Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

LGBT: Critical Mass?

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Ok 99.9% of teenagers will not follow some uptight prissy conservative view, be it their parents or teachers.. 99.9% will learn in the locker rooms that which is not discussed in home & school but it will have added to it some childhood imaginations, and being passed around through rumors & innuendos will not be given out correctly.. I guess somehow you were hatched as an adult and never went though any teen years so are not aware that teens do not listen to adults.. So you got through to .01% of your teenage kids.. Celebrate.. What is going to happen to the other 99.9% of them who are ill prepared???

    Do these states have a worse education system and more poverty.. I would imagine they do.. They are Republican states, so those state governments should work on those problems also.

    I would hang my hat on these statics over Rick Perry forcing Abstinence only education in Texas because "it worked for him"... Maybe the fact that he is a male unable to become pregnant had something to do with it.. and "yes" not having sex works, it is just it is unrealistic to believe the kids will do that, and when they don't they are unprepared to protect themselves from it.. Our schools do not teach sex and promiscuity and here is your condoms and birth control pills.. They teach a balance of it all, respect for yourself, respect for your body, making sure you are mentally ready, withstanding peer pressure.. These lessons do not have to be rolled up in religious scripture to be taught.. But then we respect our teens enough to know that at some point they will take that big step, and here is what you need to know when you do..

    The Republican "Big Government" rules and regulations are just being voted in.. We will know in a few years when the Northern states teen pregnancy keep going down and the states with these new regulations start to rise up..
    Last edited by moosetracker; 07-05-2013, 06:07 AM.

    Comment


    • packsaddle
      packsaddle commented
      Editing a comment
      "Do these states have a worse education system and more poverty.. I would imagine they do."

      Hey, you're slamming my region here. Remember what it felt like to have your state motto poked fun at? Besides, it's all in your imagination, remember? But even if it isn't, I like the wretchedness of my region. I don't want them to improve but rather I want it just like it is and to stay like this for a long time. I admit my reasoning is selfish but this allows me to visit third-world countries with great ease. I get off the plane and feel right at home...no adjustment needed. So go ahead and cast your aspersions, at least WE have legitimate cuisines, lots of them. What do YOU have? Lobster? Syrup?
      Last edited by packsaddle; 07-05-2013, 06:57 AM.

    • Scouter99
      Scouter99 commented
      Editing a comment
      I love a partisan--liberal or conservative--so blind that they can't see things that stare them right in the face. California, Illinois, West VA, Colorado, Kentucky, Delaware and Washington, DC have rates as high (and higher in DC and Delaware's cases) as most "Republican" states.
      Even the idea of "Republican" and "Democrat" states is silly; party platforms are not static, and electorates are not static. 10 years ago Virginia went Bush, now it went Obama; etc etc all over the country. Those "Republican" states that are bright red at the bottom of the map? 40 years ago they were "Democrat" states.

      What your map shows to anyone with an iota of objectivity is that teen pregnancy rates are not a matter of party politics; in fact, for 8 years of Bush II's presidency, federal policy was abstinence-only and rates continued to fall. What the map shows is that a wide variety of factors effect teen pregnancy rates from race to economic to culture.
      Last edited by Scouter99; 07-05-2013, 01:14 PM.

  • #17
    We got chowda very tasty too... And our lobster & syrup is good too, so don't knock it until you've tried it.. Now let's discuss your hominy & grits... Yuuck.. You can keep it.

    Although packsaddle I think your statement is done tongue in cheek, I will have to say, I am glad you are proud of your states desires to act like a third world nation, because it seems your government is striving for that effect. The hole is not big enough let's dig a little deeper.. We don't have enough poor, let's make more poor or make the poor poorer.. We have a poor education system, what can we do to make it worse?.. We have high teenage pregnancy... How can we make it higher??


    All I'm saying is if not only a poor health education in schools is the cause of your high teen pregnancy, but also having a subpar education system in general and more poverty.. Well that is not an excuse for why you should be let off the hook for a higher teenage pregnancy rate.. All 3 of those things plus others may contribute.. But, you have not named anything that is out of your control.. In fact it is caused by your government.. So, if your proud of it great, but also be proud of all the teenage mothers your states actions produce.

    Comment


    • packsaddle
      packsaddle commented
      Editing a comment
      I'm with you on that chowda! And the lobsters and syrup are just fine as well. But if you want to experience a real cuisine you'll join me in New Iberia next time they have the world championship gumbo cookoff...for a week or so of all kinds of wonderful cuisine statements, not just the gumbo either. Yes, you have a few noteworthy things by virtue of your natural resources but with the exception of the clams, you've done almost nothing truly creative with it like we have with just about everything we've brought to the region from all over the world. I mean it. Come to New Iberia and find out what 'cuisine' really means.

      In comparison, with respect to food, New England=boring.



      Now about that other stuff. Tongue in cheek is NOT part of the cuisine. What the heck do you think the civil war was intended to do? Yes, I know it was all about slavery but slavery was merely a means to an end. And THAT was to PRESERVE a system in which a very few rich people could suck the life out of a whole lot of poor people. Third World! But the South lost that war so it had to find another way to keep that way of life alive. And it doesn't matter which political party is dominant here. The democrats were just as bad before the Republicans discovered how powerful prejudice could be. It's still a good-ol'-boy system that favors the few and pretends all sorts of things while it preserves all kinds of social and economic inequities. I grew up in it. I know it well. I've observed many of the changes personally. The thing is, if you keep people ignorant enough, just enough, so that they can still doff spindles (for example) but have no idea what benefits they might have from forming unions (for example), those workers will also support that wretched status quo. The privileged few knew this long ago and they still know it. It's one of those unspoken things that you will only hear an admission of from, say, the guy down the road who is an open racist. Those ideas are not dead. They're just simmering deep down like the really tasty stuff in an unstirred gumbo.

      But this IS the South. And if you go to many places in the third world, you'll find very similar social and economic structures (not to mention roads and bridges). So living 'here' makes it really easy to visit 'there'. I know the 'score'. I have an innate understanding that helps me avoid mistakes. And for that, I'm thankful. (plus, I have a really good 'sense' for where there might be some other great cuisines to sample, here and there, yum!)
      Last edited by packsaddle; 07-05-2013, 08:43 AM.

    • moosetracker
      moosetracker commented
      Editing a comment
      I like some of your cuisine but must admit I can take the real spicy stuff.. If I can't taste the food and all I can do is sweat and drink water, no thank you..

      Funny about your insight into why the South like to keep their poor and ignorant, poor and ignorant.. I was going to throw out a remark close to what you have stated, but I think I would have had the Southern backlash for it.. It is best it came from a fellow Southerner... I will just state that I agree with your assessment..

  • #18
    Admittedly, this thread has wandered far away.

    Stupid question: You have a member's parent who is in a deeply committed relationship. What do the exact particulars of that relationship have to do with his being a Scouter?

    What really does sex have to do with Scouting? Please answer that first for different-gender sex. Nothing whatsoever, right?

    So what does same-gender sex have to do with Scouting? Nothing whatsoever, right?

    So just what is the difference supposed to be? Huh?

    Here is a basic principle that we had to make maximum use of while I provided training services during my official expulsion for atheism: A parent is always welcome to a meeting involving his own child. So gay parents are always welcome, including in den meetings and on campouts.

    And if the gay parent has a practical skill to teach, then what? Ignore that valuable resource? Or make use of it? Again harking back to the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode on BSA, there was a campout set up with gay and non-gay scouts in which, as I recall, the gay scouts out-performed the non-gay scouts. So you ignore what the gay scouts have to teach you?

    As for the issue of sex education, I remember a memorable quote from the then-Governor of Mississippi (AKA, "missisloppy" by those, like myself, who had been stationed there) in the mid-to-late 1990's. He was a strong advocate of educational reform. In support for his position on education reform, he said: "We have already tried ignorance, so we know that that does not work." So now the Republicans are doubling down on ignorance -- it didn't work then, so it won't work now either.

    Comment


    • Scouter99
      Scouter99 commented
      Editing a comment
      Again harking back to the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode on BSA, there was a campout set up with gay and non-gay scouts in which, as I recall, the gay scouts out-performed the non-gay scouts. So you ignore what the gay scouts have to teach you?
      Are you serious right now?

    • DWise1
      DWise1 commented
      Editing a comment
      Are you serious right now?
      Quite serious. Scoutcraft is not affected by sexual orientation nor religious belief. Watch the episode for yourself.

  • #19
    Yes, I feel that the "gay" issue has hit critical mass due to the fact that it will not be going away. Kahuna compared the issue to "women's rights" which I think is apt. I think that we as a society, will also find out that this will both have unforeseen benefits and negative consequences - just like the changing perceptions of what the role of women in society ought to be. With more women in the workforce, they are less dependent on someone else as a provider - that has boosted divorce rates and increased the amount of children raised in single parent homes. It also allowed many women to leave abusive relationships and has added an immense critical addition to our workforce expanding productivity.



    Anyone care to predict the effects that societal acceptance of gay marriage will have on our culture? I can't really think of much negative effects myself.

    Comment


    • DWise1
      DWise1 commented
      Editing a comment
      I certainly cannot think of any negative effects.

      Positive effects would be far fewer families operating at an unnecessary disadvantage and in danger of being torn apart by anti-same-sex marriage laws. About a year ago I listened to a report on All Things Considered (NPR) in which same-sex families were visiting Washington, DC, to personally lobby their congressmen and senators for support. The most pressing concern for most of the families was that the parents lost all parental rights in a state that didn't recognize or banned same-sex marriages. That meant that if any of their children were to have to go to the emergency room or come to the attention of the authorities, then all their children would be taken away from them and placed in foster care.

      Societal acceptance of gay marriage means the preservation of families.

    • dcsimmons
      dcsimmons commented
      Editing a comment
      Well, there are a couple of polygamist law suits working through the courts. They are picking up and using the same rhetoric as the gay-marriage movement. Now that DOMA is dead, that definition is left to the states. If what people do in their private bedrooms is private, and of no regard to the state, should they not be entitled to all the rights, privileges and responsibilities as heterosexual and homosexual couples? Why should family be defined as two adults and children? Why not three adults and children? As long as it's consensual and all.....

  • #20
    Protecting the right of gay people to get married should be a conservative issue. You've go two people, in a committed relationship, who want to get married and raise a family together, taking equal responsibility for their children. This is what conservatives have campaigned for for many years.

    Comment


    • moosetracker
      moosetracker commented
      Editing a comment
      Perhaps in your narrow minded view of the world Eagledad, but seriously you should get out more.. Children grow in a secure environment be it a mom or Dad, a single mom or a single dad, two moms or two dads, grandparents.. Does it need a marriage certificate, in some ways no, in some ways yes.. They need to feel secure that if something happens to one parent they can continue life with the other parent.. The home the family grew up in will not be ripped away from under them because the parent who died was the one owning the home.. That they are recognized as belonging to both parents so that they don't run into one parent having the health benefits through their job, but unable to put the children on those benefits because the children legally are seen as belonging to the other parent. I am sure there are other benefits laws that recognize their family unit help the children to feel more safe and secure, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

    • Eagledad
      Eagledad commented
      Editing a comment
      I agree with everything you siad Moose, but it doesn't change anything I've said previously.

    • moosetracker
      moosetracker commented
      Editing a comment
      OK.. How's, this.. I disagree with your statement that a healthy family starts with a mom and a dad.. It starts with a group of people live with each other and who care for and protect each other.. If that includes children, then a health family is loving, protecting and making those children feel secure.. Laws should work to protect that family in making them feel secure and able to protect and care for each other.. the should not work against that family in order to rip them apart in a time of crisis.. Death of a parent (where custody may be in question and/or property subject to death taxes), health problems of someone in the family (either with ability to visit in the hospital, or put them on your health plan).. Marriage of same-sex couples should guarantee them the same rights as heterosexual couples..

