PDA

View Full Version : New Jersey..they did it.



sbl
01-08-2008, 12:15 AM
updated 11:12 p.m. EST, Mon January 7, 2008


New Jersey officially apologizes for slavery

Story Highlights

New Jersey is first state in the north to apologize for slavery in legislation

New Jersey had 12,000 slaves, one of the largest in the northern colonies

The state was the last to emancipate slaves, in 1846

The resolution will become official when filed with secretary of state

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/07/nj.slavery.bill/

ejazzyjeff
01-08-2008, 12:36 AM
Opponents said the apology was a meaningless gesture. Assemblyman Richard Merkt, a Republican, said everyone deems slavery an abomination.

"But this was a sin that was atoned for in blood 150 years ago by the death of 650,000 Americans," Merkt said, referring to the Civil War.

I believe the above states it all.

MBond057
01-08-2008, 12:58 AM
Jeff,

I couldn’t agree with you more!

sbl
01-08-2008, 02:37 AM
What do the 258,000 Confederate dead and the states and individuals who identify with them say?

bizzilizzit
01-08-2008, 02:58 AM
updated 11:12 p.m. EST, Mon January 7, 2008


New Jersey officially apologizes for slavery


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/07/nj.slavery.bill/

I'm so ashamed to be a Jersey Girl...
Elizabeth Topping

FloridaConfederate
01-08-2008, 03:21 AM
What do the 258,000 Confederate dead and the states and individuals who identify with them say?

Next chapter

http://www.teletastic.com/watch/2292

DaveGink
01-08-2008, 04:43 AM
I'm so ashamed to be a Jersey Girl...
Elizabeth Topping

I don't blame you for feeling that way. I would too.

It's bad enough that the residents of NJ just had their tax dollars blown on this. But being told that I (and my government) am guilty for slavery would really piss me off. Because you only apologize for someting you have done wrong and are guilty and complicit for. And no one alive today or in Government is. But NJ lawmakers (being elected representatives of the people) have just basically pronounced EVERY citizen of the State complicit for slavery (and pissed off I couldn't guess how many people - all by passing a "feel good" measure meant to make one small group of people, who hold a grudge for something they weren't even alive for, feel better).

Unbelievable.

And (as already pointed out, but I'll add more) Richard Merkt is correct when he said:

"everyone deems slavery an abomination. But this was a sin that was atoned for in blood 150 years ago by the death of 650,000 Americans," Merkt said, referring to the Civil War.

He said many New Jersey families descend from immigrants who arrived after slavery was abolished.

"America does not and has never accepted the notion of collective guilt," Merkt said. "We can all, and should all, express profound sorrow about the evils of slavery, but none of us can truly apologize for the institution because neither we, nor anyone we represent, was in any way responsible for it."

HooAh!

Charles Weathers
01-08-2008, 04:53 AM
I don't know if this is relevant...

I had an acquaintance once rant at me about the plight of the black minority (see was chinese-american) and that they had no rights, restitution, apologies, etc..... (she went on FOREVER). I politely reminded her that Native Americans never received restitution, were descriminated against long after "slaves" were accepted into the white world (and still are), never received apologies, and are still oppressed to this day. This is not the rule but it sure isn't the exception. AND, they are the only minority required to have proof of ancestry (Yes, there are many reasons. But that's not the point). She had no more to say after that.

sbl
01-08-2008, 05:06 AM
Christopher,

I'll check it out when I get home..Stream'n media is blocked here. I turn the channel when Dave Chapell is on BTW.

jthlmnn
01-08-2008, 06:46 AM
The intensity of the responses above leads me to ask, "How many of the posters have read the document, in its entirety, and taken the time to think through the data and logic presented?" If you haven't, I suggest that you do, with closest attention paid to pages 3-5.

mnreb
01-08-2008, 06:52 AM
Political correctness (which is what I feel this is) is killing our country. Just my humble opinion.
William Feuchtenberger
1st South Carolina Volunteers

reddcorp
01-08-2008, 07:20 AM
Well, as for me, I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy.

Can't wait until we all get to kick in with our tax dollars to pay for reparations.

Andy Redd

Malingerer
01-08-2008, 07:25 AM
The intensity of the responses above leads me to ask, "How many of the posters have read the document, in its entirety, and taken the time to think through the data and logic presented?" If you haven't, I suggest that you do, with closest attention paid to pages 3-5.
So, John, let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that people read and inform themselves about the subject before they express their indignation? You are kidding right?

DaveGink
01-08-2008, 07:30 AM
I don't know if this is relevant...

I had an acquaintance once rant at me about the plight of the black minority (see was chinese-american) and that they had no rights, restitution, apologies, etc..... (she went on FOREVER). I politely reminded her that Native Americans never received restitution, were descriminated against long after "slaves" were accepted into the white world (and still are), never received apologies, and are still oppressed to this day. This is not the rule but it sure isn't the exception. AND, they are the only minority required to have proof of ancestry (Yes, there are many reasons. But that's not the point). She had no more to say after that.

Yep, that's just it. Every single person and group of people can find injustices done to "their people" throughout history, regardless of skin color, religion, or whatever. At some point one needs to live their OWN life and move forward. And stop blaming and holding grudges for things that happened before they were even alive - towards people today who were not alive or in any way complicit. It's unhealthy. As if there aren't enough "real" issues that need to be addressed in the world today. My fear is that this type of legislated apology will hurt far more than it helps -- and instead of "speeding healing" it perpetuates the issue and creates more divisiveness. And also opens up a big ole can of worms.

After all, if the people of NJ need to give out a "feel good" apology for slavery, then we should all apologize for everything to everybody who may feel wronged by something they were not alive for - by people who were also not alive. And make sure no one is left out, because that wouldn't be fair. After all, why should only those who feel offended by slavery (even though they weren't alive for it) be the only ones to get such an apology? (Yes, this was sarcasm)

DaveGink
01-08-2008, 07:38 AM
The intensity of the responses above leads me to ask, "How many of the posters have read the document, in its entirety, and taken the time to think through the data and logic presented?" If you haven't, I suggest that you do, with closest attention paid to pages 3-5.

I did. It didn't change my views at all. In fact it only reenforced them. What "logic" contained within it do you think would change my views? Because I think their "logic" is totally flawed.

DaveGink
01-08-2008, 07:39 AM
Political correctness (which is what I feel this is) is killing our country. Just my humble opinion.
William Feuchtenberger
1st South Carolina Volunteers

Agreed!!!!

