What is a Republican

[SUBMAN1]

What is a Republican

$104,655.60 Ad in the Washington Post

Here is someone with the money to fund a rebuttal to what Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee Chairman, said recently that many Republicans have never done an honest day's work in their life. The following full page ad was placed in the Washington Post by a businessman named George J. Esseff, Sr. He paid $104,655.60 to run the ad and only did it because he is sick and tired of the way that "the rich" are portrayed by liberals these days. It is a great read.


You're a Republican???

In today’s America, ask a growing number of high school and college students; their teachers and professors; the self-anointed media elite and/or hard working men and women of all ethnicities, the question, "What is a Republican?", and you'll be told ". . . a rich, greedy, egotistical individual, motivated only by money and the desire to accumulate more and more of it, at the expense of the environment . . . the working poor and all whom they exploit . . ."

I am a Republican . . . I am none of those things . . . and I don’t know any Republicans who are.

WHAT I AM . . . first and foremost, is a loving husband of some 52 plus years, the father of four and an American who's proud of his country. . . and his country's heritage.

WHAT I AM . . . is the grandson of immigrants who risked everything, including their lives and those of their children, to escape tyranny in search of freedom.

WHAT I AM . . . is a man who grew up during the Depression and witnessed, first hand, the effects of the Stock Market crash and the soup lines that followed. I watched as both my parents and grand parents, who had very little themselves, share what food they had with a half dozen other families, who had even less.

WHAT I AM . . . is someone who worked his way through college by holding down three and four jobs at a time and then used that education to build a better life.

WHAT I AM . . . is a husband who, at age 24, started his own business for the “privilege” of working 60, 70 and 80 hours a week, risking everything I had, including my health, in search of a better life for myself and my loved ones.

WHAT I AM . . . is a businessman whose blood, sweat and tears . . . and plenty of them . . . made it possible for me to provide a secure living, not only for my family and myself, but also for literally hundreds of my employees throughout the years. Employees, who in turn, were able to buy their own homes, raise their own families and give back to their communities and their country.

WHAT I AM . . . is a man who believes in God; a God who has blessed this country . . . and all for which it stands.

WHAT I AM . . . is someone who knows, if you doubt miracles exist in today’s world, you need only to look into the face of those who received them . . . and the eyes of those who give them.

WHAT I AM . . . is an American who's proud that his President embraces a belief in God; proud of a President who understands, as "politically incorrect" as it may be, there is evil in this world and for the security and safety of all freedom loving people everywhere, it must be confronted . . . and it must be defeated.

WHAT I AM . . . is an American who takes comfort in the knowledge that our President refuses to allow decisions concerning the very safety and security of this nation, to be governed by the political whims of foreign governments.

WHAT I AM . . . is tired of hearing from leading Democrats who see only negativity in America; racism in her people; class warfare in her society and "political incorrectness" in her character.

WHAT I AM . . . is a former democrat who now understands that it is the soldier and not the reporter that guarantees us our freedoms of press, speech and dissent.

WHAT I AM . . . is a man who believes in the sanctity of life. A man who is repulsed by the pandering of the political left for votes, at the expense of the unborn.

WHAT I AM . . . is a husband and father who believes in the sanctity of marriage and the preservation of the family unit.

WHAT I AM . . . is a movie go-er who is repulsed by those insecure, socially inept, elementary thinking, ego-inflated "entertainers" who have appointed themselves "experts" in the fields of national security and geo-politics and then use their forum to attack this nation, its leaders and its actions . . . much to the delight and encouragement of our enemies.

WHAT I AM . . . is an American who understands the difference between "censorship" and "choice". Evidently, these individuals do not, because when these same "celebrities" receive public ridicule for their offensive actions, the first thing they yell is "Censorship!". What they seem incapable of understanding is . . . the right of free speech and dissent is shared equally by those offended . . . as well as those who offend. I support and will continue to support those films and performers whom I choose to . . . and refuse to support those I don't. It is my right as an American . . . a right I will continue to enthusiastically exercise.

WHAT I AM . . . is a voter, tired of politicians, who, every time their voting records are subjected to public scrutiny, try to divert attention from their political and legislative failures by accusing their opponents of "attack ads" and "negative campaigning" . . . and the news media who allow them to get away with it.

WHAT I AM . . . is a Catholic who loves his God and his Faith . . . and who's been taught to respect all religions whose teachings are based in love, peace and charity. As such, I am embarrassed and ashamed of those individuals, in both private and public life, whose decisions and actions are devoid of any sense of character or morals; individuals who are only driven by what's best for them . . . rather than what's right . . . often times at the expense of many . . . including our national security.

WHAT I AM . . . is a realist who understands that the terrorist attack that murdered hundreds of innocent Russian children could have occurred here, in our heartland. That's why I sincerely believe America needs now, more than ever, a President who sees with a clear and focused vision and who speaks with a voice when heard by both friend and foe alike, is understood, respected and believed.

WHAT I AM . . . is eternally grateful to Ronald Reagan for having the bravery to speak out against Communism and the courage of his convictions in leading the fight to defeat it; and George W. Bush for the vision, courage, conviction and leadership he has shown in America's war on terrorism amidst both the constant and vicious, personal and political attacks both he and his family are made to endure.

WHAT I AM . . . is a human being, full of numerous faults and failures, but a man nonetheless, who, though not always successful, has continually strived to do "what's right" instead of "what's easy". A man who is challenging the religious leaders of all faiths, to not only preach to their congregations the fundamentals of "what's right" and "what's wrong", but to also then hold them accountable for their actions in both the public and private sectors.

WHAT I AM . . . is disgusted with the Courts who, on one hand, call the murder of a pregnant woman a "double homicide" but then refer to the abortion of her baby as, "pro-choice".

WHAT I AM . . . is someone deeply troubled by a political party which embraces a candidate whose primary "leadership" qualities center around his protesting of the Vietnam war and his labeling the honorable men and women who fought in it, (50,000 of whom gave their lives in that action), as rapists, and war criminals. That same political party then stepped forward this year to block the appearance of a true Vietnam war hero, retired Admiral and former United States Senator, Jeremiah Denton, (a man who spent seven years and seven torturous months in a North Vietnam prison), from speaking before an open session of the California legislature as part of that state's 4th of July celebration. The reason Democrats gave for refusing to allow this American hero to speak before their state legislature was because of the "conservative" nature of his views. As an American, that troubles me deeply . . . as well it should you.

WHAT I AM . . . is a man who feels the need to spend, $104,655.60 (tax paid) of his own money, to purchase this advertisement, in order to set the story straight. Some may say this money would have been better spent feeding the world's poor. At the risk of sounding self-serving, as an American and as a Republican, for the last six decades of my life, I have done exactly that . . . and more. Following the examples of my parents and grand parents, I have used my earnings to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, provide housing for the elderly and medical care for the sick . . . and continue to do so . . . and I'm not alone in that work.

WHAT I AM . . . is someone who is paying for this announcement, at my sole expense, in hopes of opening the eyes of those led blindly by ill-informed elements of our great nation, who, through either ignorance, or malicious intent, repeatedly attack and belittle those of us who belong to a political party that holds true to the belief, " . . . the rights of the governed, exceed the power of the government". For those interested, I am speaking only as a tax-paying individual who is in no way associated with The Republican National Committee, nor with any of its directors, or delegates.

WHAT I AM . . . is a man who understands, "the American way of life" is a message of self-empowerment for all.

WHAT I AM . . . is an American who is grateful that our nation gives each of us the opportunity of self-determination and the right to benefit from the fruits of self achievement.

WHAT I AM . . . is an American who wants to preserve that way of life for all who seek it.

WHAT I AM . . . is blessed to be an American . . . and proud to be Republican.

[Frame57]

Very Good! I am proud to be an American first and foremost. I am a bit pissed at the GOP, but I think they will get back to basics and root out the corruption that has seeped in.

[Sailor Steve]

Some of it is good, some of it is self-serving, most of it is overly simplistic, such as the typical take on the courts and abortion. It's a lot more complicated than that.

But the one that bothers me is this:
WHAT I AM . . . is an American who understands the difference between "censorship" and "choice".
A nice attempt to deflect complaints, but there is no question that the vast majority of censorship in this country, including attempted book bannings, comes from the right.

[Hylander_1314]

What gets me, is hearing Hillary, and Barrack talking about redistibuting wealth. Ok, how about their wealth? If they're so concerned, why don't they set the example by giving most of their's away first before demanding it others. And to hear them talk about elitists, well that's the pot and the kettle if I've ever heard it.

Hey Steve,

About the book banning in schools, I've talked with both of my kids teachers over the years and they're borderline socialists / communists. And I was utterly dismayed when my daughter was in 4th grade and told me that a book about the American War for Indepence was banned for being too violent, from the Public Schools. I know. I've had to unbrainwash my daughter on a regular basis. She now understands at the age of 16 and can mostly recite the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. And she can actually carry on a well thought out, coherent conversation about them, and she actually has the nerve to debate them even with her instructors. (She was afraid of being labelled a disruptor type) but not anymore.

[Frame57]

Some of it is good, some of it is self-serving, most of it is overly simplistic, such as the typical take on the courts and abortion. It's a lot more complicated than that.

But the one that bothers me is this:
WHAT I AM . . . is an American who understands the difference between "censorship" and "choice".
A nice attempt to deflect complaints, but there is no question that the vast majority of censorship in this country, including attempted book bannings, comes from the right.Have to disagree with you on that one Steve. It is left wing organizations that have have led conspiracy to re-write our history books. With regards to the founding Fathers and references to religion and prayer. It is the democrats who want to enact the "fairness act" in attempts to stifle talk radio and other media that promotes conservative points of view. What is fair is that the dems can do their own radio talk shows and if people like it, great! If not change the station.

[August]

...there is no question that the vast majority of censorship in this country, including attempted book bannings, comes from the right.

That's certainly the popular belief but i've never seen anyone produce figures proving or disproving that. What was that quote about telling a big enough lie often enough?

On the other hand I do know that the Dems went to court in nearly every state in 2004 to get Nader's name stricken from the ballot. Censorship doesn't come more blatant than that imo.

[Molon Labe]

The biggest attempt at comprehensive censorship in the United States in recent memory was the Communications Decency Act of 1996--passed by a Republican Congress (with bipartisan support) and a Democratic President. (And struck down by a unanimous Supreme Court) The next biggest was a success... the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. You can argue over who pushes for this kind of **** more, but the truth is that both sides are about equally guilty.

[Blacklight]

Republicans also believe in the "Trickle Down Economics" (A central basis to their philosophy) which pretty substantially has been proven NOT TO WORK since the money doesn't "Trickle Down".

[Zachstar]

Republicans also believe in the "Trickle Down Economics" (A central basis to their philosophy) which pretty substantially has been proven NOT TO WORK since the money doesn't "Trickle Down".

Bingo!

We saw what 8 years of "Trickle down" meant for the people who aren't rich enough to lobby washington.

[SteamWake]

"Censorship wears many faces"

http://www.kmov.com/localnews/stories/kmov_election_092808_truthsquad.bec69e89.html?npc

[SteamWake]

Republicans also believe in the "Trickle Down Economics" (A central basis to their philosophy) which pretty substantially has been proven NOT TO WORK since the money doesn't "Trickle Down".

News flash the current financial crisis has nothing to do with "Trickle Down" economics.

It has to do with goverment sticking their noses into the private sector and not allowing basic finacial properties such as ... well not being able to buy a home you cant really afford to influence the market.

[August]

We saw what 8 years of "Trickle down" meant for the people who aren't rich enough to lobby washington.

After 8 years of Reagan trickle down economics the 1990s were pretty good economy-wise so maybe you ought to explain what you mean by that.

[CCIP]

So let me get this straight. The guy works all his life and spends over $100,000 on... this?

Well. Let me say one thing - I don't think many of you realize how close, even in terms of wording, this is to similar letters-to-editor in the good old US of SR. My grandfather could write a more convincing and more genuine piece about how he is a communist. Does that justify the crimes commited by the regime?

I'm not trying to say here that the Republican party is essentially bad. It's had good things and bad things about it, and certainly isn't the worst that's out there - BUT that is no reason to profess love for it in this way, turning a blind eye to many of its rather nasty failings and ignoring the injustices it has often produced. Especially when all of this is based on personal experience.

ANY AND EVERY member of ANY AND EVERY party on this planet could write a similar piece of garbage about their respective position. Why do you think they're parties? What, even Nazis were all based around "let's come together and be evil" ideology?

Listen, I respect this guy and his life story, but I have no respect to where this leads to. If the American dream is to make enough in your life to produce a piece about how marching in line with a major political platform is equated with the goodness of life and morality, count me out. And if this story is true, I would postulate that the guy has lived a good life to blow all his goodness one one stupid, selfish, ego-pumping action that suddenly elevates his flailing sense of self as he nears the end of his life. If you're so good, why don't you spend that $104,655.60 on something better than that? You could feed thousands of people in the world for a year on that money. Okay, fine, you don't want to feed some [insert racist slur] in [insert 3rd world country]? That money could pay for several complex operations to deserving people who could use it right there in the states. You could put that in a scholarship fund and let several deserving kids go to college. And guess what, you'd produce more smart, ethical, thinking people that way than you ever would with a national newspaper ad, too. But is that really the point of this little writeup?

Nope, march in line. Einz, zwei, Heil Republikan. Get ahead, be free to spend money. On a political agenda. While pretending to be the height of morality and selfnessness and patriotism itself. Disgusting and sad. I've no respect for this whatsoever.

[Morts]

biggest load of you know what ive read in a while, actually since last i checked one of your threads subman

(ooh man am i gonna be bashed by august and subman1 for this:rotfl: )

[August]

biggest load of you know what ive read in a while, actually since last i checked one of your threads subman

(ooh man am i gonna be bashed by august and subman1 for this:rotfl: )

You won't get bashed by me. After all you're entitled to your opinion. It's wrong but you're entitled to be wrong.

[Morts]

biggest load of you know what ive read in a while, actually since last i checked one of your threads subman

(ooh man am i gonna be bashed by august and subman1 for this:rotfl: )

You won't get bashed by me. After all you're entitled to your opinion. It's wrong but you're entitled to be wrong.
so its wrong that ive got an opinion just cause im european ? or do you think what im saying is wrong ?

[August]

biggest load of you know what ive read in a while, actually since last i checked one of your threads subman

(ooh man am i gonna be bashed by august and subman1 for this:rotfl: )
You won't get bashed by me. After all you're entitled to your opinion. It's wrong but you're entitled to be wrong. so its wrong that ive got an opinion just cause im european ? or do you think what im saying is wrong ?

No, what you're saying is wrong. Because you're a European that means your opinion can be ignored. :D

[August]

And BTW how am i supposed to know you are a European if you don't list your location in your user profile, hmmmm?

[Biggles]

Good read CCIP, I'm with you there. Total waste of money:yep:

Then ofcourse, I'm not american, perhaps I should stay out of this...:oops:

[Foxtrot]

What is a Republican


WHAT I AM . . . is a man who believes in God; a God who has blessed this country . . . and all for which it stands.


Sorry to say but he is doing a piss poor job for a long time. :shifty:

God...your plans suck. You should resign immediately. :arrgh!:

[Sailor Steve]

Have to disagree with you on that one Steve. It is left wing organizations that have have led conspiracy to re-write our history books. With regards to the founding Fathers and references to religion and prayer.
I mentioned banning books, not rewriting history. As to the Founders, religion and prayer, I've spent the last two years making an intensive study of that very topic, and I think it's definitely the Right who want to change the story here. We can have that discussion if you like.

It is the democrats who want to enact the "fairness act" in attempts to stifle talk radio and other media that promotes conservative points of view. What is fair is that the dems can do their own radio talk shows and if people like it, great! If not change the station.
I certainly agree with you there. As with books, radio is a free market, and right-wing drivel is certainly what most of us saps like to hear (don't get me wrong, I only compare it to left-wing drivel, which is usually a lot more boring).

That's certainly the popular belief but i've never seen anyone produce figures proving or disproving that. What was that quote about telling a big enough lie often enough?
Fair enough point, and at the national level arguably true. But since most banning attempts come at local levels, and most attempts are for moral reasons, and since the Right always tries to claim the religious high ground, I hope you'll forgive me for assuming, and continuing to assume, that that is the source.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/libraries/topic.aspx?topic=banned_books

Of course, one of the reasons included is "politically incorrect, racist or sexist language" some of it does indeed come from the other side. But you have to admit that the left is less likely to promote banning because of "profanity or violence, sex or sex education, homosexuality, witchcraft and the occult, “secular humanism” or “new age” philosophies".
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~spok/most-banned.html

[Morts]

And BTW how am i supposed to know you are a European if you don't list your location in your user profile, hmmmm?
kinda forgot to add it ? and to your previous post

well thats your opinion, and since you're american..it can be ignored too:D

[SUBMAN1]

The biggest attempt at comprehensive censorship in the United States in recent memory was the Communications Decency Act of 1996--passed by a Republican Congress (with bipartisan support) and a Democratic President. (And struck down by a unanimous Supreme Court) The next biggest was a success... the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. You can argue over who pushes for this kind of **** more, but the truth is that both sides are about equally guilty.

Why don't you post what both those bills represent instead of hiding behind their names.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

biggest load of you know what ive read in a while, actually since last i checked one of your threads subman

(ooh man am i gonna be bashed by august and subman1 for this:rotfl: )
You won't get bashed by me. After all you're entitled to your opinion. It's wrong but you're entitled to be wrong. so its wrong that ive got an opinion just cause im european ? or do you think what im saying is wrong ?
No, what you're saying is wrong. Because you're a European that means your opinion can be ignored. :D :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: I've had a good laugh this morning thanks to you. Now off to work for me!

-S

[GlobalExplorer]

No, what you're saying is wrong. Because you're a European that means your opinion can be ignored. :D

Are you joking, or saying this is an internal US affair? Or did I overestimate your intelligence?

[August]

What is a Republican


WHAT I AM . . . is a man who believes in God; a God who has blessed this country . . . and all for which it stands.

Sorry to say but he is doing a piss poor job for a long time. :shifty:

God...your plans suck. You should resign immediately. :arrgh!:

Unlike you he is at least not ashamed to put his location down... :up:

[August]

No, what you're saying is wrong. Because you're a European that means your opinion can be ignored. :D
Are you joking, or saying this is an internal US affair? Or did I overestimate your intelligence?

Gee I thought the smiley was obvious enough but maybe I overestimated YOUR intelligence... :up:

[GlobalExplorer]

It's not a smiley it's a grin and as we're all talking monkeys that display of teeth and glee makes me VERY ANGRY!!

[August]

It's not a smiley it's a grin and as we're all talking monkeys that display of teeth and glee makes me VERY ANGRY!!

