Russ wrote:

“Well, I think part of that is because Catholics and Jews in the US have historically been persecuted, and so don’t want to rock the boat. Protestant Christians have never had to deal with that.”

Not exactly true. throughout history all three were persecuted. Wars have started over it. Our county afterall was settled by people who were fleeing religious persecution.

“As for the things that you say are “ridiculous”, why are they ridiculous? There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says that they should not be allowed. Despite inaccurate interpretations that force the “wall of separation” doctrine on us, no such thing is actually in the Constitution, and it’s blindingly obvious to anyone with any historical consciousness that no wall of separation was intended. I was raised in a very small town that was, as far as I know, completely Christian. What would have been the harm in having a prayer before a football game there, or conducting Bible study in the school building? Why should the local community not be allowed to express its values?”

At the time the framers were well aware of the power The Church had over governments and the troubles it caused. It’s about control and perceived control. You have to ask what is the perception one is trying to bring to bear when bible study is allowed to be carried out within government bldgs?

There’s a time and place for everything. If a local community wants to express their religious beliefs I would imagine a church would be a better place and not a gov’t owned building.

Contrary to popular believe this country was not founded as a Christian nation.

There’s rarely a forum on this (here at the IP war site, haha), so it may as well be here.

Barbarossa: “Nevermind that the only reason there ARE Muslim suicide bombers is because of American imperialist foreign policy”

Russ: “Leftist nonsense. The main reason there are suicide bombers is because Islam has a strong religious streak itself.”…”reaction to the Great Satan”

It is a combo, of course. Apocalyptic fantasies and the humiliation of being under the thumb of Russ’s government’s clients makes a very lethal mix, no doubt.

Interesting, Russ reveals some more of his demons: leftists who exaggerate the evil (or the lone evilness) of his government. Evidence of maybe Russ’s greatest vendetta is here too:

“Mises is a classic example; he was never an anarchist, no matter how much Lew Rockwell…”

It is a fact that Rockwell & Co. are more consistently anti-state than Mises was (such a shocker *that* is, most of us coming of age in post LBJ America instead of in Fin-de-Siecle Vienna). With Russ’s constant refrain though you would think he was the one closer to Mises. Rightist nonsense.

Russ’s apparent bete noir, Rothbard collected a lot of salient LvM quotes on the subject at hand:

[Mises's "pacifism"] “does not arise from a sentiment that calls on the individual and the state to renounce the pursuit of their earthly interests out of thirst for fame or in hope of reward in the beyond; nor does it stand as a separate postulate without organic connection with other moral demands. Rather, pacifism here follows with logical necessity from the entire system of social life. He who, from the utilitarian standpoint, rejects the rule of some over others and demands the full right of self-determination for individuals and peoples has thereby rejected war also. He who has made the harmony of the rightly understood interests of all strata within a nation and of all nations among each other the basis of his world view can no longer find any rational basis for warfare. He to whom even protective tariffs and occupational prohibitions appear as harmful to everyone can still less understand how one could regard war as anything other than a destroyer and annihilator, in short, as an evil that strikes all, victor as well as vanquished.”

“We may date the beginning of modern imperialism from the late seventies of the last century, when the industrial countries of Europe started to abandon the policy of free trade and to engage in the race for colonial ‘markets’ in Africa and Asia.”

“It was in reference to England that the term ‘imperialism’ was first employed to characterize the modern policy of territorial expansion … [T]he end that the English imperialists sought to attain in the creation of a customs union embracing the dominions and the mother country was the same as that which the colonial acquisitions of Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, and other European countries were intended to serve, viz., the creation of protected export markets….

In order to attain the goals that imperialism aimed at, it was not enough for the nations of Europe to occupy areas inhabited by savages incapable of resistance. They had to reach out for territories that were in the possession of peoples ready and able to defend themselves…”

“The basic idea of colonial policy was to take advantage of the military superiority of the white race over the members of other races. The Europeans set out, equipped with all the weapons and contrivances that their civilization placed at their disposal, to subjugate weaker peoples, to rob them of their property, and to enslave them.”

“attempts have been made to extenuate and gloss over the true motive of colonial policy with the excuse that its sole object was to make it possible for primitive peoples to share in the blessings of European civilization…it should be able to prove its superiority by inspiring these peoples to adopt it of their own accord.”

“Could there be a more doleful proof of the sterility of European civilization than that it can be spread by no other means than fire and sword?’”

“No chapter of history is steeped further in blood than the history of colonialism. Blood was shed uselessly and senselessly. Flourishing lands were laid waste; whole peoples destroyed and exterminated. All this can in no way be extenuated or justified. The dominion of Europeans in Africa and important parts of Asia is absolute. It stands in the sharpest contrast to all the principles of liberalism and democracy, and there can be no doubt that we must strive for its abolition.”

“It may be safely taken for granted that up to now the natives have learned only evil ways from the Europeans, and not good ones. This is not the fault of the natives, but rather of their European conquerors, who have taught them nothing but evil. They have brought arms and engines of destruction of all kinds to the colonies; they have sent out their worst and most brutal individuals as officials and officers; at the point of the sword they have set up a colonial rule that in its sanguinary cruelty rivals the despotic system of the Bolsheviks. Europeans must not be surprised if the bad example that they themselves have set in their colonies now bears evil fruit…. Nor would they be justified in maintaining that the natives are not yet mature enough for freedom and that they still need at least several years of further education under the lash of foreign rulers before they are capable of being left on their own. For this ‘education’ itself is at least partly responsible for the terrible conditions that exist today in the colonies, even though its consequences will not make themselves fully apparent until after the eventual withdrawal of European troops and officials.”

“No one has a right to thrust himself into the affairs of others in order to further their interest, and no one ought, when he has his own interests in view, to pretend that he is acting selflessly only in the interest of others.”

Russ, apparently being a sincere dupe of D.C. propaganda may now well say that the Pentagon/business combine didn’t simply take over the English Empire. His government is somehow better. Then *we’ll* get to see Russ’s religious streak.

Lol @ Russ, you’re implying I’m a Leftist? I am nothing of the sort. So I suppose someone like Ron Paul, who agrees that American foreign policy is largely responsible for Muslim terrorism, is a Leftist too? And up is down and right is left? And War is Peace and Freedom is Slavery? lol. I bet you also believe that it requires 700+ military bases abroad and half the world’s defense budget to “protect” America, right? I’m sure you consider my contention that American foreign policy contributes to Muslim violence is a “conspiracy theory,” just like your fellow neo-Con Sean Hannity accused Ron Paul of the same thing, nevermind that Osama bin Laden said the very reason he attacked New York (assuming we are to believe the official story, lol) is because of the American presence in Saudi Arabia. And Islam USED to be imperialist, when they had an EMPIRE. It no longer is; in fact, it is now subject to AMERICAN imperialism. But I’m sure that has no effect on politics in Arabia. Russ, here’s a nickel, go put a down payment on a clue.