Mark Twain shreds Republican Loy Mauch

Two recent posts seem to have collided.

Rep. Loy Mauch is one of three Republican incumbents in the Arkansas legislature who just got cut off from the state party’s campaign funds on account of publicly praising slavery.

I mentioned earlier today that Mauch is a Neo-Confederate loon. Jim Burroway has more on Mauch at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Here is the Republican legislator in 2003:

Nowhere in the Holy Bible have I found a word of condemnation for the operation of slavery, Old or New Testament. If slavery was so bad, why didn’t Jesus, Paul or the prophets say something?

This country already lionizes Wehrmacht leaders. They go by the names of Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Custer, etc. These Marxists not only destroyed the Constitution they were sworn to uphold, but apostatized the word of God. Either these depraved infidels or the Constitution and Scriptures are in error. I’m more persuaded by the word of God.

And here’s Mauch in 2009:

If slavery were so God-awful, why didn’t Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasn’t there a war before 1861?

The South has always stood by the Constitution and limited government. When one attacks the Confederate Battle Flag, he is certainly denouncing these principles of government as well as Christianity.

Yes, nothing says Jesus like treason in defense of slavery.

Burroway notes that most American Christians — even in the South — no longer share Loy Mauch’s fondness for slavery:

Most Christians have accepted the former position — including the Southern Baptists — even if they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge what that means for the principle of biblical inerrancy.

Which brings us back to yesterday’s post on Mark Twain and his essay, “Bible Teaching and Religious Practice.” I’m happy for the excuse to quote again from that essay, from Twain’s incisive section on slavery. I’m less happy, though, that quoting this turns out to be so timely:

The texts remain: it is the practice that has changed. Why? Because the world has corrected the Bible. The Church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession – and take the credit of the correction. As she will presently do in this instance.

Christian England supported slavery and encouraged it for two hundred and fifty years, and her church’s consecrated ministers looked on, sometimes taking an active hand, the rest of the time indifferent. England’s interest in the business may be called a Christian interest, a Christian industry. She had her full share in its revival after a long period of inactivity, and [this] revival was a Christian monopoly; that is to say, it was in the hands of Christian countries exclusively. English parliaments aided the slave traffic and protected it; two English kings held stock in slave-catching companies. The first regular English slave hunter — John Hawkins, of still revered memory — made such successful havoc, on his second voyage, in the matter of surprising and burning villages, and maiming, slaughtering, capturing, and selling their unoffending inhabitants, that his delighted queen conferred the chivalric honor of knighthood on him — a rank which had acquired its chief esteem and distinction in other and earlier fields of Christian effort. The new knight, with characteristic English frankness and brusque simplicity, chose as his device the figure of a negro slave, kneeling and in chains. Sir John’s work was the invention of Christians, was to remain a bloody and awful monopoly in the hands of Christians for a quarter of a millennium, was to destroy homes, separate families, enslave friendless men and women, and break a myriad of human hearts, to the end that Christian nations might be prosperous and comfortable, Christian churches be built, and the gospel of the meek and merciful Redeemer be spread abroad in the earth; and so in the name of his ship, unsuspected but eloquent and clear, lay hidden prophecy. She was called The Jesus.

But at last in England, an illegitimate Christian rose against slavery. It is curious that when a Christian rises against a rooted wrong at all, he is usually an illegitimate Christian, member of some despised and bastard sect. There was a bitter struggle, but in the end the slave trade had to go — and went. The Biblical authorization remained, but the practice changed.

  • Morilore

    Serious question: are you from Stormfront?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     “You mean, worshipping in synagogues, preferring study over animal
    sacrifice, regarding the Old Testament prophets as scripture,
    understanding scripture by means of reasoned and opinionated debate,
    saying things like
    that kind of thing?

    Jesus’ rants about Pharisees by themselves don’t give an accurate
    picture even of Jesus’ impression of their movement, let alone an
    accurate impression of the movement itself. Until you study the
    religious context of the time, it’s not evident how much he drew from
    them.”

    Well then you’d better get started, since even the phrase “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow” is a detraction of the actual phrase “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” alluding to the parable of the Good Samaritan vs. the two Jewish Priests who left their own fellow to die– i.e. the premise that God’s work is not one of mere omission from sin for only the Jews. but sacrifice of self for all persons.

    But if you think you know more than Jesus, then you’re wrong.

