Who’s laughing now?

Dave Richardson's picture

Last week a Peachtree City woman was arrested and charged with two felonies for bigamy. She allegedly married a second man under an assumed name so as to avoid the law.

But why do we care? Why is it even a crime for this woman to marry someone she loves? Why can’t she marry two men or even six if she wants?

More people today are coming to the conclusion that polygamous marriages don’t hurt anyone, and polygamous unions deserve the same recognition as heterosexual marriages. As I was sorting through this issue, I stumbled across a website which claimed that marriage laws should be changed to allow for polygamous marriage.

“Many polygamous couples want the right to legally marry because they are in love - many, in fact, have spent the last 10, 20 or 50 years with that person - and they want to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer, by making a public commitment to stand together in good times and bad, through all the joys and challenges family life brings.

Many parents want the right to marry because they know it offers children a vital safety net and guarantees protections that unmarried parents cannot provide. And still other people ... are fighting for the right of polygamous couples to marry because they recognize that it is simply not fair to deny some families the protections all other families are eligible to enjoy.”

Most reasonable people today understand that marriage is a basic human right, and restricting it to a man and woman is discriminatory, inequitable, and unfair. We have out grown such puritanical notions ... or have we?

What if you were to re-read the website quote above and substitute the phrase “intergenerational couples” or “trans-species couples” for “polygamous couples.” Would it make sense?

In today’s world, it sure could. We already know countless stories of sex between students and teachers or adults with children. Why should we be surprised by bestiality?

Intimacy with other species is growing in our country just as bigamy and polygamy is. It is already in some universities. Professor Alice Kuzniar researches and writes on relationships with animals, particularly dogs.

She was at the University of North Carolina when she wrote a leading work on the subject called “Melancholy Dog.” Later, for a San Francisco State University journal she wrote “On Intimacy with Dogs,” where she “insist[s] on the appropriateness of one’s passion for a pet, sprightly challeng[ing] assumptions about what constitutes a marital-sexual relationship.”

This isn’t farfetched, but becoming normal in our country. A July 15, 2005 story in the Seattle Times chronicled the death of a man who was crushed while having sex with a horse at a popular farm near Seattle. In the end no one was arrested as “deputies don’t believe a crime occurred because bestiality is not illegal in Washington state and the horse was uninjured.”

You may be cringing right now. You may be laughing and thinking this is ridiculous. This could never happen in our country, because this is a small minority, and people would never allow it. Really ...?

I have lived long enough to witness a tectonic shift in public opinion on sexuality and marriage. Today, these issues are framed as human rights and matters of inequality and discrimination.

They are nothing of the sort. We are witnessing what happens when a country jettisons God. Dostoyevsky said if there is no God “everything is lawful.”

This is what happens when God in his person and character is no longer the definition of good. Everyone knows we are not like him, and that is how we all knew what was right and wrong.

Now, we are all our own standards, which means there is no good or evil. There is just what is good for oneself. One can’t say what is good for another because he or she is their own standard.

Likewise, if someone wants to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings or exterminate whole races of people, no one can say that is wrong. All one can say is that he, she or they would not do that. They are their own standard.

This is what happens when we decide for ourselves what good is rather than God. So if our neighbor wants to marry two men, how can anyone say that is wrong?

Oh, remember that website quote above where I suggested substituting other phrases for “polygamous couples?” I have to confess, I already did that with the quote, which actually comes verbatim from the Human Rights Campaign, a leading homosexual rights group.

From the gay marriage page, I substituted “polygamous couples” for “same-sex couples.” The argument for gay marriage is EXACTLY the same as the argument for polygamous, bigamous, intergenerational, or trans-species marriage.

This has never been a rights or discrimination issue. It is a moral issue. When we assume that we are the deciders of good instead of God, then “everything is lawful” and amazingly we scratch our heads and wonder how we lost our country and our culture.

Fifty years ago people laughed at the idea of homosexuals marrying, thinking it was ridiculous and would never happen. Who’s laughing now?

[David Richardson of Peachtree City coordinates the Assumptions Project. He has a Master of Theology degree from Oxford University and is a recognized expert on the religious attitudes and beliefs of university professors. He, his wife, and his children have lived in Fayette County for over 22 years.]

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
No, I think he actually means " SPECIEIST"

too may vowels and probably not a real word, but he is making a funny comparison to racist. Species discrimination. Get it?

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Thank you, Mudcat...

...whether you agree or not, you got it.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Cost of gay marriage

I tried to do a little research. Best I can tell is at last count 253 of the Fortune 500 companies offer some sort of "Domestic Partner" benefits. I admit this is higher than I thought. Still most of these companies do not offer the full range of benefits allowed to "married couples". If Gay couples are allowed equal status/access to benefits as a result of obtaining married status there will be a substantial cost to the companies. The workers will face an increased cost for their benefits and the consumers will bear the brunt of the rest. I don't see a way of allowing gay marriage and not providing equal benefits. Do you?

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Cost of heterosexual marriage

It's obviously a whole lot more than the cost of gay marriage :)

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
OK Nuk but......
Quote:

It's obviously a whole lot more than the cost of gay marriage :)

OK but the question before us is do we want to throw another log on the fire so to speak. Are you willing to pay even more for things you need? Or maybe you advocate taking benefits away from those that have them? I really could care less what they do as long as I don't have to see it or pay for it.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
G35: OK, what are the costs?

Why are "we" already paying some benefits for married couples to begin with, gay or straight? How did it get to the point that government-sanctioned marriage, your home, etc. became a political football to kick around and also a mechanism to tell citizens "this is good for you, so it's legal" or "we decided now this is bad, so it's illegal."

Every time the US government promotes something like marriage or home ownership or religion, it cheapens all of it and also has failed over and over. That's why the government needs to get the hell out of the morality business which will help stop the decline of values in our society as well as all the overreach of government into people's personal lives. It also needs to get out of the insurance business and try a truly free market approach for once since state-managed insurance and federally-managed insurance has been nothing short of a disaster so for.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
NUK_1 - How?

"How did it get to the point that government-sanctioned marriage, your home, etc. became a political football to kick around and also a mechanism to tell citizens "this is good for you, so it's legal" or "we decided now this is bad, so it's illegal.""

1. Marriage is a contract.
2. It deals with the exchange and mingling of property.

Government should be involved in marriage to the extent it is the basis of combining or transferring individual property. This is the only legitimate way that government should be involved. It needs to stay out of the "moral" side of the argument and stand legally neutral. Unfortunately, for us all, politicians use this issue and others like it to divide and pander to our emotions all for the sake of election. We fall victim to this over and over again. We think we are getting something for nothing, when in fact we simply give up a little more freedom to be ourselves.

The fact that two people of the same sex want to get married impacts no one as long as that marriage does not take property from me and transfer it to them. And that is the basis of most objection to "allowing" marriage between same sexes in my opinion. The fact is as an individual you can call any action morally wrong, even a group of individuals can call something morally wrong, but an individual or group of individuals have no right to restrict it unless it directly "takes" by force their property, life or liberty.

It is the concept of "state force" that causes a tremendous unhappiness among the American people, when it forces social action through law it robs us of our freedom in a failed attempt at uniformity. Human's can never be forced to be "equal" in their abilities, minds and hearts; no matter how much force the state inflicts on them.

So, NUK_1, I suppose this is a long winded way of saying I agree with you.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
And I totally agree with you, PTCO

It's not the government's realm to reward/punish something like marriage, at least in my view. I also agree with SLindsey that "marriage" in and of itself is more into the church realm than government. Since a lot of the flack over potentially allowing gays to marry seems to stem from economic reasons as much as moral, I think a distinction needs to be drawn. It's not the government's damn business to get involved in this whatsoever. Government didn't invent marriage and needs to get away from it because all it has done has damaged marriage, much like it tends to do to a lot of things govt touches and then later infects at times.

My marriage is basically a "contract" between my wife,myself,and God. I don't give a damn about whether the government decides this or that about who can marry what because it doesn't affect what I have already willingly agreed to when I got married. My marriage, my faith and my commitment is ABOVE government. It's on a much higher level and I don't care whether gays are allowed to join my club or not, but I really don't see a compelling reason why they shouldn't.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Nuk_1
Quote:

My marriage is basically a "contract" between my wife,myself,and God. I don't give a damn about whether the government decides this or that about who can marry what because it doesn't affect what I have already willingly agreed to when I got married. My marriage, my faith and my commitment is ABOVE government. It's on a much higher level and I don't care whether gays are allowed to join my club or not, but I really don't see a compelling reason why they shouldn't.

Absolutely refreshing after listening to so many give their opinions based on their interpretation of the Bible - rather than their relationship with and understanding of God.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
State Force
Quote:

It is the concept of "state force" that causes a tremendous unhappiness among the American people, when it forces social action through law it robs us of our freedom in a failed attempt at uniformity. Human's can never be forced to be "equal" in their abilities, minds and hearts; no matter how much force the state inflicts on them.

I cringe when I read thoughts like this. This is the same thing expressed by those who were against integration. It's not about 'being' equal - but having equal 'rights' and opportunities.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - I am

sure you do....but you misinterpret these words. I said nothing about "rights", we all have equal rights and it is the state's proper role to protect these rights from being infringed. However, through force of law we have no way to change the nature of human kind. You can't force people to change their biases through the force of the state, you can't change men's hearts by force DM.

However, you can insure that the state does not infringe the rights of its citizens. Including the freedom of expression, even yours.

Since you consider me "insane", I suppose, like most socialists, you would like to persuade the state to pass a law to imprison me for having such thoughts. Being deemed "politically insane" has been a mainstay tool of socialists everywhere to suppress those that don't "think" correctly, or speak "correctly". Millions have been imprisoned and died under such socialist dogma, from the gulags to the cultural revolutions, forced to think the "right way" is a socialist principle.

There are many evil and despicable people in the world, however it is those well intentioned people that use the power of the state to paint their perfect vision of the world that are the most evil among us.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO
Quote:

you can't change men's hearts by force DM.
However, you can insure that the state does not infringe the rights of its citizens. Including the freedom of expression, even yours.

Change the 'hearts' of men. That is exactly what Ghandi and MLK did through the tool of non-violence. Now for the rest of your rant. Thank you.

Quote:

however it is those well intentioned people that use the power of the state to paint their perfect vision of the world that are the most evil among us.

Now let's see. The minorities in the United States (including women) were well intentioned when they petitioned for rights to be given them as citizens. They had this perfect vision of what the Constitution guaranteed - and in your eyes, this makes them evil. Thanks for your clarification. There will be 'evil' citizens in this country who will see through your 'love' of the Constitution and will do all they can to protect themselves from your vision of 'freedom' for those that you deem worthy.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Your

bias is showing. Mr.Ghandi and Dr. King were both fighting the power of the state in suppressing rights, remember?

As to your second point, I said nothing about rights, minorities, or women.

Now you run along and get your laws passed to suppress what I write here like a good socialist.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

I just post to expose your 'libertarian' ideas clothed in what MANY perceive as discriminatory. Keep posting - as will I. No one wants to surpress your writing of your ideas. It is most beneficial to see them in the open - so that they can be dealt with through the ballot and legislation - not by violence. We both are biased. My biases have benefitted me and mine over the years - and I feel the United States of America as a country will eventually live up to it's stated purpose.. . .opportunity for all of its citizens, regardless of gender, race, or sexual preference.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Well

I am glad you feel that perhaps someday, the country has the potential to live up to your expectations. I am certain that everyone that sees your posts are relived to read this.

"I feel the United States of America as a country will eventually live up to it's stated purpose.. . .opportunity for all of its citizens, regardless of gender, race, or sexual preference"

The stated purpose of the US government is to protect life, liberty and property, just in case you may have conveniently forgotten. That's individual life, liberty, and property.

Well that's right then, you go right out there and vote. You get the "majority" to attempt to take away my God given rights through force of law.

Remember, the end point of socialism is violence as the last act of control against ideas DM. I am sure you and your ilk will get there eventually.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
PTCO-"For the first time... I am proud of my Country"

I thought I had heard what DM said before.

Many think the word "Pursuit" should be removed from the Declaration to just read "Life, Liberty and Happiness"

You know guaranteeing a job, house and food and whatever else the Country has the potential to give us..

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Lindsey

From the Declaration of Independence

Quote:

We think these things are obviously true:
That all men are created equal
That all men have some rights given to them by God
That among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The above is repeated in words that a child can understand; What group of people are requesting the removal of the word 'pursuit'? Or IS THIS JUST people of your ILK who want to make citizens continue feel that there is a large group of persons in this country WHO DON'T WANT TO WORK? Michelle Obama spoke those words Lindsey - not DM. And there are many in this country who are not men and/or white who thoroughly understood what she meant.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM

Pursuit means to chase but not necessarily obtain.

Progressives feel like Happiness means the Government provides stuff. Thus eliminating "pursuit".. and replacing it with "provides".

You fall into this category...

Understand now?

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
NUK-We agree on something
Quote:

Why are "we" already paying some benefits for married couples to begin with, gay or straight? How did it get to the point that government-sanctioned marriage, your home, etc. became a political football to kick around and also a mechanism to tell citizens "this is good for you, so it's legal" or "we decided now this is bad, so it's illegal."

So your position is that we shouldn't foot the cost of benefits for anyone? OK. And as for your point that the Government shouldn't be in the business of legislating morality, I totally agree. Each company should be allowed to provide or not provide benefits to anyone they so choose. One company may choose to cover gays while another may choose to cover straights and yet another may choose to cover no one and another everyone. It should be up to the company and if you don't like one companies policies go work for another one. The Government should stay out of it. If they would then Gays could marry and without Uncle Sam there to force companies to cover them my concerns would no longer be valid. If one company provided too many benefits and wound up pricing their product out of the market they'd just go under.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Ding..Ding...Ding.... Nuk nails it

EXACTLY... Why is the Government in the business of promoting this ot that through tax structure and or benefits???

This should strictly be a business decision. If they want to offer a package with it great if not find one that does...

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
There are many intelligent and logical gay people who know this

That is why they have pushed so hard to be recognized as a class of people who have been discriminated against - piggybacking onto the black experience. Once they established they were a distinct class of people with "rights" it was easy to escalate step by step because anyone who opposed even one little step was an evil and intolerant person. The hate crime step is truly inspired. The leaders of the gay movement have been brilliant at getting government involved.

And as NUK and others have said, that is exactly why government should not be involved. Without the useful idiots on the right preaching morality and committing hate crimes, the sympathy for the gay movement would never occur. But drag a couple of gays behind a truck and all of a sudden every liberal minority comes out from under their rock and embraces the gay movement and forces government into the fray. I suspect that some (not all) of the gay bashing that has occurred is the work of the gay movement - just setting up the outrage so government will have to act.

I do say live and let live, but without the government telling us and companies and universities exactly how to live and let live. It should be like lots of other things - let the market decide. If Delta wants to pay for the insurance of an employee's gay live-in friend and Southwest does not, they should be free to make that decision - just as I am free to fly whichever airline I want. Hint, hint, it will be the one that goes where I want with cheaper tickets which might be the one with lower insurance costs.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mr. Morgan?
Quote:

That is why they have pushed so hard to be recognized as a class of people who have been discriminated against - piggybacking onto the black experience.

Very interesting interpretation of humans in America wanting to be given equal rights/opportunities. You seem to resent this. I wonder why? Do you feel that you as a possible 'white' male (since I'm never sure of who or what I'm speaking with in this forum) have been denied your equal access to opportunities when other humans have been allowed to also be considered for opportunities/rights here in the United States? Those darn gays, having the audacity to use the 'black' experience in gaining civil rights so that they could piggyback on that experience. Another intrusion on 'white, male rights. Just sharing on how others view your opinion. You're certainly entitled to it!

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
DM ...the old Race baiter

you pull race into everything and then sit on the pity pot. It has been so unfortunate for this county that politicans have pandered to this BS and the appathy of others has let it go on. You are owed what exactly?
Since the 60s ( that is 50 years now) you have gone to the head of the line. When a black is killed (Trayvon Martin) it is automaticly assumed the whites are to blame and owe you something. Then you go to the streets and throw a fit (Rodney King). There were others who were sold as slaves here 1st and have never received any "I'm sorry". I am not Irish. I just happen to know this because I read. The rest of the world thinks the people of the US are idiots for this pandering. Read below about the 1st slaves to this country.

"The Irish slave trade began when James II sold Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers."

May I also remind you that the people that ...sold..you to the US were black? Africa's biggest export were her own people. If you have a problem...I think you need to take it up with them.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SUGGARFOOT

STOP APPEASING YOUR OWN FEELINGS OF GUILT!! It's the practice of Jim Crow and the ignorance with which this country treated it's black citizens that comprises the 'race problem'. Why can't you celebrate how far this country has come since Jim Crow? No, you have to validate your ignorance with reliving the horrible situation of slavery - regardless of the color of the people enslaved. Well honey - go right ahead. There are not many of your kind left.
You keep making general statements about 'black' people. That is as ignorant as if I would continue to make statements about ALL WHITE PEOPLE. Again, after seven or eight years of living in Georgia, I celebrate the progress that has been made in the United States of America regarding its race problem. I had an opportunity to have a coffee with a resident and participant in this discussion - and we both acknowledged that 20-30 years ago, we would not have been able to sit together in a restaurant in Georgia. THAT'S PROGRESS! You obviously have difficulty with comprehension - but I introduced my self to this discussion seven years ago as wanting to discuss race.

I have NEVER asked for anything! I am a survivor of the ignorance of racism/sexism - and in spite of it - have probably achieved more success than you dare dream of! I have never 'gone to the streets' - except to peacefully protest in the late 50's. You are a disgrace to 'whites' and to the word 'conservative'. Jim Crow would not have been dealt with judicially without the help of ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS - BOTH BLACK AND WHITE. You are so filled with the rubbish that certain groups in this country project - that you evidently can't deal with the reality of today. NOT ALL BLACKS AND WHITES THINK ALIKE. NOT ALL BLACKS AND WHITES CONSIDER THEMSELVES AS OPPOSED TO ONE ANOTHER. NOT ALL BLACKS AND WHITES ARE STILL FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR. Most here are very aware of the history of Ireland - and the 1600's. Thank you for your enlightened 'PASTE'. There are members of my family who proudly proclaim their Irish heritage. Is that why you are so aware of their past? Gosh suggarfoot, I hope we aren't related. I don't have anyone that I know of in my family who is PROUD TO BE IGNORANT! People of my color have gone to the head of the line because they are qualified. If you have been passed up - check out your own qualifications for the job you feel has been denied you since 2000. You are the idiot for continuing to PANDER the Trayvon Martin case as a case against black and white. The posters in this discussion have agreed to wait until the trial is finished. There are different points of view - and different points of view of what a judicious outcome would be. No one hear has all of the facts regarding this case. . .so stop trying to fuel a fire of hate. But Suggarfoot - keep posting. You and your kind prove that there are still a few who call themselves Americans who are indeed UGLY. You don't have to read a thing I post . . .it's a free country - and you can make the choice to ignore me, I will do the same.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
STOP APPEASING YOUR OWN FEELINGS OF GUILT!

Not! That is your problem. Most white people don't feel guilty about your 1st black on black crimes (slavery). Nor do we owe you anything. Trust me, my only feelings of guilt, or regret, is that most of us didn't speak up when this pity party turned into a runaway train.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
So what happened between 1650 and 1750, sugar?

Good story but it ends too quickly. Why in the world would blacks replace the Irish as the prime choice for slaves?
Irish too small?, drink too much? sunburn too easily? I can't think of any Irish defects.

I'm not sure I buy the part about blacks selling blacks. I always thought that the slave ships just went in and basically kidnapped people from their own village and then brought them somewhere for an auction.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
how bout till 1839?

If Queen Elizabeth I had lived in the 20th Century. she would looked like Hitler for the way she treated the Irish. She set the stage for the even more savage program that was to follow, directed to exterminate the Irish. James II and Charles I continued Elizabeth’s campaign, but Cromwell almost perfected it. Few can match the horrors of Cromwell in Ireland.
After the Battle of Kinsale, the English had 30,000 military prisoners which they banished. Banishment, however, did not solve the problem, so James II encouraged selling the Irish as slaves to planters and settlers in the New World colonies. The first Irish slaves were sold to a settlement on the Amazon River in South America in 1612.
The Proclamation of 1625, ordered Irish political prisoners be transported overseas & sold to English planters, settling the islands of the West Indies. In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana. 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua & Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves. There wern’t enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting.
Although African Negroes were better suited to work in the semi-tropical climates of the Caribbean, they had to be purchased, while the Irish were free for the catching, so to speak. Ireland became the biggest source of livestock for the English slave trade.

From 1641-1652, over 550,000 Irish were killed by the English & 300,000 were sold as slaves, as the Irish population of Ireland fell from 1,466,000 to 616,000. Banished soldiers were not allowed to take their wives and children with them, and naturally, the same for those sold as slaves. The result was a growing population of homeless women and children, who being a public nuisance, were likewise rounded up and sold. But the worst was yet to come.
In 1649, Cromwell landed in Ireland, slaughtering some 30,000 Irish. . Cromwell reported: “I do not think 30 of their whole number escaped with their lives. Those that did are in safe custody in the Barbados.” 1650, 25,000 Irish were sold to planters in St. Kitt. During the 1650s decade of Cromwell’s Reign of Terror, over 100,000 Irish children, were taken from Catholic parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In fact, more Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies & plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the Americas!
But all did not go smoothly with Cromwell’s extermination plan, as Irish slaves revolted in Barbados in 1649. They were hanged, drawn and quartered and their heads were put on pikes, prominently displayed around Bridgetown as a warning to others.

14 August 1652, Cromwell began his Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland, ordering 12,000 Irish prisoners sold to Barbados. The infamous “Connaught or Hell” proclamation was issued on 1 May 1654, where all Irish were ordered to be removed from their lands & relocated west of the Shannon or be transported to the West Indies. To speed up the relocation process, a reinforcing law was passed on 26 June 1657 stating: “Those who fail to transplant themselves into Connaught or Co Clare within six months… Shall be attained of high treason… are to be sent into America or some other parts beyond the seas… those banished who return are to suffer death.
The slave trade proved too profitable to kill them off. Privateers sent gangs out with quotas to fill, and scoured the countryside, they inadvertently kidnapped a number of English too. On March 25, 1659, a petition of 72 Englishmen was received in London, claiming they were illegally “now in slavery in the Barbados”' . The petition also claimed that "7,000-8,000 Scots taken prisoner at the battle of Worcester in 1651 were sold to the British plantations in the New World,” and that “200 Frenchmen had been kidnapped, concealed and sold in Barbados for 900 pounds of cotton each."
52,000 Irish, were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish were taken prisoners sold as slaves. In 1656, Cromwell’s Council of State ordered that 1000 Irish girls and 1000 Irish boys be rounded up and taken to Jamaica to be sold as slaves to English planters. As horrendous as these numbers sound, it only reflects a small part of the program, as most of the slaving activity was not recorded. Cromwell died in 1660.
The Irish were happy when when Charles II was crowned, but after seeing the profitability of the slave trade, Charles II chartered the Company of Royal Adventurers in 1662, which later became the Royal African Company. They contracted to supply at least 3000 slaves annually to their chartered company. They far exceeded their quotas.
There are records of Irish sold as slaves in 1664 to the French on St. Bartholomew, and English ships which made a stop in Ireland enroute to the Americas, typically had a cargo of Irish to sell on into the 18th century.
Few people today realize that from 1600 to 1699, far more Irish were sold as slaves than Africans.
There has been a lot of whitewashing of the Irish slave trade, partly by not mentioning it, & partly by labeling slaves as indentured servants. There were indentureds, but there is a great difference between the two. Because the profits were so great, generally 900 pounds of cotton for a slave, the Irish slave trade became an industry in which everyone involved (except the Irish) had a share of the profits.
Although the Africans and Irish were housed together and were the property of the planter owners, the Africans received much better treatment, food and housing. In the British West Indies the planters routinely tortured white slaves for any infraction. Owners would hang Irish slaves by their hands and set their hands or feet afire as a means of punishment. To end this barbarity, Colonel William Brayne wrote to English authorities in 1656 urging the importation of Negro slaves on the grounds that, "as the planters would have to pay much more for them, they would have an interest in preserving their lives, which was wanting in the case of (Irish)...." many of whom, he charged, were killed by overwork and cruel treatment. African Negroes cost generally about 20 to 50 pounds Sterling, compared to 900 pounds of cotton (about 5 pounds Sterling) for an Irish. They were also more durable in the hot climate, and caused fewer problems. Irish Catholics were not considered to be Christians.
Following the Battle of the Boyne & defeat of King James in 1691, the Irish slave trade was overloaded. The Spanish slavers were a nuisance, so in 1713, the Treaty of Assiento was signed in which Spain granted England exclusive rights to the slave trade, and England agreed to supply Spanish colonies 4800 slaves a year for 30 years. England shipped tens of thousands of Irish prisoners after the 1798 Irish Rebellion to be sold as slaves in the Colonies and Australia.
The economics of slavery permeated all levels of English life. When the Bishop of Exeter learned that there was a movement to ban the slave trade, he reluctantly agreed to sell his 655 slaves, provided he was properly compensated for the loss.

