Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: RoadKingLarry on January 07, 2014, 08:46:25 AM
-
This is getting kind of interesting to watch.
At the Capitol in OKC there is a 10 Comandments monument on the grounds.
Been a bit of a fight to keep it there.
Now a group of Satanists want to erect their own monument in keeping with the whole "no establishment" thing.
The local Book of Face crowd is pretty up in arms over it.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/01/06/n-y-group-applies-to-build-satan-statue-at-oklahoma-state-capitol/ (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/01/06/n-y-group-applies-to-build-satan-statue-at-oklahoma-state-capitol/)
-
Interesting, I say if they allow Judeo-Christian items, they also need to allow items from other religions, not matter how they disagree with them.
I think they need to erect a statue to honor Gozer The Gozerian.
-
I would donate a very large sum of money to help get that put up.
All or none, 'em is the rules.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/flying-spaghetti-monster-wisconsin_n_4459619.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/flying-spaghetti-monster-wisconsin_n_4459619.html)
-
"Think this is ridiculous? We agree!"
BLASPHEMY!
How dare they insult the FSM!
-
I'm all for them putting up the statue in NY. There are zero people from this NY group that are actually going to go see the statue they are paying to put up. It is not a religious statement, it's a bunch of people in NY putting up a statue in 'fly over country', AKA being d***s. Its publicity, not a religious statement.
-
I'm all for them putting up the statue in NY. There are zero people from this NY group that are actually going to go see the statue they are paying to put up. It is not a religious statement, it's a bunch of people in NY putting up a statue in 'fly over country', AKA being d***s. Its publicity, not a religious statement.
And? Most of the folks who backed the RoboCop statue aren't going to go to Detroit.
Well designed proposed monument, btw. The art geek in me is impressed. I'd definitely want to go see it.
-
Yeah. I'd throw them a $20. =)
-
I knew some Church of Satan folks when I lived in Hanford, CA some years back.
Oddly (or not?) enough, they turned out to be pretty dishonest.
I halfway expect these guys to collect all the money and *poof*, gone. Yoink, suckers.
And as monuments to Satan go, I guess that wouldn't be a bad one either.
-
I guess I'm the only one that finds it funny that the Satanist's all butthurt because the 10 Commandments are on display. Shouldn't they just cast as few spells/hexes/curses/sacrificial virgins at the Christians/Jews/Muslims for allowing it and moving on with their lives??
I swear some people have far too much time on their hands and need to find something productive to do.
-
When your particular moral code supplies the foundation for an empire like western civilization you too may have a monument on public land.
-
When your particular moral code supplies the foundation for an empire like western civilization you too may have a monument on public land.
Strange, but I always thought that "public land" was the monument to "an empire like western civilization".
And that one of the ways to keep that land public was to keep the government out of religion and religion out of the government.
stay safe.
-
And that one of the ways to keep that land public was to keep the government out of religion and religion out of the government.
stay safe.
Sure thing.
Just one question: which religion is the Ten Commandments "establishing?"
(I could go further and note that the founders wished to avoid choosing one Christian denomination as supreme over all the others, not that the entirety of Christianity was to be suppressed in public life as is the aim now. But since the 10 Commandments isn't even exclusively Christian, I'm failing to see how honoring their importance is "establishing" a religion.)
-
Strange, but I always thought that "public land" was the monument to "an empire like western civilization".
And that one of the ways to keep that land public was to keep the government out of religion and religion out of the government.
stay safe.
He didn't say it was a monument to western civ, he said it was a monument in honor of the Ten Commandments. (Which, by the by, is more properly Jewish than Christian. ;) )
-
When your particular moral code supplies the foundation for an empire like western civilization you too may have a monument on public land.
So, buncha shot Native Americans, surrounded by ripped up treaties? "Lies and Genocide" is indeed a particular moral code. =D
(Not that I'm a hippy and think Native Americans were wussy peace-loving hippies prior to the White Dude showing up. Most Native American tribes were pretty blood thirsty killers. Otherwise, they wouldn't have survived against the other blood thirsty killer tribes. I'm just pointing out, said monument is directly opposed to the particular moral code that emptied America of its previous occupants and allowed the current civilization to flourish.)
-
So, buncha shot Native Americans, surrounded by ripped up treaties? "Lies and Genocide" is indeed a particular moral code. =D
(Not that I'm a hippy and think Native Americans were wussy peace-loving hippies prior to the White Dude showing up. Most Native American tribes were pretty blood thirsty killers. Otherwise, they wouldn't have survived against the other blood thirsty killer tribes. I'm just pointing out, said monument is directly opposed to the particular moral code that emptied America of its previous occupants and allowed the current civilization to flourish.)
Savages don't count. =D
Was that moral code or was that an overbearing central government full of self serving politicians who were "managing" the territories?
Your standards of finding what to blame for anything and everything are odd.
-
Strange, but I always thought that "public land" was the monument to "an empire like western civilization".
And that one of the ways to keep that land public was to keep the government out of religion and religion out of the government.
stay safe.
Did the founders ever say anything about keeping religion out of the government? I never heard that. They did want to keep government out of religion, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
As far as I am concerned, the people of the State of Oklahoma should be able to decide what symbols they want on public land, not some Satanist/Atheists in New York. Regardless of what courts have said, I don't consider a few religious symbols to be a violation of Religous Freedom. I find this whole War on the Public Display of Religion by Atheists to be rather offensive. The lack of religious symbols would seem to go the opposite way and support the religion of Atheism.
-
Let's all just pretend that western civilization happened in a moral and religious vacuum.
-
The other question in my mind is can you really regard Satanism as a separate religion? It seems to me it wouldn't exist without Christianity and legaly it should just be considered a denomination. No separate symbols are necessary. =D
-
Personally, I'd like to see some appropriately awesome Norse statues there.
-
The other question in my mind is can you really regard Satanism as a separate religion? It seems to me it wouldn't exist without Christianity and legaly it should just be considered a denomination. No separate symbols are necessary. =D
Good point.
Once you stop believing in Satan, then you don't need God :P
-
The other question in my mind is can you really regard Satanism as a separate religion? It seems to me it wouldn't exist without Christianity and legaly it should just be considered a denomination. No separate symbols are necessary. =D
Christianity wouldn't exist without Judaism. Is it a separate religion?
-
Western civilization as we know it wouldn't exist without Judaism and Christianity.
Is it separate from its religions?
-
Western civilization as we know it wouldn't exist without Judaism and Christianity.
Is it separate from its religions?
Yes
-
Yes
I suspect the surgical removal of religious influence from our civic culture and public sphere will either kill or permanently maim the patient.
Amorality and liberty have never been known to be bedfellows, except in the libertarians fantasy world that has never existed.
-
Western civilization as we know it wouldn't exist without Judaism and Christianity.
Is it separate from its religions?
Modern Science was only possible due to separation of religion.
One example
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heretical-copernicus-reburied-as-a-hero/
-
"Western civilization" is an ambiguous term. It covers everything including pre-christian empires. It's just as accurate to say western civilization as we know it wouldn't exist without animism, pantheism, druidism, judaism, islam, etc. Heck it's even more accurate to say western civilization wouldn't exist as I know it without my parents. I don't see the relevance.
-
I suspect the surgical removal of religious influence from our civic culture and public sphere will either kill or permanently maim the patient.
Amorality and liberty have never been known to be bedfellows, except in the libertarians fantasy world that has never existed.
Religion =/= Morality. IME it's not even very strongly correlated.
-
Modern Science was only possible due to separation of religion.
One example
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heretical-copernicus-reburied-as-a-hero/
Did you even read the article?
Copernicus the Roman Catholic who considered himself to be inspired by God?
Modern science doesn't happen until the prevailing world view becomes; a rational creator created a rational universe that we can observe and understand.
-
"Western civilization" is an ambiguous term. It covers everything including pre-christian empires. It's just as accurate to say western civilization as we know it wouldn't exist without animism, pantheism, druidism, judaism, islam, etc. Heck it's even more accurate to say western civilization wouldn't exist as I know it without my parents. I don't see the relevance.
I suspect the vast majority of those who read "western civilization" understood perfectly well what I meant, your calculated obtuseness aside.
-
Religion =/= Morality. IME it's not even very strongly correlated.
Let us leave the moral questions to scientists and politicians eh?
-
Did you even read the article?
Copernicus the Roman Catholic who considered himself to be inspired by God?
Modern science doesn't happen until the prevailing world view becomes a rational creator created a rational universe that we can observe and understand.
I should have used Galileo, I had the two confused.
-
Modern Science was only possible due to separation of religion.
One example
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heretical-copernicus-reburied-as-a-hero/
Hmm. I think you meant "modern science developed in the breast of medieval christendom and would not exist without it."
Edited for not (naught?).
-
Galileo, friend of the Pope, who remained a Roman Catholic and supporter of the church his whole life?
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, he saw his system as concerning the issue of how the Bible should be interpreted.
[Sources:] Annibale Fantoli, Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church (1994), M. Sharratt, Galileo (1994), M. A. Finnochiaro, The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History (1989)
-
Galileo, friend of the Pope, who remained a Roman Catholic and supporter of the church his whole life?
Galileo, that was considered a heretic (and attacking the pope with his written defense) and put under house arrest for the remainder of his life because he wouldn't change his views ?
-
Roo_ster, I think you forgot a "not" somewhere in there.
Christianity wouldn't exist without Judaism. Is it a separate religion?
Of course not.
-
Galileo, that was considered a heretic (and attacking the pope with his written defense) and put under house arrest for the remainder of his life because he wouldn't change his views ?
You forgot the part where he renounced his religious beliefs.
-
I suspect the vast majority of those who read "western civilization" understood perfectly well what I meant, your calculated obtuseness aside.
Hmm, you have inaccurately assumed my intent. I'm actually trying to make a point. What the vast majority might have seen, heard, felt, or thought when they read your words is irrelevant. I also understood what you meant when you used the term western civilization. My point, which you've missed either unintentionally, or through your own obtuseness, I make no judgements, is that there is a larger viewpoint available. Civilization is undeniably affected by religion. It's also affected by numerous non-religious factors. Your original question was whether civilization is separate from its religions. I stand by my original answer of 'yes.'
-
You forgot the part where he renounced his religious beliefs.
Wouldn't you do the same if the "leaders" of your religion harassed you like they did him?
-
Hmm, you have inaccurately assumed my intent. I'm actually trying to make a point. What the vast majority might have seen, heard, felt, or thought when they read your words is irrelevant. I also understood what you meant when you used the term western civilization. My point, which you've missed either unintentionally, or through your own obtuseness, I make no judgements, is that there is a larger viewpoint available. Civilization is undeniably affected by religion. It's also affected by numerous non-religious factors. Your original question was whether civilization is separate from its religions. I stand by my original answer of 'yes.'
Thanks for the clarification. No sense in talking past each other!
-
Wouldn't you do the same if the "leaders" of your religion harassed you like they did him?
That whole episode was every bit a political persecution as well as a religious persecution.
I am very much in favor of the separation of church and state where it relates to institutional power and/or authority.
Roger Williams is an individual I hold much respect for, my thoughts on the subject have been heavily influenced by him.
-
Roo_ster, I think you forgot a "not" somewhere in there.
You are correct. I have edited the post.
To state it more bluntly:
Without Christianity, empirical science as we know it would not exist. Paganism of the various flavors, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. just did not and (as we see proved time & again) still do not have what it takes to foster a culture of empiricism.
As for the OP, the COTUS prohibits a national establishment of religion.
-
You are correct. I have edited the post.
To state it more bluntly:
Without Christianity, empirical science as we know it would not exist. Paganism of the various flavors, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. just did not and (as we see proved time & again) still do not have what it takes to foster a culture of empiricism.
As for the OP, the COTUS prohibits a national establishment of religion.
Christianity is the only religion that allows a civilization to gain knowledge through experience? ???
-
Wouldn't you do the same if the "leaders" of your religion harassed you like they did him?
Did he renounce his belief in the Catholic faith?
-
Did he renounce his belief in the Catholic faith?
heh, heh, NO! :rofl:
An inconvenient truth.
-
Did he renounce his belief in the Catholic faith?
He was forced to renounce his belief that the Sun was the center on the universe and not Earth.
-
He was forced to renounce his belief that the Sun was the center on the universe and not Earth.
For political reasons.
While it is a necessary cautionary tale; to use this episode to denounce religious belief is a stretch.