  • Lori

    Rep. Loy Mauch is one of three Republican incumbents in the Arkansas
    legislature who just got cut off from the state party’s campaign funds
    on account of publicly praising slavery.  

    I’m going to withhold judgement on this. Recent history would seem to indicate that being cut off from the GOP coffers will last only until it looks like their seats could be lost to a Democrat.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    “So lemee get this straight:

    The leaders of the Union in the US Civil War… were tied to a movement that didn’t begin until 60 odd years later? ”

    Perhaps you haven’t considered ties can operate in both directions, i.e. the later movement can be tied to the earlier in the sequence of causation.

    Though I’m not certain what movement you’re referencing, since Marxism did not begin after Lincoln’s reign but DURING it, as I’ve documented above.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    ” I agree that using Pharisees as shorthand for “church leaders who value
    rules over compassionate principles” is sloppy and inaccurate,”

    More like the letter of the law over the spirit.
    That’s a well-known principle in modern law in regards to policy-argument vs. procedural bureaucratic arguments which clearly oppose a law’s original intent.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    Or politicians who twist laws and deny facts to pervert context and establish despotic empires, as even the Prophet Samuel forewarned in I Samuel 8, with consequences lasting to date including 9/11.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     Yep, he doesn’t seem to undertand that  if you say anything politically incorrect then you’re wrong no matter what.

  • Mrfun13

    Is this guy for real?

    I’ll guess I’ll feed the troll.

    Trainer:

    Nice Gish Gallop you’ve got there. Answer this question: do you think slavery is a good thing?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     Missing part of your head would indeed be a SERIOUS problem.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     Did he actually say he wants slavery back?

  • EllieMurasaki

    /me looks in

    /me shakes head

    /me sighs

    Y’all carry on the good work of (educating,beating with cluebats) Trainer. My hand hurts worse with every vaguely typy motion I make, has been for a few hours, and I think I had best reserve the typy motions for when I’m being paid to make them. Or when somebody says something particularly egregious that nobody’s countered before I see the original statement, but I should probably keep that down too. :(

  • Lori

     

    Yeah, takes a lot of guts to flatter the emperor’s robe and curse the vanquished. 

    Being vanquished doesn’t automatically make one right or sympathetic. Some of the vanquished deserve to be “cursed”.

  • JustoneK

    Good god this new guy is pretentious as crap.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    However the fact remains secession was absolutely legal, and each state
    nationally sovereign, regardless of the unfortunate implications for
    human rights– again, as with the autocratic domestic policy matters of
    any sovereign nation.

    Oh. well then. I guess you’ve just bowled us all over with your scintillating wit in “proving” the South should have won after all!

    Why, bless your heart.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    It’s times like this I wish the alternate-timeline Hannibal Hamlin had succeeded Lincoln.

  • Katie

     Yes, because having to go down to the court house and sit in a room for a few hours, for which you get paid, is EXACTLY LIKE being beaten at your owner’s whim.

    Seriously, stop digging.

  • http://spacecoyotevega.livejournal.com/ vega

    (tw- animal cruelty, slavery, torture, implied rape, dead baby joke)

    Hah. Ahahaahaahaahaa. And damn popularity, the ethical thing would have been to acknowledge that the Southern plantation owners owned those people, and the North should have respected their right to take their ball and go home when the rules changed.

    And I should totally respect my neighbor’s “No Trespassing” sign when they’re setting their cat on fire in the back yard.

    Oh better yet, their gardener. Who was taken taken prisoner in a foreign civil war, but it’s all kosher now because the neighbors bought him fair and square, and he should be grateful that he’s got a nice warm cage in the basement and gets quality table scraps at least once every day. And his children will never have to worry about finding work, either, because the neighbors own them, too, it’s all sorted out and legal, according to papers filled out in triplicate by the neighbors and those people who torched his home-town and killed the less useful members of his family. That’s all assuming of course that they decide to breed him of course. They would have to buy a suitable mate first, the Jamesons are selling that little redhead woman they’ve been keeping in the tool shed for years, oh wouldn’t little gingers wobbling around be a treat! Unfortunately she’s getting a little long in the tooth for breeding don’t you think? But babies are so cute, and once you get bored of them they make for excellent compost.

    Oh stop whining, they’re only setting him on fire a little bit. It’s not like any of your property is being damaged.

