Y2K and the long historic view

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

When a nation degenerates morally it soon falls. True of ancient Israel, true of Medo-Persia, true of Greece, true of Rome, true of the British Empire even, and true of us. Unfortunately, it is an irreversible decay. There isn't any going back to the thought and behavior patterns of 100 years ago, particularly in our country where liberal one-worlders control the schools, the media, the entertainment industry and the government. The enemies of our constitution appear to be winning this war.

I have been around a while - in the service in WW2. I remember what our people were like back then. I have seen the turning points of our slide into moral barbarism with my own eyes - the secular humanism - the relativism - the ever increasing worldliness and materialism in the churches - the sexual degeneracy - the rampant hedonism - the violence. We have amoral murderers in power, and we best not forget it. Through them, it's just going to get worse.

Y2k may be a blessing in disguise - the salvation of us all. It is hard for the rulers of this world to ferret out the decedents (translate that constitutional conservatives and Christians) and destroy them if they can't keep their national infrastructures up and running. Let's hope that's the case anyway. If not, we may find ourselves herded into American stainless steel versions of Auschwitz, Buchenwald and Treblinka.

There is no human solution for us little guys. The world, including the USA, isn't getting better. Y2k or not, we are in a descending spiral of moral and spiritual degeneracy that will end in barbarism. Just look at world history. According to the noted historian Arnold Toynbee, a democracy has six steps. It's been 40 years since I read his book so the following isn't an exact quote, but I do believe it's the essense of his thesis:

1 - It begins with people in slavery which causes a revolution. 2 - This is followed by a period of expansion, 3 - followed by a time of economic prosperity 4 - that eventually ends because no affluent society can avoid moral decay. 5 - Moral decay eventually causes civil unrest. 6 - The people then demand strong leadership and the people end up back in slavery.

So where are we in Toynbee's picture? At late No. 5 or entering No. 6, that's where. It's reasonable to conclude that this country will be the world's next totalitarian state. So we better not JUST preparing for Y2k, but for the death of individual liberty and the serious persecution of dissidents in THIS country (Waco being an example), and a place to hide from an oppressive government that can be here at a stroke of the pen. Just 50 years ago I wouldn't have believed that any of the following could possibly happen in America:

Open Occultism and Satanism. Homosexuality and Lesbianism taught in our schools. Witches in the military. Islamic Mosques the largest worship centers Secular humanism and relativism the national religion. Graft, murders and immorality in government. The president accused of high treason. Christians a minority and considered to be a cult.

Just ten years ago, if we talked about a government conspiracy we were called kooks. Losing our national sovereignty to the UN was a laugh. The CFR and the Bilderburgers were a myth. The New World Order was some half-crazed survivalist's pipe dream. I was one of those kooks, you know. Most everyone else believed in the big lie. But now, what do we hear on our media with our own ears?

That is why I believe Y2k may be a blessing in disguise. If Y2k destroys the government's infrastructure it will be far more difficult for the liberal elitists to dispose of those undesirables who really love God and country. Is there anything we can do to make it better? Not in my opinion. Looking at it from a broad historic position, nothing we can do as individuals will even slow down this tidal wave of woe. There isn't a human solution anymore - we waited too long. But with God's guidance we can prepare our families both spiritually and physically for the times ahead.

IMHO, that's the historic view, no rose colored glasses

-- Elskon (elskon@bigfoot.com), October 07, 1999

Answers

Last night, network teevee, around 8:30 EST, maybe Dawson's Creek--first, a gay teen, encouraged by the coach to come out for the football team (pardon the pun), then switch to high school girl coaching her virgin brother: verbatim: "If you take a big bite out of the ice cream cone, you're going to fast...you have to lick it slowly, lick all around the exterior, and get it all over your face. Remember, if you don't get the whipped cream on your face, you're doingj it wrong." This our culture. Our 'high art' nomenklatura fall all over themselves defending a dung-splattered image of Christ's mother, an image so obscene to Catholics as to be a hate crime. Tolerance for all but Christianity, open-mindedness about everything but tradition; our Hegelian cultural managers know their craft well. The only answer, dear friends, is prayer. I remain, contra mundum,

-- Spidey (in@jam.pique), October 07, 1999.

