Misconceptions We Learn in School.

[civ_king]

Misconception: Martin Luther tried stopping the Roman Catholic Church from slaughtering all the Jews in Europe

 

[Fr8monkey]

When was the last time you saw ninja run around?

That's why I think ninjas don't exist... no one has ever really seen one!

 

[_random_]

Misconception: Martin Luther tried stopping the Roman Catholic Church from slaughtering all the Jews in Europe

Who teaches this?

 

[Ajidica]

Protestant revisionists who try and gloss over Luthers ugly side?

I have seen that statement before, so it isn't isolated. Martin Luther doesn't mince words:
'Against the murderous, thevious, rapacious hordes of peasants'
'On Jews and their lies'

 

[_random_]

Protestant revisionists who try and gloss over Luthers ugly side?

I have seen that statement before, so it isn't isolated. Martin Luther doesn't mince words:
'Against the murderous, thevious, rapacious hordes of peasants'
'On Jews and their lies'

I have read heavily protestant textbooks, but most of them sweep the issue aside altogether. Perhaps the greatest lie I've seen about Luther is that he was responsible for the Scientific Revolution. It's not as though any of the founding figures was a Catholic priest.

 

[civ_king]

Who teaches this?

My textbook...


Also apparently the Protestant Reformation allowed the spread of Hindu numbers to Europe and allowed things Columbus to discover America...

 

[LightSpectra]

That would be amazing because Luther was nine years old when Colombus discovered the New World.

 

[Dachs]

I remember that my one history teacher several years ago told us that the design of the government of the United States of America was in no way influenced by the Ancient Roman Republic.

It was influenced by a misunderstanding of the Roman republic. Close enough.

 

[civ_king]

That would be amazing because Luther was nine years old when Colombus discovered the New World.

My point exactly

 

[Lord Baal]

And his entire 4 term presidency, including most of WWII, revolved around those economic decisions?

No. But his presidency revolved around all of his decisions. Many of which were quite awful. Including many wartime decisions.

To the Allied countries, he definitely was, for joining with the force that he did, and for Britian, pushing his Europe First policy.

Why don't we ask the French what they think of FDR? Or Poland? Or even many Australians? Don't make the mistake of assuming he's universaly beloved by the Allies. He was more popular in Russia than Britain, and pretty roundly despised in France.

I am not saying he was a good president, but just posting a list of faults is disingenuous, much like those who would just post a list of his acomplishments.

If you post both, the negatives will still win.

When was the last time you saw ninja run around?

When was the last time you saw a ninja?

 

[aelf]

The Constitution of the French First Republic was completely suppressed by the time the Reign of Terror began. Had it been obeyed, it would've been something of a limited government, though less so than the United States.

How about the current French Republic? Try arguing with a Libertarian that the fact that it has a constitution makes it a limited government.

Jefferson didn't write any of the Federalist Papers. In fact, he played almost no part in the formulation of the Constitution, as he was serving as ambassador to France at the time of its debate and ratification. I'm assuming you meant James Madison here.

Yes, Madison. My apologies.

The context of the Federalist Papers was in favor of the Constitution against the Articles of Confederation. So Hamilton, Madison and Jay were arguing that the nature of the Articles meant that the central government had little power to resist against factions, and that a government under the U.S. Constitution would be more suited for that purpose.

So basically the Federal Papers argued for centralisation to a practical extent. Still sounds to me that limited government isn't really the concern, especially since they didn't seem to want a government so limited as to be unable to stand against factions. While this may be rooted in Libertarian ideas about protecting the freedom of the individual (although I think it was also intended to give the federal government latitude to set policy, somewhat antithetically to "limited government"), it still has little to do with the Libertarian idea of limited government. It might have been partly conceived to achieve what Libertarians wanted a government to do, sure, but Libertarian limited government also implies other things that I have not seen addressed by the Founding Fathers. The term seems anachronistic when applied to that time.

 

[say1988]

If you post both, the negatives will still win.

Where did I say anything about that?
It is disingenuous to present only the negative side. It misrepresents him. Just as much as someone who presents only the good side.