    Oh, but what’s that, you say? Slavery is illegal now, right? And that is, presumably, your only objection to the situation as described. You would be obligated to call the cops in this instance. Now you wouldn’t have THAT problem at all if slavery were LEGALIZED, WOULD you? This is your principle, unpopular as it may be, they should damn well be allowed to set their legally owned gardener on fire and breed him against his will to the middle-aged redhead in the Jameson’s tool shed and subsequently use their bright-eyed toddlers as garden compost. All good, as long as there’s NO TRESPASSING!

    So let’s go back to the situation that might actually happen. The neighbors have set their cat on fire, and there is a No Trespassing sign on their property line. And I happen to have a bucket and a stream of running water. The most ethical thing I can think of to do would be to fill the bucket, take it and uproot the No Trespassing sign, march into the neighbor’s yard, douse the cat, and brain the neighbor with his no-tresspassing sign. And probably go to jail for assault. That was not the best way to have handled the situation. But I make sure the cat gets to the vet first.

    And if I’d do that for a cat, I would DAMN WELL DO WORSE for the sake of an ACTUAL HUMAN BEING, LET ALONE THOUSANDS, LET ALONE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.

    FUCK sovereignity.

  • http://politicsproseotherthings.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel

     And yet in that entire wall of text you somehow failed to address my original point: If you’re so het up about state sovereignty, why do you visibly not give a shit about stuff like the Dred Scott decision?

    I must admit, the question is rather rhetorical by this point. 

  • Gotchaye

    Yeah, fuck sovereignty pretty much says it all.

    I’m not sure Trainer realizes that there are very few people nowadays willing to defend national sovereignty on principled as opposed to prudential grounds.

  • Matri

    I think if Jesus was preaching today, he’d eagerly use pretty much the
    same rants about hypocritical Christian leaders, with perfect
    justification IMHO.

    And exactly 12 hours after that, he would be waterboarded. And Fox News will re-assure us that the hippy Socialist Muslim Atheist terrorist has been taken care of, go back to shopping.

  • Turcano

     No no no, the traditional response is “tl;dr.”

  • Münchner Kindl

     

    The leaders of the Union in the US Civil War… were tied to a movement that didn’t begin until 60 odd years later?

    No, worse: Wehrmacht was the name for the simple German Army during the time of the third Reich. While it was used by the Nazis during WWII, (and while some units did commit war crimes – like other armys at other wars, too), the Wehrmacht itself is not part of Nazi ideology or fascism, and most members of the Wehrmacht were simply soldiers called up on draft to defend their families from the Russians about to rape them, not to advance Nazi ideology.

    And many of the Generals and officers still were of nobility (back from the Reichswehr days) and opposed to Hitler – see the several assassination attempts by Stauffenberg and his circle or by von Gersdorff (they did have easier access to weapons, bombs and Hitler than the average guy, which did help, and those who served on the Eastern front saw directly the massacres by the Nazi-Units =SS against Jews and civilians, which was often a factor pushing the decision to break their oath of loyalty to Hitler).

    So not only is the comparision “Northern Generals = Nazi” dumb, it’s also wrong because “Wehrmacht =! Nazis”.

  • Münchner Kindl

     

    Using the word Pharisee as a derogatory term is anti-Semitic, as all modern Judaism is descended from them. Please stop it.

    This is the first time I’ve heard that – I have often heard that the Pharisees were different than portrayed.

    However, today, in Christian culture, Pharisee =! modern Judaism or even the historically accurate term; it refers to the hypocritical person who confessess to practice a religion but is concerned more with the letter than the spirit of the law.

    This is most obvious in the little joke about a guy who hears the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector in the NT, and says “Thank God I’m not a Pharisee!” Missing the point completly (About not praising yourself and how righteous you are compared to others because God sees your heart and judges you).

    Modern Judaism may be descended from the teachings and methods of the historic Pharisees, but it’s not called “Phariseanism” or similar, it’s called “Judaism”.

    When people want to diss Judaism, they say so. And I bet that the problem of “Pharisees” = hypocritical, jugdemental people also exists in modern Judaism, because it exists in every religion and in secular context as well.

    You can try to reclaim the word Pharisee according to correct historical context, but it will be an uphill battle against established current usage.

  • Joshua

    I’m not a Yankee revisionist, I’m not an American at all.