The fact he remained Christian AND Roman Catholic lends credence to the view it was a political act aimed at preserving Rome's authority more than anything else.
Galileo expressed he had no conflict between his observations and his belief system.
-
Without Christianity, empirical science as we know it would not exist. Paganism of the various flavors, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. just did not and (as we see proved time & again) still do not have what it takes to foster a culture of empiricism.
This is one of those statements that cannot be proven. It's impossible to determine what would exist or not exist "without Christianity." At least it's impossible to determine empirically. It's just one of those "what if" scenarios that have no bearing on reality.
-
For political reasons.
While it is a necessary cautionary tale; to use this episode to denounce religious belief is a stretch.
The fact he remained Christian AND Roman Catholic lends credence to the view it was a political act aimed at preserving Rome's authority more than anything else.
Galileo expressed he had no conflict between his observations and his belief system.
Is it a cautionary tale about what happens when religion and politics are mixed?
-
Is it a cautionary tale about what happens when religion and politics are mixed?
Even more than the mixing of the two it is a cautionary tale about any human institution and giving it civil authority (use of force) over the individual.
That does not demand the exclusion of all religious thought, experience, wisdom, morality or tradition from public discourse or expression.
-
This is one of those statements that cannot be proven. It's impossible to determine what would exist or not exist "without Christianity." At least it's impossible to determine empirically. It's just one of those "what if" scenarios that have no bearing on reality.
All we have to work off of is the observed data ie history.
Christendom was and is the prevailing religion of the civilization that has reached the highest technological and I would argue moral pinnacle of human achievement.
Perfect? No
Capable of adaptation, progress and self reflection? Yes
-
Western civilization as we know it wouldn't exist without Judaism and Christianity the pagans in aincient Greece.
FTFY.
Is it separate from its religions?
Yes.
-
I love me some Plato and Aristotle.
No reason to strike out Judaism and Christianity.
Unless of course you have an axe to grind and it blinds you to the historical reality.
-
Christendom was and is the prevailing religion of the civilization that has reached the highest technological and I would argue moral pinnacle of human achievement.
Is, perhaps. Was - not so much. You do know where the word "algebra" comes from, right?
-
Is, perhaps. Was - not so much. You do know where the word "algebra" comes from, right?
Look at the fruit of that civilization.
Getting a couple things correct doesn't give you a free pass.
-
I love me some Plato and Aristotle.
No reason to strike out Judaism and Christianity.
Unless of course you have an axe to grind and it blinds you to the historical reality.
No reason those two should be the only ones represented either.
-
No reason those two should be the only ones represented either.
In the history of the western world?
All other religious traditions are merely footnotes in regards to impact on the moral and civil development of the western world.
-
All we have to work off of is the observed data ie history.
Christendom was and is the prevailing religion of the civilization that has reached the highest technological and I would argue moral pinnacle of human achievement.
Perfect? No
Capable of adaptation, progress and self reflection? Yes
I don't believe the fact that civilization is "capable of adaptation, progress and self reflection" is due to Christianity. I believe christianity is capable of adaptation, progress and self reflection because it's been created by humans. Adaptation, etc. are human traits, if christians have the same traits it's because of their humanity, not their religion.
Again, it's impossible to prove that the current level of technology would not have been achieved without christianity. It's a specious argument.
-
I don't believe the fact that civilization is "capable of adaptation, progress and self reflection" is due to Christianity. I believe christianity is capable of adaptation, progress and self reflection because it's been created by humans. Adaptation, etc. are human traits, if christians have the same traits it's because of their humanity, not their religion.
Again, it's impossible to prove that the current level of technology would not have been achieved without christianity. It's a specious argument.
Arguing that Christendom played no (positive) role in the progress of humanity as reflected in the progress of the western world is the specious argument.
What we do know from observation is that the civilization that adopted forms of thought consistent with the theistic view of reality taught in Christianity has progressed exponentially technologically and I would argue morally as compared to other religious or philosophic systems tried.
-
Arguing that Christendom played no (positive) role in the progress of humanity as reflected in the progress of the western world is the specious argument.
What we do know from observation is that the civilization that adopted forms of thought consistent with the theistic view of reality taught in Christianity has progressed exponentially technologically and I would argue morally as compared to other religious or philosophic systems tried.
