| Subject: Re: Debate? |
| From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> |
| Date: 6/10/10, 04:01 |
| To: Writeatlas@aol.com |
Perhaps you'd be interested in addressing these questions about Israel's ridiculous claims?http://trueslant.com/barrettbrown/2010/06/01/turks-develop-magical-powers-once-exclusive-to-arabs/--
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:Pam-It doesn't sound like we're in too much disagreement here aside from your nonsensical assertions about my critical thinking and writing skills; I don't think you would acknowledge any positive aspect of anyone with whom you disagree on issues you find important, which is a sign of a tribalist mentality. I would suggest that you engage in a little introspection. Here's a question to get you going: are there any intelligent people who disagree with you about, say, whether the Republicans are superior to the Democrats in terms of their ability to govern the United States in a fashion that is good for the United States? Another follow-up question: Do you think that I am an intelligent and well-meaning person, based on the little you know about me? Also, to save time, I am by no means a Democrat, although my views do coincide with those of liberals in such matters as the rights of adult American citizens to participate in contracts with each other if they decide to do so (whereas of course many of your allies would prefer that the state step in and deny this right to the citizenry by way of such things as the Federal Marriage Amendment and of course anti-sodomy laws; it is adorable that such people consider themselves to be the last great bulwark against statism, and similarly adorable that they don't seem to understand why so many people who actually advocate liberty will nonetheless have nothing to do with them).Anyway, I'm surprised at your assertion regarding the Founders supposedly having been concerned with the states engaging in conflict with each other over religious matters. Is there a particular letter or speech or other expressed opinion on the part of any of these Founders that would support your theory? Based on what I've read of their correspondence among each other, I've come to the conclusion that most of the Founders simply did not trust present and future populations to hold back on their historical impulse to have the government enforce religious belief, whether of the general or specific sorts. Their distrust was well-placed, as today there are of course tens of millions of Americans who believe that atheists and agnostics should not be allowed to serve in public office, and of course there are actually laws on the books in some states that officially prevent them from doing so. Moreover, there are tends of millions of Americans who wish this country to be officially Christian, and who also wish the state to enforce aspects of their own religious dictates just as it often has in the past; the folks who backed Prohibition would have found strong allies among the fascist Muslims who enforce the same laws in many of their own countries. And those who successfully made it illegal and punishable by way of prison to advocate birth control, or to operate a certain sort of business on a weekly religious day of rest, or to sell pictures of nude women, or to distribute certain books - those people would have found themselves in quite a coalition if this country had had a sizable number of Muslim fanatics in addition to the Christian and Jewish fanatics that we've always had.My point, then, is that although you are correct to oppose fundamentalist Islam, you are working very closely with fundamentalist Christians who share the same basic canards. Don't forget that Christianity led to the virtual enslavement of large parts of Europe for a considerable amount of time, and that Christianity did not become associated with free government until free government became the default political sensibility. Devout Christians were of course among the earliest European settlers in North America, and they had a chance to establish a government worth protecting. They chose not to take that chance. Their modern-day counterparts get to live under the most perfect form of government in history because they are lucky enough to have had the agents of The Enlightenment take power for a brief period a couple of centuries ago and establish the government that the devoutly religious would have never established themselves.Just remember that I attack some of your allies for a damn good reason. Stacy McCain, for instance, is clearly a Confederate shill and a white nationalist, and he certainly has the right to be, but I have the right to point it out insomuch as that it shows a lot of other people to be hypocrites by virtue of their refusal to acknowledge the very unambiguous evidence.Anyway, have a good one.Thanks,Barrett BrownBrooklyn, NY512-560-2302On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:21 AM, <Writeatlas@aol.com> wrote:t
Dear Barrett:
Your last shows some progress, but still wouldn't net a C even in a public school of today. Of course many of the Founding Fathers were deists. They didn't create the Establishment Clause in order to prevent a conflict among themselves. They created it in order to prevent a conflict among the various States, many of which at the time actually did have established religions -- different ones, but all Christian sects.
Yours in libertyIn a message dated 4/13/2010 7:07:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, barriticus@gmail.com writes:Pamela-The intent was clearly not to simply avoid favoring "one Christian sect over another," as the Founders were generally not big on any Christian sects, being mostly deists. Take a look at the following quotes, of which I have many more; also keep in mind that the Treaty of Tripoli, which passed congress unanimously and was signed into law by John Adams, states plainly that "the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" (italics mine).I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.
Thomas Jefferson
How has it happened that millions of myths, fables, legends and tales have been blended with Jewish and Christian fables and myths and have made them the most bloody religion that has ever existed? Filled with the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?
John Adams
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Thomas Paine
Barrett BrownBrooklyn, NY
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 5:34 PM, <Writeatlas@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Barrett,Of course no one answered you.You penned that ridiculous Johnson piece, who could possibly take you seriously?"And just for knowing, your premise -- "the Founding Fathers and other revolutionary heroes and their relative distrust of Judeo-Christianity and their secular intent in creating our form of government" -- is faulty. The First Amendment is quite clear that there was to be no establishment of religion. But this was not a rejection of Judeo-Christianity; it was a decision not to favor one Christian sect over another. In any case, I am not interested in debating whether or not they had the intent of forming a secular national government, in the sense of one in which there was no established religion. Obviously that was exactly their intent (not godlessness).Yours in liberty,
Pamela Geller
Editor Publisher, Atlas Shrugs
Executive Director, Freedom Defense Initiative
Executive Director, SIOA, Stop Islamization of America
Author, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on AmericaIn a message dated 4/13/2010 11:54:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, barriticus@gmail.com writes:Hi, Pam-This is Barrett Brown; I believe you caught my profile of Charles Johnson for Vanity Fair.For some reason, I'm having a hell of a time trying to get anyone to debate me on the subject of the Founding Fathers and other revolutionary heroes and their relative distrust of Judeo-Christianity and their secular intent in creating our form of government. Some of the same people who are happy to insult me on their blogs (and sometimes on mine) don't seem to be willing to actually engage me on an issue of substance - which is odd, as all of these tribalist war bloggers are obviously quite a bit more brilliant than I and could easily beat me in such a way as to totally discredit me in the eyes of all observers as well as to help highlight the truth of the matter. If I didn't know better, I'd assume that all the fellows you hang around with are cowards who prefer to be able to respond or ignore points at will than to engage in an e-mail debate for publication in full, one in which they'd actually get stuck having to address things they might find inconvenient.Perhaps you know of someone who'd actually be willing to debate me on this or any other matter? Like you, perhaps?Thanks,Barrett Brown
Regards,
Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY
512-560-2302