Confederate flags again

[rogue06]

I answered above.

Past positions is a counterproductive argument. I have not denied that the Dems supported slavery, Jim Crow, and lynching.

Yet each of those policies happened in a Cjristian culture

And yet again you are intentionally avoiding my point that

You seem to have left out for some reason that Christianity was responsible for ending slavery in the parts of the world that they are dominant in or controlled.

I mean if you're gonna avoid it at least make it look like you're addressing it or just ignore it all together.

[simplicio]

And yet again you are intentionally avoiding my point that

I mean if you're gonna avoid it at least make it look like you're addressing it or just ignore it all together.

Okay. Why did Wilberforce hage to work hard to end slave trading in the British Isles? Answer, because enough Christians saw it as appropriate.

Do you think that Christians stood alone against slavery? Thomas Paine, author of Age of Reason, argued strongly against slavery.

Sparko made the argument that the Dems supported slavery, noting that blacks today overwhelmingly support the Dem party. And I am arguing that the same blacks also are Christians, taking the faith of those who supported slavery, Jim crow, and lynching.

Christianity was just as responsible for the atrocity of slavery and racism as it is responsible the abolition of slavery. Christianity, and Jesus, seems to depend on the actions of individual Christians. After Christians did abolish slavery with the civil war, the same Christians made significant progress on civil rights, until the coercive force of,the federal government withdrew. Then it was Christians who proceeded to roll back the gains made under Reconstruction.

[Sparko]

Okay. Why did Wilberforce hage to work hard to end slave trading in the British Isles? Answer, because enough Christians saw it as appropriate.

Do you think that Christians stood alone against slavery? Thomas Paine, author of Age of Reason, argued strongly against slavery.

Sparko made the argument that the Dems supported slavery, noting that blacks today overwhelmingly support the Dem party. And I am arguing that the same blacks also are Christians, taking the faith of those who supported slavery, Jim crow, and lynching.

Christianity was just as responsible for the atrocity of slavery and racism as it is responsible the abolition of slavery. Christianity, and Jesus, seems to depend on the actions of individual Christians. After Christians did abolish slavery with the civil war, the same Christians made significant progress on civil rights, until the coercive force of,the federal government withdrew. Then it was Christians who proceeded to roll back the gains made under Reconstruction.

Completely different things. Any Christians that supported enslaving blacks would not be following what Christianity teaches. Heck we had Mafia mobsters that claimed to be "Christian" but went around murdering people. You can't blame Christianity for that.

But any democrat who supported slavery would be following the party's official stance of supporting slavery.

[simplicio]

Completely different things. Any Christians that supported enslaving blacks would not be following what Christianity teaches. Heck we had Mafia mobsters that claimed to be "Christian" but went around murdering people. You can't blame Christianity for that.

But any democrat who supported slavery would be following the party's official stance of supporting slavery.

I am not blaming Christianity for such things. On the contrary, I recognize that people's ideas are influenced by the culture, the surrounding society.

The Dem monolithic started to crack just when Jim Crow reached its height, the leadership of the NAACP such WEB Dubois got behind Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was Democrat. He was a southerner and a product of southern heritage.

Many saw the Republicans as unwilling to tackle the so called black causes.

Do we attribute the racism of Wilson (and many black supporters felt betrayed) to being a Dem, being a product of southern culture, or being a Christian?

Each time a Christian sins, he is not following the teachings on the faith. I wonder if there are many sinless Christians around!

[Sparko]

I am not blaming Christianity for such things. On the contrary, I recognize that people's ideas are influenced by the culture, the surrounding society.

The Dem monolithic started to crack just when Jim Crow reached its height, the leadership of the NAACP such WEB Dubois got behind Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was Democrat. He was a southerner and a product of southern heritage.

Many saw the Republicans as unwilling to tackle the so called black causes.

Do we attribute the racism of Wilson (and many black supporters felt betrayed) to being a Dem, being a product of southern culture, or being a Christian?