      The argument to make some separate but equal thingy will just not work due to peoples prejudices.. Proof is with the separate but equal for blacks.. Prejudice will find ways to hurt the family's they disapprove of.. would change with what Politian was in office, protect the family with laws, rip those laws away from them.. Put the laws back in place, rip them away..

      This does not help to create a healthy family or a safe and secure environment.. But, the problem is not within the family unit, but due to prejudice people who need to stick their nose in and attempt to destroy and hurt that which they dislike..

  • #21
    I don't think polygamy will be an issue. If gay marriage is universally allowed, all adults now have an equal chance to choose a singular life partner so I don't think a man who want to marry a 12 year old or a woman who wants to marry a horse or polygamy or any other such nonsense will be an issue.

    Comment


    • Eagledad
      Eagledad commented
      Editing a comment
      It amazes me that some people consider the desire for a mate of the same sex as more mature than the desires of any other kind of relationship. Folks keep wanting to equalize homosexuality as a normal healthy lifestyle when my observations of friends and family are anything but. Oh sure, some gays find a stable relastionship, but that isn't normal for that lifestyle. On the whole, gays are some of the loneliest people I know.

    • Merlyn_LeRoy
      Merlyn_LeRoy commented
      Editing a comment
      I'm amazed you don't see that as an argument in favor of gay marriage.

    • Eagledad
      Eagledad commented
      Editing a comment
      You're stereotyping, I don't recall commenting on gay marriage. My opinions are of the health and morality of homosexuality.

  • #22
    Gee, if it takes a village to raise a child, then what's wrong with polygamy? There is a lot of credible evidence in the Bible to support it. After all the 12 Tribes of Israel were conceived by 2 wives and 2 concubines. Of course that's the Old Testament, but the New Testament only says the bishops should be of one wife.

    Only in a country of "freedom of religion" is a territory required to abandon their religious practices in order to obtain statehood. (Utah)

    Surely a country based on hypocrisy can always find ways to alienate various parts of it's culture.

    Comment


    • packsaddle
      packsaddle commented
      Editing a comment
      I'm good with it as long as all parties freely choose to enter into that kind of relationship. Glad to see that we agree on this, surprised actually.

    • jblake47
      jblake47 commented
      Editing a comment
      For me there is very little difference between polygamy and monogamy. Polygamy is defined as one too many wives, and sometimes that is also the definition of monogamy.

      Seriously, I am not the normal "Christian" who's theology is influenced with a ton of man-made traditions. I am a Scripturalist. If it ain't in the Book, it ain't important.
      Last edited by jblake47; 07-16-2013, 12:07 PM. Reason: edited for typo

  • #23
    Eagledad, they aren't lonely when they visit my home or when they're with the same circle of real friends that I have. This is because we don't reject them because of who they are. They are accepted fully just like everyone else and they know it and sense it in our interactions. That might explain why they seem 'lonely' around you. Or...it could be you're merely a poor judge of these things.



    So, what is this 'normal' concept you mentioned in your comment? Is it the same 'normal' that everyone else sees, or is it a personal concept in your own mind?



    And you also mentioned, "...some people consider the desire for a mate of the same sex as more mature than the desires of any other kind of relationship."

    Huh? More mature? What do you mean by this, both parts, the 'mature' thing and the 'more' thing?

    Comment


    • packsaddle
      packsaddle commented
      Editing a comment
      Brewmeister, I am referring to what Eagledad wrote in another comment, that his "opinions are of the health and morality of homosexuality." He didn't write "homosexual behavior", what he stated was about homosexuality and that IS about the person and not the so-called 'sin'.

    • Eagledad
      Eagledad commented
      Editing a comment
      Parceling words doesn't change what you implied Pack. You can't have an honest discussion when accussing people of actions that you no nothing about. The best you can do is agree to disagree, but trying to discredit my words with hyberbole is bad acting.

    • packsaddle
      packsaddle commented
      Editing a comment
      Then answer my actual questions.

