calling-unless you have evidence that they support Mussolini's proposal of binding govenment and industry together like the fasces of wheat or that they propose in enacting their beliefs in manner other than having public elections




I expect you are right;  Reconstructionists are unlikely to follow Mussolini's program in detail. 


Still, over time, the term has aquired a broader meaning:


"...a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." 


This definition, by historian Roger Paxton, seems to describe the aims  of the Reconstruction movement with great exactitude.


 


 


 

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 17, 2009 - 10:46PM #14
davelaw40
davelaw40
Posts: 19,145

Sep 17, 2009 -- 9:43AM, amcolph wrote:


Sep 17, 2009 -- 8:29AM, davelaw40 wrote:


Now, you have degenerated into name calling-unless you have evidence that they support Mussolini's proposal of binding govenment and industry together like the fasces of wheat or that they propose in enacting their beliefs in manner other than having public elections




I expect you are right;  Reconstructionists are unlikely to follow Mussolini's program in detail.


Still, over time, the term has aquired a broader meaning:


"...a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."


This definition, by historian Roger Paxton, seems to describe the aims  of the Reconstruction movement with great exactitude.


 


 


 




 


even if your premise is correct; it would take more than a Beer Garden Putsch to put the fringers that identify themselves as Reconstructionists anywhere near the seats of power


 


like the Right to lifers-they are good to soak for money for the Right and thats about it

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Post Reply
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook