Thank God for Protestantism

[JSSebastianoP]

You’re the advocate of tyranny - don’t blame others for the logic of your position.​

I’m just saying that fascism is an equally valid option against democracy.

But not political assassination or intimidation or the murder of non-combatants in war. Presumably invading Ethiopia isn’t a crime - he did do so on Good Friday: very pious.​

Agressive war in Iraq? And I never said Mussolini’s regime was perfect or that I advocated the invasion of Abyssinia. The only possible justificatin of invasion of Abyssinia (which should have been solved diplomatically) was the different wording in the Italian and Abyssinian treaties formed after the first war. Now, I would hardly call such an outright agressive attack justified. Above all else I am a Catholic.

Democracy is Hell, isn’t it ?​

No. It’s better than socialism, anyways. I never said democracy was the worst form of government. I just said that it was inherently flawed, just like any other system, since humans cannot achieve perfection. Democracy is not the ultimate, unbeatable form of government and fascism is just as good.

No Jews to kill, no leeway to massacre Protestants or torture communists or cause inconvenient people to disappear by thousands, no one-party state… you must be feeling suicidal.

When did I say I wanted to kill Jews, Protestants, and Communists. Your false ad hominem accusations are starting to get bothersome.

Even the CC says it is no part of the state to provide what the church is directed to. The State is not required to be the Church in that respect or any other. Otherwise you get clericalism.​

Yet the individuals in the State should do their best to protect the people (hence why I advocate the outlawing entirely of homosexuality and fornication and masturbation and condoms - although I never said I wanted the penalty to be death; the death penalty, by Catholic understanding is only permissable in extreme circumstances). You are making all authoritarians out to be murderers which is flatout insulting.

There’s a difference between burned alive and being gassed, but they are both fatal.​

Since when have I personally advocated torture?

STM there’s something indecent in trying to compare pains - it does nothing to recommend the kind of regime you seem to prefer. I didn’t say democracy wasn’t flawed - I explicitly admitted that it was - but with all its faults, it’s immeasurably better than the kind of hell-hole you seem to admire so much.​

I wouldn’t call all authoritarian regimes "hell-hole"s… Spain was much better under Franco than it is now…

At least in a democracy laws that allow abortion can be objected to, and change of them campaigned for in public, without fear of arrest for so doing - in the kind of regime you seem to want, the liberty of the person to object to laws is rather less well-protected.

My dream is for a state which respects the dignity of the person. My rights stop where yours begin. Any country in which abortion and homosexual acts and contraception &c. are legal, does not respect the dignity of the person.

Something is badly wrong with a religion which champions the strong against the weak - it’s the reverse of what is said in the the Magnificat.

When did I say that authoritarian regimes shouldn’t help the poor? Any regime should.

Protestants & Papists & others went to war against tyranny so that people like you could praise tyranny.

Are you talking about the revolution? Because Catholics were free to object to it…

That is the Catholic way, it seems.

I can’t speak for others on this matter.

Your religion is cruel & wicked and murderous and deceitful and unrepentant - that shows clearly enough its true origin.

So CHRIST was cruel & wicked and murderous and decietful and unrepentant?

Pax.

 

[Contarini]

I’m just saying that fascism is an equally valid option against democracy.

Could you perhaps define fascism? As I understand fascism, that statement is an obscenity. But I admit that when I think of fascism I think of an intrinsically totalitarian government (i.e., one in which the state controls all aspects of life and there is little or no individual freedom or room for authorities other than the state); one that glorifies the kind of strength that comes from force and coercion as a good and noble thing in its own right; and one that promotes and glorifies the destruction of groups seen to be enemies of the state without regard for mercy or the Golden Rule.

You do not seem to be advocating all of these evil things. So I want to hold back on my immediate impulse to condemn what you are saying as hideously wrong. I can’t imagine how one can define fascism so as to be an acceptable alternative for Christians. But I recognize that at one point C. S. Lewis was capable of imagining a Christian taking your position (though he didn’t take it himself), so I would like to hear what you have to say.

And I never said Mussolini’s regime was perfect or that I advocated the invasion of Abyssinia.

Good to hear. As I said above, part of my understanding of fascism is that it promotes aggressive warfare and conquest as something intrinsically glorious for a nation. Is this not historically true of regimes that have called themselves or been called fascist?

No. It’s better than socialism, anyways. I never said democracy was the worst form of government. I just said that it was inherently flawed, just like any other system, since humans cannot achieve perfection. Democracy is not the ultimate, unbeatable form of government

I agree with that. However, from my perspective the legitimate alternatives to democracy would be some form of “road not taken” based on pre-1789 societies (indeed, primarily ancient and medieval ones) in which there was no all-powerful centralized state and different orders of society had well-defined though not necessarily equal rights.

When did I say I wanted to kill Jews, Protestants, and Communists.

Could you point to a historically fascist society that did *not *engage in mass killings of those it perceived as ideological enemies? Certainly Franco’s Spain did this.

I think it’s valid to say that there are certain valid social and political ideas that should be given serious consideration in spite of their having been endorsed by the vicious authoritarian regimes commonly labeled “fascist,” just as there are certain valid ideas that should be given serious consideration in spite of their association with “socialist” regimes. But I cannot imagine how one could defend fascism in general as a historical phenomenon.

Yet the individuals in the State should do their best to protect the people (hence why I advocate the outlawing entirely of homosexuality and fornication and masturbation and condoms - although I never said I wanted the penalty to be death; the death penalty, by Catholic understanding is only permissable in extreme circumstances). You are making all authoritarians out to be murderers which is flatout insulting.

But 20th-century authoritarianism seems to have been invariably accompanied by mass-murder sanctioned by the government in the name of protecting the state. This being the case, any argument you want to make for authoritarianism needs to explain this instead of labeling it “insulting.” You may find historical reality insulting, but that will not make it go away. (Right-wing folks on this forum are certainly quick to point to the nasty historical reality of socialism–and quite rightly so too.)

Since when have I personally advocated torture?

Again, the use of torture seems to be a necessary part of the establishment of an authoritarian regime under modern conditions (and indeed was endorsed by later medieval and early modern governments as well).

I wouldn’t call all authoritarian regimes "hell-hole"s… Spain was much better under Franco than it is now…

There may be respects in which that was true. But the means by which Franco established power were clearly hellish, and unless I have been gravely misled the level of surveillance and terror employed by the government throughout his regime was totally incompatible with the dignity of the human person.

My dream is for a state which respects the dignity of the person.

Can you seriously claim that Franco’s regime did this? Did it respect the dignity of the thousands of Republican prisoners who were shot?

Edwin

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Could you perhaps define fascism?

I am sorry. I did not mean fascism in the sense of Italian fascism, but a kind of fascist mentality taken and toned down to fit into a truly Catholic midset, in otherwords, a type of neofascism. Traditional fascism is defined as anti-socialist, anti-communist, anti-democracy, anti-capitalist, and anti-pacifist.

But I admit that when I think of fascism I think of an intrinsically totalitarian government (i.e., one in which the state controls all aspects of life and there is little or no individual freedom or room for authorities other than the state); one that glorifies the kind of strength that comes from force and coercion as a good and noble thing in its own right; and one that promotes and glorifies the destruction of groups seen to be enemies of the state without regard for mercy or the Golden Rule.

Translated into English: “For tomorrow’s war, for peace and the laurel, for the shame of those who deny the fatherland” and “Our law is slavery of love” “Our motto is liberty and duty” are lines taken from two fascist songs which show that fascism was not entirely off the mark. In fact, it’s most major flaw was it’s anti-pacifism…

You do not seem to be advocating all of these evil things. So I want to hold back on my immediate impulse to condemn what you are saying as hideously wrong.

Thank you. I know how hard it must be because I am quicktempered myself.

I can’t imagine how one can define fascism so as to be an acceptable alternative for Christians.

I can’t. As I explained above, I mean a fascist mentality reshaped so that the fascist mentality is subject to Christendom.

But I recognize that at one point C. S. Lewis was capable of imagining a Christian taking your position (though he didn’t take it himself), so I would like to hear what you have to say.

J. R. R. Tolkien was in fact a supporter of Franco.

Good to hear. As I said above, part of my understanding of fascism is that it promotes aggressive warfare and conquest as something intrinsically glorious for a nation. Is this not historically true of regimes that have called themselves or been called fascist?

You are absolutely correct and that is the major bone I have to pick with traditional fascism.

I agree with that. However, from my perspective the legitimate alternatives to democracy would be some form of “road not taken” based on pre-1789 societies (indeed, primarily ancient and medieval ones) in which there was no all-powerful centralized state and different orders of society had well-defined though not necessarily equal rights.

I’d like to ask you what specifically you are talking about here. A lack of experience on my part does not allow me to quite grasp what was said here.
And may I mention, that fascism was a “road not taken” when first tried?

Could you point to a historically fascist society that did *not *engage in mass killings of those it perceived as ideological enemies? Certainly Franco’s Spain did this.

As above, you are correct again. My preferred fascism is a type of neofascism, not the antipacifist traditonal kind. Yes. I believe I have admitted to murders for no reason committed by the various fascist states.

I think it’s valid to say that there are certain valid social and political ideas that should be given serious consideration in spite of their having been endorsed by the vicious authoritarian regimes commonly labeled “fascist,” just as there are certain valid ideas that should be given serious consideration in spite of their association with “socialist” regimes. But I cannot imagine how one could defend fascism in general as a historical phenomenon.

The way I like to defend it in general is by showing how it was better than what came before it. However, any unjust military use, was not moral. Yes; I, a most virulent antisocialist, am fond of saying that the socialists asked the right questions but came to the wrong answers… A broken clock is right twice a day…

But 20th-century authoritarianism seems to have been invariably accompanied by mass-murder sanctioned by the government in the name of protecting the state. This being the case, any argument you want to make for authoritarianism needs to explain this instead of labeling it “insulting.” You may find historical reality insulting, but that will not make it go away. (Right-wing folks on this forum are certainly quick to point to the nasty historical reality of socialism–and quite rightly so too.)

I will accept attacks on the individual murderous policies of certain leaders/States as are appropriate. What I found insulting was the blanket statement that “authoritarian = murderer”. While it may be common, muder is not an intrinsic quality of authoritarianism.

Again, the use of torture seems to be a necessary part of the establishment of an authoritarian regime under modern conditions (and indeed was endorsed by later medieval and early modern governments as well).

As with murder, to be authoritarian does not mean to torture. Although I accept that it did unfortunately happen.

There may be respects in which that was true. But the means by which Franco established power were clearly hellish, and unless I have been gravely misled the level of surveillance and terror employed by the government throughout his regime was totally incompatible with the dignity of the human person.

The means yes, but his regime was overall a good one, in fact closer to my ideal state because it did not to a large degree engage in agressive war. Policing a state is somewhat different from agressive militarism, and I would agree that any torture and any unnecessary execution was unwarranted.

Can you seriously claim that Franco’s regime did this? Did it respect the dignity of the thousands of Republican prisoners who were shot?

I did not claim that Franco’s regime did such nor do I think it did 100%. I said that such a state was my dream. And, while there were very very many flaws in Franco’s regime, I place it as one of the better regimes in the world, comparatively speaking…

Pax.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

The following article (which I said earlier I’d post) is my general response to this post (in 3 parts).

First, let me preface it by saying that, contrary to popular opinion, the Middle Ages, far from being “dark”, were in fact the “Bright Ages” of human progress. The real “Dark Ages” began with the Reformation, and tragic events which followed in the wake of that violent movement (see The Protestant Inquisition by Dave Armstrong).

How much learning was lost through the destruction of the monasteries and other institutions during the Reformation we may never fully know.

Exposing the Light of The “Dark Ages”

by C. D. Mcenniry C. SS. R. (written during World War I).

Part I.

When Miss Slagg, Registered Nurse, informed Father Casey that her charge had just sunk into a restful slumber and begged him not to disturb the patient until he awakened, the priest said, “Certainly,” and took a seat in the richly furnished room. He had scarcely succeeded in quieting his misgivings as to the deep leather arm chairs’ being actually bottomless, when he was constrained to flounder to his feet in order to greet Dr. Milbrook. Grasping the young physician’s hand, he cried heartily:

“Doctor, I have just learned that you are to sail for France (to help in the war effort) in the near future. Allow me to congratulate you on your courage and self-sacrifice. Mill Slagg tells me that she too will be included in this unit. May God’s blessing and protection go with you both!”

“And may we never return,” added the nurse, “Until American valor has crushed out the last vestiges of medievalism!” This tragic invocation came in the calm, even tone of the sick-bed attendant, schooled to strict self-control under every emotion.

Oh, what would not the clergyman have given for the relief of a few harmless “cuss words”! True, he had, in this time of public excitement, witnessed many cases of a mistaken use of words, of a befuddling of issues. Coming from the man in the street, such things made no impression upon him; they were to be expected; but coming from this professional woman, who was clearly above the average in intelligence and ability, they got on his nerves. Dr. Milbrook was the first to notice the cloud of displeasure that darkened the priest’s kindly face, and dropping unconsciously into the self-satisfied and condescending manner in which he was wont to command a nervous patient to get well, he said:

“Come, Father Casey, don’t be disturbed by Miss Slagg’s melodrama. What does it matter if Medievalism and Catholicism were so closely identified? We all know you down-to-date American Catholics too well to suspect you of being in sympathy with the principles embraced by you Church in the dark Middle Ages!”

Now, if Father Casey had received the thorough discipline in external conduct given to a registered nurse, he might have been able to return a sweet answer, but he hadn’t.

“The peculiar prerogative of my Church,” he said, “is that she does not change her principles. Churches founded by men may change with the changing notions and prejudices of men; but my Church was founded by Christ, and He promised to be with here to the end of time, holding her fast to the unchanging truth. Whatever principles the Catholic Church held in the Middle Ages, those same principles she and all her true children hold today.”

“Really, Father Casey –of course we know you have some way of explaining that statement so that it will not be so bad as it sounds – but, really, don’t you feel that it is imprudent just at this juncture to speak as though you were in sympathy with the Middle Ages?” ventured Miss Slagg.

“Why?” queried the priest. “For what reason do you consider the Middle Ages so much worse than the present age?”

“Oh, because – why, everybody – we have so many things that those poor ignorant people never dreamed of!”

“Yes,” assented the priest, “we have – let me see – we have lynchings and the drug habit and the white slave traffic and divorce and race suicide and child murder and bloodsucking trusts and I. W. W. and bad theater and yellow journals, and would you add, secret diplomacy. Yes, we have many things that they did not even dream of in the Middle Ages, for the Catholic Church had reclaimed them from paganism, and she was gradually forming them, both peoples and rulers, to live in accordance with the natural and divine law. Still, I don’t just see how that makes the Middle Ages so much worse than our own.”

While Miss Slagg was striving to rally her forces disorganized by this frontal attack, the physician interfered.

“It was the superstition of the Middle Ages,” he said, “that made them so dark and bloody. Why, even the highway robbers would burn candles to the saints to insure a big haul!”

“Doctor, nobody living in this year of grace can reproach former ages with being bloody – and, as for superstition, is there no superstition in the present age, when hotels must eliminate room number thirteen, when every fake fortune teller and dream book peddler finds easy money, when speculators and gambler and sporting men have their omens and their charms?”

“You will at least concede that the present age enjoys the great blessings of education and that the Middle Ages were ages of ignorance and illiteracy.”

“Concede nothing!” cried the priest. “Why man, do you never read of the latest historical research? Have you no knowledge concerning the subject we are discussing aside from the few childish statements made by the author of your antiquated school history, who never saw an original document in his life but blindly copied the fables published by other as ignorant as himself? Don’t you know the best scholars of today would be ashamed to refer to the Middle Ages as the Dark Ages? Don’t you know that in the thirteenth century, out of a population of twenty-five million there were fifty chartered universities and more student in proportion to population than in our universities today? Don’t you know that those universities had more liberty than in any American or European university of the present time?

“As early as 1445 Professor Kone of Leipzig University, in a public speech before the Duke of Saxony said: ‘No king, no chancellor, has any right to interfere with our privileges and exemptions. The University rules itself and changes and imposes its statutes according to its needs.’ Statesmen, yes, even kings and emperors, were obliged to consult the universities on important matters.”

“Small thanks to the Catholic Church!” The doctor was not used to being worsted in argument: it made him ugly. “The Popes had a dungeon cell got ready for every new scientist.”

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Exposing the Light of The “Dark Ages," Part II.

“The Pope made the universities possible. Such a grand chain of universities had to have some system of standardization to facilitate the transfer of professors and students from one to the other in the interests of scientific progress. This system of standardization was furnished by the Popes: they chartered the universities and conferred the degrees and set fixed requirements for both cases.”

“But they took care to prohibit women from leaving the drudgery of the home to participate in these benefits,” interposed Miss Slagg. “The poor creatures had not souls, you know, according to the belief of the medieval Church.”

“The roster of the medieval universities,” retorted Father Casey, “contains long lists of women students –not only students, but professors. There is not a single century since the twelfth in which there have not been women professors in the Italian universities.” He considered the second part of her accusation too crude to deserve recognition.

“Father Casey,” said the Doctor who had profited by the last few moments of reflection and was a little ashamed of his clumsy charge against the Popes, “we’re rambling. You called Miss Slagg to time for saying that America is in the war to crush Medievalism. I concede that her statement was too broad; had she modified it by saying political Medievalism, it would stand. Nobody denies that this is the age of democracy, while the Middle Ages were the ages of autocracy.”

“I, for one, deny that the Middle Ages were the ages of autocracy! The fundamental legislation upon which our modern political liberty has been built up was laid during the Middle Ages. When was the first English Parliament held? When was the English Common Law framed? When was the Magna Charta signed? When was the principle, ‘No taxation without representation,’ formulated? In the very middle of the Middle Ages!”

The nurse suddenly remembered that it was time to look after her patient. After some minutes she returned to say that the sick man was now ready to talk with the priest. Father Casey was mean enough to take advantage of her ministrations of mercy to reopen the debate which he knew very well she wanted to forget.

“Why, Miss Slagg,” he said rising, “there is you own profession, one of the noblest works of Christian charity to which any woman can consecrate her life. Of course, you have made a study of the history of nursing, and therefore you know that it reached a high degree of perfection during the Middle Ages. Garrison in his ‘History of Medicine,’ says, ‘The chief glory of medieval medicine was the organization of hospitals and sick nursing.’ There was a ‘Dark Period of Nursing,’ but it was not during the Middle Ages; it was in the comparatively recent times after our conceited moderns had forgotten the lessons handed down to them by their forbears. Nutting and Dock in their ‘History of Nursing,’ set the ‘Dark Period of Nursing’ from 1750 to 1850. The Medievals have been charge with cruelty towards their insane and feeble-minded. But in reality they invented the village and colony systems for the care of these afflicted persons which are becoming popular now. And,” he continued, turning to the physician, “what holds of nursing, holds even more forcibly of your Christ-like work.

“Of course you medical men cannot help laughing at some of the stupid remedies resorted to by medieval people – though you laughed at quite as much here some years ago when Collier’s and the Ladies’ Home Journal proved that most of the tonic medicines for which millions of dollars were paid every year in this country, were nothing but bad whiskey colored and made a little bitter. Ordinary people could be duped and doped with quack medicines during the Middle Ages just the same as now. But the question is, what of the physicians? What of the point reached in medical science – in surgery?

“I need not tell you, a physician, that only within the last quarter of a century have scholars begun to realize the high degree of perfection reached by the medical science during the Middle Ages. The last twenty-five years have seen the textbooks of half-a-dozen medical surgeons of the Middle Ages unearthed and republished, and these books prove that practically all operations that are now being performed were done in nearly the same way six hundred years ago. Nay, more, that the patient was kept under an anesthetic while on the operating table.

“Most of this science was lost in the years that followed the Middle Ages, and it took us all these centuries to bring our knowledge to a par with theirs. Closely allied with care of the sick is social service work, which many consider a modern invention. St. Elizabeth of Hungary, who lived in the thirteenth century, was, in the truest and most helpful significance of the term, a settlement worker; and she was but imitating what thousands of Christian women had done before her.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Exposing the Light of The “Dark Ages," Part III (final).

“Organized charity today has no superiority over the medieval guilds, which were charitable organizations of the finest kind. Remember, too, that old age pensions, disability wages, and all modes of fraternal insurance, often though to be quite modern, were organized by these same guilds.

"You people are pained when you hear us Catholics discrediting non-sectarian universities; but here are you two, a prominent physician and an expert nurse, both university graduates, and yet, despite the fact that such universally admitted authorities as Fiske, Freeman, Frederic Harrison, Macaulay, Hallam, have shown that the Middle Ages were the Bright Ages, you still hold to the ignorant fallacy that they were dark.

“If you are honestly desirous of learning the truth, read James J. Walsh. A study of his able works furnished me with my data on the subject. At least, if you want to pass as educated and honest, never again say that America is in this war to destroy the principles of the Middle Ages. Sixty-seven young men form my own parish are at this moment with the Colors either here or in France (during World War I). I will not allow a false charge to be preferred against them because they are not here to defend themselves. They owe the best that is in them to the Catholic Church which is the same today as it was in the Middle Ages. They are not fighting against the Middle Ages for the present age; they are fighting against Germany for the honor of America, for the lives and right of Americans. For this cause they will gladly give their lives. But as for the superiority of the present age over the Middle Ages, it is not noticeable enough to be worth a single drop of the blood of one of these brave boys.”

This article was republished in The Catholic Hearth Family Quarterly Magazine, Jan-Feb, 1993, pp. 1-2, 32-35.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Did it respect the dignity of the thousands of Republican prisoners who were shot?

Edwin

What about the allmost 7000 Catholic priests, religious brothers, seminarians, nuns and bishops that were murdered by the Spanish communists? I believe the Spanish communists murdered a total of 13 Catholic Bishops. In the Spanish Civil War one had to make a choice between Franco or the Communists. If the Communists won the war, how many millions of people would have been murdered?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

And what has America done to the unborn since roe vs wade?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

If you have an unsatisfied desire to be tortured, go to Iran, Libya, China, & other totalitarian states. You may find moving from one to another difficult, once your legs have been broken, so it’s best to choose which to go to sooner rather rather than later. Should you desire to be tortured in a particular way - by being forced to eat excrement or by having live electrodes attached to your genitals, for example - it is advisable to watch documentaries on breaches of human rights that take place in the various countries. Happy Torment !​

And what has America done to the unborn since roe vs wade?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Although the author does not make this claim, it seems pretty straightforward to credit Protestantism with modern democracy. Protestantism was not without royal entangling but because it lacked a papacy and a priesthood, it provided a theological justification for the priesthood of all believers and lacked any theological authority. Essentially anyone could offer a theological argument on equal standing and protestantism generally had to adapt itself to local conditions and popular opinion more than Catholicism. Additionally, there were several Protestant denominations which organized themselves democratically.

This led, ultimately, to challenging royal authority and demanding democratic representation in political institutions.

Yes, challenging royal authority and challenging the authority of the Catholic Church. That has given birth to a modern society in which truth is challenged. From those ideas governments that are divorced from all religion, like modern western Europe and America were formed. The child of the protestant revolt is the modern western world in which Abortion, same sex marriages, divorce, and pornography are all allowed.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes, challenging royal authority and challenging the authority of the Catholic Church. That has given birth to a modern society in which truth is challenged.

To be more precise, claims of all sorts are more readily challenged. Naturally enough, that includes true claims but it also includes false claims. And, on balance, this has led to the discovery of many new truths. Science, for example, is founded on the notion that scientific claims require proof and that all theories must stand ready to fall to new evidence. Democracy entails a constant testing of the popular opinion to determine the direction of government. Captialism, similarly, testing of consumer choices. And civil society, social and philanthropic choices.

The Catholic Church’s emphasis on authority seems to have inhibited the above and only when it was challenged, theologically, did human society begin to tap into the greater potential that science, democracy, capitalism, and civil society unleashed.

Did it have to be this way?

From those ideas governments that are divorced from all religion, like modern western Europe and America were formed. The child of the protestant revolt is the modern western world in which Abortion, same sex marriages, divorce, and pornography are all allowed.

Yes, this comes with the package.

One distinction that is frequently lost in such discussions is that among:

1. Catholic dogma, which is universal and unchanging but relatively narrow,
2. Canon law, which is universal but changable, and
3. Catholic culture, which is amorphous and flexible but not universal

As I noted before, there is nothing about science, democracy, capitalism, and civil society that contradicts Catholic dogma. And the changes that were made to canon law to accomodate them were negligable (the most obvious being redefining usary).

The problem, I think, is with Catholic culture which seems to rest on the authority of the CC rather the attributes that Protestantism unleashed.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Only given us universal suffrage, including the vote for women. Of course, if you would rather live in a country like Saudi Arabia, with plenty of access to torture, execution for homosexuality, lots of honour killings (if you’re a woman and your hubby or fiance doesn’t like you), mutilation for theft (a bit rough if you’re selfish enough not to be guilty), and similar delights - by all means go there.​

t !

Please, don’t forget what the United States of America did to the America Indians and to black people in the time of slavery. Our Republic has blood on it’s hands too. But the worst is what we are doing to the unborn.