The American Trinity: The Three Values that Make America Great
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Nearly every country on Earth is defined by race or ethnicity. Not America. What makes the United States different? Dennis Prager outlines the values that have allowed the American people to flourish and, unlike immigrants almost everywhere else, transformed those who arrived from across the globe into full Americans—regardless of where they were born.
Transcript
Race and ethnicity have defined every nation on earth. Except one: the United States of America. It is defined by values.
So, to understand America, you have to understand American values.
They are:
1. “E Pluribus Unum”
2. “Liberty”
3. “In God We Trust.”
I call this “The American Trinity.” I made up the name, but I didn’t make up the values. They are on every American coin.
The first, E Pluribus Unum, is Latin, meaning, “Out of many, one.” When first adopted as an American motto shortly after the American founding in 1776, it referred to the thirteen American colonies becoming one nation. Over time, however, most Americans understood the motto to mean one people from many backgrounds. To quote The E Pluribus Unum Project, funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, “Over the years, E Pluribus Unum has also served as a reminder of America’s bold attempt to make one unified nation of people from many different backgrounds and beliefs.”
In other words, America doesn’t care about your national or ethnic origins.
This explains why people who immigrate to America assimilate faster and more fully than immigrants to any other country.
Most of those who have immigrated to Europe, from, for example, Turkey – as millions have – are not considered fully German by fellow Germans or fully Swedish by fellow Swedes or fully Spanish by fellow Spaniards. This is even true of the children and grandchildren of those immigrants.
And, just as important, few of those immigrants – or their children or grandchildren – will ever feel fully German, Swedish, or Spanish. But a Turk who immigrates to the United States will be regarded as fully American – as American as any other American – the moment he or she becomes a citizen. And they – and certainly their children – will feel fully American.
Of course, America has not always lived up to this “e pluribus unum” ideal. But the ideal was always there. And it was applied to virtually every immigrant to America.
The second component of the American Trinity is liberty.
Now, you might ask, “Didn’t the French Revolution also enshrine liberty as a central national value? Wasn’t its motto “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”?
The answer is yes. America is hardly the only country to enshrine liberty; it is the only country to enshrine “Liberty,” “E Pluribus Unum,” and “In God We Trust.”
What’s the difference?
The difference is this: The moment you affirm equality, as the French Revolution did, you will lose liberty.
It is a basic American value that all human beings are born equal, and all must be equal before the law. But ending up equal – that’s a French and European value. And if you want people to end up equal, you must deprive them of liberty. Which is exactly what happened right after the French Revolution and in every other society that made equality its national goal.
America gives people the liberty to end up wherever their abilities, work ethic, and luck take them – meaning unequal. Therefore, professional athletes will make more money than teachers or doctors. That may be unfortunate, but that is what liberty allows. If you want equality, you will tell people how much they can earn – and that means the end of liberty.
And third, In God We Trust.
Unlike almost every other country, America never had a state religion. But it wasfounded on the principle that God – specifically, the God of the Bible – is the source of moral values. As the Declaration of Independence put it, all people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” In other words, rights come from God, not from men. If rights are given by men, men can take them away.
The American Trinity is the reason America became the world’s freest and most prosperous country. But many Americans want to, in the words of former President Barack Obama, “fundamentally transform” it. They wish to replace American values with European values – equality of result and an ever-expanding state, which greatly reduce individual freedom; the celebration of ethnic and racial identity, which is the opposite of E Pluribus Unum; and the removal of God as the source of morality and rights.
Which set of values Americans adopt will determine whether America remains free, prosperous, and the force for good in the world that it has been. With the exception of the Civil War, this is the greatest internal battle in American history.
Tags
Who is online
89 visitors
Can you prove that a creator gave us our rights?
Jefferson was not a Christian when he wrote the Declaration.
Do you realize how off-topic you are? You can't resist trying to troll religious people, can you? The fact is these have been stated as American values, and the discussion spins out of that. What you personally think of religion or what you think Thomas Jefferson thought of Christianity is not relevant.
Not sure that American values are values that I respect anymore. Unregulated capitalism sucks.
You did read the article to the end, didn't you? God and religion sorta comes up in the last 3rd or so.
The World Series starts tonight. Perrie posted a story on it the other. Imagine if I went in to the seed and made a comment like "people who like baseball are idiots." That's my perspective on the comment.
Yet I don't see you saying that what Xx personally thinks about religion or what he thinks about what TJ thought of Christianity is irrelevant.
Why haven't you called out Xx?
BTFW, she QUOTED Jefferson, so it isn't about what she thinks he thought, it's what he said in his own words.
Well my experience around here is if you quote the founders in a manner that aids a liberal point of view, you get thumbs up...
