American History

» pink101 - Once Again

In response to Twisting my words posted by BrianTubbs:
.
So, once again, you seem to distort what I've said:
.
Because I'm not accepting ALL of Zinn's broad-brush, simplistic and very negative/radical generalizations of "elites" and "masses," you think I'm showing "disrespect" to the "downtrodden."
.
I haven't said that at ALL.
.
.:)
.
I think we're dragging this out too far. You're prejudiced against Zinn for some reason. You have complained about his focus on certain groups.
.
Almost time to hit the sack.
..

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - The People

In response to Once Again posted by pink101:

Pink, I guess what it boils down to is this...

If you read Bruce Chapman's The First American Army, you'll see a book that does an OUTSTANDING job of portaying the American Revolution from the vantage point of the common, everyday American soldier - not from the generals.

However, Chapman does this without an axe to grind. We can't say that w/ Zinn. Chapman doesn't feel the need to tear down the leaders (the Founding Fathers) in order to build up the people. Zinn does.

When you start to ask WHY Zinn finds it necessary to tear down the government and our nation's leaders (and he does this in virtually EVERY era of our history), you realize it's because he stridently opposes the republican-free market system (republican w/ a small 'r') the USA was founded upon. He wants to overturn it and replace it with a socialist system.

I have a problem with Zinn's aims AND with his means. That's what it boils down to.

» pink101 - Wait A Minute

In response to The People posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I have a problem with Zinn's aims AND with his means. That's what it boils down to.
.
You sure do and it says something about the way you make your choices. We all have our foibles; so, don't get too bent out of shape.
.
But, when you made this statement, "He wants to overturn it and replace it with a socialist system."
, I'm pressed to try to understand what you mean. What DO you mean by that. Is it okay to be a socialist--if that is what he is--in America? Are you saying that being a socialist is somehow anti-American? I don't get it, Brian. Do you worship at the feet of the god of capitalism? Is it heresy for an American to be a socialist or to even be considered a liberal on the leftish side of the political spectrum.
.
What's up?
.
Is that what they teach in Virginny?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Wait A Minute

In response to Wait A Minute posted by pink101:

Pink, is it okay to be a Christian Right activist in America? In your opinion?

Let's take D James Kennedy. I like him. He has preached some outstanding sermons. I really don't want to criticize him publicly, but let's face it....he presents a very sanitized, embellished portrait of American history and its heroes who he claims to be great Christian men. I heard him tell the story once, for just one example, of George Washington's death. Kennedy had Washington making all kinds of pronouncements about Christ and his Christian faith at his death scene. Well, according to most reliable records (namely the testimony of Tobias Lear), that just didn't happen. Now, I don't go so far as Joseph Ellis and conclude that this means Washington "died a Roman stoic" rather than a "Christian saint." I believe Washington WAS a true Christian. However, I am not going to embellish his death (or his life, for that matter) in order to prove that point.

D James Kennedy over-glorifies and over-sanitizes some of our nation's heroes in order to advance his Christian Right agenda. Though I agree with Mr Kennedy's aims (more or less), I disagree with his means.

Howard Zinn undermines and tears down the reputation of many of our nation's heroes from the past (Zinn sees most of our leaders as more VILLAIN than hero, in fact) in order to advance HIS cause - which is socialism.

So, in Zinn's case, I disagree with BOTH his aims and his means.

» pink101 - David James Kennedy

In response to Wait A Minute posted by BrianTubbs:
.
So, in Zinn's case, I disagree with BOTH his aims and his means.
.
Okay, no problem. That's your right. But, do I take that to say so regardless of any accuracy in Zinn's work? It seems you are saying that anything and everything that Zinn records is questionable in the main and that it is based on the sense you have that he is ideologically out of synch with you. Correct?
.
I hesitate to go on with an incorrect impression.
.
So, it looks like you're accusing Zinn of being an iconoclast.
.
Then, how would you characterize Kennedy in the relief--a traditionist even though he has to bend the truth in some cases?
.
It appears you don't mind a little spin as long as it supports your bias. But, let's take a look at the man who is David James Kennedy, ok? He is almost as old as I am.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - David James Kennedy

I think it is easy to see where Kennedy is headed with this kind of teaching. The important point of the Kennedy statements I've quoted is related to Dominionism. He is, clearly, a Dominionist, believing that Jesus is coming soon and that it is the duty of Christians--everywhere--to make preparations for that return. While I don't find fault with Kennedy and his right to believe what he believes any more than I find fault with Zinn and his rights; I do find fault with his efforts to overthrow our government in favor of a theocratic state. Aparently that doesn't bother you.
.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Kennedy-A Clear & Present Danger

.
Kennedy quotes John Jay, the Chief Justice of the first U.S. Supreme Court, who said that "God in His providence has given to us a Christian nation, and it behooves us as Christians to prefer and select Christians to rule over us." And, Kennedy is reported to argue that this "was the Christian perspective of most of the founders in the beginning of this country."
.
He says, "Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost." and "As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors--in short, over every aspect and institution of human society" (Both paragraphs from: Terry Gross :Closing the Gap Between Church and State," Fresh Air from WHYY, May 18, 2005.)
.
"Kennedy is opposed to abortion, homosexuality and the study of evolution. He rails against the values of the Enlightenment. He says that theories of evolution were the basis for Nazism, communism and fascism and that 'these are the views of men that have resulted in millions and millions of people dyding." (Bob Moser, "The Crusaders," Rolling Stone, April 7, 2005. http://rollingstone.com/politics/story/7...
.
Read it, folks, and weep. America is sinking fast. She needs your support! These people are part of the forces that are controlling our foreign policy across the globe. They represent a clear and present danger.
.
I think there is enough in that to rattle the mind of any Red Blooded American who believes in the Constitution of the United States of America.
.
I think it is easy to see where Kennedy is headed with this kind of teaching. The important point of the Kennedy statements I've quoted is related to Dominionism. He is, clearly, a Dominionist, believing that Jesus is coming soon and that it is the duty of Christians--everywhere--to make preparations for that return. While I don't find fault with Kennedy and his right to believe what he believes any more than I find fault with Zinn and his rights; I do find fault with his efforts to overthrow our government in favor of a theocratic state. Aparently that doesn't bother you.
.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Kennedy-A Clear & Present Danger

In response to Kennedy-A Clear & Present Danger posted by pink101:
.
Aparently that doesn't bother you.
.
This comment was directed at Brian.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Dominionist?

In response to Kennedy-A Clear & Present Danger posted by pink101:

First of all, I don't want to defend a label. So, I'm going to put "Dominionist" aside, and just discuss my understanding of Dr. Kennedy's theology...

He believes the Bible is the Word of God. So do I.

He believes that Jesus will return again and reclaim His church (i.e., the "rapture") and will ultimately usher in His kingdom on earth (i.e., the 1000-year reign). I believe these things as well.

Kennedy believes that Christians should preach and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ (i.e., the Great Commission). So do I.

Kennedy believes that Christians should be "salt and light" in the world - and thus influence the current world. So do I.

Now, on that latter point, you read in some sinister effort to take over and control the planet. Christians have as much right as ANYONE ELSE to influence our society and culture.

The John Jay quote, for example. So what? Do Christians not have a right to urge Americans to vote Christians into elected office? We don't begrudge Republicans urging Americans to vote Republicans into office or Democrats urging Americans to vote Democrats into office. Or liberals or conservatives doing the same respectively.

If you're going to defend Howard Zinn's right to push a socialist agenda in American society, then you also have to defend the RIGHT of D James Kennedy and Brian Tubbs to push a socially conservative, Christian agenda. We have as much right to play in the sandbox as you or anyone else.

» Brian Tubbs - More on D James Kennedy

In response to David James Kennedy posted by pink101:

In answer to one of your questions, Pink, I DO have a problem with the spinning or twisting of history to service an agenda - whether it's a radical leftist agenda (Howard Zinn) or one I generally agree with. I thought I made it clear that one of the reservations I have with Dr. Kennedy (even though I like the guy) is that he embellishes and over-sanitizes some of our nation's heroes. I don't like that. I don't find it necessary to do that. The truth is strong enough to win out. We don't need to twist it or enhance it.