The psychology of political correctness

That's the beauty of evidence Faith, you do not have to take my word for evidence. As I pointed out, you can still buy 1920's textbooks today and read them for yourself. It's not necessary to take anyone's word for it; not mine, not Dodd's.

It's just odd that you don't seem to have any interest at all in the strong likelihood that the supercapitalist endowment Foundations put their money into manipulating the American education system. I find Dodd's testimony quite believable of course, there's so much detail, wherever his memory may oossibly have failed it wouldn't affect the main point of it.Also, the idea that their doings were/are unconstitutional was the conclusion of the Reece Committee, not me, the charge being that they sought to change the political nature of America without bothering to follow the Constitutional means given for doing that.The idea that a few superwealthy people could plot to turn the nation into something they expect to benefit from personally should be just a little, well, annoying, I would think. But maybe not if they've already succeeded in brainwashing people to think Communism is a good thing. Something of the same has been going on at the international level for centuries, and it looks like it's going to suck us all up into the One World Government pretty soon, leaving America a mere shell of its former properous self.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I was talking about a very first phase when "Marxist" was part of the title. It's hard to remember and name other influences although surely they existed. It's just that the Frankfurt School and the work of Marcuse in particular, and others like Norman O. Brown and Wilhelm Reich, who were associated with them, were read by most of us during the 60s and had a very definite effect.The thing about sexual freedom, which you like so much, is that it has brought a lot of social problems with it, such as a high rate of divorce with its devastating effect on children, single mothers and incredibly high rates of abortion, and it's very probably liberated some criminal tendencies in some men and increased the child molestation/murder rate, rape rate etc., enormously.It's also of course a violation of God's Law, which is the main thing people are happy to be rid of, God's Law which would confine sex to marriage and treats cross-dressing as sin for instance. The big problem here is that violations of God's Law bring down God's judgment on a nation, such things as economic destruction, social chaos, crime, foreigners moving in and taking over, failed military actions. These consequences are spelled out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We're just at the beginning of all that but I think the trends are clear. Too bad, the idea of freedom the fallen nature likes so much is really a recipe for social disaster.

And it could be argued that repressing sexual freedoms has 10 times the negative effect. The irony is that 9 out of 10 times, the countries suppressing sexuality are Islamic... which you hate... and yet they're so similar to your belief system. Not to mention the majority of them are failed states. Secretly you must be delighted at the fact that ISIS throws homosexuals off buildings and stones harlots. Is that about accurate? Which explains perfectly why Europe and North America are vastly more prosperous than the countries that don't violate God's law. That's some judgment! Send the Taliban my regards! Your mouth seems to water at the thought of the sinners perishing in exquisite agony. Be careful what you wish for, as Jesus was mostly concerned with the Pharisees. Perhaps you're not quite as close to the good Lord as you might think. Separating the Wheat from the Tares!; the Goats from the Lambs!

Wow was that an excoriating personal attack. You have certainly learned the rap. Not a single true word in anything you said. And you think you're not PC. God's judgment develops over time, which you might know if you spent much time in the Bible. God gave Canaan over four hundred years to develop their sins to the point that they deserved His judgment.The trends to disaster are already underway in America and Europe, however. Our prosperity is the reward of our previous Christian character, the loss of it is only about half a century old, give it time.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I learned from the best! Ahhhh, his judgment cometh and that right soon! Well, Paul definitely thought he would see the Rapture in his life time. Meanwhile, 2,000 years later....

I'm talking about what the Bible SAYS about the timing of prosperity and judgment, and it says a lot to clue us to what to expect. I'm not talking about when the curtain comes down on history -- that timing is not to be known to anyone. And by the way, I've never subscribed to the pre-trib Rapture theory although I'd certainly like it to be true.However, on the subject of earth's final days since you raised it, I'm quite sure there has never before been a time in the history of the Church when so many different branches are sounding so certain that the last days are upon us. For decades we've been hearing rumblings that it's coming, but now we're getting teachings on how to live through it when it comes, and from very unlikely branches of the church. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's always been like that... every generation claims that it's going to hell in a handbasket, etc, etc.

So you think you can get away with contradicting me with an old tired clich. Try paying attention.I just said it has NOT been like that. Previous rumblings are NOT what we are seeing now, that was my point and I'm sure you are too out of touch to see it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm arguing that it has been like that. Always -- since the Church began

AND I CLEARLY SAID IT HASN'T BEEN LIKE THIS, and I certainly know your clich history as well as you do.And don't smilie-wink at me when you are telling vicious lies about me either.

Right, and Armageddon tired of it!

The roots of progressivism in the US go back to the 1890's. The Communist Party USA wasn't founded until 1919.Perhaps they had a time machine. --Percy

Actually I vigorously support such activities. For example, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was started by Carnegie in 1905 and chartered by Congress in 1906 to serve just that purpose. For a Congressional Committee to come along in 1954 and announce the stunning conclusion that an organization chartered in 1906 to provide input and guidance in education was providing input and guidance in education and like everything else in those crazy days part of the "Red Menace" is a great example of the utter ignorance of so many politicians and voters but little else.***************AbE: It is interesting to look at some of the contemporary reactions to the Reece Committee report in light of today's Congress.The two Democrats on the committee found the report so flawed that they would not even sign it. The Minority Report charged that the foundations "have been indicted and convicted under procedures which can only be characterized as barbaric." and said the Chairman of the Committee had a "deep-seated antagonism toward foundations" which might "well be characterized as pathological."The Republican Goodwin of Massachusetts included "In signing this report, I do so with strong reservations and dissent from many of its findings and conclusions and with the understanding that I may file a supplementary statement to follow" and in his supplementary statement disagreed with the conclusions and pointed out that this commission came to exactly the opposite conclusion of the Cox Committee that research the same subject just two years earlier.To added to the embarrassment that was the Reece Committee any testimony supporting the foundations was summarily cut off while testimony critical of the foundations was allowed in full. A great example of that was the fact the committee allowed three full days of testimony by the attorney Aaron Sargent who claimed "income tax was part of a plot by Fabian Socialists operating from England to pave the way for socialism in this country."******************* Again, unless there is some evidence to support that assertion it doesn't mean any more than all the other Red Menace crap from the period. Yet you seem utterly unable to provide any support for such assertions and innuendo.Edited by jar, : see AbEEdited by jar, : appalin spallin

Are you saying that Article 3 doesn't set up the Supreme Court to make decisions on the constitutionality of things? Well, unless we're talking sexual assault and rape we're all good then.