Brexit

[highfigh]

It's been a long, long time since I've read the Federalist papers and the discussions and analysis of them. My understanding or remembrance is that the US is not r was not founded as a Christian nation. The dominant religious persuasion at that time was Christianity and more specifically Protestant and its variants. A number of the founding fathers in all likelihood fell under the umbrella of agnostics or even atheists. That's not to say they despised religion. Quite the contrary as they found it useful in providing a moral compass for the people. So then, what are we to make when the term God is used? If you're religious, God might well mean the big cheese in the sky. But what did God mean to the founding fathers? For many, God was nature and reason. It's like when people say Einstein believed in God because he stated 'God does not play dice with the universe.' Einstein was an atheist and his use of the term God was his way of saying nature. Just a bit more dramatic.

One of the main reasons the Puritans came to the New World was to get away from anything that had to do with Catholicism.

Several members of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons and they were well-represented in the Continental Army, as 46% of the 74 commissioned Generals were members. Also, 13 signers of the Constitution (33%) and 9 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Freemasons.

From the link,
http://www.msana.com/religion.asp

"Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for religion. It requires of its members a belief in God as part of the obligation of every responsible adult, but advocates no sectarian faith or practice. Masonic ceremonies include prayers, both traditional and extempore, to reaffirm each individual's dependence on God and to seek divine guidance. Freemasonry is open to men of any faith, but religion may not be discussed at Masonic meetings."

 

[highfigh]

This set the scene in America for what became known as the Restoration Colonies.

Thanks for the reference to the Restoration Colonies- two of my ancestors came to America in 1654 and I hadn't seen all of the reasons for this. They were Anglican, but I don't think he wanted to leave his wife behind if conscription was in practice.

 

[Dan]

Also thanks for that reference. I'd forgotten or never knew many of those details. I believe that the reason the English were the most successful of the colonizing European powers was actually the degree of religious strife at home compared to the Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese and French. That drove many away to the Americas as you point out. Also, the Maryland colony was designed as the Catholic colony at the outset.
The religious strife made for large numbers wanting to leave England compared to the other powers. Once they got here, they way they dealt with the natives allowed them to flourish as well compared to the Dutch and French' more benevolent methods. Good Dutch economy discouraged emigration especially of the middle classes. The French suffered from badly sited colonies as well, in difficult environments like Canada and the more disease ridden islands. The Spanish were more interest in conquest and loot than true colonies as they has expensive European wars to pay for. So ironically, it was religious intolerance and double dealing with the natives that gave the English a competitive advantage in the colony race as well as being a powerful seafaring nation.

 

[TLS Guy]

Thanks for the reference to the Restoration Colonies- two of my ancestors came to America in 1654 and I hadn't seen all of the reasons for this. They were Anglican, but I don't think he wanted to leave his wife behind if conscription was in practice.

You are welcome. I'm amazed at how many have looked at this thread, so I don't mind devoting a little time to it.

It is very important to understand the pivotal forces that formed this country. The two big forces were the English protestant accession and especially the events leading and resulting from the Civil war. The other of course was the French revolution.

After the War of independence the US was very much in he French orbit. Washington is very much a French city, with a French architect L'Enfance. The Napoleonic war lead to more trouble with England and the war of 1812. After the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, the US became very much under the orbit of the English again, with the Royal Navy especially protecting the sea lanes and allowing America to prosper from trade. By 1901 American industrial output surpassed UK industrial output.

However to really understand it all you have to go back to Rome and Greece. Rome left English shores for good around 450 BC. After that history is murky, but we do get glimpses from the Saxon Chronicle.

The big problems was Danish marauders who split England in two. The Dane Law was in the eastern counties especially of East Anglia. How the Danes navigated is very much a mystery. All their ships were rowed, but with sail at the rear and only of use when the wind was astern.

