Under my regime, we will put an end to no fault separation in the context of employment. You will not be able to be fired without having committed a crime against your boss or company. Similarly, you will not be able to quit unless your boss or company has committed a crime against you. Thank you for your time.
Going to be putting forward, each day at 10:00 PM, some info on the supposedly Christian foundation of these United States. Stay tuned.
Posts:
1. Franklin’s Plea for Light
2. The Consensus Against Mandated Christianity
3. The Unfashionable Founders & Dissent Against Article VI
4. It was the Jews!
Posts:
1. Franklin’s Plea for Light
2. The Consensus Against Mandated Christianity
3. The Unfashionable Founders & Dissent Against Article VI
4. It was the Jews!
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
Going to be putting forward, each day at 10:00 PM, some info on the supposedly Christian foundation of these United States. Stay tuned. Posts: 1. Franklin’s Plea for Light 2. The Consensus Against Mandated Christianity 3. The Unfashionable Founders & Dissent…
FRANKLIN'S PLEA FOR LIGHT
On June 28th of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was frustrated with the lack of progress made towards establishing a new government. He claimed that the Convention seemed to lack political wisdom, and that it was "running around in search of it." They looked towards ancient states as well as those of 18th century Europe, but found none of them satisfactory.
Franklin, recognizing that they were lost in the dark, recommended asking "the Father of Light" for assistance. In other words, he wanted future meetings to begin with a prayer asking God for help in making the correct decisions, suggesting that empires do not rise without His assistance, and that without the aid and approval of God, America will do "no better than the builders of Babel."
These were mere men, Franklin claimed, and they needed God's help. But they weren't willing to ask for it.
Alexander Hamilton sharply criticized Franklin, claiming that they would be censured by the people if they started praying every morning.
Hugh Williamson suggested that they didn't have enough money, that they couldn't afford it.
Our great founders then voted to adjourn the meeting and the issue was never discussed again, as “the Convention, except three or four persons, thought Prayers unnecessary.”
Back to the ToC.
On June 28th of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was frustrated with the lack of progress made towards establishing a new government. He claimed that the Convention seemed to lack political wisdom, and that it was "running around in search of it." They looked towards ancient states as well as those of 18th century Europe, but found none of them satisfactory.
Franklin, recognizing that they were lost in the dark, recommended asking "the Father of Light" for assistance. In other words, he wanted future meetings to begin with a prayer asking God for help in making the correct decisions, suggesting that empires do not rise without His assistance, and that without the aid and approval of God, America will do "no better than the builders of Babel."
These were mere men, Franklin claimed, and they needed God's help. But they weren't willing to ask for it.
Alexander Hamilton sharply criticized Franklin, claiming that they would be censured by the people if they started praying every morning.
Hugh Williamson suggested that they didn't have enough money, that they couldn't afford it.
Our great founders then voted to adjourn the meeting and the issue was never discussed again, as “the Convention, except three or four persons, thought Prayers unnecessary.”
Back to the ToC.
E. Michael Jones
The Trump regime proves that St. Augustine was right when he claimed that all empires are criminal conspiracies.
In other news, the existence of this pug proves that all dogs are pugs.
Driving down some back country roads, listening to a greatest hits collection of John Denver that I found at a thrift shop this morning, when the song changes.. I'm met with horror and disgust as Mr. Denver starts talking about the importance of voter registration and how we live in a democracy and nobody's vote should be seen as more important than anybody else's. I think I'm going to sit in silence the rest of the trip. It's going to take a long time to recover from this assault. Pray for me.
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
Going to be putting forward, each day at 10:00 PM, some info on the supposedly Christian foundation of these United States. Stay tuned. Posts: 1. Franklin’s Plea for Light 2. The Consensus Against Mandated Christianity 3. The Unfashionable Founders & Dissent…
THE CONSENSUS AGAINST MANDATED CHRISTIANITY
August 30th of 1787. Charles Pinckney suggested adding a proposition to Article VI. It read: "But no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the authority of the United States."
It passed.
In fact, it passed unanimously.
Not a single person at the Convention, it seems, was in favor of requiring that federal office holders be Christian.
Did anybody raise the possibility during discussion? No. But...
Roger Sherman of Connecticut did raise an objection to Pinckney's proposal. He thought that it was unnecessary. Why was it unnecessary? Because of, as Madison recalls him saying, "the prevailing liberality being a sufficient security against such tests."
In other words, the only person who spoke against the ban on religious testing, against the ban on requiring that holders of federal office be Christian, did so because he believed the culture of the United States was already so open and tolerant that the idea of the government imposing a religious test was absurd to begin with.
Back to the ToC.
August 30th of 1787. Charles Pinckney suggested adding a proposition to Article VI. It read: "But no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the authority of the United States."
It passed.
In fact, it passed unanimously.
Not a single person at the Convention, it seems, was in favor of requiring that federal office holders be Christian.
Did anybody raise the possibility during discussion? No. But...
Roger Sherman of Connecticut did raise an objection to Pinckney's proposal. He thought that it was unnecessary. Why was it unnecessary? Because of, as Madison recalls him saying, "the prevailing liberality being a sufficient security against such tests."
In other words, the only person who spoke against the ban on religious testing, against the ban on requiring that holders of federal office be Christian, did so because he believed the culture of the United States was already so open and tolerant that the idea of the government imposing a religious test was absurd to begin with.
Back to the ToC.
Forwarded from Donkey's Comfy Foodposting
Been a hot minute since I posted food on my food channel, eh?
Please check out my new hit political film against the left: "What is a Breakfast?"
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
Please check out my new hit political film against the left: "What is a Breakfast?"
[EXT. TIMES SQUARE - DAY]
Poor holds a microphone, stopping a tourist who is eating a bagel.
POOR:
Excuse me, sir. You are engaging in a religious ritual. You are eating that bread circle. Why?
TOURIST:
Uh, ‘cause it’s morning? And I’m hungry.
POOR:
The idea of "breakfast" as a distinct meal didn't exist for most of human history. It is a modern invention, a result of the Industrial Revolution requiring workers to fuel up before entering the factory. You are essentially fueling a machine. Do you feel like a machine?
TOURIST:
Dude, I just like cream cheese.
POOR:
*Nods solemnly, gravely* The blue pill...
TOURIST:
The what? Leave me alone.
POOR:
You think you are eating, but you are actually being eaten by the system.
Poor holds a microphone, stopping a tourist who is eating a bagel.
POOR:
Excuse me, sir. You are engaging in a religious ritual. You are eating that bread circle. Why?
TOURIST:
Uh, ‘cause it’s morning? And I’m hungry.
POOR:
The idea of "breakfast" as a distinct meal didn't exist for most of human history. It is a modern invention, a result of the Industrial Revolution requiring workers to fuel up before entering the factory. You are essentially fueling a machine. Do you feel like a machine?
TOURIST:
Dude, I just like cream cheese.
POOR:
*Nods solemnly, gravely* The blue pill...
TOURIST:
The what? Leave me alone.
POOR:
You think you are eating, but you are actually being eaten by the system.
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
Please check out my new hit political film against the left: "What is a Breakfast?"
[INT. UNIVERSITY OFFICE - DAY]
Poor sits across from Dr. Sheila Evans, a cheerful nutritionist.
POOR:
I want to ask a simple question. A question that any healthy society would have a clear answer for: What... Is... A... Breakfast?
DR. EVANS:
*Smiles* Well, breakfast is simply the first meal of the day. It breaks your fast that your body experienced while you slept.
POOR:
"Simply." You use that word as if it carries no ideological weight. Let’s dig in. If I wake up at 4:00 PM and eat a steak, is that breakfast?
DR. EVANS:
Technically, yes. Because it’s your first meal. It would break your fast from sleeping.
POOR:
But if I go to a diner at 4:00 PM and order "breakfast," they give me eggs. They don't give me the steak. So there is a disconnect between the temporal definition and the content definition. Who mediates that conflict? Is it the state? Maybe Harvard?
DR. EVANS:
*Looks around confusedly* It’s just... it's just a menu category.
POOR:
A "menu category." Interesting. So it’s a protocol. It’s a distributed algorithm enforced by the culinary elites to ensure we consume the right products at the right times. You’re admitting that "breakfast" is a social construct maintained by the Synopticon?