    And sovereignty issues don’t matter, the Confederacy had to fight a war because they were a bunch of dicks.

  • Joshua

     “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow” is a detraction of the actual phrase “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,”

    Wrong way around. Rabbi Hillel said it first, he died when Jesus was only about 14. Jesus paraphrased him.

    But if you think you know more than Jesus, then you’re wrong.

    I never asserted I knew more than Jesus, just that I have tried to actually understand what he was talking about and where he got his ideas from.

    Well worth doing. I recommend it.

  • Nenya

    How did a post about a slavery apologist turn into a lecture about 1st century CE Judaism?  Shall we get back to the topic at hand? 

    Actually, I much prefer the discussions of great Jewish thinkers to the flocks of teal deer galloping past (poor souls, conscripted into slavery apologetics) in re: the original post; though I must say reading Lincoln and Marx in long form isn’t helping to make the point that they were wrong about the issues under discussion.

    The more I read about Judaism, the more fascinating I find it.  

  • Nenya

    I feel like if actual Jewish people are saying, “Please stop that, it’s hurtful,” and pointing out how using “Pharisee” in a derogatory fashion has contributed to anti-Semitism over the years…we non-Jews ought to listen. It’s only good manners. 

  • Joshua

    However, today, in Christian culture, Pharisee =! modern Judaism or even the historically accurate term; it refers to the hypocritical person who confessess to practice a religion but is concerned more with the letter than the spirit of the law.

    I dispute that. I’ve been part of Christian culture since I was a child. Pharisee has always predominately meant the Jewish subgroup mentioned in a number of places in the New Testament.

    I have not often heard people refer to modern hypocrites as Pharisees.

    You can try to reclaim the word Pharisee according to correct historical context, but it will be an uphill battle against established current usage.

    I just don’t think there’s anything to reclaim: the word primarily exists in that historical context. To the extent that Christians use the word for hypocrites, that’s not just historically inaccurate, it’s biblically inaccurate. Paul the Apostle was proud of being taught at the feet of Gamaliel, who is given quite a positive writeup in Acts 5. Jesus’ paraphrase of one of the famous sayings of a founder of the movement was a central part of his teaching. We see Jesus engaging in the Pharisaical tradition of argument and discussion about the Torah and tradition in a number of places. Some of his early followers are described as Pharisees.

    So I just think the usage is silly. As well as offensive to the current inheritors of that movement, although maybe that’s their battle to fight rather than mine.

  • Joshua

    So not only is the comparision “Northern Generals = Nazi” dumb, it’s also wrong because “Wehrmacht =! Nazis”.

    So, about as inaccurate as calling me a Yankee revisionist. Ha ha. A better person than him once called me a paid shill of Microsoft.

    English speakers just have trouble remembering what SS stands for, I think.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    I see you’re not interested in the facts.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    And   ad hominem name-calling  like yours from those who who can’t manage an intelligent response.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    You don’t really expect me to hear it rattle all the way over here do you?
    If you can’t scroll up and read, I’m not going to re–post it for ouur benefit.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     >”This is an absolutely atrocious comparison”

    That’s because you’re a douchebag.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     I see that your reach has exceeded your grasp of the facts in this situation… I see this tired argument often, though.

  • Joshua

    Nah, I was being sincere, I got genuine entertainment from your post.

    I am pretty much here for the freak show. I especially applaud this:

    If you truly believe that statism varies according to operating policy of the Leviathan, and is not identical via the common principle of the statist collective itself, in which individual sovereignty is non-existent apart from the concept of collective plebiscite; this is distinguished from the core precept of democracy,i.e.in which the state is the simple subordinate delegation of individual will, and resultant inalienability of the individual.

    It’s fantastic. If you read it carefully, it actually starts to make some kind of point. Do some more HTML!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     ” To be fair, Marx did wrote extensively about the Civil War while it was
    ongoing, and was a strong supporter of the Union and Lincoln.”

    Finally someone intelligent.
    As I stated, Marx was a Lincolnist- or so he thought, since in reality Lincoln was a fascist imperialist who ruled through force and censorship, presenting Crony-Capitalism as a free-market in order to fool the opposition, and Marx was so dim that he believed it.
    The ensuing economic devastation and disparity were gobbled up by Marx and his ilk as “proof” of his socialist theories, fueling the impetus behind the revolution that followed once Lincoln’s empire went global in 1914.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     >”I think it’s  inaccurate to say Communism didn’t come on to its own until the beginning of the 20th century.”