Finally, in 1839, a bill was passed in England forbidding the slave trade, bringing an end to Irish misery.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SUGGARFOOT
Quote:

bringing an end to Irish misery.

I don't think so.

Wonderful paste job. There was a type of 'Jim Crow' practiced between the Irish and British - and in our lifetime, an ugly war between the two groups. Now here in America - one Irishman overcame 'history' and became President of the United States in spite of his Irish heritage. He was proud of being Irish - and not just 'white'.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
no 'Jim Crow', no 'separate but equal'

What was practiced against the Irish was genocide. Did you not read any of what I said?

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
That's true, DM...

and it took LOTS of $$$ to make them acceptable! He never bragged about how his Daddy got their money - in league with the Mob & bootlegging booze! Now THERE'S something to be proud of! Lol!

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
So sugar, should the English pay reparations to the Irish?

I suspect this is the origin of the "troubles" in Ireland.

Sounds like they have a lot to answer for. Come to think of it, I am 1/4 Irish. Does that count? Maybe I can get a credit against the amount my German 1/4 has to pay to the African-American slave descendants. Of course the Scotch half isn't really English, so I am ok there, I think.

Good summary by the way - you are quite the writer.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Robert

I am from the Montgomerys that colonized Northern Ireland. I became interested when I read the Montgomery Manuscripts. They talked about the conditions of the Irish when they first came there to settle. The Montgomerys got their lands from Con O'Neal. They were horrified at the condition of the Irish and tried to help them by hiring them. The English, after seeing the Irish workmanship in the building of the Scot Irish houses, made it very clear to the settlers that if they tried to help the Irish any more, in any way, they would suffer the same fate as the Irish. When the settlers got there, all the Irish huts had been burned, even the roofs were pulled off the Churches so the Irish would have no shelter from the elements. They were starving and cannibalized some of the Scottish children the first winter. The ones that survived lived in the woods.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
http://www.hamiltonmontgomery
suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Robert
kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
RWM, concerning the history of slavery...

...I'm sure you know victors of battles & wars - in many, many, many parts of the world throughout history - commonly took captured soldiers as spoils and kept, or sold them, as slaves. African tribes were no different and participated in these type of actions, too. I can dig out some of the college texts (or heck, just Google!) and cite some specifics if you like.

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Wow Morgan
Robert W. Morgan wrote:

I'm not sure I buy the part about blacks selling blacks. I always thought that the slave ships just went in and basically kidnapped people from their own village and then brought them somewhere for an auction.

You dont get into history much huh? Check this link http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223655/k.90ED/West_Africans_t...

I am not sure how to attach a link on this. Not on it much these days

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Wedge

True, this has been a part of the history of slavery. An apology does not absolve anyone of this terrible practice - especially the slavery that is being dealt with today - child slavery for the porno industry. Slavery. anywhere/anytime is an abomination.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - This

This is an interesting statement.

"An apology does not absolve anyone of this terrible practice - especially the slavery that is being dealt with today.."

Are you suggesting that the practice of slavery in the past should require absolution? Aren't the people that should be absolved of this practice all dead? Or do you extent their guilt in this practice to their progeny?

Just curious on your ideas on this based on your words quoted above.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

DEFINITION OF ABSOLUTION: Formal release from guilt, obligation, or punishment; An ecclesiastical declaration of sins.