Please don't throw feces at me. :o

[McBeck]

No, what you're saying is wrong. Because you're a European that means your opinion can be ignored. :D
Are you joking, or saying this is an internal US affair? Or did I overestimate your intelligence?Both of you are making this either personal or about US vs Europe.
Keep it clean and not personal...thank you :arrgh!:

[Morts]

biggest load of you know what ive read in a while, actually since last i checked one of your threads subman

(ooh man am i gonna be bashed by august and subman1 for this:rotfl: )
You won't get bashed by me. After all you're entitled to your opinion. It's wrong but you're entitled to be wrong. so its wrong that ive got an opinion just cause im european ? or do you think what im saying is wrong ?
No, what you're saying is wrong. Because you're a European that means your opinion can be ignored. :D :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: I've had a good laugh this morning thanks to you. Now off to work for me!

-S
You're not welcome :up: :rotfl:

[August]

No, what you're saying is wrong. Because you're a European that means your opinion can be ignored. :D
Are you joking, or saying this is an internal US affair? Or did I overestimate your intelligence?Both of you are making this either personal or about US vs Europe.
Keep it clean and not personal...thank you :arrgh!:

Or we're just kidding around with each other. Hence the smileys...

[McBeck]

Very well...hard to tell the difference between VERY sarcastic and plain fun - I asume the first.

[RickC Sniper]

WHAT I AM . . . is a man who grew up during the Depression and witnessed, first hand, the effects of the Stock Market crash and the soup lines that followed. I watched as both my parents and grand parents, who had very little themselves, share what food they had with a half dozen other families, who had even less.


He is 52 years old and grew up during the Depression? My math is bad but not THAT bad.

[sharkbit]

WHAT I AM . . . is a man who grew up during the Depression and witnessed, first hand, the effects of the Stock Market crash and the soup lines that followed. I watched as both my parents and grand parents, who had very little themselves, share what food they had with a half dozen other families, who had even less.


He is 52 years old and grew up during the Depression? My math is bad but not THAT bad.

WHAT I AM . . . first and foremost, is a loving husband of some 52 plus years, the father of four and an American who's proud of his country. . . and his country's heritage.

He's been married 52 years, not 52 years old.
:)

[Tchocky]

The Republican is a relatively large Strepsirhine primate, belonging to the family Conservidae. The only species in the monotypic genus Publis, it is found only on the island of Madagascar.

[Biggles]

http://media.tumblr.com/fSymsOGXOcju6ipi4u0YrNRZ_500.gif
My current interest about what the republicans really are is displayed above...

[Frame57]

Have to disagree with you on that one Steve. It is left wing organizations that have have led conspiracy to re-write our history books. With regards to the founding Fathers and references to religion and prayer.
I mentioned banning books, not rewriting history. As to the Founders, religion and prayer, I've spent the last two years making an intensive study of that very topic, and I think it's definitely the Right who want to change the story here. We can have that discussion if you like.

It is the democrats who want to enact the "fairness act" in attempts to stifle talk radio and other media that promotes conservative points of view. What is fair is that the dems can do their own radio talk shows and if people like it, great! If not change the station.
I certainly agree with you there. As with books, radio is a free market, and right-wing drivel is certainly what most of us saps like to hear (don't get me wrong, I only compare it to left-wing drivel, which is usually a lot more boring).

That's certainly the popular belief but i've never seen anyone produce figures proving or disproving that. What was that quote about telling a big enough lie often enough?
Fair enough point, and at the national level arguably true. But since most banning attempts come at local levels, and most attempts are for moral reasons, and since the Right always tries to claim the religious high ground, I hope you'll forgive me for assuming, and continuing to assume, that that is the source.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/libraries/topic.aspx?topic=banned_books

Of course, one of the reasons included is "politically incorrect, racist or sexist language" some of it does indeed come from the other side. But you have to admit that the left is less likely to promote banning because of "profanity or violence, sex or sex education, homosexuality, witchcraft and the occult, “secular humanism” or “new age” philosophies".
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~spok/most-banned.htmlWhere shall we start! With the inscription on the liberty bell or that Ben franklin himself requested that every session of Congreess begin with prayer...I have very old history books that are clearly different from the latest ones used in schools today. The shift is of recent and not the other way around. The national archives have all the evidence to support the history before it was hijacked. I am well prepared on this matter and it will be an interesting discussion.

[Onkel Neal]

I read this and was initially inclined to think it was an urban legend...surprise! It's true. http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/whatiam.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/whatiam.asp)

More power to you, Mr. Esseff. You proved the American Dream, and you have nothing to be ashamed of except the misfortune to be surrounded by have-nots who blame you for their lack of success in life.