Alfred the Great set up the first dockyard at Chatham on the River Medway, to develop ships that did not require oars and could sail close to the wind. There was no rudder, but a steering oar. The Danish long boats were no match for these ships. This nightmare all wound up in 991 at the battle of Malden in Essex.

Even a lot of the Spanish ships in the Armada in the reign of Elizabeth I had oars, and met a terrible fate at the hands of Drake and Hawkins.

The next pivotal event was the Norman invasion and the Battle of Hastings in 1066. William the Conqueror was a prize Bureaucrat and cataloged every thing in England. The lingua franka became French until Chaucer left from the Tabbard Inn in Southwark right were I trained at Guys Hospital. He made the pilgrimage to Canterbury across the North Downs, and gave an account in his Canterbury Tales. This was the start of the avalanche of great English literature, and the ascent of the English Language. This was 1387 to 1400.

The beginnings of English democracy go back to Henry II (Henry Plantaganet). He wrote of the importance of curbing the power of kings. The Magna Carta and the Oxford Provisions forced from King John are another mile stone.

The other factor that made England different was the development of English Common Law and case law which is part and parcel of it. This developed from the Norman Conquest on.

The rest of Europe to all intense and purposes follows Roman Law.

American jurisprudence is founded entirely on English Common Law and NOT Roman law. This pretty much goes for all of the English speaking peoples and binds them uniquely.

Any of you who followed the Amanda Knox case in the Italian courts should be well aware of the chasm that exists between English Common Law and Roman Law.

This difference in jurisprudence is another fault line that makes the UK a poor match for the EU.

So yes, history is important in understanding the events shaping our modern world. It is hard to go back too far.

 

[Dan]

I certainly agree with you and admit your English history readily surpasses mine. I've been reading Alexander Hamilton's biography and one of the striking points is the autonomy he had as first Treasury Secretary to design the American economic system despite opposition from Madison and Jefferson. He clearly favored the English model and as England industrialized, made efforts to recruit skilled labor from England to establish factories here. He was largely self taught and influenced by the great English economists of the day, Adam Smith etc.

So our economy, especially in the North as well as the cultural and legal ties helped eventually get us to the English camp. The failure of the French revolution to produce a republic as stable as ours turned many here away from France as well. Once France was put down for good in 1815 and the English ruled the waves the point was moot, no alternative.

When the America Civil War came about, Lincoln's understanding of the British way of thinking kept them from entering the war despite some significant sympathy for the South, especially in the large textile industry. The Emancipation Proclamation made it politically impossible for Britain to intervene on behalf of the South given the British attitudes on slavery.

 

[TLS Guy]

I certainly agree with you and admit your English history readily surpasses mine. I've been reading Alexander Hamilton's biography and one of the striking points is the autonomy he had as first Treasury Secretary to design the American economic system despite opposition from Madison and Jefferson. He clearly favored the English model and as England industrialized made efforts to recruit skilled labor from England to establish factories here. He was largely self taught and influenced by the great English economists of the day, Adam Smith etc.

So our economy, especially in the North as well as the cultural and legal ties helped eventually get us to the English camp. The failure of the French revolution to produce a republic as stable as ours turned many here away from France as well. Once France was put down for good in 1815 and the English ruled the waves the point was moot, no alternative.

When the America Civil War came about, Lincoln's understanding of the British way of thinking kept them from entering the war despite some significant sympathy for the South, especially in the large textile industry. The Emancipation Proclamation made it politically impossible for Britain to intervene on behalf of the South given the British attitudes on slavery.

Correct on all points Dan. Adam Smith by the way pushed for a "free market" in religion on grounds of economics! Another force for freedom of religion.

 

[highfigh]

You are welcome. I'm amazed at how many have looked at this thread, so I don't mind devoting a little time to it.

It is very important to understand the pivotal forces that formed this country. The two big forces were the English protestant accession and especially the events leading and resulting from the Civil war. The other of course was the French revolution.

