"Dances with Wolves," and the American Spirit...

[elder999]

I recently watched “Dances With Wolves” again, a movie I enjoy very much.The movie speaks to me on many levels. Of course, there is the issue of genocide, and of attempted cultural annihilation. There is the issue of out right theft of another people’s land. You might ask how a civilized culture, supposedly founded on equality, justice and freedom could commit such horrors upon another people. Actually, those immoral acts didn’t come from the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, or the writings of Voltaire, or Marx. The near genocidal annihilation of the Indians and the theft of their belongings come directly from a warped, selfish and very selective interpretation of the Bible. They purposely used a holy book to demonize another people, thereby making them less than human because their religion was different. Because they weren’t Christian, they weren’t (and sometimes still aren’t) allowed freedom of religion. The establishment media supported the genocide and thievery through selective reporting which was nothing more than government propaganda. Most people were too busy to notice that they were being lied to and that great evil was being committed in their name. Besides, they voted for their leaders in democratic elections and they assumed that they were free. That’s how the Federal government could totally ignore the Constitution and other founding documents, and have genocide and organized theft as official American policy. It was scriptural. They proclaimed to the world that God chose them and that God had given them this entire continent. They even coined a phrase, “Manifest Destiny”, to describe their evil policies. To attribute such horrific behavior and philosophy to God is so blasphemous as to defy belief

The Indians could never quite grasp the scope of what was happening to them. It was difficult, if not impossible for them to imagine that their people, their beliefs, their values, their way of life would soon be destroyed or that only a remnant would be left. They were not without their prophets, though. The Maya, the Aztec, the Hopi, the Creek, the Cherokee and the Choctaw, amongst others, knew that foreigners and great change were on the way. The seers and holy people had visions of shining, glittering headgear, crosses on poles and invaders with hairy faces riding atop strange animals, but when the perilous times came, they couldn’t get past their tribal differences in order to confront the common enemy. Well, except for a briefly successful rebellion in New Mexico.



We are living in similar times today. That’s one reason why Dances With Wolves resonates so strongly, both with the conscious and unconscious mind. We are in a period of sweeping change, yet most people are too distracted to notice. There is a dark, dark spirit loose in the land. There is a new religion, a deadly mixture of Biblical fundamentalism and militaristic imperialism. Nationalistic arrogance masquerades as patriotism. Those who love justice and freedom and independence are being silenced whilst the government suspends liberty in order to “defend” it. We are on the verge of changes so massive as to be beyond our imagining. They tell you that only non-citizens will be subjected to military trials without jury, but don’t believe them. It is only a matter of time before the leaders tell you that in order to fight terrorism (or racism, or drugs, or ‘fill in the blank’), they need to have the power for citizens to be included in their military tribunals. However, it is the way of the material world that this chaos will give birth to tremendous possibility for growth, for justice and for freedom. The federal imperial authorities are very powerful and they fool a lot of people with their ego posturing, but their days are numbered, for they don’t fool God. We live in challenging times. We have the opportunity to stand for truth and justice and freedom. Jesus said, “Let those with understanding, hear; let those with vision, see.”

 

[Kacey]

I recently watched “Dances With Wolves” again, a movie I enjoy very much.The movie speaks to me on many levels. Of course, there is the issue of genocide, and of attempted cultural annihilation. There is the issue of out right theft of another people’s land. You might ask how a civilized culture, supposedly founded on equality, justice and freedom could commit such horrors upon another people.

It goes like this: at the time, the 'civilized' culture saw the American Indians as 'uncivilized', and therefore somehow less than human - the same way that Africans were uncivilized and somehow less than human. In addition, many American Indian tribes believed that they belonged to the land, not the other way around, and when Europeans first arrived, the American Indians felt that there was room enough for everyone, because the American Indians lived with and from the land - they didn't reshape it to suit their own needs, and they did not think of themselves as owning it. By the time they realized what was going on, and tried to assert their ownership, it was too late. To ascribe these actions solely to the Bible is incorrect - the primary problem was the clash between extremely different values and lifestyles of the Europeans vs. the American Indians. Certainly, the Judeo-Christian values in the Bible had a major effect on European culture - but the Bible also states that one should treat other people fairly. Only by perceiving American Indians as savages and subhuman could the European settlers justify their actions.

Most people were too busy to notice that they were being lied to and that great evil was being committed in their name. Besides, they voted for their leaders in democratic elections and they assumed that they were free.

