Fun Poll: Who's Cooler; Martin Luther or Luther Martin?

[Galileo Galilei]

Fun Poll: Who's Cooler; Martin Luther or Luther Martin?


Martin Luther

Martin Luther (German pronunciation: [ˈmaʁtin ˈlʊtɐ] November 10, 1483 – February 18, 1546) changed the course of Western civilization by initiating the Protestant Reformation.[1] As a priest and theology professor, he confronted indulgence salesmen with his 95 Theses in 1517. Luther strongly disputed their claim that freedom from God's punishment of sin could be purchased with money. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms meeting in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the emperor.

Luther taught that salvation is a free gift of God and received only by grace through faith in Jesus as redeemer from sin, not from good works. His theology challenged the authority of the pope of the Roman Catholic Church by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge[2] and opposed sacerdotalism by considering all baptized Christians to be a holy priesthood.[3] Those that identify with Luther's teachings are called Lutherans.

His translation of the Bible into the language of the people (instead of Latin) made it more accessible, causing a tremendous impact on the church and on German culture. It fostered the development of a standard version of the German language, added several principles to the art of translation,[4] and influenced the translation into English of the King James Bible.[5] His hymns inspired the development of singing in churches.[6] His marriage to Katharina von Bora set a model for the practice of clerical marriage, allowing Protestant priests to marry.[7]

Much scholarly debate has focused on Luther's writings about the Jews. His statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated, and liberty curtailed were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis in 1933–45.[8] As a result of this and his revolutionary theological views, his legacy remains controversial.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther


Luther Martin

Contrarian Founding Father Luther Martin (February 9, 1748 – July 8, 1826) was a politician and one of United States' Founding Fathers, who refused to sign the Constitution because he felt it violated states' rights. He was a leading Anti-Federalist, along with Patrick Henry and George Mason, whose actions helped passage of the Bill of Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Martin

[ClayTrainor]

Luther Martin the Anti-Federalist, HANDS DOWN! :D

Mad respect to MLK Though ;)

[Galileo Galilei]

They are both cool. I voted for Martin Luther because he had more historical impact.

I heard that Luther Martin was the heaviest drinking Founding Father, he lived to ne pretty old, though.

I just noticed he died only 4 days after Jefferson and Adams.

Voth of these men are under-rated.

[gls]

I think history has proven the legitimacy of Luther Martin's concerns regarding the Constitutional coup d'état of 1787.

[Steeleye]

Luther Martin the Anti-Federalist, HANDS DOWN! :D

Mad respect to MLK Though ;)

What does MLK have to do with this?

[Kludge]

Lol @ article quality on Luther Martin.

[Galileo Galilei]

I think history has proven the legitimacy of Luther Martin's concerns regarding the Constitutional coup d'état of 1787.

Actually, the ratification is the farthest thing from a coup d'etat in the recorded history of government.

First, it was approved by all the states present at the Constitutional Convention.

Then the Confederation Congress signed off on it, and sent it to the States.

Meanwhile, all 13 State legislatures held debates and agreed to hold special elections for delegates to State ratifying conventions.

Then the elections were held, with the most liberal voting standards in history up to that time, with the least amount of land ownership requirements in history.

Then these elections were held.

Then, at each state convention the Constitution was debated again and ratified.

During this time, every newspaper in the country was publishing articles and debates, pro and con, by federalists and anti-federalists.

The text of the Constitution was also printed in every newspaper as well.

The political debate that led the the U.S. Constitution was the most inspiring political event in human history, hardly a coup d'etat.

Calling the process of ratification a coup d'etat is just plain stupid.

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually, the ratification is the farthest thing from a coup d'etat in the recorded history of government.

First, it was approved by all the states present at the Constitutional Convention.

Then the Confederation Congress signed off on it, and sent it to the States.

Meanwhile, all 13 State legislatures held debates and agreed to hold special elections for delegates to State ratifying conventions.

Then the elections were held, with the most liberal voting standards in history up to that time, with the least amount of land ownership requirements in history.

Then these elections were held.

Then, at each state convention the Constitution was debated again and ratified.

During this time, every newspaper in the country was publishing articles and debates, pro and con, by federalists and anti-federalists.

The text of the Constitution was also printed in every newspaper as well.

The political debate that led the the U.S. Constitution was the most inspiring political event in human history, hardly a coup d'etat.

Calling the process of ratification a coup d'etat is just plain stupid.

False.
"Madison ran the most successful conspiratorial coup in history, for the heirs of the victims still do not perceive that it was a coup. I have written a book on this, Conspiracy in Philadelphia (http://www.demischools.org/philadelphia.pdf). In this regard, he is unrivaled. Had it not been for him, America would still be a confederation of states. Washington D.C. might still belong to the Gore family. All of Virginia might still be dominated by the Byrd family, rather than just the western section. "

See the rest of the article this came from here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north520.html).

[gls]

The political debate that led the the U.S. Constitution was the most inspiring political event in human history, hardly a coup d'etat.

Calling the process of ratification a coup d'etat is just plain stupid.

Really? I find sunsets inspiring, not the usurpation of power away from individuals and states to a centralized authority. The convention was a coup because they met for the express purpose of modifying the Articles of Confederation, not abandoning it in favor of an entirely new form of government.

What is "plain stupid" is praising the men who allowed their lust for power to decimate any chance of limited government in America.

[Galileo Galilei]

Really? I find sunsets inspiring, not the usurpation of power away from individuals and states to a centralized authority. The convention was a coup because they met for the express purpose of modifying the Articles of Confederation, not abandoning it in favor of an entirely new form of government.

What is "plain stupid" is praising the men who allowed their lust for power to decimate any chance of limited government in America.

Are you a troll? The Contitution sets up a very very small central governemnt with only a few limited powers. Most powers are reserved to the States under the Constitution.

All of the States that you worship ratitied the Constitution, did you even bother to read what I wrote?

A coup is a seizure of power by force. The Constitution was ratified by the people, and yes, it does modify the Articles of Confederation, which had been a disaster.

You seem to have a very limited notion of the delegates, they were like ambassadors. Ambassadors can do whatever they want, but if come up with something stupid, their agreements will not be approved of ratified.

Ron Paul defends the Constitution and so do I. So did James Madison, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Hancock, Alexander Hamilton, etc. If you do not support the Constitution, please go and support Obama.

[Galileo Galilei]

False.
"Madison ran the most successful conspiratorial coup in history, for the heirs of the victims still do not perceive that it was a coup. I have written a book on this, Conspiracy in Philadelphia (http://www.demischools.org/philadelphia.pdf). In this regard, he is unrivaled. Had it not been for him, America would still be a confederation of states. Washington D.C. might still belong to the Gore family. All of Virginia might still be dominated by the Byrd family, rather than just the western section. "

See the rest of the article this came from here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north520.html).

Really? He forced the people in New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Massachusettes, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and New Hampshire to ratify the Constitution?

Sure he did.

Get real, dude, you discredit the Ron Paul movement.

[Objectivist]

I'll pick my relative Eck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Eck

[erowe1]

The Contitution sets up a very very small central governemnt with only a few limited powers. Most powers are reserved to the States under the Constitution.

The Constitution either gave us the government we have or was powerless to prevent it.

[Galileo Galilei]

The Constitution either gave us the government we have or was powerless to prevent it.

All the power is still with the States. It only takes 38 state legislatures to change the Constitution.

[nayjevin]

Martin Luther, Luther Martin, Martin Luther King, Lex Luthor, all awesome.

[Sola_Fide]

Martin Luther. There would be no free Republic without the philosophical foundation of the Protestant Reformation.

[Aratus]

hb34 has just been banned?