Charles Weathers
01-08-2008, 07:45 AM
Yep, that's just it. Every single person and group of people can find injustices done to "their people" throughout history, regardless of skin color, religion, or whatever. At some point one needs to live their OWN life and move forward. And stop blaming and holding grudges for things that happened before they were even alive - towards people today who were not alive or in any way complicit. It's unhealthy. As if there aren't enough "real" issues that need to be addressed in the world today. My fear is that this type of legislated apology will hurt far more than it helps -- and instead of "speeding healing" it perpetuates the issue and creates more divisiveness. And also opens up a big ole can of worms.

After all, if the people of NJ need to give out a "feel good" apology for slavery, then we should all apologize for everything to everybody who may feel wronged by something they were not alive for - by people who were also not alive. And make sure no one is left out, because that wouldn't be fair. After all, why should only those who feel offended by slavery (even though they weren't alive for it) be the only ones to get such an apology? (Yes, this was sarcasm)

Well, in that case, I'm just plain sorry I was born! :mrgreen:

sbl
01-08-2008, 08:00 AM
Dang that Political Correctness! I want to be free to sound like a bigot and a louse!

DaveGink
01-08-2008, 08:05 AM
Dang that Political Correctness! I want to be free to sound like a bigot and a louse!

Now see, this is just an idiotic thing to say.

As if opposing a legislated "feel good" apology for something that no one alive was involved with (and could IMO do more harm than good) - somehow makes one a bigot or a louse.

And unfortunately this is typical of the kinds of tactics used far too frequently in this Country to try and shut up opposing opinions. Like calling someone a homophobe if they oppose gay marriage, or a war-monger if they support Iraq.

Opposing this apology has nothing to do with race or bigoty, and if anyone should be apologizing, your comment is the kind of thing that should be apologized for.

ejazzyjeff
01-08-2008, 08:53 AM
The intensity of the responses above leads me to ask, "How many of the posters have read the document, in its entirety, and taken the time to think through the data and logic presented?" If you haven't, I suggest that you do, with closest attention paid to pages 3-5.

I did read it before I first posted the article on 3 Jan 08. It is PC run amok.

DaveGink says it well
..Because you only apologize for someting you have done wrong and are guilty and complicit for. And no one alive today or in Government is. But NJ lawmakers (being elected representatives of the people) have just basically pronounced EVERY citizen of the State complicit for slavery (and pissed off I couldn't guess how many people - all by passing a "feel good" measure meant to make one small group of people, who hold a grudge for something they weren't even alive for, feel better).

tompritchett
01-08-2008, 09:05 AM
And unfortunately this is typical of the kinds of tactics used far too frequently in this Country to try and shut up opposing opinions. Like calling someone a homophobe if they oppose gay marriage, or a war-monger if they support Iraq.

You are so right, but the name calling is used by both sides of the political spectrum. I can remember the Vice President calling anyone a supporter of terrorism who questioned the Administration's performance to date in Iraq and Afganistan, and he has not been the only one to use that term. I can also remember a Speaker of the House calling Congressional opponents to the war terrorists Unfortunately, under laws passed under this Administration, these two terms are more than just names as being labeled either by the government itself automatically means that the person being so labeled as lost some or many, depending upon which label was applied, of the protections accorded to citizens of the U.S. under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. (And I believe that in another thread, someone asked me if I was afraid of our nation being taken over by a totalitarian government.)

sbl
01-08-2008, 09:18 AM
Now see, this is just an idiotic thing to say.

As if opposing a legislated "feel good" apology for something that no one alive was involved with (and could IMO do more harm than good) - somehow makes one a bigot or a louse.

And unfortunately this is typical of the kinds of tactics used far too frequently in this Country to try and shut up opposing opinions. Like calling someone a homophobe if they oppose gay marriage, or a war-monger if they support Iraq.

Opposing this apology has nothing to do with race or bigoty, and if anyone should be apologizing, your comment is the kind of thing that should be apologized for.


Dave I've hear this "too PC" junk for years and what I wrote is what it boils down too. It's a bumper sticker response no matter where it comes from.

jthlmnn
01-08-2008, 09:28 AM
So, John, let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that people read and inform themselves about the subject before they express their indignation? You are kidding right?

Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

Doug Cooper
01-08-2008, 09:47 AM
Normally, I stand by this credo -

You cannot raise anyone up by tearing others down or assuming guilt for something you had nothing to do with. You cannot raise a man's standing by removing all incentives to improve himself nor by providing an excuse that it is OK not to improve.

Having said that - any move that would help all of us get beyond the issue and focus on the future is a good thing. There may be millions of Americans for whom this might just be the proof they need that we all know it was a bad thing. Those same folks don't know about the Civil War - heck lots of folks keep telling them it wasn't about slavery, so the deaths in the war mean nothing. Trouble is, some of those same apologists (tiny but vocal) in America still think slavery was not such a bad thing.

It costs nothing to apologize, even if it isn't your fault.

In a perfect world, the SCV spends all their money on saving battlefields and the NAACP spends all their money on economic initiatives and job training. If this apology helps even a tiny bit, its worth it.

jthlmnn
01-08-2008, 10:05 AM
I did read it before I first posted the article on 3 Jan 08.

Good. Then we have a basis for discussion.

Do you dispute the history of events contained in the resolution? If so, which parts?

Do you find fault with the notion that a state government can/should apologize for official actions it has taken or the tolerance/encouragement (by the state government) of unofficial actions taken by any of its citizens?

In citing Dave's response, I take it that you agree with his assertion that this resolution labels all citizens of New Jersey as racists or bigots. Where in the text do you find the statements that would support this conclusion?

firstmdes
01-08-2008, 10:29 AM
[QUOTE=sbl]New Jersey is first state in the north to apologize for slavery in legislation[QUOTE]

I might be splitting hairs with this, but Maryland apologized for slavery in March of 2007 becoming the first 'northern' state to apologize for slavery. New Jersey might have been the first north of the Mason Dixon Line, but MD was the first state which sent troops in support of the Union to apologize for slavery.

I am not saying whether its a good thing or a bad thing, just stating a fact.

Now back to fighting over whether all the Union dead and maimed was apology enough!

DaveGink
01-08-2008, 10:36 AM
In citing Dave's response, I take it that you agree with his assertion that this resolution labels all citizens of New Jersey as racists or bigots. Where in the text do you find the statements that would support this conclusion?

I do not think you have read what was said here very carefully.

