The Cult of Lincoln

[Bikenut]

I'm going to go off on a bit of a tangent.... a tangent that includes Lincoln and some other leaders that the History books and media portray as "heros". A tangent that isn't directed at any individual poster(s)....

I think, my opinion if you will, that the real cult isn't one of Lincoln or any other leaders but those leaders are merely figureheads of the cult of.... authority. It seems there are many folks who need some authority to set and impose limits so they can "feel" safe as long as they don't exceed those limits. And government is the biggest authority with the most power to enforce limits there is.

Lincoln isn't the only President that the History books portray as being a great leader. Unfortunately some of our Presidents have been, and are, willing to ignore the Constitution and laws because they are more concerned with their own personal legacy and agenda than they were/are with doing what is best for the entire country.

Sadly there are many folks who just accept what they are told through textbooks and the media and are unable to even consider the concept of questioning authority having the authority to be the... authority.

Ok.... back to discussing what one individual President named Lincoln did to enhance and entrench the authority of the government.

 

[solus]

The tangential "house Jack built" conclusions here are easily dismantled.

First the states representatives in both the house of congress are not choosen across state lines. This means they represent the people in each respective state. They do not represent the general population.

Also there is this quote from Madison......

Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation then the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national Constitution.

Please behave yourself and stop the insinuations , if you wanted a cite or where I came by my statement simply ask.

especially since piper's cites for his dogmatic postings are negligible at best...

ipse

 

[solus]

I'm going to go off on a bit of a tangent.... a tangent that includes Lincoln and some other leaders that the History books and media portray as "heros". A tangent that isn't directed at any individual poster(s)....

I think, my opinion if you will, that the real cult isn't one of Lincoln or any other leaders but those leaders are merely figureheads of the cult of.... authority. It seems there are many folks who need some authority to set and impose limits so they can "feel" safe as long as they don't exceed those limits. And government is the biggest authority with the most power to enforce limits there is.

Lincoln isn't the only President that the History books portray as being a great leader. Unfortunately some of our Presidents have been, and are, willing to ignore the Constitution and laws because they are more concerned with their own personal legacy and agenda than they were/are with doing what is best for the entire country.

Sadly there are many folks who just accept what they are told through textbooks and the media and are unable to even consider the concept of questioning authority having the authority to be the... authority.

Ok.... back to discussing what one individual President named Lincoln did to enhance and entrench the authority of the government.

but bike, et al., what school child is going to have the gumption (let alone their parents) to challenge their instructors. even at the university level, professors are not teaching understanding but rather rote memorization of facts (read as concepts) etc. even in the advanced degree program(s) understanding of the learner's subject material is 'guided' by the student's mentor who will disapprove any variance from 'their perceived norm' .

as mentioned previously, my hero is/was Lincoln, as well as FDR for that matter, gleaned basically from the material i read ~ read out of books if you will as al's invention didn't exist back then ~ which are now apparently being shown to me as extremely biased. (eh i take majority with a grain of salt but never anticipated the bias was so pervasive)

the question arises then, how do we instill this critical thinking questioning of the material back into our educational system so the grain of salt is all there is of any bias?

ipse

 

[Bikenut]

but bike, et al., what school child is going to have the gumption (let alone their parents) to challenge their instructors. even at the university level, professors are not teaching understanding but rather rote memorization of facts (read as concepts) etc. even in the advanced degree program(s) understanding of the learner's subject material is 'guided' by the student's mentor who will disapprove any variance from 'their perceived norm' .

as mentioned previously, my hero is/was Lincoln, as well as FDR for that matter, gleaned basically from the material i read ~ read out of books if you will as al's invention didn't exist back then ~ which are now apparently being shown to me as extremely biased. (eh i take majority with a grain of salt but never anticipated the bias was so pervasive)

the question arises then, how do we instill this critical thinking questioning of the material back into our educational system so the grain of salt is all there is of any bias?

ipse

Yep, the cult of authority is alive and well since folks are conditioned from birth through school child to adults to not question authority in the form of their instructors, professors, police, government officials, and the laws that control their lives.

How do we get folks to begin to question whether a form of authority has the authority to be in authority? Through discussions like this on the internet that can cause folks to question what they have been taught and accepted as unquestionable truth resulting in personal research to learn the whole story, the big picture of both good and ill, instead of just one side that supports an agenda of keeping authority in power as authority.

That might sound like wishful thinking but it has worked for me. And it sounds like it has worked for you in regards to Lincoln. I no longer just accept what I'm told/what I read or see as truth because I know it is only one half (or less) of the entire truth presented by someone who has something to gain by manipulating the truth.

Edited to add:
When enough folks question a form of authority then those folks can change what that authority is allowed to have authority over. Like the content of textbooks and curriculum from kindergarten to college. The trick is to get folks to question..... and this discussion has already done that for some.