    Technically it is, since it didn’t have the opportunity until the US-Britain alliance provided it by forcing the Czar to remain involved in the war at the expense of domestic security.
    However of course you’re right, since it had been brewing for over 60 years since the time of Marx. As I stated above, Lincoln’s regime provide faux “evidence” for Marx’s theories of free markets being evil, when in reality the Lincoln-empire’s markets were anything but free.

  • Joshua

    If you run the quoted text above through the dissociated press implementation at http://csiuo.com/dissociatedpress/, you get:

    Will, and resultant inalienability the common principle of the state is the of democracy,i.e.in which the the statist collective itself, believe that statism varies the common principle of according to operating policy is not identical via precept of democracy,i.e.in which resultant inalienability of the is not identical via precept of democracy,i.e.in which core precept of democracy,i.e.in from the core precept democracy,i.e.in which the state not identical via the is the simple subordinate is distinguished from the the state is the which the state is operating policy of the subordinate delegation of individual you truly believe that of democracy,i.e.in which the will, and resultant inalienability will, and resultant inalienability non-existent apart from the the common principle of plebiscite; this is distinguished policy of the Leviathan, is not identical via will, and resultant inalienability resultant inalienability of the inalienability of the individual.  Common principle of the truly believe that statism the common principle of in which individual sovereignty identical via the common believe that statism varies collective itself, in which non-existent apart from the which the state is to operating policy of the Leviathan, and is the concept of collective collective itself, in which truly believe that statism Leviathan, and is not the Leviathan, and is state is the simple of the statist collective that statism varies according the simple subordinate delegation according to operating policy you truly believe that which the state is plebiscite; this is distinguished common principle of the itself, in which individual the state is the concept of collective plebiscite; of the statist collective democracy,i.e.in which the state concept of collective plebiscite; distinguished from the core the state is the subordinate delegation of individual varies according to operating that statism varies according individual will, and resultant non-existent apart from the of collective plebiscite; this core precept of democracy,i.e.in this is distinguished from which the state is identical via the common believe that statism varies is the simple subordinate 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     1. I’ll never understand those who seriouly discern military conscription as somehow morally superior to chattel slavery. I’m sorry, you just have a missing chromosome… or twelve. Saying that it’s wrong to purchase slaves, but ok to enslave free men, is simply mutant-logic I can’t comprehend without a lobotomy.

    2. But the US gets all the blame for slavery, simply because the American empire  stands only on the strawman argument that anyone who questions its authority is “pro-slavery.”  It’s not about reason, but simply power.

    3.  So you agree with Hitler’s claims in Mein Kampf, that “the American states could never have had any sovereignty of their own.”
    Well you’re both wrong, as the most cursory reading of history proves when bereft of kool-aid.

    4. Once again you ignore the inconvenient truth  of each state being a sovereign nation unto itself.

  • Turcano

    Mother of Christ.  This is what trying to read Hegel must feel like.

  • Joshua

    But the US gets all the blame for slavery

    Yes, when I watch Spartacus, I curse the US and burn another stars and stripes flag.

    Actually, I lie, I’ve never seen it.

  • christopher_young

    I’ve come to the conclusion that Troll School sends its students to this site in their first year of postgrad. Because we certainly get the cream of the crop.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    Back under your bridge, troll.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    “sovereignty issues don’t matter, the Confederacy had to fight a war because they were a bunch of dicks.”

    My, how did Harvard ever pass this one over?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     >”Wrong way around. Rabbi Hillel said it first, he died when Jesus was only about 14. Jesus paraphrased him.”

    I didn’t attribute it to Jesus, clown. I said that was the actual phrase.
    Read before you write.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     “I’m not sure Trainer realizes that there are very few people nowadays
    willing to defend national sovereignty on principled as opposed to
    prudential grounds.”

    I can’t realize that which only exists in the minds of imbeciles.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    That’s why I didn’t answer it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    > Nah, I was being sincere, I got genuine entertainment from your post.

    Goodbye, troll.

  • D9000

    Is it wrong to purchase slaves, or not?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    > “You seem to misunderstand military conscription. It wasn’t slavery for
    the draftees – they were in for a minimum amount of time, or the
    duration.”

    Irrelevant.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X