Thursday, November 5, 2009

Civics 101

Since shortly after becoming a Christian I have viewed the world through the prism that man is not basically good. I cringe when I hear Christians-who ought to know better-say or imply that the opposite is true, for it is only a short step from there to trusting man's goodness with power over our lives. But worse, such a view of man cheapens the price payed on the cross for our redemption and salvation from God's wrath by reducing what in actuality is the bridging of an uncrossable chasm to a little nudge over a short wall.

This is a great ten minute civics lesson and I encourage all who come by here to watch. As you watch keep in mind the end result of a faulty premise on man's goodness. Although the video does not come right out and says so, it does imply a fallen view of man, especially as it pertains to democracies and the insight of the founding fathers into man's lust for power. It also clearly and succinctly demonstrates the end of the folly of thinking that man is basically good; an end that is almost defiantly what America's future holds.

H/T Joe Politico


Dan said...

“Your video, unfortunately, appears to be made by partisans with an agenda, rather than true thinkers with legitimate opinions.”

Like the opinions of leftist who’s opinions are legitimate-because they agree with yours I guess- and have no agenda at all. Do true thinkers simply disregard all opposing viewpoints as agenda driven? Do true thinkers ever truly think about the fallacy of their ad hominem arguments?

“The ‘left’ does not want ‘100%gov’t’ manipulation of society – God forbid!!- any more than the ‘right’ does.”

The video analyses a left to right spectrum and never implies that the left advocates 100% gov’t control as you claim. 100% is only mentioned in explaining the two ends of the spectrum-0% to 100%. You’re not feeling guilty are you?

“In truth, some on the Right want to have gov’t involved in what we drink, what we smoke, who is sleeping in whose bed, who can and can’t ger married, who can and can’t complain about pollution, which businesses we ought to subsidize, which nations we get involved with, which dictators we support, etc etc ie Big government.”

Not true but nice attempt at obfuscation.

“And, n truth, some on the left want to have what might be called a heavy-handed large gov’t presence. But this simply isn’t an accurate representation of either most on the Right or the Left.”

That depends on who you’re calling the right and the left. I would agree that most people on the left are at heart right leaning but have bought into the dishonest and misleading propaganda of the left, the left that this video refers to.

“Again, in truth, balance is called for”

That’s funny coming from you. He he he he

“The producers of this video appear to lack balance and, instead, seem to have an agenda which they’re promoting, rather than truth”

Again, unlike those on the left like yourself who have no agenda and are as neutral and agenda free as the wind.

“We ought to always be careful what we promote, yes?”

Amen… “brother”


I rejected your second comment without reading it. You can try again if you'd like.

Nice day and God Bless.

Dan said...


"Like the opinions of leftist who’s opinions..." in the second paragraph should read:

Unlike the opinions of leftist who’s opinions...

Dan Trabue said...

Just between you and me...

I rejected your second comment without reading it. You can try again if you'd like.

1. Why would you do that? Are you not interested in opinions and discussions?

2. Why the hostility? I offered some thoughts, for what they're worth. You respond by calling me "brother" in scare quotes and by misrepresenting my position more than once. For instance, you said...

Not true but nice attempt at obfuscation.

You imply that I'm trying to obfuscate, and I was not. I was offering an opinion.

Not only that, but my opinion was true and you claimed it wasn't. SOME conservatives DO wish to decide what you can and can't drink or smoke (those who'd advocate prohibition), some conservatives DO wish to decide who can and can't marry and some conservatives DO spend a lot of time worrying about what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Some conservatives would like to use the gov't to put a stop to certain actions.

These are all true statements and yet, you called them false. Do you really not know that there are conservatives out there like that? Are you really not that kind of conservative yourself?

You seem to be hostile towards me and I have no idea why, other than the fact that I disagree with you on some issues. Does that warrant hostility? Remember that we are called to live at peace with one another, as much as it is possible. Remember that we are to be visibly Christ's disciples by the love we share towards one another.

I raised a concern about a partisan video (I did NOT defend partisan videos by those on the Left, despite your suggestion that I would) and pointed out some truths.

Does the fact that you and I are both saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus mean nothing to you? Does the fact that we are called to love one another mean nothing to you? Does the fact that we agree on more things than we disagree upon mean nothing to you?

Or, even if you think I'm a pagan, what sort of witness is this to respond to me with false allegations and hostility? Is that how you go about witnessing to the lost?

Life's not that hard, we need not beat up on one another when we disagree. Expressing an opinion suffices, don't you think?

Dan said...

1. Why would you do that? Are you not interested in opinions and discussions?

All I have to do Dan to hear your opinions is turn on MSNBC. And there's no discussion with you either. Let me see if I can explain:

You said: "Your video, unfortunately, appears to be made by partisans with an agenda, rather than true thinkers with legitimate opinions."

The "your" is not meant to be friendly as you so coyly pretend you are being as you accuse me of not being friendly, but to cast dispersions on me along with the video. This is a common tactic you use.

Also, how can I sum up your whole comment in a few words?

You think the video is made by partisans.

Am I right? But you don't stop there, you follow up with another tactic of obfuscation. First you mischaracterize the video by saying: "The "Left" does not want "100% gov't" manipulation". Then you go on to mischaracterize the right by accusing them of meddling in affairs that should be, I assume (I have to assume because of a third tactic that I think you employ of positioning yourself as kind of just an innocent rational person going around to conservative blogs for a little "conversation" only to be attacked by the innate hostilities that are bound up in the right, this while not really taking a position on anything that would require a defense on your own part), off limits with out anything except "Dan said so" to back it up. Some on the right want to have gov't involved in what we drink? Huh? ...smoke? huh?. who can complain about pollution? a total and intentional mischaracterization of those who disagree with Al Gore I would suppose. Who can and can't get married? like polygamist? Are you saying the left is for polygamy? That whole paragraph is nothing more than an attempt at obfuscation..., gasp..., you? Well forevermore!

SO where are we?
A. You think the video is made by partisans.
B. Obfuscation

Then there's further obfuscation by admitting that there are "some" on the left that want big government, but not MOST on the left, oh no no no! The only problem is that whether they want it or not, when they vote for the left they get big government.

This is another tactic of attempting to blur the lines that separate the average person on the left who might be our neighbor, and is at heart more conservative, and those on the left who are in power and are radical socialist.

So we have now:

A. You think the video is made by partisans.
B. Obfuscation
C. More obfuscation.

Funny, nothing so far has backed up your complaint about the video being "partisan", other than to mischaracterize what the video actually said about the left. That's it.

Then we have a call for balance; implication, I and "my" video are unbalanced. Nothing but an accusation that the video is not balanced with out so much of a peep as to how or why, then a whole lot of words saying that some on the left act like those on the right, and vice vs. without a thing to back it up except your words, then a call for balance.

This is noting more than a veiled and cleverly disguised insult designed to get me to react in a way that would allow you to be my accuser while feigning victimization by another hate mongering Christian. No?

It also explains your entire second comment which has entirely deviated from the content of the post and has painted me, well, as another another hate mongering Christian, and of course little ole you as the innocent victim. Gasp! How sad. No?

So what do we have now?

A. You think the video is made by partisans.
B. Obfuscation
C. More obfuscation.
D. Veiled insult, yes?

How does someone have a discussion with that? You should have said what you said about the video and then expounded on your position. Ahh but that would have required that you take one.

Now I've spent... no waisted my time dissecting your tactics. But I suppose I could be wrong so I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself before I become another notch in your belt of blogs from which you're banned.

Dan said...

You said:

Or, even if you think I'm a pagan, what sort of witness is this to respond to me with false allegations and hostility? Is that how you go about witnessing to the lost?

Of particular interest to me in that paragraph is your last sentence.

"Is that how you go about witnessing to the lost?"

It can be seen here, and other places, that you spend quite a bit of energy employing your tactics against Christian blogs that you contend are in the same state of grace as yourself..., you know..., brothers. I would like to see a blog where you have spent just as much time witnessing to the lost yourself. Like, where you went to atheist's blogs-there's certainly no shortage of those- and tried to win people to Christ with the same zeal that you go to Christian blogs and play the victim/mean-old-hate-mongering-judgemental-conservative-Christian game; kind of like you did in that last comment, No?

If you can show me that zeal for the lost that you have for accusing your brethren I will not ban you from this blog. Just provide the link, that's all I ask. But put it in the first sentence lest I think you are unable to comply and reject your comment. If you can't provide the link, please don't come back.

Dan Trabue said...

You sir, are a liar and a true obfuscator. God have mercy on you, brother.

Perhaps I AM witnessing to the lost by coming places like this. You wouldn't recognize a Godly or brotherly conversation if it kicked you in your ass.

Delete away, Brother Coward. I pray one day you may find some honesty and courage.

Joe said...

Dan Trabue: The question is not whether there is an agenda, the question is, "Are the several forms of government properly represented and explained in this video?" The answer is yes.

The video does not purport that all people who are not "right-leaning" want 100% government manipulation, but that certain forms of government (oligarchies) result in government manipulation.

Your statement, "In truth, some on the Right want to have gov't involved in what we drink..." is patently false.

Real conservatives want the FEDERAL government uninvolved as much as possible.

For instance, we do NOT want the government to tell us who can and cannot get married...that has been established for all of history until very recent times. What we don't want the government to do is to CHANGE who can and cannot get married. Liberals are the ones who want that.

Liberals, on the other hand, want government to establish who can say what about what. For instance, you can't preach or have Christian symbols in public places.

What...have public places now become GOVERNMENT places?

When the builders of the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument and other national sites included Christian and Biblical inscriptions in their buildings, were they too stupid to know that government edifices were off limits to Christian principles?

The government has six tasks assigned to it, as listed in the preamble to the Constitution. Some of them the governemtn is to provide, others only to promote. Everything else, according to the document itself, remains for individual states to decide.

Your assessment of the video is wrong, while Dan's is correct.

You need to change your thinking.

Dan said...

Dan Trabue

Where's all that love Dude? I'll take your insults as a no, that you only expend your energy preaching your "truth" to your own "brethren".

BTW Doesn't it feel good to come out of your little closet and show your true colors for a change? Kind of refreshing in a diabolical kind of way, yes?


Dan responded to you but he couldn't seem to pull it off without hurling his customary insults, so I deleted it. Sorry.

Laura said...

Thanks for posting the video. I had been looking for something like this. Everyday I realize how after 16 years of schooling I know basically nothing of American history and civics. I'm so far behind I have no ideal where to start. Democracy was all I ever heard of up until a few years ago. Perhaps the lack of education on these matters in the schools is just so that the fallen nature of man does not have to be brought up.

Dan said...


Yes, it cleared some things up for me as well. I also found this one helpful.

here is the link spelled out if the enbeded link doesn't work:

christian soldier said...

a "tyranny of the elite" ---that is what we have now---Nan P-Babs B-and
Your will be interested in my newest post--it is my belief that PC - diversity will lead us in the US to an oligarchy....

Joe said...

Dan Trabue(follow-up): Regardless of whether the video was made by "partisans," the definitions and conclusions, based on history, are correct.

Each political system has a definition (which are often misused by ignorants), Socialism, Fascism, Democracy, Republic, etc.

We can't just randomly change definitions to suit our particular meaning, else we could not intelligently speak with one another.

Oligarchy is where we are in the U.S.A. at this very time, with our elected "representatives" believing that they have been given power to take from us whatever freedoms they think we don't need...all "for the good of the whole of society," of course.

Dan said...


I watched the video several more times and could not see any reason that it could be called partisan. I suppose it could be said that the video painted republics in a positive light, and that anything could be painted in a negative or positive light depending on one's point of view, but it this is always the case, how can we teach and learn anything except in a kind of nebulous floating around in space, amoral, relativistic sense. At such a point the government would be the result of raw power. At this juncture the government would be the arbiter of what is right and wrong, and partisan and non partisan, and when it's good to be partisan and non partisan. Kind of like an oligarchy.

It really is too bad Dan couldn't have made his case about why the video was partisan in a way that transcended the typical stereo types and with clarity.

Anonymous said...

The Left really does have 'totalitarian' tendencies.

It makes sense.

They want more government. More government means more control.

The Right weants less government and more freedom for the average person.

The Left thinks the average person is too stupid to handle his own affairs.

This is a proven fact of history.

Anonymous said...

Nicely done, (Good) Dan! I'm glad you see through Trabue. Great call about asking him to demonstrate his witness to atheists. Like so many other Liberal Christians the only religioius views they think are dangerously wrong are those of orthodox (read: authentic) Christians.

LOL how Trabue likes to play the "brother" card as if we're on the same side then acts like you need to be converted to his views.

Edwin Drood said...

Dan T's 4:32 AM comment is where he was showed to be out of ideas and unable to defend his position.

Nicely done, it was as entertaining as it was educational.