The Constitution Separates Church And State,except For Healthcare

[Winchester]

"Health insurance" may not be a right, but nationalized healthcare seems to of necessity flow from love of neighbor. As for this country, it is a country. One nation, like many others. Currently no better or no worse. It was historically to those of its citizens who were not Protestants, were not white, and were not male a horrifying place to live. Dismiss this as revisionism if you want, but tested against the stark light of Scripture and the Christian ideal this enlightenment project was a horrible failure.

 

So if C needs healthcare, B can use force to obtain funding for that healthcare from A?

 

That one should help is a settled matter. One should. Nationalized healthcare doesn't operate on should. It operates on shall.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Winchester

[StMichael]

There is simply no reason to devolve to the lowest common denominator to support a socialist agenda.

 

And, while I am an obedient Roman Catholic, I will not have you falsely claim that I am doing anything in anyone's name.

 

It is obvious you have a hatred for this country, so you feel that way and that is a far bigger issue you need to seek out information beyond your college incubator.

 

The Church does not profess, in any way, shape or form, that good deeds, regardless of how big or small, are done in a collective by a central governmental body forcing them to do so. If I want to help, I do so directly. I am not saved because our imperial President seizes my money and gives it to you.

 

And as far as history goes, blacks were not the only ones enslaved during Colonial times. This grave sin extended to poor whites as well.

 

 

 

 

 

In Jesus's name, please DO stop conflating Republican rhetoric with Christian revelation. Collectivism/corporatism (note I do not say atheistic communism) is not hellish.

 

You might do with reading Augustine's city of God. The notion that providing people with government funded healthcare is some kind of moral failure, but the largest forced migration in human history, holding millions of people in hereditary bondage (which included the near universal rape of African women by their white "Christian" masters and the overseers they employed), denying them the right to vote or even live with a reasonable expectation that their families would not be sold, their young men, would not be killed, etc. is ludicrous. You are either a troll or someone's woefully misinformed  16 year old who needs to turn off Fox news and pick up the Sources of Christian Doctrine (firstly and most needfully the Bible, but for this nonsense the Magisterial teaching of the Roman Church will also do as a profound rebuke).This country's good old days were not good for the majority of its citizens it is SATANIC to suggest that they were.
 

 

[Evangetholic]

Poor whites were not enslaved. You are playing wildly and pornographically with words. Indentured servitude=/=slavery. You are either lying or ill-informed.

 

 

[Evangetholic]

The worship of nation states (not obedience to their laws or sane and wholesome patriotism) is madness. Everything on this earth is born in corruption and death. It will all fall away. Only the Church of Christ (by which I do not mean to indicate any particular institution) is destined to survive, and she will only survived because she has been purchased at a great cost and can stand assured that the gates of hell will not prevail against her. I do not hate this country, but it like most countries throughout human history stands as it has always stood--at enmity with Almighty God and the life giving Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am no longer participating in this thread, I violated my rule of "non-engagement" with brethren on political matters I disagree about (it exposes Christ to the ridiculing eyes of those who are still perishing in their sins).

 

God's Peace

[StMichael]

Sadly, you refuse to learn what you don't know.

 

There were white slaves sold side by side with blacks and there were actually black slave holders, in fact the very first slave owner in the colonies was a black man named Anthony Johnson

 

Anthony Johnson came to the American colonies in August, 1619 as an indentured servant. In 1623 Johnson had completed his indenture and was recognized as a free negro. In 1651 he acquired 250 acres of land in Virginia, later adding another 250 acres; a sizable holding at the time.

John Casor, a black indentured servant employed by Johnson, became America's first slave after a legal dispute with Robert Parker. Parker was a white colonist who employed Casor while Casor was still indentured to Johnson. Johnson sued Parker in Northampton Court in 1654. The court upheld Johnson's right to hold Casor as a slave on March 8, 1655. The court found:

The court seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master ... It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit.

Five years later, in 1670, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting blacks and Indians the right to own slaves of their own race, but prohibiting them from owning White slaves.

 

Please feel free to do some research before ignoring the grave sins of all men against other men, regardless of color, creed, etc.

 

 

Poor whites were not enslaved. You are playing wildly and pornographically with words. Indentured servitude=/=slavery. You are either lying or ill-informed.

 

[Evangetholic]

There were no North American white slaves. None--not even ONE. There were however black slaveholders.  Do you not understand the difference between indenturing (a contract entered into more or less freely with a terminal date) and slavery as practiced in North America (one man claiming the right even of life and death over another)? You are either playing a cruel and ungodly game here or you are pitiably in need of further research on slavery (or a holy and discerning silence). 

Support provided by:

Indentured Servants In The U.S.

Indentured servants first arrived in America in the
decade following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in
1607.

The idea of indentured servitude was born of a need for cheap labor.
The earliest settlers soon realized that they had lots of land to care
for, but no one to care for it. With passage to the Colonies expensive
for all but the wealthy, the Virginia Company developed the system of
indentured servitude to attract workers. Indentured servants became
vital to the colonial economy.

The timing of the Virginia colony was ideal. The Thirty Year's War
had left Europe's economy depressed, and many skilled and unskilled
laborers were without work. A new life in the New World offered a
glimmer of hope; this explains how one-half to two-thirds of the
immigrants who came to the American colonies arrived as indentured
servants.

Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for
passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. While the life of an
indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn't slavery. There
were laws that protected some of their rights. But their life was not an
easy one, and the punishments meted out to people who wronged were
harsher than those for non-servants. An indentured servant's contract
could be extended as punishment for breaking a law, such as running
away, or in the case of female servants, becoming pregnant.

