Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Mar 5, 2024 - 6:20am
kurtster wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... Right ?
I heard nothing that conflicts with this. He says he is against official state sponsored religion, no religious preferences.
Where do you find him in conflict with the Establishment Clause ? Are you saying that we should be an Atheist State and not even acknowledge a higher power or order despite the Declaration of Independence ?
He only referenced the free expression of religion in those 2 minutes. I listened again: He did say it is not just the free expression of Christianity, which does seem to be an acknowledgment that there should not be a state religion.
He says that but the primary point of his 17-minute clip seems to me to be that America is a Christian nation. To me, he is saying: There is no official state religion, but we all know this is a Christian nation and it should remain so, that those suggesting otherwise are leading us down a path to tyranny and totalitarianism. In those last two minutes, he again rails against those talking about âwhite privilegeâ and âChristian nationalismâ and sees those as attacks on Christianity and America itself. He then shows footage of tombstones at Arlington National Cemetery while noting that the vast majority have crosses on them and those buried underneath those tombstones are almost all âwhite Christian menâ without whom we would not have a country.
You seem to have found this video as instructive, leading you to do more research on Natural Law. I just see it as a screed.
How's it going? I know you've had a lot of trouble keeping the video available, but just wondering if you've had a chance to consider what you think Natural Law meant to the founding fathers, and why is that important/appropriate today?
You're beleaguered, everyone else is predictable puppets, okay, but did you ever give any hint as to what might be worth so much time that anyone not named Kurt would sit still for it?
Edit: Watched the bulk of it and you're right, it's somewhat compelling, but after all of that, he swings and misses or avoids the point: It's not just freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion and/or government guided by Christianity (which is the religion the founders might cudgel us with). That the founding fathers couched everything they wrote in the religious terms of the day, doesn't mean they always assumed we'd be a "Christian nation." He seems to imply that.
After being shouted at by Levin more times than I can remember, you're braver than me. I do like to hear his takes, from time to time - so long as he avoids the shouting. Channel-changers for me remain shouters and those anchors/hosts who talk over guests / talkover debaters. And of course, also to be heavily shunned are the DJs who talkover tunes either intro or extro. They're the worst of them all!
I did make it part way through that vid, but also was put off by him reading from his own book. And he's always got a new book coming out, once a year or so. Also, this particular subject matter isn't on my radar. I leave it for actual Americans to joust with - and you're all doing well with that. Though I'm also of the opinion there are much more important issues that should be being debated, in the run up to a Nov election.
I was wondering how or where I would place this video. I guess this is as good a place as any ...
I caught this walking by and ended up watching the first 17 minutes of the show. I didn't see anything after that point and have nothing to say about it. But if it is possible to get past the messenger and listen to the message all the way through before jumping to any premature conclusions this may end up being germane to the debate we are attempting to have.
.
I cannot get this to embed for some reason.
Here's the youtube link.
Gone. I'll look for it later.
try this one. The show starts at 1 minute into it.
He references the free exercise of religion, not the Establishment Clause.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... Right ?
I heard nothing that conflicts with this. He says he is against official state sponsored religion, no religious preferences.
Where do you find him in conflict with the Establishment Clause ? Are you saying that we should be an Atheist State and not even acknowledge a higher power or order despite the Declaration of Independence ?
. . . So as usual it’s the messenger that is the problem.
No, it is the message. As SFW already has pointed out, Levin errs by essentially ignoring the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. America may have been founded based on Judeo- Christian principles, but the Founders recognized the importance of freedom of religion, and the need to prohibit the establishment of a state religion.
No it's the messenger. Doesn't matter if you like him or not. Levine is hard to take at times in larger doses let alone small ones.
In your case I'll speculate that you don't like Constructionists no matter who they are.
I think this addresses your last concern. You probably didn't make it this far. It is set to start at 15.01 give it a try. .
You're beleaguered, everyone else is predictable puppets, okay, but did you ever give any hint as to what might be worth so much time that anyone not named Kurt would sit still for it?
Edit: Watched the bulk of it and you're right, it's somewhat compelling, but after all of that, he swings and misses or avoids the point: It's not just freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion and/or government guided by Christianity (which is the religion the founders might cudgel us with). That the founding fathers couched everything they wrote in the religious terms of the day, doesn't mean they always assumed we'd be a "Christian nation." He seems to imply that.
Some, if not most, of the founding fathers were dead-set against the fundamentalism that the current right-wing want to equate with a Christian basis for the country. Jefferson had a bible where he had carefully snipped out the parts he thought were bullshit. The societal compromise was that you can have as crazy beliefs as you want, as long as you don't use them to bludgeon the rest of the population.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Mar 4, 2024 - 4:28pm
kurtster wrote:
. . . So as usual itâs the messenger that is the problem.
No, it is the message.