 

[solus]

Yep, the cult of authority is alive and well since folks are conditioned from birth through school child to adults to not question authority in the form of their instructors, professors, police, government officials, and the laws that control their lives.

How do we get folks to begin to question whether a form of authority has the authority to be in authority? Through discussions like this on the internet that can cause folks to question what they have been taught and accepted as unquestionable truth resulting in personal research to learn the whole story, the big picture of both good and ill, instead of just one side that supports an agenda of keeping authority in power as authority.

That might sound like wishful thinking but it has worked for me. And it sounds like it has worked for you in regards to Lincoln. I no longer just accept what I'm told/what I read or see as truth because I know it is only one half (or less) of the entire truth presented by someone who has something to gain by manipulating the truth.

i have been critically thinking for the last 25 or so years, i just never applied it to 'stored' knowledge if you will.. i know for a fact some educators i have I/F'd with wish i hadn't been so darn critical and irreverent on a myriad of items.

i am intelligent enough so you can give me both sides w/minimal bias and let me decide...then i'm fine...if i make an error...tis i who made in good faith not from anybody's slanted information based on their perception of their world through rose colored glasses.

ipse

 

[Bikenut]

i have been critically thinking for the last 25 or so years, i just never applied it to 'stored' knowledge if you will.. i know for a fact some educators i have I/F'd with wish i hadn't been so darn critical and irreverent on a myriad of items.

i am intelligent enough so you can give me both sides w/minimal bias and let me decide...then i'm fine...if i make an error...tis i who made in good faith not from anybody's slanted information based on their perception of their world through rose colored glasses.

ipse

We are on the same page...

 

[solus]

Howard Gabennesch, Skeptical Inquirer Volume 30.2, March / April 2006

"Nearly everyone is in favor of critical thinking. This is evidence that the term is in danger of becoming meaningless."

darn, nightmare, guess i'm glad i got my learn'g & injection of practitioner critical thinking skills before the concept(s) became meaningless...
guess i'm truly lucky ~ huh?

tho shame you apparently only quoted the cite's headline...

quote gabennesch's article:
But I offer the following definition for consideration: Critical thinking is the use of rational skills, worldviews, and values to get as close as possible to the truth. Here, critical thinking is conceived as consisting of three essential dimensions: skills, worldview, and values.
By critical thinking skills, I mean the various higher-order cognitive operations involved in processing information, rather than simply absorbing it: analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, explaining, evaluating, generalizing, abstracting, illustrating, applying, comparing, recognizing logical fallacies. unquote.

quote Gould same article:
Only two possible escapes can save us from the organized mayhem of our dark potentialities-the side of human nature that has given us crusades, witch hunts, enslavements, and holocausts. Moral decency provides one necessary ingredient, but not nearly enough. The second foundation must come from the rational side of our mentality. For, unless we rigorously use human reason . . . we will lose out to the frightening forces of irrationality, romanticism, uncompromising “true” belief, and the apparent resulting inevitability of mob action . . . Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism-and is therefore one of the keys to human social and civic decency.
unquote
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/critical_thinking_what_is_it_good_for_in_fact_what_is_it

i wish some would exercise health skepticism and throw out their emotionalized rhetoric they so ferociously cling to so their minds might, just might grasp differing concepts.
ipse

 

[OC for ME]

I recognize what his growth of the federal government enabled. But ...

It is not the growth of the federal governmt, that is on We The people, it his acts to preserve the union. Using unconstitutional acts is being too kind.

Which portion? The one where Utah--...

Nope.

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; Provided, That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

Lincoln has long been dead at this point and his "let them be" policy died with him.

What is ironic and sad is that most Southerners east of Kansas seem to have little care for what is happening in the West.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Was/is the South required to "care", at all, about what was/is happening in the western states/territories.

I think this is where we have to ask ourselves who it is that is controlling the federal government. ...

Is Utah unique/alone where the feds mistreat a state?

I don't see many State legislators or city council members in ANY States ...

OK.

It’s been a good week for tax reform. In the past few days, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, Nebraska governor Dave Heineman, and Kansas governor Sam Brownback have all called for their states to eliminate their income taxes and replace the revenue with sales taxes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/338875/states-income-tax-repeal-revolution-francis-deluca

We don't have some distant king ruling over us. We have our neighbors who would rather be on the federal dole than stand on their own with freedom. The enemy is not some amorous distant government; it is our own neighbors across the nation. Generally regardless of party affiliation, or region, or history.

Charles

A low regard of your fellow citizen...unfortunate.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

And why people who feel that way should have a right to secede from others.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I'm going to go off on a bit of a tangent.... a tangent that includes Lincoln and some other leaders that the History books and media portray as "heros". A tangent that isn't directed at any individual poster(s)....