[Sailor Steve]

[quote=Sailor Steve]Where shall we start! With the inscription on the liberty bell or that Ben franklin himself requested that every session of Congreess begin with prayer...
The same Ben Franklin who requested Congress open with prayer was branded a heretic and even an atheist by religious leaders of his own day. Of course the reason was that he questioned the honesty and sincerity of those leaders.
http://americanrevolutionblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/will-real-deistchristian-please-stand_27.html

However, his actual stated beliefs would earn him similar treatment by any serious Christian leader today.
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/44/Letter_from_Benjamin_Franklin_to_Ezra_Stiles_1.htm l

Franklin believed, but he expressed doubts about the divinity of Jesus, which would, I believe, earn him the wrath of modern evangelicals were he to enter the political arena today.

Likewise Jefferson, who told his nephew Peter Carr to "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_carr.html

This was the kind of thing that led Christian leaders of his own time to oppose his presidency and label him and atheist.

I have very old history books that are clearly different from the latest ones used in schools today. The shift is of recent and not the other way around. The national archives have all the evidence to support the history before it was hijacked.
If we're talking about school textbooks, then I agree, to a point. Schoolbooks are always being rewritten to suit the times, and it's good to oppose it, if for no other reason than to keep the conversation alive. I dislike history books in general, unless they are tightly focused on a specific subject. I have come to prefer biographies of late, as they tend to give not only the subject's own writings and thoughts, but also those of his contemporaries. Last year I read Dumas Malone's massive six-volume, 3500-page biography of Jefferson, which led me on an entertaining journey through seven more books, culminating in Annette Gordon-Reed's Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.

But I'm also fond of 'different' history books. Two favorites: Who Were The Founding Fathers, by Steven H. Jaffe http://www.amazon.com/Who-Were-Founding-Fathers-Reinventing/dp/0805031022 which doesn't try to explain them, but rather shows what they thought of themselves and each other, then goes on to show from each generation's writings what they thought of the Founders, including their attempts to use those men's words to support a variety of different, and often conflicting, causes; which brings us back to the subject at hand.

The second is Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers, by Brooke Allen http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minority-Skeptical-Founding-Fathers/dp/1566636752 She is biased toward atheism, or at least unbelief, but she makes some good points about what each of the big six (Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton) actually believed, or at least what can be culled from their own writings and the opinions of those who knew them.

Oh, and as to the Pennsylvania State House Bell (its original name), all the inscription shows is that Isaac Norris, who ordered it, was indeed a Christian, as were (presumably) all of his Quaker fellows. Except for those like Ben Franklin, who was definitely not a Quaker.

I am well prepared on this matter and it will be an interesting discussion.
I hope so (on both counts).

[Frame57]

[quote=Sailor Steve]Where shall we start! With the inscription on the liberty bell or that Ben franklin himself requested that every session of Congreess begin with prayer...
The same Ben Franklin who requested Congress open with prayer was branded a heretic and even an atheist by religious leaders of his own day. Of course the reason was that he questioned the honesty and sincerity of those leaders.
http://americanrevolutionblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/will-real-deistchristian-please-stand_27.html

However, his actual stated beliefs would earn him similar treatment by any serious Christian leader today.
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/44/Letter_from_Benjamin_Franklin_to_Ezra_Stiles_1.htm l

Franklin believed, but he expressed doubts about the divinity of Jesus, which would, I believe, earn him the wrath of modern evangelicals were he to enter the political arena today.

Likewise Jefferson, who told his nephew Peter Carr to "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_carr.html

This was the kind of thing that led Christian leaders of his own time to oppose his presidency and label him and atheist.

I have very old history books that are clearly different from the latest ones used in schools today. The shift is of recent and not the other way around. The national archives have all the evidence to support the history before it was hijacked.
If we're talking about school textbooks, then I agree, to a point. Schoolbooks are always being rewritten to suit the times, and it's good to oppose it, if for no other reason than to keep the conversation alive. I dislike history books in general, unless they are tightly focused on a specific subject. I have come to prefer biographies of late, as they tend to give not only the subject's own writings and thoughts, but also those of his contemporaries. Last year I read Dumas Malone's massive six-volume, 3500-page biography of Jefferson, which led me on an entertaining journey through seven more books, culminating in Annette Gordon-Reed's Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.

But I'm also fond of 'different' history books. Two favorites: Who Were The Founding Fathers, by Steven H. Jaffe http://www.amazon.com/Who-Were-Founding-Fathers-Reinventing/dp/0805031022 which doesn't try to explain them, but rather shows what they thought of themselves and each other, then goes on to show from each generation's writings what they thought of the Founders, including their attempts to use those men's words to support a variety of different, and often conflicting, causes; which brings us back to the subject at hand.

The second is Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers, by Brooke Allen http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minority-Skeptical-Founding-Fathers/dp/1566636752 She is biased toward atheism, or at least unbelief, but she makes some good points about what each of the big six (Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton) actually believed, or at least what can be culled from their own writings and the opinions of those who knew them.

Oh, and as to the Pennsylvania State House Bell (its original name), all the inscription shows is that Isaac Norris, who ordered it, was indeed a Christian, as were (presumably) all of his Quaker fellows. Except for those like Ben Franklin, who was definitely not a Quaker.

