Interview with Greg Evensen

I recently interviewed Greg Evensen of the Heartland USA Party.


TPW: When did your party start?

Heartland USA Party: This summit effort began in July 2006. Party was needed (or something was) to fill out the website.


TPW: How many members do you have?

Heartland USA Party: Non-dues members (by sign-in), about 1500.


TPW: Much of your website is devoted to a summit scheduled for Kansas City in July? Is your party’s purpose to organize the summit, or are you a political party that plans to continue after the summit and field candidates?

Heartland USA Party: We run the summit and any staff planning that occurs. We will field local, state and federal candidates as they “contract” with us.


TPW: Parts of your party platform seems pretty similar to the platforms of both the Constitution and America First parties. Are you familiar with them? What do you think of them?

Heartland USA Party: Yes. They are wonderful. They have tried so hard and opened some difficult doors. I believe we need to join our efforts, agree on the basics and work out the rest.


TPW: Have leaders of any other alternative parties been invited to attend the summit, and if so, have any accepted?

Heartland USA Party: The New Frontier Party. Other splinter groups that may or may not actually come.


TPW: What other political parties have you joined, if any?

Heartland USA Party: None. I am very selective about who I join forces with.


TPW: According to your website you are trying to get Judge Roy Moore to be your keynote speaker. Do you think he would make a good presidential candidate?

Heartland USA Party: Judge Moore would make a marvelous candidate. It may not be his time just yet. We need one more failed “Council on Foreign Relations” pick, and then the time will have arrived. I say that because the American people are not quite fed up enough. (I am, but I’m still in the minority).


TPW: Your party platform includes a plank entitled “Separation of Church and State Myth to be repealed across the Nation permanently. It includes several provisions I am unclear about. For example, you state that “the Christian/Judeo heritage of the US [should] be honored and celebrated.” I think I have an idea what our Christian Heritage is , but what is meant by our “Judeo” heritage?

Heartland USA Party: Those views shared by Israel in the Old Testament.


TPW: Are you familiar with the American Heritage Party? What is your opinion of them?

Heartland USA Party: American Heritage is another awesome bunch of folks. They need to go in with us and about 12 other sideline parties.


TPW: Your platform calls for “respect for and incorporation of church and government in US policy.” Can you explain that a bit?

Heartland USA Party: Without the wisdom, virtue and spiritual foundation of our churches in this nation—and the pillars of people who know right and wrong, we will never assume our former and best national leadership here and in the world.


TPW: Your platform states, “That practices masquerading as religions be banned including religions that wage war upon the US or its citizens in any form whatever.” Are you talking about Islam? Does your party believe that the federal government should prohibit Muslim worship?

Heartland USA Party: Islam, yes—-Wicca—-earth worshippers and other groups seeking to be respected by our citizens, but trying to implement a wholly destructive agenda for the life of our people.


TPW: Does your party advocate a moratorium on all immigration?

Heartland USA Party: No. But HIGHLY regulated and perhaps stopped entirely for five years, to adjust to and deal with the flood of illegals.


TPW: What does your party think should be done about Iraq?

Heartland USA Party: Give them 90 days to get it together, then board ship and leave.


TPW: Your party platform states, “homosexual relationships should remain what they have been for as long as they have existed up until 1970. Quiet and non-intrusive. . . Live and let live, but no homosexual ‘awareness’ required at any level.” But does not respect for America’s Christian heritage and an alliance between church and state mean that sodomy is unlawful and should be prosecuted by civil government?

Heartland USA Party: Yes. However, if two of the same sex are living together and not seeking anything from anybody….well, let it be. (I don’t condone that at all, I just don’t want police in every home looking you over). They might be there for economic, family or other reasons as well.


TPW: Does your party pledge never to endorse or support in any way whatsoever, any candidate who does not pledge and act to defend and promote the inviolable right to life of innocent human beings, from the moment of conception to natural death, without exception - including in the cases of rape and incest?

Heartland USA Party: Yes, we do.


TPW: Your party platform states, “School management must be by teaching professionals. Boards should be eliminated.” Do you really believe that teaching professionals know what is best for America’s children , and that the problem with education today is too much parental involvement?

Heartland USA Party: Teaching professionals are with your children far longer than you are every day. I do NOT want teachers any more involved than they are, but they are much better at setting out the deficiencies of these children than boards and “administrators.” There is clearly not ENOUGH parental involvement and it is the parent’s choice. I would be most happy to see some parents once a week. Home schooling would be wonderful for a majority of children, it would not be possible by most parents.


TPW: Your party platform states “Education should remain unfettered by state and federal mandates.” But does not respect for America’s Christian heritage and an alliance between church and state mean that law of our Creator assigns the authority and responsibility of educating children to their parents and that no level of government should provide education?

Heartland USA Party: Yes, I agree. However, a vast majority of parents at this time are more than happy to send their children off on the yellow fellow each morning. Parents and churches have done NOTHING to help classroom teachers avoid the plethora of rules, teaching mandates and information demanded by the state and federal education officials that MUST be presented to their children. Teachers avoid or play down those moronic areas of homosexual awareness and bad data on our heritage when we can. Again, parents are in the driver’s seat. They do NOT come to board meetings unless sports has been cut. We need them DEMANDING that correct data and sexual data be left to parents.


TPW: Your party platform states that for “people who are homebound/chronically ill, drugs are free.” Where in the constitution is the government given the authority to take money from some people to pay for drugs for other people?

Heartland USA Party: There is no place. The people who suggested this did not say take it from the American’s pockets. The government can obtain these drugs straight from the companies as a price for doing business. Those that need it should have some way to get it.