The US has a representative form of government, true - but it is a republic at the very top, not a true democracy. Yes, the Electoral College can be viewed as a way to overcome the technological problems of voting during the 1700s... but the real reason was that the common citizen was considered to be too ignorant and unintelligent to choose their own president - because, in the view of our founding fathers, only the upper class had the necessary education and intelligence to guide the country, and only the upper class could elect the highest officials. The fact that only the upper class had the leisure to leave their homes and travel to the county seat, state capital, and country capital to attend the debates and participate in the votes was incidental to the class structure. The citizens who voted for these representatives were much freer than they were in Europe, where they had no representation at all - but they believed that American Indians, and Africans, were sub-human savages who did not need, much less deserve, to be treated as human beings. The Bible allowed for slavery, true... but the slavery in the Old Testament was of limited duration, for the repayment of debts, except for the persecution of the Jews in Egypt, which was not, strictly, described as slavery, but rather as a class distinction - Jews were the losers in a economic war, having previously been the saviors, and the situations are not analogous, except right before the Exodus, when the Jews, like the American Indians and Africans, were seen as a persecuted underclass in need of escape from their situation - but the unlike the ethnic minorities in the US, the Jews were always seen as human.

That’s how the Federal government could totally ignore the Constitution and other founding documents, and have genocide and organized theft as official American policy. It was scriptural. They proclaimed to the world that God chose them and that God had given them this entire continent. They even coined a phrase, “Manifest Destiny”, to describe their evil policies. To attribute such horrific behavior and philosophy to God is so blasphemous as to defy belief

Again, I disagree - yes, there was a Biblical influence, and yes, manifest destiny was part of it - but it was because the Europeans did not see the American Indians as people; it was because they saw them "Noble Savages", who did not know how to make "proper" (that is, developed) use of the land... and since the American Indians did not perceive themselves as "owning" the land, they were willing to share access, and by the time the knew what was happening, it was too late.

The Indians could never quite grasp the scope of what was happening to them. It was difficult, if not impossible for them to imagine that their people, their beliefs, their values, their way of life would soon be destroyed or that only a remnant would be left.

This I agree with - but for different reasons than the ones you stated.

We are living in similar times today.

I disagree. When the Europeans began to settle North America, they saw themselves as explorers, and the American Indians as sub-human savages... and therefore did not see themselves as displacing people - only animals who looked human.

That’s one reason why Dances With Wolves resonates so strongly, both with the conscious and unconscious mind. We are in a period of sweeping change, yet most people are too distracted to notice.

True. Participation in the political process, by voting, discussing politics, etc., is at an all-time low in this country, except among specific interest groups, whose members use the general malaise to their advantage, allowing small groups to decide for the majority.

There is a dark, dark spirit loose in the land. There is a new religion, a deadly mixture of Biblical fundamentalism and militaristic imperialism. Nationalistic arrogance masquerades as patriotism.

This is not new - as I said, the general malaise in this country allows small groups of people to make decisions for the uninvolved masses. This may look like something new, but it is not - it is only newly visible.

[/QUOTE]Those who love justice and freedom and independence are being silenced whilst the government suspends liberty in order to “defend” it.[/QUOTE]

I agree that some of the provisions, and more, the interpretations, of laws such as the Patriot Act are fearsome in their implications.

[/QUOTE]We are on the verge of changes so massive as to be beyond our imagining. They tell you that only non-citizens will be subjected to military trials without jury, but don’t believe them. It is only a matter of time before the leaders tell you that in order to fight terrorism (or racism, or drugs, or ‘fill in the blank’), they need to have the power for citizens to be included in their military tribunals. [/QUOTE]

Again, this is not new.

First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.Martin Niemoeller​

We, as Americans, need to speak out for the causes we believe in, and not trust that others will do it for us... because it has been proven that waiting in silence is not effective. What is new is the apathy that grips many people, which prevents them from speaking up, and speaking out - because too many people think that one person does not, and cannot, make a significant difference.

[/QUOTE]However, it is the way of the material world that this chaos will give birth to tremendous possibility for growth, for justice and for freedom. The federal imperial authorities are very powerful and they fool a lot of people with their ego posturing, but their days are numbered, for they don’t fool God. We live in challenging times. We have the opportunity to stand for truth and justice and freedom. Jesus said, “Let those with understanding, hear; let those with vision, see.” [/QUOTE]

I agree with this in concept, but not in detail - yes, many of the people who are instrumental in using the Bible as source material, as, indeed, it is the basis of much of our legal system - but that doesn't mean that the correct response is religious, either. Consider the following quote from an email that was sent to me, remembering that it was sent without a source attribution, so I can't speak for the accuracy... but it does demonstrate my point:

"On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause."​

 

[elder999]

To ascribe these actions solely to the Bible is incorrect - the primary problem was the clash between extremely different values and lifestyles of the Europeans vs. the American Indians.

You need to read what I wrote over again :

The near genocidal annihilation of the Indians and the theft of their belongings come directly from a warped, selfish and very selective interpretation of the Bible.

From the beginning the white invasion of North America "knew" that it was moving into an "uninhabited, desert waste, a virgin wilderness, which their god had vouchsafed to His people." That it was inhabited was simply their god's good grace in also vouchsafing them many souls to plunder and anyway, as the Natives weren't using the land properly as god intended, it was as good as empty (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).



Robert Cushman wrote in 1622 in his continuation of Mourt's Relation (an account of the early years of the American plantation which was printed in England by Thomas Morton, hence Mourt's Relation):

Their land is spacious and void, and there are few, and do but run over the grass, as do also the foxes and the wild beast. They are not industrious, neither have art, science, skill or faculty to use either the land or the commodities of it; but all spoils, rots, and is marred for want of manuring, gathering, ordering, &c. As the ancient patriarchs, therefore, removed from straiter places into more roomy, where the land lay idle and waste, and none used it, though there dwelt inhabitants by them, as Gen. xiii, 6, 11, 12, and xxxiv, 21, and xii, 20, so it is lawful now to take a land which none useth, and make use of it...

And so, also in 1629, John Winthrop wrote:

...the whole earth is the Lord's garden, and he hath given it to the sons of Adam to be tilled and improved by them. Why then should we stand starving here for the places of habitation, (many men spending as much labour and cost to recover or keep sometimes an acre or two of lands as would procure him many hundreds of acres, as good or better, in another place), and in the mean time suffer whole countries, as profitable for the use of man, to lie waste without any improvement.

John Underhill who was second in command of the slaughter at the Pequot settlement of Mystic in 1637, wrote:

It may be demanded, Why should you be so furious? (as some have said). Should not Christians have more mercy and compassion? But I would refer you to David's war. When a people is grown to such a height of blood, and sin against God and man, and all confederates in the action, then he hath no respect to persons, but harrows them, and saws them, and puts them to the sword, and the most terribelest death that may be. Sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents. Sometimes the case alters; but we will not dispute it now. We had sufficient light from the Word of God for our proceedings.

It should be noted that in 1646, the Massachusetts General Court had, out of the goodness of its heart, agreed not to force any of the Indians within its power to convert to the one true faith. It had also, out of the much more extensive badness of its heart, specified the death penalty for any native who obdurately refused to convert to the one true faith or who spoke against the faith of the Massachusetts General Court "...as if it were but a polliticke devise to keep ignorant men in awe"

I'll address the rest of your...er...stuff in a little while...

 

[MartialIntent]

Excellent posts...

The suggestion is that we're living in similar times today? I would revise that and say our very human nature has been perpetuating this scenario since we first crawled from the swamps. The discerning factors nowadays are that we've simply got our contra-propaganda better prepared, we've become masters of our media, and have neither provided ourselves nor seek to appoint anyone with the strength of opposing will to the whirlpool of self-deceit that states arrogantly: "We're NOT animals!"

See, we've been extremely successful as a species at convincing ourselves [and providing cohesive scientific argument in favor of the position] that reaching the top echelon amongst the animals has somehow elevated us above and beyond all other creatures in both socially decouous terms and in our moral probity. The fact is we're little better than the predators in the skies, the trees and the waters. The only true separating factor between the human race and the the other animal kingdoms is that those species slaughter and prey on each other with no pretences of virtuousness or moral excellence.

Throughout the world we claim a myriad "greater goods" as we nonchalantly destroy nations and races as the self-appointed agents of "liberty"; as we ridicule, curse and slay each other under the perverse guise of pious appropriateness as supplied to us from the doctrines and pulpits of our various religious deities; and as we squeeze the life from the planet itself viewing our personal and corporate capital gain as somehow beneficial to the populus as a whole.

If we wish to continue in the manner of animals, shouldn't we honestly declare ourselves as such and lift away the veil of self-righteousness from our duplicitous eyes? If we wish to annihilate each other and our habitat should we not name ourselves animals and have no guilt therein?

Surely if we seek to continue under our ascription as "evolved", we should force ourselves accountable to that name...

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever." George Orwell, 1984

Respects!

 

[Kacey]

You need to read what I wrote over again :

I did read it... sorry you see my disagreement as lack of comprehension; that is your option. Simply because I didn't agree, or took it in a context other than what you meant when you wrote it, doesn't mean I didn't read it.