If you have quoted them in a manner that supports or proves a conservative point of view, you get hounded and hammered with tickets and said comments get deleted...
So just because Jefferson was directly quoted, doesn't always mean it is accepted around here..
That's funny because it's been said that this forum is mostly conservative. Guess they were wrong.
BTW, as long as it's isn't taken out of context, HOW can a quote be 'in a manner' that aids anything but the facts?
You just showed your hand. If it's liberal it 'aids', if it's conservative it 'supports or proves'.
That sounds META to me...
Yet the POINT of my comment wasn't about accepting what Jefferson said was it?
That is my issue with quoting the founders based upon recent events. But that is a story for another day and is Meta to boot.... Not appropriate here....
That is one point of view, but since it is a response and support of someone using a direct quote, In my opinion it was.
But lets hold the Meta for another day... and leave the disabusing of my friend Jefferson's silly attempt at arguing for the imposition of his beliefs alone... (and yes I consider him a friend, but wrong is wrong also)
How can it be trolling when I am addressing the 3rd line of Jefferson-XXX's claim? The US was not created as a Christian country and it is not now, despite what a few people want to believe.
How can those rights come from God when there is no proof that god exists? If god doesn't exist then he can't possibly give us rights, therefore under your idea we have no rights. I am saying that our inherent rights didn't come from your god or the god of anyone else either.
There is no progressive that believes that the government is an all-powerful state and that we are serfs to serve it. That is a Republican idea.
In my experience that's usually because the quote isn't accurate in some way (or several). The claim that the country was founded on a god or a particular religion by quoting the "creator" part of the DoI is one of the most common ways believers make a false claim. First point is that the DoI was not a legal document used to create the USofA. It was a document of rebellion of the colonies. The only founding document we have is called the Constitution of the USofA and there is no mention of it being founded on any religious belief or being--quite the opposite in fact as the first amendment to it stipulates. The other reason the DoI reference is specious is that its writer, Jefferson, was a Deist* (as were a great many of the founding "fathers") who did not accept the divinity of Jesus which is the essential aspect of Christianity and who did not believe that this creator had any involvement in the universe once it was created--i.e., a creator completely disinterested in its creation. That's quite the opposite of what nearly all Christians believe.
*I forgot to put this in for one (there are several) definition of Deism:
Jefferson was adament that religion is not part of the US and that taxpayer dollars cannot be used to further a religious idea or goal.
Would you like me to explain what this means?
The US was not founded on the Bible or god because our laws are not based on the Christian religion.
So too was Madison.
Better use simple words.
Indeed, no matter how much Christians want to believe otherwise.
That never has been nor ever will be this clarion call for this secular republic unless certain christo-fascist elements within succeed in destroying it as seems to be their intent.
I keep seeing this slogan from rightwingers and knowing that it in Europe was used for centuries by "Christians" to slaughter other "Christians" as well as Jews and Muslims or anyone who had something they wanted but also was one of the Nazi slogans (and being used by neo-nazis today) and just have to wonder why they're so fond of something so unAmerican and so covered in blood and hate. If there was anything our founders uniformly despised was the long, bloody history of religious wars which was the reason they made it so crystal clear that the United States would not be a country based on any single religion.
This is also incorrect, Jefferson believed in the Christian "GOD", he just refused to accept the Trinity of god....
You know the whole Father, Son & Holy Ghost stuff which he believed was an invention of man.... He actually re-wrote the bible eliminating all reference to the trinity. It is known today as the Jefferson Bible.
And yes he believed in the christian God...
We all have our mental problems. A belief in fantasy being one.
Jefferson rejected the Christian claim of Jesus' divinity.
Jefferson cut and pasted the Philosophy of Jesus, eliminating any and all of the 'supernatural' machinations. No 'virgin' birth, no resurrection.
Jefferson wrote to Adams: "We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the Amphibologisms into which they have been led by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. there will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently, his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill."
Jefferson did NOT believe that the bible was the 'word of God'.
BTW, Jefferson also rejected the doctrine of the Old Testament.
Jefferson wrote in a letter about his 'bible' to Charles Thomson in 1816, "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely in 1819 he wrote: "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."
I'm pretty sure that Xx wouldn't consider him a 'Christian'.
On this one case I agree.....
This is exactly the example of a false attribution I just described in 2.1.14 above. Jefferson was a Deist. Deists not only didn't ascribe to trinitarianism, they rejected the entire concept of a "god" which intervened in human affairs much less favored one set of them over any other. It's fundamental tenet that the "creator" had no further involvement with its creation after it was set off. No miracles, no virgin births of a deity, no heaven or hell; no saved or damned. It was a widely held version of "faith" in the Enlightenment. It stopped just short of atheism to be a "safe" position for its day. In most ways, it conforms very well to the idea of the Big Bang theory we have now for the origin of the universe.