  • #24
    Im saying that your self righteous to think that only your are capable of treating all people equally even when you don't agree with everything about them.

    Comment


    • packsaddle
      packsaddle commented
      Editing a comment
      OK, if it makes you feel better, I'm self-righteous. OK?
      Now, you're still free to answer the actual questions I asked.
      Last edited by packsaddle; 07-16-2013, 01:30 PM.

    • Eagledad
      Eagledad commented
      Editing a comment
      Which one? My editor is a real pain, so just pick one.

    • packsaddle
      packsaddle commented
      Editing a comment
      Here's what you wrote:

      "It amazes me that some people consider the desire for a mate of the same sex as more mature than the desires of any other kind of relationship. Folks keep wanting to equalize homosexuality as a normal healthy lifestyle when my observations of friends and family are anything but. Oh sure, some gays find a stable relastionship, but that isn't normal for that lifestyle. On the whole, gays are some of the loneliest people I know."

      I asked for you to clarify, "what is this 'normal' concept you mentioned in your comment? Is it the same 'normal' that everyone else sees, or is it a personal concept in your own mind?"

      And then I asked again, "More mature? What do you mean by this, both parts, the 'mature' thing and the 'more' thing?"

      Those are the questions that I asked.

  • #25
    I'm left-handed - i.e. not normal Please don't hate or judge me for it. I was born to excel on a baseball field.

    Comment


    • #26
      Normal in that reference is a heterosexual sexual relationship. More mature meaning that sex with another person of the same sex is considered healthy while the desire for sex with the horse is not.

      Comment


      • #27
        A number of years ago I heard someone say that the 10 Commandments of Judeo-Christian origin were nothing more than the minimum requirements for civilization. Having pondered that over the years it seems that any code of conduct (normally derived from some religious source) seems to be the du jour for any particular society. Everyone has some sort of code. They tend to be fluid and never absolute. With that being said as modern cultures collide so do the underlying societal codes. One culture might think that beheading is the way to go to correct the outcast, others toss rocks and still others do the hanging/electric chair thingy. Firing squads seem to prefer the military codes.

        While in feudal or tribal societies this cross-over is kept at a minimum. This was eventually replaced by larger groupings and the rise of nationalism seemed to dictate the limits, but as long as those lines are clear cut and everyone plays by the rules, (when in Rome do as the Romans) nothing is going to do much to stir the pot. But with the information age and somewhat "global village" mentality emerging, these rules are becoming more and more in conflict with each other. Every fundamental Christian will rally to the death over the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman, while their historical roots are firmly entrenched in polygamy. For thousands of years arranged marriages dominated the countryside, but not in our culture.

        Depending on how far one wants to carry the issue, most Americans would abhor eating bugs, while the people of India would rather die than chomp into a McDonald's Big-Mac. In some cultures young men at the age of 13 are considered adults and are free to take a mate. One would be arrested in the US for such a thing and label a child abuser. For all the Fundamentals out there, remember Joseph was an older gentleman who took Mary a very young teen as a mate. He would be arrested today in America.

        So were does that leave us today??? Bickering and fighting until the cows come home probably. Society is changing, some for the good, some for the bad (remember all major civilizations have collapsed after but a few years of their Golden Ages.) The handwriting is on the wall. Adjust. With the pace of society changing as rapidly as it does in the "modern" world, it only means those changes are going to happen that much faster and if there is any societal decline it will be at the same pace. Maybe it's time to read the handwriting on the wall.

        Comment


        • packsaddle
          packsaddle commented
          Editing a comment
          Slippery slope? C'mon, I've been hearing that stuff my whole life. It was Communist infiltrators and racial integration in the 1950s. It was rock music, Beatlemania, long hair, the Vietnam War in the 1960s. This nonsense is perpetual and yes, once in a while there actually IS a collapse of some kind and it just energizes the 'chicken littles' to continue their rants. What moral decay was it that caused the Inca Empire to collapse on itself? Aztecs? I'd mention the British Empire but I might offend our friends across the pond who think it still exists.