As for the rest of your response, mankind has persecuted mandkind for millenia, both with and without the Bible (or any other religion) as rationale. Has the Bible been a source of rationale? Certainly - just as religion, and other socio-cultural differences, have been used to justify atrocities throughout history. That doesn't make the Bible the sole source of the problem, then or now. It is the interpretation of superiority, based on the Bible, on social standing, on skin color, on any discerned difference as setting one group above the other(s) that causes the problem. Certainly, you can quote the Bible and its interpreters - it is, after all, the most widely disseminated volume in human history, in addition to its religious significance. Still, the Bible is not representative of many religions, which have have pogroms and jihads of their own, well before the Bible arrived in their areas.

I'll address the rest of your...er...stuff in a little while...

As I said, I disagree with your explanations, although not all of your concerns. Given the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, it is my right to both hold a different opinion and to express it freely - whether it agrees with anyone else's or not. That is, I think, one of the freedoms about which you stated concern; yet, when I disagreed with you, your response was that I had not read what you wrote. I took the time to respond directly, rather than disparaging "your... er... stuff," as you so condescendingly refer to my response, and I would appreciate the same level of thoughtful response.

 

[elder999]

…when I disagreed with you, your response was that I had not read what you wrote. I took the time to respond directly, rather than disparaging "your... er... stuff," as you so condescendingly refer to my response, and I would appreciate the same level of thoughtful response.

Karen,while you’re perfectly entitled to, and have my respect for you as a person, the same cannot be said of your opinion-indeed, I don’t have any respect for your opinion, in light of the facts I have presented and can continue to present. You have, however, received a thoughtful response-

No, I did not respond that you “did not read” what I wrote; I said, and I’ll reiterate, that you need to read it again. I even quoted the pertinent section of my post, and underlined the phrase warped, selfish and very selective interpretation of the Bible.

Indeed, this:

…. They purposely used a holy book to demonize another people, thereby making them less than human because their religion was different. Because they weren’t Christian, they weren’t (and sometimes still aren’t) allowed freedom of religion.

has a less than superficial relationship to this:

….but they believed that American Indians, and Africans, were sub-human savages who did not need, much less deserve, to be treated as human beings.

And, in fact, if you look closely at the quotes I used in my second post, you’ll see that they did not, in the main, think of Indians, (or Africans) as sub-human, but sub-Christian, any more than the Hebrews of the Old Testament thought of the other tribes of Canaan as sub-human.

I’ll post a little more in a bit, but I’d like to ask you a question, Karen:

Why are the aboriginal people of this continent called Indians?

 

[Kacey]

Why are the aboriginal people of this continent called Indians?

Because Columbus thought he had reached the East Indies - therefore, he called the people he encountered Indians. He was mistaken, but by the time the mistake was understood, "Indian" had become common usage, and has so permeated the language that the error was corrected linguistically, except to add the word "American" or to use the phrase "Native American", which, while less inaccurate, has also been proven incorrect; while the tribes resident in the Americas when the Europeans landed certainly had a prior claim, if one goes back far enough into history, one finds archeological evidence that all human residents of the Americas were, at some recent or distant historical remove, immigrants. This does not, in any way, excuse the attitudes toward members of any social, cultural, or ethnic subgroup.

Despite this little diversion, that does not change the fact that the social forces you describe are seen widely across cultures, and are not always based on the Bible... as many cultures have religions which do not refer to, or even have knowledge of, the Bible. While the events in the Bible occurred in and around the Mediterranean, the reliance on the Bible as a religious manual is a European cultural issue. Other cultures, in other geographic locales, have had different reasons, often religious, but not always, for considering themselves superior and therefore believing in their right to conquer. The Mongols, for example, were quite convinced of their superiority, and made no excuses for themselves - they felt themselves to be the superiors of any peoples they could defeat, and saw their continuing success as proof of their superiority.

Many people in this country use the Bible to support belief in their own superiority, stating that they follow the precepts of the Bible exactly; however, no matter how righteous they are, they all pick and chose which portions they will believe and observe - otherwise, they would still be walking the prescribed distance from the city walls to evacuate their bowels, digging a hole with a wooden paddle to bury the evacuated substances, then covering the hole and walking back into the city... but that's the Old Testament, and not as relevant. However, I will also say that I have seen very little in the way of stoning witches in recent times.

If someone feels that s/he has "the answer", s/he will find a way to justify that answer, with or without reiligious backing to do so. Placing all blame on religious texts, beliefs, precepts, and attitudes is, in my opinion, narrow-minded, and none of your quotes have dissuaded me from that opinion... and I am still waiting to here why you feel it necessary to be disparaging in your statements. You disagree with me; fine. I disagree with you, and your response is, not to put too fine a point on it, rude and condescending. My opinion is my own, and regardless of how little you think of it, I will form my own opinion. Insinuating (or coming out and stating, as you did) that my opinion is wrong because you don't agree with my reasoning is not likely to change my opinion, no matter what facts and quotes you come up with to back your own opinion - because the attitude you display is distasteful to me, and will color anything else you write... because it is the same attitude of superiority (for a different reason) that the people you speak out against demonstrate.

 

[elder999]

Because Columbus thought he had reached the East Indies - therefore, he called the people he encountered Indians. He was mistaken, but by the time the mistake was understood, "Indian" had become common usage, and has so permeated the language that the error was corrected linguistically, except to add the word "American" or to use the phrase "Native American", which, while less inaccurate, has also been proven incorrect; while the tribes resident in the Americas when the Europeans landed certainly had a prior claim, if one goes back far enough into history, one finds archeological evidence that all human residents of the Americas were, at some recent or distant historical remove, immigrants. This does not, in any way, excuse the attitudes toward members of any social, cultural, or ethnic subgroup.Despite this little diversion....

Actually, most of us object to the term "Native American," because we were here before "America."


It is widely known that the term "Indian" is a misnomer. There is no single name for the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere; they are sovereign and independent nations. While predominant explanation for "Indian" is that Columbus called the people who had long built great civilizations here "Indians" because he thought he had discovered India, it's also less well known from his journals that he did not think he was in India at all, and despite Indio being the Spanish word for a person from Hindustan for about a thousand years,a few alternate explanations are more likely for the origin of the term "Indian. Columbus, discovering the Tainos' (Spanish, "Taino"=gentle, their name for the Arawak people) generosity and godly character, said they were in Dío (Spanish en Diós, in God), which sounds like Indios (Indians), the plural of Indio. He also, because they ran around naked and appeared (to him) to have no religion, wrote that they were indigente en Dios, or poor in God, and that they would make good slaves, because of their gentle and humble nature.

Of course, that didn't keep him from killing them:

So tractable, so peaceable, are these people, that I swear to your Majesties there is not in the world a better nation. They love their neighbors as themselves, and their discourse is ever sweet and gentle, and accompanied with a smile; and though it is true that they are naked, yet their manners are decorous and praiseworthy."

And, though they couldn't understand a word he said, he told the Taino exactly what his intentions were, and why:

I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of Their Highnesses. We shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of then as Their Highnesses may command. And we shall take your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him

This was known as the Requerimiento. Most of the religion-professing conquistadors, Cortes, Pizzaro, de Soto, and others adopted this practice. The Holocaust of Columbus alone killed four million people on San Salvador in 4 years, without automatic weapons or merciful gas chambers. The genocide did not stop after this first four million people; they were only the beginning.

So, it was hardly a "little diversion," but a demonstration of general ignorance in the subject at hand.

that does not change the fact that the social forces you describe are seen widely across cultures, and are not always based on the Bible... as many cultures have religions which do not refer to, or even have knowledge of, the Bible. While the events in the Bible occurred in and around the Mediterranean, the reliance on the Bible as a religious manual is a European cultural issue.

Despite the truth of what you present here, the subject at hand is Europe's conquest of the Americas, not the Moorish conquest of Spain, or any other conquest. A conquest conducted by so-called Christians, who invariably used the Bible, in a warped, selfish and completely twisted interpretation (how many times must I say it? ) as justification for their criminal misdeeds-just as our current administration and its supporters have....

. You disagree with me; fine. I disagree with you, and your response is, not to put too fine a point on it, rude and condescending. My opinion is my own, and regardless of how little you think of it, I will form my own opinion. Insinuating (or coming out and stating, as you did) that my opinion is wrong because you don't agree with my reasoning is not likely to change my opinion, no matter what facts and quotes you come up with to back your own opinion - because the attitude you display is distasteful to me, and will color anything else you write... because it is the same attitude of superiority (for a different reason) that the people you speak out against demonstrate.

That reason would be not that I am superior, or even that my opinions are, but that my intellect and knowledge are.


For instance, the rest of your...er...stuff (yes, I do delight in occasionally being a bit of a butt, and today is one of those occasions-you could view it in that spirit, take it personally or simply ignore it; it's all the same to me)

The US has a representative form of government, true - but it is a republic at the very top, not a true democracy. Yes, the Electoral College can be viewed as a way to overcome the technological problems of voting during the 1700

What I said (without quoting, as it grows tiresome) was "democratically elected representatives," as in our representatives in Congress, the Senate and state legislatures, as well as local representatives.