Well I always have held that it is the actual person themselves that knows without fault what they believe. And they describe themselves in the manner they believe. That is the only similarity Jefferson's beliefs held to Atheism.
Jefferson called himself a christian, a sect unto himself. And since atheism was a well known belief back in that day, if he was such, I'm sure he would have claimed such.
But alas he didn't.
His claim, as Dulay pointed out above, was as a christian to his beliefs in a more perfect Christianity.... (one of which he created himself)
I'm sorry, I know Atheists want to culturally usurp Jefferson's beliefs to lend their own beliefs some intellectual validity. And you can go right on doing for all I care, but do yourself a favor.....
Don't try it on too many actually educated people, they will just laugh at you, like I am.....
Not even close. Jefferson did not believe in a creator which was involved with the world--entirely the opposite of the Christian notion of god. And, I'm certainly not claiming he was an atheist but only as close as society would have permitted in those days.* I don't think you understand what would have happened to him if he had been one and proclaimed it publicly. Deism is not atheism.
* although, he certainly wasn't afraid of the subject of atheism:
I wonder why you think you know so much about what Jefferson believed when you clearly have no idea.
Well there are facts here, we have his writings, most of them.
Why did he write.....
If he didn't believe in a creator, why did he write so profound a declaration to the world of just such? And that such belief entitled all men to throw off the shackles of man's divinity?
One of the greatest expressions of absolute faith, no, actual divinity ever written? Not only written by him but critically reviewed and approved by John Adams?
Please explain that?
Why do you assume "creator" he meant a supernatural spirit? He was nothing if not a pure rationalist. He created his bible by stripping the New Testament of all references to miracles, including the virgin birth myth. Are you one of those people who think they can channel dead spirits?
I suspect you're using this Jefferson quote to support your false claim that he was a Christian:
Of course, that would NOT make him a Christian in the eyes of other Christians since the essential belief of Christianity is the divinity of Jesus. What he seems to be saying there is that contrary to so many self-described Christians who loudly proclaim their faith and then ignore the actual teachings of its founder, he actually tries to follow the teachings without believing in the divinity of Jesus, which he certainly did not.
You can't even seem to make up your own mind.
All I can give you is Jefferson's words....
His beliefs seems to be malleable to that whom he was speaking or writing....
Thomas Jefferson, who was raised Anglican, was reluctant to reveal his own religion to the public. Historians, (and people like you) theorize that Jefferson was a deist, but he himself never publicly declared himself as such. He, like most of the Founders preferred to keep his specific religious views to himself. But even with that, I submit like all the historians that speculate about his views and liken him to a deist, I refuse to label him such.
Many aspects of Jefferson’s life have lead modern historians to believe that he was a pious Christian. As president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson regularly attended church services at the capitol. Jefferson even included prayers in many of his letters, like this one
To the Danbury Baptists.
That is also known as his "Wall of Separation" letter...
Jefferson was definitely a thinking, logical, scientific man. While his particular religious beliefs are hard to deduce, he was supportive of religious morality as shown in the letter he wrote to Unitarian Jared Sparks.
Here, Jefferson supports the “pure-morals” view of Christianity and belief in the morals of a religion without the appurtenances of belief in the supernatural aspects of religion. This is in keeping with the known scientific ideals of the man. Often attributed to Deism, especially in the 18th century and Scientology to an extent today. (everyone wants to usurp Jefferson's beliefs as their own)
Jefferson was also, very critical toward established religion, even going so far as to fear the tyrannical danger of established clergy men. (religion is as statist as the English monarchy was if not even more so)
In a letter Jefferson wrote to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787, he even said
As a logical, scientific educated man who readily questioned Christianity and vocally promoted the need for a separation between religion and government, Jefferson was a cut-and-dry devout Christian.
Unfortunately, no one can know what Jefferson’s personal beliefs were.
As an example, when sending the military expeditions to the Northwest Territory in 1802, his public orders commanded the military commander to faithfully execute all instructions of the department of Indian affairs (and their corrupt political appointees) with as much military alacrity as possible. But, his private letter to the commander himself were much more subdued on tone and remined him to treat the Indian nations with as much respect and fealty as he could given the political expedience of the very public order her was given.... He personally felt that the Indians should be treated with respect, despite the politics of the time that called them savages that needed to be exterminated and conquered.
Modern historians can simply review what Jefferson did and how he expressed himself through letters and first hand accounts and offer speculation.
All such ideals of what Jefferson believed in today towards religion and it's specific beliefs is speculation.
Even mine.
Yeah and keep on demonstrating an inability to follow a conversation...
Jefferson was not in any way a Christian. He opposed the Christian religion.