How could you possibly think that I'm arguing "Christendom played no (positive) role in the progress of humanity as reflected in the progress of the western world"?!?!?!?
I'm saying you cannot prove your assertions. Full stop. Any further assumptions on your part are just that.
Far be it for me to disallow someone their beliefs. Just do not put words into my mouth. And I understand how easy it is to hold one's own belief system in high regard, however truth is not contingent on belief.
-
How could you possibly think that I'm arguing "Christendom played no (positive) role in the progress of humanity as reflected in the progress of the western world"?!?!?!?
I'm saying you cannot prove your assertions. Full stop. Any further assumptions on your part are just that.
Far be it for me to disallow someone their beliefs. Just do not put words into my mouth. And I understand how easy it is to hold one's own belief system in high regard, however truth is not contingent on belief.
You're just dancing.
You ascribe all the positives, the fostering of technological and moral progress that I've attributed to the Judeo/Christian worldview to merely being the natural human condition.
I disagree, vehemently, and history bears me out IMHO.
Ideas have consequences.
-
You're just dancing.
You ascribe all the positives, the fostering of technological and moral progress that I've attributed to the Judeo/Christian worldview to merely being the natural human condition.
I disagree, vehemently, and history bears me out IMHO.
Ideas have consequences.
I honestly can't dance. I think what you're saying is that christianity is the source of all that's good in the history of the world, and anything not related to christianity is either bad, or non-existent.
With which I disagree vehemently, and history is better viewed with as few filters as possible.
This is a truly un-fruitful discussion. I'm sorry to have wasted your time.
-
Look at the fruit of that civilization.
Getting a couple things correct doesn't give you a free pass.
The ME was the hotbed of learning and science PRIOR to Mohammad going out and conquering it. The Library at Alexanderia, Hammurabi's Code, and most of the Wonders of Ancient World were created by those we would now call Arabs. Those civilizations flourished, grew and were developing until their "genetic code" was poisoned by Islam. After that things came to a stop, and have not restarted. They develop no new science or technology they only use what they get from the west.
It's a shame really, that Mohammad wasn't killed early.
-
I honestly can't dance. I think what you're saying is that christianity is the source of all that's good in the history of the world, and anything not related to christianity is either bad, or non-existent.
With which I disagree vehemently, and history is better viewed with as few filters as possible.
This is a truly un-fruitful discussion. I'm sorry to have wasted your time.
Neither unfruitful nor a waste of time.
I don't believe that Christianity is the source of all that is good in the history of the world. There is only one source of all that is good and God is not limited to using a broken failed poor reflection of what the original intent was (speaking of the church).
One thing I continually do is question my presuppositions and how they influence my opinions on matters.
We all view reality through filters, that is human.
Maybe you should question your own presuppositions and make sure you haven't been overly influenced by post modern thought and its materialistic, relativistic cul de sac of nihilism.
-
The ME was the hotbed of learning and science PRIOR to Mohammad going out and conquering it. The Library at Alexanderia, Hammurabi's Code, and most of the Wonders of Ancient World were created by those we would now call Arabs. Those civilizations flourished, grew and were developing until their "genetic code" was poisoned by Islam. After that things came to a stop, and have not restarted. They develop no new science or technology they only use what they get from the west.
It's a shame really, that Mohammad wasn't killed early.
Ever read Mainspring of Human Progress by HG Weaver?
-
The ME was the hotbed of learning and science PRIOR to Mohammad going out and conquering it. The Library at Alexanderia, Hammurabi's Code, and most of the Wonders of Ancient World were created by those we would now call Arabs. Those civilizations flourished, grew and were developing until their "genetic code" was poisoned by Islam. After that things came to a stop, and have not restarted. They develop no new science or technology they only use what they get from the west.
It's a shame really, that Mohammad wasn't killed early.
There were a number of "learned" cultures from the Middle East to India that were destroyed by the Islamic Jihad and other conquerors before them. The Middle East itself was a trade nexus that picked up knowledge from all over the known world from China to Europe. I've never read about anyone tracing the true origin of that stuff, but that might be interesting.