TPW: Your platform states, “worker wage increases tied to product price increases and inflation.” Where in the constitution is government given the power to regulate wages?

Heartland USA Party: There is none. Businesses should do this. Again, it was not stated nor suggested that “government—us” provide any funds for those issues.


TPW: What about welfare? Does your party agree that government social and cultural policies have undermined the work ethic?

Heartland USA Party: Yes. Welfare is the worst idea since the Tower of Babel.


TPW: If people like your answers and are interested in joining, what should they do?

Heartland USA Party: Stay with us on the web-site. We will be organizing and involving Citizens (of the state, not US citizens) in the near future to resist and make their collective voices heard. PLEASE REMEMBER, THIS IS THE FIRST SUGGESTED PLATFORM. NOT NECESSARILY THE FINAL PRODUCT. We won’t know what that is until we get many good minds together and tweak several of these areas for a final acceptable, common sense resolution.

90 Responses to “Interview with Greg Evensen”

  1. Trent Hill Says:

    He thinks the AHP is great?
    No thanks theocrat.

  2. Mike Gillis Says:

    I think I just threw up a little in my mouth…

  3. matt Says:

    I think this would be a vote of last resort, which is to say I might pick this guy over, say, Hillary, but it would be close!

  4. globalist_elitist Says:

    I like how TPW now supports “respect for America’s Christian heritage and an alliance between church and state,” which “mean(s) that sodomy is unlawful and should be prosecuted by civil government.”

    An alliance between church and state, huh?

    Also, the party endorses the government banning certain religions - Islam and Wicca, in specific. Great.

    As for the notion of the U.S. and its “Christian” heritage. Here:

    Thomas Paine, THE Founding Father, author of Common Sense

    All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

    It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man.

    Yet this is trash that the Church imposes upon the world as the Word of God; this is the collection of lies and contradictions called the Holy Bible! this is the rubbish called Revealed Religion!


    Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

    I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.


    George Washington, Founding Father, 1st President

    If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists.


    John Adams, Founding Father, 2nd President

    Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.


    Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father, 3rd President, Author of the Declaration of Independence

    Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.

    To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.

    In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

    History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.

    The priests of the different religious sects … dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight.

    I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.

    The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.


    James Madison, Founding Father, 4th President, Principal Author of the Constitution

    The civil government … functions with complete success … by the total separation of the Church from the State.

    Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.

  5. Otto Kerner Says:

    “There is no place. The people who suggested this did not say take it from the American’s pockets. The government can obtain these drugs straight from the companies as a price for doing business. Those that need it should have some way to get it.” This really requires a follow-up question, “Where in the constitution is the government given the authority to require some people to give away free drugs for other people?” Of course, this guy’s answer to the next question showed that he is terminally confused on the matter.

  6. matt Says:

    It blows my mind how people can sign on for crap like this.

    One benefit that always comes from posting quotes from the founding fathers is that it disabuses folks of the notion that they were infallible. While the Revolutionary war itself was probably a struggle undertaken by folks of all religious views (including the devoutly religious), the Constitution was produced by deists and agnostics.

    I think that confessing Christians might have produced a better one, since they understand that human nature is corrupt and deceptive. This bit of information might have caused them to set stronger limitations on state power. Of course, had the framers of the Constitution been Christians, they also would have been tempted to give us a pile of theocratic garbage like the Heatland USA Platform.

    For that reason, I, as a Christian, I think that the godlessness of the framers of the Constitution might have been one of God’s blessings on America.

  7. matt Says:

    He works in mysterious ways, as they say.

  8. Freelancer Says:

    Thomas Paine a founding father! Ya right. All he wrote was Common Sense and then went to France. He was a religion hater by the way.

  9. globalist_elitist Says:

    He sparked the Revolution. I’d say he is THE founding father.

    There were certainly Christians among the founders. But they did not seek to impose their religious views on others. There were Christians, there were Deists, and there were agnostics. There is no “Christian heritage” in the founding of the U.S. anymore than there is a Deistic or agnostic heritage.

    Paine was a “religion hater.” All the more proof that the nation was not founded on “Biblical principals.”

  10. Freelancer Says:

    “This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it.” John Adams

    “The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.” George Washington

    “I disbelieve all holy men and holy books.” Thomas Paine

    Are these statements accurate? Did these prominent Founders truly repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of the sources of the above statements.

    The John Adams’ quote is taken from a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson on April 19, 1817, in which Adams illustrated the intolerance often manifested between Christians and their denominational disputes. Adams recounted a conversation between two ministers he had known:

    “Seventy years ago…Lemuel Bryant was my parish priest, and Joseph Cleverly my Latin schoolmaster. Joseph was a jocular [humorous] and liberal scholar and divine. Joseph a scholar and a gentleman….The parson and the pedagogue lived much together, but were eternally disputing about government and religion. One day when the schoolmaster [Joseph Cleverly] had been more than commonly fanatical and declared “If he were a monarch, he would have but one religion in his dominions;” the parson [Lemuel Bryant coolly replied, “Cleverly! you would be the best man in the world if you had no religion.”

    Lamenting these types of petty disputes, Adams declared to Jefferson:

    “Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it” But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant and Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.”

    In reality, Adams’ position on religion was exactly opposite of what is put forth by many groups. Adams believed that it would be “fanatical” to desire a world without religion, for such a world would be “hell.” Jefferson wrote back and declared that he agreed.

    Amazingly, while the assertion concerning Adams was completely inaccurate, the words attributed to Washington are totally false ( “The government of the United States is in no sensefounded on the Christian religion” ). The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is the source of Washington’s supposed statement.

  11. globalist_elitist Says:

    Yeah, notice that I did not paste any of the quotes you cited.