Well we do look at it differently...
As I read those letters I read a direct aversion to fundamentalist christian ideology. Which stems from his belief that a persons relationship with his creator, (or "GOD" in many eyes) was a very personal and private thing and not to be guided by any man.....
A belief held by most of the Founders....
Belief in god the creator is faith, belief in ideology is placing man above god.... and Jefferson had no faith in a religious man....
Jefferson was a Deist. His creator was physical nature itself. He edited any feature of religious belief out of his Bible. He did not support prayer to any deity.
But he prayed in church to a christian god every Sunday before the assembled representatives at the capitol..... (well those that were in attendance)
That is a well established fact that belies your statement...
Explain that, and by the way, the Deists may claim him, but they cannot prove he was one... (just as the scientologists have, the protestants have the Baptists have)
No one really knows, they just have their beliefs....
Which I guess is a bit anachronistic, Everyone has their beliefs on Jeffersons's beliefs but Jefferson..... and everyone else is claiming their right....
{chuckle} It's certainly a conundrum....
I'd like to see a citation for this claim.
Inventing scenarios like this out of whole cloth reveals just how false nearly everything you've claimed about Jefferson has been.
It's now been a week of ****crickets*** from our man.....who's surprised by that?
#2 and #3 are in conflict with each other
In God We Trust was mid-1860s idea promoted by religiosity during the civil war. It must be removed in the interest of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. You cannot have freedom when the state endorses religious belief and the Christian faith.
"united we stand devided we fall" seems to be pretty well forgotten today though I noticed. On both sides but especially whichever side happens to be in power at the time. Each side wants full control, just as the founding fathers wanted.... sarc !
You just disproved this whole Prager article about our US "Trinity". "In God we trust" became the official national motto in 1956, replacing E pluribus unum, that was part of the seal from Great Seal of the United States was created and adopted in 1782.
This is what happens when you don't know your history and a huckster like Prager teaches it.
We have only 1 national motto. The other was replaced. And our currency is not a way of measuring what our founding fathers meant.
Only fools who still believe in Santa.
And then all of our bucks become collectors items.
A degree in Internet Anthropology perhaps?
LOL.. so true.
Not originally, and there is no instance of the phrase ever being uttered by the Founding Fathers.
Speak for yourself.
It is not the only one and it only became one 169 years after the United States of America was established so it has fuck-all to do with our founding.
By "Liberty" our founding fathers meant liberty from the tyranny of the British rule. It had nothing to do with equality, as Prager is saying. It has nothing to do with economics either.
Here are our founding fathers own words:
Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! Patrick Henry
Read more at:
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. Thomas Paine
Read more at:
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty. Thomas Jefferson
Read more at:
In fact, the French took our idea of liberty and not the other way around. Prager's comparison is false.
And while the Declaration of Independence is a wonderful piece of American thought and writing, it was meant to define us to the British. An official declaration for why we declared war on the King and that our rights did not come from him, but from a great power. It was not meant as to be what this nation was founded on but rather the need to break from the King. That is why we got together after the war and had the Constitutional Convention. That is what our nation is based on.
Prager has a way of inventing stuff by drawing false comparisons and confusing people who are less informed.
Dennis Prager has a series of videos on YouTube and many people think that he is intelligent or truthful.
no more relevance than a personal blog...
And many people also believe 'certain political leaders' are intelligent and truthful when a closer examination reveals that they are neither.
But he isn't and the sad thing is that you won't challenge yourself to actually read what our actual founding fathers said or what our own documents say. Instead, you take the word of some talking head.
What transcript are you referring to? Believing that someone is true doesn't mean that he is. More people need to learn how to set their emotions
aside and fact check what they are being told.
IMO: over population destroying the earth rates pretty darn high in this IMO cause without a planet to inhabit all else is mute.
IMO" Humans multiply like unthinking cockroaches !! That need to end before we have this:
I'm fighting for the secular rights not to be overrun by religious belief. Religious belief is purely emotional because there are no facts to support it.
You're either projecting, or simply haven't been paying attention. Epistte has always argued logically and rationally. In terms of abortion, it's most pro-lifers that argue with emotion because they cannot provide a logical or rational argument.
Well done.
You tell him Girl, And if he puts up any real argument, I have all of Jefferson's, Madison's Adam's And most of Washington's works to back you up....
I love quoting the founders....
Wow, nicely done.
“In God We Trust.”
Will any one do, or it is a specific god that you have in mind?
“E Pluribus Unum”
At this juncture we seem to have a greater portion of the many than the one.
“Liberty”
Now there is one to agree with, Liberty. It is nice to see that you support a woman's right to choose, equal rights for the LGBT community, racial equality etc..
