1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Hyphen

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by 2 Timothy2:1-4, May 22, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Come on, Rufus. You;re better than that.
     
  2. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    :rolleyes: Wow, I thought I had seen everything. HUAC, and McCarthy especially, paid little attention to the notion of personal liberty and freedom. HUAC was unconstitutional and UNAmerican more so than any of the people they illegally interrogated. I sure hope you are not one of the people so against hate crimes Rufus. If you mistakenly believe they somehow encroach upon your religious convictions then technically you have no leg to stand on. If McCarthy and HUAC were right, then the government has a right to supress any thoughts they deem damaging to the USA, and at the moment intolerance is deemed damaging to the well being of this US of A......
     
    #42 Filmproducer, May 25, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2007
  3. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    Yeah, McCarthy was right, and everyone is out to get us. After all, we're the good guys, and everyone else just hates our 'freedom'.

    What I don't understand about all this, is if it is so wrong for these Mexicans in the quote to want back the land that was originally theirs, then why was it right for us to take it in the first place?
    Do you even read the points that were made in that quote? We went around the world with this "manifest destiny" concept (made up by wresting the scriptures beyond recognition!), taking everything in sight, and now that we have it all we have the nerve to scream that everyone is trying to take something from us!

    Were God's commandments (such as not to steal) and His mission to Christians (to spread the Gospel, not conquer lands militarily) suspended for a few centuries, and only now reinstituted once we have taken everything, and people try to take it back?

    So this is why we had the paranoia of McCarthyism (while racism towards Americans descended from those captured usually accompanied the same "pro-America" movements. And we wonder why it seemed like everyone hated us, and people started hyphenating themselves? They were never even completely accepted by "America"!) And it is also why people are so into guns today. We sense deep down inside that we've 'got something coming' to us for all we've done to everyone.

    But as Christians, it is not joining in with America's fear of judgement by men we should be engaging in. We should be thinking more about God's judgement, and whether our first love is really Him, and not our own power in the world. People ask iwhy a hypnenated person is their old country first, before American; well, we should ask if we are Americans first before Christians! It seems many are, or they think the two labels are synonymous.
     
    #43 Eric B, May 25, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2007
  4. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Mccarthy was afraid that Hollywood was becoming a platform for the promotion of moral decay, & socialist values.

    Boy, what a dope he turned out to be.
     
  5. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am one of the people against hate crimes. They are the pinnacle of injustice in America or any nation that engages in this type of legislation. All crime against persons or property is hateful and we don't need add'l legislation to restrict thought or restrict what people say. Further, this is a scheme of the bad guys to feminize men, keep people from preaching against sin and basically control what people can or cannot say or think.

    Of the people that McCarthy accused of being communists, which were not?

    McCarthy and HUAC were not engaged in determining people's thoughts but determining people's associations and allegiances. We can't exactly maintain a free Constitutional Republic if Socialists and Communists start running the show. If they did so through the propaganda of movies and news how would we know that this country had been overrun? It was HUAC that led to the identification and prosecution of the communist Alger Hiss who was a key player in getting the state department to yoke up with the United Nations. If you start connecting the dots you will conclude that the UN is a communist entity and the United States personnel that are supporting this entity are likewise Communistic or Socialistic in their ideology. Then connect the dots that key players on the HUAC like Nixon and McCarthy, who were responsible for identifying these traitors, are now bad words even though they were right. You can see additional signs when you see that it is acceptable for teenagers to wear a hammer and sickle to public schools or a Che' Gueverra t-shirt but wear something with a CSA flag to school and they're going to confiscate it. Then you can start to recognize that just maybe, this nation is no longer a Constitutional Republic and some other ideology is running the ship.
     
  6. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0

    :laugh: .....
     
  7. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    I won't even give you an argument that it was right as there are some very questionable moral decisions which led to certain aspects of the creation, sustaining and expansion of this country. However, this country, with its bill of rights, was a gift from God and led to enormous missionary work to the world and I thus consider it to have been a blessing from God. The borders of this country have been established and recognized by all nations. The laws of this country have been established and agreed upon. Now a foreign entity wants to realign the borders of this country and establish an ideology inconsistent with a Constitutional Republic and, if allowed, will lead to the elimination of whatever is left of the Bill of Rights. What would you have us do? Do we give up on this blessing and say thanks God but we don't desire to defend it any longer? Or do we all return to our first part of the hyphen, countries of origin? In which case do the Mexicans need to go home and we leave the land to whoever is left of the Apaches, Cherokees, Komanchees etc?

    It is not paranoia if it is true. Who is "us" in your example? Do they hate non-hyphenated Americans? I know Germans, Czechs, Africans, and Latinos who do not go for this hyphenated nonsense. Do the hyphenated ones, just hate the non-hyphenated ones that consider themselves Americans or is this a skin tone thing?

