Comment: Mutual sense of sarcasm duly noted.

(See in situ)


Mutual sense of sarcasm duly noted.

Politeness tends to get in the way of honesty, so you'll excuse me if I tend to come up short in this department. I have a little bit of Lakota Sioux on my mother's side, but your lineage to Mark Anthony is more of an issue for my predominantly Celtic ancestry, but I'm not in the business of dwelling upon that stuff unless others bring it up, which you did in your initial post, hence my reaction. Call it me being allergic to being patronized if you like.

You used a lot of generalized language in your first post, I was disassociating the early colonists from the Unionist Yanks and Virginian Anglicans who began taking over the narrative in the 19th century, hence making a distinction between another part of America as a whole (which you lumped everybody into in order to defend Israel's murderous policies in Palestine) and the groups you cited. The ditz label came in because these appeals are hopelessly cliche and also reek of P.C. revisionist history rather than a studious and nuanced reading of American history.

Secondly, you can qualify pretty much any Holy War as either a Mercantile War or the prerogative Bankers War when breaking down the nature of either the secular or church government. As for the crusades, for example, have you ever heard of the Vatican Bank? And for a secular counterpart, I'm sure you're aware of the manipulation of the markets that went on during the Napoleonic Wars via the Rothschild family, right?

Thirdly, your sentiments are a cop-out and not in keeping with basic logic. If groups A, B, and C are arguing completely contradictory points about the same object, only one of them could be accurate, while the other 2 or potentially all 3 are necessarily false. Islam and Judaism (along with Pentecostal Oneness and Unitarian groups) argue that Christ is a created being, similar to Plato's demiurge, whereas Christian orthodoxy stresses a union of hypostasis between the persons of the Father and The Son. They are not the same god, they do not share the same definitive nature, and using the same prophetic figures to argue different versions does not change this. This isn't a matter of tolerating differences, this is a matter of recognizing very clear differences, thus revealing why there is strife in these situations. QED.

And finally, that is not what "I believe", that is the Gospel message as it has been handed down for thousands of years. And as to the topic of LIBERTY, our good friend Granger seems to love the LIBERTY that Sunni terrorists in Syria exercise by burning down churches, and she exercises her LIBERTY by supporting candidates who have supported that LIBERTY being on display in Iraq and hope to continue it in Iran, Pakistan, and many more places. LIBERTY without MORALITY and REASON is a highly overrated concept, and following the golden rule while divorcing the proper Love of God and his laws that go with it will likely result in neighbors loving each other in violent ways.

Oh, and if Jesus was the perfect libertarian (I think he was, by the way), would that also apply to him forcefully removing corrupt moneychangers from the temple? Sounds like he was being a bit too hard on those bankers that you are feeling so sorry for right now, eh?

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton