Also, not often noted in 'histories'

Post #53,411 by Ashton 9/26/02 8:15:46 PM Reply	Also, not often noted in 'histories' especially ours - about our civil war: The huge religious schism; the forming of the Southern Baptists (obvfact - the Northern too). For quite religious reasons (natch) the S. folk deemed that blacks were ~ farm animals. Lincoln eventually forged his most effective Northern meld of State + God into viable slogan, connecting "the sin of slavery" to the foe.. (this after initial fumbling over how to leave present slaveholders in some neutral light - while discouraging any new ones. Bargain from Hell.) One Joe Raconsi (sp?) of the umm Heritage Foundation, recently pointed out above and noted the beginning of the N. religious-Rightists' alliance with the 'Republican' party. It all leaves the word Righteousness firmly in the camp of icky.
Post #53,428 by gdaustin 9/26/02 10:34:38 PM Reply	Even more controversial... Lincoln actually advocated the return of blacks to their homeland (Africa), once the Civil War was over. In other words, these men/women/children had been taken from their homes and land by force, placed into ships, and traded for liquor and smokes. So the best resolution would be to return these people to their homeland. Instead, Lincoln was killed, and blacks were temporarily given positions of power, until the 1880's/1890's, when power was grabbed back by rich Southerners (when the "carpetbaggers" were kicked out). Then they were discriminated against for the next 130 years, and now, here we are. Lincoln was a brilliant man, and genuinely cared for the people he served. Too bad, John Wilkes Booth ended his administration early.
Post #53,436 by Andrew Grygus 9/26/02 11:04:37 PM Reply	Lincoln gave up the "return" idea . . . . when the Navy presented calculations showing that their limited number of suitable ships could not keep up with the birth rate (keep in mind the small size of ships and the round trip transit time in those days). [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #53,439 by Ashton 9/26/02 11:11:42 PM Reply	Migawd.. saved by a ____CPA___??__!!
Post #53,452 by cwbrenn 9/27/02 1:05:05 AM Reply	No, no, NO Ashton, I know you hold very little respect for religion in general, Christianity in particular, and hold Southern Baptists in one of the lower levels of your esteem, but before you go painting with your oh-so-wide brush allow me to fill in a few of the details about the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention. It is a messy mix of unsound politics and relatively sound theological reasoning, and a generally ugly story all around. First, about Baptists in general: historically Baptists tend to believe in the individual autonomy of each church. Even today, with the SBC trying to control it's churches, it doesn't have any official power to do so -- each church is autonomous and is not obligated to abide by whatever resolutions the SBC puts out. Ok, so there's that. Before there was a "Southern Baptist COnvention" there was simply a Baptist Convention. The Baptist COnvention was essentially a body set up to manage donations from member churches for missionary work, to fund new missions and to pay missionaries out in the field, and to send new missionaries out into new fields, etc. So, the Baptist Convention decides that slavery is immoral, and slaveowners do not meet the standards of high character that Paul mentions in various books (I think Timothy is the relevant one, but I can't remember offhand) so they: 1) refused to accept missions donations from churches who have slaveowners as members, and 2) refused to allow churches who have slaveowners as members to send missionaries into the field This pissed off all the slaveowners. Which, you know, isn't something that really bothers me all that much. However, those churches brought up a very interesting point, one that is an IMPORTANT one for Baptists in general: the one about the autonomy of the individual church. This is a point that we still bring up to protest the Southern Baptist Convention's 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, when it says that women cannot be ordained as preachers -- essentially, they are making a statement that they cannot make, because they cannot speak for all Southern Baptists, they cannot speak for all Southern Baptist churches. Screw you, quoth the "Northern Baptists," we don't have to take your money and we aren't going to. Shape up. Now, here's the messy part -- both sides are, doctrinally speaking, on relatively sound ground. The convention was not OBLIGATED to take their money. And the southern churches were not OBLIGATED to meet their terms. So the southern churches broke away and formed the Southern Baptist Convention. And the even messier part was, of course, that the Northern churches were trying to abolish slavery, and the richer members of the southern churches (the ones who could afford slaves) were trying to justify their enslavement of other people. As to every Southern Baptist believing that slaves were no better than farm animals, that's about as accurate as every Southerner fighting for the Confederacy believing that Slavery was right. But, you know, it just doesn't sound as good when you acknowledge all the variables... how much SIMPLER to just write off the SBC as a bunch of inbred lunatics riding around on flatbed trucks shooting out windows on a Saturday night! I mean, everyone KNOWS that's all we do, anyway... "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #53,458 by Ashton 9/27/02 5:02:51 AM Reply	Re: No, no, NO..__ not even Maybe? Since I only heard the pronunciation, I phonetically spelled the name of the 'Fellow' at Heritage, whose rough version of the 'original schism' I mentioned. Maybe his little vignette on NPR is findable via Google. I didn't look. I'd no more apply the word all as in, "all Southerners, and right on through 2002" than I would suggest that all Germans were Nazis (in any year). Ditto respect. I've become inured to the obvious fact that, picking a particular metaphor for the unknowable - is clearly a fairly common peculiarity of our species. But among those who do (or don't) I deem a one a 'bigot' only where s/he appears to have the other necessary characteristics of that attitude: a palpable disrespect for the Other decent/ though different/ opinions of mankind. And they are all opinions, in the end. By the time they reach any word-form. I pretend no lore about the machinations of the current incarnations of both factions, though a certain amount of individual choice (if I read that right) would seem to be a Good thing - in esoteric as in other matters. (We needn't redo here, the wonderments over the fact of every single Christian possessing his/her own personal interpretation of.. a lot of previous interpretations and translations of - the Absolute's apparent decision to form close personal relationships with Her products. This while counting on (perhaps the least reliable relayers of messages! we know of) to pass along Her intentions. She would be Smarter than that IMhO. By definition.) Finally - obviously Christians did not invent slavery, but at various times and places were forced to reconcile their understanding of a decent set of ethics with.. survival in that particular milieu. It should not surprise anyone that -- individual Christian choices were no more or less courageous than those of practitioners of other metaphors - including those of the non-personal-theists (of whom there are quite a few in the world). Personal integrity, ethics and behaviour would vary in exactly the same distribution in any group -- despite the now countless wars which suppose that One Group is Right and therefore the others are Wrong: The history thru today of our bellicose, intransigent, ego-besotted species, I daresay. In fact I've said it. But I didn't say or imply - the rest, above. HTH, Ashton Oh.. to clarify a bit your initial presumptions about 'practitioners': If someone tells me s/he has a comprehension of the Absolute (via any name will smell as sweet), I may be surprised to hear - since it seems that, "those who know don't say; those who say don't know", is a pretty good and certainly very old old Sufi saying. I won't think less (or more) of him for the comment. But I admit that I tend to become testy, ~ anytime such a one claims next that, s/he can "pass it on" to me And BTW - knows what it is that God Wants Me to Do (too). Worse yet would be: a next recitation of My Punishment, should I fail to take this advice or this course. (Did you know that there are some who begin with #2 Before #1 .. and sometimes - without a person asking about either one ?!) ie my sense of Right/Wrong just may not be what you imagine or impute - but then, you've already guessed what I think of digital-thinking, generally.. right? [Hint: I think it Kills. Why.. I could even prove it! Naaah.] Cheers, A. OK, one more admission - I admit being partial to, Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal
Post #53,550 by wharris2 9/27/02 1:38:05 PM Reply	and here I am from the Nazarenes offshoot of the Pentecostals offshoot of the Wesleyans ... oh what the hell. Splinter sect from somewhere. The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
Post #53,560 by gdaustin 9/27/02 2:15:13 PM Reply	Re: and here I am from the Nazarenes If my parents told me right, the Nazarene's are split off of the Methodist church. True to the Methodists, at least ones I know from Perkins Theological Seminary (an institution that severely needs to be reformed), the Methodist church about 1900 decided that the virgin Mary didn't necessarily "have" to be a virgin, even though the Bible clearly documents the virgin birth. The conservative Methodists were upset with this interpretation of scripture (as they should have been), and split off to become the Nazarenes. I'm relatively certain of this history, because my mother's grandfather was a Nazarene pastor in the 1910's and 1920's. Now for the SMU/Perkins part. How would you like to attend a seminary to become a paster with multiple known homosexual paster/teachers (who actively involve in campaigns to discredit the accuracy of the Bible) and with your OT studies instructor being a devout Jew who tried to convert you back to Judaism? Tough place. At SMU, where Perkins is located, they even have a homosexual cheerleading squad. At a church school? I could see this at the University of Texas, or Southwest Texas State University ( a Texas party school ). BTW, the insanely liberal theology of the pastors from Perkins (located in Dallas/Ft. Worth, where I live), is precisely the reason I'm now a Southern Baptist.
Post #53,574 by gdaustin 9/27/02 2:46:22 PM Reply	Re: and here I am from the Nazarenes [link\|http://www.nazarene.org/archives/history/turning_point.html\|Nazarene Church History] It doesn't discuss the "politics" of how these independent churches were formed (which is usually the good part), just that the Nazarene church was formed from a merger of a bunch of splits of other churches. Glen Austin
Post #53,580 by wharris2 9/27/02 2:57:43 PM Reply	LMAO which no good nazarene would ever do, of course. (wipes eyes) I'm still laughing. Thanks for the link. :=)

Welcome to IWETHEY!