    Well, there are temporal concerns and heavenly concerns and while we are on Earth, we've been called to be stewards, take dominion etc. and then there are aspects such as thou shalt not steal. If one should not steal, then this means one is allowed to own. I would like to own and not have a foreign invasion force steal from me. I don't think holding to this principle is a bad thing but perhaps I am off.

    Certainly I desire the better country, but I still have to live in this one for now...
    "But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city." - Hebrews 11:6
     
  8. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    A most excellent post, Rufus.:thumbs:
     
  9. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    What a brainwash job they did on you.
     
  10. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
     
  11. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    So the end justifies the means, because it benefitted us.
    There has been a lot of evil that God may have used, or otherwise played into some aspect of His will, but the people responsible are still held accoutable for their evil. We brush that off, proclaim ourselves "good", and then focus on the "evil" of those reacting against the sins of the past. On the other hand, we tell others who have faced suffering, including political conquest (such as those who became "Christian" because of it) that God uses these things for good, and people should be "content" in whatever situation they are in. So if that's true, then do you think God could have used a Communist takeover for good? No, not us; at least not the good Christians (Of course, the non-Christian modern generation of America is said to "deserve" 9-11 and Katrina as judgments of God; but never Communists or Arabs taking over the good ol Christians!) Forget that God allowed the Romans to dominate over both Israel and the early Christians. But we self-righteousely screamed about the Communists as if they were the devil in person overthrowing the Kingdom of God. All that stuff about God allowing adversity for good and being content went right out the window, when it was our comfort and power on the line!
    Nobody's saying we should give it back. At least that's not what I and others who debate this here are saying. It's all about the attitude. We cannot even understand why those people would want to do such a thing! It's like How dare they! We're the good guys, and stealing from us is wrong.

    But then the justifications you are using here are pure relativism, and situational ethics! We condemn this when the immoral non-Christians/liberals say this type of stuff. So why do we use the same excuse in the historical area of politics? "that was the times then, but now it is different". It is the same as the abortionists, homosexuals, and people wanting God abolished saying "well, Christian morality served its purpose back then; the situtation has changed now, so we shouldn't have to follow that stuff anymore".
    So again; God's commandments and Commission were suspended until modern boundaries, laws and constitutions were established and "recognized" by others (and this done primarily by the conquering peoples around the world!) So that handily gave people the license to take from others, and declare it is wrong for anyone to take back from them! Situational ethics, squarely in our favor! Do you all really think this stuff will pass by God?

    Again, noone here is telling you to give everything back to everyone; but it's our guilty collective conscience that has made us so fearful that everyone is trying to take it back from us. Because regardless of all the rationale we use, we know if we are guided by God's Law, then if it was wrong for them; it was wrong for us, and if we are instead just as fallen and sinful as everyone else, and living like animals in a jungle, then if it was excusable for us, then it is just as excusable for them. So we need to make up our mind and choose whether we are guided by God's Law or animalistic survival, and not try to have it both ways when it suits us (all while complaining about everyone else's error/reaction to us!)
    OK, then answer me this: Do others have these same rights? Did other people in other times have these same rights? Or do only Americans, and perhaps other Westerners have this right, and it is God who calls us to do all the "taking dominion", and others are required to comply and not react? Does "thou shall not steal" mean WE are allowed to own only, but is otherwise waived for us? Does it mean others must allow us to own, but they themselves are not protected by it?
    If so, where in scripture is this, and remember, it must be in context. (We are in the NT, and cannot emulate everything done in the OT).

    This is the issue. Not that you must give everything back. But that we only think about ourselves and our rights, and never the other person's.
    Who are we talking about? Who are you complaining that all of these other people (Communists, Mexicans, etc) are trying to take something from?
    No, I've never heard anyone who uses a hypen hating anyone who does not. I don't hear people talk much of it at all. Now we've created yet another division: the hypens and the non-hyphens. But it's all semantics. People use different names and titles, interchangeably.
    But question, do people who complain about the hypenation accept those people as Americans, or do they look on them as "aliens" who should go back to where they came from? If they do, then they have a lot of nerve complaining about some of them considerng themselves something other than "American", and should worry about that, instead of what someone else does.
    My point on that, was that we pointed so much at the evil of Communism, with all its "oppression", and also the "social decay" of the upcoming generation; while the same people leading this fight were also the most insistent on oppressing people in America because of their skin or nationality. In fact, the two issues became so intertwined, this is what gave the Communists the occasion to get involved in the civil rights movement --which then simply gave the conservatives the ultimate excuse to oppose civil rights and fight for the status quo of oppression!
    How did you all expect a society that allowed stuff like that to not "morally decay"? It was already decayed; only people were selective about which Commandments they wanted to break. Just what James is addressing; adultery was wrong, but murder (and robbery) of others (which according to Jesus is more than a literal act of killing, but certainly involved that too) was somehow right. Much of the very rebellion and turning to Communism and abandoning morality was a reaction of that generation against the utter hypocrisy of their parents! "You all act like there is no God, so then God must not be real, and if you don't do what the Bible says, why whould we obey any of it"?
    "They" who? The big bad boogeyman, again, right? After all, it's all about us and our goodness and others' badness; and "they" are never right about anything, and only oppose us on every point just because we are right; so anything ever said negative about us, is "brainwashing", right? That's the attitude I sense here! And that is my criticism of "paranoia" (McCarthy and everyone else following his mindset). It's all about "them"; a nebulous entity trying to do something to US, if nothing more than sling mud at us, and take away our claim to rightness. Who are we to think so much of ourselves?