Or is it only your definition of Liberty, if not your foundation is one built on sand.
I know this wasn't addressed to me; but I feel the need to answer.
Any God will do. We have religious freedom (Within reason of course. No human sacrifices, torture of non believers, etc) in this country. Of course one's religious freedom ends where another's begins (and that includes a freedom from religion). Which most tend to forget.
We are a fractured society for sure; and we seem to like it that way. We make it very easy for the politicians, media, and Establishment to keep us divided.
This is going to get tricky.
Personally I believe abortion should only be when the mother's life would be in danger from the birth; or the child will be born with a severe defect that will limit their life, or shorten it (sorry, wrong sex, eye, or hair color do not count). Hopefully I would be smart enough to never put any woman in that position (I hate kids. Sorry to those of you that have them; but I never want one. My parents already cursed me with the "I hope you kids turn out exactly like you. No way am I putting them, or myself, through that.) If I ever made that mistake, I would try to find a woman with very similar views to my own. That is just me, I speak for no one else and hold power over no one else. If a woman wants to get an abortion, that is her right. I just don't want to pay for it in any way shape or form. Nor do I want my money to go to any organization that does. It should be the responsibility of the woman, and man (if there was one), involved in the conception to pay for the abortion.
I have no problem with equal rights for the LGBT community. I don't want special rights for the LGBT community; or any group for that matter. I believe in civil unions for all (Within legal reason. No animals, inanimate objects- no matter how life like, etc). We have freedom of religion in this country, and many places will marry LGBT, if that is their desire. They cannot force any religion that believes the union is a sin to marry them. There needs to be a unified law about civil unions for all that all states must adhere to. They should have equality in adoptions (unless from a religious institution, if it violates their beliefs). We should all have the same work place and individual protections.
Racial equality. All for it. So long as it does not involve preferential treatment based on any race. No quotas. No special privileges. Why should it be a hate crime for for a white person to kill someone of any other race; but not a hate crime when another race kills a white person? We should be all equal under the law. If you believe that blacks are convicted more, and with harsher sentences- then change the sentencing laws to remove judges' discretion. With strict sentencing guidelines it should even things out. Before everyone lashes out- racism does exist; but it exists on all sides. The laws should protect everyone equally.
Thank you, a rather nice response and a quite balanced outlook, in my opinion at least.
Just as you do not want 'your' money to pay for abortions, I do not want 'mine' to pay for religious institutions making decisions based on animus.
Except when voting in which case white trumps all other colors. That is, after all, the abiding "principle" behind creating as many obstacles as the republicans who run the states where this is endemic can muster. To deny this is happening is to admit to gross dishonesty about all the other libertarian platitudes you wrote above.
And on the subject of libertarian platitudes the one about "not having to pay for a medical procedure other people are having" ranks (in all senses of that word) as one of the oiliest. This idea that one should be able to "opt out" of every contractual arrangement, whether private or public (e.g. health insurance or taxation) as if it were a cafeteria is counterfeit citizenship. It's this completely unAmerican idea of the "sovereign citizen." In short, it's ridiculous.
Just wondering, what exactly are people trusting god to do?
Hope it's not protecting anybody, his score isn't real high on that.
The entire premise of this article is wrong -
If indeed there is a Trinity of American Values, those intrinsic American values are
Life
Liberty
The Pursuit of Happiness
From the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I agree, and pretty self explanatory to me...
This may be a little off topic, but here goes. For those here that think it is too much of a stretch to thank God for the rights and liberties you enjoy, try thanking a vet for the sacrifices they made in the past and make daily to ensure you continue to enjoy said rights and liberties instead. A good evening to all.
I do just that on almost a weekly basis. One of my best conservative friends LOVES my cooking and when I feed him I invariably raise a toast to his service.
The "trinity" - , "E Pluribus Unum", "liberty" , and "In God We Trust".
Well, when the country was founded, only white men had status in the society, and were the MAJORITY, maybe not in hard actual numbers, but they were the majority among those who had rights. The right to vote, the right to be free from bondage, in some cases the right to own property etc. So, when the country was founded white men were in a very real sense the majority. In the ensuing years decades and centuries that has changed. Others, beside white men have a full equality in terms of rights. The way I see it that puts a different light on "From the many one". At one point it referred to white men who came from different locations or backgrounds or social status, now it applies to men and women, and whatever is inbetween, and to people of all colors and ethnicity including former slave descendants and the descendants of the indigenous people of this land. So "From the many one" can be seen to have a different imperative than the founders may have realized. Dem's the breaks.
