I think we need to remind ourselves that the "Freedom" the fore-fathers

[applegrove]

talked about was FREEDOM from elites.

This included such novel things as 'free trade' so the monopolies were not with the elites & the landed gentry only - as they are soon to be with huge corporations destroying mid sized ones under deregulation.

Also FREEDOM implied the enlightenment. It was FREEDOM of thought, scientific knowledge and ideas that were no longer to be controlled by the elites and the church.

NEOCON FREEDOM:

Very important because the "FREEEEEEEEEDOM" bush talks about seems to involved mostly FREEDOM from good information. At least the neocons have been honest in that they hate the enlightenment.

For them FREEDOM is freedom from regulation & taxes for the elites & corporations. So that uber-elites & monopolies can result.

FREEDOM from choice for the vast majority of the electorate - so they can be controlled instead of the democracy controlling the corporations & the laws.

That isn't said enough. Freepers need to know what the meaning of the word FREEDOM is to Bush.

[ixion]

1. going from 1776 law to 2005 law

one can only conclude that we now live in a police state.

Our forefathers would be ashamed.

[eallen]

2. Importantly, we need to drive home that the GOP is fighting freedom.

More than anything else, what defines the GOP and creates a cohesive "conservative" ideology is the list of freedoms it tries to battle: gays' freedom to organize their relationships as they would, everyone's freedom to use birth control, women's freedom to terminate a pregnancy, citizens' freedom from a religious state, etc.

[lcordero2]

3. I hate to tell you but it is quite the opposite

Freedom is not something that the masses can get unless they/we take it by force. In the 18th and 19th century, the masses could not read(read the constitution?) or write...no public education = no rights. The rare poor people that could read and write were not afforded any rights anyway because "justice" and influence was, AND STILL IS, bought and sold.

[applegrove]

4. No. You are wrong. The freedom the forefathers wanted was freedom

from elite control. Bush is going back-wards. When he says he wants democracy in the middle east - he wants only neocon democracy where American corporations can dominate. If he really only wanted democracy in Iraq -he would have gone in with UN procurement laws and given the economic opportunity to SUnnis & shiites to keep them happy & busy. A big reason for war was so US firms could profit and keep the market roaring in a Keynesian way. For the rich.

He doesn't like Chavez and Chavez is a populist elected by the people. Elected to try and re balance the distribution of wealth in a very rich country so that a middle class can exist.

The only freedom bush is interested in is freedom from government regulation for the elites. And control of the national dialog by churches and such. And the diminishment of the great thinkers.

The fore-fathers dumped tea into a harbor not because they hated taxes - but because they hated taxes that went to elites (English). Once they got rid of england they proceeded to tax themselves enough to run a country properly.

You are terribly wrong.

It was taxation without representation from the very begining. Those first immigrants left for reasons of religious freedom, etc.

[lcordero2]

6. it's called "his-story" for a reason

his-story does not have to ever reflect the truth. The country was founded on lying, cheating, and stealing and NOTHING CAN EVER CHANGE THAT. The forefathers pushed garbage like slavery, manifest destiny, gave smallpox infested blankets to indians and tried their very best to exterminate them. This country like any country was built on the oppression and destruction of people, not the "freedom" of people.

[applegrove]

9. Oh they were hypocrites. And slavers. And liars. But they were

using the new ideas of the time. Some states didn't allow slavery or banned it pretty quick. Some of the "new ideas" involved trials for criminals, government law & order to stop crime, property rights for white men, etc.

These were things that were an improvement on the times before.

The enlightenment was one of the things that came with reformation and the idea that the bible should not be followed literally - the idea that slavery was bad came from the ideas of freedom being bandied about.

No doubt America has some myths they need to work through even today. The point is - Bush claims he is about "Freedom" the movement of the time to liberalism and the rights of man (not woman) when in fact they actually hate the enlightenment.

All Bush & the Rove WH want is a hierarchical structure of governance where the elites can rule through "chiefs" like churches and not have to bother with democracy.

The Elizabethan world view stated that there was an order to the world and that the royals were second from the top with God at the very top and slaves & women - somewhere just above animals. The enlightenment began to work away this notion of hierarchy.

The U.S. was horrifying late in applying rights & liberties to a huge portion of their population. Nobody is denying that.

But isn't it scary that what the neocons actually want is elizabethan?

[Wordie]

11. Enlightenment sowed the seeds of ideas that eventually abolished slavery.

Even if the people at the time just weren't there yet. They were not perfect people, but their ideas have gotten us as far as we've come, which is a lot better than ever was in the past.

At least we have the ability to speak our minds, as here on DU, and in time those ideas we are discussing now may make things better.

[lcordero2]

15. I'm not convinced in any way, shape or form

Before the 1930's the United States was a company town from coast to coast. People literally "owed their souls to the company store". Man, woman, and child had to work in factories almost 20 hours a day so that they could just get by. "Upward mobility" was only for the privileged few. In 1929, a depression didn't just "happen" it was manufactured. What they didn't tell you in the history books is that for some curious reason the same people and their descendants that have destroyed nation after nation for the recorded history of the past 1,000 or so years remained totally untouched and retained their ill-gotten wealth through a crash that they engineered. The purpose of the New Deal was to save the government at the time, not to save the people. 13 million people were unemployed, which was something like 25%...our real numbers are probably somewhat worst today. Add the 13 million people to the people that saw their wages drop and you will see a lot of angry people. The New Deal was an act of desperation for the government to save itself from a revolution...it had absolutely nothing to do with altruism. "Rights" and "prosperity" are carrots that are dangled and never given to the masses by the "elites".

[applegrove]

17. And since then, and until Bush, government goals have been no

depression and employment to at least a certain level.

Yes the industrial revolution was tough. But the 1920s, that decade you talk of as awful? That was the first decade where the poor could afford soap and the middle class could get food storage in a fridge. No it wasn't perfect but there was stuff that people could buy and use to make their lives better. The 1920s was the first time consumers became a really important thing.

I don't think that a fridge is a bad thing. Then they were ice boxes. No freon. Cheap soap meant that the poor were less vulnerable to disease.

Things did get better & better. Where alcohol was a problem - women got some power and said "no way - this is crap - our husbands are alcoholics". So they stopped it for a bit - until there was enough education in place to help alcoholics (didn't work perfectly). Also - it was the turn of the century where brave souls fought the battle for unions and in conjunction with churches - fought for law to stop child labor, 6 day work weeks, and the like. There were people working their asses off to make life better for people. Company towns did exist and at some point - they created enough capital for people to have jobs and lives that didn't revolve around farms. Farm life is really harsh. For people who didn't have alternate source of income - you lived feast or famine and worked all day long to make things for yourself. There was little free time.

All of a sudden people could borrow to buy a home. Or they could borrow to start a business and didn't have to rely on working as an apprentice for 15 and making crap. They could go to school It wasn't the rich who only lived in houses. It was many, many people who got a tiny spot of land.

That time you talk so angrily about was the time when the middle class began to exist. And FDR came along and harnessed government to the middle class. And Americans did fine as their companies exploited in outside countries - instead of the company towns they used to.

If you are against exploitation that you have to be for world trade. Not the standards that RW want - but the standards of the third wayers where some poor countries will be allowed monopoly over something like oil - for a time - until they get their houses in order. Until there is enough money floating around amongst them to support small business from within instead of the money all being sucked away by American company town corporations. This is what Chavez is doing. Taking un-used land from the rich and handing it to the poor so they can start that 19th cycle of owning enough land to send their kids to good public schools (if they get together with neighbours & pools an extra field each) and then moving up every generation.

De Soto is the favorite of third world economists. He points out the trouble with poor countries is that laws benefit the rich by being so hard to get around that only the rich have enough grease to make things happen. He talks about land reform & deeds and all those things necessary to happen internal to a country so that after working your ass off - you may actually have a tiny wee bit of wealth (excess money you have a choice with) so make for building a middle class.

If you dislike the middle class - i guess that is fine. The things you talk about were in fact the time when that wonderful middle class began to exist for more than just the bourgeoisie. Middle class happened for the majority of people.

If you dislike the middle class - you should join the neocons. They hate it. And are doing as much as possible to divide it into the have nothings middle class and the rich middle class.

Now the state can make for monopolies for the public good when an economy is sick and divided. And create enough money and spread it around fast enough to do the job capitalist one company towns used to do. It doesn't have to be a corporation. Chavez is an example of that. He needs money so he plans to take 30% of the oil profits to do the things he has to do to fix endemic poverty. There are a whole host of solutions.

Don't make fun of the 1920s. They were a time when people actually got some power - though they had to fight for it.

[lcordero2]

18. and we settled for too little

soap? ice boxes? we settled for too little. What should have happened was a total eradication of a class of human parasites.

The middle class had to exist because the "masters" had no other choice at the time, not because they "cared" about people. So-called "third wayers" are nothing but free traders. I want nothing to do with them, they only serve to leech off of developing countries.

If you think that Bush alone has made the US into a pariah then you are wrong. There are plenty of people that are angry because of interference by coup, World Bank/WTO, or "sanctions"...which are an act of war since sanctions constitute a siege.

[applegrove]

19. They tried eradicaiton of class in numerous places. It didn't work.

Communism is dead. And no - we didn't settle for soap and ice boxes. In case you didn't notice a DVD is normal in most homes - rich - poor - middle class. In case you didn't notice they have about done away with huge elites in many western countries in the world and there is socialized health care in lots of places. You are making all your notes on the USA. That hasn't been the world's experience..an elite that tries again and again to coopt democracy.

This isn't a communist thread. So I'll have to say bye bye.

[Wordie]

5. Good points...I say: Bring Back the Enlightenment!!!

I especially liked this part:
<snip>
Also FREEDOM implied the enlightenment. It was FREEDOM of thought, scientific knowledge and ideas that were no longer to be controlled by the elites and the church.

This means free flow of information. No embedded journalists, no phony news stories trumped up by some "journalist" on the payroll of some governmental agency, no mega-corp control of the airwaves.

No rewriting science textbooks to satisfy the right. No giveaway of tax money to religious organizations. (You get the idea.)

[applegrove]

7. Oh - i think there is room to fund outreach by churches. Nothing wrong

with that. Just so long as money redirected by FEMA does not go to support Pat Robertson's television channel. That is crap.

[Wordie]

8. I think blurring the line between church and state is a big mistake. Are

you saying it's a good idea?

[applegrove]

10. No. I am saying that funding churches happens all the time. Because

some of them do stand up jobs in the areas they choose to walk the walk in. Like any NGO - they can apply for funding. It happens. Don't want to see any government money going to pay off christian flunkies who try and help Bush find the next scapegoat & thirst for power & money.

But to assume that religious groups don't help anyone and don't do any great work is an outright lie about was has been going on in the last 50 years.

For sure Church should be separated from state. So should the arts. And hell - they get funding. Ever seen the great art the soviet propagandists came up with? Gorgeous & scary.

We talk at cross purposes.

[Wordie]

12. Keeping the separation of church and state is not criticism of churches.

I wholeheartedly agree that churches do a tremendous amount of good. The problem with saying that you want to fund some religious groups, but not others (pro-Bush), demonstrates the problem of NOT keeping the clear line between church and state. WHO decides?

And the issue about the arts is really very different, although I agree there is propagandist art.

[applegrove]

13. What I am saying is that - with the exception of Rudy - art is funded

by government and that separation of government & art is still in place. At least it used to be. The neocons want to fund movies that support the idea of military action and the like. And they do so. Perhaps in war it has always been the case that hollywood gets mixed up in politics & policy. McCarthy era too.


These nuts are for mixing "art & politics" and "church & politics". They get away with it because "AMERICA IS AT WAR".

When funding in the past was for "art" or "church programs that walked the walk" and things were kept separate. So to say there is funding for "church programs" in no way means the line between church & state is blurred. The line is blurred when the line is blurred and FEMA promotes Pat Robertson's Christian charity online - when half the funds will go to promote Pat Robertson's channel.

The funding isn't the issue of separation of church & state. The action of not following proper professional guidelines for getting funding is what is messing up the line between Church & state.

Some funding to churches is good. The political kind that doesn't follow professional standards of funding is wrong.

[Wordie]

14. You say the line becomes blurred at one point, Robertson would say another

That illustrates my point. The reason that there should be a strict separation is that once we decide it's ok to cross the line - just a bit, EVERYONE is going to see the place that the new line should be drawn DIFFERENTLY. So, the only solution is to not cross the line - even just a bit - at all.

[applegrove]

16. The line should be drawn at some measure of effectiveness in

helping to make the lives of citizens better as stated in the goals of the funding proposal.

GOP jump all over waste. Well - we can start to show them waste. Any church that accepts money has to account for it. And that is what should be looked into.

And I am sure it will.

[bluedawg12]

20. We fund "arts" for the greater good so we should fund churches?

Church do good for the community.

But, other than the issue of monitoring how the funds are used, are they for the poor, housing, shelters, food drives,etc. there are other problems more subtle than actually seeing whee the money went?

There is another problem, arts speak with no authority, churches claim to represent another authority and, in fact, in civil life many now claim their church speaks with a higher authority than man made laws. Ex cathedra, so to speak.

So, while art may be jingoistic, patriotic, or even subversive, it does not speak in any real organized way and it does not speak with a moral authority rivaling law.

I don't argue that churches don't do good, but I do argue that their good acts reflects on themselves and ties in with proselytizing.

Ultimately you can get an accounting of how many items for the poor were provided by federal funds given to a church but you can not monitor the message from the pulpit.

I remember that in our community,the parish priest told voters that they should vote for shrub, and that good people of faith could not for a man who believed in abortion. How do you monitor that speech and the power that he gained from tax payers money that made him and his church important to the needy. You cannot.

There are NGO's, but they should not include tax payers money to RO's- let the faithful do their duty with their donations.