Based upon past Euro/American relationships, it's no surprise. The countries of the world have only history to base their attitudes and responses to this (new) version of the U.S.A. I am convinced that this will be the final chance for America to have a working relationship with Euro/Asian countries. The subversive acts of overthrowing governments and leaders by the secret untouchable divisions of this government must be changed. And that is precisely what is going on now. The majority of our ( and ) other governments. Must have a focus on peace, cooperation and brotherly kindness to the needy.
The secret acts of the evil, Must be dealt with. We as a world are running out of chances. READ YOUR BIBLES.
Across Europe it was the fullness in the reignited original truth of the Gospel's & Scriptures to the common man, Esp via the effect in Europe of Calvin, Tynsdale, Coverdale, Huguenot's, Whittingham & the Geneva Bible, contained within Martin Luther & "Reformation" across Europe, is what turned the Western world toward all that has advanced since, include the Age of Science & the Enlightenment;
This despite the Vaticans then launching "Thirty Years War" in 1618-48 to genocide Protest-ants and eradicate it completely-[as many as 8million deaths];
Directly leading to the 1620 movement fleeing it all by the Pilgrims + Puritans to start- and did a New World with the governmental structure honoring the Word of God in Scriptural living which is certainly seen 1st in their ground breaking covenant of self government in their Mayflower Compact
Mmm, not sure about the history here, at all. One cannot grasp what happens today if they refer to a misunderstood history to back that up.
Science, for example, began through the development of the scientific method in the Medieval universities and even earlier monasteries and their efforts.
On the Thirty Years War, that was most patently NOT launched by the Vatican, but started when Emperor Ferdinand II of the Holy Roman Empire was removed as king of Bohemia, to be replaced by the Protestant Frederick V. That war was not religious, but political in nature: the religious claims were only the excuses.
As professor of History and Theology William T. Cavanaugh wrote in his book "The Myth of Religious Violence", “[w]hen we take a closer look at the 16th and 17th century wars of religion we find that differences between Catholics and Protestants, and Protestants and other Protestants, were secondary to the aims of the emerging nation-states and various political and dynastic intrigues. Simply put, the main cause of these wars (and the intermittent atrocities and killing) was political, not religious.”
How can that be? "If religious differences were the main cause of these bloody conflicts," Cavanaugh maintains, "then we would expect to find that they were invariably fought along neat denominational lines. What we actually find is Catholic emperors attacking popes, Catholic French kings attacking Catholic emperors, Protestant kings and princes siding with Catholic kings against other Protestants, Lutheran and Catholic kings uniting against Catholic emperors, Protestant Huguenot nobles and Catholic nobles in France uniting against both Catholic and Protestant Huguenot commoners who likewise united against the nobles, Protestant and Catholic nobles in France uniting against their Catholic king, Protestants rejecting the Protestant Union (the coalition of German Protestant states) even while some Catholics were siding with it, Lutheran princes adamantly supporting the rights of a Catholic emperor, Catholic France supporting Protestant princes in Germany, the Dutch Calvinists helping the Catholic king to repress uprisings of French Calvinists, a Lutheran leading the Catholic imperial army, and mercenaries of every religious stripe selling themselves to the highest Catholic or Protestant bidder.”
One has to be careful to look at history in proper detail, in proper fullness. Being hasty is never good.
There is an obvious missing link for all the history. It is obvious that the relationship with their faith is not personal, it is an erroneous one. A personal relationship with The Holy Trinity is a real game changer on all levels.
Absolutely, the euro elites are/were in a holding pattern to see what soros/obama/ and treasonous dems were able to do with the new administration and the legal environment. We are extremely happy so far. Celebrations are limited to the election proper. There are numerous hurdles, some are here, more coming. I'm an old man who has watched since J.F.K. was eliminated. You might say the words conspiracy theorist. I've been called worse.
Soberingly, even the US understanding of freedom of speech seems to have started out as isegoria + x and developed into parrhesia + y only over time, by court rulings aka chance/accident and with many setbacks aka incarcerations. https://www.pimlicojournal.co.uk/p/the-real-origins-of-american-freedom
And the Biden years demoed that even from the current level, a fallback can never be ruled out.
I would argue that the American view resembles parrhesia, because they approach the question from a different angle than Europe (or Biden). I am always very careful about principles, even if the practical case is irrelevant by itself. It wasn't that 'free speech' itself changed, initially, under attempts by democrats and others to redefine our country, it was that the view on the government, the state, and their powers, changed. More and more became subject to administrative, judicial, and government review and control, and as such free speech shifted from resembling parrhesia to resembling isegoria.
Free speech and the attacks on it are only the symptoms of a much more important, underlying change that was attempted to insert into American practice and thinking.
Just finished reading the article you cited. Great work by the author!
