A Deeply Fractured US

[Kirkhill]

It is really hard to understand the US if you don't understand the role of religion, and religious toleration, in the development of its constitution.

The first thing to understand is that Protestants felt persecuted by Establishment Catholics. The Protestants separated from the Catholics. The second thing to understand is that there were multiple Protestants and the Establishment that had been Catholic became Establishment Protestants. In both cases, during both the Establishment Catholic and Establishment Protestant regimes the only way to get an Establishment job was to go to an Establishment Church. This meant that Dissenters, Non-Conformist Protestants were locked out of Churches, Schools, choice jobs and choice lands. This mindset carried over to the Americas and was a source of conflict between Establishment Colonies like New York, Virginia and the Carolinas where the Established Church was Anglican, Dissenting Colonies like Massachusetts (Congregationalist), Pennsylvania (Quaker), Georgia (Methodist) and New Jersey (Scots Presbyterian). And then there was Maryland (Catholic).

Given that there was so many views on religion it was impossible to determine a consensus on in which to decide which, if any church should be the Established Church of the State, even if such a thing was desirable.

Thus,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Translation

Congress shall not make one religion the religion of the state, the implication being that it shall not select its officers on the basis of their church. Also every individual was free to go to whichever church they chose and believe as they please. They were free to indulge their consciences as they saw fit.

The separation of church and state meant that the state would not choose favourites. Not that people could not be religious. The opposite was true in fact. Everybody was free to be religious, or irreligious, or anything in between, as they saw fit.

Most Americans of the 18th century believed in a god and most of them called the deity God. There were trinitarians, unitarians and deists and not a few agnostics among the signers.

Today, even among Americans that don't go to a church, many of them still believe in a god, a higher power. That is the background behind this line from the Declaration of Independence -

the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

Nature's God - not a particular God - they could have used The Great Architect Of The Universe but that formulation was already taken.

...

My take - people are allowed to consult their consciences to determine what they individually think is right, and for many people that means consulting their religions and their churches for direction.

 

[Brad Sallows]

One more thing - for a nation that separated church and state in 1776 or whatever year it seems that religion - specifically anti abortionists - still rears up a lot.

They didn't really separate much. Only Congress is restrained. John Adams was most likely correct when he claimed "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." The US constitution took a lot of power out of the hands of government and gave it to individuals, and structured government to require a lot of cooperation. That requires people with self-restraint. Not many people acquire self-restraint from first principles, which is where religion becomes helpful, if not critical.

 

[QV]

Trump Media adds nearly $1 billion in value day after debut

More than 18 million shares changed hands Wednesday morning, making it one of the most actively traded companies in the U.S.

nationalpost.com

He's doing well, I see.

 

[KevinB]

Trump Media adds nearly $1 billion in value day after debut

More than 18 million shares changed hands Wednesday morning, making it one of the most actively traded companies in the U.S.

nationalpost.com

He's doing well, I see.

Which he can’t use for 6+ months.

 

[Kirkhill]

Which he can’t use for 6+ months.

No but it adds to his asset pile for when he wants a short term loan.

 

[KevinB]

No but it adds to his asset pile for when he wants a short term loan.

No they don’t. He can’t use them for collateral or like for 6 months, as stipulated by the new board.

 

[QV]

But he's doing well.

 

[KevinB]

But he's doing well.

Depends on one’s point of view.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The 6 month delay is ordinary. Since he got a break on the amount of the bond he has to post in New York, whether he can realize a gain now or later is irrelevant. If he sells a bunch of shares 6 months from now and realizes a large gain, some of his opponents are going to lose their nut and over-react. It might be a smart campaigning move.

 

[QV]

Depends on one’s point of view.

Come on. Adding nearly a billion in value after a one day debut... you can't agree that is doing well?

 

[IKnowNothing]

The sad thing about this meme IPO is the regular everyday Americans that are going to be left holding the bag when the music stops. The grift is shameless. I guess the silver lining is some daytraders get to profit from this one?

 

[KevinB]

Come on. Adding nearly a billion in value after a one day debut... you can't agree that is doing well?

He’s had a few setbacks as well.

Honestly he doesn’t look healthy or happy recently, so that is primarily why I’d disagree.

 

[brihard]

It’s going to be something else once the share price reverts to a realistic price to earnings ratio. It’s a meme stock tied to a weak and one-trick social media company with revenue roughly one tenth of its expenses. Anyone who’s in this as an actual investor, rather than to funnel cash, is going to get absolutely soaked. A social media site with five million users is not a company with multi billion dollar value.

