Comments by "Chompy the Beast" (@chompythebeast) on "Was George Washington Religious?" video.

  1. Washington was not the "first elected leader of the first major democracy in thousands of years". He wasn't even the first elected leader of the United States. At any rate, I don't see what difference it would make if he was some sort of closet Christian (even though the evidence doesn't point that way): Either way, he didn't regard (Christian) religion to be important to civic life. Frankly, George Washington's faith being chased into the most obscure shadows of ignorance is kinda pathetic on the part of those so determined to pursue it there. But I guess that's sort of how faith always works when confronted with contradictory evidence
    8
  2.  @brutusthebear9050  Nor is America a democracy now. And I don't just mean that in the 'akshually it's a Republic' kind of way, I mean that rematch re-elections between two ancient white imperialists and supremacists is nakedly less 'democratic' or 'free' than the post-Stalin Soviet Union, and that's about as close to an 'objective' statement about freedom or democracy as can be managed
    5
  3.  @brutusthebear9050  I'm not sure I understand your point about my making light of the "actually its a Republic" line being touted so often these days, because it's all over the zeitgeist right now, specifically coming from people who say it in order to argue for the erosion of any form of genuine 'representation'. It is said all too often, not by people trying to open their fellow citizens' eyes, but to actively excuse anti-democratic policies which are legitimately against the will of the people. Bourgeois Republicanism is a liberal form of government, after all, and since the days of the American Revolution (and indeed well before), it has always been inherently classist in nature: A government by the bourgeoisie, for the bourgeoisie. Has there been any liberal republic born in the last two centuries which was anything else? The very same structure but dominated by workers or in a classless society would no longer even qualify as a liberal republic at all, but would be, quite intrinsically, anti-liberal in nature. Democracy means many things in different contexts, of course, but we must remain focused not on hollow idealism, but upon material conditions. To my mind, in sheerly political (and not idealistic) terms, only the Tyranny of the Proletariat, as opposed to the present Tyranny of the Bourgeoisie, offers any promise of a genuine "rule of the people" in a manner separate from sheer "mob rule", itself a dusty concern for slave-owning Plato and his Philosopher Kings more than it is for the working class. At any rate, the reason I left that reply is because this very thread is full of people talking about how, sure, the USA was founded for wealthy landowners, but how that's totally changed now, and American government is definitely not for the same class these days. That is, of course, demonstrably untrue. The same rules of class apply, and they will continue to dominate and hold back the will of the working class majority as long as class is allowed to exist at all. None of which is to say that the working class is politically infallible simply by virtue of their numbers, but rather by virtue of the scientific and once again demonstrable merits of a classless society
    5
  4. He also owned around 400 slaves and listed all of them methodically in his own handwriting. Every nation needs its founding myths. America's just erases more humanity than most
    4
  5. Who cares what gods a slaver prays or doesn't pray to? This is powerful propaganda only to those already indoctrinated, not necessarily into Christianity, but rather the Cult of the Flag. It is a sign of gross chauvinism that this topic is even relevant enough to discuss. It's like asking someone who's never seen Star Wars to care whether or not Han shot first
    1