There is one remark I want to make: the author, being British, is looking at the discussion from British/European point of view, where the state has broad, all-encompassing powers, where the US government does not. That difference in foundation is vital here. It is true that the current understanding of 'free speech' as such took a long way to get to where it is, but that does not mean it is 'new' or 'not constitutional', I think. Just as justices grappled with race and personhood, getting it wrong several times before getting it right, they employ, they wrestled with 'free speech' and the many confliction rights, freedoms, and consequences that come with it.
In the US, the focus was always on both the individual and the society, not on the state (as in nation-state, and its power apparatus). This was the view of Madison, as the article points out, even as it tries to dilute his views with that of 'many Americans' who disagreed with him.
"Despite Madison and Jefferson’s personal views, the narrow, ‘Blackstonian’ view of press freedom had legally prevailed." How so? Legally prevailed, because SCOTUS did not rule against the Acts in question? Since they were repealed, there was no longer a reason for SCOTUS to rule on them, making the lack of such ruling irrelevant. Madison's point about post-publication restrictions by government were similarly never defeated, either, and resurrected by the Warren courts. How can it be argued that this view by Madison and Jefferson on the 3rd amendment is unconstitutional?
We do indeed see a searching of where the line between dangerous speech and acceptable speech is, as we all agree that 'free speech' is not 'absolute'. Yelling fire in a theater, calling directly for violence and murder, even actual slander and libel are not to be accepted by a civilized people. Recently, a number of libel cases have been won, famously the Nick Sandmann from Covington High (the boy with the MAGA hat at the DC Right to Life March), even with the very high bar, and more recently several by Trump and his followers (against ABC, or Pfizer -still in court, but favorable towards Trump), have shown that when actual malicious libel happens, and not political or social speech attacking opponents, it gets shut down.
It supports a robust and bare-knuckle version of democratic speech and exchange of ideas, where everything can be listened to, and where solid pushback is part and parcel of the process, expected even.
We have a long road to the recovery. The good news is we have an unbelievable team of Patriots who are following the rule of law on every hand. There is little the insane crooked left can do but delay their next painful judgment they will be charged with! Let the winning continue. This is the most exciting and rewarding time in this old man's life!
Based upon past Euro/American relationships, it's no surprise. The countries of the world have only history to base their attitudes and responses to this (new) version of the U.S.A. I am convinced that this will be the final chance for America to have a working relationship with Euro/Asian countries. The subversive acts of overthrowing governments and leaders by the secret untouchable divisions of this government must be changed. And that is precisely what is going on now. The majority of our ( and ) other governments. Must have a focus on peace, cooperation and brotherly kindness to the needy.
The secret acts of the evil, Must be dealt with. We as a world are running out of chances. READ YOUR BIBLES.
It needs to be pointed out that the same 'secret untouchable divisions' also included elites from Europe. On that level, nationality is not important.
Europe has to answer some tough questions about themselves, as well, not just the US.
Across Europe it was the fullness in the reignited original truth of the Gospel's & Scriptures to the common man, Esp via the effect in Europe of Calvin, Tynsdale, Coverdale, Huguenot's, Whittingham & the Geneva Bible, contained within Martin Luther & "Reformation" across Europe, is what turned the Western world toward all that has advanced since, include the Age of Science & the Enlightenment;
This despite the Vaticans then launching "Thirty Years War" in 1618-48 to genocide Protest-ants and eradicate it completely-[as many as 8million deaths];
Directly leading to the 1620 movement fleeing it all by the Pilgrims + Puritans to start- and did a New World with the governmental structure honoring the Word of God in Scriptural living which is certainly seen 1st in their ground breaking covenant of self government in their Mayflower Compact
Mmm, not sure about the history here, at all. One cannot grasp what happens today if they refer to a misunderstood history to back that up.
Science, for example, began through the development of the scientific method in the Medieval universities and even earlier monasteries and their efforts.
On the Thirty Years War, that was most patently NOT launched by the Vatican, but started when Emperor Ferdinand II of the Holy Roman Empire was removed as king of Bohemia, to be replaced by the Protestant Frederick V. That war was not religious, but political in nature: the religious claims were only the excuses.
As professor of History and Theology William T. Cavanaugh wrote in his book "The Myth of Religious Violence", “[w]hen we take a closer look at the 16th and 17th century wars of religion we find that differences between Catholics and Protestants, and Protestants and other Protestants, were secondary to the aims of the emerging nation-states and various political and dynastic intrigues. Simply put, the main cause of these wars (and the intermittent atrocities and killing) was political, not religious.”