You want some cheese with that whine?

You are a religious bigot, IMHO. Christians are a minority in the world, but a majority in this country, the most powerful. They control major institutions. But because they cannot establish a theocracy and force their religion down everyone's throat, they feel "persecuted". When they cannot force everyone to act the way their parents forced them to act, they feel that the world is drowning in immorality.

Secular humanists are humanists. They are very civilized, moral people who have developed a philosophy of life that does not depend on an imaginary deity, but does involve respect for fellow humans and respect for the laws that make a civilized society possible. You will not find any in prisons, but you will find lots of so-called Christians there, convicted of rape murder and all kinds of violations of the 10 commandments. Secular humanists lead decent lives based on reason and tolerance.

As I recall, World War II featured mass slaughter, religous persecution, racial segregation, poverty, world leaders who were sociopathic murderers. Not exactly the peak of civilization. A few people in some circumstances found a common purpose, but I doubt that any one wants to repeat the experience.

People have been complaining about moral decay since approximately 600 BCE. Find a new tune.

-- secular humanist (nonbeliever@free.country), October 07, 1999.


Yes Spidey were undoubtedly returning to our pagan roots (check out the "Get a Life" sitcom also). That in itself is not so disturbing. What Elskon mentions, though, the Toynbee "cycle" (similar to Ravi Batra's Laborer-Warrior-Intellectual-Acquisitor cycle), will most likely plunge us into depression, and this time around, since the pieces are already in place, emerge in a global government. Count on it. It will take about 10 years and will indeed be heralded by the tormenters of E. Coli. But that's the way it's supposed to be. Synchronicity. Tribe>village>city-state>nation>global community.

Or on the other hand, things could really get ugly...

-- a (a@a.a), October 07, 1999.


secular humanist seems more accurate. Human behavior has certain constants, and fashions follow mysterious cycles. Look anywhere in history and you find it all. Look at civilizations around the time they fell, we find behavior reprensible by current moral standards. Change our moral standards a good deal, we'd see the same thing.

More significantly, look at past civilizations during their rise and at their peak, and you find the same thing. What's happening here is that we FIRST decide that moral laxity causes civilizations to collapse. Then we concentrate on falling civilizations to find that laxity. And we find what we are looking for, every time. Some of us view history through morally polarized glasses, tuning out everything else.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 07, 1999.


I have no problem with global government, provided the people are in charge of it, and retain their right to speak freely, defend themselves, assemble, petition the government for a redress of grievances, vote the bastards out, etc..

Let me know when you see that happening, and I'll become a globalist. Until then, globalism is a criminal conspiracy, and should be dealt with as such.

The realization that we all live on One World, and the assertion that we must all drop our trousers and bend over for a bunch of bankers and other con-men in the name of peace or gaia or whatever, is a non-sequitur. They are exploiting an historical trend; they are not the trend itself. We are.

E. Coli

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), October 07, 1999.



Maybe so Flint. As Robert has said, he thinks the momentum in our economy will pull us through the singularity after some pretty scary disruptions. I on the other hand, think we are overdue for an 8.0+ on the Richter scale shakeup of society.

And if y2k and the sins of Wall street won't bring it, I don't know what will.

-- a (a@a.a), October 07, 1999.


IMHO, that's the historic view, no rose colored glasses

And in my opinion, that's your slant on history through religion-colored glasses. Much of the world population does not have your salvationist view of events. But! You get points for a clever lure.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 07, 1999.


Damn E, long time no see. We've been expecting you. I wonder if I can conjure up Ivan too.

-- a (a@a.a), October 07, 1999.

Flint, I swear you must argue with yourself if you can't find a hair to split here.

I'm a pretty avid amateur historian. Most every civilization or even national culture that has left us written records was, before their fall, decried by a significant body of the existing literature left by them to be suffering moral decay BY THE ORIGINAL STANDARDS OF THAT CULTURE OR CIVILIZATION.

What kind of cowflop are you peddling here? To say that we are "preselecting" values by comparing OUR values to THEIR values is errant bullshit.

