I'm Right, You're Wrong
May 3, 2021
G.D.O'Bradovich III
part the first
The United States of American has been fortunate as it is physically isolated from the political and religious intrigues of Europe. Yet, our Founding Fathers were the intellectual heirs of the political and philosophical thoughts of the European Enlightenment. To this end, our founders rejected Divine Revelation and sought a political society based upon the meaning of man in nature and the purpose of man in civilization. Unlike western Europe, we have largely avoided religious wars. Modern Americans are wholly ignorant of the persecutions in northern Ireland for those Irish speaking in the ‘wrong’ accent or for individuals crossing themselves ‘wrong’ in Serbia during World War II. The religious persecutions in noncommunist Europe ended in 1945. Apprentice Tyler observed that perusal of the list of groups National Socialist Germany persecuted compares favorably to a list of heretics and schismatics of the Roman Catholic Church.
We interpret the persecutions by Nazi Germany throughout Europe as intolence towards the enemies of the Roman Church. These overt actions were disguised under political and racial positions. After the world war, the Roman Church dropping the Good Friday call for the ‘perfidious Jews’ to convert to Christianity. Currently, the Roman Church Church maintains that it alone possesses the fullness of Christianity. This position is unchanged from previous centuries, nonetheless the manner that it presents itself, vis a vis the heretical protestants and schismatic Orthodox, seems reconciling, not condemning. Yet, history is clear: whenever the Roman Church is in a position of power, it does not compromise.
Many European countries and countries founded by European powers have experienced civil wars, However, none of these wars were over the issue of slavery. For example, the United Kingdom simply outlawed slavery throughout its colonies without much resistance. While the United States may be the single exception that proves the rule that Europeans do not have civil wars over slavery, legitimate doubt remains.
Although the issue of slavery is held up as the reason for the American Civil War, this could not be the actual reason, as Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri were ‘slave’ states, but remained in the American Union. Unlike the Confederate States, these border states were not in rebellion. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation [January 1, 1863] applied not to slave states in the Union, but to the states in rebellion.
The issue of states rights is an issue particular to the United States and as early as 1814 certain states of New England discussed succession and, of course, these were not ‘slave states’. The legal idea that states that freely joined the Union could freely leave may be found in the Bill of Rights, where the right of individuals to peaceably assemble could reasonably be understood as the right of states, or groups of individuals, to assemble in the American Union and to dissemble from the Union. The act of choice should be understand as an application of Natural Law. However, since the Lincoln presidency, states are like the guests in the ‘Hotel California’- ‘You can check-out any time you like, but you can never leave.’
From the inconsistencies discussed above, it is clear that reasons for the American Civil War cannot be found either in the issues of slavery or state’s rights. A reading of the Constitution of the Confederate States reveals its dependence on the American Constitution. As the additions and omissions necessary for the protection of the institution of slavery indicate, the founders of the Confederacy thought the American Constitution was a workable framework for a republic. Unlike the the secular and humanistic Constitution of the American Union, the preamble of the Confederate states explicitly states the religious or theological basis for the Confederacy:
We interpret the persecutions by Nazi Germany throughout Europe as intolence towards the enemies of the Roman Church. These overt actions were disguised under political and racial positions. After the world war, the Roman Church dropping the Good Friday call for the ‘perfidious Jews’ to convert to Christianity. Currently, the Roman Church Church maintains that it alone possesses the fullness of Christianity. This position is unchanged from previous centuries, nonetheless the manner that it presents itself, vis a vis the heretical protestants and schismatic Orthodox, seems reconciling, not condemning. Yet, history is clear: whenever the Roman Church is in a position of power, it does not compromise.
Many European countries and countries founded by European powers have experienced civil wars, However, none of these wars were over the issue of slavery. For example, the United Kingdom simply outlawed slavery throughout its colonies without much resistance. While the United States may be the single exception that proves the rule that Europeans do not have civil wars over slavery, legitimate doubt remains.
Although the issue of slavery is held up as the reason for the American Civil War, this could not be the actual reason, as Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri were ‘slave’ states, but remained in the American Union. Unlike the Confederate States, these border states were not in rebellion. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation [January 1, 1863] applied not to slave states in the Union, but to the states in rebellion.
The issue of states rights is an issue particular to the United States and as early as 1814 certain states of New England discussed succession and, of course, these were not ‘slave states’. The legal idea that states that freely joined the Union could freely leave may be found in the Bill of Rights, where the right of individuals to peaceably assemble could reasonably be understood as the right of states, or groups of individuals, to assemble in the American Union and to dissemble from the Union. The act of choice should be understand as an application of Natural Law. However, since the Lincoln presidency, states are like the guests in the ‘Hotel California’- ‘You can check-out any time you like, but you can never leave.’
From the inconsistencies discussed above, it is clear that reasons for the American Civil War cannot be found either in the issues of slavery or state’s rights. A reading of the Constitution of the Confederate States reveals its dependence on the American Constitution. As the additions and omissions necessary for the protection of the institution of slavery indicate, the founders of the Confederacy thought the American Constitution was a workable framework for a republic. Unlike the the secular and humanistic Constitution of the American Union, the preamble of the Confederate states explicitly states the religious or theological basis for the Confederacy:
We, the people of the Confederate States ... invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
Franklin T. Lambert writes in ‘The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America’ [pg. 11]:
By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic.
Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.
part the second
The claims of the Stuarts for the throne of the United Kingdom and the unavoidable conclusion that the current monarch is an usurper does not occupy minds of its citizens, likewise, the claims of the Bourbons is an unresolved issue only to the most ardent French Royalists. Unlike contemporary Europeans, the military failures of the American Civil War are not ancient curiosities for a large portion of citizens in the southern states. The final Union victory is the historical antecedent that is forever in the forefront of many southerners, as ‘intolerable’ injustices are daily inflicted by various aetheistic court rulings and by the secular northern Federal legislature.
In conclusion to this part, the unresolved issue from the American Civil War is neither slavery nor reparations nor the equality of men before the law nor state’s rights, but the extent of religious beliefs outside of religious buildings, specifically, and the interpretation and position of the Bible, generally. The merit of the Bible is presumed by many Americans. This presumption exists without argument or evidence, that is, the merit of the Bible is a recent extra Biblical oral tradition.
We focus on the Southern Baptists as they are the largest protestant group in America and were active before the American Civil War, founded in 1845. The following quotations from Richard Furman’s ‘Exposition, 1822, serves as the Biblical position of slavery:
In conclusion to this part, the unresolved issue from the American Civil War is neither slavery nor reparations nor the equality of men before the law nor state’s rights, but the extent of religious beliefs outside of religious buildings, specifically, and the interpretation and position of the Bible, generally. The merit of the Bible is presumed by many Americans. This presumption exists without argument or evidence, that is, the merit of the Bible is a recent extra Biblical oral tradition.
We focus on the Southern Baptists as they are the largest protestant group in America and were active before the American Civil War, founded in 1845. The following quotations from Richard Furman’s ‘Exposition, 1822, serves as the Biblical position of slavery:
Had the holding of slaves been a moral evil, it cannot be supposed, that the inspired Apostles ... would have tolerated it, … surely, where both master and servant were Christian ... they would have enforced the law of Christ, and required, that the master should liberate his slave ...
[But,] they let the relationship remain untouched, as being lawful and right ... In proving this subject justifiable by Scriptural authority, its morality is also proved; for the Divine Law never sanctions immoral actions.’
According to Furman, slavery is justified by ‘Scriptural authority’ and, thereby, it is a moral system. Furman concludes that it is moral, as Divine Law cannot sanction immoral behavior. This exegesis is refreshing, since it does not rely upon the Old Testament, but relies upon the observation that the Apostles do not condemn slavery. Of course, the assumption that slavery was widespread in the New Testament needs to be explored.
The word ‘slave’ occurs once in the King James Bible, in Jeremiah 2:14. The word ‘slaves’ occurs once in the King James Bible, in Revelation 18:13. The word in Revelation [Strong’s Number G4983, σῶμα, sōma] is translated as: body (144 times), bodily (once), and slave (once). It follows that Revelation 18:13 should read:
And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves G4983 [bodies], and souls of men
The word ‘servant’ occurs 492 times in the King James Bible.