How can that be? "If religious differences were the main cause of these bloody conflicts," Cavanaugh maintains, "then we would expect to find that they were invariably fought along neat denominational lines. What we actually find is Catholic emperors attacking popes, Catholic French kings attacking Catholic emperors, Protestant kings and princes siding with Catholic kings against other Protestants, Lutheran and Catholic kings uniting against Catholic emperors, Protestant Huguenot nobles and Catholic nobles in France uniting against both Catholic and Protestant Huguenot commoners who likewise united against the nobles, Protestant and Catholic nobles in France uniting against their Catholic king, Protestants rejecting the Protestant Union (the coalition of German Protestant states) even while some Catholics were siding with it, Lutheran princes adamantly supporting the rights of a Catholic emperor, Catholic France supporting Protestant princes in Germany, the Dutch Calvinists helping the Catholic king to repress uprisings of French Calvinists, a Lutheran leading the Catholic imperial army, and mercenaries of every religious stripe selling themselves to the highest Catholic or Protestant bidder.”
One has to be careful to look at history in proper detail, in proper fullness. Being hasty is never good.
There is an obvious missing link for all the history. It is obvious that the relationship with their faith is not personal, it is an erroneous one. A personal relationship with The Holy Trinity is a real game changer on all levels.
Absolutely, the euro elites are/were in a holding pattern to see what soros/obama/ and treasonous dems were able to do with the new administration and the legal environment. We are extremely happy so far. Celebrations are limited to the election proper. There are numerous hurdles, some are here, more coming. I'm an old man who has watched since J.F.K. was eliminated. You might say the words conspiracy theorist. I've been called worse.
WE are reclaiming the Mt. climb the Founding Peoples began...!
Ha, conspiracy theories are generally just truths that haven't been accepted yet ;-)
On a lighter note I enjoy your work a lot.
Thank you, much appreciated!
Soberingly, even the US understanding of freedom of speech seems to have started out as isegoria + x and developed into parrhesia + y only over time, by court rulings aka chance/accident and with many setbacks aka incarcerations. https://www.pimlicojournal.co.uk/p/the-real-origins-of-american-freedom
And the Biden years demoed that even from the current level, a fallback can never be ruled out.
I would argue that the American view resembles parrhesia, because they approach the question from a different angle than Europe (or Biden). I am always very careful about principles, even if the practical case is irrelevant by itself. It wasn't that 'free speech' itself changed, initially, under attempts by democrats and others to redefine our country, it was that the view on the government, the state, and their powers, changed. More and more became subject to administrative, judicial, and government review and control, and as such free speech shifted from resembling parrhesia to resembling isegoria.
Free speech and the attacks on it are only the symptoms of a much more important, underlying change that was attempted to insert into American practice and thinking.
Just finished reading the article you cited. Great work by the author!
There is one remark I want to make: the author, being British, is looking at the discussion from British/European point of view, where the state has broad, all-encompassing powers, where the US government does not. That difference in foundation is vital here. It is true that the current understanding of 'free speech' as such took a long way to get to where it is, but that does not mean it is 'new' or 'not constitutional', I think. Just as justices grappled with race and personhood, getting it wrong several times before getting it right, they employ, they wrestled with 'free speech' and the many confliction rights, freedoms, and consequences that come with it.
In the US, the focus was always on both the individual and the society, not on the state (as in nation-state, and its power apparatus). This was the view of Madison, as the article points out, even as it tries to dilute his views with that of 'many Americans' who disagreed with him.
"Despite Madison and Jefferson’s personal views, the narrow, ‘Blackstonian’ view of press freedom had legally prevailed." How so? Legally prevailed, because SCOTUS did not rule against the Acts in question? Since they were repealed, there was no longer a reason for SCOTUS to rule on them, making the lack of such ruling irrelevant. Madison's point about post-publication restrictions by government were similarly never defeated, either, and resurrected by the Warren courts. How can it be argued that this view by Madison and Jefferson on the 3rd amendment is unconstitutional?
We do indeed see a searching of where the line between dangerous speech and acceptable speech is, as we all agree that 'free speech' is not 'absolute'. Yelling fire in a theater, calling directly for violence and murder, even actual slander and libel are not to be accepted by a civilized people. Recently, a number of libel cases have been won, famously the Nick Sandmann from Covington High (the boy with the MAGA hat at the DC Right to Life March), even with the very high bar, and more recently several by Trump and his followers (against ABC, or Pfizer -still in court, but favorable towards Trump), have shown that when actual malicious libel happens, and not political or social speech attacking opponents, it gets shut down.
It supports a robust and bare-knuckle version of democratic speech and exchange of ideas, where everything can be listened to, and where solid pushback is part and parcel of the process, expected even.
We have a long road to the recovery. The good news is we have an unbelievable team of Patriots who are following the rule of law on every hand. There is little the insane crooked left can do but delay their next painful judgment they will be charged with! Let the winning continue. This is the most exciting and rewarding time in this old man's life!