Levin begins with an isolated clip of one person asserting that Christian nationalism is not the same as Christianity (well, it isnât) and uses that as a launching pad to condemn the media (of course) and those with a âradical left agendaâ of being ignorant of American history, most especially the founding of the country and the underpinning of natural rights.. (He also implies that most of us are in need of a lesson in this history â from him). He then goes over the impact upon our Founders of philosophers like John Locke, Aristotle, and Cicero, concluding that America was âfounded on Judeo-Christian principles.â He then leaps into a tirade that those speaking of things like âwhite privilegeâ and trying to tell us that this is all wrong are part of a ârevolutionâ that is âabout destroying America.â Reading at length from his own book (!), he asserts that science is a tool and cannot supersede morality and spirituality, which come from a higher authority than man. From there, he makes sweeping statements about the âradical leftâ that he maintains is the âideology of tyrants and totalitarianismâ and has as its agenda to âtrash and smear Christianity.â
Ok, then.
As SFW already has pointed out, Levin errs by essentially ignoring the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. America may have been founded based on Judeo- Christian principles, but the Founders recognized the importance of freedom of religion, and the need to prohibit the establishment of a state religion.
I did not want anyone who might watch it to be predisposed by my thoughts. His primary point that I got was about Natural Law. Where it comes from and how it was arrived at and what it means as it relates to the Founding of this country and going forward from the beginning to the present. I had to watch it twice to get that. He covers a lot of ground. After the first time and digesting it I was able to get a little deeper into it.
I've watched the Natural Law part twice (before and after your latest comment). I'm not sure I follow. What do you think Natural Law meant to the founding fathers, and why is that important/appropriate today?
I did not want anyone who might watch it to be predisposed by my thoughts.
His primary point that I got was about Natural Law. Where it comes from and how it was arrived at and what it means as it relates to the Founding of this country and going forward from the beginning to the present. I had to watch it twice to get that. He covers a lot of ground. After the first time and digesting it I was able to get a little deeper into it.
I've watched the Natural Law part twice (before and after your latest comment).
I'm not sure I follow. What do you think Natural Law meant to the founding fathers, and why is that important/appropriate today?
You're beleaguered, everyone else is predictable puppets, okay, but did you ever give any hint as to what might be worth so much time that anyone not named Kurt would sit still for it?
Edit: Watched the bulk of it and you're right, it's somewhat compelling, but after all of that, he swings and misses or avoids the point: It's not just freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion and/or government guided by Christianity (which is the religion the founders might cudgel us with). That the founding fathers couched everything they wrote in the religious terms of the day, doesn't mean they always assumed we'd be a "Christian nation." He seems to imply that.
I did not want anyone who might watch it to be predisposed by my thoughts.
His primary point that I got was about Natural Law. Where it comes from and how it was arrived at and what it means as it relates to the Founding of this country and going forward from the beginning to the present. I had to watch it twice to get that. He covers a lot of ground. After the first time and digesting it I was able to get a little deeper into it.
If you were to give it another go, start at the 7 minute mark. I went and looked again and this is where he starts to make the point on Natural Law. A very strong and well stated case, imho. You might even come to a different conclusion.
I could have gone straight to the Fox site but I have gotten so much static over that so i tried to find it on youtube where people wouldn't object as much.
guess I was wrong.
Like I said, if you can get past the messenger there is a worthwhile message. I guess that I was right about people not being able to get past the messenger.
Oh well.
here's the official Fox page which is now up, with full controls. try the closed captioning if you can't stand listening to him. Or just never mind and move along. I thought that there was a worthwhile message that was worth risking the objections to Levine. So as usual its the messenger that is the problem.
.
You're beleaguered, everyone else is predictable puppets, okay, but did you ever give any hint as to what might be worth so much time that anyone not named Kurt would sit still for it?
Edit: Watched the bulk of it and you're right, it's somewhat compelling, but after all of that, he swings and misses or avoids the point: It's not just freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion and/or government guided by Christianity (which is the religion the founders might cudgel us with). That the founding fathers couched everything they wrote in the religious terms of the day, doesn't mean they always assumed we'd be a "Christian nation." He seems to imply that.
Can't fast forward either. Highly controlling so what's that tell you?
I could have gone straight to the Fox site but I have gotten so much static over that so i tried to find it on youtube where people wouldn't object as much.
guess I was wrong.
Like I said, if you can get past the messenger there is a worthwhile message. I guess that I was right about people not being able to get past the messenger.
Oh well.
here's the official Fox page which is now up, with full controls. try the closed captioning if you can't stand listening to him. Or just never mind and move along. I thought that there was a worthwhile message that was worth risking the objections to Levine. So as usual its the messenger that is the problem. .
On further review (and a Chrome restart), you're right. I wonder why they don't want it embedded though.
I didn't watch it but I did scroll towards the end to see if he gets to shouting. Got pretty loud.
That vid is on some goober's Youtube page - not Levin's. Said goober apparently is trying to keep eyeballs on his vid page, to build engagement, no doubt. Looking at his FoxNews vids, seems they're all copyright infringers ... so yah, goober it is.
Fast forwards fine for me. Also plays at multiple x normal speed. But I won't watch it ... every time I tune into whatever Levin is yammering about, he ends up shouting. And that's pretty much a channel-changer for me.
On further review (and a Chrome restart), you're right. I wonder why they don't want it embedded though.
I didn't watch it but I did scroll towards the end to see if he gets to shouting. Got pretty loud.
Can't fast forward either. Highly controlling so what's that tell you?
Fast forwards fine for me. Also plays at multiple x normal speed. But I won't watch it ... every time I tune into whatever Levin is yammering about, he ends up shouting. And that's pretty much a channel-changer for me.
