Posted on 07/15/2018 11:30:46 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
On Friday morning, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, would bring back slavery if he is confirmed to the nation's highest court.
"Let me say a word about the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court," Clinton told the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) at its national convention. "This nomination holds out the threat of devastating consequences for workers rights, civil rights, LGBT rights, women’s rights — including those to make our own health decisions."
"It is a blatant attempt by this administration to shift the balance of the Court for decades and to reverse decades of progress," the former Democratic presidential nominee declared.
Then came the kicker: "I used to worry that they [the Republicans] wanted to turn the clock back to the 1950s. Now I worry they want to turn it back to the 1850s."
Clinton was clearly suggesting that Trump and Kavanaugh want to return to the days when slavery was legal in the South. The irony is, originalist Supreme Court justices like Kavanaugh would have agreed with Abraham Lincoln against the South, especially on the issue of slavery.
The American Civil War started in 1861, after a tense decade of increasing hostility between Southern Democrats who wanted to extend slavery beyond its boundaries as established by constitutional laws and Northern Republicans who saw slavery as evil and wanted to keep it within those limits. Republican Abraham Lincoln campaigned on restraining the evil institution, but an activist Supreme Court ruled that slavery could extend into the territories.
Ironically, another Republican president wants to restrain another activist Supreme Court, and Democrat Hillary Clinton is scaremongering....
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
” Through their achievements they can be absolved of their families ‘’original sin’’. “
It must be an interesting religion that decrees that. Which one would that be?
” Through their achievements they can be absolved of their families ‘’original sin’’. “
It must be an interesting religion that decrees that. Which one would that be?
Yes.
I researched it and found that she actually made that comment during a BBC interview November 13, 2013.
I am posting the graphic here with the corrected reference.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/holmes-lybrand/fact-check-did-oprah-say-all-white-people-have-to-die
Then you must be familiar with Paul sending runaway slave Onesimus back to his master Philemon. I've read some Aquinas, Calvin and Luther and don't recall any 'Absolving of Original Sin' for doing good deeds but maybe I missed it.
The Civil War/World War II Connection
Former U.S. President John Tyler Became Loyal to the Confederacy
Slavery was Americas original sin. That I know of General George S. Patton didn’t own slaves. The Confederacy was an evil institution that engaged in violent rebellion to secede from the Union and started a war to preserve it. “Slave’’ was more often a term in the Biblical term of a person who worked for another. As is typical of you you use verbal gymnastics and convoluted logic to fit your view of history. And in case you haven’t noticed bird brain, the Confederacy is long gone. They lost remember?
” And in case you haven’t noticed bird brain, the Confederacy is long gone. They lost remember?”
Those with the biggest battalions declare themselves virtuous.
“Slavery was Americas original sin. The Confederacy was an evil institution that engaged in violent rebellion to secede from the Union and started a war to preserve it.”
That’s certainly the position of BLM and the hard Left who want to eradicate the memory of Washington, Jefferson and every other slaveholding President once they get done with Confederate history.
““Slave’’ was more often a term in the Biblical term of a person who worked for another. “
You evidently aren’t a student of koine Greek.
“Although it is a main theme, Paul does not label slavery as negative or positive. Some scholars see it as unthinkable in the times to even question ending slavery. Because slavery was so ingrained into society that the “abolitionist would have been at the same time an insurrectionist, and the political effects of such a movement would have been unthinkable. Paul doesn’t question it in this epistle. Paul may have envisioned slavery as a fixed institution. He was not questioning the “rightness or wrongness” of it. Paul did however view slavery as a human institution, and believed that all human institutions were about to fade away. This may be because Paul had the perspective that Jesus would return soon. Paul viewed his present world as something that was swiftly passing away. This is a part of Pauline Christianity and theology.”
That’s a whole lot of ranting without any discernible point. Try again.
You know something bozo, I find it ironic that a defender of the Confederacy is taking me to task over the meaning of the word slave.
Topic: slavery in the Bible, does God tolerate or condemn slavery?
Answer: both, depending on circumstances.
But first we have to unpack the word "slave" because it meant many different conditions.
The word slave does indeed mean different things in the Bible. In some cases, as was the practice it often meant those captured as the result of battle or as a conquered people and forced or sold into slavery. It also meant a servant bound by circumstance of debt or low birth status to a family or person of higher status and wealth.
” I find it ironic that a defender of the Confederacy is taking me to task over the meaning of the word slave.”
Nothing ironic about it at all. You haven’t studied biblical history or koine Greek.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