For those that survived the work and received their freedom package,
many historians argue that they were better off than those new
immigrants who came freely to the country. Their contract may have
included at least 25 acres of land, a year's worth of corn, arms, a cow
and new clothes. Some servants did rise to become part of the colonial
elite, but for the majority of indentured servants that survived the
treacherous journey by sea and the harsh conditions of life in the New
World, satisfaction was a modest life as a freeman in a burgeoning
colonial economy.

In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws
in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given
the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws
were soon passed – in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 –and
any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants.
Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for
land. The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude.
Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and
ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to
racial slavery had begun.

http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/indentured-servants-in-the-us/

 

[Winchester]

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-forgotten-white-slaves-part-ii-nehesy/

[Evangetholic]

And I defy you little man to show me an example of me ignoring anyone's "grave sin."  You seem to have confused me with yourself in this instance. I call the founders what they were, namely wicked men. You offer me examples of other wicked men and then as best I can tell tell a naked lie about American history. For  what reason?

[Winchester]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076

[Evangetholic]

Indentured servitude still will not be made slavery no matter how many links are given.

 

Edited February 9, 2013 by Evangetholic

[Winchester]

And I defy you little man to show me an example of me ignoring anyone's "grave sin."  You seem to have confused me with yourself in this instance. I call the founders what they were, namely wicked men. You offer me examples of other wicked men and then as best I can tell tell a naked lie about American history. For  what reason?

 

What's up with calling him a "little man"? You mad?
 

Indentured servitude still will not be made slavery no matter how many links are given.

 

"

The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners
as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish
political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the
West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to
Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of
Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for
English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World
were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and
another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from
about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped
apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and
children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless
population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to
auction them off as well."
 

Not just talking about indentured servitude.

 

 

"If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was
never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than
killing a more expensive African."

Edited February 9, 2013 by Winchester

[Evangetholic]

What's up with calling him a "little man"? You mad?
 

 

"

The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners
as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish
political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the
West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to
Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of
Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for
English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World
were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and
another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from
about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped
apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and
children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless
population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to
auction them off as well."
 

Not just talking about indentured servitude.

 

That the English were wicked to the Irish is not news. Caste based slavery as practiced in the area that became the United States is the conversation I'm having. I know nothing about Montserrat. I do know that no whites were enslaved in the area that became the United States or in the United states itself thereafter. I call him little man because he angers me. And because the other things I'd like to call him are apt to get me banned.

[StMichael]

Really, this is the 3rd reply to me with nothing close to kindness.

 

Whites were slaves up until the Civil War, just like blacks and indians. They were sold side by side with blacks at auctions. Black slaveowners existed up until the end of the Civil War.

 

The people of the times felt they could enslave non-Christians and this was regardless of skin color. And many of the white slaves were Scottish.

 

"Alexander Stewart was herded off the Gildart in July of 1747, bound with chains.  Stewart was pushed onto the auction block in Wecomica, St Mary’s County, Maryland.  Doctor Stewart and his brother William were attending the auction, aware of Alexander being on that slave ship coming from Liverpool England.  Doctor Stewart and William were residents of Annapolis and brothers to David of Ballachalun in Montieth, Scotland.  The two brothers paid nine pound six shillings sterling to Mr. Benedict Callvert of Annapolis for the purchase of Alexander.  He was a slave.  Alexander tells of the other 88 Scots sold into slavery that day in “THE LYON IN MOURNING” pages 242-243."

 

 

According to the U.S. Census report in 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves.  Out of a population of 27 million whites only eight million  lived in the South, and out of this population fewer than 385,000 owned slaves. In short, the total white population own about 1.4, while the southern white population own about 4.8 enslaved Africans.

On the other hand the black population in 1860 was 4.5 million, with about 500,000 living in the South.  Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves.  Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans.  In New Orleans over 3,000 free blacks owned slaves, about 28 percent of the free Black population in the city.

 

Really, one shouldn't lash out when being enlightened to the truth, but feel free to research on you own.

 

And I defy you little man to show me an example of me ignoring anyone's "grave sin."  You seem to have confused me with yourself in this instance. I call the founders what they were, namely wicked men. You offer me examples of other wicked men and then as best I can tell tell a naked lie about American history. For  what reason?

 

Edited February 9, 2013 by StMichael

[Evangetholic]

You are responding to me as if I have said many white people owned slaves. Very few white people owned slaves. Very few black people owned slaves. Very few "Indians" owned slaves. The slaves that were owned by all three of those groups were black. This is not mythology. This is not a liberal fantasy. This is American history. No one in this country was chattel unless they were descended (in whole or part) from Africans.  You are correct about my lack of charity in response to you--you might consider examining your own posts to see why that is the case--but even failing you doing so, I have been wrong, in the way I've responded to you. If you have been bought by Christ you are a holy thing and deserving of my deference, my respect, my kindness, and my love. I apologize to you and I repent before the eyes of this church (that's what it is) and her Lord.

And I descend from some something like 12 mixed race Catholic, free, French speaking, slaveholding families not to mention from the Lees, the Jeffersons, and the Washingtons (from two of his siblings), Pocahontas, and virtually every one of the first families of Virginia--I am not an advocate of ancestral guilt (save only guilt in Adam).  

I'll add further that the Biblical theology of slavery is NOT that slavery is forbidden, but that it is a) an undesirable state to subject a man to b) slaves are not subhumans who are to be subjected to the kinds of abuse and genocidal destructiveness (U.S.) American slavery entailed.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Evangetholic

[Winchester]

I do know that no whites were enslaved in the area that became the United States or in the United states itself thereafter.

 

Virginia and New England. Not parts of the United States.

 

One learns something new, every day, I suppose.