Welcome to Anti
The Anti Slavery Quotes Page
Latest Anti Slavery Quotes News
Author traces Texas prison system from its roots in plantation slavery - Austin Chronicle
... slavery after the Civil War and survived into the 20th century. The book's title is a quote from Lt. Gov ... racial poison is still flowing through the tea party and the anti-immigration mobilization right now.
Read moreThis Week in Black History - New Pittsburgh Courier
He would go on to become the most prominent anti-slavery activist and Black leader of his day. He is perhaps best remembered for his now famous 1857 quote: “If there is no struggle there is no progress...
Read moreBeck’s “Dream”—Our Nightmare - Religion Dispatches
... Slavery,” Barton quotes extensively from the writings of the founders and claims that many of them were ... the anti-slavery argument was considered liberal and not quite in line with either scripture or ...
Read moreON STAGE: Capsule look at area theater shows - The Daily News Online
humor and quotes by, for and about women ... A living history presentation that highlights the anti-slavery era in Rochester. Costumed actors from the RMSC Players portray friends of Federick and Anna Douglass,
Read moreThe liberal case against race-based affirmative action - Salon
... for the wrongs of slavery ... the anti-racist civil rights revolution needed to be a temporary or permanent era of benevolent racial discrimination, contemporary defenders of racial preferences frequently quote
Read moreWhat if the Democrats were banned from our upcoming midterm elections? Justice, Not Charity - DAILY KOS
anti-Duvaleir elite faction ... be nothing less than a colossal disruption of the natural social order that was established during slavery, maintained with colonization and now continued by various forms of force,
Read moreReport: Vilsack to Meet with Shirley Sherrod on Tuesday; Will the Press Raise Worker ... - News Busters
Sherrod’s supporters are not aware of is the elitist and anti-black-labor role that she and ... fields of southwest Georgia where their ancestors suffered under chattel slavery. ... Mrs. Sherrod says she began to ...
Read moreHey Glenn Beck, I was at the March on Washington - Salon
Reagan and Buckley were anti-civil-rights only in the sense that a pacifist or noninterventionist who opposed ... Paul Rosenberg quotes a National Review editorial reflecting on the real reasons behind William F.
Read moreIs Craigslist Responsible for Child Trafficking? - RH Reality Check
... anti-trafficking organization, "girl slavery" in the U ... quote, "manually screens all adult services ads" and will reject any that look or sound like they are selling sex. We caught up with the Craig in ...
Read moreDeath of The American Dream - OpEdNews.com
I had visions in my head of the Statue of Liberty and that wonderful quote: To me, this quote was more than just an etching ... Which of you will stand and be so anti-human as to tell these children and those abroad ...
Read moreAnti Slavery Quotes Questions asked
Voting Question: How can anyone believe Israel is a legitimate State?
Please read the whole thing: First of all, I am not anti-Semitic. However, it is usually through ignorance people support Israel. First, why should the Arabs have to pay for European crimes and anti-Semitism on European Jews? Second, majority of the Jews today are NOT descendents of the ancient Hebrews. On top of that, the ancient Hebrews only ruled PARTS of Palestine twice for a short period each time. The Palestinians are indigenous and later converted to Islam. Majority of Jews today are descendents of the Khazak converts of Russia who later immigrated to Europe...at the time of the first Zionist conference, there were no more than 10,000 Jews DESCENDED FROM THE ANCIENT HEBREWS in Palestine compared to 500,000 Arabs. It was at this time most Jews were against the Zionist movement. Yes, anti-Semitism is and was sad, but the Europeans are responsible, not the Palestinian Arabs with whom Jews have always lived peacefully throughout history. The idea that Jews have a right to Israel because of a conquest over 2,000 years ago (among OTHER foreign invaders) is ridiculous. True, Jews have a very strong SPIRITUAL connection to the land and Jerusalem can be shared (as has always been the case, except when Christians ruled), but why have Palestinians been taken out of their country? And now Zionist propaganda rules the world making the OPPRESSED Palestinian people look evil and the US barely does anything because of the Zionist lobby. To quickly quote Thomas Jefferson -- though he was talking about slavery -- "I tremble for my country when I remember God is Just". How is the world idle? Why doesn't anyone stand up against Israel, their illegal settlements and occupation of land and treatment of the Palestinians? I'm not against a "Jewish State" or home in general, I'm against the THIEVERY of Palestinian land.haha Dr. Knowitall, apparently standing up for what's true is being "bigoted". Learn about the history of Israel. For some reason being anti-Israeli equals being anti-Semitic, which doesn't make any sense.The Balfour Declaration was made when Britiain had no jurisdiction over Palestine.The difference is this is CONTEMPORARY. moreResolved Question: Serious question: How can anyone believe Israel has legitimate claims over Palestinian land?
Please read the whole thing: First of all, I am not anti-Semitic. However, it is usually through ignorance people support Israel. First, why should the Arabs have to pay for European crimes and anti-Semitism on European Jews? Second, majority of the Jews today are NOT descendents of the ancient Hebrews. On top of that, the ancient Hebrews only ruled PARTS of Palestine twice for a short period each time. The Palestinians are indigenous and later converted to Islam. Majority of Jews today are descendents of the Khazak converts of Russia who later immigrated to Europe...at the time of the first Zionist conference, there were no more than 10,000 Jews DESCENDED FROM THE ANCIENT HEBREWS in Palestine compared to 500,000 Arabs. It was at this time most Jews were against the Zionist movement. Yes, anti-Semitism is and was sad, but the Europeans are responsible, not the Palestinian Arabs with whom Jews have always lived peacefully throughout history. The idea that Jews have a right to Israel because of a conquest over 2,000 years ago (among OTHER foreign invaders) is ridiculous. True, Jews have a very strong SPIRITUAL connection to the land and Jerusalem can be shared (as has always been the case, except when Christians ruled), but why have Palestinians been taken out of their country? And now Zionist propaganda rules the world making the OPPRESSED Palestinian people look evil and the US barely does anything because of the Zionist lobby. To quickly quote Thomas Jefferson -- though he was talking about slavery -- "I tremble for my country when I remember God is Just". How is the world idle? Why doesn't anyone stand up against Israel, their illegal settlements and occupation of land and treatment of the Palestinians? I'm not against a "Jewish State" or home in general, I'm against the THIEVERY of Palestinian land. moreResolved Question: Why can't I understand this?
I posted this in answer to a question and it was in violation? Here are the problems with illegal aliens, we have the problem of our government not enforcing the laws against illegal aliens. Americans Working to Stop Illegal Immigration Get the Facts about Illegal Immigration . Problems With Illegal Immigration While illegal alien and amnesty supporters state complaints from Americans about illegal immigration are some form of racism, there are many very real problems associated with illegal immigration. We asked a focus groups of citizen activists who are engaged in the struggle to have America's borders secured and existing immigration laws enforced to tell us the different reasons Americans are alarmed about illegal immigration. Please review this list. More details will be added to each subject in the future. Please contact us if you have an addition for this list of problems caused by illegal immigration. . Anchor Babies: Birthright Citizenship Exploited Anti-American Attitudes Anti-Semitic Attitudes Attacks on Border Patrol and Law Enforcement agents Attacks on Free Speech in America Animal Abuse Increases Census Numbers: Negative Impact on Congressional Representation Civil rights: Devalued by comparison to illegal actions Child Endangerment Child Molestation Closed and Overcrowded Hospitals and Emergency Rooms Cost of Translators Consulates issuing Matricular Cards (ID Mexico won't even accept) Day Laborers loitering and creating public hazards Depreciated Wages for Americans and Legal Immigrants Deterioration of Common American Culture Desecration of the American Flag: Foreign Flags used aggressively Disrespect for American Laws Document Fraud Drunk driving injuries and deaths: Hit and Runs Ethnic Cleansing and Race Riots Farm animals with in city limits Food Poisoning Foreign Influence on US Politics Gangs, Graffiti, Drugs, Cartels, Smugglers, and Violence Gang Rape and unreported rapes High Birth Rates and Overpopulation Human Sex Slavery Identity Theft Increased Crime Increased Taxes for Americans Increased pressures on infrastructure (roads, traffic, water, sewer) Infectious Diseases Lost American Jobs Lost American Sovereignty Lost Self Governance of American citizens Vs. Globalism and Elitism Male Chauvinism: Gender inequality Not Speaking English, loss of common language, Press 1 for English Overcrowded Schools and Negative Impact on American Education Overcrowded single family homes Overcrowded Jails and Prisons Public Sanitation Loss: Trash and human waste in towns Racist Groups and Race Based Politics Remittances: Billions of dollars sent out of the US Economy Rule of Law: Fundamental principles of America sacrificed. Separatist Movements: Demands for autonomy Smear Campaigns and Lies: Dirty Politics Stolen American Taxpayer Resources: Tuition, Welfare, Licenses Taking limited seats in colleges at taxpayer expense Tax payer funds going to special interest groups (example) "LaRaza" Terrorism Threats and Loss of national security Trash and Negative Impact on Environment at border Unfair to Legal Immigrants Unfair Business Competition for law abiding companies Unlicensed and Uninsured Motorists Untaxed Wages Voter Fraud www.endillegalimmigration.com And I quote Y/A answers; In Yahoo! Answers you may not demean or insult others, or post tirades directed towards persons or groups. Since when is pointing out the FACTS and TELLING the TRUTH in violation of ANYTHING. It is obvious that there are people here who do not want you to KNOW the truth and will do anything to stop you from seeing it. Do you think Y/A answers is as big a JOKE as I do? moreResolved Question: Why do some people think these feminist quotes are hateful?
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor. "I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do." -- Robin Morgan "To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo." -- Valerie Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM Manifesto "Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex." -- Valerie Solana, SCUM founder (Society for Cutting Up Men.) "The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas) "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin "Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." -- Andrea Dworkin "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin "In my own life, I don't have intercourse. That is my choice." -- Andrea Dworkin Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." -- Andrea Dworkin "To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is." -- Andrea Dworkin "Q: People think you are very hostile to men. A: I am." -- Andrea Dworkin "Men use the night to erase us." -- Andrea Dworkin "The annihilation of a woman's personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality." -- Andrea Dworkin "Men love death. In everything they make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion, meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, stilling their sobs as they mourn the emptiness and alienation of their lives." -- Andrea Dworkin "Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it 'Her'. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination." -- Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women "The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson "Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- Susan Brownmiller; Authoress of Against Our Will p.6 "When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression." -- Sheila Jeffrys "All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine MacKinnon "You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs." -- Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.) "In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." -- Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies. "Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive... women didn't go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not Rambo." -- Jodie Foster; Actress moreResolved Question: Could anyone correct the second part of my essay? The essay is in English, but I am Italian?
The nineteenth-century American woman was still considerated the half of a man, she was a property to be passed from a father to a husband, she did not have the right of a proper education and to manage her properties, even her wages, in church she had (and still has) a subordinate position, but above all she had not the right to vote. Men considerate women like children, that is they were not assumed to have their own opinions and to be able to take their own decisions, for this reason religion was “exactly what a woman needed, for it gives her that dignity that best suits her dependence” (Welter 153). Slaves and Women linked their arms in solidarity, and women fought a double battle, one for the slaves and another for themselves against dependence, submission, tyranny, violence, degradation, believes such as their natural inferiority, they all wanted to obtain equality, independence, a proper education, wages and in general the inaliable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” that the Declaration of Independence assured to the American citizens. Indeed in both the Declaration of Sentiments by the American anti-slavery Convention and in the Declaration of Sentiments by Women’s Rights they quoted the initial statement of the Declaration of Independence as the starting point of their demand of equality and of rights. In December 1833 the American Anti-slavery Convention assembled in Philadelphia to organize a National Anti-Slavery Society and promulgated the Declaration of Sentiments. While Women wrote and signed their Declaration of Sentiments in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848. An important common feature is the constant reference to God and religion. At first accepting Christianity became part of accepting America as home, but over time, large numbers of slaves found the biblical message of spiritual equality before God appealing and found comfort in the biblical theme of deliverance. Indeed in their Declaration of Sentiments they wrote “That every American citizen, who detains a human being in involuntary bondage as his property, is, according to Scripture, (Ex, xxi. 16) a man-stealer: that the slaves ought instantly to be set free, and brought under the protection of law” (Garrison 69). Garrison stated that slavery was a “presumptuous transgression of all the holy commandments” (ibidem). Abolitionists steadily believed that God made all men equals and whites had to respect His law. Even David Walker in his Appeal believed in the Gospel and in the Justice of God beyond this World. So when he criticized the former president of the United States Jefferson for his Notes on Virginia, he wrote “he is gone to answer at the bar of God” (Walker http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2931t.html). Besides Walker believed that God made all men equal and afterwards in his rhetoric question to the readers he asked: Did our Creator make us to be slaves to dust and ashes like ourselves? Are they not dying worms as well as we? Have they not to make their appearance before the tribunal of Heaven, to answer for the deeds done in the body, as well as we? Have we any other Master but Jesus Christ alone? Is he not their Master as well as ours? -- What right then, have we to obey and call any other Master, but Himself? How we could be so submissive to a gang of men, whom we cannot tell whether they are as good as ourselves or not, I never could conceive. However, this is shut up with the Lord, and we cannot precisely tell -- but I declare, we judge men by their works. moreResolved Question: How do i indert a large 3 line quote in an essay? my teacher says to indent and single space but..?
i dont get what she means this is my paragraph with the quote can some indent it for me and show me what she means so i can do it to my other quotes? The violence between the anti-slavery settlers and the pro-slavery settlers was called Bleeding Kansas or Bloody Kansas. Most of the violence was from 1854-58 and Kansas seemed to be the main site of all the violence especially when the “border ruffians” came from the south in order to help with the pro-slavery vote. The violence in Kansas became so bad that not even the authorities could keep it under control “Kansas was a powder keg that exploded into a bloody civil war, characterized by lynching, bushwhacking, and burning- a continuous stream of violence that could not be contained by federal or territorial authorities"btw thats not the end of the paragraph moreResolved Question: i have a question about slavery.?
1.You are a businessman living in Pennsylvania in 1855. You are personally opposed to slavery but have never spoken publicly against it. You were approached by an abolitionist group and have been asked to become a stop on the Underground Railroad. You know other families have been threatened for helping slaves and that there is a new law that carries stiff penalties for assisting runaways. Will you help? Please explain your answer and the potential consequences of your decision. 2. You are a newspaper editor living in Virginia in 1840. You own two slaves yourself. You were approached by an abolitionist group and have been asked to publish a series of anti-slavery editorials. You have always tried to be fair about reporting, but your readers are mostly in favor of slavery. Would you run the editorials? 3.You are a clergyman in North Carolina in 1750. You believe that all men are your brothers, but many of your parishioners own slaves. You have heard other clergy deliver sermons quoting sections of the Bible that seem to support slavery, but you still believe it is wrong. Your church is largely dependent upon the contributions of slave owners. How do you address the issue of slavery in your church? Please explain your answer and discuss the potential consequences of your decision. this is not homework jus need helpok i think yes 2 all but what will happen if i did do these things moreResolved Question: Question about whether Lincoln's true stance on slavery holds up to his legendary status as an abolishionist?
He was quoted as saying "If I could've saved the Union by keeping slavery,I would've done it.If I could've saved the Union by freeing the slaves,I would've done it." Doesn't this go against his reputation for being anti slavery as a moral issue? moreResolved Question: LDS, is it true that Joseph smith ran for president on an "anti-slavery" platform?
i think i read something like but its vague in my memory. that would imply that he is NOT racist, would it not any quotes to understand if this true? moreResolved Question: Why Do Christians Support the Anti-Christ System of Mammon?
Note: Please Read Entire Page and pay Attention to References which work as proof in claims. This Is a Real Question I am Seeking Educated Answers Please Do not Stick to Mindless Childish Insults, Also France Which is a Marxist Based Government And Canada Are Much Older Then America So Don’t Bring Up Russia Also remember America is like Iron were a republic that Makes us exactly like the old roman empire Were not a true democracy like parliament Please Do not bring up Adam Smiths book "Wealth of Nations" China Canada and France do just fine. In fact its America that’s economically failing, we owe China money, So much for capitalism. Also Socialism is not communism nor is the feudal system of nobility. Do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist, Trade does not equal capitalism. Public ownership of property as to have no bourgeoisie class is communism. This in addition to Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable. Now when you consider peak oil is this idea so far fetched, its obvious capitalism has only produced a waste economy. Once more god is not about money morality comes first, he who is not for is against. We need money is not an excuse there are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic. Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via Max Weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and was not a by product of industrialization. Please do not state that Christians try to fix these issues, republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative Christians and are not for Social welfare or work release. Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change. We live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom such things are not necessary. Also If your against Henry David Thoreau's civil disobedience your against Martin Luther King, Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery. He who is not for is against the two books "John Locke The two treatises of Government" and "Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism" are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember you can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. Karl Marx has said "Law religion and morality is to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests." This quote has been proved true by sociology, history and political science. This is mainly due to the fact that the ruling class must institute prejudice in pursuant to its own interests in order to continue to rule. It can not give place to any religious or moral opposition so it must validate itself politically by any means needed out of fear. Do not state Mammon is ill gotten gains because the early church demonstrated a socialistic quality and in no way dose capitalism demonstrate the parable of the shrewd manager. Please do not also bring up madness of a micro chip. Christ stated that some around him would not taste death, till all should come to pass. Explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice of the duke of bridge water and how Christians serve to condemn people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote. Please also explain how slaves were called of Babylon and many killed for asking for freedom in church validation that the wealthy slave owners were covered by the blood of Jesus showing indeed the idols that have sold out our morality for profit and our need of the divine where many are slain for the validation of this system of economics and government which portends to money P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so don’t use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts this is in no way a rant moreResolved Question: How are Republicans so evil?
All the time I hear this famous quote from the left, "Republicans are against everything America stands for!" Please enlighten me on this. State what liberty or freedom Republican oppose and what constitutional amendment it is directed at. What is it Republicans oppose that is in your version of what America 'stands for'? What does America stand for to you that they hate? Please, be specific. No vague answers. I am shocked sometimes when people right 'Republikkkan', when in FACT the original party was called the Democrat-Republican Party but a little issue called 'slavery' forced the anti-slavery activist to split the party and form the "Republican Party". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States) The KKK history clearly shows that the 'klan' used to murder white Republicans to remain Democrat control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan Do you people know your history? Or facts? Or do you just make stuff up?The reason I ask this question is because I am a Republican. I'm more than a little tired of these references that are complete lies. Statements that make no sense. (i.e. Republicans are against...) I wanted to hear from them how I am against everything America stands for. What is their version of 'everything' that I supposedly oppose. Can I get one answer here?By the way, the house version was writen by Democrat David Obey, and the Senate version by Democrat Harry Reid. Get your facts straight.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009 "Read my lips, no new taxes". President George H. W. Bush. (""I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." -Barrack Obama) They are stupid as all hell, and treat US Citizens like they are stupid also: (Generalize much? Any facts here? Or was this all opinion?) "I want to bring in more oil from Mexico to reduce our dependence on foreign oil". President George W. Bush. ("I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." - Barrack Obama) They lie a lot: "I am not a crook". President Richard M. Nixon. (Is that all you have is quotes?) Source(s): Truth = The Anti-Republican. (Go figure.)@Army Vet: My reply as follows to your statements: They oppose decent health care in the USA. (That would be a violation of FEDERAL LAW, noone is denied health CARE. Once again, misleading facts.) They oppose conservation and promote waste and price gouging. (They promote capitalism and free enterprise, you sound upset that someone made money, but you didn't. Promote waste? When was the last time you went to the bathroom? So, since Democrats have control of the Congress and the Senate and the White House, sudeenly all 'waiste' disappeared? They squander our tax dollars on their pet pork belly projects, and raise our taxes, and then lie about it, blaming Democrats. (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, passed in Febuary. Who had control of Congress? Democrats? Again, misleading information. This bill was commonly refered to as the 'porkulus bill' due to sheer number of earmarks in it. moreResolved Question: Why do Christians try so hard to ban gay marriage because it's "immoral"?
Christians, If you beleive a bible-based marriage is between one man and one woman. You're a bit wrong. One common anti-gay Christian quote is "Well God made and Adam & Eve"... but you people never got to finish the story? God made Adam and Eve, Eve had two sons or something like that, One killed the other, and then he had incestuous sex with his sister. According to the bible a marriage can be between one man and... - his sister AND her servant (Abraham loved having sex with his sister and her servant) - A pile of salt - Three hundred whores and several hundred wives. (That's one thousand vaginas for one man!) - A young virgin girl after you raped her and slaughtered her family. - His sex slaves - And another woman, and another woman, and a few more woman, and an adulterer, and a group of raped whores. Since you're trying so hard to ban gay marriage because it's 'immoral'? Why don't you just try to legalise incest, polygamy and sex slaves? God has clearly no problem with this, infact he wrote it down in a book for you so you can follow the moral examples. (Don't Forget - God and Jesus very much approve of slavery) ___________________________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw - VersesI'm not trying to be offensive. - This is your religion so you shouldn't be offended by the bible.@Paul M. If you're such an expert, WATCH THE VIDEO! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw It's ALL in there.@Paul M, Abraham had sex with his sister (so they married) and her slave? Long after Genesis@Mel, I just think if you're going to tell a gay person they can't get married because it's "immoral" according to the bible. That's a ridicilous statement because the bible is so immoral itself when it comes to sex & marriage. moreResolved Question: does anyone know what this is called?
so there's this picture that im sure i've seen before at some point in my history class. it was a slavery picture, and there was a caption at the bottom reading "do you often buy the wife without the husband?" "yes, very often; and frequently, too. They sell me the mother while i keep her children." this is a quote from the American Anti-Slavery Almanac. I've googled this, and i just can't find it!! please help, i need it for a history assignment due monday. thanks :)) moreResolved Question: Do you think RUSH did wrong?
The Race Card, Football and Me My Critics Would Have You Believe No Conservative Meets NFL 'Standards.' By RUSH LIMBAUGH David Checketts, an investor and owner of sports teams, approached me in late May about investing in the St. Louis Rams football franchise. As a football fan, I was intrigued. I invited him to my home where we discussed it further. Even after informing him that some people might try to make an issue of my participation, Mr. Checketts said he didn't much care. I accepted his offer. It didn't take long before my name was selectively leaked to the media as part of the Checketts investment group. Shortly thereafter, the media elicited comments from the likes of Al Sharpton. In 1998 Mr. Sharpton was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay $65,000 for falsely accusing a New York prosecutor of rape in the 1987 Tawana Brawley case. He also played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot (he called neighborhood Jews "diamond merchants") and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot. Not to be outdone, Jesse Jackson, whose history includes anti-Semitic speech (in 1984 he referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in a Washington Post interview) chimed in. He found me unfit to be associated with the NFL. I was too divisive and worse. I was accused of once supporting slavery and having praised Martin Luther King Jr.'s murderer, James Earl Ray. Next came writers in the sports world, like the Washington Post's Michael Wilbon. He wrote this gem earlier this week: "I'm not going to try and give specific examples of things Limbaugh has said over the years because I screwed up already doing that, repeating a quote attributed to Limbaugh (about slavery) which he has told me he simply did not say and does not reflect his feelings. I take him at his word. . . . " Mr. Wilbon wasn't alone. Numerous sportswriters, CNN, MSNBC, among others, falsely attributed to me statements I had never made. Their sources, as best I can tell, were Wikipedia and each other. But the Wikipedia post was based on a fabrication printed in a book that also lacked any citation to an actual source. I never said I supported slavery and I never praised James Earl Ray. How sick would that be? Just as sick as those who would use such outrageous slanders against me or anyone else who never even thought such things. Mr. Wilbon refuses to take responsibility for his poison pen, writing instead that he will take my word that I did not make these statements; others, like Rick Sanchez of CNN, essentially used the same sleight-of-hand. The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views? The NFL players union boss, DeMaurice Smith, jumped in. A Washington criminal defense lawyer, Democratic Party supporter and Barack Obama donor, he sent a much publicized email to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell saying that it was important for the league to reject discrimination and hatred. When Mr. Goodell was asked about me, he suggested that my 2003 comment criticizing the media's coverage of Donovan McNabb—in which I said the media was cheerleading Mr. McNabb because they wanted a successful black quarterback—fell short of the NFL's "high standard." High standard? Half a decade later, the media would behave the same way about the presidential candidacy of Mr. Obama. Having brought me into his group, Mr. Checketts now wanted a way out. He asked me to resign. I told him no way. I had done nothing wrong. I had not uttered the words these people were putting in my mouth. And I would not bow to their libels and pressure. He would have to drop me from the group. A few days later, he did. As I explained on my radio show, this spectacle is bigger than I am on several levels. There is a contempt in the news business, including the sportswriter community, for conservatives that reflects the blind hatred espoused by Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson. "Racism" is too often their sledgehammer. And it is being used to try to keep citizens who don't share the left's agenda from participating in the full array of opportunities this nation otherwise affords each of us. It was on display many years ago in an effort to smear Clarence Thomas with racist stereotypes and keep him off the Supreme Court. More recently, it was employed against patriotic citizens who attended town-hall meetings and tea-party protests. These intimidation tactics are working and spreading, and they are a cancer on our society. Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated talk radio host. http://on moreVoting Question: Can someone answer questions about writing a paper?
Okay, I found an article at an online writing source. The author quotes several authors in the body of the text. For example, he said: "Gibbs (2005) said that Lincoln's first speech set the stage for his anti-slavery presidency." When I write the paper about the article, which is really more like a paper, do I site the authors that the author references? Or would i just write: Lincoln's first speech...?" I don't remember how I'm supposed to handle this. Thanks.I mean do I have to include the cited authors the paper's author cited? Do I have to write Gibbs (2005), too? Or is it understand that what I wrote about is already cited by the paper's author? moreResolved Question: I need a rational "argument" for getting over slavery........?
There is this guy who keeps on using slavery as an excuse for all, quote, "his peoples" problems. I am anti-slavery, BUT, i dont feel sorry for what happened. (yes, im an evil white man.) The past is the past and what happened in the past was necessary for were we are today. No slavery, no America. our economy relied on it and without it, we would all be British. Hell, maybe German. Anyway, im getting sick of his constant bitching... and need some help. thanks. moreResolved Question: What do you think about everyone linking Nostradamus and obama?
Okay I'm not the first person to ask this, but it just makes me so mad that just because obama is in office, now oh no the world is gonna end.. i read another blog that people were talking in, about a quote from Nostradamus: (243) The great empire will be torn from limb, The all-powerful one for more than four hundred years: Great power given to the dark one from slaves come, The Aryana will not be satisfied thereby. This is how i take it: (The great empire will be torn from limb)- okay yea yea..when isn't the world messed up... (The all-powerful one for more than four hundred years; Great power given to the dark one from slaves come,) - well, slavery in the U.S. lasted over 400 years, approx. 465 years if i'm not mistaken. Now when someone even with just the slightest of african american in them has a great deal of power (being president) they have to be an anit-christ (please)! (The Aryana will not be satisfied thereby.)- I may not be able to break down what aryana truly means..but last time i heard..don't the KKK sometimes go by the Aryan brotherhood..I ono maybe I'm wrong...and everybody knows that they ain't happy with obama being president. Yea yea..and some may also say.."well what about all that with nostradamus talkin' about mabus being the third anti-christ" and all that bs when you put obama and bush together and take away the oba..that too much ignorance for me..but if u do wanna play those type of games..u could of easily did that with osama and bush. Then there's some that wanna bring in.."well what about the mayan calendar with it ending in 2012" ...well as far as i know..Remember how everyone was freaking out with the predictions about 2000? The whole the-Mayans-said-the-world-will-end-in-2012 thing is basically just Y2K fever, ancient Mesoamerican style. And then there will be someone saying.."But those are just too many signs" I think of it like this...when July,6,06 (6,06,06) came around, did that mean it was devil day? No that's ridiculous. The mayan calendar doesn't even mean the end. Maybe in spiritual sense..a change..but why does it have to be a bad change..why does obama have to be a bad change? As i read in history there have been worse presidents. So as I refer back to nostradamus' prophecies, yea it may seem like the world is coming to an end for those racist mofo's out there, that the thought of a black person even being able to use the same bathroom as them makes their teeth cringe. But for people that have the same way of thinking as i do, this is a new, good change, and the world hasn't seen nothing yet. moreResolved Question: Are conservatives sure they want to use the one Lincoln quote where he defends conservatism?
Some con used it with no source. I got curious and looked it up to see it in context. Apparently Lincoln and his party was accused of being radical, revolutionary, destructive, and sectional (a Northern Party). To defend himself and his party, he said you guys call yourself CONSERVATIVE because you DEFEND SLAVERY. He said no, we're conservative because we plan on doing nothing about slavery. Of Course, Lincoln and his "Radical Republican Party" did do something about slavery. They used the power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to destroy a "state-rights" to own slaves. 1860 CONSERVATIVE STAND = PRO-SLAVERY 1860 RADICAL STAND = ANTI-SLAVERY ================ ``You claim that you are conservative; and we are not. We deny it. What is conservatism? Preserving the old against the new. And yet you are conservative in struggling for the new, and we are destructive in trying to maintain the old. Possibly you mean you are conservative in trying to maintain the existing insti moreResolved Question: Are conservatives sure they want to use the one Lincoln quote where he defends conservatism?
Some con used it with no source. I got curious and looked it up to see it in context. Apparently Lincoln and his party was accused of being radical, revolutionary, destructive, and sectional (a Northern Party). To defend himself and his party, he said you guys call yourself CONSERVATIVE because you DEFEND SLAVERY. He said no, we're conservative because we plan on doing nothing about slavery. Of Course, Lincoln and his "Radical Republican Party" did do something about slavery. They used the power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to destroy a "state-rights" to own slaves. 1860 CONSERVATIVE STAND = PRO-SLAVERY 1860 RADICAL STAND = ANTI-SLAVERY ================ ``You claim that you are conservative; and we are not. We deny it. What is conservatism? Preserving the old against the new. And yet you are conservative in struggling for the new, and we are destructive in trying to maintain the old. Possibly you mean you are conservative in trying to maintain the existing institution of slavery. Very well; we are not trying to destroy it. The peace of society, and the structure of our government both require that we should let it alone, and we insist on letting it alone. If I might advise my Republican friends here, I would say to them, leave your Missouri neighbors alone. Have nothing whatever to do with their slaves. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;cc=lincoln;type=simple;rgn=div2;q1=What%20is%20conservatism;singlegenre=All;view=text;subview=detail;sort=occur;idno=lincoln3;node=lincoln3%3A166.1 http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;cc=lincoln;type=simple;rgn=div2;q1=What%20is%20conservatism;singlegenre=All;view=text;subview=detail;sort=occur;idno=lincoln3;node=lincoln3%3A199.1Jack B, Are you sure. Can you find the speech in which Lincoln said that? I always see alot of FALSE unreference quotes out there. This one turned out to be true, but was selectively quoted and not put in context.eelfins, Southern CONSERVATIVE "state-rights" Democrats supported slavery, while the Radical Republican Party (based in the northeast) was against it. We know that. Have you taken a look at your party? Things have changed. Today's GOP is the party of south and "state-rights". Blacks and notherners have been moving towards the Dem Party ever since the 1964 presidential election. Back then liberal Democrat LBJ supported civil rights and conservative Republican Barry Goldwater opposed them. That was the first year the South went Republican for president. moreResolved Question: After reading this quote on abortion, does your perspective change at all?
"…Clarence put his fingers on the keyboard and started the next day's column. Like an extemporaneous speech that's twenty years in the making, his column came from deep within, having been forged in the fires of many years' thoughts and experiences: The slaveowners were pro-choice. They said, "Those who don't want to have slaves don't have to, but don't tell us we can't choose to. It's our right." Those who wanted to make slaveholding illegal were accused of being anti-choice and anti-freedom, of trying to impose their morality on others. The civil rights movement, like the abolitionist movement one hundred years earlier, opposed the exercise of free choice that much of society defended. It was solidly anti-choice when it came to racial discrimination. Historically, whites had a free choice to own slaves, and later to have segregated lunch counters. After all, America was a free country. But the civil rights movement fought to take away that free choice from them. Likewise, the women's movement fought to take away an employer's free choice to discriminate against women. Nearly every movement of oppression and exploitation--from slavery to abortion--has labeled itself "pro-choice". Likewise, opposing movements offering compassion and deliverance have been labeled "anti-choice" by exploiters. In reality, the pro-choice position always emphasizes one person's right to choose instead of the others'. But what about the victims right to choose? Blacks didn't choose slavery. Jews didn't choose the ovens. Women don't choose rape. And babies don't choose abortion. He pressed the word count button. Only two hundred words, a quarter of the way to a column. He'd have to flesh it out, tie it to some current event of the last few days. He took some comfort knowing how many toes he would step on. But he also hoped maybe he would do some good. Maybe somebody out there would listen." From: Dominion by Randy Alcorn Page 138Here's another one for ya: "He'd written some columns on abortion that were among his most controversial. He looked at the one in front of him, written after Susan Smith drowned her children in that Carolina lake:Susan Smith killed her two sons. Amid all the shock and dismay expressed in the media, I can only ask, What's the big deal? Why is everybody so upset? After all, people all over the country, including columnists at this newspaper, have for years defended her right to kill the same two children. Their only stipulation was that Susan Smith kill them when they were younger and smaller. Based on this I can only conclude that Susan Smith, exercising her right to privacy and freedom of choice, was not guilty of doing a bad thing. She was only guilty of bad timing. What she did to her sons was just a very late-term abortion. He'd concluded the article, "It's time for abortion advocates to be honest and admit that Susan Smith is the poster child for pro-choice America."" From: Dominion by Randy Alcorn Page 157Just a comment: So there seems to be a general concensus that if you don't have the means to support an unborn child, you have the right to execute it before it's born. But say you are happily wealthy and years AFTER the baby is born, you lose all means to support it, you should then have the right to dispose of it as well. After all, you don't have the means to give it a decent life anymore. Put it out of it's missery. The only difference is that THEN you would be a classified murderer but if it's just a "fetus" (which by the way, never turns out to be anything other than a human baby... so in my opinion, it IS a human BABY), then you're just doing it a favor? I say, if you aren't prepared to have kids, don't have sex, you can't have your cake and eat it too... so you shouldn't be allowed to have your pleasure without your responsibility. moreResolved Question: What is Revelation and Daniel Concerning Why wont pastors explain it yet assume to know god?
What is Revelation and Daniel Concerning Why wont pastors explain it yet assume to know god? One the book Don Quixote and John Locke are the reasons we say it is silly to be evangelical or that the nobility was god ordained two the book Huckle berry finn shows that somehow people believed slaves were babylon and had misused grace and would burn in hell three the church was split in two during the civil war one said cursed be Canaan against slaves the other quoted a passage in Corinthians concerning slavery Lastly they engaged in politics of opposite ends each signifying biblical reference and of course the attack against progress as being called of anti christ when christ said himself we must be born again moreResolved Question: If you lived in these Timeless historcial scanerio's ?
How Would you play them out ? 1. You are a slave in 1850 in Maryland. You have heard about a great black woman known as "Moses" who helps slaves try to escape using something called the Underground Railroad. Another slave has approached you and has asked you to run away and try to escape to freedom. Will you go? 2.You are a businessman living in Pennsylvania in 1855. You are personally opposed to slavery but have never spoken publicly against it. You were approached by an abolitionist group and have been asked to become a stop on the Underground Railroad. You know other families have been threatened for helping slaves and that there is a new law that carries stiff penalties for assisting runaways. Will you help 3.You are a newspaper editor living in Virginia in 1840. You own two slaves yourself. You were approached by an abolitionist group and have been asked to publish a series of anti-slavery editorials. You have always tried to be fair about reporting, but your readers are mostly in favor of slavery. Would you run the editorials? 4.You are a clergyman in North Carolina in 1750. You believe that all men are your brothers, but many of your parishioners own slaves. You have heard other clergy deliver sermons quoting sections of the Bible that seem to support slavery, but you still believe it is wrong. Your church is largely dependent upon the contributions of slave owners. How do you address the issue of slavery in your churchp.s. if you must know i created these questions myself moreResolved Question: Why Do Christians Support The Anti-Christ System of Mammon?
Note: This Is a Real Question I am Seeking Educated Answers Please Do not Stick to Mindless Childish Insults, Also France Which is a Marxist Based Governement And Canada Are Much Older Then America So Dont Bring Up Russia Also remeber America is Iron were a republic that Makes us exactly like the old roman empire Were not a true democracy like parliment Please Do not bring up Adam Smiths book "Wealth of Nations" China Canada and France do just fine. In fact its America that’s economically failing, we owe China money, So much for capitalism. Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility. Do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist, Trade does not equal capitalism. Public ownership of property as to have no bourgiose class is communism. This in addition to Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable. Now when you consider peak oil is this idea so far fetched, Its obvious capitalism has only produced a waste economy. Once more god is not about money morality comes first, he who is not for is against. We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic. Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via Max Weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and was not a by product of industrialization. Please do not state that christians try to fix these issues, republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for Social welfare or work release. Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change. We live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom such things are not neccessary. Also If your against Henry David Thoreau's civil disobediance your against Martin Luther King, Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery. He who is not for is against The two books "John Locke The two treatise of Government" and "Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism" are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. Karl Marx has said "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests." This quote has been proved true by sociology, history and political science. This is mainly due to the fact that the ruling class must institutie prejudice in pursuiant to its own interests in order to continue to rule. It can not give place to any religious or moral opposition so it must validate itself politically buy any means needed out of fear. Do not state Mammon is ill gotten gains becuase the early church demonstrated a socalistic quality and in no way does capitalism demonstarte the parable of the shrewed manager. Please do not also bring up maddness of a micro chip. Christ stated that some around him would not taste death, till all should come to pass. Explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice of the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote. Please also explain how slaves were called of babylon and many killed for asking for freedom in church validation that the wealthy slave owners were covered by the blood of jesus showing indeed the idols that have sold out our morality for profit and our need of the divine where many are slain for the validation of this system of econmics and governemnt P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts this is in no way a rant moreResolved Question: Why Do Christians Support The Anti-Christ System of Mammon?
Note: This Is a Real Question I am Seeking Educated Answers Please Do not Stick to Mindless Childish Insults, Also France Which Isd Marxist Based Governement And Canada Are Much Older Then The US So Dont Bring Up Russia Please Do not bring up Adam Smiths book "Wealth of Nations" China Canada and France do just fine. In fact its America that’s economically failing, we owe China money, So much for capitalism. Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility. Do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist, Trade does not equal capitalism. Public ownership of property as to have no bourgiose class is communism. This in addition to Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable. Now when you consider peak oil is this idea so far fetched, Its obvious capitalism has only produced a waste economy. Once more god is not about money morality comes first, he who is not for is against. We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic. Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via Max Weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and was not a by product of industrialization. Please do not state that christians try to fix these issues, republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for Social welfare or work release. Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change. We live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom such things are not neccessary. Also If your against Henry David Thoreau's civil disobediance your against Martin Luther King, Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery. He who is not for is against The two books "John Locke The two treatise of Government" and "Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism" are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. Karl Marx has said "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests." This quote has been proved true by sociology, history and political science. This is mainly due to the fact that the ruling class must institutie prejudice in pursuiant to its own interests in order to continue to rule. It can not give place to any religious or moral opposition so it must validate itself politically buy any means needed out of fear. Do not state Mammon is ill gotten gains becuase the early church demonstrated a socalistic quality and in no way does capitalism demonstarte the parable of the shrewed manager. Please do not also bring up maddness of a micro chip. Christ stated that some around him would not taste death, till all should come to pass. Explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice of the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote. P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts this is in no way a rant moreResolved Question: Why Do Christians Support The Anti-Christ System of Mammon?
Please Do not bring up Adam Smiths book "Wealth of Nations" China Canada and France do just fine. In fact its America that’s economically failing, we owe China money, So much for capitalism. Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility. Do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist, Trade does not equal capitalism. Public ownership of property as to have no bourgiose class is communism. This in addition to Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable. Now when you consider peak oil is this idea so far fetched, Its obvious capitalism has only produced a waste economy. Once more god is not about money morality comes first, he who is not for is against. We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic. Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via Max Weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and was not a by product of industrialization. Please do not state that christians try to fix these issues, republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for Social welfare or work release. Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change. We live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom such things are not neccessary. Also If your against Henry David Thoreau's civil disobediance your against Martin Luther King, Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery. He who is not for is against The two books "John Locke The two treatise of Government" and "Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism" are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. Karl Marx has said "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests." This quote has been proved true by sociology, history and political science. This is mainly due to the fact that the ruling class must institutie prejudice in pursuiant to its own interests in order to continue to rule. It can not give place to any religious or moral opposition so it must validate itself politically buy any means needed out of fear. Do not state Mammon is ill gotten gains becuase the early church demonstrated a socalistic quality and in no way does capitalism demonstarte the parable of the shrewed manager. Please do not also bring up maddness of a micro chip. Christ stated that some around him would not taste death, till all should come to pass. Explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice of the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote. P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts this is in no way a rant moreResolved Question: Why Do Christians Support The Anti Christ System Of Mammon ?
Please Do not bring up Adam Smiths book "Wealth of Nations" China Canada and France do just fine. In fact its America that’s economically failing, we owe China billions, So much for capitalism. Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility. Do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist, Trade does not equal capitalism. Public ownership of property as to have no bourgiose class is communism. This in addition to Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable. Now when you consider peak oil is this idea so far fetched, Its obvious capitalism has only produced a waste economy. Once more god is not about money morality comes first, he who is not for is against. We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic. Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via Max Weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and was not a by product of industrialization. Please do not state that christians try to fix these issues, republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for social welfare or work release. Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change. We live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom such things are not neccessary. Also If your against Henry David Thoreau's civil disobediance your against Martin Luther King, Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery. He who is not for is against The two books "John Locke The two treatise of Government" and "Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism" are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. Karl Marx has said "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests." This quote has been proved true by sociology, history and political science. This is mainly due to the fact that the ruling class must institutie prejudice in pursuiant to its own interests in order to continue to rule. It can not give place to any religious or moral opposition so it must validate itself politically buy any means needed out of fear. Do not state Mammon is ill gotten gains becuase the early church demonstrated a socalistic quality and in no way does capitalism demonstarte the parable of the shrewed manager. Please do not also bring up maddness of a micro chip. Christ stated that some around him would not taste death, till all should come to pass. Explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice of the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote. P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts this is in no way a rant moreResolved Question: Why Do Christians Support the Anti-Christ system of Mammon?
Please Do not bring up Adam Smiths book "Wealth of Nations" China Canada and France do just fine. In fact its America that’s economically failing, we owe China money, So much for capitalism. Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility. Do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist, Trade does not equal capitalism. Public ownership of property as to have no bourgiose class is communism. This in addition to Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable. Now when you consider peak oil is this idea so far fetched, Its obvious capitalism has only produced a waste economy. Once more god is not about money morality comes first, he who is not for is against. We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic. Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via Max Weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and was not a by product of industrialization. Please do not state that christians try to fix these issues, republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for Social welfare or work release. Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change. We live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom such things are not neccessary. Also If your against Henry David Thoreau's civil disobediance your against Martin Luther King, Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery. He who is not for is against The two books "John Locke The two treatise of Government" and "Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism" are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. Karl Marx has said "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests." This quote has been proved true by sociology, history and political science. This is mainly due to the fact that the ruling class must institutie prejudice in pursuiant to its own interests in order to continue to rule. It can not give place to any religious or moral opposition so it must validate itself politically buy any means needed out of fear. Do not state Mammon is ill gotten gains becuase the early church demonstrated a socalistic quality and in no way does capitalism demonstarte the parable of the shrewed manager. Please do not also bring up maddness of a micro chip. Christ stated that some around him would not taste death, till all should come to pass. Explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice of the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote. P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts this is in no way a rant moreResolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?
Please Do not bring up Adam Smiths book "Wealth of Nations" China Canada and France do just fine. In fact its America that’s economically failing, we owe China money, So much for capitalism. Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility. Do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist, Trade does not equal capitalism. Public ownership of property as to have no bourgiose class is communism. This in addition Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable, despite What Adam Smith might say. Now when you consider peak oil is this idea so far fetched, Its obvious capitalism has only produced waste economy. Once more god is not about money morality comes firs,t he who is not for is against. We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic. Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and not a by product of industrialization. Please do not state that christians try to fix these issue republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for Social welfare or work release. Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change we live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom. Also If your against Henry David Thoreau and civil disobediance your against Martin Luther King Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery. He who is not for is against John Locke The two treatise of Government Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism these two books are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests" karl marx said this quote and its been proved true by sociology history and political science; explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice opf the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts this is in no way a rant moreResolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?
Please Do not bring up Adam Smiths book "Wealth of Nations" China Canada and France do just fine. In fact its America that’s economically failing, we owe China money, So much for capitalism. Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility. Do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist, Trade does not equal capitalism. Private property as to have a bourgiose class is communism. This in addition Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable, despite What Adam Smith might say. Now when you consider peak oil is this idea so far fetched, Its obvious capitalism has only produced waste economy. Once more god is not about money morality comes firs,t he who is not for is against. We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic. Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and not a by product of industrialization. Please do not state that christians try to fix these issue republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for Social welfare or work release. Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change we live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom. Also If your against Henry David Thoreau and civil disobediance your against Martin Luther King Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery. He who is not for is against John Locke The two treatise of Government Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism these two books are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests" karl marx said this quote and its been proved true by sociology history and political science; explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice opf the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts moreResolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?
Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ? Do not bring up the wealth of nations China Canada and France do just fine in fact its America that’s economically failing and we owe China money So much for capitalism Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility So do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist Trade does not equal capitalism private property as to have a bourgiose class does This in addition Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable despite What Adam Smith says. Now when you consider peak oil is this so far fetched Its obvious capitalism has only produced waste economy And once more god is not about money morality comes first he who is not for is against We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and not a by product of industrialization Please do not state that christians try to fix these types of issues republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for any social welfare program or work release Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change we live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom Also If your against Henry David Thoreau your against Martin Luther King Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery He who is not for is against John Locke The two treatise of Government Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism these two books are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests" karl marx said this quote and its been proved true by sociology history and political science; explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice opf the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts this is not a rant I have used creditable thought and logos moreResolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?
Do not bring up the wealth of nations China Canada and France do just fine in fact its America that’s economically failing and we owe China money So much for capitalism Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility So do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist Trade does not equal capitalism private property as to have a bourgiose class does This in addition Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable despite What Adam Smith says. Now when you consider peak oil is this so far fetched Its obvious capitalism has only produced waste economy And once more god is not about money morality comes first he who is not for is against We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and not a by product of industrialization Please do not state that christians try to fix these types of issues republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for any social welfare program or work release Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change we live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom Also If your against Henry David Thoreau your against Martin Luther King Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery He who is not for is against John Locke The two treatise of Government Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism these two books are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests" karl marx said this quote and its been proved true by sociology history and political science; explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice opf the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts moreResolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?
Do not bring up the wealth of nations China Canada and France do just fine in fact its America that’s economically failing and we owe China money So much for capitalism Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility This in addition Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable despite What Adam Smith says. Now when you consider peak oil is this so far fetched Its obvious capitalism has only produced waste economy And once more god is not about money morality comes first he who is not for is against We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and not a by product of industrialization Please do not state that christians try to fix these issue republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change we live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom Also If your against Henry David Thoreau your against Martin Luther King Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery He who is not for is against John Locke The two treatise of Government Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism these two books are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests" karl marx said this quote and its been proved true by sociology history and political science; explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain tyhe prejudice opf the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book huckle berry finn anmd don quixote P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts moreResolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?
Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ? We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and not a by product of industrialization Please do not state that christians try to fix these issue republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians Please do not also state crime or Other sanctions are the reason we don't change we live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom Also If your against Thoreau your against Martin Luther KIng Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery He who is not for is against John Locke The two treatise of Government Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism these two books are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests" karl marx said this quote and its been proved true by sociology history and political science; explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and contribute to the system moreResolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?
We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and not a by product of industrialization Please do not state that christians try to fix these issue republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians Please do not also state crime or Other sanctions are the reason we don't change we live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom Also If your against Thoreau your against Martin Luther KIng Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery He who is not for is against John Locke The two treatise of Government Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism these two books are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests" karl marx said this quote and its been proved true by sociology history and political science; explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education moreResolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?
We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and not a by product of industrialization Please do not state that christians try to fix these issue republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians Please do not also state crime or Other sanctions are the reason we don't change we live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom Also If your against Thoreau your against Martin Luther KIng Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery He who is not for is against John Locke The two treatise of Government Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism these two books are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests" karl marx said this quote and its been proved true by sociology history and political science; explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. moreResolved Question: What is Revelation and Daniel Concerning Why wont pastors explain it yet assume to know god?
Question Is Above Bottom Is reference One the book Don Quixote and John Locke are the reasons we say it is silly to be evangelical or that the nobility was god ordained. Two the book Huckle berry finn shows that somehow people believed slaves were babylon and had misused grace and would burn in hell. Three the church was split in two during the civil war one said cursed be Canaan against slaves the other quoted a passage in Corinthians. Concerning slavery Lastly both the northern states and southern engaged in politics of opposite ends each signifying biblical reference. This shows that they didnt in fact know god, and of course the attack against progress as being called of anti christ when christ said himself we must be born again. So of all this reference how does anyone know god or end times because the civil war and throwing off of nobility was said to signify end times by most illuminate and is agreed by most christain philosophers moreResolved Question: What is Revelation and Daniel Concerning Why wont pastors explain it yet assume to know god?
One the book Don Quixote and John Locke are the reasons we say it is silly to be evangelical or that the nobility was god ordained two the book Huckle berry finn shows that somehow people believed slaves were babylon and had misused grace and would burn in hell three the church was split in two during the civil war one said cursed be Canaan against slaves the other quoted a passage in Corinthians concerning slavery Lastly they engaged in politics of opposite ends each signifying biblical reference and of course the attack against progress as being called of anti christ when christ said himself we must be born again moreResolved Question: So if we ban gay marriage then shouldn't we ban interracial marriage?
I am the only one that is laughing at the issue of gay marraige? I am not gay but I could care less if gay people get married. I think people forget history. Just in the 1950's and 1960's it was illeagal for a white man and a black women or vice versa to get married. Why you might ask? Well here are some quotes from people at the time. "No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainious character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution ... that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratifty it. ... Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. ... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy" Seaborn Roddenbery In 1965, Virginia trial court Judge Leon Bazile, who heard their original case, refused to reconsider his decision. Instead, he defended racial segregation, writing: Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws So does anyone else think that in 50 years from now our children will look back on this time and be like wow those people were F*****g ignorant and discriminatory? moreVoting Question: How Can Obama quote MLK--when BO has turned against all that King Stood For? ..see attached source article..?
ps--There are dozens just like this one...and I quote: "Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican By Frances Rice It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism. It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860's, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950's and 1960's. During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military. Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King." so, I ask you why was MLK a republican and BO is super leftist liberal if MLK was so profound and insightful about the treatment of minorities? And why doesn't BO care about women's rights? He never talks about them? Even whenyougive libs the FACTS--they can't understand me....??go ahead and keep defending..you're wrong---johnson and kennedy were against civil rights for blacks.... Read Your History. moreResolved Question: Where do we go now Barack?
Now that Obama has revealed some of his socialist and anti-american ways, have some of his (and his supporters) arguments become void? Redistribution of the wealth: Obama's people first said that the "joe the plumber" quote was taken out of context. Well, Obama reaffirmed this "redistributive" ideal in a recent interview, and he explains in depth what this means in his 2001 interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature=email Questioning Obama's patriotism: Obama has said that we shouldn't question his patriotism. Well, Obama has said, in the above interview, that the basic purpose of the constitution--defining and limiting the power of government--is flawed. Certainly the constitution has had flaws: like allowing slavery and disallowing women's right to vote, but the basic purpose of the constitution is not flawed and is what this country is built upon. So, for calling the constitution--the basic purpose of the constitution--flawed, surely we can question Obama's patriotism now, right?"Sounds like some of your anti-Obama cohorts have made plasn." Oh, please. I think these two men are disgusting and should be imprisoned for life. Nice, trying to associate me with those scum."Let's see how 'urban dictionary' defines patriotism." Yes, urban dictionary- the aggregate of all human knowledge."Interesting clip.. doesn't sound very Obama like or rather sound like it could have been faked.. I wonder if there is a way of getting it so that friends can't question it's validity." The obama campaign has already put out a press release on the clip, validating it, but downplaying it's importance. moreResolved Question: Is feminism anti-family?
I ask because of these quotes from prominent feminists: "Most mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children." -- Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, p.294 "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women's Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronan "The institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained. In a very real way the role of wife has been the genesis of women's rebellion throughout history." -- Marlene Dixon, "Why Women's Liberation? Racism and Male Supremacy" . "How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." -- Irina Dunn, 1970 . Intersting note: this famous quote comes from Irina Dunn, an Australian journalist who coined it in 1970. But the most interesting thing is, Ms Dunn stole this quote from a philosopher who said, "Man needs God like a fish needs a bicycle." Irina Dunn needed a man to come up with the only phrase that gave her fame. How empowering! . "Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership." -- Andrea Dworki Note: Andrea Dworkin was secretly married to a man for many years. She was against marriage.... Against your marriage, not hers. "The institution [of marriage] consistently proves itself unsatisfactory--even rotten.... The family is...directly connected to--is even the cause of--the ills of the larger society." -- Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (New York: Morrow, 1970), p. 254."I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal." -- Sylvia Fraser; Journalist "All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey." -- Marilyn French"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Welleslry College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Linda Gordon,"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" -- Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981"If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry." -- Germaine Greer"The nuclear family is a cornerstone of woman's oppression: it enforces women's dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation." -- Alison Jaggar"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics, 178-179"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan, editor of Ms. Magazine. That's as mainstream as you can get."The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." -- (National NOW Times, Jan. 1988) Scarlett, misogyny isn't a political and social movement."The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it." -- Margaret Sanger"I do want to be able to explain to a 9-year-old boy in terms he will understand why I think it's OK for girls to wear shirts that revel in their superiority over boys." -- Treena Shapiro moreResolved Question: Copyright question?
There is an historic image of a slave that was used on anti-slavery coins circa 1780s. The image is of a slave on his knees with his hands above his hands, infront of his face. Almost as if he is pleaing for mercy. There is a quote 'Am I not a Man and a Brother' that is attached to the image. The Smithsonian owns the coin. My question is is it ok to use that quote on a t-shirt? I've seen other shirts with a similar saying 'Am I not a Woman,' which is an historic quote of Sojourner Truth.Angel, I understand your concern, but we created a different image to attach the saying to. moreResolved Question: I'd like your feedback on this website - Anti-Bible site.?
I'm not posting this link to stir up bad emotions. Sure, I've often voiced my opinion on religion here - and I find that a lack of religion and a push for common sense morals would serve our society much better. But barring my personal beliefs, I've got a few questions for those who have read the Bible and understand how it's constructed. There is a website called EvilBible.com. On it are hundreds of listings of alleged quotes which openly promote murder, slavery, rape - you name it. What I want to know is: 1.) Are these quotes real? 2.) Are they taken completely out of context? If so, could you choose one and explain it to me in context, provided that it is a legitimate quote? 3.) Are the sections of the Bible quoted ones which are actively supported and followed today? I'm seeing a lot of "Deuteronomy", "Exodus", and "Judges". I have never studied the Bible, so these distinctions are entirely foreign to me. I'm out of space here, but I'll list some alleged quotes below.Quotes: (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)These sound like paraphrased interpretations of verses, not actual scripture. Is that correct?I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I took the advice below and looked them up on BibleGateway.com. They do appear to be real, which leads me to another question. If these are Old Testament, and Jesus proclaimed that they were not to be followed, then is Jesus in direct defiance of his father, God? Do Christians not believe that God wrote the Old Testament? I don't know exactly how an ethereal being can put pen to paper, but do they not believe that the words within are his?Oh, and thanks :D I am quite fond of this hat as well.FamousFool: Why does the Old Testament not apply anymore? I'd always heard that God was infallible, so the casting off of the Old Testament would seem like an admission that the original word of God was wrong.James: Great answer, thanks! That really helps to shed some light on things. moreResolved Question: Racism - Why is it always once sided?
Have you not noticed the huge amounts of anti white media, anti white laws there are? Doesn't it seem that unless you are in the right area you will not get any benefit, support or favor unless you are an ethnic? I'd like to remind all those blacks that if it were not for the likes of the white countries such as the US and Britain (who abolished slavery a good 100 years before the US) and crushed the Nazi's that they would really be in a terrible position right now. And yes the majority of those fighting those racist powers were in fact mostly whites, in the US the whites although fighting to abolish the slaves rejected the idea of blacks fighting for a long long time! And on a deeper level try and quote any black power in a black country that has stood up to the likes of Mugabe on the protection of whites! I think that blacks should remember that while bad has been done it as also been undone by the only power that could do it, the own sentiments of the whites in their home nations. moreResolved Question: Is it valid to compare "Christian" anti-gay attitudes with "Christian" racism?
Before you report this, here's what I'm asking - and note that I put "Christian" in quotes, because I'm referring specifically to those types of Christianity that ARE anti-gay or racist - and I think we can all admit that those types exist, even though we may disagree with them. Anti-abolitionists used to cite the Biblical "Curse of Ham" as evidence that black people were inferior, since Ham was believed to be the progenitor of the black African races. They would also point out what modern Christians are loathe to acknowledge, viz. that the Bible clearly endorses the practice of slavery, in multiple passages. In other words, they cited specific Biblical texts to justify their own racist attitudes. Nowadays we've collectively decided that they were wrong in so doing. But it's hard not to see a parallel in what's going on now with the "Christian" push against gay rights. Specific texts are selected from among hundreds of others in the Bible as validating anti-gay sentiment.I'm asking because I honestly want your opinions on this. Do you feel that this is a fair comparison? Why or why not? Feel free to actually think about it rather than kneejerk-reacting. Has Biblical Truth changed, or have people's notions of right and wrong? And in the case of the latter, is it always "bad" to depart from old ways of thinking?I knew that people would say that the Bible "clearly" condemns homosexuality but never specifically endorses slavery. In the first place, that it clearly condemns homosexuality is debatable. And it's hardly "consistent" - a few isolated passages that have received an inordinate amount of attention of late. "Paul" goes on and on about how women are subordinate to men, and nobody says anything about that; yet his few vague remarks that have been interpreted as referring to homosexuality are dwelt upon obsessively. As for slavery, yes, the Bible specifically endorses it. Cf. Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-11 (includes directions for selling your daughter into sex-slavery), Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, etc etc. I daresay that the fact that people would say that the Bible condemns homosexuality but doesn't endorse slavery is merely symptomatic of the times in which we live. moreResolved Question: Who was the most divisive President in the history of the United States?
It was a President that Democrats accused of lying and starting a War under false pretenses. It was a President that whose ideology was so hated his election literally ripped the nation into pieces, caused violent riots in New York city where Democrats lynched blacks and tossed their babies from 3rd story windows. Here is a quote written by a group of Democrats that might help you: "While it [The Republican Party) attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose." Here is a hint, it wasn't President George W. Bush. Here is another hint, that quote was written in 1861.Jackson was a jerk, but, the nation did not split apart because he was elected. Abe sure was a jerk, you know people still say that Abe was a liar fighting an illegal War and that the Civil War had nothing to do with Slavery even though the Letters of the causes of Secession filed by the various States make it obvious Slavery had everything to do with it. Democrats don't study history, they just make up what they want for history as they go along.Crunch has the best researched answer, as well as being correct. His sources are reasonably accurate although they do not portray an accurate representation of the period. Like Barack Obama today there were blacks during the Civil War who supported the ideology of the Democratic party in spite being slaves and the Democratic party supported genocide of Slavery. Since Democrats refused to allow Slaves or Black Freedmen to vote for almost a hundred and fifty years it is difficult to present well documented evidence that the majority of Africans forced into slavery despised their conditions. Thanks to the good works of Republicans, including Martin Luther King Jr., Africans enjoy the right to vote. Lets say we ask for a national referendum with only those of African American decent whose ancestors included slaves on how many think slavery is a good thing. Bet we find that the common Democratic argument for the last hundred and fifty years that blacks liked slavery is wrong. :-)realst1: thanks for copying verbatim the article from In the Shadow of Slavery. What a special piece of propaganda. It wasn't the Irish. The Democrats in New York city almost got the state of New York to seceed into the Confederacy. There was Slavery in New York city before the Civil War. Rich Democrats would go south, buy slaves and keep them in their homes. I understand the same thing still happens today in that same city. Democratic Traditions are so hard to break. I suggest you review the declarations of the causes for secession, particularly the one published by Georgia. Excerpt: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party." http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html Compare that to the propaganda from your article. You have to love people who make up history to suit when they hate the facts."On January 7, five days after this dignified and conservative appeal, Fernando Wood, imitating the example of South Carolina, advocated the secession of the city from the State. "Why should not New York City," said the Mayor, as if playing the part of a satirist, "instead of supporting by her contributions in revenue two-thirds of the expenses of the United States, become, also, equally independent?" A POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CHAPTER XXVI gutenberg.org moreResolved Question: was jesus the anti-christ?
if jesus never came about, everything linked to him would never exsist. so there would be no dark ages, no mass murders, most likely less war, maybe no slavery, science would be able to have a more progressive start earlier. so if there was, is a god, what if jesus was the test of the devil and god to see what humanity would do? if you look at history, i would say the devil won. the earth is not united, many different religions have seperated and prevoke hatred and wanting to be better then others, many can not be tolerant of others. so the question stands, was or could jesus have been the anti-christ? (no bible quotes, please, its man made, not word of god, i get it, i want "YOUR" answer)haha, u dont want to answer the question, 1st, i said less war, not no war, PAY ATTENTION TO DETAIL, do i have to explain it to you kindergarden style.2telldatruth and abu, thank you for actually answering the questionobanroo, who is to say what religion is false, they all say god has spoken to them to do this and that, so they are all jesus in a way, no one can really say what jesus really did or what happened to him in real detail. the books of history are written by selfish eyes. nothing is true.zig, and all you people dont get it, think 4th dementionally, if there was NO JESUS, all the religions in relation to him would be gone. that means all the fights about him would never have happend. so if there was no jesus. would the world be a better place?plain00: xmas is not christianity, santa came from something not even related to christianity so santa would still be around.EVERYONE!!! look at Skaran's answer, u see that, he used his brain and made a real answer. a lot of you are not getting this. moreResolved Question: How can the following two biblical interpretations be reconciled?
As we all know, a controversial moral topic is whether or not gay marriages are permitted. The main anti-gay marriage argument I hear is that the Bible says "A man is not to lie with a man the way he would with a woman." (I don't know the exact chapter of the Bible this quote is from.) However, if you look at Leviticus 25:44-46, the Bible says: " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property..." This passage essentially says that slavery is acceptable, so here's my question: Is it logical for some people to use a literal interpretation of the Bible to justify being against gay marriage, yet avoid using a literal interpretation for the passage on slavery? I am not saying that slavery is in any way moral. If you want to see my quote in context, here's a link: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2025&version=31A bunch of you are arguing that slavery was different when the Bible was written, claiming that slaves worked voluntarily. However, the passage clearly talks about buying someone and owning him/her as property. In Leviticus 25:46, it says that slaves can be willed to children. How can a "slave" choose to work for someone if the owner gets to choose who he sells the slave to?According to the next sentence of the Bible, Hebrews could not be kept as slaves. A lot of you seem to be suggesting that Hebrews were the slaves.Some of you mention that the slavery passage is from the Old Testament, but the Homosexuality one is also from the OT. moreResolved Question: When I was pretending to be straight...I was very vocally anti-gay...quoting the same scriptures that people?
here are quoting. I was trying to prove to the world and myself that I was not gay. I wonder if the fundies today who are so vocal and obsessed with homosexuality are the most tempted by it...and in an effort to turn eyes away from their own lives, point their fingers to avoid looking inside themselves? Why do you think fundies are so anti-gay? Especially considering all of the other sins in the Bible that people seem to be committing every day...divorce, gluttony, bankruptcy/stealing, etc...why do they focus so heavily on gays? Many progressive churches are taking a new look at homosexuality and the Bible and are changing their positions... Why are fundies so afraid of this change...much like the Southern Baptists who were once afraid of freeing the slaves....they thought slavery ordained by God. Will fundies see the light a hundred years from now? moreResolved Question: Is it true that most U.S. Presidents were racist, sexist by today's standards?
I've come across a number of quotes from presidents, founding fathers, and others, that seem to support this. I'm not passing judgement either way, but I've even heard that Abraham Lincoln had no intention of creating a multiracial society, and instead intended that blacks be repatriated to Africa. Even the most anti slavery presidents tended to not believe in equal rights for blacks, or natives for that matter. Also many Presidents courted and married underage girls. Is this factual or fiction? Would candidates who held such views today even be electable? moreTop Anti Slavery Quotes Links
anti-slavery quotesanti-slavery quotes and quotations from the extensive Saidwhat quotations database |
Quotes by Abraham LincolnI am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency ... |
Slavery QuotesSlavery quotes, Searchable and browsable database of quotations with author and subject ... Source: adopted by the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society at Fanueil Hall |
Slavery Quotes, Sayings and QuotationsOver 450,000 Famous Quotes - Movie Quotes - Love Quotes, Famous Sayings, Proverbs & Friendship Quotations - Organized by Topic and/or Author. Very Interactive Website, with 1,000 ... |
Slavery quotesSlavery quotes, Slavery, topic, topics, ... In thinking of America, I sometimes find myself admiring her bright blue sky-her grand old woods-her fertile fields-her beautiful rivers-her ... |
Anti-Slavery Yesterday, Today and TomorrowAnti-Slavery Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow ... -- quotes from Disposable People, by Kevin Bales Note from the admin: We should certainly ... |
Quotes on SlaveryA collection of quotes on the subject of slavery. ... Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally. |
Anti-slavery | Define Anti-slavery at Dictionary.comCopy & paste this link to your blog or website to reference this page ... Anti slavery quotes |
Anti-Slavery Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow - Modern Day Slavery ...Slavery is defined as forced labor without pay under the ... Quote original message ... Anti-Slavery |
Menu
- Home
- Sight Word Activities
Anti Inflammatory Index
Rise Against Albums
Free Anti Virus Programs For Download
Yorkie Poo Puppies
Why Did People Oppose The Vietnam War
Free Adware Killer
Spyware And Adware
Mercury Recoil Reducers
Anti Dumping Definition
Top Anti Virus Programs - Sitemap
- Privacy Policy
Offers
|
Quotes |
|
Find it at Localpages |
|
Anna Paquin Flaunts Her Diamond Ring |
|
Shanghai, China Financial Center |
|
Jessica Alba's Sexy New Photo Shoot Session |
Copyright
Anti Site is © 2008 | All Rights Reserved | All trademarks are the exclusive property of their respective owners.