Compost it and spread it on your garden. It isn't winning any arguments here.

-- Mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.


Mushroom:

Dammit, I'm trying very hard to be civil here. Yes, what you say is correct. Moral standards drift in long cycles. The rise of the American culture reflected decay from a Victorian perspective.

The thing about morality, IMO, is that it's something we learn in early childhood. From there, it sticks with us during our lifetime, a period often long enough to see visible (and *invariably* downward) movement. It's downward because the morality inculcated into us is reflected in a body of beliefs and behaviors which were the "right" ones during that period of our lives. As times change and beliefs and behaviors change with them, it's like walking in any direction from the north pole. Every change is necessarily toward "wrong".

Pick what you consider the high point of American civilization. Read carefully. You'll find plenty of laments that that success was immoral -- it was built on slavery, or child labor, or horrible environmental practices, or the evils of technology.

I read an account written in 1940, of the first man to attempt to sail solo around the world. The author of the account gloried in the failure of this attempt, because that man (who was poor) was doing it for the publicity, to try to make a living. Money was dirty and evil, his motivations were impure, God insured his failure, etc.

Times change. My original point holds.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 07, 1999.



Yo, E!

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 07, 1999.

Don't be a stranger E!!!!!!!!Let us hear from you once in awhile!

-- jeanne (jeanne@hurry.nowq), October 07, 1999.

Donna - just because your faith failed you (or you failed the faith) why do you find it necessary to attack those who have faith?

Have you found something better? If so, share it with us instead of attacking those who profess faith.

Personally, I cannot stand corporate christians and have no use for organized religion at all. Ventura was right but grossly misunderstood. Organized religion is indeed a crutch for the weak minded and weak of faith. However, this does not mean that I lost my faith or that I think faith is bad. Not at all.

I think the institutions created by man are false and fabricated (ie., "church"). These pass for "faith" and "religion" today. My faith (without the "corporate church") remains stronger then ever before. God is real and his will for me remains ever the same. But I don't find it necessary to try to destroy someones faith. I simply ignore them and concentrate on my own faith. If you have truly found something better - share it. If not, then why stain yourself by attacking others?

-- Still Searching (lifeofliberty@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.


Some of us are moral relevantists and religious IRrelevantists. If you've got a problem with that, it's your problem. Some of us worship Yaweh, others Allah, some Satan, others money. That's the way it is. I don't want to live in a Christian theocracy, and don't tell me if I don't like it to go somewhere else. If the Christians or the Knights Who Say Neat are a minority in this country, so be it. If you want to be a cult member, I hope you enjoy it and get the most out of it, whether your cult worships Jeshua ben Joseph, or Bacchus. Just don't tell me I have to join your cult to "be a good citizen."

Yeah, we live in hard times, but who in the history of the world didn't? Yeah, things are likely to get worse, but when did that possibility NOT hang over a society's head? Governments have always been murderous and corrupt, would you rather live in ancient Rome?

But to hope that things fall apart, likely causing millions of innocents harm, so that the corruption can't cause millions of innocents harm strikes me as contradictory. I've always had a problem with people who were willing to sacrifice others so that they could live under the illusion that they were "free." You want "freedom"? Go live on a deserted island, where you don't have to deal with other people. That's the only way you'll find it.

Rather than lament the "good old days," and assuming that "there isn't a human solution anymore," why don't you get off your ass and DO SOMETHING!?!?

-- (That's@all.folks!!), October 07, 1999.


Donna - just because your faith failed you (or you failed the faith)

Of course you could logically not have any clue as to my spirtual condition, but could, as so many humans of arrested development do, assume that you know.

"Think what you will," said the Cheshire Cat to Alice.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 07, 1999.



Donna - no, I don't know very much about your spiritual condition. I only know a tiny bit that you have revealed on this forum from time to time.

However, you didn't answer my question, or rather, my offer. If you really have found something better, why don't you share it?

-- Still Searching (lifeoflibery@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.


Some of the above posts confirm what I have known for some time, that you can change the dominant culture and mores of a nation in one generation by educating its children to have different values. The morals espoused in my earlier post were not those of some red-necked "Christian bigot," but of a country and people that no longer exists. That people abhorred big government, believed in self reliance, revered the constitution, were predominately Christian and loved this country. This generation would be unrecognizable as Americans to our forefathers.