Each time a Christian sins, he is not following the teachings on the faith. I wonder if there are many sinless Christians around!

So you are admitting your comparison was a complete non-sequitur?

Yes the Democrats are not for chattel slavery any longer. Now they are more subtle in their power grabs. They want everyone, not just blacks, dependent on government, and in particular the Democrats and Socialists. If your life depends on getting a welfare check and food stamps every month, you will continue to vote for the party that is supplying them to you. You are in their debt. They are your master. And they like it that way.

[shunyadragon]

So you are admitting your comparison was a complete non-sequitur?

Yes the Democrats are not for chattel slavery any longer.

The Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party of the South that chose secession in the support of the right to own slaves. It is the Republican Party of the South that enherets that mantle and hates Lincoln, and worships Trump.

[simplicio]

So you are admitting your comparison was a complete non-sequitur?

Yes the Democrats are not for chattel slavery any longer. Now they are more subtle in their power grabs. They want everyone, not just blacks, dependent on government, and in particular the Democrats and Socialists. If your life depends on getting a welfare check and food stamps every month, you will continue to vote for the party that is supplying them to you. You are in their debt. They are your master. And they like it that way.

No, I do not see it as a non sequitur.

The sins of the past may indeed follow down the generations, but that raises the question of where the Republicans stood on the issues. They managed to lose support of blacks because of resistance to change.

Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal workforce, and curiously writers point to the fact that Wilson was a southerner, rather than a Democrat. And no one denies that he was a racist, accepted racist ideas and implemented racist policies. Wilson was a Christian, southerner, and a Democrat.

Southern Baptists, Southern Methodists, and many other groups split off over slavery, and came pretty late to the game when it comes to equal dignity for blacks. What pronouncements should we make on those groups? How many Christians appealed to the Bible in support of their segregationist views? Appealing to the Bible is the ultimate appeal to authority, and so not necessarily a rhetorical fallacy.

Farming is one industry which is heavily dependent on government payments. Few farmers think they are beholden to Democrats, most vote GOP. And few would really agree that the politicians are their masters.

And the churches with a heavy emphasis on corporal works of mercy are not masters who force dependency on subject peoples through the use of the soup kitchen.

Maybe there is a flaw in your argument.

[Leonhard]

Christian charity is voluntary help by people to help other people get back on their feet and provide for themselves.

And what if they can't? Say a coal mine closes down, and the people there weren't wise enough to save up for a moving day, so now they're stuck in a town with no jobs. Should they all starve?

What about a person who gets injured and is incapable of working? Does he have to live on the hope and chance that there's a soup kitchen nearby?

Liberal "charity" is stealing money from people who they think have too much to keep poor people dependent on them for life. That way they make everyone equally poor and dependent on the government (read Democrats) for their income, healthcare, food, etc.

And yes Denmark has an even lower unemployment rate than the US, and it has a very strong welfare system. So this statement, at least on its own, is factually wrong.

[rogue06]

And what if they can't? Say a coal mine closes down, and the people there weren't wise enough to save up for a moving day, so now they're stuck in a town with no jobs. Should they all starve?

What about a person who gets injured and is incapable of working? Does he have to live on the hope and chance that there's a soup kitchen nearby?



And yes Denmark has an even lower unemployment rate than the US, and it has a very strong welfare system. So this statement, at least on its own, is factually wrong.

During the last recession after the government kept extending the time you could remain on Unemployment it was noticed that folks tended to stay on it longer, waiting until the last month or two to even start looking for another job.

[Leonhard]

During the last recession after the government kept extending the time you could remain on Unemployment it was noticed that folks tended to stay on it longer, waiting until the last month or two to even start looking for another job.

And I wonder if there's a cultural component to it, or why that is. In Denmark*, we have a person called Dovne Robert (Lazy Robert). He was on welfare and publically declared that it was because he didn't want to work. Danish people of course were outraged at him for being lazy, and he earned that new nickname, but beyond that we didn't change anything.