 

[Leifmk]

An important point of distinction: at the time of the Roman Republic, Caesar was just another name and Augustus meant something like "revered one" (I'm too lazy to look it up now). They only became synonyms for the guy in charge after men with these names/titles were in charge.

Yeah.

There was in fact no single word equivalent to the title "emperor" during the Roman Empire; the guy in charge had not one title but a nice long laundry-list of titles, and usage changed a bit over time. "Emperor" itself derives from "Imperator" which was just one of those titles.

"Caesar" indeed started out as a name (specifically a cognomen, which is to say a name for a smaller branch of a larger family, previously based upon personal epithets but by the late Republican era usually inherited from father to son) which became attached to the office of the Big Guy by tradition after the first few guys adopted their designated successors and bestowed that name upon them, and so on.

Indeed for a while the "Caesar" title by itself had a meaning similar to "Crown Prince" as it was bestowed upon the designated heir (but retained along with other titles after his accession to power, i.e. some dude named Dudius would become Dudius Caesar upon being chosen as heir, and then Imperator Caesar Dudius Augustus after being promoted to head dude in charge).

 

[Lord Baal]

Where did I say anything about that?
It is disingenuous to present only the negative side. It misrepresents him. Just as much as someone who presents only the good side.

I was pointing it out, not attacking you.

 

[LightSpectra]

How about the current French Republic? Try arguing with a Libertarian that the fact that it has a constitution makes it a limited government.

There's multiple senses of the term "limited government" because of the vagueness of the application of the word "limited." Strictly speaking, if there are things the government is not allowed to do via constitutional law, it's a limited government. Then there's the context of the term being relative to other governments or theories, in which case, one might not call France a "limited government" compared to Hong Kong or Estonia.

So basically the Federal Papers argued for centralisation to a practical extent. Still sounds to me that limited government isn't really the concern, especially since they didn't seem to want a government so limited as to be unable to stand against factions. While this may be rooted in Libertarian ideas about protecting the freedom of the individual (although I think it was also intended to give the federal government latitude to set policy, somewhat antithetically to "limited government"), it still has little to do with the Libertarian idea of limited government.

Again, what the federalists were looking for was a proper balance between limited government and effective government. Most Americans would've been satisfied with the status quo if the pro-Constitution side didn't eventually convince them that the Articles wasn't enough to protect their freedom; even with that, though, the anti-federalists were still largely popular due to the fact that it seemed like the only purpose of the union was a mutual defense pact.

It might have been partly conceived to achieve what Libertarians wanted a government to do, sure, but Libertarian limited government also implies other things that I have not seen addressed by the Founding Fathers. The term seems anachronistic when applied to that time.

If you're using the term "Libertarian" to mean the 21st century American Libertarian Party, then obviously. But the word in itself doesn't imply that.

 

[aelf]

If you're using the term "Libertarian" to mean the 21st century American Libertarian Party, then obviously. But the word in itself doesn't imply that.

I disagree that the term Libertarian as I meant is only applicable to the American Libertarian Party. Libertarianism as a school of political philosophy that is distinct from Liberalism (under which previous libertarians would be considered to fall today) exists outside of America and is indeed what is increasingly associated with the term 'libertarian' today, the ideas of whom seem to be implied when Antilogic said "The United States was not founded on the idea of "limited" or "no" government".

 

[Traitorfish]

There was in fact no single word equivalent to the title "emperor" during the Roman Empire; the guy in charge had not one title but a nice long laundry-list of titles, and usage changed a bit over time. "Emperor" itself derives from "Imperator" which was just one of those titles.

"Imperator", in particular, was originally a military title, rather than a regal one- it's contemporary usage would have been something closer to "Generalissimo" than "Emperor"; more like Stalin naming himself Commissar of the Defence of the USSR than Napoleon crowning himself Emperor.

 

[Arakhor]

Imperator was Latin for general or war-leader. "Prince" comes from the Latin princeps, which was one of Augustus' titles.

 

[Sofista]

My textbook...

If you ask around the Roman Jewish community they'll claim to be the most ancient continuous Jewish community in the world.

 

[Lord Baal]

If you ask around the Roman Jewish community they'll claim to be the most ancient continuous Jewish community in the world.

They probably are, with the possible exception of Alexandria.