According to Gibbons, three major factors led to the decline and eventual fall of the Roman Empire. 1: Free entertainment, 2: A welfare system, 3: And an unwillingness to defend their borders.

Sound familiar? Sure, but the lessons of history don't apply to us because we're smarter, have better technology, and are oh so enlightened and humanistic, right? Yeah, we are. That's what the German people thought before the fall of the Weimar Republic and Hitler's night of the "long knives."

-- Elskon (elskon@bigfoot.com), October 07, 1999.


I usually stay out of religious debates. My view is that a person's realtionship with whatever diety they perceive, is an intensely personal thing and pointless to debate. (I always read those threads, however, because I get a perverse kick out of listening to people hoot and stomp their feet about things they cannot prove).

However, comments like those made by Still Searching kinda tick me off. If someone puts forth a proposition about ANYTHING, religious/spiritual values included, then it is grist for the mill, and fair game for criticism. This attitude that something is unassailable, because it is "Christian" is pure horse-droppings. Had the thread initiator been presenting a Wiccan point of view or giving us the Church of Scientology take on things, would there be voices raised in protest when the initiator was criticised? For that matter, Still Searching, where's your outrage about the attacks on Secular Humanists? Like it or not, THAT is a brand of faith, as well.

We can all get out shorts in a wad when someone attacks our OWN sacred cows, but everyone else's sacred cows, oh that's ok, right?

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), October 07, 1999.


However, you didn't answer my question, or rather, my offer. If you really have found something better, why don't you share it?

Even if I have found something I consider better, I don't proselytize. You must find your own spiritual way.

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." - Thomas Szasz

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 07, 1999.


Italics off. Goofed on the last quote. It is Sheldon Kopp, not Thomas Szasz.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 07, 1999.

Bokonon - my invitation to hear Donna's "better reality" or whatever it is not an invitation to debate. The little I know of Donna intrigues me. My invitation is simply that - what is better about what she has found, if anything? Since I don't know that answer, I simply asked the question.

I am not implying that my reality, belief, faith or life is better than anyone elses, yours included. Nor can I or would I attempt to "prove" anything, as you say that cannot be easily proven. I really did hope to learn something here.

The "grist for the mill" that you speak of is really the attacks on values expressed, whether religious or whatever. If you reread my post, I asked "why the attacks?" - I'm not supposing the you or Donna or anyone has anything "better" or "worse" - I'm simply asking why do you or Donna perceive it better? It is your perception that may help me to learn something.

If your miffed at me it's because you can't read.

"This attitude that something is unassailable, because it is "Christian" is pure horse-droppings."

What? This concept was neither mentioned or introduced by me. However, since you now make mention of this concept - nothing is "unassailable" including my values, beliefs, morals, faith - mine or yours.

And yes, I don't agree with the secular humanist views at all. So what? Am I obligated to defend or protest every poster, including yours? What a waste of time. I singled out one poster in particular because I was truly interested, or couldn't you see that?

You and I both know that most of these debates are pointless (as is this response, my response, your post, my post, ad naseum). What do each of us hope to gain by venting a little frustration, a little insight, a self prescribed wisdom? Myself, I am looking for insight. My insight is always flawed and am interested in the insight of others. Spending precious time and energy attacking people is just a waste of effort. According to your post, I should be venting away at every outrage I see. Hmmm. I don't see the merit in this at all. There are indeed real battles to be fought - this is not one of them.

You know - the name and email address I chose is for real. I am still searching. I've never found anybody that has the answers. I don't and I know it. Asking someone for their views is not a crime.

-- Still Searching (lifeofliberty@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.


Okay Donna - I can accept that. It was an honest invitation, but if you don't want to share it, that's okay too.

-- Still Searching (lifeofliberty@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.

Bokonon: I wasn't intending this thread to be religious, but historic. However, Christian beliefs played such a large part in our development as a nation that it is hard to write a balanced post without some reference to them.

-- Elskon (elskon@bigfoot.com), October 07, 1999.

