[Rushtalk] Happy Death-by-Government Day!

Stephen A. Frye s.frye at verizon.net
Tue Jun 18 16:38:31 MDT 2013


I agree with understanding things, but that doesn't make them any less wrong
- then or now.  Nor does it excuse or justify immorality or any other evil
behavior.

 

From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On
Behalf Of Dennis Putnam
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:35 AM
To: rushtalk at csdco.com
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Happy Death-by-Government Day!

 

There is a difference between excusing a act and understanding an act based
on the mores of that specific time period. I, for one, am not excusing
anything. Rather I am trying to relate the motivation for certain events
based on the mores of those involved. In life the retrospectroscope is
always perfect.

On 6/17/2013 8:23 PM, Stephen A. Frye wrote:

Maybe the origin was different, maybe it wasn't.  But that does not justify
what it eventually grew into.  And the totality is my point.  We cannot
excuse evil just because some people thought it was OK.

 

From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On
Behalf Of John A. Quayle
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 4:54 PM
To: Rushtalk Discussion List; 'Rushtalk Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Happy Death-by-Government Day!

 

At 07:21 PM 6/17/2013, Stephen A. Frye wrote:




Content-type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Boundary_(ID_E6M/9qA2NvcIFuMwHE5smw)"
Content-language: en-us

I agree John, burning people at the stake and threatening them with horrific
torture because they had evidence that the earth moved around the sun is
definitely OK.  AS a matter of fact, I think we should start that again
today:  agree with the church or be tortured - maybe to death.
 
But I am so darned confused:  if the Inquisition was so OK, why did the Holy
Father apologize for it and claim that it was a gross mistake and
miscarriage?


         It goes a lot deeper than that.......Muslims were trying to
bankrupt the Church because the Church was the center of charity back then,
not the government. You had to join a parish to qualify. Muslims were
claiming to be Catholics. There were seven total. SOME were over the top -
yes and the Pope was right to decry them. However, the origin was a lot
different than most people were taught. 





No.  The Inquisition was NOT OK.  It is not right to punish, torture, and
murder people simply because they disagree - even if you are Holy Mother
Church.  Check out Jon Hus  (maybe it's Jan Hus), burned at the stake by the
ecumenical council because he believed mass should be offered in the local
language.  Definitely a killing offense if there ever was one.
 
From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [ mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com
<mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com> ] On Behalf Of John A. Quayle
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 4:07 PM
To: Rushtalk Discussion List; 'Rushtalk Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Happy Death-by-Government Day!
 
At 06:28 PM 6/17/2013, Stephen A. Frye wrote:

Content-type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Boundary_(ID_QMJVGZBdxRjREHH7maAjOQ)"
Content-language: en-us

No.  That is the logic you're trying to force on me, and it ain't so.  If I
were to follow through with your logic, then the Nazi's killing of millions
is OK because they thought it was. Stalin's murdering of thousands or
millions was Ok because he and his cronies thought it was.  The inquisition
was OK because they thought it was.  

         The "Inquisition" WAS okay. The Inquisition was a group of
institutions within the judicial system of the Roman Catholic Church
<http://www.ask.com/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church?qsrc=3044>  whose aim was to
combat heresy <http://www.ask.com/wiki/Christian_heresy?qsrc=3044> . It
started in 12th-century
<http://www.ask.com/wiki/Christianity_in_the_12th_century?qsrc=3044>  France
<http://www.ask.com/wiki/France?qsrc=3044>  to combat the spread of
religious sectarianism, in particular the Cathars
<http://www.ask.com/wiki/Cathars?qsrc=3044>  and the Waldensians
<http://www.ask.com/wiki/Waldensians?qsrc=3044> . This Medieval Inquisition
<http://www.ask.com/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition?qsrc=3044>  persisted into the
14th century, from the 1250s associated with the Dominican Order
<http://www.ask.com/wiki/Dominican_Order?qsrc=3044> . In the early 14th
century, two other movements attracted the attention of the Inquisition, the
Knights Templar <http://www.ask.com/wiki/Knights_Templar?qsrc=3044>  and the
Beguines <http://www.ask.com/wiki/Beguines?qsrc=3044> . 


Etc. etc.
 
From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [  <mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com>
mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Putnam
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 5:27 AM
To: rushtalk at csdco.com
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Happy Death-by-Government Day!
 
It is only wrong because you are looking at through 20th century glasses. If
you were brought up to believe it was OK, you would obviously not think it
was wrong.

On 6/16/2013 5:52 PM, Stephen A. Frye wrote:
Some things are just plain wrong.  Abortion and slavery come to mind.
Whether it is now, back then, or looked back upon 100 years from now.  Legal
doesn't make it right - then or now.
 
From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On
Behalf Of Dennis Putnam
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 9:31 AM
To: rushtalk at csdco.com
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Happy Death-by-Government Day!
 
Be realistic. How can one who grew up in the 20th century possibly
understand the mores of those that grew up in the 18th century?
On 6/14/2013 6:31 PM, Stephen A. Frye wrote:
 
 
 
Semantics. The Constitutional crisis was about state rights. Namely
property. That the property was human beings is really irrelevant. The
northern states also refused to return livestock that accompanied the
slaves. Surely you would agree that much is indeed theft. You cannot hold
19th century morals to 21st century standards.
 
Yes we can - and should.  Are we going to be satisfied 100 years from now
looking back and saying - well, abortion was legal, so it was OK?  I don't
think so.  Slavery is wrong.  Period.  Always was, is, and always will be.
Legal doesn't make it right or moral.

On 6/14/2013 11:31 AM, Tom Matiska wrote:
Add that to my point.  The whole of the "State's rights'" debate was
centered on the wrongs of slavery.
Tom
--- On Fri, 6/14/13, Dennis Putnam  <mailto:dap1 at bellsouth.net>
<dap1 at bellsouth.net> wrote:



From: Dennis Putnam  <mailto:dap1 at bellsouth.net> <dap1 at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Happy Death-by-Government Day!
To: rushtalk at csdco.com
Date: Friday, June 14, 2013, 8:25 AM
Not quite. Slaves were considered property. When slaves escaped to the north
the owners demanded return of their property and some refused. That was the
trigger point at which time the southern states demanded their rights as
states. There was nothing in the Constitution that granted the federal
government the power to regulate private property between states, nor does
such exist today. The federal authorities refused to facilitate the return
of property so the south decided to secede. If the war was strictly about
slavery, why did it takes 2 years of war before Lincoln issued the
Emancipation Proclamation?
On 6/14/2013 5:55 AM, Tom Matiska wrote:

--- On Thu, 6/13/13, John A. Quayle <blueoval57 at verizon.net> wrote:


 
        Actually, Tom......it was about State's Rights, not slavery! 
The right of states to allow slavery,  the right to expand slavery westward
to new states, , and the right of states to secede over slavery pretty much
covers all the state's rights discussions of the era.
Tom







_______________________________________________

 

Rushtalk mailing

 

list

 





Rushtalk at csdco.com

 

 






 
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

 
 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk








_______________________________________________

 

Rushtalk mailing

 

list

 

Rushtalk at csdco.com

 

 






 
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

 
 







_______________________________________________

 

Rushtalk mailing

 

list

 

Rushtalk at csdco.com

 

 






 
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

 
 






_______________________________________________

 

Rushtalk mailing

 

list

 

Rushtalk at csdco.com

 

 






 
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

 
 
_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk






_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130618/fdc02fb5/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list