"liberty" will always be a human imperative. Dennis Prager seems to be obsessed with liberty as a rationale for economic exploitation. We have a president now who is most likely a financial criminal. There is substantial evidence that he has defrauded numerous people and governments, which are or should be crimes. When this society gets up off it's ass and puts economic exploiters like Donald Trump out of business and ostracizes them from decent society, then we can talk more fruitfully about "liberty". Liberty should not include the right to behave in a dog eat dog manner when it comes to financial matters. That will never be acceptable, although obviously people often get away with it. So we can't really fairly discuss "liberty".
As for "In God We Trust", anyone who wants to can pray for the country whenever they want. All that prayer would more than meet any requirement God has for the people of this country to trust in Him. It doesnt need to be part of governmental activity.
I've been listening to this Prager jag-off since I cancelled my XM radio subscription and I needed a substitute comedy fix. I listen to a lot of rightwing radio now for that. Prager's show is nothing more than a self serving commercial for himself, his personal interests, and the Alliance Defending Freedom. The only positive thing I can say about him is his masterful ability to shake down the rightwing gullible and ignorant for their money by weaving his and their misinformed viewpoints into a self serving meme that reinforces their ill-conceived notions. I see those faulty memes repeated here daily. I highly recommend listening to xtian conservative radio, for as long as you can stand it, to anyone that wonders where the current state of hate and division comes from in this country. Prager is the imaginary Jewish friend most evangelicals claim to have when they're asked.
When I read crap like this I wonder just how clueless can people get. We're in the midst of a movement in this country that wants to, in effect, establish white, western European culture as THE official dominant political force. I would also add "male" to that formula for a good part of that movement. To apparently not be aware (or, worse, to deliberately try to deflect away) from that reality is a failure of citizenship in the extreme.
We see it everyday here on the board in many many statements just like the one below....
I guess you really really believe this insane bullshite. Sometimes I wonder if there is a future for our country...
The insanity keeps going from bad to worse...
Answer me one question.
When you finally have it all your way, your side has beaten down, destroyed and murdered everyone that disagrees with you. How will you explain how your new absolute power is any different than everyone else's absolute power. I mean those who have held absolute power in history have clearly demonstrated what takes place, and it has never been good..
Your side has to have an enemy to function, who do you go after next? Your version of utopia can never exist in reality. Why?
Cause it consumes itself in it's hate.
So I presume that despite all evidence to the contrary, you are denying that such a movement exists.
You used the term 'your side'. That infers that you relate to the 'side' that Atheist is condemning.
You jumped right in claiming that any opposition to the Alt-right movement must be inherently and overtly violent. That's quite a presumption and quite unfounded.
We have been 'beating' them in the court room and in the 'court of public opinion' for decades. While it is a fact that there have been violent clashes at protests, the most effective method of combating them has been putting them in jail or making them pay a 'civil' price for there actions, whether by loosing their jobs or by ostracizing them as extremists. Many of their 'followers' have walked away from crossing a 'bridge too far'.
Their version of utopia can never exist in America again.
Neither can the liberal sides utopia.
One of the problems is the view that many on both side take is that the other side is populated with nothing but absolutists.
I reject specifically and universally all absolutism.
Nothing is absolute.
Both sides absolutism drives the oppositions absolutist position.
hate begets hate is the point I make....
And is the truth of our situation today.....
And history backs that position up in every instance it has come upon a society....
I can see value in both sides, but that gets buried in the absolutism that everything I believe must be bad cause I disagree with the other sides take on a situation.
Like I've said there are liberals on this board that know this about me. Yes I'm a conservative, Libertarian in fact. and in many minds that automatically discounts my position and that is represented by the hateful spewings of typical dunderfunk....
Take a little time and discuss is a thing that is being lost in the rush to destroy the opposition.
That is the saddest thing of all.
To ignore it is tantamount to encouraging and being an accessory to it.
I disagree. I don't believe that either sides 'absolutists' give a shit whether the other sides 'absolutists' exist or not.
The 'absolutists' on the 'right side' in this scenario would be white supremacists nationalists. Their movement has made it's mark in the last couple of years. Their 'absolutism' is a 'white homeland' here in America.
As a thought experiment, I'd ask, what would be that 'absolutist left's' position against that? I suppose since it has to be 'absolutist' it would be white expulsion. I haven't seen ANYONE calling for that kind of 'absolutism'.
So the left doesn't drive the white supremacists nationalists absolutism. I think we both know what actually does.
I see the same from the other side. Not matter how cogent or factual an argument I make, the 'fraternity' go on the attack. Not an attack on the argument, but an attack on me personally. Even worse, all too often, they're too cowardly to address me to my face so they attack my comment by commenting to one of their buddies and they promptly form a circle jerk.
I'm fortunate to have a group of friends that include some very intelligent and funny conservatives. Having 'kitchen table' debates with them, over a bottle of wine and my famous chili, helps me immeasurably to balance the BS I read here, this seed being a perfect example of said BS.