          As far as concern about gay marriage goes, I am not the least bit concerned by it. As far as I can tell, gay marriage seems to be mostly the concern of a perspective that seems to be consumed by things sexual. Gay marriage doesn't concern me at all. Gays should be granted the same rights as other citizens, including marriage. No problem.

        • jblake47
          jblake47 commented
          Editing a comment
          Yep, anyone who doesn't want to look closely at the world around them can, with a mere flip of one's hand write off the conspiratorists pretty easily. Yet the world of a mere 50 years ago was far different than what we see today. Natural Mom, Dad and kids were not the rarity we have today. Kids today really do have a village of fighting ex's raising them. Marriage has taken more of hit with divorce than what homosexuality can ever do. Parents are paranoid for the safety of their children. Bicycles are not for kids anymore, they are ridden by spandex advertised cool sports minded people. The instant communication of 50 years ago took 2-3 days to "instantly" let everyone back home get a view of some disaster somewhere in the world. Now one can watch live immediately on our smart phones. Women in the workforce instead of home "raising the kids" Latch key kids are everywhere Kids today aren't raised by parents, they are raised by nannies, and day care workers. I used to think how terrible it was in the Soviet Union that made both parents work and the kids were shipped off to day care centers. I wonder if that's where we're headed? Nope, already there.

          Drugs? Don't even go there.

          Crime? We used to think the St. Valentines Day massacre was terrible with organized crime and all. Heck a Mexican cartel does that kind of a thing on a daily basis.

          Communism was tried in Russia and China, socialism spread eventually into the European theater where they are now struggling economically. BTW, Russia and China are back at the altar of capitalism making a bundle in the process. Say, were are all those American jobs going, nowadays?

          Conceal Carry is a big thing. Heck I thought we gave that up with Wyatt Earp and Jessie James.

          Homeland security is 1984's Big Brother for real.

          The US used to be a land of opportunity, but with all the bureaucratic red tape, see how that's going to work out for you.

          I for one has lived long enough to have seen a steady decline in what used to be a really good thing.

          I wonder what kind of world my grandchildren will have. I know that it surely isn't going to be as good as the one I had. Even in the midst of the Cold War, I always thought I grew up in the Golden Age of America. My parents gave me a life better than they had, but I couldn't do it for my kids and they haven't been able to do it for the grand-kids either.

          One can say all they want about 2013 with it's technology, crime, gangs, divorce, fear of predators, needing the carry guns, etc and I can always offer that the worse thing that happened in 1963 was Kennedy being assassinated. Yet the very next day we still took our sack lunches (which back then were legal) and rode our bikes to school, dad had the car and so there wasn't much choice, it was either walk or ride your bike.

          I know what I lived through, I don't need some sort of conspiracy theory to prop up my story. I seriously don't think all the progress we think we've made over the past 50 years is all that its cracked up to be. All in all I think that we are definitely in decline mode in America.

        • st0ut717
          st0ut717 commented
          Editing a comment
          Since you enjoy history just a few examples:

          Because of the polices and social stigma of homosexuality in the the past Alan Turing committed suicide. Homosexuality has always been a part of society through out history.

          It was encouraged in some. Greek, Roman for example.

          in the late 19th century kids where using farm fence wire to sext each other via morse code.

          "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
          authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
          of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
          households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
          contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
          at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers. Ancient Greece

          We live in a decaying age. Young people no longer respect their parents. They are rude and impatient. They frequently inhabit taverns and have no self control." -- attributed to an inscription in an Ancient Egyptian tomb

          Or to quote my favorite scy-fy show....
          This has all happened before and it will happen again.

      • #28
        JBlake - Romanticizing your youth is a sign of getting old.. Your Parents did it, Your Grandparents did it, Your Great-Great Grandparents did it, Your Great-Great-Great Grandparents did it. People who grew up in the time of the Great Depression still could romanticize that time period.