  12. Trent Hill Says:

    Uh oh GE. you have been caught.

    so you are either intentionally cherry-picking those quotes, or you didn’t know.
    Round here, we have a saying. “Either you don’t know, or you don’t care”.
    Now you know.

    “John Adams:
    “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
    “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
    -John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress”

    George Washington:
    “ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

  13. Freelancer Says:


    You’re right. There were Christians among the Founding Fathers and they didn’t want a state religion. But when people refer to the Founders as deist, agnostics, and athiests they typicly only refer to Franklin, Jefferson, and Thomas Paine. The least religious of the Founders. The Founders did not set up a national religion, but they did use the Bible as a blueprint for the government as well as looking at Rome and Greece’s histories. In fact there were some state churches in existance even when the first amendment was ratified. But look I don’t want to get into a ” discussion” but just wanted to point some things out.

    Oh, ya. I got a little excited when I said Paine wasn’t a founding father. He most certanly did have an influence on the Revolution.

  14. Jackcjackson Says:

    I can’t say there were not Christians among the Founding Fathers. Perhaps even some of the supposed deists and agnostists really were Christian. It doesn’t really matter to me either way.

    However, I would not think the founders would support banning non-Christian religions.

  15. Cody Quirk Says:

    Well, another reason why to stay Constitution Party.

  16. globalist_elitist Says:

    The pro-religious quotes made by the fathers do not invalidate the anti-religious ones. If they did, then by the same logic, the anti-religious quotes would invalidate the pro-religious ones.

    This country was not founded to be a bastion of Christianity, theism, OR atheism. It was founded to be none of the above. A country of religious freedom, which includes abstinence of all religions, as well as Islamic or Wiccan religiosity.

    Thomas Paine, atheist, wrote the pamphlet that sparked the Revolution.

    Thomas Jefferson, deist/agnostic, wrote the Declaration of Independence.

    James Madison, theistic secularist, was the architect of the Constitution.

    The Bible was in no way the fucking foundation of the country’s laws. If it had been, then the words “God” or “Jesus Christ” even would appear somewhere in the documents, more than simply “in the year of our Lord” (which was the only way of writing the damn year at the time).

  17. Freelancer Says:

    It’s interesting that you bring up the “in the year of our Lord” phrase. Because back then they would say in whatever year of the reign of King so and so. By putting that in the document is very significant. Look, you may not like it and try to minimize “quotes.” But it will absolutely not change the fact that this nation was founded on Christian principles.

  18. Freelancer Says:

    They even had church services in the capital which Thomas Jefferson attended! (gasp) :)

  19. globalist_elitist Says:

    In what way are “Christian principles” reflected in the founding documents of our country? I guess condoning slavery. That would be about it, though.

    Yeah, and Thomas Jefferson also referred to the separation of church and state as a WALL.

    Enough of the revisionist B.S.

    Christianity = Communism.

  20. Cody Quirk Says:

    What kind of Christianity GE?

    Christianity is the most diverse religion on the planet.

  21. Sean Scallon Says:

    I love this line:

    ” Yes. They are wonderful. They have tried so hard and opened some difficult doors. I believe we need to join our efforts, agree on the basics and work out the rest.

    Then why start your own party? What are they not saying or not doing that you intend to say or do? What’s your or niche going to be.

    More splinters…

  22. matt Says:

    I think English Common Law, as interpreted by the Colonists was very heavily based on the Bible, and I think the influence of that has been more important than the Constitution in certain ways.

    The Christian ethical tradition isn’t perfect, but it as a catalyst for the advancement of human rights, it is without peer. Christians were the first people in history to ABOLISH slavery, as you know, and made many other advances as well. For example, Jean Calvin, founder of the hated Calvinist sect, was the first leader to criminalize domestic violence.

  23. SovereignMN Says:

    I agree Sean. His comments seem very odd and didn’t make much sense. He thinks all these other parties are wonderful and should join up with him, yet he is “selective” about who he will affiliate with. Translation: He’s a control freak. No thanks.

  24. Bill Wood Says:

    Time out from this thread,Sorry :

    I’m surprised no one here is talking about Bob Barr has signed on as a lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project. There is also a video with his debate about using marijuana. You can find this “stuff” over at Reasons Hit and Run.

    Time In.

  25. Trent Hill Says:

    Bill Wood, that is interesting news.

    GE, Madison was a christian…sorry. Try again.

    Also, while the founding fathers did not want any intermingling of religious authority and state authority, they were most certainly not all atheist god-haters.
    For example: You note “the year of our Lord” which is actually a eparture from normal speech “The year of our King”.
    Also: Jefferson (the most anti-religious of the Fathers) wrote “Creator” in the Declaration. While creator is not Synonymous with God…it implies monotheism.

    And while jefferson refferred to the Seperation of Church and State as a WALL, he did that in personal letters rather than public policy. Why? Because the rest of the founding fathers didnt QUITE agree.
    The wording on the Freedom of religions was quite articulate and accurate. It left room for the government to respect its Biblical-Western world-common law..without giving authority to a church.

  26. Anthony Distler Says:

    Who cares if the country was founded on Christianity or not? The fact is that there is no place in American society for intolerance or theocracy. What makes America great is it’s diversity.

    Anyone want to defend Virgil Goode’s “we shouldn’t have Muslim’s in Congress” statement?

  27. Joe Says:

    Many Christian organizations expressed outrage when Ellis took his oath on the Koran instead of the Bible. For example, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association said, “. . . for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.” I agree that civil magistrates should not take oaths to the Koran, but AFA and many of Ellison’s other critics miss the main point: The issues is not that non-Christians should take an oath to a book they do not believe, but rather that they do not meet the biblical qualifications for civil magistrates.