    Actually; I had said alot of stuff there, and as far as the negative stuff about our past; even Rufus acknowledged that. Is he "brainwashed" too? (Or he isn't because he thinks it's justified?) I also gave scripture, about God's Commandments, and what His Commission to us is. Is that brainwashing too? If you think so, then that answers my earlier question; and America is our first love, and not God and His Word, which declares "ALL under sin".
     
    #51 Eric B, May 25, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2007
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed notes the word "non-hyphenated" has a hyphen in it :smilewinkgrin:
     
  13. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed, you have a good sense of humor!
     
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just think of me as a laughing-American :laugh:
     
  15. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    Hate crimes do not restrict thought, they restrict CRIMINAL activity. Paranoid much?

    If you are not participating in criminal activity then you have nothing to worry about. If you go and purposefully instigate a disturbance of the peace, as the “street preachers” in Philly you can expect to be arrested for a CRIMINAL activity. The street preachers had a right to think and say what they liked. They did not have a right to attend a permitted event and harass the attendees. They were asked to leave and they would not. Law enforcement had a right to remove them from the premises as whatever organization hosting the event had sought and paid for permits to hold the event in the first place. Again, you can think and say whatever you like. For that matter you are free to do whatever you like, but that does not mean you will not reap the consequences for your actions. If in saying whatever you like you break the law you can expect punishment. Hate crimes deal specifically with CRIMINAL activity and have NOTHING to do with freedom of thought.
     
  16. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    • David Demarest Lloyd a speech writer for Pres. Truman,
    • John Service a State Dept. employee was cleared of ANY wrongdoing prior to McCarthy’s witch hunt
    • President Truman and members of his Democratic administration, George Marshall and Dean Acheson, were falsely accused of being soft on communism
    • William Benton, Connecticut Senator and owner of the Encyclopedia Brittanica
    • Professor Owen Lattimore director of the Walter Hines Page School of International Relations at John Hopkins was McCarthy’s accused infamous Mr. X the top Russian Spy, you know the one where McCarthy had to backtrack and admit he was wrong
    • Drew Pearson, who McCarthy only went after because he was giving him a bad name in the media
    • Robert Stevens, the Secretary of the Army
    Would you like me to continue? BTW, what do you think of your hero being an alcoholic homosexual? Seems kinda contrary to your inate religious convictions. Why would you garner support for such a man?
     
  17. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Which kind? Funny - laughing, facetious - laughing, or sarcastic - laughing.

    Hmm, which one is the majority and minority? Then what does that make the one in the middle?:confused:
     
    #57 Salty, May 28, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 28, 2007
  18. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    Right and the first amendment must mean nothing to you…..

    McCarthy was a blowhard that was recognized for what he truly was as soon as his ridiculous trials were televised. Did you know that the original chairman of HUAC was a staunch KKK supporter, (Martin Dies), as were many of its members? John S. Wood even came out and publicly claimed “The threats and intimidations of the Klan are an old American custom, like illegal whisky-making." :eek: My favorite is the telegram that the grand master of the KKK sent to Dies upon the formation of HUAC….

    Yes, this is truly a group all Americans young and old should look up to. :rolleyes: Oh, for your reading enjoyment, here is McCarthy’s censure in 1954.

     
    #58 Filmproducer, May 28, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 28, 2007
  19. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Philly street preachers had a legal right to be on the streets of Philly. They got in trouble because they did not think or express the same message as the sodomites thought and expressed. If they had gone down to Philly and acted as perverts, the law would've left them alone. However, since they sang hymns and preached the gospel they were arrested. Being able to think and say anything you want with the opportunity to go to jail is not freedom, unless you believe jail enhances this condition? Btw, the courts found this to be the case as well since the judge dismissed the charges.
     
  20. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    They used bullhorns to "preach" to people who were not going to listen in the first place. Not to mention the fact that the other group had paid the city for a permit to hold their event. The people at the event began screaming and yelling at the street "preachers" who yelled and screamed back. Who do you think the police were going to arrest? Obviously the ones who created a disturbance that would not have happened if they had not been there in the first place, and not the ones who had a permit to be there in the first place.....

    Again they were NOT arrested for their speech or thoughts, but rather the DISTURBANCE they created with their thoughts and speech. Kinda like that pesky ruling of the SCOTUS that goes something like "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater"....
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...