After the War of independence the US was very much in he French orbit. Washington is very much a French city, with a French architect L'Enfance. The Napoleonic war lead to more trouble with England and the war of 1812. After the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, the US became very much under the orbit of the English again, with the Royal Navy especially protecting the sea lanes and allowing America to prosper from trade. By 1901 American industrial output surpassed UK industrial output.

However to really understand it all you have to go back to Rome and Greece. Rome left English shores for good around 450 BC. After that history is murky, but we do get glimpses from the Saxon Chronicle.

The big problems was Danish marauders who split England in two. The Dane Law was in the eastern counties especially of East Anglia. How the Danes navigated is very much a mystery. All their ships were rowed, but with sail at the rear and only of use when the wind was astern.

Alfred the Great set up the first dockyard at Chatham on the River Medway, to develop ships that did not require oars and could sail close to the wind. There was no rudder, but a steering oar. The Danish long boats were no match for these ships. This nightmare all wound up in 991 at the battle of Malden in Essex.

Even a lot of the Spanish ships in the Armada in the reign of Elizabeth I had oars, and met a terrible fate at the hands of Drake and Hawkins.

The next pivotal event was the Norman invasion and the Battle of Hastings in 1066. William the Conqueror was a prize Bureaucrat and cataloged every thing in England. The lingua franka became French until Chaucer left from the Tabbard Inn in Southwark right were I trained at Guys Hospital. He made the pilgrimage to Canterbury across the North Downs, and gave an account in his Canterbury Tales. This was the start of the avalanche of great English literature, and the ascent of the English Language. This was 1387 to 1400.

The beginnings of English democracy go back to Henry II (Henry Plantaganet). He wrote of the importance of curbing the power of kings. The Magna Carta and the Oxford Provisions forced from King John are another mile stone.

The other factor that made England different was the development of English Common Law and case law which is part and parcel of it. This developed from the Norman Conquest on.

The rest of Europe to all intense and purposes follows Roman Law.

American jurisprudence is founded entirely on English Common Law and NOT Roman law. This pretty much goes for all of the English speaking peoples and binds them uniquely.

Any of you who followed the Amanda Knox case in the Italian courts should be well aware of the chasm that exists between English Common Law and Roman Law.

This difference in jurisprudence is another fault line that makes the UK a poor match for the EU.

So yes, history is important in understanding the events shaping our modern world. It is hard to go back too far.

My dad was stationed at Rougham Field, Bury St. Edmund and hearing some of his experiences during WWII as a kid, that was the first time I had heard of the Magna Carta. Any other info I had until the internet was from reading about it in encyclopedias and I was aware that our laws and much of the principles of our government were based on it. Less so now, but still....

My ancestors who came here first may be descended from someone who fought with Edmund "Ironsides" at the Battle of Sherston, known as Rattlebone- I haven't seen proof, but the family has had an historian since the late-'1800s and someone is always searching for information.

In all of my history classes, we only glossed over most of the rest of the World, mainly because we weren't history majors and also, IMO, because I'm not sure they thought we would remember most of it so, why bother, right? Now, kids are exposed to things we never heard of until we were 12-14 when they're about 6-7, so I'm pretty sure we could, but some people alive now seem to be proving their point, in light of social media, media and other distractions that erase any useful information they may have learned in the past. Some Americans, usually the ones who think in terms of our exceptional nature, consider the time when the colonies were formed to be ancient history. The closest we can come with archaeological info is generally broken into "Pre-Colombian" and "Post-Colombian". Yes, they have found older items, but the structures were much more crude and didn't hold up to time as well as what's in Europe, Asia and the Middle East.

I never knew why the section with Michael Palin reading about the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, in Monty Python's Holy Grail, was worded and punctuated the way it was. Well, until I was reading about Rattlebone and decided to look into the references to the Battle of Hastings and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. I started reading and ran out of breath because I was exhaling as I read, waiting for some kind of pause that didn't come for quite a while.

 

[highfigh]

I certainly agree with you and admit your English history readily surpasses mine. I've been reading Alexander Hamilton's biography and one of the striking points is the autonomy he had as first Treasury Secretary to design the American economic system despite opposition from Madison and Jefferson. He clearly favored the English model and as England industrialized, made efforts to recruit skilled labor from England to establish factories here. He was largely self taught and influenced by the great English economists of the day, Adam Smith etc.

So our economy, especially in the North as well as the cultural and legal ties helped eventually get us to the English camp. The failure of the French revolution to produce a republic as stable as ours turned many here away from France as well. Once France was put down for good in 1815 and the English ruled the waves the point was moot, no alternative.

When the America Civil War came about, Lincoln's understanding of the British way of thinking kept them from entering the war despite some significant sympathy for the South, especially in the large textile industry. The Emancipation Proclamation made it politically impossible for Britain to intervene on behalf of the South given the British attitudes on slavery.

Hamilton wanting to use the English system and importing skilled laborers is interesting, in light of the fact that one bone of contention between the Colonies and the Crown was in the requirement that raw materials be shipped to England for processing and then returned, having been taxed both ways. The colonies had people who were fully able to use the materials to make finished goods, but they weren't allowed. Doesn't mean they didn't, but it wasn't good when they were caught. In some cases, such as lumber that wasn't available in England, the furniture that returned wasn't even made from the same materials because the best was kept and something inferior was substituted.

 

[Dan]

Yes that was an issue before the revolution. Remember that despite his Caribbean origins Hamilton was a patriot (rebel) and Washington's most valued staff officer and often confidant during the war. During Washington's Presidency was when he advocated industrializing which was correct despite Secretary of State Jefferson's ludicrous hypocritical agrarian preferences. Britain made it illegal for factory workers with intimate knowledge of the new secret industrial inventions to leave the country. Several were able to slip out however.

 

[Dan]

Separation of church and state was no settled issue back then. The Puritans and other hard core Anglicans (Episcopalians) wanted the Episcopal church established as the official church in the states. For a time it was the official church in places like Connecticut. Only after the Constitution was passed was the issue rendered moot. America has a long history of extreme religious sects, witness the many utopian communities in the nineteenth century most of which were extreme Protestant sects. It has been stated in this thread that the challenge for immigrants in this country is to integrate. I only partially agree. The challenge is to integrate while maintaining a degree of one's cultural identity. Some groups have been more successful than others. It is often very difficult for the original immigrants to assimilate well but their children have an easier time. Anti immigrant attitudes are as old as the country and have been directed at whoever the dominant immigrant group of the time was be it Irish Catholics in the 1850s or whatever. Disaffected immigrants have also historically resorted to violence as well.

 

[shadyJ]

True, I stand corrected. He didn't ban it officially but he certainly had major problems with it.

'In the Communist Manifesto , Marx suggests that religion, like morality and philosophy, must be eliminated if we are to achieve a new political and economic existence. "Communism," he and Engels write, "abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on new basis" (1968:52). The reason for this is the historical evidence that regardless of previous changes in the productive systems, religion has always supported the maintenance of the legitimacy of the exploiter and exploited. Thus, to create a truly free society, religion as a tie to the past must be eliminated.'

Source: http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Marx.htm

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Marx.htm

While Marx was certainly hostile to religion, I don't think he would have had it declared illegal if he could. His idea of a communist revolution was not that followed by many so-called Marxists including Lenin. Leninism and Marxism are two different things. Marx thought that communism would be a natural process where the social structures would erode and evolve of their own nature. He did not think a radical revolution would be able to accomplish a communist society.

Again, what better statement of national statement of national values does one offer to replace it in this country?

Off the top of my head, I would offer principles of humanism as a superior alternative.

 

[herbu]

I always thought our Freedom of Religion meant there could be no official government or state sponsored religion. An individual or group can practice whatever religion they want without government favoritism, penalty or reprisal. That's all. Am I wrong?

It doesn't mean I have to accommodate your religious practices. It doesn't mean my business has to accommodate your religious practices.

If I own a business and choose to be open on Christmas day, you can choose to work for me or do business with me, or not. If my business provides 2 15-minute breaks and 30 minutes for lunch, you can choose to work for me or not.

I do not understand how our government can make me accommodate your religious practices, whether it's Christmas, Hanukkah, Ramadan, Kwanzaa, or 5x prayer times per day.

I remember IBM's solution when there was a push for a Martin Luther King holiday. I thought it was brilliant. At the time, they had 12 paid holidays a year. At the beginning of every year the designated holidays for that year were announced. Then it all changed.

They announced: "Starting this year, we will still provide 12 paid holidays, but we will only designate 7. The other 5 are at your discretion, with your manager's approval. You can use them for things like your birthday, your anniversary, MLK day, etc."

I think about that whenever I hear some person or group demanding accommodation at work for their specific cause. (Lately it's "Pet-turnity and Me-turnity leave because getting a new pet requires as much attention as a new baby, and because women who don't have babies deserve me-time just like new mothers.) In my view, I'm not obligated to give you anything, religious or otherwise. I can't penalize you for your beliefs, but neither to I have to make special allowances for them. I CAN, but I don't have to.

 

[Chu Gai]

So I read this morning that Nigel Farage has resigned as the head of the UKIP but has decided to keep his position as a MEP for the time being. With Cameron stepping down, Boris declining to run for the soon to be vacant position, and now this, is this as the media seems to be portraying it as rats leaving a sinking ship or a sudden power vacuum in GB resulting in chaos?

I also note that the mayor of London, Khan, is saying people who supported the exit as being obliged to answer for an increase in reported complaints about untoward behavior directed to Muslims. Is he playing to his base? We're the complaints verified as to their accuracy?

 

[Steve81]

I do not understand how our government can make me accommodate your religious practices, whether it's Christmas, Hanukkah, Ramadan, Kwanzaa, or 5x prayer times per day.

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the Feds pretty broad powers for regulating business, to say nothing of the states ability to regulate commerce within their borders.

 

[markw]

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the Feds pretty broad powers for regulating business, to say nothing of the states ability to regulate commerce within their borders.

Stage two, Steve. Stage two.

https://civilusdefendus.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/4-stages-of-islamic-conquest/

 

[shadyJ]

Stage two, Steve. Stage two.

https://civilusdefendus.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/4-stages-of-islamic-conquest/

 

[Chu Gai]

That won't keep you safe from undocumented migrants from outer space as we've seen in the Independence Day movies!

 

[markw]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

so, using our glorious leaders logic, we ARE a Christian nation, aren't we?

I'd say "they" have fiends in high places, no?

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/06/muslim-former-fbi-agent-who-refused-to-wiretap-fellow-muslims-now-homeland-security-adviser

Do you like what's going in in Europe?

 

[Steve81]

Stage two, Steve. Stage two.

https://civilusdefendus.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/4-stages-of-islamic-conquest/

So what are you suggesting Mark, that we suspend constitutional rights for Muslim citizens?

As for this tidbit, who said they're demanding 5 prayer breaks per work day?

OK, imagine that you own a business and decided to hire a bunch of Somali Muslims. They do a good enough job to keep them as employees, but after they have worked for you for a while, they demand that you allow them to take five prayer breaks every day and the result of these breaks means that you need to stop production while they pray

This is what the actual schedule for prayer looks like:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/practices/salat.shtml

If it's a regular 8 hour shift, you may have 1-2 10 minute breaks in a workday, one of which typically coincides with lunch. Not exactly scandalous behavior, or something that would appreciably impact a factory (as if all your other workers are robots who don't eat, go to the bathroom, smoke, etc).

 

[Irvrobinson]

So what are you suggesting Mark, that we suspend constitutional rights for Muslim citizens?

I was wondering the same thing.