Both slavery and Jim Crow practiced in the United States were LEGAL. The practices were discontinued by legal action. Those who were practicing it were not breaking the law. It has been recorded in history as a practice that did not demonstrate the highest ideals of the American people. An apology will not change this fact. I don't know of any group that is asking for 'absolution' for slavery or Jim Crow. Our country LEGALLY practiced an abhorrent act. We have moved on. Reparations has nothing to do with absolution. The Japanese-Americans were paid reparations - but that payment did not absolve the act of the placing American citizens in internment camps during WWII.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
I don't resent anything at all, Moms

I am simply pointing out how minorities get into the stream by using the power of victimization and how clever they are to get the power of the press behind them.

Blacks actually have a right to be outraged. After all, they were uprooted from their families and forced into slavery. Bad stuff indeed. The gays were not. The gays have chosen to be gay to get attention and to gain political recognition. They have done that without any real claim to victimization (such as slavery). They have however learned something from the antics of Jackson/Sharpton and others. Flagrant displays of being a victim of gay bashing gets them into the lens of public opinion - like on CNN and MSNBC and ABC.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mr. Morgan?
Quote:

I am simply pointing out how minorities get into the stream by using the power of victimization and how clever they are to get the power of the press behind them.

I am so tired of 'white' men/women denying in 2012 that there are minorities who are American and qualified for the jobs that they acquire. (Minorities do understand how/why you feel this way - since for years we witnessed 'whites'/'men' getting jobs/positions that they weren't qualified for.) You are not an expert on 'gays' - and evidently an insecure American who has difficulty believing that minorities in this country are capable of competing honestly with WHITES. You need to broaden your research. Gays have been in positions of importance in this world for generations. For all you know, your 'boss' may be gay. Keep posting your ignorance - and I hope in this small community, you are not really Robert W. Morgan. I know there are some who view the 'race' / 'gay' situation as you do - but there are also some who don't.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
RWM - Interesting

Interesting view of things, but what of freedom? Individual freedom that is.

Should we deny people their freedom to decide for themselves, assuming they are deciding to be gay? Should government decide what individuals should do assuming they don't deprive others of their life, liberty or property? Tell us please how being gay or gay marriage infringes your rights? How does it limit your actions?

Mr. Morgan, I don't think you can have it both ways, if you object to government telling you what to do, how can you expect that you should have government tell others what to do based on your moral position? This all assumes of course that you agree that the purpose of government is to stay out of our lives and protect us from the force of others to steal our liberty.

Awaiting with interest in hearing your response to this post.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
The solution is very simple, PTCO

3 things:
1. If i really is about freedom, let the states vote on their definition of marriage. That way all the voters in that state get to express themselves rather than a few pandering politicians in Washington who are trolling for campaign cash now and will do nothing later for gays at the federal level.
2. Since the gay population is very small, they themselves will never get into the taxpayers pocketbooks as a victimized class. Instead they will need the help of straight people that support their right to marry and receive benefits from others. Fine. But once again decide that at the state level. You may actually find a couple of nutty states in the Northeast where the majority of voters will sign off on actual gay marriage and force employers into providing coverage for same sex partners who can become spouses - or who knows, they could just give benefits to unmarried partners. Let them go for it. Create a couple of states that are gay friendly and they can all move there - like Provincetown, MA or Key West, FL. As an aside, I am again troubled that the freaks get all the geographically beautiful places to live.

3. But, the rest of us who have voted on the traditional definition of marriage (like NC) should be left alone by both the government and the 2% of the population that was born gay or decided to be gay or whatever. Methinks 98% wanting to stick with a centuries-old definition for marriage is fine.

Besides, this is all a silly, inconsequential issue that will never be presented as a bill in Congress. It is all hot air and rhetoric during an election year designed to raise cash for the Dems and to allow the looney right wing to display its unattractive control-freak side.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Back to the top - RWM

See above in a few minutes to your post here, let's try and stay out of the vertical column trap.

Angry Taxpayer
Angry Taxpayer's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/05/2008
Today's Culture

I've come to believe that we've reached a point in our culture where the mindset is "You're a bigot if you don't respect my viewpoint, and furthermore, you're a bigot if you expect me to respect your viewpoint"

dollbaby
dollbaby's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/22/2012
Standards

I would suggest that there is NOT "just what is good for oneself." We are NOT "all our own standards" rather, there are societal standards, humanitarian standards. I don't go around killing and stealing because "God" said it's a bad idea - I don't do those things because it IS a bad idea. The word of God isn't what's holding me back. Just because one doesn't believe in "God" (which god I guess doesn't matter since it was specified) doesn't mean one is absent of moral, ethical standards.

Denying equality for loving, consenting adults is not moral. These are real, decent, human beings we're talking about. These people are in your family, they are your neighbors, they are your co-workers - they are everywhere around you. They are nothing to be scared of. They, nor any other their supporters, are interested in taking something from you, or harming you, or making you gay. They are not the boogie monsters. In fact some of them are also Christian. Picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to believe in can get very messy - even amongst believers of the same faith.

And finally - do we really still have to address the "what's next, bestiality?" question? This is simply an archaic, insulting argument to, well, to everyone involved.

