Posted on 10/10/2010 2:52:53 PM PDT by NYer
The word you were looking for was “Than” not “Then”.
I think it’s a retread.
But that’s my opinion on that one.
LOL..get your terminology correct:
n. a male homosexual. (Rude and derogatory. An elaboration of fruit.) : We went into this bar, but it was filled with fruitcakes, so we left.
Now that we've corrected your misuse of a slang word, let's move on to another topic:
How many of these young men do you think were molested by homosexual pedophiles at a young age?
See this post by me:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2605022/posts?page=108#108
I would say that there are probably a number of dates that can be given for the start of modern liberalism. But as a deadly worldwide movement it definitely began in the late 19th and early 20th century. The first “major” victims of the left were Czar Alexander II of Russia in 1881, President William McKinley in 1901 and Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914, followed by the entire Russian royal family and most of the Russian nobles who were unable to escape a few years later.
Saw that one.
Good post.
You don’t get out much do you?
Mainsail keeps forgetting his purse.
” I would say that there are probably a number of dates that can be given for the start of modern liberalism. But as a deadly worldwide movement it definitely began in the late 19th and early 20th century. The first “major” victims of the left were Czar Alexander II of Russia in 1881, President William McKinley in 1901 and Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914, followed by the entire Russian royal family and most of the Russian nobles who were unable to escape a few years later. “
Great post.
Good job!
2. I'm well that liberalism has changed meaning in terms of politics; which is why I prefaced my comment with no matter how you define...
leftist liberalism is easiest to date to The Social Contract by Rousseau, which is well over 200 years old.
contrary to popular belief on this site, Marx was not a liberal; leftist sure but not liberal; In any case, his thoughts were made known over 100 years ago. AND their were attempted revolutions/leftist “attacks” before 1900 (the Paris Commune for example, the labour-maganemnet conflicts of the 1800’s)
Likewise, Darwin’s theory and its alleged attack to theology is over 100 years old. It should be noted that attacks on the argument from design, and Christianity in general, predate Darwin; notably, Hume, Voltaire and Bentham made hay out it in the late 1700’s.
Mill (among others) also challenged, strongly, the traditional gender role in the mid 1800’s and the (first wave) feminist movement started around the same time.
the Gay Liberation movements also had antecedents in the mid-late 1800’s.
My point is modern liberalism , however defined, isn’t 100 years old; it’s older. Nor does it exist in a vacuum.
However, since we are arbitrarily dating positions, biblical literalism and Christian fundamentalism isn’t “2000 years old”; both of those movement are a response to theological liberalism and modernism; in which case they would only be, by x’s reckoning, 100 years old as well.
and I meant that arguments from convention, by themselves, are fallacious.
granting that modern liberalism is built on eugenics, eugenics sprang up within years of Origin of Species being published. Eugenics dates to 1865 with “Hereditary Talent and Character” by Galton. So again older then 100 years.
Social Darwinism is a bit trickier to date because some of the ideas pre-date Origin of Species; however I think it fair to say that Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857) by Spencer is a good place as any; again older then 100 years.
and of course Darwin, Galton and Spencer were strongly influenced by Malthus’ An Essay on the Principle of Population from 1798.
I also spoke wrote about the French Revolution and other near-revolutions of the 19th century.
I can see your point that Marx COULD be seen as a leftist reactionary and not a leftist liberal, but again, he offered a theory and what his followers brought was leftist liberalism.
Darwinism and eugenics were certainly popular theories in the mid to late 19th century, but that was as far as they got.
But ultimately, what I concluded with is the FACT that the widespread leftist attacks of lefist liberalism can probably be best dated from the late 19th or early 20th century.
However, since we are arbitrarily dating positions, biblical literalism and Christian fundamentalism isn’t “2000 years old”; both of those movement are a response to theological liberalism and modernism;
Nonsense. Prior to the 20th century, ALL Christian churches (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) taught Creation, denounced premarital sex, condemned contraception, abortion, homosexuality and divorce. What would be called "fundamentalism" today was the NORM in EVERY Christian church two centuries ago.
and I meant that arguments from convention, by themselves, are fallacious.
So, does this mean that you support the homosexual agenda? This question can be answered with a simple YES or NO, any explanation is really nothing more than an affirmitive response followed by an attempt to convert others to the same point of view.
” Nonsense. Prior to the 20th century, ALL Christian churches (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) taught Creation, denounced premarital sex, condemned contraception, abortion, homosexuality and divorce. What would be called “fundamentalism” today was the NORM in EVERY Christian church two centuries ago. “
Correct, and to argue otherwise is a denial of historical fact.
Look up Miss Sanger and Planned Parenthood.
There you have the eugenics philosophy as espoused by modern liberalism in a nutshell.
Do note that it is well after Darwins magdumb opus.
Sanger believed in using abortion and eugenics to breed out ‘undesirables’.
I.E., the birth of modern liberalism.
Tell me, did you mainsail that?
If you want to praise the age of ‘liberalism’ in ‘theology’, look no further than the Gnostics circa first century.
Prior to that, you have your pick and choice of cults.
Mithras cult anyone?
NW, it’s a good thing to discuss with someone who has a grasp on the facts. However, you are disputing a post that clearly was talking about liberalism affecting the churches. Even you acknowledge that began some 100 years ago, and that is precisely what I said.
We can follow the “roots” of any idea back far before it actually began to have any impact at a mass cultural level.
Are you Christian, Jewish, etc.?
I’m sorry, but I’m not going to defend or condone the actions of those who throw firebombs at people in a parade and assault police officers who are attempting to keep the peace.
Instead, I am going to speak out against those who participate in or condone throwing firebombs at any type of parade.
And could you please explain to me how speaking out against those who resort to the violent throwing of firebombs, or those who condone such violence is “liberal?”
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.