Yet another example of how you should read what I wrote again-(how's that for condescending?)

they believed that American Indians, and Africans, were sub-human savages who did not need, much less deserve, to be treated as human beings

Yes, many people did hold that view-especially among the early settlers, who mostly held that view chiefly for religious reasons as demonstrated in my second post.

Later, of course, we had the whole “Noble Savage, thing, ala James Fenimore Cooper, and, since you spoke of "representative government," Benjamin Franklin:

Benjamin Franklin, on observing the Haudenosaunee

The Indian men, when young, are hunters and warriors, when old, counsellors; for all their government is by the counsel or advice of the sages. There is no force, there are no prisons, no officers to compel obedience or inflict punishment. Hence they generally study oratory, the best speaker having the most influence.
The Indian women till the ground, dress the food, nurse and bring up the children, and preserve and hand down to posterity the memory of public transactions ....

Having frequent occasions to hold public councils, they have acquired great order and decency in conducting them. The old men sit in the foremost rank, the warriors in the next, and the women and children the hindmost. The business of the women is to take exact notice of what passes, imprint it on their memories—for they have no writing—and communicate it to their children. They are the records of the council, and they preserve tradition of the stipulations in treaties a hundred years back, which when we compare with our writings we always find exact.

He that would speak, rises. The rest observe a profound silence. When he has finished and sits down, they leave him five or six minutes to recollect, that if he has omitted anything he intended to say or has anything to add, he may rise again and deliver it. To interrupt another, even in common conversation, is reckoned highly indecent.

How different it is from the conduct of a polite British House of Commons, where scarce a day passes without some confusion that makes the Speaker hoarse in calling to order; and how different from the mode of conversation in many polite companies of Europe, where if you do not deliver your sentence with great rapidity, you are cut off in the middle of it by the impatient loquacity of those you converse with and never allowed to finish it.

We can, of course, contrast this with the "godly," Christian attitutde of Colonel John Chivington, who perpetrated the Sand Creek massacre in 1864:


“I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God’s heaven to kill Indians!”


John Chivington was a steadfast Methodist minister who, instead of preaching in the church, became a colonel during the Civil War. Chivington had refused the position of chaplan that was offered to him and he had asked for a fighting position. Near the end of the Civil War, with no confederate soldiers to fight, Chivington dedicated himself to eliminating the presence of any living American Indian. In the 1860s Chivington had settled down and was living in Denver adamantly preaching his firm belief that the extermination of all American Indians was the only way to deal with the “Indian Problem.” He declared, “It simply is not possible for Indians to obey or even understand any treaty. I am fully satisfied, gentlemen, that to kill them is the only way we will ever have peace and quiet in Colorado”. This policy of true extermination reflected the sentiment of the Denver populace (due to the recent attacks in Minnesota and in Denver that triggered fear and hatred among the populace).



Sand Creek, of course, occurred near where you live now, Denver- in fact,
after the soldiers scalped the dead, mutilated the bodies, and took more than one hundred scalps, the scalps were later exhibited between the acts of a theatrical performance in Denver. One authority quotes The Denver News as commenting on the outcome of the massacre: "All acquitted themselves well. Colorado soldiers have again covered themselves with glory."


According to John S. Smith, Colonel Chivington knew these Indians to be peaceful before the massacre-in fact, they expected the American flag flying over their camp to protect them. Smith witnessed, as did helpless Indian mothers and fathers, young children having their sex organs cut away. U.S. soldiers mutilated Native American women, cutting away their breasts and removing all other sex organs. After the Massacre, soldiers displayed the women's severed body parts on their hats and stretched them over their saddle-bows while riding in the ranks. The sex organs of every male were removed in the most grotesque manner. One soldier boasted that he would make a tobacco pouch with the removed privates of White Antelope, a respected elder.

The soldiers-and people of Denver-appeared to think that they had rid themselves of an evil force that had caused tension in the community as Chivington and his men returned to Denver as great conquering soldiers. They paraded the body parts of the dead and innocent Cheyenne as trophies to the people. Three women and four children were caged and presented as animals in captivity to the Denver public

The Bible allowed for slavery, true... but the slavery in the Old Testament was of limited duration, for the repayment of debts, except for the persecution of the Jews in Egypt, which was not, strictly, described as slavery, but rather as a class distinction - Jews were the losers in a economic war, having previously been the saviors, and the situations are not analogous, except right before the Exodus, when the Jews, like the American Indians and Africans, were seen as a persecuted underclass in need of escape from their situation - but the unlike the ethnic minorities in the US, the Jews were always seen as human.

God instructed the Hebrews (for there were no “Jews” until after the Syro-Ephraimite wars of 735-721 BCE, when the tribe of Judah became the dominant tribe)to commit genocide in Canaan, according to the Bible, and those versus were used by the people that perpetrated it[/Ii][ as justification for the genocide and subjugation of people that they recognized and wrote of as “men,” just as the men of Canaan were in the Bible.

agree with this in concept, but not in detail - yes, many of the people who are instrumental in using the Bible as source material, as, indeed, it is the basis of much of our legal system - but that doesn't mean that the correct response is religious, either.

And yet our President wears his “religion” as motivation and justification for so much that he is doing today-so many of the people in this country view the “war on terror” as a war on Islam, and so many of those same people view our own internal, “cultural war,” or war of values, as one of right against wrong, and of Biblical principles or the “Judeo-Christian” ones that they erroneously attribute to the foundation of our government…..

Perhaps you should stick to something a little less trying, Karen, say...Tetris?

 

[Kacey]

That reason would be not that I am superior, or even that my opinions are, but that my intellect and knowledge are.

For instance, the rest of your...er...stuff (yes, I do delight in occasionally being a bit of a butt, and today is one of those occasions-you could view it in that spirit, take it personally or simply ignore it; it's all the same to me)

Quite frankly, it is not your 'intellect and knowledge' I find objectionable; it is your attitude. As I said, had you been less self-congratulatory, and presented your information in a less pedantic and lecturing tone, I would have been much more interested in what you have to say. As you have clearly proven, your purpose is to show others how much you know, not help them to gain knowledge... so I'll leave you to continue patting your own back, as you seem to be quite accomplished at it; perhaps you could apply that same motor coordination to some computer games - I find them quite diverting.

Do enjoy your day. :asian:

 

[Monadnock]

So the 'Indians' never saw widespread killing until the white man came? That must have been a real shocker.

 

[elder999]

So the 'Indians' never saw widespread killing until the white man came? That must have been a real shocker.

Actually, my father always joked that our ancestors in what became New York were one of the biggest reasons Indians were met with such fear elsewhere.....
...also don't see how you got that from any of my posts....of course, the Indians never completely wiped each other out.....though they did massacre a village themselves, from time to time.

so I'll leave you to continue patting your own back, as you seem to be quite accomplished at it

Oh, good! Don't forget to take your little red wagon with you, okay hon?
:wavey:

**Image removed to comply with MartialTalk's image posting policy - please read the policy at the Rules link.**
**G Ketchmark / shesulsa**
**MT Senior Moderator**

 

[MartialIntent]

Near the end of the Civil War, with no confederate soldiers to fight, Chivington dedicated himself to eliminating the presence of any living American Indian.

I think this is one of the many valid points which, if I might say, are becoming stifled in the somewhat vitriolic theater of this thread! Anyway, the point above has added weight to my belief that there's a primal need in our species to act out an instinctive desire for not only control of our domain and of our peers but also for violence itself. I wasn't aware of the acts of mutilation you describe though obviously it's no great surprise that we could be capable of suchlike. But that in itself, to my mind builds the argument - we have a need *as a species* to behave this way. Martial arts are a wholly valid outlet for such a need which, if repressed, creates a potential head of choler that has a desire in itself to spew forth as ridicule and bullying in its lower forms through to criminal assault and murder in its mid strata and genocide in its upper reaches.

Of course, individually we're no two alike. I do believe though that as a species, we're riddled with this apparently cruel tendency.

Respects!

 

[shesulsa]

Moderator Note.
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile).

Please also note that any user can use the RTM feature to report a bad, insulting, or against-the-rules post by clicking on the little red triangle at the top right of each post.

Thank you.

-G Ketchmark / shesulsa
-MT Senior Moderator-

 

[Ray]

We are living in similar times today. That’s one reason why Dances With Wolves resonates so strongly, both with the conscious and unconscious mind. We are in a period of sweeping change, yet most people are too distracted to notice. There is a dark, dark spirit loose in the land. There is a new religion, a deadly mixture of Biblical fundamentalism and militaristic imperialism. Nationalistic arrogance masquerades as patriotism. Those who love justice and freedom and independence are being silenced whilst the government suspends liberty in order to “defend” it. We are on the verge of changes so massive as to be beyond our imagining.

I see the very same darkness upon the land that you fear. However, I fear it is coming from your quarter not from where you put the blame.

The federal imperial authorities are very powerful and they fool a lot of people with their ego posturing, but their days are numbered, for they don’t fool God.

It is nice that you know God's will; that you apparently speak for him...sure glad it's not the Biblical Fundamentalists who do.

We live in challenging times. We have the opportunity to stand for truth and justice and freedom. Jesus said, “Let those with understanding, hear; let those with vision, see.”