 

[TacticalTea]

Honestly he doesn’t look healthy or happy recently, so that is primarily why I’d disagree.

Worrisome for America and the world.

 

[Kirkhill]

It’s going to be something else once the share price reverts to a realistic price to earnings ratio. It’s a meme stock tied to a weak and one-trick social media company with revenue roughly one tenth of its expenses. Anyone who’s in this as an actual investor, rather than to funnel cash, is going to get absolutely soaked. A social media site with five million users is not a company with multi billion dollar value.

Bought any Hunter Biden paintings recently? Joe Biden books?

 

[Blackadder1916]

Trump Media adds nearly $1 billion in value day after debut

More than 18 million shares changed hands Wednesday morning, making it one of the most actively traded companies in the U.S.

nationalpost.com

He's doing well, I see.

The article was dated yesterday. That can be a lifetime in the market.

This is what the NASDAQ looks like today for "DJT"



The test isn't what it's worth yesterday or today or even tomorrow, but what it will look like in 30 days or 60 (when the short sellers will likely see if their gamble paid off) or 180 when he can cash in. How do you value a company that doesn't produce anything but hot air? And even in the "hot air" space it is the bottom of the barrel with its competition measuring visits in double digit billions while it scrapes by on single digit millions.

 

[Kirkhill]

Perspective matters. Adjust the scale and you get this.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Huge share price despite little or no apparent revenue" isn't exactly novel, particularly in tech.

 

[brihard]

"Huge share price despite little or no apparent revenue" isn't exactly novel, particularly in tech.

No, but even in comparison to other recent tech IPOs this valuation makes no sense.

Loading...

www.fastcompany.com

 

[Kirkhill]

It is really hard to understand the US if you don't understand the role of religion, and religious toleration, in the development of its constitution.

The first thing to understand is that Protestants felt persecuted by Establishment Catholics. The Protestants separated from the Catholics. The second thing to understand is that there were multiple Protestants and the Establishment that had been Catholic became Establishment Protestants. In both cases, during both the Establishment Catholic and Establishment Protestant regimes the only way to get an Establishment job was to go to an Establishment Church. This meant that Dissenters, Non-Conformist Protestants were locked out of Churches, Schools, choice jobs and choice lands. This mindset carried over to the Americas and was a source of conflict between Establishment Colonies like New York, Virginia and the Carolinas where the Established Church was Anglican, Dissenting Colonies like Massachusetts (Congregationalist), Pennsylvania (Quaker), Georgia (Methodist) and New Jersey (Scots Presbyterian). And then there was Maryland (Catholic).

Given that there was so many views on religion it was impossible to determine a consensus on in which to decide which, if any church should be the Established Church of the State, even if such a thing was desirable.

Thus,



Translation

Congress shall not make one religion the religion of the state, the implication being that it shall not select its officers on the basis of their church. Also every individual was free to go to whichever church they chose and believe as they please. They were free to indulge their consciences as they saw fit.

The separation of church and state meant that the state would not choose favourites. Not that people could not be religious. The opposite was true in fact. Everybody was free to be religious, or irreligious, or anything in between, as they saw fit.

Most Americans of the 18th century believed in a god and most of them called the deity God. There were trinitarians, unitarians and deists and not a few agnostics among the signers.

Today, even among Americans that don't go to a church, many of them still believe in a god, a higher power. That is the background behind this line from the Declaration of Independence -



Nature's God - not a particular God - they could have used The Great Architect Of The Universe but that formulation was already taken.

...

My take - people are allowed to consult their consciences to determine what they individually think is right, and for many people that means consulting their religions and their churches for direction.

Further to ....

The role of Francis Makemie, Presbyterian of Ulster, in dis-establishing religion in America.

Francis Makemie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Francis Makemie (1658–1708) was an Ulster Scots clergyman, considered to be the founder of Presbyterianism in the United States of America.

Makemie was born in Ramelton, County Donegal, Ireland (part of the province of Ulster). He attended the University of Glasgow, where he underwent a religious conversion and enrolled as "Franciscus Makemus Scoto-Hyburnus".[1] He went on to be ordained a minister by the Presbytery of Laggan in West Ulster in 1681.[2]

At the behest of Colonel William Stevens, an Episcopalian from Rehobeth, Maryland, Rev. Makemie was sent as a missionary to America, arriving in Maryland in 1683. Makemie initially preached in Somerset County, Maryland and established the Rehobeth Presbyterian Church

Makemie also supported himself as a merchant and traveled among other Scots-Irish communities, many of which were isolated, ...