  28. Trent Hill Says:

    I dont care. I think Virgil Goode was out of line frankly. If Ron Paul wants to be sworn in on Atlas Shrugged, I dont mind.

    However,the PRECEDANT has certainly been set…Bible’s only.

  29. SovereignMN Says:

    “What makes America great is it’s diversity.”

    Hogwash. This is the dogma being preached the socialists in charge of the instutions of this country. I agree that a theocracy is a bad idea but equally as absurd is the notion that ‘diversity’ is some prize to be achieved.

  30. Trent Hill Says:


    That is the first thing you’ve said that I disagree with. The Diversity does make it great.
    However, I would also disagree with whoever SAD that, because while Diversity MAKES America great, it is not the REASON for America’s greatness,as that statement implies.

  31. matt Says:

    I’d vote for a very lliberty-loving mechanic who promises to take his oath of office on a 1972 Volkswagen Golf Owners manual before I’d vote for some opportunistic schmuck who reads the Bible, imagines that it supports the warfare/welfare system, and promises to be sworn in on it.

  32. John Chance Says:

    Jefferson was a Diest and many Founders were hostile to Catholicism.A residual of their forebearers rejection of the Church. The word “liberty” is often bandied and little understood.

  33. SovereignMN Says:

    My point is that diversity does not make us great. It is the liberty that allows for diversity that makes us great.

    I could care less about diversity. When I go to a country music concert I don’t see any black faces in the arena. Do I care? No. Would I care if 50% of them were black? No. I’m there because I like the music.

    I have a big problem with the self-righteous people in our culture that would imply the music is somehow “better” or more “enlightening” if it appeals to a more diverse audience. I don’t agree with that.

  34. Anthony Distler Says:

    I’m saying that I, as a non-demoninational Christian, my girlfriend, as a Wiccan, and Mitt Romney, as a Mormon, should have the same rights as Baptists and Catholics. The US government shouldn’t even look at the Bible when it comes to laws.

  35. globalist_elitist Says:

    Slavery is explicitly condoned and promoted by the three “great” religions, including Christianity.

    Trent: I said he was a theistic secularist. i.e. a Christian who believed in the separation of church and state.


    Why do you twist my words to imply that I’m denying this?

    Why the fuck would they sign the Constitution “in the year of our king” when we had no fucking king? Your argument is as baseless as your phony creed.

    The Declaration, though an important foundational document, is not part of law.

    DIVERSITY IS THE ULTIMATE PRIZE. A nation of 300 million DIVERSE individuals, each unique from the other. You are a fucking Commie if you want monoculutural uniformity. Culture is a collectivist concept in and of itself. I want a world of 7 billion different individual “cultures.” That is what we call individualism.

  36. matt Says:

    While the Bible doesn’t overtly condemn slavery and advises slaves to obey their masters, it is telling that the first society to ban slavery was a Christian one. For fun, compare and contrast the French and American revolutions. One was informed by the principles of Protestant Christianity and one wasn’t. Is it a coincidence that the latter involved fewer state murders and more freedom?

    The cornerstone of true diversity is the freedom to choose. Individuals have a right to self-identify in whatever way thaey choose and pursue truth wherever they think they might find it. Protestant Christianity seems to have done especially well in the marketplace of ideas. Well enough, actually, that I see no point in forcing it on anyone.

  37. globalist_elitist Says:

    The first society to ban slavery was a “Christian” one? Which society would that be? The options were a Christian society, a Muslim society, or a Hindua/Buddhist society. All are equally oppressive and illogical.

    I’m so happy that you see “no point” in forcing your religious views on others. How admirable of you.

    Women had the vote in Iran before they did in the U.S. I guess that means that Islam is more pro-women’s rights than secularist America.

    If left to the marketplace, Christianity will cease to exist within 100 years, beyond a few delusional holdouts like the Amish, etc. It is a baseless, self-destructive, and anti-growth creed that demonizes the market values of competition, intellect, and achievement. It has not succeeded in the marketplace of ideas, it has been passed along by brute force and coercion. Get real.

  38. Trent Hill Says:

    GE, I am a Christian who believes in the seperation of church and state also. I just consider this a seperation of authority, rather than a seperation of alll ideas.
    I should be free to respect my christian heritage by putting a cross on a soldiers gravestone (if he was a christian). But in a lot of Government Cemetaries, you cannot.

    I would agree that it needn’t be “forced” on anyone. However, I also don’t see how having a Ten Commandments Poster in a courtroom imposes the religion on anyone…
    In the same way that if a courtroom posts NO ten commandments on a wall, it doesn’t mean Atheism is being forced on anyone.

  39. Anthony Distler Says:

    Trent, I agree with you. You should have the right that, if a soldier was a Christian, to put a cross at his headstone. In fact, it should be encouraged.

    However, in that case, we should be able to put a pentacle on the headstone of a Wiccan as well.

  40. globalist_elitist Says:

    What you’re talking about, Anthony, is multi-religionism, not secularism. A unity of state and all churches, versus their separation.

    You want to put a cross on your gravestone?

    A) Don’t join the military

    B) If you do, refuse a socialist state burrial and pay your own way

    C) If you’re dumb enough to join the largest socialist anti-freedom bueracracy in the world, and you need to further exemplify your socialism by insisting that i pay for your burrial, then too bad - no cross.

  41. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,the fact is that there ARE public cemetaries,that isnt the arguement.

    Anthony, I have no problem with Johnny Magicrock putting a wiccan thingy on his tombstone. That is his business.