I think, my opinion if you will, that the real cult isn't one of Lincoln or any other leaders but those leaders are merely figureheads of the cult of.... authority. It seems there are many folks who need some authority to set and impose limits so they can "feel" safe as long as they don't exceed those limits. And government is the biggest authority with the most power to enforce limits there is.

Lincoln isn't the only President that the History books portray as being a great leader. Unfortunately some of our Presidents have been, and are, willing to ignore the Constitution and laws because they are more concerned with their own personal legacy and agenda than they were/are with doing what is best for the entire country.

Sadly there are many folks who just accept what they are told through textbooks and the media and are unable to even consider the concept of questioning authority having the authority to be the... authority.

Ok.... back to discussing what one individual President named Lincoln did to enhance and entrench the authority of the government.

Thanks for the tangent.

I think it is part of the big problem, yet for somereason people seem to need to attach a figure head to the worship. I for one do not find it coincidental that on Liincolns throne below his armrests are symbols very closely related to fascism. An important part of fascism is having a strong cult like leader.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The fasces long preceded Lincoln and fascism of Mussolini/Hitler, first appearing in Etruscan Sumeria as a tool, and evolving into a symbolic object not unlike a mace, the axe haft symbolizing the state strengthened by the bundle of people as the bound rods. The Fasces are integral to vast US symbolism.

Bound and tied instead of voluntary...

If a spouse leaves the other spouse and this makes the one being left mad so they beat up the one leaving and force them to stay with threat of more violence, is it a strong union?

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Bound and tied instead of voluntary...

If a spouse leaves the other spouse and this makes the one being left mad so they beat up the one leaving and force them to stay with threat of more violence, is it a strong union?

Sure, that's what brainwashing is for.

Stockholm syndrome.

Propaganda.

Toss in some redistribution of wealth.

Adopt an 'internationalist' political doctrine.

And lastly let immigration water down any real cultural memory.

Then party like it's 1999, as Rome does a slow burn.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Sure, that's what brainwashing is for.

Stockholm syndrome.

Propaganda.

Toss in some redistribution of wealth.

Adopt an 'internationalist' political doctrine.

And lastly let immigration water down any real cultural memory.

Then party like it's 1999, as Rome does a slow burn.

You think we ought to limit immigration as a manner to preserve tradition? I can't get on board with that.

 

[Citizen]

You think we ought to limit immigration as a manner to preserve tradition? I can't get on board with that.

I can't, either.

If by cultural memory and tradition, Dave was referring to Italian cooking, Irish parades, etc., I would have to be openly opposed. However, I kinda doubt he was referring to that.

If by cultural memory and tradition, Dave was referring to liberty, Founding documents, and so forth, then I would definitely be worried. The anarchist in me says no "government" has a legitimate right to arbitrarily agree with other "governments" which geography each shall rule (establish borders) and exclude "unwanted" or "undesirable" human beings. On the other hand, plenty of newcomers seem to arrive desiring handouts and freebies (socialist bent).

I guess it really comes down to figuring out a way to educate the newcomers.

Alternatively, would a region of libertarians or anarchists be able to legitimately exclude a bunch of socialist-inclined immigrants as a matter of self-defense?

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Possibly, if they maintain legitimate ownership(s) of the land and control in such a way as to not deny others certain rights (can't buy up land to imprison someone or deny access to land legitimately owned, etc).

But the state is largely at fault for creating huge incentives for the unlawful and low quality immigration in the first place... If people came to America to pursue a genuine American dream (as many have done in the past, with great success, and which requires hard work and productivity) instead of to pursue a government teat to attach to, we'd probably be receiving higher quality immigrants. In other words, if we didn't have the government teats in the first place, we likely wouldn't have so many people coming here to attach to them.

 

[Citizen]

Possibly, if they maintain legitimate ownership(s) of the land and control in such a way as to not deny others certain rights (can't buy up land to imprison someone or deny access to land legitimately owned, etc).

But the state is largely at fault for creating huge incentives for the unlawful and low quality immigration in the first place... If people came to America to pursue a genuine American dream (as many have done in the past, with great success, and which requires hard work and productivity) instead of to pursue a government teat to attach to, we'd probably be receiving higher quality immigrants. In other words, if we didn't have the government teats in the first place, we likely wouldn't have so many people coming here to attach to them.

Good points.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Lincoln influenced the culture of the west with his land giveaway too. I'm fairly certain the folks already living there were not happy with his migration policies.....

 

[solus]

snip...
On the other hand, plenty of newcomers seem to arrive desiring handouts and freebies (socialist bent).

I guess it really comes down to figuring out a way to educate the newcomers.

snip

i guess citizen, et al., quote:
U.S. public high schools recorded a four-year graduation rate of 80 percent for the 2011-12 school year, an all-time high.