Seems like we may have some common ground, if we can get past the "Dunderfunk"
thank you for the short but good conversation....
Well thank you for proving my point.....
If I don't agree with your line of thinking I'm aiding your self proclaimed "Enemy" and am someone that needs to be driven out or destroyed like you would wish to do to them.....
Doesn't matter what I really believe, you don't care. The only thing that matters is if I agree with you.
Get a clue, I will not bend a knee to Jefferson's religionist rhetoric, Neither will I to your marxist rhetoric either...
Odd how quick you were to personalize it and go on the defensive. Did you identify with something in that comment or do you think everything revolves around you?
Ah ha, can't win the ideal so take it personal.
Not buying.... Typical debate tactic..... change the focus of the conversation from an ideal to a personal belief...
Nice moving the goal posts moment there...
It's almost as if you're reading some other article and posting responses to that in this one. Incoherence is what I mean, in case you are reading this and not somewhere else.
And then there is the second tactic of someone who has lost the debate.
Insults.....
This is getting funny.... Hilarious in fact...
Wow, with that thin skin of yours you must be bleeding all over the place. But I would also note you're a little (barely) better at giving insults than taking them. I refer to 2.2.7 and 2.2.14 in this thread. Yes, they were lame as hell but you're not above trying them even if they do fall flat.
Admitting that your giving insults is appreciated, but the ability to recognize that your being insulted, the ability to point it out, and the ability to respond in kind isn't any mark of intelligence....
What is, is the ability to laugh at them.......
Recognizing the humor of the situation is a paramount mark of superior intelligence....
Thank you for the complement, I never expected such from you....
This is what you "laughing" looks like in our exchanges.......
I do want to acknowledge yet another one of these "contributions" to trivialization of American founding values and the reduction of them to slogans. It seems that that's as deep as the understanding of this country goes.
Well at least you recognize what your doing.... that's a good thing I guess....
Really? I thought that kind of comment was below you.
Since it obviously isn't, please cite which of Atheists' comments was a "trivialization of American founding values and the reduction of them to slogans." Please be specific.
All of them, is that specific enough for you?
Just as I consider most of the liberal side's point of view as irrational racist rantings with a barely concealed ulterior motive.
And guess what?
That is exactly the mantra that your side puts out every day here towards people you disagree with...
But there are some Liberal persons opinions here I respect.
Unfortunately not many anymore cause many have left the site cause the trash got too deep, the same reason many of the conservative members with intelligence have left the site.
The same reason I have taken extended sabbaticals away from the site...
The blind mindless hateful drivel just gets too deep to wade through sometimes...
Yet you seem to be adding to it with comments like this:
I try to view each member's POV independently. I've seen the 'cliques' that have formed and that there are enablers that cheer no matter what the content of a seed or comment. Yet I recognize that there are a few conservatives here that actually make a concerted attempt at making cogent arguments and some are even willing to debate with comity. I had thought you were one of them. I stand corrected.
The vast majority of my comments are based on interjecting facts into the discussion and on debunking BS. Most of the pushback that I get is from those that are ill informed and would rather believe what they believe, than accept those facts. Rarely do they debate the facts, almost invariably they devolve to attacking me personally and/or trying to dismiss those FACTS based solely on the fact that a liberal posted them. All too many post emojis as their most cogent contribution. Even worse, I have found myself using emojis rather than words far too often lately.
There are those here, like the seeder, who can not be swayed with facts or truths. There are others that will actually READ and LISTEN to facts and may even alter their POV, even if by just a degree. It's those degrees that I find encouraging.
Well facts are relevant to only a few.
I post facts that destroy a position takes and I've been subject to the insults and drive by targeting that you seem to hate.
Facts are facts. and as long as I post facts, and others want to discount those facts for their ideals or ideological beliefs.
Then there is nothing to discuss....
I will allow those to live in their fantasy world of their beliefs. Until I get tired of the ignorance and take a vacation cause it just isn't worth it anymore...
I hit both side for their blatant falsities equally.
Truth should win the day, unfortunately it is being ignored or twisted to suit a particular political belief. History will repeat itself that is the supreme lesson of history...
Why?
Cause most are too stupid to realize that it is about working together and accounting for all rather than their small limited view.
I find it more and more difficult to find anyone with an open mind in today's society...
Those who are open are few and far between.
There are those that will not be swayed by anything. can you agree that there are just as many on the liberal side as there are on the conservative side?
To me it doesn't matter which side they belong to, they are the brain dead, there is no hope for them....
You really should find an editor to go over your work before you slap it up here.
Delusional, that is. But I do love your moniker.
