Iconophili's Great Big Thread of Conspiracies!

[Ebor]

This nation's treatment of minorities has been awful. Minorities were better off at the turn of the 19th-20th century than in the 20th-21st in many respects.

Sorry Ebor, but we don't seem to speak the same language. The statement was qualified as highlighted above.

Maybe we are. I am speaking the language of supporting one's argument, of supplied factual information, examples and other sources.

What examples can you give to support your "qualified" statement? Life is not a binary situation between slum/poverty and "country club living". What "many respects" can you give to counter the living conditions, ill-treatment and lack of opportunity or voice and show that minorities were "better off"? I gave examples, what are yours?

And if it was "better" why would so many people work and struggle to escape the oppressions and conditions that were the lot of minorities then? Why would they protest against them?

I have shared some of these views with a confessor in the past, and he disagreed. People have the right to do that you know, even in the Orthodox Church.

Indeed, people will often do things that they want to or like rather then listen to or submit to the advice of others who tell them things they do not want to hear. Yet how often on EO fora will be the advice "Ask your priest/spiritual father." It gives the impressoin that the person is supposed to listen to him and take his advice.

So it appears that you are preaching your own opinions and ideas in the pulpit of a forum. It's a free country. And others are equally free to point out errors in your assertions or ask for back-up documentation to your claims or disagree with you or not just accept something because you say so. When pressed on a point you are free to change the subject or ignore their questions or countering information, but that is not answering them.

Ebor

[ICONOPHILI]

This is getting to the point where it's easier for everyone just to assume that anything said on the pro-conspiracy side isn't true. I mean, I don't know about 33rd degree masons, but I'm inclined to just assume that it isn't so. And while I'm not going to be bothered to seek out Washington's baptismal records, it's reasonable to expect that a life-long Anglican was baptized in an Anglican church by an Anglican priest.

But as far as Washington's death is concerned, here are two eyewitness accounts: one from George Washington Custis, his step-grandson through his wife, and another from Tobias Lear, his private secretary. Yes, he was bled-- on purpose, and not because of any surgery. Yes, it probably hastened his death, but then the standard remedies of the day often had that effect. If he had epiglottitis, as is suspected, it wouldn't have made any difference in the end. I don't see any indication of which of Drs. Craik, Brown, and DIck was a mason, but then again, at this point I'm just as inclined to believe that none of them were.

And of course, Geo. Washington was the most famous mason in the nation. Ever been to Alexandria and seen the masonic memorial to him?

He might have been an Anglican, but from what I heard/Read he was a Baptist.

[AndyHolland]

Dear Ebor,

[It's a free country. And others are equally free to point out errors in your assertions or ask for back-up documentation to your claims or disagree with you or not just accept something because you say so. When pressed on a point you are free to change the subject or ignore their questions or countering information, but that is not answering them.
Ebor

Well, the central issue to you appears to be my credibility. So let us turn the tables for a moment, and then return to the central issue as I see it.

You claim to have read the Bible. You asked about lying wonders. Don't you have access to a concordance? Couldn't you have found the phrase in 2nd Thessolosians?

On and on your assertions go and allegations as well. For example, what were the minority demographics in the 1890s, and how many minorities actually worked in sweat shops per capita compared to the white population? Let's drill down on your credibility. You made the assertion, back it up with references.

To support my issue with my credibility, let's give an example in support of my credibility: President Bush's first inauguration speech after receiving the oath of office on George Washington's masonic bible was entitled "E' Pluribus Unum." Don't believe me - look it up for yourself and waste your own time. I found it on the net, so a keyword search in google should help. Maybe that is not a good enough source for you? Remind me to question all yours sources when you report back on minority demographics in the 1890s (talk about off subject and deflecting the issue).

To support my issue with many respects minorities had it better with respect to inventions - ever hear of the real McCoy? Dr. Carver? First open heart surgery or blood transfusion? My gut feel is that black folks were making great strides post reconstruction, and then the door was slammed in their faces.

To return now to the real point without deflection on credibility issues let me rephrase.

E'Pluribus Unum is a name for the United States, and the intrinsic problem - IN MY OPINION - is that it is essentially a foolish thing to try to unite without God. God is the moral foundation of law, and a legal concept as well (acts of God). That is the central thesis, along with the fact that Genesis and Revelations speak against that concept (secularism) forcefully. Don't believe me, read those books very carefully along with the Psalms and all the references to the future. See where common threads and history intersect. Understand why differences arise. Or support secularism based on Holy Scripture - which for us is a common tradition (you are not Orthodox I take it).

The Constitution was so sealed with that name, and yes - I got details wrong as to its origin. Admitted it before, why not again to prove you correct and me a dunce? So I have no credibility - ignore me. Neither do you when pressed - or would you care to back up your minority assertions with specific hard core references? We could play such a game endlessly.

In many respects, minorities had it better in the 1890s. For example, in wedlock marriage and inventions. Prove me wrong with references, or stick to the central issue which is not credibility related or source related. You raised the minority issue first, I countered with an example in many respects. OK - your turn to play the fool, look up references endlessly and let me poke holes in them endlessly. Or better yet, stick to the central issue - could it be E' Pluribus Unum Novus Ordo Seclorum is in big trouble with the very real God?

andy holland
sinner

[CGW]

What you heard/read was wrong. Washington was notorious in his refusal to take communion (see quotes on this page-- an atheistic site, but from all that I can see ratified by less biased sites) but it is unquestionable that the churches he regularly attended (and of which he was for a time a vestryman) were Anglican/Epsicopalian. There is considerable agreement that his personal beliefs tended towards deism; at any rate, every bit of evidence I could find indicates that he was never a baptist.

[Ebor]

Dear Ebor,
It is not my responsibility to educate you. For example, You asked about lying wonders claiming to have read the bible.

I am familiar with the phase in the Bible. My question is "What do YOU, Mr. Holland mean by "lying wonders"? What does it mean to You? What do you have in mind?

This is just like the Holy Thorn thing. I provide all sorts of references, and you ignore them or take their differences and concentrate on them without seeing the common thread.

The common thread was that a plant exists in England called the Holy Thorn and that it blooms "around Christmas". It is your assertion and claim that it is on the EO/Julian calendar that I question. There were differences or contradictions in some of what you provided, and others could not be traced to see the Primary Source. Merely repeating something does not prove it. I provided that the church (Anglican) in Glastonbury was having it's cutting of the Thorn in December, not January. It is not the EO Calendar Christmas then. And why should not differences in reports be taken into account?

On and on your assertions go and allegations as well. For example, what were the minority demographics in the 1890s, and how many minorities actually worked in sweat shops per capita compared to the white population? My bet is, the black population was happier in a rural setting away from those hardships relative to the white population. Just a hunch though.

You base your claim and ideas on hunches and bets? My "assertions and allegations"? And you want me to educate you? The sweatshops were where poor people worked, women, children (no child labour laws then) immigrants/ethnic minorities. Conditions that most of us here cannot concieve of working in, I suspect. Have you ever heard of the "Triangle Shirtwaist Fire" of 1911?

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/trianglefire/narrative2.html
A multipage site with information and documents from people who worked in the sweatshops.

From Maryland History:
http://www.mdoe.org/sweatshops.html

"Also at this time, persecution in Eastern Europe drove many Orthodox Jews to immigrate. The Jewish population of Baltimore expanded from 10,000 to 50,000 by 1900. These immigrant orthodox Jews were by far the largest group of workers in the sweatshops because employers in other industries usually declined to hire them. For one thing, a six-day workweek was standard, and the immigrants refused to work on Saturdays. Since other laws forbid anyone working on Sundays, the immigrants could only offer a five-day workweek. Unable to find work elsewhere, they became the employees of their co-religionists, the sweatshop contractors."

"June 3, 1900
Garment workers form the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union to protest low pay, fifteen-hour workdays, no benefits, and unsafe working conditions. While weak at the onset, the ILGWU struggles to help all workers fight for better conditions and higher pay."
http://www.soc.duke.edu/courses/soc142/time.html

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www ... cn173.html

• At the beginning of the century, 1-in-8 U.S. residents was of a race
  other than white; at the end of the century, the ratio was 1-in-4.

• The black population remained concentrated in the South and the
  Asian and Pacific Islander population in the West through the
  century, but these regional concentrations declined sharply by 2000.

I provide links.

The Constitution was so sealed with that name, and yes - I got details wrong as to its origin. So my near 30 year old memory of seeing these things is a bit foggy - crucify me. I still could have sworn that reading a 1976 Constitution booklet, the Great Seal was described in detail.

How is it "crucifying" someone to correct mistakes? One of the wonderful things that the 'Net does is make it possible to check on information and things like looking at very fine photos of the Constitution. It is not evil to make errors, but if they are errors, they should be corrected and not repeated. Double checking facts before posting can be helpful. Details do matter.

I do know, thanks to your prodding, that the Great Seal with all its masonic nonsense is attached to every important document of the United States since 1782. I do know the nation is referred to by that name.

And Charles Thomson, who was instrumental in the design of the Seal and was not a mason is a better source of what it means then your interpretation, I'm sorry. http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/blazon.html

I ask again, are you not familiar with rhetorical devices in speech such as referring to the subject of a speech by other titles? I can provide you with examples of people saying "Here in the Treasure State" about my home state of Montana. But that is a phrase, a sobriquet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobriquet

The name is still Montana.

Ebor

[Ebor]

He might have been an Anglican, but from what I heard/Read he was a Baptist.

Can you provide any link to this? For what it's worth, I found an "mason watch" site that said that George Washington became an RC hours before he died. I give that all the credence it deserves...which is none.

Ebor

[CGW]

This is just like the Holy Thorn thing. I provide all sorts of references, and you ignore them or take their differences and concentrate on them without seeing the common thread.

Well, the common thread seems to be that hard evidence and citations remain elusive. In the holy thorn discussion, for example, we never did come upon any hard, accessible, modern evidence as to when the plant blooms in the winter. In the discussion of masonic membership of the FF, all the citable evidence suggests that most of the FFs weren't masons and that Thomson certainly was not.

Let's give a recent example: President Bush's first inauguration speech after receiving the oath of office on George Washington's masonic bible was entitled "E' Pluribus Unum." Don't believe me - look it up for yourself and waste your own time.

I don't know what a "masonic" bible would be; it's hard to imagine that it is nothing more or less than a standard KJV of the age. However, I find absolutely no indication that Bush's first inaugural address had a title. It isn't titled on the White House website, nor in any of the other places I found. I didn't even find a site that claimed the title was as you say it was. Whether such a title would mean anything is beside the point. The problem is, I don't believe you, and I'm becoming increasingly unwilling to do the research that suggests you have no hard, citable authority to back up your statements.

E'Pluribus Unum is a name for the United States(.)

But it isn't. It's nothing more than a motto recognizing the formation of the United States out of the thirteen colonies.

quote and the intrinsic problem - IN MY OPINION - is that it is essentially a foolish thing to try to unite without God. God is the moral foundation of law, and a legal concept as well (acts of God).[/quote]

So what's your alternative? Each colony as an independent nation-state? How about each county, or each town? I just don't see the theological import, and frankly I'm not really interested in discussing it. Whether or not unity was a bad idea, it's what we have to live with now. It cannot be undone.