Though I speak with tongues of men and of angles, but have not Love, I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could move mountains, but have not Love, I am as nothing.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, I though I give my body to be burned, but have not Love, it profits me nothing.

Love suffers all and is kind; Love does not envy; Love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

For God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that those who believe in Him should not perish, but should have everlasting life.

-- (bdavis@netonecom.net), October 07, 1999.


Still Searching,

But Donna never said she has a "better reality", now, did she? She was criticizing Elskon for putting forth a Christocentric view as established fact. That is not the same as saying her way is better than Elskon's.

Again I ask, where is your outrage, when someone is dumping all the ills of the world, on the backs of the Secular Humanists?

If you are in fact, being sincere in your requests for dialogue on spiritual matters, might I be so bold as to suggest you first try to establish private dialogue via e-mail? When I see someone, on this forum, trying to lure someone into revealing a spirituality that, by all appearances, is not likely to be a fundamentalist christian perspective, I have trouble seeing that as being anything but trollish. Many of us do post with legit e-mail addys.Perhaps I am being overly judgemental, but history IS an important teacher.

Elskon,

You will note that the founding fathers frequently mentioned God, but failed to mention Christ. They saw a need for spriritual guidance, but did not, at any point propose a PARTICULAR religion, as THE official religion of the nation.

Jefferson and Franklin were Rosicrucians. Several others were Masons (Actually, if memory serves me right, Franklin was both.) I've also heard that a couple were aetheists, but that could be another one of those "cherry tree" stories, as I've never seen that in any historical texts.

The ones who were of a spiritual bent were "deists", but only bore the outward trappings of Christianity in respect for the common fashion. They were, after all, trying to run a revolution, and did not want to appear to be too out of step, with the common person. These were members of "the enlightenment" - which translates roughly into "the one-worlders, of their time" - and there time was "The Age of Reason". The dominant view of The Enlightenment, was that man could approach God directly, sans intermediary. No priest, no preacher and, most importantly, no Christ. The predominant view of all Christian sects, Catholic and Protestant alike, is that no one comes to the father, save thru the son. Two very different views.

The proposition that this is a "Christian" nation, was put forth by those who came later, not by the founding fathers.

Didn't you ever wonder what that pyramid, with the eye in the middle, on the back of our money was all about?

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), October 08, 1999.


E. Coli,

Wow, a blast from the past! Always good to see an old friend. Well, not really, I was just coming as you were going, but I did like your style.

Hang around, it's just now gettin' interestin'... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.


This "secular humanism" is a fairly recent development in historic terms. It doesn't take much historical research to realize that for all the centuries before the rise of "secular humanism" the human condition worldwide, in Christian and non-Christian cultures alike, was every bit as ugly, and often worse, than it is today.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), October 08, 1999.

1)E. melad, how's it goin'?? The quality of the discourse seriously deteriorated on your departure. Hang out here abouts and let's see if we can fix that. Eh?

2) For the history buffs I almost hesitate to suggest this but here goes:

Those folks who blame the Masonic Fraternity for the initiation of the NWO/Iluminati are fairly historically deficient. I refer them to the books by John Robertson (eg "Born in Blood"), as well as "The Temple and the Lodge" by Baigent and Lee. Both are attempts to cover the formation of the Masonmic Fraternity. Both point out that the Masons were remarkably represented among the Founding Fathers, and were responsible for many of the philosophical cornerstones of the Republic.

Chuck

32nd Scottish Rite, Past Junior Warden, Royal Arch Companion

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 08, 1999.


Tom,

Whoever said that Baseball was "The Great American Pastime", never paid attention to scapegoating(G).

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), October 08, 1999.


From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

In the long view of history, hardly a generation goes by without experiencing major social upheavals, famine, epidemics, and war. We have experienced a remarkable streak of prosperity. Nations come and nations go, but the Chinese empire endures.

Got Berlitz?

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 08, 1999.