Makemie traveled widely on along the American coast between North Carolina and New York, as well as participating in the West Indies Trade. In 1692, the year Makemie was granted land in Accomack County, Virginia, he and seven other Presbyterian ministers gathered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and either then or in 1706 founded what later came to be known as the Presbytery of Philadelphia, the first in America, with Makemie as its moderator.

While living in Barbados, Makemie on 28 December 1696 wrote 'Truths in a True Light, or a Pastoral Letter to the Reformed Protestants in Barbadoes', which was published at Edinburgh in 1699, the year he returned to Accomac and produced a certificate from Barbados and was allowed to preach in his own dwelling in Pocomoke, Maryland, or at designated locations in Accomac, Virginia. He then went to London to resolve questions about his handling episcopal duties in his ministry, and brought back two missionaries.

In 1707, Makemie was arrested by Lord Cornbury, the Governor of New York, for preaching without a license from the Crown as required under the Toleration Act. He spent two months in jail before being released on bail. Then at trial he produced his preaching license from Barbados, whereupon he was acquitted and released, but had incurred heavy legal costs.[3] This became a landmark case in favor of religious freedom in America. The controversial Lord Cornbury was also recalled to England the following year.

1707 was a critical year. It was the year that Scotland and England became the United Kingdom with one parliament at Westminster, united under one Queen, Anne. Both countries had Established Churches.

In England the Established Church, was the Episcopalian Church of England, run by bishops appointed by the Queen who was head of the Church. There were rules as to who could preach in churches, where schools could be raised, how often you needed to go to church to qualify for a government job and most importantly, you had to be able to put your hand over your heart and utter the magic words: "I do not believe in Transubstantiation" - Catholics believed in Transubstantiation, that bread and wine were literally converted to the physical body and blood of Christ during mass. Protestants held that the bread and wine were figurative tokens of the day that Jesus held the Last Supper.

For those words centuries of wars were fought.

In Scotland, the Established Church also held that mass was figurative and not literal. But the Scots had a bigger problem. Their church followed after the principles of Jean Calvin of Geneva and was Presbyterian. Presbyterians held that there was no need for bishops and if there was no need for bishops then there was no need for kings. Presbyterians held that kings, popes, bishops and priests were men and if they could talk to God then all men could talk to God. Accordingly every man, and woman, in church was as likely to have God's word revealed to them as the next person. The answer to any questions was to put it to a vote of the congregation in the church. This continues to be the position of the Congregationalists. As a means of organizing a church it works fine but if you want to organize a state then you need to organize the congregations. The solution was each congregation sent its representatives to a group of congregations to debate the issues and vote on them. The group was called the Presbytery, hence Presbyterians. A group of Presbyteries is called a Synod and when all the Synod representatives gather it is called a General Assembly. The General Assembly is chaired by a Moderator elected by the Assembly. All the ministers are elected by their congregations and paid by them. They are people with no special powers. They are of the congregations.

This system did not sit well with the Establishment English. It was a particular problem where there were now two Churches operating under one crown with both claiming to be Established and due the privileges of Establishment. This was a problem in Ireland, where Ulster looked to Glasgow and Dublin looked to Canterbury (and a bunch of locals looked to Rome).

It was also a problem in America, and in particular New York. Manhattan, Wall Street and St John's Church were all Episcopalian Church of England. But across the water, in Queens, in the community known as Jamaica, the community was predominantly Presbyterian. Not necessarily Scots Presbyterian but Presbyterian all the same. This was the community that invited Establishment Scots-Irish Presbyterian minister Makemie to preach even though he didn't have an English licence.

This is the origin of the Established Religion debate in America.

Curiously, Queens, the Jamaica District and the 1st Presbyterian Church of Jamaica are all associated with Donald Trump and his Scottish mother.


1729 Presbyterians in America, trying to decide what and whether to believe, came up with this solution.

Presbyterian ministers in America were required to believe or "subscribe" to the "essential and necessary" parts of the standards, but defining what was essential and necessary was left to individual presbyteries to determine.​

It is not possible to consider the development of American democracy without considering the roles of Makemie, Allison, Witherspoon, Princeton and the Presbyterian system of Congregations, Presbyteries, Synods, General Assemblies and Moderators - and the development of toleration through the Subscription Debates.

1. The First Subscription Controversy

“The first great stride of common advance was that from Calvinism with its Gospel of God’s love for the elect, to Arminianism with its Gospel of God’s love for the world at large.”

nonsubscribingpresbyterian.wordpress.com