The King James Bible translates G3816 παῖς, pais, as: servant (10 times), child (7 times), son (Christ) (twice), son (once), manservant (once), maid (once), maiden (once), and young man (once).
The King James Bible translates G1401, δοῦλος, doulos, as: servant (120 times), bond (6 times), and bondman (once). In our mind, there is a difference between a servant and a slave or bondman. If δοῦλος means ‘slave’, then we would expect this translation of δοῦλος.
Occurrences of G1401 in the Acts of the Apostles:
The word ‘slave’ occurs once in the King James Bible, in Jeremiah 2:14. The word ‘slaves’ occurs once in the King James Bible, in Revelation 18:13. The word in Revelation [Strong’s Number G4983, σῶμα, sōma] is translated as: body (144 times), bodily (once), and slave (once). It follows that Revelation 18:13 should read:
And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves G4983 [bodies], and souls of men
The word ‘servant’ occurs 492 times in the King James Bible.
The King James Bible translates G3816 παῖς, pais, as: servant (10 times), child (7 times), son (Christ) (twice), son (once), manservant (once), maid (once), maiden (once), and young man (once).
The King James Bible translates G1401, δοῦλος, doulos, as: servant (120 times), bond (6 times), and bondman (once). In our mind, there is a difference between a servant and a slave or bondman. If δοῦλος means ‘slave’, then we would expect this translation of δοῦλος.
Occurrences of G1401 in the Acts of the Apostles:
And on my servants G1401 [slaves] and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: Acts 2:18
And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, G1401 [slaves] that with all boldness they may speak thy word, Acts 4:29
The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants G1401 [slaves] of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. Acts 16:17
From the context of these passages, ‘servants’ is a better translation than ‘slaves’, as asking the Lord to give to your ‘slaves’ boldness and the wording of the ‘slaves’ of the most high God do not seem theologically sound. One can serve the Master without being a slave. Therefore, confusion exists in the King James Bible translation regarding the proper translation of δοῦλος.
The Civil War and subsequent Constitutional amendments brought an end to slavery, but the Bible continues to be upheld as the source for Divine Revelation. The historical harvest from this modern opinion included the prohibition of women voting, prohibition of sales of alcohol, and prohibition of interracial marriage. Needless to say, these positions are historical curiosities and are either conveniently forgotten or, more likely, never known by current congregants of the Southern Baptist Churches.
The Civil War and subsequent Constitutional amendments brought an end to slavery, but the Bible continues to be upheld as the source for Divine Revelation. The historical harvest from this modern opinion included the prohibition of women voting, prohibition of sales of alcohol, and prohibition of interracial marriage. Needless to say, these positions are historical curiosities and are either conveniently forgotten or, more likely, never known by current congregants of the Southern Baptist Churches.
part the third
Slaves were marginalized by southern society, so it was socially acceptable to dominate them, until it was not.
Women were marginalized by society and it was socially acceptable to disparage them for wanting to vote, until it was not.
People who enjoyed ‘adult beverages’ became marginalized, and it was socially acceptable and legal to prosecute them, until it was not.
Individuals who wanted ‘same sex marriage’ were marginalized by society and it was socially acceptable to dismiss and disparage their wishes, until it was not.
Therefore, we conclude that modern Christians, generally, and Southern Baptists, specifically, animusly target certain groups that are on the fringes of society until it becomes socially unacceptable.
While the Southern Baptist convention has endured 13 consecutive years of declining membership, we have no doubt the denomination will continue. If ‘half of all SBC churches will close their doors permanently by the year 2030’, this will be indicative of fewer younger members joining an organization that does not ‘allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.’