Escherichia Coli! How 'bout dat?! And Chuck, He Who Drives @ Night: what's your take on the A-albion site? They harbor the eclectic theory that there is a struggle for world power between the British ruling class, aligned with Masonry, and the Vatican. In fact, they extensively quote those same two books to support their linkage of Masonry with the NWO. And as a Catholic, I'll ask you: why the secrecy in Masonic initiation rites? Why have a 'secret society' at all, if the aims are in concert with the greater good of humanity? Did you swear an oath of secrecy? I am curious, fellow.

-- Spidey (in@jam.tizzy), October 08, 1999.

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depend on human tradition and the basis principles of this world rather than on Christ.

-- (bdavis@netonecom.net), October 08, 1999.

Chuck,

No, I haven't joined the NWO crowd. I was merely echoing things heard before and being somewhat tongue in cheek. Sorry if I sounded like I was slamming Masons.

Still Searching,

Actually, I feel I owe you somewhat of an apology, as well. I say that in such an equivocal fashion, because I do feel there is a good deal of "sacred cowism" on this forum. You can say anything, no matter how vile, about anyone or anything, except for the "holy bovines". There, you must forever tread softly and speak only in solemn, respectful tones. As I see it, the top three sacred cows of TB2000 are: 1)Libertarianism 2)Christianity 3)Flint is always wrong (Unless Flint is being humorous, in which case the rule is "Flint is never funny").

Your post was, however, certainly not the most egregious example of this, and, I have to admit, it is open to interpretation if it even qualified as an example. You walked into the cross-hairs, just as my trigger finger was getting itchy, so to speak. I apologize for singling you out.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), October 08, 1999.


Chuck: They'll tell you all about it when you reach the 33rd :)

-- a (a@a.a), October 08, 1999.

Bokonon:

(((You will note that the founding fathers frequently mentioned God, but failed to mention Christ.)))

Ah, that just isn't so, and therein lies the rub - historic revisionism. We are the sum total of what we are taught and few go back to the original source documents to see if what we learned is so.

A majority of the first settlers came to this continent to avoid religious persecution - the Pennsylvania Dutch, the Old German Baptists, the Pilgrims the French Huguenots - Christians all and so were their children. How many times have you heard that Thomas Jefferson was a Deist? Well, this is what he said about himself:

"My views are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not the genuine precepts of Jesus. I am a Christian in the only sense He wished anyone to be, sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others." Documentation: Mayo Barnes 1942 edition of Jefferson's "The Personal Narrative of a Many-sided American" pp234- 235.

In the Memorial Chapel to George Washington at Valley Forge is a framed copy of Washington's prayer. That prayer closes with: "Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord."

John Adams was a Presbyterian who liked to go to church. Patrick Henry and Madison were provably both Christians, I'll dig up the documentation if you need it. So the real question is this: Which source document shows any of the founding fathers to be anything else?

((( They saw a need for spriritual guidance, but did not, at any point propose a PARTICULAR religion, as THE official religion of the nation.)))

Exactly so. Back in England, they had seen the tyranny of both the Church of England and the Papal See, consequently, they wanted NO enforceable state religion - nor restriction on its free observance. In other words, religious freedom without government interference of any kind ( a far cry from where we are today). Nevertheless, early Americans and their leaders were by and large Protestant Christians.

The freedoms we have in this nation are found in the Bible and based on Christian principles - the so-called Judeo-Christian ethic. Our present western world was built on it. Thomas Jefferson also stated: "This land must be governed by Christians or it will be ruled by tyrants." If we turn away from the principles upon which this nation was founded, Jefferson's prophecy will indeed come true. No fractured culture in history has been able to maintain cohesion for very long.

This isn't a criticism of anyone's views. Everyone is entitled to believe what he wishes. And to speak out politely on one's beliefs is not bigotry or a "hate crime," political correctness, notwithstanding. That's what the 1st Amendment is all about.

-- Elskon (elskon@bigfoot.com), October 09, 1999.


I don't wish to come off as pedantic, but I'm sure I will. As others have said in many threads here, Thomas Jefferson and many of the so-called founding fathers were deists, not christians per se.

Look here for a definition of deism: Deism Defined

http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

And here for index page of:Deism Web Site

http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

Be careful when ascribing revealed religious leanings to the 'founders'.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 10, 1999.


From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Elskon: The United States was not founded as a christian nation.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 10, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