        I had a conversation with someone at work who was stuck in romanticizing his childhood of the '50's also.. Watch all the old 1950's shows now and think Wow those were the days.. Like that wasn't a plastic made up world of perfection.. Let's forget about the fact child abuse was simply taken care of by turning a blind eye to it, same with wives that were abused. Rape was the womens fault.. Ask an African American if they feel the 1950's was the most perfect time period for them, especially if they lived in the south..

        Not that I think today is wonderful, just that the 1950's wasn't all that either, nor were the 1930's, nor were the 1900's, nor were the 1880's..

        Comment


        • packsaddle
          packsaddle commented
          Editing a comment
          Those cities? Are you saying the French and Spanish DIDN'T own those territories for those cities?

        • Merlyn_LeRoy
          Merlyn_LeRoy commented
          Editing a comment
          Thus the basic change between then and now is the obvious persecution of Christians in modern US society, especially those areas of government oversight. i.e. military, schools, etc.

          Hmm, looks like you've been reading WND lies. Got any specific examples of this "persecution"?

        • King Ding Dong
          King Ding Dong commented
          Editing a comment
          At zoos all across the country Christians are routinely fed to the lions. Google it.

      • #29
        Yep, at the time they did. But most of those cities popped up around Spanish missions and the French being quite Catholic named cities after their patron saints. La Salle, Dubuque, Des Moines and Prairie du Chien, Fond du Lac such were given names after their founders and geographic identifiers. If it were merely an economic issue, why were all these French and Spanish territories first settled by Christian missionaries?

        Comment


        • jblake47
          jblake47 commented
          Editing a comment
          And if the establishment of cities under Christian principles were one thing, look up the histories of the 9 Colonial Colleges established prior to the Revolutionary War. All had religious affiliation. Harvard, the first, was primarily instruction for the clergy. You'd never guess that today.

          The early motto of Harvard was Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae, meaning "Truth for Christ and the Church." In the early classes half the graduates became ministers. Today the motto is only Truth.

      • #30
        Are you saying Cortez was a missionary? Coronado? OK we all know that indigenous peoples did a WHOLE lot better after their lands were settled by those Christian people..yeah,.right!

        Like I mentioned before, if you look at the areas of THIS country that already resemble that 'third world' you seem not to admire, those are mostly areas in the Bible Belt and which local societies most closely match, it seems, YOUR values. And also, like I noted before, I can name third world countries that are far more heavily influenced by 'The Church' than the USA.

        You're claiming credit for Christianity that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, not even a little bit.

        Comment


        • packsaddle
          packsaddle commented
          Editing a comment
          Thing is, that very correct uniqueness that you have identified is a strong argument against Christianity as the reason. Christianity is and has been dominant lots of places. It has, by your account, only been associated with ONE place like the USA. I repeat what my statistics friends like to say, rare events occur with a probability of 1. But they are still rare events, and hardly the basis for a trend or the kind of sweeping generalizations you're trying to make.

        • jblake47
          jblake47 commented
          Editing a comment
          If civilization after civilization collapses because of Factor X and one lone statistic anomaly succeeds because of Factor Y, why would any sane person ever want to go along with Factor X. I guess it all boils down to misery loves company. The Great American Experiment worked as long as it stuck to the plan. However, deviation after deviation has simply put us back into the nice try, too bad category as we see the rope slipping through our fingers.

          Seriously I only worry about the situation we find ourselves in. If for 300+ years it held the Great American Experiment together, and now we are experiencing a subtle but steady decline, then I'm all in favor of the conservative approach rather than start a new "experiment" of failed policies that other countries tried and are abandoning because they didn't work. Of course once "critical mass" has been crossed, it really doesn't matter anymore. Just another name added to a long list of failed civilizations.

          I guess I'm just a strong believer in: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

          Your mileage may vary.

        • Merlyn_LeRoy
          Merlyn_LeRoy commented
          Editing a comment
          If civilization after civilization collapses because of Factor X and one lone statistic anomaly succeeds because of Factor Y, why would any sane person ever want to go along with Factor X

          Factor X being "people who forget 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' is a fallacy." Every time too many people forget this, their civilization collapses.
      Working...
      X