Shareholder
Shareholder's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/25/2012
I can follow that logic

I know, right. A hundred years ago people laughed at the idea of women voting,....again, who’s laughing now. I guess we may conclude that is why we are in the mess we are in. I think Dave is on to something. Maybe one day we too will achieve the societal standard of Saudi Arabia.

common tater
common tater's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/25/2009
bigamy vs. polyandry

I believe there is an enormous difference between polyandry (a woman marrying more than one man) and bigamy that you are ignoring. This lady was arrested for bigamy...one husband didn't know about the other. With polygamy/polyandry all parties are aware of the others and consent to that relationship....at least that's how it should go ideally. I have no problem with polygamy/polyandry if everyone is a consenting adult but it seems rather fraudulent to enter into another marriage without your current spouse knowing about it.

cogitoergofay
cogitoergofay's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/11/2006
Dave Richardson Blog--- good

Dave Richardson Blog--- good job.

You hit the nail the head. By removing God from the discussion, all morals cited in public debate become relative. They become practical. They become temporal.

A Platonic ideal is only firmly rooted if rooted in the eternal. 97% of America believe in God. An equal number if asked the question, fill in the blank "God is _____" would rightly say love.

The issue of same sex marriage has transformed because we have forcibly removed any discussion of religion from public debate. It has occurred because of a letter written to a Danbury, Connecticut church by one of the most overrated American Presidents, Thomas Jefferson. He used the expression to compare separation of church and state as a wall. This has been abused by the courts to mean that God cannot ever be mentioned.

Liberal political experts believe that gay marriage is inevitable. They say that same sex marriages will be universally sanctioned in America in less than 10 years. North Carolina's vote yesterday will have as much ultimate legal significance as the Dred Scott case. The young and the Libertarians will lead the way. We are witnessing the beginning of our slow road to European socialism where churches are empty.

Good blog, Dave !!!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Fascinating discussion

In some theologies - God is all in all. (and as you said, most people when asked to fill in the blank, would say God is Love) But are all of our churches teaching this primitive, but valued, concept to our youth? Has our society accepted 'sex' as a substitute for 'love'? The intergenerational marriage is nothing new to the United States if one looks up their 'roots' and notices the birthdates of grand and great grand parents. I'm from the generation where we were taught to add the words 'under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance. As Christians, we are often asked, 'what would Jesus do?' Studying his life and his actions - it would be safe to say he was not an elitist, and expected 'man' to reflect God, good. It would be interesting to know Dave Richardson's take on how we, as Americans, can get back to working together; respecting our American principles - which are based on the Judeo-Christian religion. There are 'words' taken from the Old Testament - which Jesus clarified with 'DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU . (Love your neighbor as yourself) The Puritans and the Founding Fathers did not always adhere to Biblical guidance. Our youth are questioning what is taught in 'church' and what they see as being practiced in our country regarding relationships. Look forward to others input.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
God and Religion
Quote:

Our youth are questioning what is taught in 'church' and what they see as being practiced in our country regarding relationships. Look forward to others input.

No wonder our youth is confused. Man has replaced God with religion. Many people of a certain religion will say that their way is the only way. And I say show me that in the Bible. Show me where Jesus said I had to be of this religion to enter heaven. Other topics can also be confusing even when using the Bible as guidance. Polygamy for example. I can find passages in the Bible that make it seem to be OK. Then I can find others that make it seem not OK.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/polygamy.html

While the WWJD rule is usually an excellent measuring stick it may not be in this instance. For Jesus didn't marry at all. In short I guess that I feel that while religious answers are plentiful, Godly answers require a relationship with him. The Bible says to "seek and ye shall find". I believe that is what we have to do to find true answers.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35 - a relationship/God
Quote:

Godly answers require a relationship with him. The Bible says to "seek and ye shall find". I believe that is what we have to do to find true answers

As I've traveled in other countries, I always give thanks that we here in the United States have been given the freedom to seek this relationship with God in our own unique individual way. Persons who are filling churches (like Joel Osteen) seem to be emphasizing the personal relationship with God, good. I was in elementary school when the words 'under God' were added to our pledge. Somewhere I was taught that this God was an omnipotent, omnipresent God - not just found in a particular church. Thanks for sharing from your Bible study.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Sorry, DM...

...but your (and my) Pledge of Allegiance are soon to be a thing of the past in public schools, IMO - ESPECIALLY the phrase 'under God'. You have a lot of friends to thanks for this. Just fyi...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
KC

Most of my friends are part of the church-going Christian community who will certainly not allow without a legal fight the removal of the word God from our Pledge of Allegiance. What are you trying to intimate with the 'my friends' crack? Who do you consider to be 'my friends'? During the Civll Rights movement in the 50's, SOME black students elected not to say the words 'liberty and justice for all' until that concept was realized in our country. We did not refuse to say the Pledge. No one has to say the words 'under God' if that is not their belief. IMO.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
I meant, DM...

...your more left-leaning Liberal group(s); I did not mean to include you in the remark.