As for religion in general, as I see it, it is the religious caste (for lack of a better word) that is the first of a developing culture to have the free time to devote to pure observation and research as well as writing. Master craftsmen might have a great deal of knowledge, but are not likely to write it down or pass it on to anyone but apprentices. I think many of the early scientists and astronomers in the West were either wealthy themselves or lived with the support of patrons.
-
Let's all just pretend that western civilization happened in a moral and religious vacuum.
like they said- the Constitution is only gonna work with a moral and just people.
these "satanist" don't give a damn about religious freedom, they are just like the rest of the left extremists- they just want to poke a finger in someones eye. Flip side of the westboro asshats.
-
There were a number of "learned" cultures from the Middle East to India that were destroyed by the Islamic Jihad and other conquerors before them. The Middle East itself was a trade nexus that picked up knowledge from all over the known world from China to Europe. I've never read about anyone tracing the true origin of that stuff, but that might be interesting.
As for religion in general, as I see it, it is the religious caste (for lack of a better word) that is the first of a developing culture to have the free time to devote to pure observation and research as well as writing. Master craftsmen might have a great deal of knowledge, but are not likely to write it down or pass it on to anyone but apprentices. I think many of the early scientists and astronomers in the West were either wealthy themselves or lived with the support of patrons.
I think AzRed has a degree in Eastern Civilization, maybe he can comment.
-
Look at the fruit of that civilization.
Getting a couple things correct doesn't give you a free pass.
Does Christian culture get a pass for their indiscretions, like wounded knee or how we treat the indigenous population generally. Or the holocaust? Dresden hiroshima nagasaki? Slavery? The list is long
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
Does Christian culture get a pass for their indiscretions, like wounded knee or how we treat the indigenous population generally. Or the holocaust? Dresden hiroshima nagasaki? Slavery? The list is long
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
Of course not.
It is rare to even find someone that attempts to justify any of those (other than the bombings in Japan).
Yet in the middle east denying the Holocaust even took place is par for the course.
I find it odd so many here are infected with some form or another of cultural relativism.
-
Does Christian culture get a pass for their indiscretions, like wounded knee or how we treat the indigenous population generally. Or the holocaust? Dresden hiroshima nagasaki? Slavery? The list is long
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
Considering the "Christian culture" generally condemns itself for those things, I find that question a bit odd. How many other cultures do you see that are critical of their own past mistakes and such? How many other cultures sought to eliminate slavery without outside influence? Everyone FROM WESTERN CULTURE likes to condemn western culture, I don't often see that same trend elsewhere.
It also sort of depends on what stadards you are judging by. There have been hundreds and thousands of slaughters, massacres, and bad things in human history. Often, they are par for the course at the time they happened. Few people go back and condemn Alexander the Great who sold entire cities into slavery after capturing them more than once. The treatment of the American Indians was really very little different from what the British did around the world. Doesn't make it right or okay, it just is.
Also, if you are going to blame all Christian/Western culture for something like Wounded Knee, isn't that sort of the same thing the people who committed that massacre did? Massacred one set of "Indians" for something some other "Indians" did?
-
Of course not.
It is rare to even find someone that attempts to justify any of those (other than the bombings in Japan).
Yet in the middle east denying the Holocaust even took place is par for the course.
I find it odd so many here are infected with some form or another of cultural relativism.
these events didn't happen in a vacuum it took many players and are you really gonna try to say that the way we treated indians lacked popular support?
you know what chivingtons "day job" was?
http://www.denverpost.com/thornton/ci_18052780
-
these events didn't happen in a vacuum it took many players and are you really gonna try to say that the way we treated indians lacked popular support?
you know what chivingtons "day job" was?
http://www.denverpost.com/thornton/ci_18052780
I guess my sentence should have read "rare today".
Of course westward expansion and many of the other atrocities had popular support, otherwise they probably wouldn't have happened.
Regarding native Americans read up on Roger Williams who I referenced earlier as being influential on my thoughts; not only regarding religion and civil authority but also on how the US should have treated native Americans.
Not all native Americans were the same either, some would have pushed back no matter how nice they were treated. They were not going to share the land period. There was nothing more noble about native Americans than there was about the colonists and settlers. All humans acting like humans act. Yet we look back in horror now and say we will never do that now. Never Again etc.