  42. Cody Quirk Says:

    The first society to ban slavery was a “Christian” one? Which society would that be?

    =Wasn’t Britain the first to ban Slavery?

  43. Cody Quirk Says:

    My point is that diversity does not make us great. It is the liberty that allows for diversity that makes us great.

    I could care less about diversity. When I go to a country music concert I don’t see any black faces in the arena. Do I care? No. Would I care if 50% of them were black? No. I’m there because I like the music.

    I have a big problem with the self-righteous people in our culture that would imply the music is somehow “better” or more “enlightening” if it appeals to a more diverse audience. I don’t agree with that.

    =Hear! Hear!

  44. Cody Quirk Says:

    Women had the vote in Iran before they did in the U.S. I guess that means that Islam is more pro-women’s rights than secularist America.

    =Yeah, what about women’s rights in the middle east now? Do you think women have more rights in America then the middle east?

  45. Cody Quirk Says:

    Who cares if the country was founded on Christianity or not? The fact is that there is no place in American society for intolerance or theocracy. What makes America great is it’s diversity.

    =Exactely, that’s why we have the No Religious Test clause in Article 6, the 1st Amendment, 14th and 15th Amendments. Our Constitution guarentees that. That’s what makes America great, unlike other countries.

  46. globalist_elitist Says:

    Cody - Logic. My point was that if a “Christian society” were the first to outlaw slavery, that says nothing about Christianity…. Unless the fact that Islamic societies were ahead of the U.S. say something positive about Islam. Islam is a wicked creed. So is any other that promotes collectivism, “altruism,” authoritarianism, rejection of science, and slavery.

  47. matt Says:

    Agreed, the fact that a Christian society was the first to outlaw slavery proves nothing on it’s face. However, if the people responsible were motivated by their Christianity (and we know that most of them were), then that starts to make a case. If english common law (one of the strongest branches in the liberty tradition) is based on, among other things, Biblical law, then that’s another factor to consider. Now, fast forward to the fact that a republics formed in nonChristian countires are much shorter and bloodier on average than their Christian counterparts, and the circumstantial evidence turns into a frickin avalanche.

    I’m ok with a 10 commandments on the coutroom wall. To me, that’s a legal rather than a religious symbol, especially since the decalouge was so formative for our whole system.

  48. globalist_elitist Says:

    If they were inspired by Christianity to abolish slavery, then they were clearly idiots, since Christianity promotes and embraces slavery. I do not accept that adherence to a creed that promotes and embraces a thing could be the cause for that thing’s abolition. You are on some loony, “9/11 Truth Movement” type of logic.

    The real force behind abolition was capitalism. A rational philosophy in which all human beings are equal. That equality is necessary in order for markets to work. Look up the history and meaning of the term “The Dismal Science.”

    Look, I think that the government should be secular, not atheist. It should neither supress nor promote religion. If left to compete freely, then baseless superstititions and fairy tales will die on their own - even if they continue to be force-fed to innocent young children. People will begin to see that it is in their rational self interest to abandon false beliefs and they will act accordingly.

    I’ll take Jefferson’s word for it over yours: “Christianity is not and never was part of the common law.”

  49. Trent Hill Says:

    Wrong GE, the history behind the end of slavery was people began to solve them what they were…people. It was Altruistic. It wasn’t about the market.

  50. globalist_elitist Says:

    Absolutely not true and 100% childish. This is what they teach kids in the 3rd grade.

    There were abolitionists, but they had very little political power. It was capitalists and workers in the North who acted in their rational self interest. Slavery was bad for them. Most did not care about the plight of African Americans. This is plain to see in the aftermath of the Civil War.

  51. Noah cooke Says:

    Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. As a christian who believes the is word of God I do not condone the teachings of non christian doctrines, BUT, But I do not condone banning any religion as long as they as they act with in the law and are not harming others. If they ban religions that go against what any of us what believe where will they stop. It opens a Pandora’s box. We cannot have it both ways.

  52. Cody Quirk Says:

    I agree that our American laws have Christian ideals, but in a non-donominational sort of way, without the dogmatic influence that was present in the old European governments.

  53. Cody Quirk Says:

    GE are you Libertarian or Libertarian-esque?

  54. Anthony Distler Says:

    GE, just so you know, the first religious society in the United States to come out against slavery was the Quakers.

  55. globalist_elitist Says:

    The fact is that the Old Testament explictly condones slavery and ascribes god-like status to slave masters. This is a fact.

    Christians do lot of great things. Women in Saudi Arabia wear head-to-toe burkas even though it is not required by Islam. The fact is that much of the horrible treatment of women that occurs in Islamic socieites has its roots in PRE-ISLAMIC cultures. And much of the good stuff in the West has its roots in PRE-CHRISTIAN cultures.

    Let me make it clear: The reason Muslims blow people up and throw acid in the faces of women who try to read has more to do with pre-Islamic Arab culture than it does the wickedness of the religious itself. And the reason that most “Christian” nations have liberal democracies in which people do not kill one another in religiously inspired rages is because of pre-Christian influences.

    So when you say the government embodies “Christian” ideals, I do not see it. I see it emobying pre-Christian, Western ideals. Many of which were absorbed into Christianity - NOT the other way around. That is why Eastern Christianity is so much unlike the West’s version. Eastern Christianity is in many ways a “purer” more Judaic form.

  56. globalist_elitist Says:

    Cody - I’m 100% Libertarian on all social issues and foreign policy (including immigration). I have a pro-business Republican’s views on fiscal and monetary policy, and trade. I think this makes me a REAL “mainstream libertarian,” not a mainstream fascist like Dondipshit.

  57. Trent Hill Says:

    “There were abolitionists, but they had very little political power. It was capitalists and workers in the North who acted in their rational self interest. Slavery was bad for them. Most did not care about the plight of African Americans. This is plain to see in the aftermath of the Civil War.”

    Oh ya, Abolitionist William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, Lord Grenville, and the Commision for Abolition of Slavery all held VERY little political clout.
    And why on EARTH would you think that the Northern workman had any care in the world about wethwer a black man was free or not? If the black man were free, they’d be competing with THEM for jobs too (as well as the Irish who were flooding in).
    As for the Civil-War riots, they were a product of the discontent with Lincoln’s handling of the war, sympathy for Southerners, and general distaaste for black people.
    Its not like Northerners were particularly fond of black people either, but they were convinced by Abolitionists of the Justice of this cause. Northern men didn’t want to see the blacks in Chains, beaten to a pulp…nor did they want to see the blacks coming North to take the jobs THEY were competing for.
    No,if slavery had been abolished because of capitalistic reasons…they wouldn’t have gone to war to do it (which clearly most of them did not wish to do: Draft Riots).
    They would have done one of the following: Encourage the continued ingenuity in the field of Agricultural Machinations (new and improved cotton gin or John Deere). Many historians suggest John Deere would have shut down the business of slave trade within 10-15 years.
    Or, they would have used Compensated Emancipation…however, this would have cost alot of money. At 3,953,696 Slaves (1860 Census). When Lincoln released the Washington D.C. slaves, thats how he did it, at $300 a pop. $1,186,108,800 wasnt a price Americans would pay (especially since that includes Southerners). Over a billion dollars is a little too steep for the Civil War-Era America.

    Besides, would you like to explain your crackpot theory on how emancipating the slaves HELPED the economy?

  58. globalist_elitist Says:

    Northern workers wanted abolition because it was easier to compete with black workers - who were discriminated against - then against SLAVE labor.

    You are making my argument for me. I said that Northerners did not (for the most part) have a moral cause for abolition. It was a political and economic one. You’re agreeing and thus proving my point that Capitalism, not Christianity, was the impetus behind abolition.

    “Crack pot theory”? It is a widely held belief. It goes like this: Capitalism is greater than feudalism. I know that agrarian regressivists with sympathies for the Pre-Civil-War South don’t believe it, but it is the case.

    It broke the South’s anti-growth economy and begun the process of industrializing the South. That’s what the war was about.

    You think slavery is good for economies. Again, you’re parroting Marx.

  59. Cody Quirk Says:

    Then why GE don’t you join the LP?

  60. globalist_elitist Says:

    I am a member of my state’s LP.

  61. Trent Hill Says:

    I agree, capitalism is better than feudalism. Which is why the Northern workers preferred fuedalism, because under the slavery system, they had to compete with the Irish (who were coming over the ocean in droves). But under the abolitionist-system they had to compete with blacks AND irish.

    Im not sure you’re looking at this correctly. Once slavery ended, the white notherner workmen didnt move south (not en mass anyway). The blacks moved north,looking for work.

    As for thinking slavery is good for an economy, NO. I think slavery BENEFITTED the northern worker as they saw it.

  62. globalist_elitist Says:

    You’ve got a good point, RE: the workers. I was not looking at things correctly, because I was extrapolating a more “connected” U.S. in a time when that connectivity was not there. But regardless, my overall point is still there - if the workers opposed the Civil War, then my point that they were not morally motivated to fight for it is just as strong as if they were in favor of it for economic reasons. And busines interests, in general, were in favor of crushing Slave Power for modernity’s sake.

  63. Cody Quirk Says:

    Never mind.

  64. Trent Hill Says:

    We can mostly agree there. However, it is a documented fact that many Christian abolitionists were a powerful force in ending slavery. Furthermore, even those who were not christian, mostly did it for moral reasons.
    The abolitionist movement in the U.S. was small but powerful.
    Sort of like the Prohibition movement…although they never got much of a vote for president, they DID get an amendment to the constitution passed.

  65. globalist_elitist Says:

    Can we agree to this? 99% of abolitionists were Christians acting on their Christian interpretations, but the majority of Christians were not in favor of abolition, and only a tiny minority of Christians were “abolitionists.” The vast majority of slaveholders were “Christians,” at least in name, and virtually all of them used Christianity to justify their holding of slaves - which is far from baseless. Finally, while 99% of abolitionists may have been Christians and only a tiny minority of Christians were abolitionists, virtually 100% of free-market economists were in favor of abolition.

  66. Trent Hill Says:


    “Can we agree to this? 99% of abolitionists were Christians acting on their Christian interpretations, but the majority of Christians were not in favor of abolition, and only a tiny minority of Christians were “abolitionists.” The vast majority of slaveholders were “Christians,” at least in name,”

    We agree up until there.
    After that,its a softer walk.
    I dont believe most Christians used their religion to justify the holding of slaves, but rather their view of blacks as non-human.
    for example, while blacks were held as slaves, Arabs never were (and yes,there were SOME in the U.S. at that point).
    Alot of slaveowners even had moral and religious qualms about owning slaves, but felt that in order to succeed financially,they needed them.

    I would also say that it needs to be mentioned that while Nearly ALL free-market economists were pro-abolition, and only 1% of christians were (using your numbers). The Christian-motivated abolitionists were still a MUCH larger group than the free-market motivated abolitionists.
    And furthermore, that they appealed to a larger crowd (Christians, rather than free-market capitalists) on the issue.

  67. globalist_elitist Says:

    Yes. But the Bible clearly condones slavery. Blacks were chosen as slaves because it made identifying runaways easy. The “non-human” crap was made up in justification. I guess the slaveholders who raped their female slaves (which were a signficiant minority if not a majority) were committing bestiality in their own minds? Well, “everyone on a farm is a mulefucker” according to some conservatives.

  68. Trent Hill Says:

    Whoa whoa. Mudsling where you will….but don’t compare me to Gene “Donkeylover” Chapman!

    As for Bible condoning the slavery…where do you see that?
    Im not sure where you got the black thing from,but that wasn’t relative to Christianity. Christian slaveholders (in Rome…during biblical times) often held slaves of white, black, and arab descent. This is because it was a common practice to sell oneself into slavery if you were too poor to support yourself (or be supported). This was a slavery that was indicative of social status rather than racial hate. Now, im not condoning either, both were despicable. But, while the Bible gave certain regulations regarding slaves…it never talked favorably of the institution, nor did it seek to abolish the evil institution. THAT, we can agree on.

    Kind of….

    Because while Jesus did not teach “release the slaves”, he did preach “Love one another.”

  69. globalist_elitist Says:

    Confusion: I did not mean to imply that the Bible mentions race. I’m saying Americans chose blacks as slaves because when they tried using whites and Indians, it was too easy for them to run away and assimilate into the populace. Think of it now - if we were to have slaves, it would be awfully convenient to have some Martians who were easily identifiable by their two heads. We could then justify their enslavement by saying that they were “sub-human.”

    The Old Testament says that slaves should obey their masters as they obey the Lord. That’s saying that if you’re my slave, I am equal to God in your eyes. That’s a pretty damn strong endorsement of slavery!

    So yes, you can clearly pull an anti-slavery message from Jesus’s altruism, but you can find direct endorsement of the institution in the Old Testament. Plus, the self-destructive self-sacrifice endorsed by Jesus was not really a rallying call for slaves to throw off their chains.

  70. Trent Hill Says:

    The Old Testament laws are not REALLY relevant to current day Christianity. I don’t know how much you know about the religion, but with the “tearing of the vail” came the conclusion of the old laws.
    However, because it is in our Bible,it is still valid—that i’ll give you.

    But, I don’t see that verse the same way you do. I certainly SEE how you come to that conclusion,but I dont.
    When it says that slaves should obey their masters as we obey the Lord, it means with Love. It means that a slave should not be begrudging, angry, or selfish. If you think of this from a spiritual point of view, it is consistent with the rest of the bible. The Book encourages ALL people not to be angry or selfish.
    Now, if I were a slave. I would not only be angry, but downright rebellious. So i’m not saying the Bible HAS to say what im interpretting…but it is more consistent with overall christianity when looked at in that light. And although it may not have been the intent of the writer, it is certainly the intent of the “All-loving” God that this Book represents.

    “Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing [acting faithfully].
    Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.”

  71. globalist_elitist Says:

    If the Old Testament is not valid, then Christianity has nothing to say about homosexuality.

    It’s either pro-slavery and anti-gay, or anti-slavery and ambivalent towards gays. You can’t pick and choose your favorites and say they’re justified by the Bible.

  72. Trent Hill Says:

    1.)I dont justify my anti-homosexual marriage stance with the Bible. Nor do I think most reasonable people do. I define it by the definition of marriage, and the nature of man.
    2.)Even if I did,your statement is untrue.
    1st Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 1:25-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10.

    However, I think I was misleading too. As there WERE mentions of slavery in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 7:21-22, Ephesians 6:5-6

    The only question is this, were these verses about slavery a form of spiritual law…or were they an assurance that the Christians were not anti-establishment revolutionaries (as some anti-slavery christians already were).

  73. Joe Says:

    Here is a definition of marriage I found in the current Merriam-Webster dictionary: “the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.”

  74. Joe Says:


    I don’t understand what you mean when you say that the Old Testament Laws are not relevant to present day Christianity, while it the same time acknowledging they are valid. How can something be valid but not relevant? My Christian faith teaches that “All the Scripture … is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness.” 2 Tim 3:16.

  75. Trent Hill Says:

    The old laws were rendered non-binding by the tearing of the veil. We no longer have to sacrifice a pure lamb due to Old Testament law,because the veil broke,and we can now have a personal relationship. The old laws are outdated, the only ones that still apply are the ones Jesus looked over, or the ones we choose to follow to honor God. The only IMPORTANT laws are new testament laws. Because if you “Love one another”, then the Ten Commandments are covered.

    As far as marriage’s definition. It is one man being joined with one woman in a relationship of committment [through Christ].
    Same sex couples can’t do that. But as iv said before, they could Weeble-wobble.

  76. Joe Says:

    But the New Testament itself says that “All the Scripture … is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness.” It does not say “all scripture except the Old Testament.”

    As to your definition of marriage, I agree with you, but that is a biblical definition of marriage, not a dictionary definition. I was wondering what you meant by “I define it by the definition of marriage” which sounds to me like circular reasoning. Whose definition? Yours is certainly not the Webster’s definition. I don’t understand how you in one breath can say that marriage is a relationship of commitment through Chist while at the same time saying that you do not justify your “anti-homosexual marriage stance with the Bible.” It sounds me like that is exactly what you are doing: using the bible’s definition of marriage!

  77. globalist_elitist Says:

    So you’re pro-slavery, Joe? Should slaves obey their masters like they obey the Lord?

  78. Joe Says:

    My “personal opinion” is my understanding of the Biblical position. Exodus 21, Leviticus 25. Deut. 23:15-16. Slavery is regulated, not abolished, for God’s glory and for our good. (Rom. 8:28). Covenant members are to be released at Sabbath year or Jubilee, depending on whether it was voluntary (Jubilee) or for a debt (Sabbath). Foreigners could lawfully be kept forever, in my read, but men of distinct renown disagree with me (Rutherford, Gillespie, Knox, Calvin) on the basis that a father cannot lawfully resign away the unalienable right of liberty of his child, which is very persuasive to me, but (at present) I cannot square with Leviticus 25:46.

    The most important regulation, in my opinion, is that manstealing (as was common in Africa to get the slaves) was a death-penalty offence. Exodus 21:16. The Christian Commonwealth of Virginia was the first nation on the face of the earth to prohibit slave-trafficing (1777).

  79. Trent Hill Says:

    Random House says - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

    American Heritage says - The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

    Kenerman English Multilingual says - the ceremony by which a man and woman become husband and wife.

    Mirriam-Webster says - the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law

    There are four for you Joe. The DEFINITION doesn’t leave room for a man and man to commit themselves in marriage. Only a man and a woman.
    I said [through Christ] because that is how I feel about marriage. But the literal,secular meaning of the word leaves no room for misinterpretation.
    I don’t use the Bible in this arguement, because not all people follow the Bible. This arguement makes a more profound statement, and one which anyone of any religion can agree to. It is a wider attack on the issue, rather than your fundamentalist-Calvinist worldview.

  80. Joe Says:

    But Trent you have ignored the definition of marriage that I cited from the most recent edition of Merriam-Webster which DOES define marriage as “the state of being united to a person of the same sex.” Without Scripture, on what basis is one to decide which definition is correct, the modern Webster’s or the 1828 Webster’s? Earlier you also cited something you called “the nature of man” but I’m not sure what that is either, other than fallen.

  81. Trent Hill Says:

    WTF kind of dictionary is that? No real dictionary says that marriage is ONLY between two people of the same sex,that’s not only retarded but a bold faced lie. Now, it could say marriage was the Union of two PEOPLE,and not specify their gender, but your definition is either concocted,or politically motivated, or both.

    Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source
    Main Entry: mar·riage
    Pronunciation: ‘mar-ij
    Function: noun
    1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE
    2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

    Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

    My 2004 one says the same things.

  82. globalist_elitist Says:

    The Eric Dondero Dictionary states that “Marriage is a relationship between two or more people of the same race and/or gender, in which the participants therein engage in Swinging and take strong stands for Swingers’ rights, against left-wing Islamisists, and in favor of Mainstream Libertarianism.”

    Hey, here’s an idea - How about everyone defines marriage their own way.

  83. Trent Hill Says:

    “Hey, here’s an idea - How about everyone defines marriage their own way.”

    Hey, here’s an idea - How about everyone defines murder their own way?
    Hey, here’s an idea - How about everyone defines milk their own way?
    Hey, here’s an idea - How about everyone defines beastiality their own way?

    Understand how lusicrous you sound?

  84. globalist_elitist Says:

    Sorry, Trent. I don’t want you defining the relationship between me and my wife.

    You are an authoritarian control-freak. My marriage does not infringe upon your rights as murder would. I’ll leave the bestiality to your people, since you take so much pride in its normalcy.

    What I have learned from debating you is: 1) You want to control other people’s lives; 2) You want to insulate yourself from competition and deny others the right to buy and sell the products and services that they want; and 3) You pick and choose the pieces you like from the Bible and reject those that don’t conform to your world-view.

    Hey, you should be for Barack Obama!

  85. Joe Says:

    The latest edition of M-W gives the definition as I have related. I cut and pasted it directly from I do not doubt it is politically motivated, but not on my part.

  86. Trent Hill Says:


    I am not capable of defining the relationship between you and your wife. I’m simply citing the definition of marriage (which has been basically unchanged since…forever?). If you are married,you already fit that definition. I had nothing to do with it.

    Joe, dont care about politicallly motivated revisionists.

  87. globalist_elitist Says:

    Oh really? Polygamy was an accepted aspect of marriage in most cultures up until recently. Ownership of women was an aspect of marriage in most cultures. Legal rape and abuse of your wife was a part of marriage in most cultures. In fact, I think it’s that classic hate text to which you declare your partial obedience that gives men the right to beat their wives so long as the instrument they use to inflict punishment is no wider than their thumb, am I correct?

  88. Trent Hill Says:

    Ohk. Let’s reform the arguement and say “Last 70 years”.
    Nonetheless, those people who beat their wives, obstructed their opinions, and abused their spouses were not IN marriages, they were seeking control.
    A marriage can’t be born out of such hatred, control, violence, or arrogance.
    Doesn’t matter, point being - while all those things ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE part of the definition of marriage, a male being with a male is ALSO not part of that definition.

  89. tedbohne Says:

    Greg’s rules for reform?

    I’m hardly surprised to see a stupid fucking cop come up with this sort of extremist bilge. You can’t go back to 1776, and wouldn’t want to. I think the most frightening aspect of this article is that it represents an aspect of society totally under the hypnosis of ideology, and entirely bereft of the irrefutable, inalterable fact that the US cannot live alone in the world and grow beans and corn. Frankly people with such simple forms of mentation as this should be considered in any action to depopulate the world. The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. Clearly we can live without the latter, not the former. It is the fault of anencephalic such as yourself that the US finds itself in the condition it’s in now. It isn’t that some of your points aren’t a bullseye. The dissolution of the Fed is one of these. Isolationism, and state rule with governors like George Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Wallace, and Jesse Ventura clearly obviate that the states cannot be trusted to pick even a mentally balanced person, much less a statesman and lawmaker. No, Greg, it should be back to a beat for you. No gun though.


  90. Famous Inventors Says:

    Famous Inventors

    Famous Inventors

Leave a Reply