Now, this is a trully liberal forum and a member can tell the other "fck yourself" and no action is taken towards the offending member.
Oh, I have no problem with him telling me that. It is still an anatomical impossibility though. So I am affraid that I wont be able to comply with his request
It was probably "The Triangle Trade", referring to the Africa (Slaves) to the Caribbean or Southern US (Sugar, Molasses) to Europe (Rum, etc) to Africa (Manufactured goods, weapons, ammo, etc) route.
Texians and other southerners are tired of taking ALL the blame for Slavery.
Most of the slave trade was Yankee shipping running one leg of the Triangle Trade. And Yankee banks were financing it.
The American Slave ships were built by the Yankees. They didn't mind the morality of it when it was making them money. They had slavery in the north as well, just not as extensively. Slaves just weren't very useful in a more industrialized economy. Since there wasn't a lot of economic utility for slavery in the north, they gave it up. I have little doubt that if the economics of it worked, they would have defended it.
It is a sad aspect of human nature that our morality is often based on how well it suits our benefit, regardless of it's fairness.
It was probably "The Triangle Trade", referring to the Africa (Slaves) to the Caribbean or Southern US (Sugar, Molasses) to Europe (Rum, etc) to Africa (Manufactured goods, weapons, ammo, etc) route.
Texians and other southerners are tired of taking ALL the blame for Slavery.
Most of the slave trade was Yankee shipping running one leg of the Triangle Trade. And Yankee banks were financing it.
I've read of one case of slavery in North America as late as 1947. An article in the Vancouver Sun detailed the work of a retired anthropologist who lived with the Indians on the Alaska panhandle. The article showed a picture of people in a boat with captions portraying the occupants as "The Chief, his wife, the Chief's slave, and the anthropologist herself."
It does indeed sound like the media has hyped the changes in Texas school books. On the separation of Church and State, religious people should be running from politics not to it, they can't clean it up, just drag their faith through the muck. But that shouldn't be a big deal, not enough for a media splash, unless they don't have anything else to write about.
In the founding era, and for nearly 200 years after, prevalent religious ideas steered the the people and the government. It was a given, and so ubiquitous as to be unremarkable. By today's standards, the people of the first 200 years of government would be regarded as religious nuts.
The people of past era's thought nothing of invoking God, or putting up religious symbology on public lands or buildings. They never saw it as a conflict with the original meaning of the US Constitution. It wasn't until the slew of Roosevelt appointed "nut" judges that any of this became an issue.
The media hates Christianity, or any other judgmental religion, and are constantly trying to demean and mock it at every opportunity, while they themselves preach about the horrific threat it represents. The notion that it has done more good than bad throughout history, they are too ignorant (and childish) to comprehend.
I predict that in the times which are coming, we are going to see a resurgence of religion. It might not be pretty.
The notion that it has done more good than bad throughout history, they are too ignorant (and childish) to comprehend.
It has not done more good than bad. How could it have?
Also, you are probably talking about the Christian religion. On can argue about that, but it is quite obvious that other religions are not as easy to defend.
S"c"i"e"n"t"o"l"o"g"i"s"t"s , Mormons, muslims etc, are dangerous. Especially S"c"i"e"n"t"o"l"o"g"y". Their declared goal is it to destroy the government and take over the world. I see that as a very dangerous way of thinking. Should they ever, through whatever means, get a say in the government a strong emphasis on secularity is the only thing that will save the rest of us from catastrophy.
The notion that it has done more good than bad throughout history, they are too ignorant (and childish) to comprehend.
It has not done more good than bad. How could it have?
Also, you are probably talking about the Christian religion. On can argue about that, but it is quite obvious that other religions are not as easy to defend.
S"c"i"e"n"t"o"l"o"g"i"s"t"s , Mormons, muslims etc, are dangerous. Especially S"c"i"e"n"t"o"l"o"g"y". Their declared goal is it to destroy the government and take over the world. I see that as a very dangerous way of thinking. Should they ever, through whatever means, get a say in the government a strong emphasis on secularity is the only thing that will save the rest of us from catastrophy.
Well, yes, I am generally referring to Christianity, but I dare say other religions have been a positive benefit for those who follow them. Judaism has been unquestionably beneficial to it's adherents. Islam has possibly been quite beneficial to Muslims on Balance, though something else might have been better. Mormons are some of the finest, (and prosperous) people I know, though they don't consider themselves to be a separate religion from Christianity.
Anyway, when American Media and intelligentsia are saying derogatory things about religion, it is almost unquestionably Christianity. That is the only religion in this country that can be so mocked and maligned.
