It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
And shame on his gang of Catholic-haters, whom he mentored and encouraged to go post on the internet when they don't know jack-poop about history - even less than Phelps himself, if that's even possible.
Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
I was merely interested in whether you knew whether there was any reason why the Goethe association to the Illuminati would be something that wasn't widely known, especially by someone who (supposedly) conducted research into these things?
Just to be more helpful and specific - Goethe was "busted" in 1787 when the Bavarian Elector published the confiscated correspondences of the Bavarian Illuminati. So, yes, he was always known to have been a member. For sometime though Goethe's Illuminati activities was always claimed as negligible; however, his rank was that of Regent, so he was given real power, became a censor of a Minerval Academy, and was one of the top assets in Weimar for sure.
A little factoid: Goethe's life is the most documented of anyone in history. His collected works comprise some 133 volumes! (much of it autobiographical), and his superstar status in Europe rivaled that of Voltaire.
Originally posted by Trinityman
There were masons on all sides of the Revolutionary War - how many people know that the great British patriot and war hero Benedict Arnold was a freemason?
Originally posted by Trinityman
There is a school of thought amongst masonic scholars that many British freemason Officers fighting in the "colonies" had a great deal of sympathy with the American position and didn't try too hard to win the war. I'm not aware of any evidence to support this view but it has a nice ring to it IMO.
And they say romance is dead. This is one of the things I like about freemasonry, there is a definate quest for common ground and an optimistic outlook.
If you ask me, (and since nobody will I'll opine freely) you would be much closer to attaining this if only you could cast off the outdated notion of gender segregation, and in the same breath, the US would also be better off it if allowed the constitution to recognise the equality of women. The two are not unconnected in my opinion.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
What is equality? .. Is equality giving the rights to another while denying the rights of segregation to another? No it's not. Privilege and Rights are different, as is Equality. Women have the equal right to start their own organization - and there are - and men have the equal right to start or hold THEIR own organization.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
There is no arguing logic with a Fem Nazi.
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I think that this highlights the differences between our nations as well...isn't it considered an insult in the US to be compared to Benedict Arnold? I think they consider him a turn-coat.
On a tangent, I have wondered whether considering Hilary's inferiority under law in the US and the allowance that only all men are equal, whether it was even legally possible for her to be President and that considering that the ratification to change the consistution to recognise the equality of women has failed to obtain enough congressional votes how anyone expected Hilary to attain the highest office in the country by a similar process.
Originally posted by iesus_freak
...only time they were macking an inpact as a group on the world and more speciffacally americawas the gov't of america
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I think that this highlights the differences between our nations as well...isn't it considered an insult in the US to be compared to Benedict Arnold? I think they consider him a turn-coat.
If you ask me, (and since nobody will I'll opine freely) you would be much closer to attaining this if only you could cast off the outdated notion of gender segregation, and in the same breath, the US would also be better off it if allowed the constitution to recognise the equality of women. The two are not unconnected in my opinion.
... and I don't find the charge of male eliteism too hard to prove either.
The Equal Rights Amendment
Freedom from legal sex discrimination, Alice Paul believed, required an Equal Rights Amendment that affirmed the equal application of the Constitution to all citizens. In 1923, in Seneca Falls for the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the 1848 Woman’s Rights Convention, she introduced the "Lucretia Mott Amendment," which read: "Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction." The amendment was introduced in every session of Congress until it passed in reworded form in 1972.
Although the National Woman’s Party and professional women such as Amelia Earhart supported the amendment, reformers who had worked for protective labor laws that treated women differently from men were afraid that the ERA would wipe out the progress they had made.
The Equal Rights Amendment passed the U.S. Senate and then the House of Representatives, and on March 22, 1972, the proposed 27th Amendment to the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification. But as it had done for every amendment since the 18th (Prohibition), with the exception of the 19th Amendment, Congress placed a seven-year deadline on the ratification process. This time limit was placed not in the words of the ERA itself, but in the proposing clause.
Like the 19th Amendment before it, the ERA barreled out of Congress, getting 22 of the necessary 38 state ratifications in the first year. But the pace slowed as opposition began to organize – only eight ratifications in 1973, three in 1974, one in 1975, and none in 1976.
As the 1979 deadline approached, some pro-ERA groups, like the League of Women Voters, wanted to retain the eleventh-hour pressure as a political strategy. But many ERA advocates appealed to Congress for an indefinite extension of the time limit, and in July 1978, NOW coordinated a successful march of 100,000 supporters in Washington, DC. Bowing to public pressure, Congress granted an extension until June 30, 1982.
The political tide continued to turn more conservative. In 1980 the Republican Party removed ERA support from its platform, and Ronald Reagan was elected president. Although pro-ERA activities increased with massive lobbying, petitioning, countdown rallies, walkathons, fundraisers, and even the radical suffragist tactics of hunger strikes, White House picketing, and civil disobedience, ERA did not succeed in getting three more state ratifications before the deadline. The country was still unwilling to guarantee women constitutional rights equal to those of men.
The Equal Rights Amendment was reintroduced in Congress on July 14, 1982 and has been before every session of Congress since that time. In the 110th Congress (2007-2008), it has been introduced as S.J.Res. 10 (lead sponsor: Sen. Edward Kennedy, MA) and H.J.Res. 40 (lead sponsor: Rep. Carolyn Maloney, NY). These bills impose no deadline on the ERA ratification process. Success in putting the ERA into the Constitution via this process would require passage by a two-thirds in each house of Congress and ratification by 38 states.
An alternative strategy for ERA ratification has arisen from the "Madison Amendment," concerning changes in Congressional pay, which was passed by Congress in 1789 and finally ratified in 1992 as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. The acceptance of an amendment after a 203-year ratification period has led some ERA supporters to propose that Congress has the power to maintain the legal viability of the ERA’s existing 35 state ratifications. The legal analysis for this strategy is outlined in "The Equal Rights Amendment: Why the ERA Remains Legally Viable and Properly Before the States," an article by Allison Held, Sheryl Herndon, and Danielle Stager in the Spring 1997 issue of William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law.