Comic Genesis Forums

The research I was able to do on the "great beast" quote from Alexander Hamilton (which primarily consisted of doing a Google search on "quote Alexander Hamilton great beast") turned up two types of results:

• * A single-line quotation with no context: "Your people, sir, is nothing but a great beast"

• * Arguments that this line, and its effects on Hamilton's reputation, are the result of hearsay, which was either taken out of context at best, or contrived at worst (one such source cited that the quotation never surfaced except as a story having been heard from a friend of a friend who heard Hamilton say it, and that 46 years after the death of the originator of the FoaF line).

Looks like this one may be an urban legend.

Ah, much like Galileo's alleged "E pur, si muove" line, or eppur, not sure about the spelling there.

RHJunior wrote:Actually, they preferred rulership by LAND OWNERS. Which isn't the same thing as rule by the "rich." Even a poor schlub could own an acre of land.

basically because they believed that a country should be run by those with something important invested in it.

Rich, landowners, at two am they seem the same.

And thus, another reason not to post at 2 AM.

And Werekitty, my apologies. I did consider the fact that you didn't say "text" anywhere in refering to the history book, but I guess I was too tired or careless to think it over. *bows* Sorry I went off like that.

Still, I try to take everything I read with a grain of salt. The more liberal the author is, the bigger the grain.

StrangeWulf13 wrote:And thus, another reason not to post at 2 AM.

And Werekitty, my apologies. I did consider the fact that you didn't say "text" anywhere in refering to the history book, but I guess I was too tired or careless to think it over. *bows* Sorry I went off like that.

Still, I try to take everything I read with a grain of salt. The more liberal the author is, the bigger the grain.

Thanks. That was rather large of you to apoligise like that. Most males, in my experience, have difficulty with those two words.

WereKitty....I think you'll find that these particular forums are not populated by anything remotely resembling "most males".

S'aaruuk

Bengaley wrote:

RHJunior wrote:Actually, they preferred rulership by LAND OWNERS. Which isn't the same thing as rule by the "rich." Even a poor schlub could own an acre of land.

basically because they believed that a country should be run by those with something important invested in it.

Rich, landowners, at two am they seem the same.

Here's a random thought... Anyone who receives "welfare" or "dole" payments should lose the right to vote! After all, it's an obvious "conflict of interests" case when your continued income depends upon voting for your benefactor.
(Of course, social security payments and unemployment compensation wouldn't count, as they are merely one's own money being returned... Theoretically.)

The problem with some text, either actually those used to teach, or those published as history documentries, is, that they will always have a slant that supports the authors point of view. It is very hard to find a history text of any type that is completely 'unbiased' meaning it simply presents the facts, not a liberal or conservitive point of view.

This is the balancing act us teachers have to go through, especially us conservitive teachers. I have seen text that come from complete left field saying that the founding fathers were all hedonists that simply wanted to preserve their way of life and wrote the Constitution in order to further those aims. This does not take into account that out of the Constitutional Congress, only three representatives were well documented 'non-Christians' and out of those three, only one was known to be a complete Athiest (I for the life of me cannot remember which one off the top of my head). Beleive it or not, it was President Washington, who, as Commanding General of the Continental Army, insisted each Regiment had a chapline, a tradition that has held up to current times, with it only recently being challenged that chaplains in the US Armed Forces is a violation of 'Seperation of Church and State.'

It is a problem that is run into when quoting the founding fathers, going back to the now famous 'Seperation of Church and State' quote that is used as a rally cry by many liberals actually has a rather interesting fondation. It never appears in any legal text, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, or United States Constitution. Instead, its only documented appearence is in a personal letter, written by Thomas Jefferson, to a womens church group ensuring that their fundraisers would not now or ever be taxed by the government. The current use of the phrase is completely used out of contexted.

I'm sorry if I ventured off topic but as a history teacher this is one of my pet peaves that people use texts and statements taken completely out of context to permote ideas that are not present true statements of the originators intents.

Sharuuk wrote:WereKitty....I think you'll find that these particular forums are not populated by anything remotely resembling "most males".

S'aaruuk

Indeed. We do, however, usually prefer that when you speak of us you use terms like 'unique' or 'interesting' as opposed to 'weird', 'strange', or even 'Ahhh! Get it away from me!'

jfries289 wrote:

Sharuuk wrote:WereKitty....I think you'll find that these particular forums are not populated by anything remotely resembling "most males".

S'aaruuk

Indeed. We do, however, usually prefer that when you speak of us you use terms like 'unique' or 'interesting' as opposed to 'weird', 'strange', or even 'Ahhh! Get it away from me!'

Ahhhhh..*quick vibratory flick of the hand* 'weird' and 'strange' aren't too bad, and ya gotta admit....they're both fairly applicable to pretty much all of us (males) here!

S'aaruuk

UncleMonty wrote:

Bengaley wrote:
Rich, landowners, at two am they seem the same.

Here's a random thought... Anyone who receives "welfare" or "dole" payments should lose the right to vote! After all, it's an obvious "conflict of interests" case when your continued income depends upon voting for your benefactor.
(Of course, social security payments and unemployment compensation wouldn't count, as they are merely one's own money being returned... Theoretically.)

Mew? Does that include anyone getting supplimental income? Subsidized housing? Financial aid? Government loans? Food stamps?

How about anyone that recieves a tax break or a refund from the government loses the right to vote; they're being influenced via financial matters as well... Doesn't that count as conflict of interest?

Chaser617 wrote: It is a problem that is run into when quoting the founding fathers, going back to the now famous 'Seperation of Church and State' quote that is used as a rally cry by many liberals actually has a rather interesting fondation. It never appears in any legal text, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, or United States Constitution. Instead, its only documented appearence is in a personal letter, written by Thomas Jefferson, to a womens church group ensuring that their fundraisers would not now or ever be taxed by the government. The current use of the phrase is completely used out of contexted.

While the idea of the seperation of church and state is expressily written only originally in a personal letter by Jefferson, its idea is a guiding force behind many legal decisions and precidents. Furthermore, it is the best move for any empire to not interfire (...spelling. ;_;) with local religions or practices where it doesn't break the civil law. And America is, by the definition of empire, an empire.

I'm not a Christian at all, and I personally think (Mostly as a jest) that all Chrisitans are heretics who are going to face divine judgement for following a false prophet. I'm Jewish, what can I say =D. Very RELAXED Judaism, but thats my angle. ...spiced with humor.

Personally, I could care less if the majority of Americans were Christians, Muslims, or Baalists, so long as they leave me alone and don't try to force a conversion - something I inherintly distrust in hardline Christians. You guys don't have a good track record, sadly.

(Not saying that MY people have a good track record! Hell, my people were the first to spill blood in the name of our god, I admit it freely.)

But back to the original topic... Sure, seperation of church and state is not written down anywhere explicit. There's always the 1st Admendment...

(Again, spelling. Dear lord in heaven, give me an internal dictionary...)

But as to your comments about history books... Well, yeah. No shit books are going to be slanted one way or another. But we've gotten REALLY good about it, really really good about it. History texts used to be written to please the current lord or lady; God knows what has been changed, re-written, or plain invented or thrown out to please the Powers That Be at the time (Jews killed Jesus? The Benign Roman Empire?).

At least we're trying to stick to facts; even if we're slanting and skewing facts all over. God help me, if you could point me in the direction of a RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE history book of the United States, I'd gladly read it.

Actually, the First ammendment says

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The second part of that is always very conviniently forgotten. I am all for the US Government *NOT* messing around with my faith, but unfortunately, the current 'dogma' of 'Seperation of Church and State' revolves around the suppression of volenteer (and this is the key word here) association with a faith is definately against the constitution. Congress never wanted any faith supressed in public view, and that is what is really happening with the current use of Seperation of Church and State, it goes completely against what the Founders wanted, and the use of the Fist Ammendment is applied rather slip shod to defend it, because its supporters only use one part of the Ammendment, out of context of the whole, to give their argument weight.

And don't worry about not being a Christian, I take no offense at it what so ever. I have several RL friends that are Jewish and we get into some interesting discussions.

Bengaley wrote:

UncleMonty wrote:

Bengaley wrote:
Rich, landowners, at two am they seem the same.

Here's a random thought... Anyone who receives "welfare" or "dole" payments should lose the right to vote! After all, it's an obvious "conflict of interests" case when your continued income depends upon voting for your benefactor.
(Of course, social security payments and unemployment compensation wouldn't count, as they are merely one's own money being returned... Theoretically.)

Mew? Does that include anyone getting supplimental income? Subsidized housing? Financial aid? Government loans? Food stamps?

I would say it should.

Not a single one of those things is a legitimate application of government power and money. NOT ONE. And it constitutes an obscene conflict of interest to expect a recipient of largesse to vote on the matter.

As one man drolly noted, the pigs will vote for whoever carries the slop bucket--- and comfortably forget about any inconvenient little slaughtering he does on the side.

RHJunior wrote:

Bengaley wrote:

UncleMonty wrote: Here's a random thought... Anyone who receives "welfare" or "dole" payments should lose the right to vote! After all, it's an obvious "conflict of interests" case when your continued income depends upon voting for your benefactor.
(Of course, social security payments and unemployment compensation wouldn't count, as they are merely one's own money being returned... Theoretically.)

Mew? Does that include anyone getting supplimental income? Subsidized housing? Financial aid? Government loans? Food stamps?

I would say it should.

Not a single one of those things is a legitimate application of government power and money. NOT ONE. And it constitutes an obscene conflict of interest to expect a recipient of largesse to vote on the matter.

As one man drolly noted, the pigs will vote for whoever carries the slop bucket--- and comfortably forget about any inconvenient little slaughtering he does on the side.

So then, I should either quit college and do my job in retail working full time, (which isn't enough to pay for rent anywhere near here, and I can't leave the state at this time) or not vote.

Remeber, Ralph, there are those that use the programs for their stated purpose. I'm one of 'em. I need financial aid to pay for COMMUNITY college, and I doubt that I can ever afford anything beyond that.

I'm a reasonable, thinking individual. I actually try to see both sides of issues. I like to try and think things through. I try to make each decision based upon the decision at hand, not prior ones or extra baggage (I often fail, but I try.)

Yet, by your reasoning, I shouldn't vote.

Chaser617 wrote:Actually, the First ammendment says

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The second part of that is always very conviniently forgotten. I am all for the US Government *NOT* messing around with my faith, but unfortunately, the current 'dogma' of 'Seperation of Church and State' revolves around the suppression of volenteer (and this is the key word here) association with a faith is definately against the constitution. Congress never wanted any faith supressed in public view, and that is what is really happening with the current use of Seperation of Church and State, it goes completely against what the Founders wanted, and the use of the Fist Ammendment is applied rather slip shod to defend it, because its supporters only use one part of the Ammendment, out of context of the whole, to give their argument weight.

And don't worry about not being a Christian, I take no offense at it what so ever. I have several RL friends that are Jewish and we get into some interesting discussions.

Let me do this ass backwards, and say...

I am insulted about you deigning to not take offense at me not being Christian. Gee, thanks. As if I needed your approval. Maybe I should forgive you for following the guy who was nailed to the cross for preaching insurrection, and whose word has been distorted and abused by con-men for centuries. Think about that for a moment.

Now approaching the first part, there is a difference, in my opinion, of putting up a Christmas Tree and Nativity scene in Central Park, and puting a sixteen foot bronze statue of Jesus on the grounds of a Judicial Court.

I've no problem with the former; I'm not a Beltane from RH's own UTLT. I complain when there's a lack of symbology from my own faith during the holiday season, but I don't usually complain about any Christian Christmas symbols until there's no escaping them, including in my own home. ...well, seriously complain. I complain about everything, but most of 'em are not serious.

The latter, however... Seems like a government endorsement of a religion to me, and thus falls upon the first half of the quoted portions. That is my arguement. I'd do the same thing if a judge decided he wanted a Star of David to adorn the front of his court.

(Ten Commandments, however, should be allowed to be placed inside a courtroom if desired. They are, pretty much, the basis of our secular law.)

At five in the morning, I can't remember the various cases to go inch by inch for them, but the two that stick most in my mind...

The Pledge. Take Under-God out, for two reasons; the first being a government endorsement of a religion, the second because it -ing messes up the flow of the pledge. Indivisible sticks out like a sore thumb. I always hated having to be forced to do the damn thing, anyhow. (Yes, forced. Was yelled at by a teacher to do it or else.)

The Money. In God We Trust... Well, first off, it isn't a motto. Mottos are in Latin. E Pluberus Unum is a motto. In God We Trust is a saying placed on our money for a religious reason, but repition destroys the value of a phrase, or word. Hence why the F-word in MY vocabulary is effective among those who know me (I rarely say it), but hardly phases me when others use it. I could, honestly, care less about In God We Trust because its been overused.

Seems like flipflopping? I practice situation ethics, ethics that fit a situation.

Religion is a touchy subject, at best. Its probably better for any organization that isn't the religion or for the religion or causes the religion to avoid it as much as possible. Rule of God may have been the best way in the past when we didn't have the background of Rule of Law, but we have that now (Thank you Rome). Rule of God has also had some major problems with those who disagreed (...Spanish inquisition?).

And again, I've said it before: The Consitution was written for a society that no longer exists, and was in the early stages of disappearing when that document was written. While slightly out of date, a literal interpretation is not, in my opinion, possible in this day and age. People change, societies change, governments change - or die. Change or Stagnation. Your choice.

[...unWARP!]

Good evening.

Bengaley wrote:At least we're trying to stick to facts; even if we're slanting and skewing facts all over. God help me, if you could point me in the direction of a RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE history book of the United States, I'd gladly read it.

I'd recommend the Beka Books, among them:

New World History and Geography
The History of Our United States
World History
Government And Economics

I'm sure there are college level US History books, but I'm not sure where to acquire those. Anyways, those four might be at your local library, I saw one at an English library down here.


Zacatepongolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

(Ten Commandments, however, should be allowed to be placed inside a courtroom if desired. They are, pretty much, the basis of our secular law.)

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.

And this relates to US law how, exactly?


2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.

Again, I see no connection.


3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

Not a US law, and pretty much unenforceable.


4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Been a while since anybody got stoned to death for working on the wrong day of the week (which, incidentally, isn't even Sunday).


5. Honor your father and your mother.

Good advice more often than not, but not exactly rquired from a legal point of view.


6. You shall not murder.

Ah, finally. This is part of US law...And Hammurabi's code...and, well, it doesn't really seem SPECIFICALLY Judeo-Christian from where I'm standing.


7. You shall not commit adultery.

While it doesn't really help your case in a divorce, you don't go to jail for it...


8. You shall not steal.

Okay, this works, albeit with the same reservations as n?6.


9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Hm...Well, perjury is a criminal offence, so, all right.


10. You shall not covet.

There goes consumption society.


So, how exactly are the Ten Commandements the basis of secular law? Am I missing something here?

Minor point
"Thou shalt not covet" concludes with "...thy neigbhor's (list of several of his posessions.)"

It was not a command to not desire anything, it was a command not to sit around lusting after that <I>which rightfully belonged to another person.</i> It was, in essence, a command to not sit around conspiring to steal.

I always wondered about the coveting ones. They kind of make the ones about adultery and stealing redundant (you can't break them unless you covet doing so, even if for only a moment of opportunity).

sun tzu wrote:*snip*

I am thy County the United States. Thou shalt have no other country before me.

I didn't say that word for word, each commandment appears in the US Civil Code. I instead said something confusing. My apologies.

What I meant is that alot of the basic theory behind law in Western culture comes from the 10 Commandments, and things derived from the 10 Commandments. Western Culture is, sadly enough, a Judeo-Christian culture.