Outwardly perhaps, but ideologically, no. As I've quoted here many times, Buckley said 'A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'
Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, having lost the argument against 'modernity' and secularism, are now yelling 'GO BACK!'
Many if not most liberals accept science and are willing to recognize the painful facts about our nations history and CAN be swayed, especially by new facts and scientific truths.
In my experience here, most of the conservatives deny the evidence of both. I find it hard to believe that some of the conservatives here that are smart enough to know better, still tow the 'party line'.
What I find even harder to believe is that after decades of claiming to be the party of the 'moral majority and family values', they've abandoned those values for Trump's ideology.
I know this isn't universal with conservatives, not because of the members here, but because almost every one in my circle of conservative friends assure me that they were 'never Trump' and are just as disgusted as I am by him.
One of my buds that did vote for Trump told me after the Kavanaugh confirmation that 'pro-life' judges was the 'deal' they made with Trump and that he thought that the GOP and evangelicals would pay dearly for that 'deal'. He's now a Trump apostate.
I don't tow any party line. I rejected "party" over 20 years ago when the republicans got to radical and lost their way. And 30 years before that I did the same with the Democrat party.
Anyone holding to party line today is nothing but a radical in my book. Science means nothing to them unless it agrees with their ideology. Or, in the alternative, science is a tool used to advance their ideology.
My experience with radicals is if they cannot refute what your saying, they resort to insults and bullying tactics to shout you down....
There are many here that automatically do that as we are witnessing right here in this commentary....
I'm willing to talk with anyone, problem is not many are willing to listen to anything except what they want to hear.....
That, is the real apostasy.....
Can't win the debate, crush kill and destroy.....
A very sad state of affairs in our society....
The one thing I see in our society? The citizens are coming to a conclusion of which way they wish to go.... and the absolutists are becoming more and more afraid that their utopian ideals are going to swept away.....
T-rump was elected simply because he was an outsider, not beholden to either side....
Was he the right choice? given the political environment, absolutely given his personal political leanings a horrible choice. But he was the lesser of two evils.
That is a good thing.....
There is still hope for the body politic in this country...
Thanks for admitting it was just a BS move.
In your, (very jaded) opinion....
But it's nice to see that you will wait until a few weeks pass and get the last word in where you can't respond intelligently.....
I guess that is one way to attain the appearance of winning the debate.....
Albeit a very cheap and weak way...
Why not join us, then?
Did I miss something about there being a statute of limitations for commenting on a still-open article? It seems you need an apology for my embarrassing you by pointing out all the egregiously and demonstrably false statements you made about Jefferson. I hereby apologize for all the embarrassment I've caused up to this point. But, I will not apologize again if you persist in the falsehoods.
YOU embarrassed me?
You really love telling jokes I see...
Egregious and demonstrably false statement about Jefferson?
I only quoted Jefferson's own words, so I guess your saying Jefferson was lying about himself? (I even posted links to his exact words)
The only embarrassment you have caused is to yourself....
And then "interpreted" (read: "bent") them all out of shape to fit your belief system. Case in point: Jefferson said he was Christian only in the sense that he tried to follow the teachings of Jesus not because he thought Jesus was any kind of divinity or the "son" of one. You claimed that made him one when, of course, that would not have met the criterion for any Christian of his day (and most of them still) that he was a real Christian.
Do you know what speculation means?
I posted what he actually said, you interpret them to mean what you want them to, so do I. so have many, which I have copiously pointed out to other respondents. You just do not wish to accept the truth that your not right, that no one is right when speculating about Jefferson's religious beliefs...
The one thing I am absolutely right about is that many others wish to usurp his beliefs to lend credence to their own....
It's one heck of a legacy to have left behind that everyone wants to twist his religious ideals into being theirs....
Even those that don't believe in any "God"
That's funnier than claiming there is a "Hell"
Clearly not but adeptness at it certainly is.
Lost the debate again.....
Re: 15.1.15, above: Q.E.D.
Very true on your side also...
"and never the twain shall meet" -Rudyard Kipling
How childish.....
Simple, it really boils down to one thing, wealth. Green is god.
HA must think this repetitive ploy of his, i.e., to cite all the platitudes associated with this country that get violated by reality almost daily by the political and religious elements he espouses, will divert our attention away from the outrages. It must be frustrating that it fails to do what he hopes for it--every time.
This sentence has nothing whatsoever to do with the founding the nation. It first appeared on the 2-cent* coin in 1864 and was not adopted as one of the official mottoes of the country until 1956 as part of the hysteria of anti-communism. The founders, particularly Jefferson--one of the names this HA has co-opted--would have been particularly aghast at the idea that there was a god that could be trusted since his core belief was that whatever created the universe, it certainly played no part in it after that creation.
* which I really enjoy because that's about what the sentiment is worth.