I am well prepared on this matter and it will be an interesting discussion.
I hope so (on both counts).Well, let's begin a bit earlier. What in your opinion and education was the reason the pilgrims came to these shores? It will be interesting to prelude this before we get to the Founding Padres:)

[Onkel Neal]

@ Steve: Well done! :up:

.

[Frame57]

Ben Franklin was still a man of faith. Regardless whether or not he was embraced by the protestants. He was real. He questioned things, which is good. He studied the scriptures and clearly saw that Jesus was not God...I applaud him. However that has no bearing on the fact that he had beliefs that led him to requesting that congessional session be opened with prayer.

Thomas Jefferson was a maverick indeed but what Athesist would write the following in the preamble of the declaration of Independance,

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."

or the conclusion of the document,

"...and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance of the protection of divine providence..."

Granted this historical document makes no reference to who this creator is, but that is moot because a creator is a creator period. Only a nitwit would imply that our Founding Fathers were really closet Buddist. These men were probably not what Jerry Falwell would have us to think. They may not have even attended church regualrly for that matter, but the point here is that no matter what their personal views were regarding God, they often and publicy cited God and prayer and divine providence. This fact is indisputable and is hopefully forever preserved in our national archives.

[Sailor Steve]

Well, let's begin a bit earlier. What in your opinion and education was the reason the pilgrims came to these shores? It will be interesting to prelude this before we get to the Founding Padres:)
I'm laughing at myself here, as just a cursory look at the information available shows me how much I don't know about the details. For instance, I'm guilty of confusing the Pilgrims and the Puritans, but not without good cause.

First came Virginia. Sir Walter Raleigh put together a group of investors to organize a planting colony in 1584, and again in 1587, neither of which survived. With the Jamestown colony in 1607 Virginia was established, but it came into being for no other reasons than to make money and to establish an official English presence in the new world.

The Pilgrims were a group of 'Non-conformists', so-called because they did not conform to the strictures of the Anglican church. Since the Anglicans held the position of 'Official State Church', anyone who wasn't strictly Anglican had problems. Were they actually persecuted, or just denied certain rights and priveledges? I didn't look that far yet, so I don't know. The fact is that they felt abused, and that's what counts, so they packed up and moved to Holland. Finding life there to be a little on the hard side, they made a deal with the Plymouth Company to become part of Virginia. They had originally intended to settle the very northern boundary of the colony, in present-day New York, but wound up a little further east and north, in what is now Massachussets. An interesting side-note: not one of their contemporary documents mentions Plymouth Rock.

Some of the Mayflower colonists were not Pilgrims, and did not come for religious reasons. When they ended up outside of the Virginia boundaries, those others claimed that they were not bound by the Pilgrims' tenets and did not have to attend church. In order to keep order and civility they created a civil government, chartered in the Mayflower Compact, and settled into a mutually beneficial existence.

Yes, it's true: the Pilgrims really did come seeking religious freedom, and they were quite tolerant of others, possibly because of their own beliefs, and possibly because they had no choice. When half the colony had died within the year, they were more than happy to accept the natives who rescued them with food and supplies.

But then in 1624 came the Puritans. They too came seeking religious freedom, but apparently only for themselves. They set up their own government, creating the city of Boston and the Massachussets Bay colony, and they were just as intolerant as the Anglicans they had escaped. Without going into the witch-hunts and persecutions, it's easiest to make an example of Roger Williams, who really did preach religious freedom and tolerance, and was expelled for his efforts.

I have no argument with the fact that the English colonists here all professed Christianity, just as did all the Spanish colonists who populated the areas south of our borders. But how many of them were really religious believers, and how many were 'scratch-the-surface' christians? Just as today, many who attend church do so as a matter of habit or custom, and if you ask them they'll say "Of course I'm a Christian". But are they really?

Since what we're discussing is the influence of Christianity on the development of the American government and attitude, I think those are fair questions. My personal belief is that the Christian influence on our moral behavior and attitudes is undeniable, but those same influences can also be found in other religions who had them prior to any contact with Christians, and I also believe that our ideas on government and freedom came from other influences altogether.

[Sailor Steve]

Ben Franklin was still a man of faith. Regardless whether or not he was embraced by the protestants. He was real. He questioned things, which is good. He studied the scriptures and clearly saw that Jesus was not God...I applaud him. However that has no bearing on the fact that he had beliefs that led him to requesting that congessional session be opened with prayer.
True. One only has to read his beautiful self-composed epitaph to realise that. But the argument made by the hardcore Right is that he was a Christian through-and-through. My disagreement is on that point alone, since that seems to be the only thing that matters to them.

Thomas Jefferson was a maverick indeed but what Athesist would write the following in the preamble of the declaration of Independance,

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."

or the conclusion of the document,

"...and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance of the protection of divine providence..."