No where did I assert that this resolution labels all citizens of New Jersey as racists or bigots

My comments about "rascists and bigots" was in response to sbl inferring that those here who do not support this apology is a "bigot or a louse". I said opposing the apology DOES NOT make anyone a rascist or bigot. Please get that right. Thanks!

FloridaConfederate
01-08-2008, 12:29 PM
"There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs." Booker T. Washington

jthlmnn
01-08-2008, 12:31 PM
Sorry Dave and thank you for the correction. This is the passage I was thinking of:



But being told that I (and my government) am guilty for slavery would really piss me off. Because you only apologize for someting you have done wrong and are guilty and complicit for. And no one alive today or in Government is. But NJ lawmakers (being elected representatives of the people) have just basically pronounced EVERY citizen of the State complicit for slavery.

I would ask the same question, however. Where in the text of the resolution do you read this? The government and its actions are explicitly mentioned, of course, but where do you see this being applied to every citizen?

MtVernon
01-08-2008, 12:58 PM
I don't blame you for feeling that way. I would too.

It's bad enough that the residents of NJ just had their tax dollars blown on this. But being told that I (and my government) am guilty for slavery would really piss me off. Because you only apologize for someting you have done wrong and are guilty and complicit for. And no one alive today or in Government is. But NJ lawmakers (being elected representatives of the people) have just basically pronounced EVERY citizen of the State complicit for slavery (and pissed off I couldn't guess how many people - all by passing a "feel good" measure meant to make one small group of people, who hold a grudge for something they weren't even alive for, feel better).

Unbelievable.

And (as already pointed out, but I'll add more) Richard Merkt is correct when he said:

"everyone deems slavery an abomination. But this was a sin that was atoned for in blood 150 years ago by the death of 650,000 Americans," Merkt said, referring to the Civil War.

He said many New Jersey families descend from immigrants who arrived after slavery was abolished.

"America does not and has never accepted the notion of collective guilt," Merkt said. "We can all, and should all, express profound sorrow about the evils of slavery, but none of us can truly apologize for the institution because neither we, nor anyone we represent, was in any way responsible for it."

HooAh!

Let me add that in addition to this being a waste of taxpayer dollars and time, nothing is really gained by this. Whoever proposed this gets a fat feather in his cap without really tackling something of any substance. Who's for slavery? No one, of course. But he gets to play the hero and add this to his C.V. without really sticking his neck out for anything that might really be courageous.

MtVernon
01-08-2008, 01:06 PM
Do you dispute the history of events contained in the resolution? If so, which parts?

I dispute the part about history recording this as the worst "holocaust of humankind [sic]", but I know that that's really just about someone getting caught up in the fervor of drafting the proposal.

DaveGink
01-08-2008, 02:00 PM
Sorry Dave and thank you for the correction. This is the passage I was thinking of:


But being told that I (and my government) am guilty for slavery would really piss me off. Because you only apologize for someting you have done wrong and are guilty and complicit for. And no one alive today or in Government is. But NJ lawmakers (being elected representatives of the people) have just basically pronounced EVERY citizen of the State complicit for slavery.

I would ask the same question, however. Where in the text of the resolution do you read this? The government and its actions are explicitly mentioned, of course, but where do you see this being applied to every citizen?


You missed the point. I'll try to flesh it out for you.

The resolution synopsis begins with: (The Legislature of the State of New Jersey) "Expresses New Jersey’s profound regret for its role in slavery and APOLOGIZES for wrongs inflicted by slavery and its after effects in the United States" -- And ends with a similar statement. Everything in the middle is pretty much a history lesson.

An apology is more than just a statement of regret for an act. It's also a statement of guilt and complicitness for that act.

And it applies to every citizen because we have a representative government. A government of the people, for the people, by the people. You can not separate the two. The government speaks for the people (en masse) when the resolution says "New Jersey". And if the current government legislates such an apology on behalf of New Jersey (the people), as their representatives, they are automatically making the people of the State guilty and complicit.

So let me ask you: Are the people living in New Jersey today responsible for "the wrongs inflicted by slavery" in any way?

The answer is obviously "no", so then it is simply WRONG for their representatives to apologize for something the people have nothing to do with. The apology is basically a LIE since no one has done anything to apologize for. It would have been one thing had they issued a "statement of regret" ... but that is NOT what they did.

And if my government did that to me, and put such an apology in my mouth, I'd be very angry. I'm not responsible for slavery, and I don't know any one who is. I can express regret for slavery, and learn from the past, but I refuse to apologize for something I am in no way guilty for.

Again, as Richard Merkt so rightfully stated in his opinion: "America does not and has never accepted the notion of collective guilt ... We can all, and should all, express profound sorrow about the evils of slavery, but none of us can truly apologize for the institution because neither we, nor anyone we represent, was in any way responsible for it."

That all said, this is only ONE PART of MANY reasons I've already stated throughout these two threads as to why I oppose this apology, and think the whole thing is not only ludicrous, but actually bad -- and opens the door to far more problems than it will ever help.

tompritchett
01-08-2008, 05:20 PM
Whatever happened to the concept of respectfully agreeing to disagree?

sbl
01-08-2008, 11:11 PM
JC,

"Holocaust" has gotten to be a term most people can understand, the Gold Standard of wrong. "Three Horsemen on the Apocalypse Scale" or "The Registry Of Motor Vehicles" hasn't caught on yet.

sbl
01-08-2008, 11:25 PM
Christopher,

I'll check it out when I get home..Stream'n media is blocked here. I turn the channel when Dave Chapell is on BTW.


Christopher I tried to re-find the Family Guy episode, "The Road to Rupert" on Youtube but it's gone. If you can find it, you may enjoy Stewie's visit to Gettysburg.

Stewie: "Your WELCOME!"

bizzilizzit
01-09-2008, 03:56 AM
I'm so ashamed to be a Jersey Girl...
Elizabeth Topping

Funny, I now live in Ohio and listen to talk radio and they are speaking about NJ's apology. Most people agree that this was a pointless act that may stir up other problems/issues (see poll on www.wvtn.com). Another point brought up: might this action, at this time, have anything to do with the fact that we have a black man running for president? Food food thought...
Elizabeth

sbl
01-09-2008, 04:14 AM
"..Food food thought..."

No Elizabeth, but I'm sure the Talk Radio types will make it sound like it is.

bizzilizzit
01-09-2008, 04:14 AM
Funny, I now live in Ohio and listen to talk radio and they are speaking about NJ's apology. Most people agree that this was a pointless act that may stir up other problems/issues (see poll on www.wvtn.com). Another point brought up: might this action, at this time, have anything to do with the fact that we have a black man running for president? Food food thought...
Elizabeth

More info:
http://wtvn.com/pages/pp_joelriley.html

bizzilizzit
01-09-2008, 04:15 AM
"..Food food thought..."

No Elizabeth, but I'm sure the Talk Radio types will make it sound like it is.

This is local talk radio, not the big guys. These are opinions of the callers, not the hosts.
Elizabeth

sbl
01-09-2008, 04:17 AM
Wow Elizabeth that was quick! Slow day at work for you too?

sbl
01-09-2008, 04:19 AM
TUESDAY
"Tuesday 01-08-2008 11:48am ET
YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE BIG BUCKEYE LOSS.
ALSO
WOULD YOU VOTE FOR THIS WOMAN FOR MAYOR?"

Dear Elizabeth! Thanks for the link!

Malingerer
01-09-2008, 04:22 AM
This is local talk radio, not the big guys. These are opinions of the callers, not the hosts.
Elizabeth
Then the callers are idiots. "Food for thought"? No, more like paranoid rants from the loonies of the far right.

jthlmnn
01-09-2008, 05:21 AM
You missed the point. I'll try to flesh it out for you.

The resolution synopsis begins with: (The Legislature of the State of New Jersey) "Expresses New Jersey’s profound regret for its role in slavery and APOLOGIZES for wrongs inflicted by slavery and its after effects in the United States" -- And ends with a similar statement. Everything in the middle is pretty much a history lesson.

An apology is more than just a statement of regret for an act. It's also a statement of guilt and complicitness for that act.

And it applies to every citizen because we have a representative government. A government of the people, for the people, by the people. You can not separate the two. The government speaks for the people (en masse) when the resolution says "New Jersey". And if the current government legislates such an apology on behalf of New Jersey (the people), as their representatives, they are automatically making the people of the State guilty and complicit.

So let me ask you: Are the people living in New Jersey today responsible for "the wrongs inflicted by slavery" in any way?


The answer is obviously "no", so then it is simply WRONG for their representatives to apologize for something the people have nothing to do with. The apology is basically a LIE since no one has done anything to apologize for. It would have been one thing had they issued a "statement of regret" ... but that is NOT what they did.

And if my government did that to me, and put such an apology in my mouth, I'd be very angry. I'm not responsible for slavery, and I don't know any one who is. I can express regret for slavery, and learn from the past, but I refuse to apologize for something I am in no way guilty for.

Again, as Richard Merkt so rightfully stated in his opinion: "America does not and has never accepted the notion of collective guilt ... We can all, and should all, express profound sorrow about the evils of slavery, but none of us can truly apologize for the institution because neither we, nor anyone we represent, was in any way responsible for it."

That all said, this is only ONE PART of MANY reasons I've already stated throughout these two threads as to why I oppose this apology, and think the whole thing is not only ludicrous, but actually bad -- and opens the door to far more problems than it will ever help.

There are two sets of actions and two separate groups involved in this apology.

The first set of actions involves the practice of legalized slavery. It was enacted and sanctioned by the state government/ legislature of New Jersey and later abolished by the same state government/legislature of New Jersey. It does not matter that individual members of said state government changed. It is the same entity, from day 1 of statehood to now. As to legalized slavery, it is entirely appropriate for the state government/legislature to apologize for allowing it to exist.
[As a side note: The state government/legislature is a separate and distict entity from the people that constitute a state. This was firmly established in Texas v White, and is the foundation of the legal fact that no state ever left, or was not part of, the United States.]

The second set of actions involves the lingering after effects of slavery: racism, bigotry, discrimination, etc. These actions are directly connected to slavery, so the responsibilty for them is also connected. The time frame of these actions does not yet have an ending point. They cannot be relegated only to some distant past. Because of its role in the initial wrong that produced these effects, and to the extent that the state government/legislature has since tolerated or sanctioned these actions since the abolition of slavery, the government/legislature apologizes.

Now we come to the second group, the citizens of New Jersey. For which of them, all or part, is the legislature now apologizing? Is it every discrete individual or the official actions of the people as a collective entity?

The legislature of the State of New Jersey expresses its profound regret for the State's role in slavery and apologizes for the wrongs inflicted by slavery and its after effects in the United States of America; expresses its deepest sympathies and solemn regrets to those who were enslaved and the descendants of those slaves, who were deprived of life, human dignity, and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States;.......

The key wording would appear to be "...the State's role". The "State" is a collective entity, similar to a private corporation. The legislature (acting as the agent for the separate and distict entity of the State) is apologizing for actions/inactions by the collective that have, and continue to, produce harm. This is similar to a corporation issuing an apology for a corporate action.
To the extent that a discrete individual participated in, supported, or did not oppose a wrong by the collective, responsibilty for the harm can be proportionally assigned. For the discrete individuals who opposed, acted to prevent, did not support a wrong, they are exempt from responsibility for the harm that results.

So, the legislature is not saying that contemporary citizens are responsible for slavery. They are not saying that each and every individual, discrete citizen is responsible for the continuation of the lingering effects of slavery. They are saying that the collective entity (200+ years old) had an official role in the initial wrong of slavery. It therefore bears responsibility for both the initial harms and the harms that have resulted from it.

As for Mr. Merkt's assertion, he is, to a certain degree, mistaken. America, internally, practices the notion of collective responsibilty every day in civil courts. Corporations are sued as collective entities. Corporations regularly issue apologies on behalf of the entire collective entity. Federal courts are filled with cases involved with collective entities, both public and private. Where collective "guilt" has not taken hold is in criminal courts. There individuals are the still the entities charged and tried.

Charles Weathers
01-09-2008, 06:25 AM
Christopher I tried to re-find the Family Guy episode, "The Road to Rupert" on Youtube but it's gone. If you can find it, you may enjoy Stewie's visit to Gettysburg.

Stewie: "Your WELCOME!"


Here you go...

http://watchfamilyguyepisodesonline.50webs.com/family_guy_season_5_episode_9_road_to_rupert.html

All of the episodes are online here.

sbl
01-09-2008, 06:51 AM
Thanks Natasha,

That scene appeals to my dark side.

TexConfederate
01-09-2008, 10:47 AM
I can speak for myself: They can "kiss my GRITS!"
I haven't ever owned a slave, and since there are NO former slaves living, then it is a stupid gesture.

billwatson2
01-10-2008, 04:09 AM
Well, those of us from New Jersey who are descended from Union soldiers who fought the war that freed the slaves are feeling quite offended by all this, since we have demonstrable proof that our families fought to end the injustice rather than remain complicit. Those of us who have ancestors who volunteered for that fight, rather than being conscripted, have grounds for being particularly miffed at being accused of genetic long-distance collective complicity or whatever.

So I guess I'm due my own apology from the New Jersey legislature. And if we want to talk about reparations, I'm first in line. Grandpop Thorpe's pension for what amounted to permanent disability after his health was broken in Andersonville was utterly inadequate and destituted the family for years long after the South was on its way to recovery.

And I'm only semi-facetious here. The facetious part would be because I don't think either people or institutions that now are on the right moral side of any issue should have to apologize for people or previous iterations of those institutions that were not. The nonfacetious part would be that if there are ever reparations for any of this crap, I'm going to do my damnedest to inject Grandpop Thorpe into the mix and gum up the works.

sbl
01-10-2008, 04:21 AM
Bill,

I think that if citizens DID bring up this fact that Union troops fought and died and millions were spent to end the Civil War and as a result, slavery, it would be better than the "nuff said" kind of response.

Rob Weaver
01-10-2008, 01:36 PM
Remember, there is nothing which a politician enjoys more than the sound of his or her own voice. The language of that apology is completely meaningless, existing only so that those incumbents can write home to everyone the spin that they are on the forefront of civil rights. Fuss and nonsense. I say.

tompritchett
01-10-2008, 02:46 PM
Remember, there is nothing which a politician enjoys more than the sound of his or her own voice.

I am not sure about that now adays. They also love receiving those checks for their re-election campaigns. :)

sbl
01-10-2008, 03:07 PM
I asked my New Jersey father-in-law (retired State Police Major) about the story. His opinion is that the sponsors of the Apology are trying to add to there resumes.

One could search Assemblymen William Payne and Craig Stanley legislative record.

peedeeguard
01-11-2008, 01:14 AM
Since it is PC to apologize I want mine. Here is a list of my grievances.

1. I am part Native American. Where is my apology for the raping and pillaging of our land.

2. I have been made to pay Social Security for 30 years for others to benefit from, while I still have to buy my own 401K to ensure enough money for my own retirement.

3. I have to pay my own way through college and buy my own books, my Anatomy book alone cost $300, while some get a Grant and as soon as their check arrives they drop out and keep the money.

4. In NC we are still paying for a sales tax that was promised would only last a year, we are going on 5 years now.

5. Our Federal Government spends money like a drunken sailor leaving our children in a hole.

6. My kids go to a public school, where they have to put down their christian values and not have prayer and learn that we all came from monkeys.

7. Last but not least, being a Republican and having noone to vote for.

Dewey McRae

Malingerer
01-11-2008, 01:48 AM
Umm... Dewey, your kid's teachers do not tell their students that "they came from monkeys". That is a myth that keeps getting perpetuated by the folks on the Christian right (who presumably care about honesty). If you'll bother checking out the North Carolina Standard Course of Study, you'll see that the theory of evolution states that modern humans and modern great apes share a common ancestor. This is quite different from "we came from monkeys".The reason Dewey that this is in the curiculum is because the perponderance of evidence backs up this theory. Surely you want your children's education rooted in evidenciary logic regardless of your religious views.
Oh, and Dewey, your children are free to pray any ole' time they please - that's another myth - the law simply prohibits the teachers or administration from joining them while they're getting paid to teach.

peedeeguard
01-11-2008, 02:16 AM
(Quote) Umm... Dewey, your kid's teachers do not tell their students that "they came from monkeys". That is a myth that keeps getting perpetuated by the folks on the Christian right (who presumably care about honesty). If you'll bother checking out the North Carolina Standard Course of Study, you'll see that the theory of evolution states that modern humans and modern great apes share a common ancestor. This is quite different from "we came from monkeys".The reason Dewey that this is in the curiculum is because the perponderance of evidence backs up this theory. Surely you want your children's education rooted in evidenciary logic regardless of your religious views.
__________________
Peter Julius

No you are wrong,Peter. If you didn't see my kids Science books how can you make assumptions on them? I am the one who helped them with their homework. Also if you would put you anti christian view away and read you will find there is no real proof what so ever on the "theory of evolution". They have tried to make us think that it is based on facts, but where is the "missing link"? Also they want us to believe that we come from pond scum, which is it? Why are there still apes in the world? If we share a common ancestor then why haven't the scientist uncovered it yet? If you do not believe in GOD then that is your choice, but unless you personally saw the text books my kids used in the past don't think you know everything.
And the whole point of my previous post was to show how ridiculous our country has become on being PC. When will the politicians see that enough is enough. Let's look toward the future not the past, one we can do something about the other is gone and over with.

Dewey McRae

Malingerer
01-11-2008, 02:35 AM
Ok Dewey, let's get a couple things straight. Nowhere in my post did I even hint at my belief or disbelief in a diety - that's my personal buisness and I'll thank you to stay out of it. Secondly, there was absolutely nothing in my post that was remotely anti-Christian. My critisicims are aimed at certain behaviors of members of the Christian right. Thirdly, I'm very familiar with process of textbook adoption by the state of North Carolina since of been part of the process for over a decade. Any North Carolina biology textbook that stated that "we came from monkeys" would be in violation of the state standard course of study and therefore illegal. When you get a chance, post the offending paragraphs and I'll contact the folks at DPI myself and resolve the issue.
As to your other points - yes there have been many transitional fossils of hominid bipeds discovered in the last fifty years - more than enough to show a clear link between the ancestry of primates and humans. Read a book sometime - a not just some propaganda put out that conforms to your viewpoint.
And, as to my own own level of scholarship - I have a master's degree in biology with an emphasis on evolutionary ecology.

peedeeguard
01-11-2008, 03:18 AM
Malingerer05-16-2007, 02:00 PM
And they are all reacting to the postwar and mainly 20th century use of the flag by hate groups. It's a textbook example of hijacking a powerful, blood-stained icon that stood for duty and honor among soldiers and putting it in front of an unsavory cause. It takes more patience than most people have to explain this, and then it still doesn't seem to matter very much: The flag is still being misused by hate groups.

The reaction to all this I liked best came in maybe 1993 or 1994 in Columbia at a Confederate Memorial Day parade. A small group of nutjobs showed up with Confederate flags and bullhorns and a hate agenda; when they tried to speak, the Palmetto Battalion, in its usual perfect formation, drowned them out so they couldn't be heard. Three tries and they gave up. It wasn't a cheer so much as it was a roar. What got to me, a Yankee in the PB at that time, was that it seemed to happen spontaneously or maybe according to an SOP I didn't know about. It was a real moment of awakening for me. :-)
With all due respect, I believe that the issue isn't quite that tidy on at least two counts: 1. I grew up in segregation era Mississippi and can clearly remember many ordinary whites waving Confederate flages in the faces of young Black students as they tried to enter formerly white-only schools. These wern't clansmen they were ordinary, God-fearing citizens who knew which buttons to push when it came to taunting Blacks.
2. If the Confederacy had won, institutionalized slavery would have been the law of the land for the foreseeable future. Seccession advocates made their prima facsia case for creating the Confederacy as a way of protecting slavery. Ergo, the whole raison d'etre for the Confederacy rested on the desire to continue the institution of slavery. Hard to feel a whole lot of pride in that.
As someone who regularly portrays a Confederate soldier, I believe that its incumbant upon me to be honest (with myself, fellow reenactors, and the

Malingerer11-01-2007, 05:05 PM
General Stonewall Jackson was, without question, one of the greatest generals America ever produced. He was fearless in battle and his legendary "Valley Campaign" fought in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia is still studied to this day. But more than that, he was a devout Christian and a lover of all good men – regardless of their color. Southerners and lovers of truth should do everything possible to educate future generations about the truth of our history, especially when it comes to the heroes of our faith and of our beloved Southland. Only in truth can we worship the Creator of all men.

Sources

Stonewall Jackson, The Man, The Soldier, The Legend by James I. Robertson
Christ in the Camp by J. William Jones

Like many so-called Christians, Jackson carefully picked and chose which parts of the Scriptures he wanted to obey. While he carefully observed the Sabbath, he didnt mind giving his enemies a good old fashioned slaughtering of old testement proportions - despite the admonitions of Jesus to 'love our enemies' and 'he who lives by the sword....'. etc.. . MY hero of my beloved Southland and faith is M.L. King.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are two examples. The first post said "GOD fearing citizens" How do you know what they believe?

The second post also has a anti christian slant. Where in the Bible does it say all Christians are perfect? If we could be perfect Jesus would not have had to go on the cross. Christianity is a daily walk with GOD and struggling through life as is everyone else. I wish being Christian would make me perfect and care free, but in reality I am human, which means I am prone to sin and mistakes.
As for the text book it showed a picture of the progression of man. The first couple of pictures were of monkeys. Like I said you can say that you had a hand in NC text books, but did you look at them? The picture is there as plain as day, and it showed us coming from monkeys or apes which ever is the choice. Where is the missing link? Don't you think the media would splash it in the faces of Christians and Jews?
And last, calm down life is too short, as I have been taught from a friend of mine who was diagnosed with cancer. You won't change my beliefs and I won't change yours. This world is not perfect, but it is the only one we have, enjoy it.
Dewey McRae

Malingerer
01-11-2008, 03:40 AM
Well Dewey, you've done it again. You managed to take up a bunch of bandwidth without actually answering any of my points. Nowhere in any of these posts do I even hint at what I believe (again, that's my private buiness not yours) nor was there any criticism aimed at people of faith. My criticisms were aimed at hypocrites - not Christians. And that goes for T.J. Jackson - you can't simultaneously talk about following in the footsteps of Jesus with his message of love for all your brothers, and not get called on it when you fight for a country that was invented expressly for the protection of human bondage. That's hypocracy. Sheesh, everyone's a victim these days - talk about PC. Again, if there is anything in your children's textbook that says we are the descendents of either monkeys or apes post it or PM me and I'll take care of it for you. Back up your assertions with some evidence - post the offending passages. Check out any modern text on human evolution and you can see for yourself what the evidence is including the transition fossils.
As for calming down Dewey, I would like you to reread your own original post and ask yourself just how tranquil a tone you set. You want an apology just because you need a 401k? Live by the overheated hyperbole, etc... .
Cheers.

Filthy_Confederate_Scum
01-11-2008, 02:23 PM
And they are all reacting to the postwar and mainly 20th century use of the flag by hate groups. It's a textbook example of hijacking a powerful, blood-stained icon that stood for duty and honor ..... Post-war? 20th Century? Not hardly:

"As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race. A white flag (2nd National "stainless banner") would thus be emblematical of our cause."

- Savannah Daily Morning News, April 23, 1863.

huntdaw
01-11-2008, 02:39 PM
It certainly is interesting how it seems so many posts get turned into an 'us vs. them' fight. I will admit this one has taken a different turn than most though.

I believe this thread has run its course.

sbl
01-12-2008, 12:47 AM
"I believe this thread has run its course."

Sad that there's no "afterglow" on this one.

Shermans_Neckties
01-12-2008, 10:10 AM
It certainly is interesting how it seems so many posts get turned into an 'us vs. them' fight. But isn't the Civil War an "us vs. them" conflict? Should it be surprising then that we get into these type of debates? We put on uniforms and many of us end up indentifying with the soldiers and civilians we portray so it should not come as a surprise that these type of dicussions turn out the way they do.

huntdaw
01-12-2008, 11:40 AM
Isn't every war an 'us vs. them' conflict?

And, that's not quite what I was referring to. If you read many of these threads you will find that the us vs. them arguments usually have nothing to do with identifying with CW soldiers or taking on their persona. They stem from other differences.

I don't quite agree with your argument anyway. We're who we are, not who they were. Just because I may portray a Federal or Confederate soldier for a weekend doesn't make me have the same mindset, feelings or even understanding of how they really thought or felt about a particular issue. People were as different then as they are know and had many different takes on the same issue.

tompritchett
01-12-2008, 05:18 PM
If you read many of these threads you will find that the us vs. them arguments usually have nothing to do with identifying with CW soldiers or taking on their persona. They stem from other differences.

By its very definition, isn't an argument an "us" versus "them" war as opposed to a discussion where each side is learning from each other?

peedeeguard
01-12-2008, 06:37 PM
The intention of my firstpost was to show how absurd all of this apologizing is getting. My family "The McRae's" did not own any slaves. Why should we have to apologize for those who are dead and gone. I did not ever have the pleasure of meeting any of my family who foght in the Civil War I like most of the rest of the reenactors on this forum were to young to really meet and talk to them. Saying that the debate between malingerer and myself was over my kids being taught the Theory of Evolution, I said that the state of NC should apoligize to me over teaching evolution. The text book had a picture of the first"huminoids" The first couple were monkey or apes or primates, which ever is PC, but to me they were monkeys. He disagreed and we debated this between each other. The flag issues were malingerer's from previous post. His name and date are on them. Just thougt I would explain what happened.

Dewey McRae

sbl
01-13-2008, 02:31 AM
Dewey,

The question is not if your family is responsible, but whether state government they were citizens of then was responsible.

peedeeguard
01-13-2008, 04:29 AM
I should have been a little clearer in what I said, blame it on the 12 hour shift in the ER I just got off of. Why should anyone have to apologize for something in which nobody living today took a part in. I will admit slavery was wrong, but ain't it time to put that behind us and go on with our lives. Why don't the politicians focus on what they can change and not so much on the things that they can't?

Dewey McRae

Shortround
01-13-2008, 09:22 AM
Why don't the politicians focus on what they can change and not so much on the things that they can't?

Dewey McRae

Can you say "pander"?

Gas prices are going out-of-site, the dollar is turning worthless, and the credit crisis may actually cause a depression, not a recession.

Nope, we gotta hear about worthless pontifications that do no good for the present voters.

Che
01-13-2008, 10:53 AM
The intention of my firstpost was to show how absurd all of this apologizing is getting. My family "The McRae's" did not own any slaves. Cool. So, how many of them helped slaves escape on the underground railroad?


The intention of my firstpost was to show how absurd all of this apologizing is getting. You can literally count the number of states that have issued a formal apology for slavery on one hand: Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and New Jersey. Not a whole lot of apologizing has been going on at all.


Saying that the debate between malingerer and myself was over my kids being taught the Theory of Evolution, I said that the state of NC should apoligize to me over teaching evolution. Why? Are you afraid your kids will lose their faith in God if they are taught evolution? That's odd, because evolution has been taught widely in public schools since the 1960s, and yet a 2003 Harris poll found that 79% of Americans believe there is a God, and that 66% are absolutely certain this is true. Only 9% do not believe in God, while a further 12% are not sure. Of course, the poll doesn't break it down by demographics of who was taught what, but by now a generation has raised on evolutionary theory and they are part of the statistical whole which suggests that few of the "evolution-taught" children have been shaken out of their faith. Maybe NC should apologize to you for not being able to teach evolution very convincingly.

tompritchett
01-13-2008, 01:53 PM
Why? Are you afraid your kids will lose their faith in God if they are taught evolution? That's odd, because evolution has been taught widely in public schools since the 1960s, and yet a 2003 Harris poll found that 79% of Americans believe there is a God, and that 66% are absolutely certain this is true. Only 9% do not believe in God, while a further 12% are not sure. Of course, the poll doesn't break it down by demographics of who was taught what, but by now a generation has raised on evolutionary theory and they are part of the statistical whole which suggests that few of the "evolution-taught" children have been shaken out of their faith. Maybe NC should apologize to you for not being able to teach evolution very convincingly.

Since when did the belief in evolution automatically preclude a belief in God or any part of the Gospel? I have been a Christian all my life, having been raised in the Southern Baptist denomination and have considered evolution as a scientific fact for at least 30 years (facts state what happens or happened) but have watched the theories behind how evolution works evolve over that time period as we understand more and more how genes work and are regulated in cells (theories describe how or why things happen).

sbl
01-13-2008, 03:03 PM
"Only 9% do not believe in God, while a further 12% are not sure."

Ernesto,

What was the percentage of folks that are afraid of the 79%?

reb64
01-14-2008, 08:04 AM
Since when did the belief in evolution automatically preclude a belief in God or any part of the Gospel? I have been a Christian all my life, having been raised in the Southern Baptist denomination and have considered evolution as a scientific fact for at least 30 years (facts state what happens or happened) but have watched the theories behind how evolution works evolve over that time period as we understand more and more how genes work and are regulated in cells (theories describe how or why things happen).


I was taught it in school but becuse of faith and sunday school, i challenged it and just passed the tests to graduate. like college, you pass the tests against what you know is right in the case of liberal teachers. its survival. always go to the source (the bible) when mencomes up with stupidity like evolution. we have to be in the world but not of it if you know what i mean

peedeeguard
01-14-2008, 09:13 AM
Cool. So, how many of them helped slaves escape on the underground railroad?

You can literally count the number of states that have issued a formal
apology for slavery on one hand: Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and New Jersey. Not a whole lot of apologizing has been going on at all.

Why? Are you afraid your kids will lose their faith in God if they are taught evolution? That's odd, because evolution has been taught widely in public schools since the 1960s, and yet a 2003 Harris poll found that 79% of Americans believe there is a God, and that 66% are absolutely certain this is true. Only 9% do not believe in God, while a further 12% are not sure. Of course, the poll doesn't break it down by demographics of who was taught what, but by now a generation has raised on evolutionary theory and they are part of the statistical whole which suggests that few of the "evolution-taught" children have been shaken out of their faith. Maybe NC should apologize to you for not being able to teach evolution very convincingly.


What has my Ancestors not helping out the Underground Railroad have to do with me. If you want to apologize for something that you didn't do go ahead, if that will clear your conscience. Mankind has inflicted wrong on each other since Cain and Abel, how in the world can we apologize all the wrongs inflicted on everyone. Unless you come from a family who is pure in everyway on down the ages, don't strike out at my family.
To the second comment, you have North Carolina listed. I am a citizen and tax payer of "The Old North State". The Democrats that run the State never gave us a chance to vote. They know most of the citizens here would have shot it down. So every state may not be apologizing, but NC is and that gives me a right to voice my opinion.
On the third point, no I am not afraid of my kids losing their belief, but why should I want them taught lies. You either believe the Bible or you don't. You can't pick and chose. And also what that poll you posted showed me was that why are they taking anything Christian out of public buildings with the majority of the Country being Christian. Shouldn't we either vote on this or have it where the majority rules? But things being as they are if you want to take your children to the zoo and point out the primates and tell them that this is our ancestors then it is no skin off my nose. But to quote Joshua " As for me and my family we will serve GOD"

Dewey McRae

peedeeguard
01-14-2008, 09:14 AM
I was taught it in school but becuse of faith and sunday school, i challenged it and just passed the tests to graduate. like college, you pass the tests against what you know is right in the case of liberal teachers. its survival. always go to the source (the bible) when mencomes up with stupidity like evolution. we have to be in the world but not of it if you know what i mean
Right on target brother, I had to do the same.


Dewey McRae

tompritchett
01-14-2008, 09:50 AM
Shouldn't we either vote on this or have it where the majority rules?

Part of the idea behind the Founding Fathers separating the Church and State in the 1rst Amendment was to prevent the majority imposing their religious beliefs upon the minority by making the majority's religion the State's religion. For example, in colonial Virginia, one could not hold public office unless he was a member of the Anglican church. In some areas of colonial Virginia it was even illegal to not belong to an Anglican congregation. It was such ties between religion and the State that the 1rst Amendment was specifically designed to prevent. The separation of Church and State was never designed to prevent any individual from practicing his or her religion. Instead it was designed to ensure that every individual has the right to practice that religion as he or she feels is proper without any interference, positive or negative, from the State.

peedeeguard
01-14-2008, 10:31 AM
Part of the idea behind the Founding Fathers separating the Church and State in the 1rst Amendment was to prevent the majority imposing their religious beliefs upon the minority by making the majority's religion the State's religion. For example, in colonial Virginia, one could not hold public office unless he was a member of the Anglican church. In some areas of colonial Virginia it was even illegal to not belong to an Anglican congregation. It was such ties between religion and the State that the 1rst Amendment was specifically designed to prevent. The separation of Church and State was never designed to prevent any individual from practicing his or her religion. Instead it was designed to ensure that every individual has the right to practice that religion as he or she feels is proper without any interference, positive or negative, from the State.

I understand that they wanted freedom from the Church Of England and that is why the pilgrams came across. But they have taken the 1st. Amendment farther than that and now they want GOD'S name off of everything that has to do with the government, money, buildings, the crosses on the graves at Arlington National Cemetary, and monuments. Where do we draw a line in the sand and stand up to this? Or should Christians sit back and let this Country become Islamic, Scientology, Satan worshippers, Atheist, Agnostic, or any other religion? When should a man stand up for what he thinks is right and fight for it. I think it is time for Christians to quit trying to be so humble and stand up like Christ did and and face the enemy before it is to late.

Dewey McRae

sbl
01-14-2008, 12:43 PM
"....Islamic, Scientology, Satan worshippers, Atheist, Agnostic, or any other religion?"

Except for Atheist and Agnostic, you still have to read a book and show up on your Day Off.

Dewey, Thomas is trying to reason with you and you're starting to just make things up. I'm starting to think you and Reb are goofing on us.

tompritchett
01-14-2008, 01:08 PM
But they have taken the 1st. Amendment farther than that and now they want GOD'S name off of everything that has to do with the government, money, buildings, the crosses on the graves at Arlington National Cemetary, and monuments.

There are indeed some atheists that have objected to the use of "God" in moneys and on buidlings, but the claim that groups like the ACLU are trying to do away with crosses at military cemetaries is an Urban Legend http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_aclu_crosses.htm
In fact the ACLU's official statement on the issue is as follows:

The ACLU is not pursuing, nor has it ever pursued, the removal of religious symbols from personal gravestones. Personal gravestones are the choice of the family members, not the choice of the government. The ACLU celebrates this freedom to choose the religious symbol of your choice.


In fact, the crosses at Arlington actually contain symbols for the soldiers actual religious beliefs, not just the symbol for Christianity. Just recently, followers of Wicka won the right to have the symbol for Wicka displayed on their crosses. For a list of authorized religious emblems see http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/funeral_information/authorized_emblems.html

peedeeguard
01-14-2008, 03:14 PM
[QUOTE=tompritchett]There are indeed some atheists that have objected to the use of "God" in moneys and on buidlings, but the claim that groups like the ACLU are trying to do away with crosses at military cemetaries is an Urban Legend

You are right on this point, like you I should have done my homework. Thanks, and as for the other symbols on the monuments at Arlington I have no problem with those. The ones buried there deserve our respect no matter what they believe.

Dewey McRae

peedeeguard
01-14-2008, 03:29 PM
"....Islamic, Scientology, Satan worshippers, Atheist, Agnostic, or any other religion?"

Except for Atheist and Agnostic, you still have to read a book and show up on your Day Off.

Dewey, Thomas is trying to reason with you and you're starting to just make things up. I'm starting to think you and Reb are goofing on us.


And I am trying to reason also. I have a strong faith in my LORD and that makes me passionate about it. As far as making things up I have done no such a thing. If you are referring to my remark on Arlington Cemetery, I did not make it up, but it seems I fell for a urban legend.
Also I am not goofing on anyone, but it seems you are with the "read a book and show up on your day off" comment towards me and Reb.

Dewey McRae

tompritchett
01-14-2008, 04:42 PM
You are right on this point, like you I should have done my homework.

Actually, I subscribe to an Urban Legends newsletter and had remembered that particular legend from a while ago. I have a sister-in-law who used to routinely sent them out to everyone in her address book. As for Wicka being approved for Arlington, I remember the news clip popping up on the Internet sometime last year.

peedeeguard
01-14-2008, 04:54 PM
My wife teaches with a Wicka. She is one of the nicest people you could meet. We have agreed that we are different and when we go out as couples we do not talk about our beliefs or theirs
Dewey McRae

tompritchett
01-15-2008, 04:50 AM
My wife teaches with a Wicka. She is one of the nicest people you could meet. We have agreed that we are different and when we go out as couples we do not talk about our beliefs or theirs

The wife of my closest friend is also into Wicka, although she was raised as a Methodist and her maternal grandmother was Mormon. When we do talk about religion it is more in an academic sense where neither side is trying to convert but rather explain what and why they believe what they do.

flattop32355
01-15-2008, 07:36 AM
Seems this thread has lost it way...not that it hasn't happened before. ;)

lt83
02-08-2008, 10:27 AM
[QUOTE=peedeeguard]Malingerer05-16-2007, 02:00 PM

Malingerer11-01-2007, 05:05 PM
General Stonewall Jackson was, without question, one of the greatest generals America ever produced. He was fearless in battle and his legendary "Valley Campaign" fought in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia is still studied to this day. But more than that, he was a devout Christian and a lover of all good men – regardless of their color. Southerners and lovers of truth should do everything possible to educate future generations about the truth of our history, especially when it comes to the heroes of our faith and of our beloved Southland. Only in truth can we worship the Creator of all men.


Jackson was a great christian and a wonderful general, but did you know that he too owned slaves?