Terrorists in Higginsville
Supporters of terrorist attackers of the United States are gathering in Higginsville today for a celebration of their oppressive culture, which restricted women to narrow roles and flagrantly ignored human rights - engaging in slave labor and child labor. This group, many of whom were religious fundamentalists, attacked symbols of America in their own territory, and then expanded their attack to our own territory. They truly hated us for our freedom.
Fortunately, the Republican in the White House at the time was competent, and he managed to defeat their military, and avoided an extended insurgency of any real significance by engaging in a Reconstruction that eschewed using Halliburton and Blackwater mercenaries, and, instead, won the hearts and minds of the backward people of the region.
Nowadays, the great clash of cultures that once threatened our society's very existence is reduced to a few people who get together to play dressup and imagine that their ancestors really weren't losers.
posted by Dan at 7/15/2006 09:37:00 AM
12 Comments:
This is my last visit to this site. My husband was a civil war reenactor. You, Dan, don't know anything about reenactors and their events, and less about history.
Sorry to see you go, Travelingal. I know a few reenactors, and I'm glad they're able to articulate their positions a lot better than you apparently are. They tend to talk about history and the complexities of the war between the states. Many of them are actually pretty darned liberal on social issues. (But many aren't.) The clever ones would see my post as more of a comment on current events than simply picking on people foolish enough to wear wool on a July day in Higginsville.
Have you read Confederates in the Attic? Pretty good book on the topic.
Actually, I think Dan has a pretty good grasp of history.
By most modern definitions of the term "terrorists", that is exactly what the Confederates were.
I'll go even further to piss people off. By modern definitions, early Christianity could only be considered a cult. It has just been an incredibly long lived cult. A cult whose practitioners have little, if any, knowledge of its true history and how it came into being.
It's always good to have XO around to make me seem like a moderate.
Always happy to help!
But I hope travelingal doesn't really disappear in a hissy-fit. She presents her views in a rational and salient fashion and that is always refreshing.
Hard not to comment here, although I'm so taken aback by your evaluation of the gathering in Higginsville that I can't quite formulate a reasonable commentary to do it justice. "Supporters of terrorist attacks"?? Geez, Dan. I'll let me silence on it be commentary enough for you.
Dan:
I presume your tongue is firmly planted in cheek, though that doesn't excuse such basic historical ignorance.
"supporters of terrorist attackers . . ." (you really want to classify reenactors as supporters of the ideals of the confederacy?; and the confederacy did not practice terrorism;
"many of whom were religious fundamentalists . . ." (reading Lincoln, you'd probably make the same claim about him, as he called upon God regularly for guidance);
"avoided an extended insurgency . . ."(not counting the rise of the KKK, enforce black codes and Jim Crow. And what would you call murdering civil rights workers as late as the 1960's?).
XO is being XO; ridiculous for the sake of being ridiculous. I'd have expected you to do better.
Need to do some reading? I'd recommend Battle Cry of Freedom. The Killer Angels.
You've got some apologies to make, I think, Dan.
Hey now, Anonymous Me!
I take exception to that!
I occasionally manage to cobble together a coherent point of view that will stand up to reasonably close scrutiny.
Of course, in this particular case you just happen to be pretty much correct in your assessment.
But I'm just sayin.
xo said
I'll go even further to piss people off. By modern definitions, early Christianity could only be considered a cult. It has just been an incredibly long lived cult. A cult whose practitioners have little, if any, knowledge of its true history and how it came into being."
Paul to the Romans says,
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Anonymous - sorry. Missing the point here.
How does blindly quoting "scripture" refute my point or make the case that you are knowledgeable about the history of your own religion?
Do you even know how those "quotes" came into existence?
Do you know the provenance of the translations from the original text?
Are you familiar with the political power plays that took place between opposing factions that ultimately determined what became "The Bible" that you know today?
Do you know that the "divinity" of Jesus was never accepted as a "given", but was decided by a vote in a committee?
Just curious.
XO
Do you base your questions/assertions on anything more scholarly than "The Da Vinci Code"? Just wondering. . . .You know you can make a lot of money spouting drivel like that?
Actually, yes.
For starters, read some Bart D. Ehrman. He's chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and is an authority on the early Church and the life of Jesus.
"Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why"
"The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew"
"Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament"
If you need more, let me know.
Post a Comment
<< Home