DR. EVANS:
I... I’m just saying oatmeal is good for your heart. You should eat a bowl of oatmeal in the morning when you can.
POOR:
*To camera, deadpan* She can’t define it. She can only recite the lines she's received from the USDA.
Poor sits across from Dr. Sheila Evans, a cheerful nutritionist.
POOR:
I want to ask a simple question. A question that any healthy society would have a clear answer for: What... Is... A... Breakfast?
DR. EVANS:
*Smiles* Well, breakfast is simply the first meal of the day. It breaks your fast that your body experienced while you slept.
POOR:
"Simply." You use that word as if it carries no ideological weight. Let’s dig in. If I wake up at 4:00 PM and eat a steak, is that breakfast?
DR. EVANS:
Technically, yes. Because it’s your first meal. It would break your fast from sleeping.
POOR:
But if I go to a diner at 4:00 PM and order "breakfast," they give me eggs. They don't give me the steak. So there is a disconnect between the temporal definition and the content definition. Who mediates that conflict? Is it the state? Maybe Harvard?
DR. EVANS:
*Looks around confusedly* It’s just... it's just a menu category.
POOR:
A "menu category." Interesting. So it’s a protocol. It’s a distributed algorithm enforced by the culinary elites to ensure we consume the right products at the right times. You’re admitting that "breakfast" is a social construct maintained by the Synopticon?
DR. EVANS:
I... I’m just saying oatmeal is good for your heart. You should eat a bowl of oatmeal in the morning when you can.
POOR:
*To camera, deadpan* She can’t define it. She can only recite the lines she's received from the USDA.
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
Please check out my new hit political film against the left: "What is a Breakfast?"
[INT. COLLEGE CLASSROOM]
Poor interviews a Professor of Food Studies.
Poor:
If I say that "Dinner is not Breakfast," am I engaging in hate speech?
PROFESSOR:
Well, strict rigid categorizations of meals are rooted in colonial thinking. "Breakfast" can be dinner. It can be a snack. Breakfast is a spectrum.
POOR:
So, "breakfast" is merely a signal to you? It lacks truth value? If I eat pancakes at midnight, I am signaling subversion. But if I eat them at 8 AM, I am signaling compliance.
PROFESSOR:
I think you’re overthinking panca—
POOR:
*Interrupting* It's not about the damn pancakes. It's about power. Cthulhu swims slowly, but he always swims toward those pancakes. Why is that?
PROFESSOR:
*Uncomfortably maneuvers to the classroom's entrance and swiftly exits.*
We hear a rapid, uneven pattern of thuds and slaps outside the classroom, quickly growing distant, getting quieter.
Poor interviews a Professor of Food Studies.
Poor:
If I say that "Dinner is not Breakfast," am I engaging in hate speech?
PROFESSOR:
Well, strict rigid categorizations of meals are rooted in colonial thinking. "Breakfast" can be dinner. It can be a snack. Breakfast is a spectrum.
POOR:
So, "breakfast" is merely a signal to you? It lacks truth value? If I eat pancakes at midnight, I am signaling subversion. But if I eat them at 8 AM, I am signaling compliance.
PROFESSOR:
I think you’re overthinking panca—
POOR:
*Interrupting* It's not about the damn pancakes. It's about power. Cthulhu swims slowly, but he always swims toward those pancakes. Why is that?
PROFESSOR:
*Uncomfortably maneuvers to the classroom's entrance and swiftly exits.*
We hear a rapid, uneven pattern of thuds and slaps outside the classroom, quickly growing distant, getting quieter.
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
Please check out my new hit political film against the left: "What is a Breakfast?"
[EXT. A RUGGED UPPER PENINSULA CLIFFSIDE NEAR COPPER HARBOR - DUSK]
Poor stands looking out over Lake Superior, wearing a trench coat with a red and black plaid pattern.
POOR (V.O.):
We live in a world where we cannot define the basic parameters of our existence. We cannot define even the basic things that provide us sustenance. We cannot define a breakfast. We are adrift in a sea of semantic slurry.
CUT TO MONTAGE:
People eating toast, confused looks, factory lines of cereal boxes, a clip of FDR signing a bill, footage of Soviet Soldiers eating American butter.
POOR:
To ask "What is a Breakfast?" is to ask "Who rules me?" Is it my biology? Or is it a marketing executive at Quaker Oats who decided in 1923 that I cannot function without toasted grains? Perhaps it's the Quaker ideology that has taken over this country, which is accepted by nearly all the responsible people of this nation.
*Poor turns to the camera.*
POOR
I decided to stop eating. Not because I am not hungry. But because I refuse to participate in the democratic process. The only way to win is to not take a bite.
*FADE TO BLACK*
TEXT ON SCREEN:
WHAT IS A BREAKFAST?
A Daily Poor / Todd Placeholder Production
*SCROLLING TEXT*
THE CREDITS END WITH:
"Actually, fasting is the only reactionary position."
Poor stands looking out over Lake Superior, wearing a trench coat with a red and black plaid pattern.
POOR (V.O.):
We live in a world where we cannot define the basic parameters of our existence. We cannot define even the basic things that provide us sustenance. We cannot define a breakfast. We are adrift in a sea of semantic slurry.
CUT TO MONTAGE:
People eating toast, confused looks, factory lines of cereal boxes, a clip of FDR signing a bill, footage of Soviet Soldiers eating American butter.
POOR:
To ask "What is a Breakfast?" is to ask "Who rules me?" Is it my biology? Or is it a marketing executive at Quaker Oats who decided in 1923 that I cannot function without toasted grains? Perhaps it's the Quaker ideology that has taken over this country, which is accepted by nearly all the responsible people of this nation.
*Poor turns to the camera.*
POOR
I decided to stop eating. Not because I am not hungry. But because I refuse to participate in the democratic process. The only way to win is to not take a bite.
*FADE TO BLACK*
TEXT ON SCREEN:
WHAT IS A BREAKFAST?
A Daily Poor / Todd Placeholder Production
*SCROLLING TEXT*
THE CREDITS END WITH:
"Actually, fasting is the only reactionary position."
The way a town or city is constructed tends to reflect the metaphysical priorities of that place.
For centuries, most areas' tallest building was their Church. This is ideal. Physical height invokes spiritual status; the Church is the highest point in the town, implying its inhabitants value God above all else.
That was the tradition for centuries. What does the modern way suggest?
Big cities construct immense architecture that dominates the sky in a way unimaginable to our ancestors. And, since the skylines of these modern major cities are dominated by corporate headquarters, financial centers, and luxury real estate, the architectural implication is that economic power has displaced spiritual authority as the highest priority of the culture.
What about smaller areas? What about modern towns? Well, the Church being the tallest building in a modern town is obviously way more likely than in a city, but it's still uncommon. More frequently, the tallest buildings in such places will be high rise apartment complexes. This suggests that the individual’s private life, personal comfort, and domestic existence are the supreme goods. They have placed humanity and private life, not God, at the apex of value.
One might be tempted to say "retvrn" here, but this is merely a symptom of modern crisis. And while you probably can't fix the culture, you can at least put an effort into putting God first in your own life.
For centuries, most areas' tallest building was their Church. This is ideal. Physical height invokes spiritual status; the Church is the highest point in the town, implying its inhabitants value God above all else.
That was the tradition for centuries. What does the modern way suggest?
Big cities construct immense architecture that dominates the sky in a way unimaginable to our ancestors. And, since the skylines of these modern major cities are dominated by corporate headquarters, financial centers, and luxury real estate, the architectural implication is that economic power has displaced spiritual authority as the highest priority of the culture.
What about smaller areas? What about modern towns? Well, the Church being the tallest building in a modern town is obviously way more likely than in a city, but it's still uncommon. More frequently, the tallest buildings in such places will be high rise apartment complexes. This suggests that the individual’s private life, personal comfort, and domestic existence are the supreme goods. They have placed humanity and private life, not God, at the apex of value.
One might be tempted to say "retvrn" here, but this is merely a symptom of modern crisis. And while you probably can't fix the culture, you can at least put an effort into putting God first in your own life.