Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[GlyphGryph]

Many of those who left for religious reasons, though, left not because they disagreed with the idea of state religions, but because they wanted to be the ones in charge. The most famous are of course the "pilgrims" who were a bunch of theocratic assholes in pretty much every conceivable way, and only came here because they could persecute the heathens without the state of England breathing down their neck. That is the entire frickin' reason my state even happened! It was the one state that actually WAS founded based on religious freedom, because everyone who came here seeking legitimate freedom certainly wasn't finding it for Massachusetts, and Rhode Island was were they fled.

[bulborbish]

Many of those who left for religious reasons, though, left not because they disagreed with the idea of state religions, but because they wanted to be the ones in charge. The most famous are of course the "pilgrims" who were a bunch of theocratic assholes in pretty much every conceivable way, and only came here because they could persecute the heathens without the state of England breathing down their neck. That is the entire frickin' reason my state even happened! It was the one state that actually WAS founded based on religious freedom, because everyone who came here seeking legitimate freedom certainly wasn't finding it for Massachusetts, and Rhode Island was were they fled.

Minor Correction: the Plymouth Sub Colony was the one with the Pilgrims. The Massachusets Colony eventually absorbed the community, and was a for profit company like Virginia. Conneticut was the only area dominated by the Pilgrims. But yeah, Rhode Island was pretty cool seeing as it bordered both Plymouth and the Conneticut groups.

[misko27]

So, what's everyone's thoughts on the suspiciously sympathetic media coverage on such topics as LoudWhisper's article at the moment? We're getting kids movies with evil bankers and guilty struggling super-villains, action movies about the divide between the first and third world, coverage of the US government's stamping on liberty's, revelations about surveillance, it's as if we had a free press.

The US has always had Free Press, Free to do what it pleases. It may not be balanced, or fair, but under the definition of a Free Press, it's good. We must remind ourselves of the essential right to be stupid and greedy.

[Loud Whispers]

Not wanting to be left out, Texas state police also demonstrated they can be just as intrusive and unlawful as New York without as much resources spent.

Just 10 years ago the stuff I'm seeing now in the USA would only be heard from the lips of paranoid schizophrenics. Now... You're long gone.

The US has always had Free Press, Free to do what it pleases. It may not be balanced, or fair, but under the definition of a Free Press, it's good. We must remind ourselves of the essential right to be stupid and greedy.

The US has always had monopolized, controlled propaganda outlets. Well, the latter was just a manner of speaking. Soon it'll literally be true.

These are interesting times.

[Zangi]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/us/tsa-expands-duties-beyond-airport-security.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Police state finishes completion around about now.

My fellow countryfolk...  the terrorists are winning!

[scriver]

Many of those who left for religious reasons, though, left not because they disagreed with the idea of state religions, but because they wanted to be the ones in charge. The most famous are of course the "pilgrims" who were a bunch of theocratic assholes in pretty much every conceivable way, and only came here because they could persecute the heathens without the state of England breathing down their neck. That is the entire frickin' reason my state even happened! It was the one state that actually WAS founded based on religious freedom, because everyone who came here seeking legitimate freedom certainly wasn't finding it for Massachusetts, and Rhode Island was were they fled.

The fact that became oppressors in the New World is entirely beside the point of why they fled the Old one. Even if this group, the "pilgrims", were part of the Church of England and not in disagreement with it (in which case, you know, they wouldn't have been allowed to exist), they would have been the exception and not the rule. Hell, even if "oppressing others" were part of their dogma, it still doesn't change the fact that they were bring oppressed to begin with, and don't make it sound like the state religions didn't favour oppressing people. They would start accepting Jews and Muslims into the countries long before they woe stand for dissent in their own religion, much like we see Muslim countries act today.

Seriously, don't let your dislike of current day religious right colour your view of history.

[GlyphGryph]

Well, there's actually two groups - the actual Mayflower Pilgrim's weren't so bad, and did actually get religiously persecuted (although generally advocating the removal of the king from power will do that to a group, regardless of their religious beliefs).