Unfortunately for the future America, the worldview of ‘I’m right, you’re wrong.’, which was chiefly the domain of religion, can now be easily found in the political arena. This migration from the religious to political can be dated from the early 1970s when the religious opinions of outspoken personalities, like Anita Bryant, culminated in ‘The Moral Majority’ and similar groups in the 1980s. While these narrow views are not now shared by the majority of Americans [if polling results are accurate], they have a receptive audience, generally speaking, in rural areas and the southern states. A result of IRYW is that little or no common understanding exits among Americans.
The genesis of IRYW is found in novel position is that the current Bible, or a presumed original that is no longer extant, is both inerrant and the infallible ‘Word of God’. Of course, reasonable people can disagree about the interpretation of facts, but when no facts are presented, it follows that there cannot be an agreement or the acknowledgment of a common premise for discussion. Yet, many individuals erroneously reason that agreement on opinions is the basis for determining truth and that a consensus is the best manner for a course of action.
Let us be clear: The tribal position of ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’ is deliberate. If one does not agree with the Bible believer, then one described a ‘fallen’, called a ‘sinner’, or, more generally, under the influence of Satan.
Women were marginalized by society and it was socially acceptable to disparage them for wanting to vote, until it was not.
People who enjoyed ‘adult beverages’ became marginalized, and it was socially acceptable and legal to prosecute them, until it was not.
Individuals who wanted ‘same sex marriage’ were marginalized by society and it was socially acceptable to dismiss and disparage their wishes, until it was not.
Therefore, we conclude that modern Christians, generally, and Southern Baptists, specifically, animusly target certain groups that are on the fringes of society until it becomes socially unacceptable.
While the Southern Baptist convention has endured 13 consecutive years of declining membership, we have no doubt the denomination will continue. If ‘half of all SBC churches will close their doors permanently by the year 2030’, this will be indicative of fewer younger members joining an organization that does not ‘allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.’
Unfortunately for the future America, the worldview of ‘I’m right, you’re wrong.’, which was chiefly the domain of religion, can now be easily found in the political arena. This migration from the religious to political can be dated from the early 1970s when the religious opinions of outspoken personalities, like Anita Bryant, culminated in ‘The Moral Majority’ and similar groups in the 1980s. While these narrow views are not now shared by the majority of Americans [if polling results are accurate], they have a receptive audience, generally speaking, in rural areas and the southern states. A result of IRYW is that little or no common understanding exits among Americans.
The genesis of IRYW is found in novel position is that the current Bible, or a presumed original that is no longer extant, is both inerrant and the infallible ‘Word of God’. Of course, reasonable people can disagree about the interpretation of facts, but when no facts are presented, it follows that there cannot be an agreement or the acknowledgment of a common premise for discussion. Yet, many individuals erroneously reason that agreement on opinions is the basis for determining truth and that a consensus is the best manner for a course of action.
Let us be clear: The tribal position of ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’ is deliberate. If one does not agree with the Bible believer, then one described a ‘fallen’, called a ‘sinner’, or, more generally, under the influence of Satan.
Catholic Centrists wanted to create conditions in [Weimar] Germany which would make it easier for the individuals to save their souls; Socialists denied the existence of souls and divided people into classes; the German Nationalists were interested in language and culture; while the National Socialists put the main stress on race. Whereas some looked at pocketbooks, others at the pigmentation of the skin or the index of the skull, fruitful discussions became impossible. When the speaker of one party indulged in his oratory, the others walked out. It was not worthwhile to listen to somebody's opinion when you knew that his premises were all wrong. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, 1943
If no discussion about the Bible can take place, then one cannot reasonably conclude what place, if any, this book has in contemporary America. This, too, is by design, as these ideal minded individuals want the Bible to displace the Constitution, the second American Republic as a Christian Republic. The exact implementation of using the Bible as a template for a Republic is never discussed, as foresight and planning are not the domain of the majority. Since the Bible cannot be the basis for individual morality due to explicit contradictions, it cannot serve as the moral basis for a society. Yet, resentment, no matter how motivating and powerful and sincere, cannot, by itself, alter our constitutional republic.
Of course, the only country that existed upon a Biblical principle was the Confederate States of America, until it was not.
Of course, the only country that existed upon a Biblical principle was the Confederate States of America, until it was not.