Nobody currently justifies conquering lands and subjugating the people. There is a difference between judging folks over 200 years ago by our standards and the type of self flagellation that is in vogue. I feel no guilt over how native Americans were treated. That doesn't mean I think it was appropriate or moral.
-
You think its over? The case involving the gov ripping em off on the trust funds escape you?
Or you believe that our gov was unaware of the activities of the nazis?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
You think its over? The case involving the gov ripping em off on the trust funds escape you?
Or you believe that our gov was unaware of the activities of the nazis?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
I know very little about the trust fund issue and doubt there is anything more nefarious going on than what it being perpetrated against the public at large regularly. It would surprise me greatly if it was some conspiracy against them because the red man are savages or unworthy of government protection as lesser citizens [tinfoil]
Our government has deceived and lied to the public at large for over half our history. Maybe even from the beginning, that's what governments do best.
We weren't nearly as militarily adventurous back then as we are now. WW1 didn't leave a lot folks all excited to go gallivanting across the globe righting wrongs by military force, especially wrongs perpetrated upon a much maligned minority (the Jews).
The Machiavellian machinations of our government frequently run counter to the values and ethics of the people at large.
Culture and government aren't synonymous although government is very very active these days in shaping culture. It would be so much easier if it weren't for those damn Christians :P
-
On the flip side, how has Satanism, as a religion, shaped our culture?
-
Shoot do you believe the vatican was unaware? The same vatican that pulled german clergy outa asia before pearl harbor
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
Shoot do you believe the vatican was unaware? The same vatican that pulled german clergy outa asia before pearl harbor
Who said the Vatican was unaware of, well, anything? ???
-
and who says Rome is the spokesperson for western civilization? Large swaths of western civilization spent much blood and treasure escaping Romes clutches.
What I oppose is the adopting of the new religion of scientism as the state religion.
Bureaucrats employing "science" and technocrats to do good to us and make us better.
Government is supposed to protect our rights, period.
Holiday displays should be a local issue. Give the local satanists (if there are any) their own spot to put a display up. Tell the carpetbagging satanists from out of town and feds to go pound sand.
-
>Without Christianity, empirical science as we know it would not exist. Paganism of the various flavors, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. just did not and (as we see proved time & again) still do not have what it takes to foster a culture of empiricism.<
Hmmm...
We can't know WHAT sort of culture we may have gotten from the various Pagan societies, since Christianity steamrollered them
As has been pointed out, Arabs had culture FAR in advance of pretty much anyone else for a long time, methinks even after Islam took root. At the same time frame (the middle ages), Jewish scholars were also far advanced of Europe ("Western Civilization")
Buddhism? Hmmm... that can be argued back and forth. While Thailand (predominantly Buddhist) is monetarily "porrer", the people on the whole seem happier...
-
As has been pointed out, Arabs had culture FAR in advance of pretty much anyone else for a long time, methinks even after Islam took root. At the same time frame (the middle ages), Jewish scholars were also far advanced of Europe ("Western Civilization")
Significantly, both are monotheistic cultures. Hmmmm...
-
Significantly, both are monotheistic cultures. Hmmmm...
Like I said earlier in this thread regarding presuppositions.
The first step in science requires us believing that the universe is actually knowable and its laws are discoverable.
Judeo/Christian culture (regardless of any particular flavor or sect) lays down the first principles that a rational creator created a discoverable reality governed by laws we are subject to.
It is also this presupposition that seperates the creation from the creator philosophically; making nature something that could be studied, quantified and demystified by observation. Unlike the eastern religions God is not the creation. Even though I'm not as up to speed on the pagan religions I don't think I've ever run across any pagan thought that clearly lays out a cosmology that would lead to similar presuppositions about nature.
The total divorce of God the creator from nature is actually the genesis of materialism. Instead of God just being separate from nature the existence of the creator God is denied altogether. This leaves a pretty big philosophic hole in modern science as well as functionally un-tethering it from Judea/Christian morals and ethics. Science by consensus will contend we have no natural rights. I think we actually are already there.
Currently we are running on autopilot keeping our cultural framework in place even though we have no real philosophic foundation underneath it all. Once the last vestige of personal liberty is gone we will be where humans always end up, might makes right. All power will be invested in the state and the individual will only exist for the sake of the state.