The Puritans, who came over in much greater numbers... the only freedom they wanted was to purify their religion of dissenters. They actually DID support the Church of England and considered themselves part of it (even though the Church didn't want them), their main conflict with the officials in the church was that they didn't go far enough in enforcing conformity. They are to the Church of England what Sharia Law groups are to Muslim's - the religious freedom they seek is quite explicitly the freedom to force others to follow their strict interpretation of doctrine. Their official policy was executing heretics, and establishing a theocratic state. They made a point of killing Quakers! Quakers!

This was a group that fully DESERVED to be oppressed, because they were bloody terrible.

Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of people who fled to the colonies for better reasons than "the Church won't let us murder enough heretics", but it's silly to think "seeking religious freedom" is always a good thing.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Well, there's actually two groups - the actual Mayflower Pilgrim's weren't so bad, and did actually get religiously persecuted (although generally advocating the removal of the king from power will do that to a group, regardless of their religious beliefs).

The Puritans, who came over in much greater numbers... the only freedom they wanted was to purify their religion of dissenters. They actually DID support the Church of England and considered themselves part of it (even though the Church didn't want them), their main conflict with the officials in the church was that they didn't go far enough in enforcing conformity. They are to the Church of England what Sharia Law groups are to Muslim's - the religious freedom they seek is quite explicitly the freedom to force others to follow their strict interpretation of doctrine. Their official policy was executing heretics, and establishing a theocratic state. They made a point of killing Quakers! Quakers!

This was a group that fully DESERVED to be oppressed, because they were bloody terrible.

Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of people who fled to the colonies for better reasons than "the Church won't let us murder enough heretics", but it's silly to think "seeking religious freedom" is always a good thing.

Seriously, don't let your dislike of current day religious right colour your view of history.

[misko27]

This was a group that fully DESERVED to be oppressed, because they were bloody terrible.

This here, this is interesting stuff. Noting.

[GlyphGryph]

When the oppression takes the form of "not letting the party in question do horrible things to other third parties", then... yeah. They deserve to have that part of their platform oppressed. The same way "intolerance of intolerance" is okay, and how the whole Sharia Law "execute heretics" thing is something most people would be okay with suppressing, religious freedom or no. The same way we have freedom of speech, but you're not allowed to threaten someone into giving you all your money, and we have freedom of association but you aren't allowed to conspire with people to break the law. They deserve to be oppressed the same way the modern day religious right deserves to be "oppressed" by the fall of the DOMA.

(Not that this was the part that was actually being oppressed, Church of England was dicks and haha, that was practically the only part they thought was a right good idea)

And there were lots and lots of other non-terrible religious folks moving around everywhere trying to do their best to avoid persecution. The Quakers, who the Puritan's seemed to have a hate-hard-on for, were all-around pretty damned awesome for example.

And as far as the "different from the modern American right", yeah - I'm sure my ancestors would have a lot harsher language for them, from personal experience, and the modern American right doesn't advocate a good murderin' of heretics as the primary purpose of their religion. (Hint: It's in the name! Puritans believed in "purifying" the church by getting rid of everyone who disagreed with them)

[Loud Whispers]

"We treated you like you act. You acted like a two year old... Quit crying."

Police talking to a family after busting into their home, threatening to tase them and handcuffing them.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So that guy who went full-tilt crazy and murdered 16 Afghan civilians has been sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

And that was the plea bargin.

[Sirus]

So that guy who went full-tilt crazy and murdered 16 Afghan civilians has been sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

And that was the plea bargin.

I'm curious:

Too harsh, or not harsh enough?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I think it's appropriate enough. The only harsher alternative is the death penalty, which I do not support.

The Fort Hood shooter is also being sentenced soon. Unlike this case, the death penalty is on the table for him. I think it's a bad idea even outside of my opinion on the death penalty, in his own words, it will make him a martyr.

[Sirus]

I think it's appropriate enough. The only harsher alternative is the death penalty, which I do not support.

The Fort Hood shooter is also being sentenced soon. Unlike this case, the death penalty is on the table for him. I think it's a bad idea even outside of my opinion on the death penalty, in his own words, it will make him a martyr.

I heard about that one. I also heard that they didn't allow him to plead guilty, since that would basically ensure the death penalty and they want to avoid it for the same reason as you.