Granted this historical document makes no reference to who this creator is, but that is moot because a creator is a creator period. Only a nitwit would imply that our Founding Fathers were really closet Buddist. These men were probably not what Jerry Falwell would have us to think. They may not have even attended church regualrly for that matter, but the point here is that no matter what their personal views were regarding God, they often and publicy cited God and prayer and divine providence. This fact is indisputable and is hopefully forever preserved in our national archives.
True again. Jefferson was accused of Atheism by the people who hated him. But he was quite reticent about what he really believed, and gave them good fodder for dismissing him as definitely not being what they called a Christian. I don't think any of the founders was what Jerry Falwell would have us believe, as you put it, and I agree that they were probably not what Ellen Johnson would want us to believe either, but again my argument is with the insistence that America was founded to conform to Christian principles, and it's my belief that those very principles were what those founders were trying to avoid having be the controlling factor of the government.

[Frame57]

Ben Franklin was still a man of faith. Regardless whether or not he was embraced by the protestants. He was real. He questioned things, which is good. He studied the scriptures and clearly saw that Jesus was not God...I applaud him. However that has no bearing on the fact that he had beliefs that led him to requesting that congessional session be opened with prayer.
True. One only has to read his beautiful self-composed epitaph to realise that. But the argument made by the hardcore Right is that he was a Christian through-and-through. My disagreement is on that point alone, since that seems to be the only thing that matters to them.

Thomas Jefferson was a maverick indeed but what Athesist would write the following in the preamble of the declaration of Independance,

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."

or the conclusion of the document,

"...and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance of the protection of divine providence..."

Granted this historical document makes no reference to who this creator is, but that is moot because a creator is a creator period. Only a nitwit would imply that our Founding Fathers were really closet Buddist. These men were probably not what Jerry Falwell would have us to think. They may not have even attended church regualrly for that matter, but the point here is that no matter what their personal views were regarding God, they often and publicy cited God and prayer and divine providence. This fact is indisputable and is hopefully forever preserved in our national archives.
True again. Jefferson was accused of Atheism by the people who hated him. But he was quite reticent about what he really believed, and gave them good fodder for dismissing him as definitely not being what they called a Christian. I don't think any of the founders was what Jerry Falwell would have us believe, as you put it, and I agree that they were probably not what Ellen Johnson would want us to believe either, but again my argument is with the insistence that America was founded to conform to Christian principles, and it's my belief that those very principles were what those founders were trying to avoid having be the controlling factor of the government.It seems we agree moreso on these matters. I am inspired at this poin to learn more about what made Jefferson tick. I think at the bottom of the brook we will find we are in agreement on most of these issues now that we see where we are coming from. No doubt Jefferson had beliefs, but they as mine and perhaps yours will conflict with what is acceptable "doctrine" of the established church. I am thankful that people stand up for what they believe in based on knowledge. It is difficult for me to find common fellowship at various denomination because I have studied in detail the subject matter of the trinity and disagree with it. Hence, I am also a heretic or as they put it "...cult tendencies". Good discussion and if you have some good references regarding Jefferson I would enjoy reading them. (PM me). Thanks!:up:

[Sailor Steve]

It seems we agree moreso on these matters. I am inspired at this poin to learn more about what made Jefferson tick. I think at the bottom of the brook we will find we are in agreement on most of these issues now that we see where we are coming from. No doubt Jefferson had beliefs, but they as mine and perhaps yours will conflict with what is acceptable "doctrine" of the established church. I am thankful that people stand up for what they believe in based on knowledge. It is difficult for me to find common fellowship at various denomination because I have studied in detail the subject matter of the trinity and disagree with it. Hence, I am also a heretic or as they put it "...cult tendencies". Good discussion and if you have some good references regarding Jefferson I would enjoy reading them. (PM me). Thanks!:up:
I'm actually a lot more conservative than I usually come across, partly because my belief in maximum freedom causes me to side with the liberals on some issues, and partly because it drives me crazy when anyone argues from the point of view that their opinion is the only valid one, which many conservatives seem to do.

As for the trinity, you're in good company with John Adams, whose Congregationalist church adopted Unitarianism while he was a member.

I just stumbled on a fascinating discussion of Adams' opinion of the Jewish State, and how his beliefs differed from the mainstream. The article is good; some of the comments even better.
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/09/john-adams-zionist-unitarian-universalist.html

I've read that Adams wrote condemning the concept of the Trinity, but I can't find it anywhere online at the moment. It may have been in David McCollough's biography, the one the miniseries was made from.

http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/John_Adams.html
That last source also ends with Adams' statement as president that in his opinion the US government was "...is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion ..."

I'll PM you a list of Jefferson sources, as requested.

[Frame57]

Thanks Steve and if you do run across the article pertaining John Adams it would be of great interest. My reasons are to see if they refer to any other text other than the 1611 KJV that they may have studied.:up: