Just over a hundred and sixty years ago, inflexible dogma forced America into civil war.

The issue then was slavery.

Now, in our time, the issue is religion -- and cultural views based on religion.

After the nomination of Roy Moore in Alabama this outcome is no longer as improbable as you might think.

In 1860, the political and economic leadership of the southern states could not accept the fact that African-Americans were human beings like themselves and instead believed black people were no better than draft animals.

Today, a sizable fraction of American society cannot accept that immigrants or Muslims or sexual minorities are human beings like themselves and use religion to justify their views.

When LGBTQIA people are treated equally under the law for example they cry foul and claim a disgusting lifestyle that is condemmed by scripture in their view is being forced down their throats -- just because discriminating against such people is no longer legal.

If Muslims build a mosque in their town so they can have a place to worship, it's imagined to be a terrorist training centre with all sorts of nefarious activities taking place.


They abhor the concept of religiously neutral secular government and prefer a de-facto state sanctioned religion -- namely protestant evangelical christianity.


Religion and politics is a dangerous mix and can only lead to conflict and social unrest -- just as it has throughout human history.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2017 03:29PM by anybody.

I think WWIII will soon take care of that possibility.

I think it's hard to say. I sometimes worry about exactly your concern (especially when I see things like what went on in the special Senate election last night in Alabama--they are both scary ideologues.)

But then I think there are thankfully enough enlightened people who will tug things back in the other direction in 2018.

We will see, I suppose.

I'm banking on Gay Muslims moving America in the right direction.

no

Inevitably?
Of course not.

And while conflict around religion is a real thing, I don't think it's the main ideology that's pushing "sides" right now.

I'm a glass half-full kinda guy...

Would you believe....

The TV commercials here in AL from Trumps pick (Luther Strange) were all about criticizing Roy Moore as being TOO LIBERAL and soft on guns. WTF?!

Roy Moore is BatSh!t crazy.

I can hardly wait to see if Saturday Night Live portrays him and Sessions - gifts given to comedians complements of Alabama.

Not even close.

Someone else said it: WWIII may be closer than you think.

The world I once knew seems lost in the annals of time. There is divisive sophist arguments from every angle in American society which gains moment into vortex of sound bit thinking and culture which praises ignorance.

If history is any predictor and if common sense is any judge, I'd have say we just might be screwed.

relax, it's a part of gawd's plan, don'tyouknow?

Anti Trumpism:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/27/trump-tweet-facebook-is-fake-news-anti-trump.html

and rewriting history:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/352613-trump-deletes-tweets-backing-strange-after-primary-loss

(The latter of which may be a crime, because he's president, Google it for more on that. I revelate that he will claim some special, inspired power to claim an exemption from laws written to limit presidential powers.)


I din't have to draw any lines to illustrate the cult-makers to be about as similar as similar can be. The differences between religion and this political season are vanishing before our eyes. Religion often begets wars, but it's currently unthinkable that the partially sane will not take control at some point.

We have been in a civil war for many years.

That was my thought too. Our weapons are different, although they do include guns. But there are many other weapons being used and don't discount technology, social media, economics, etc.

I sometimes wonder if we could separate ourselves from the religious fundies, not with a war but with something like the Partition of India. Just don't see it in the cards, but I'd sure love to live in the United States of Progression instead of being forced into the United States of Regression.

The American Civil War - My understanding is that Slavery was a manifestation of the core issue, States right vs Federal rights?

The Southern States argued that they held the right to ignore the Federal Government in matters as the rights of States in a union exceeded the right of the Fed to order them to do anything. Hence the divide and a new confederation.

Now, the issue of Slavery was one of the massive issues behind this, but from what i've read it was actually a war of control.

The Confederacy did have some valid arguments - can a state choose to leave the Union? If not why not? Is it right to force a state to stay in the Union by military force?

Now don't get me wrong, those issues are separate from the moral issue of Slavery, which then brings up, should a Political power exert military force to bring an end to slavery in another unionised domain? Does that right to exert power still stand if the other party leaves the Union?

Which then leads to - if the moral right to intervene exists, then does it exist universally, and it it an obligation or an option?

The civil war was all about slavery despite what racist white apologists tell you.

There's no ambiguity about this. The Confederates said so themselves:


http://www.americanyawp.com/reader/the-civil-war/alexander-stephens-on-slavery-and-the-confederate-constitution-1861/

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man…. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

Dave/Anybody, interesting responses, i need to read more on this topic, its a section of history i've not yet covered in detail (i've done pelopponessian down through roman, old Europe, civil wars in UK, etc, then US war of independence, but then stepped forward to WW1 on).

Just out of interest since i approach this from both a historical and philosophical perspective.

Let's commence with the view that the South broke away because of slavery. Now parking the moral arguments around Slavery I'm interested in views over what precedents are set here and what is considered right or wrong so thoughtful answers appreciated.

1. Did the South have a right to break away from the Union? Does any person or people have the right to self determination? (I note that the irony is the south arguing for self determination whilst not granting any).


2. Did the North have the right in balance to engage in a military campaign against the south - what resides at heart or root here was it the North attempting to preserve the Union by force or trying to end slavery by force?

3. If the war was about slavery, does that mean that it establishes a moral precedent that the US ought to invade nations where slavery exists? How might this sit with North Korean tyranny?

I ask as i genuinely find these topics interesting and moral and political complications that fall no matter which way a person decides.

Before the Civil War, it was common to hear the phrase "these United States." After the war, people started to say "the United States."

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/2056/was-the-secession-of-the-confederate-states-illegal



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2017 03:50PM by anybody.

Lilburn:

Please desist with these revisionist alt-right (aka racist) arguments. It is well-documented the Civil War was fought PRIMARILY over slavery. Furthermore, the Confederacy started it. I noticed you used the word "whilst" in your post which suggests to me you are not from the US. There are many excellent resources on the Civil War that you could use to further educate yourself. You can even start with the Wikipedia entry on the Civil War:

"The American Civil War (commonly known as the "Civil War" in the United States) was fought in the United States from 1861 to 1865. The result of a long-standing controversy over slavery, war broke out in April 1861, when Confederates attacked Fort Sumter in South Carolina, shortly after Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated. The nationalists of the Union proclaimed loyalty to the U.S. Constitution. They faced secessionists of the Confederate States of America, who advocated for states’ rights to perpetual slavery and its expansion in the Americas."

"After the election of Roy Moore in Alabama..."

He wasn't elected. He was nominated. He likely will be elected, because Alabama has more than its fair share of like-minded bigots and and tribal Repubs, probably enough to get even a nut-case like him elected.

It will take considerably more than one nut-case to start a civil war. Even among the current crop of congress critters, he will be an outlier.


The only civil war I see coming is within Moore's political party. We may even see a branch of the party secede.

More relevant to this board is what is going to happen within Mormonism. The LDS Establishment, in which I include all mid and upper level LDS leadership, and LDS politicians like Orrin and Mitt, clearly support the Repub Establishment. A noticeable slice of the rank and file members in Utah are what I consider Breitbart Repubs. That strikes me as an unstable situation. I'm not sure how that is going to resolve itself.

You don't need to worry Jerry, some dude on a white horse is apparently going to fix it all. Look out for Bednar Mormon in a white charger.

I have voted straight ticket Democrat in the past and supported many Democrat candidates like Kerry and Obama. But its very likely that I will never support the Democrats again anytime soon because the masses of their party has been totally taken over by a bunch of closed-minded nutcases who are full of hate/meanness and they act like absurd silly snowflakes. While hearing Chuck Schumer talk this morning about the flaws of the horrible Trump tax plan I was filled with sadness at how Trump will probably win on this issue because the Democrats have been killing their credibility and future. Until the mainstream Democrats can start viewing Trump supporters, Republicans, Independents, etc. as human beings instead of diseased animals with mental illness then they have killed their credibility and the future looks bleak.

Anybody, you make a lot of threads which clearly show you don't understand a diversity of viewpoints.

Nope, its hardly likely we will have any sort of Civil War like last time. And it definitely won't be over religion but federal finances/economics. This time if we were to have "Civil War" it would be like having thousands of rural counties and tens of thousands of rural cities/towns be like Sanctuary cities when it comes to the enforcement of asset seizures, arrest warrants, etc. that the federal/State local governments might decide to impose on those who snub their authority. If the federal government can't seize assets, collect taxes, enforce laws, make payments for entitlements (social security, disability, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, VA), etc. then it'll be chaos and our country descend into national/state anarchy and government only really functioning at local levels as all of the promises/institutions at the federal/state levels cease to really function as they have. The transition would be quite chaotic with plenty of widespread suffering in the very urban places that don't have sufficient local manufacturing/agriculture, access to natural resources, and huge numbers of people who are dependent on the system. The powder keg in our last economic downturn was Fannie/Freddie -> Lehman. What would cause a civil war would be if the markets were to seriously question whether the federal government would be able to make good on its promises to repay the Debt with all the interest on top + other obligations. We are fast approaching the level of debt/liabilities where its now no longer a question of IF this will happen within the next 2-3 decades but WHEN. So be prepared.

Around a year ago I did believe that if we were to get Trump in, fix the National Debt, fix the trade deficits, and have good bipartisanship on these matters that we could avoid this Day of Reckoning. Unfortunately now it seems pretty clear that Trump and nobody is serious about fixing the real issues and we're just crazily driving towards the fiscal cliff. We really don't have much time now to change course but I'm pretty sure that the little remaining time is going to be squandered. This reality has totally changed my outlook on where I need to be in planning for retirement. I've got to find a local community with the weather, resources, remoteness, and friendliness where I can join-in to have a good chance of making it when TSHTF. I'm undecided right now whether I should look domestically or internationally for such a place, but lean towards staying in the USA for language/experience reasons.

Such a place would also be a better place for odds of survival in case we have some catastrophes of nuclear/bio/chem weapons. Those realities are real but most affect those in the key metro areas. I'm more worried about general anarchy/chaos at the federal/state levels. Yes I'd prefer for us to have the social safety nets at these levels which could be awesome if we could guarantee they'd last. But due to the fiscal madness we have in DC they are all going to crash catastrophically so the best thing to do is to get prepared.

an exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I'll skip commenting on most of the first of your post, other than pointing out that your characterization of what Democrats think of non-Democrats is rather silly hyperbole, and flat-out wrong...and that much the same outlandish rhetoric was going around before Obama won 2 terms (and a Democratic majority in both houses of congress was elected).

But as to this one point:

> Around a year ago I did believe that if we were to
> get Trump in, fix the National Debt, fix the trade
> deficits, and have good bipartisanship on these
> matters that we could avoid this Day of Reckoning.

I'll just point you here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/

...and then point out that massive tax cuts for the wealthy aren't going to get us out of our debt hole, any more than the ACA got us into it.

Cheers.

There is a big divide in this country,but religion is only part of it. There are many other things the right and left disagree on.

True, but so are other issues,although probably not as much. Hope we can overcome the divide but it seems difficult.

Don't take this to be more than face value:

Was listening to the radio at lunch. Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney (?sp) sang Ebony and Ivory. It made me stop and think. In my mind it seemed like only yesterday so many of us tried to 'link arms' to evolve. These days it seems so much attention is devoted to division. Hard work went into de-segregation and civil rights only to be replaced now with cries for segregation by those we desegregated.

I don't know about a civil war, but I'm beginning to feel that much of what I believed and hoped for is racing in the opposite direction.

As always - follow the money...

It most likely will be identity politics.