Graduation rates vary greatly by state and race. Nationwide, black students graduated at a rate of 69 percent; Hispanics graduated at 73 percent; whites graduated at a rate of 86 percent. unquote

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/e...chool-graduation-rates-by-race-ethnicity.html

why not education our own as well so our society's young adults are appropriately educated to function within our communities, as you can see isn't being done at the moment.

now, if ya'l want to integrate (mainstream if you will) those new visitor(s) into our society while we are attempting to educate our own citizens, i will bite off on your scheme.

be warned ~ chiding coming...
"NEWCOMERS" really? surely you were raised better than that. let's take your silly butt and slap you in the middle of middle east and say this is your new home...btw, english isn't understood so you might wish to discern how you are going to communicate for your remainder of your life.

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

If by cultural memory and tradition, Dave was referring to liberty, Founding documents, and so forth, then I would definitely be worried. The anarchist in me says no "government" has a legitimate right to arbitrarily agree with other "governments" which geography each shall rule (establish borders) and exclude "unwanted" or "undesirable" human beings. On the other hand, plenty of newcomers seem to arrive desiring handouts and freebies (socialist bent).

...

Alternatively, would a region of libertarians or anarchists be able to legitimately exclude a bunch of socialist-inclined immigrants as a matter of self-defense?

Alternatively, would a region of republican constitutionalists be able to legitimately exclude a bunch of anarchists immigrants as a matter of self-defense?

No society can exist long if it admits new comers as full and equal partners without regard to how those newcomers view the culture into which they are being admitted. It is one thing to let large oceans or other geographic barriers limit the influence other cultures can impose on you. It is quite another to wake up and realize you are now out-numbered 10 to 1 by hostile invaders who were savvy enough to invade without arms or uniforms.

It is ironic that those who see so little relevance or importance to the uniforms (or "costumes" as they call them) of police officers, seem to implicitly place so much importance on the lack of uniforms worn by invading forces.

Were millions of uniformed, armed persons to advance across our borders with stated intents to take our property and fundamentally infringe our other rights, every sane person and even most anarchists would recognize a legitimate right to self-defense to repel the invading army. Yet for some reason when an equal number of persons without uniforms enter our nation it is wrong to look at the macro effect in considering what action to take?

Tell me again what role uniforms should or shouldn't play as we consider the morality of individuals' conduct.

I agree fully that reducing or eliminating government welfare would dramatically reduce the draw for illegal aliens. But a major draw would remain and that is the draw of citizenship, the ability to direct the future of the nation. For others, the draw would not be citizenship, but the ability to wage a war from within our borders.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

It is not the growth of the federal governmt, that is on We The people, it his acts to preserve the union. Using unconstitutional acts is being too kind.

The government of Lincoln perseveres only because so many citizens desire it to do so.

Nope.

"First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; Provided, That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."

That quote is from the Utah State Constitution, "Ordinance Section", not our enabling act. What does it have to do with the point at hand? (Not that the irony in the language isn't a fine topic for conversation--Imagine proclaiming perfect religious tolerance except that we won't be permitting mass, confessions, no praying while facing specific sites in the Middle East. But it seems OT for the topic at hand.

Lincoln has long been dead at this point and his "let them be" policy died with him.

As did his plans for a rapid and benevolent reunification with the South. That is my point. The cult of anti-Lincoln is attributing to Lincoln many bad things that either he didn't do, or he did as a matter of winning a war, but didn't intend to perpetuate. It was those who followed he bear the blame for some of the evils attributed to Lincoln by this cult of anti-

I'm not sure what your point is here. Was/is the South required to "care", at all, about what was/is happening in the western states/territories.

Is Utah unique/alone where the feds mistreat a state?

No one is required to "care" at all about what is or was happening in the West. But it is a bit hypocritical to complain about the evils perpetuated on the Southern States 100 years ago (Certainly no one today is going to defend any supposed "right" of the States to impose Jim Crow in the 1960s) while turning a blind eye to what the feds are doing today. I am sympathetic to the wrongs inflicted on Southern States precisely because I'm living through wrongs inflicted on my State today. Yet I notice that very few Southerners (excluding Texans) care in the least about current federal oppression in Western States. Many seem to at least tacitly approve of the feds withholding control of State lands from us.

Utah is not alone. The Southern States were terribly mistreated...100 years ago. And other Western States continue to be mistreated much as Utah is. But with the third highest percentage of "federal land" in our State, Utah suffers heavily.

A low regard of your fellow citizen...unfortunate.

A low regard, or an accurate assessment?

I figure Cali and NJ have the terrible gun (and tax) laws they do not because some outside force is imposing it on them, but because most residents thereof approve of such laws.

I certainly welcome an alternate and more charitable assessment...if you have one to offer.

Charles