There aren't many of that in our system. And I wonder whether its because we have a better mentality with regards to work, or whether we have better opportunities, or just better systems at work to help people get into jobs.

Could just be cultural, because I have a hard time imagining people who don't want a job. Those years after college when I was struggling I definitely don't want to go back to.

[rogue06]

And I wonder if there's a cultural component to it, or why that is. In Denmark*, we have a person called Dovne Robert (Lazy Robert). He was on welfare and publically declared that it was because he didn't want to work. Danish people of course were outraged at him for being lazy, and he earned that new nickname, but beyond that we didn't change anything.

There aren't many of that in our system. And I wonder whether its because we have a better mentality with regards to work, or whether we have better opportunities, or just better systems at work to help people get into jobs.

Could just be cultural, because I have a hard time imagining people who don't want a job. Those years after college when I was struggling I definitely don't want to go back to.

I had a co-worker who's sister mocked her as "stupid" for getting a job rather than collecting nearly as much sitting at home, watching TV and getting high. Of course, you can't get promoted when you're on welfare, food stamps etc. and this woman ended up getting another job that paid at least $2 or $3 more an hour.

[Sparko]

And what if they can't? Say a coal mine closes down, and the people there weren't wise enough to save up for a moving day, so now they're stuck in a town with no jobs. Should they all starve?

What about a person who gets injured and is incapable of working? Does he have to live on the hope and chance that there's a soup kitchen nearby?



And yes Denmark has an even lower unemployment rate than the US, and it has a very strong welfare system. So this statement, at least on its own, is factually wrong.

If a person CAN'T work, that is a different story. I have no problem with disability welfare for those who can't work. Anyone who CAN work and doesn't is what I am talking about. With unemployment at 3.5%, there is no excuse for not finding a job. As for towns like you mention above, a coal town? That is exactly the situation back where my father comes from. Obama shut down most of the coal mines. But people adapted. They either moved away, or found other work eventually. The town is still there. Yes, there are a lot of people there on welfare and a lot who could be working and don't.

For those people I will let Paul speak:

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

[oxmixmudd]

If a person CAN'T work, that is a different story. I have no problem with disability welfare for those who can't work. Anyone who CAN work and doesn't is what I am talking about. With unemployment at 3.5%, there is no excuse for not finding a job. As for towns like you mention above, a coal town? That is exactly the situation back where my father comes from. Obama shut down most of the coal mines. But people adapted. They either moved away, or found other work eventually. The town is still there. Yes, there are a lot of people there on welfare and a lot who could be working and don't.

For those people I will let Paul speak:

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

How do you define 'can work'. Is a person whose job skills only a apply to an industry the government has destroyed a person who 'can work'? Does a government that has destroyed an industry through regulation, even if the regulations are justified, have a responsibility to help those whose livelihoods it has destroyed, say through retraining and/or by working with the local economy to help it find other ways of being productive?

[Sparko]

How do you define 'can work'. Is a person whose job skills only a apply to an industry the government has destroyed a person who 'can work'?

By "can work" I mean "able to work" - no physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working.

People can learn new trades. They do it all the time. I have gone through a few changes in career myself over the years. And I have had a few unskilled jobs when I was laid off and couldn't find work in my career field and when I was in school learning a new one.

[oxmixmudd]

By "can work" I mean "able to work" - no physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working.

People can learn new trades. They do it all the time. I have gone through a few changes in career myself over the years. And I have had a few unskilled jobs when I was laid off and couldn't find work in my career field and when I was in school learning a new one.

Sparko - why did you cut the rest of the content of my post?

... Does a government that has destroyed an industry through regulation, even if the regulations are justified, have a responsibility to help those whose livelihoods it has destroyed, say through retraining and/or by working with the local economy to help it find other ways of being productive?

That is a VERY important part of the post. I'm not just asking about hard times. I'm asking about government induced hardship without any sort of compensation. Pulling that out of your response answers a very different question than the one I asked.