Pilate asked Jesus "what is truth?" Was there a recorded response? When Jesus said "let those with who have ears hear; and those with eyes see" he wasn't talking about understanding or following your particular bent, was he? He rendered unto Ceasar's that which was Ceasar's and unto God that which was God's.

Do you believe that in the time of Christ, the Roman gov't and occupation of Israel was benevolent, dersired and created equality among it's citizenery? Of course not. Each of us need to do good to others, showing love, mercy, compassion and forgiveness. I can do a better job at it...

Yes, we should consider the issues today; examine the issues and candidates; vote for the ones that we feel best represents our idea of good government; meanwhile, we should work to bring the kingdom of God upon the earth.

 

[Xue Sheng]

IThe near genocidal annihilation of the Indians and the theft of their belongings come directly from a warped, selfish and very selective interpretation of the Bible.

Actually it was greed.

yes, there was a Biblical influence, and yes, manifest destiny was part of it - but it was because the Europeans did not see the American Indians as people; it was because they saw them "Noble Savages", who did not know how to make "proper" (that is, developed) use of the land... and since the American Indians did not perceive themselves as "owning" the land, they were willing to share access, and by the time the knew what was happening, it was too late.

Correct, to whites land meant wealth.

Just because the Bible was used to justify actions does not mean the motive was religious. Bottom line, historically speaking, the motive was greed and Social Darwinism.

 

[elder999]

Well, the light of a new day’s sun shines on us, and a more measured response to some things is in order, but the first order of business should be an apology.

My job is –well, stressful to an extreme at times, and, while I mostly bear up under it fairly well (better than most, I’m told), as I said earlier, I can sometimes be a bit of a butt-it’s a consequence of those stresses, and nothing more. I occasionally post thoughts from my journal and writings on these forums as a form of diversion-to start interesting and stimulating conversations. Perhaps at such times I’d be better off not responding here, and doing something else for diversion like playing Tetris-or going off to the shooting range……my stress is only a reason, though, and not an excuse-it’s easy at such times for me to forget that I’m dealing with a real person, with real feelings, and, more to the point, unfair of me to direct the ire that I cannot direct at the sometimes equally buttheaded people that work for me towards them. Such behavior, not matter how I attempt to disguise it, is inexcusable, and I am deeply sorry, Kacey, and well, all of you…. allowed my frustrations from work conflicts to intrude into our conversation-so that it wasn't a conversation at all-and made you the completely undeserved object of my anger-though I do think a few of you ha e missed the point I'm trying to make here, probably because I was such a butt.

Some other housekeeping, first:

It is nice that you know God's will; that you apparently speak for him...sure glad it's not the Biblical Fundamentalists who do.

I find it a little odd that you’d construe what I said to mean that I speak for God, or even know his will….I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here-that they do fool God? Surely that can’t be so…….

Actually it was greed.

Agreed

Anyway, the point above has added weight to my belief that there's a primal need in our species to act out an instinctive desire for not only control of our domain and of our peers but also for violence itself. I wasn't aware of the acts of mutilation you describe though obviously it's no great surprise that we could be capable of suchlike. But that in itself, to my mind builds the argument - we have a need *as a species* to behave this way

Maybe…. I’d say more that man has a tendency to not behave this way without some sort of justification, but might just seek that justification on some level.

they believed that American Indians, and Africans, were sub-human savages

The very crux of the thing, which got lost in, what was it? Oh, yeah, “Dramatic “vitriol..”


At any rate, I agree with the statement, but why did they sometimes believe this?

Lt. David Grossman, in one of the more controversial chapters of his book, On Killing, makes the case that it is against human nature on some level for man to kill his fellow man-that we need some justification to overcome this and invariably resort to dehumanization to do so-as in the Nazi dehumanization of Jews, and as in any military attitude towards their enemy: the racial characterizations and generalizations that have taken place over the course of almost every war this country has participated in, from Viet Nam’s and Korea’s “Charley Gook,” back to the first world war’s “Hun,” have all apparently utilized this process to a certain degree.

Often, this de-humanization is justified by, as I said earlier (and yes, there is a difference between a reason, a justification, and an excuse, in my opinion) religion, scripture-and, its warped, twisted and selfish interpretation.


With the Nazis, it was a combination of religion and pseudo science that dehumanized the Jews in the eyes of the perpetrators of the Holocaust that acted as justification, no matter the economic or social reasons behind it.

The same can be said (and repeatedly has been, much better than I will) about the Crusades in the Middle East and Europe.. Pilgrims resented the fact that sites holy to Christianity were not controlled by Christians, and they were easily whipped into a state of agitation and hatred towards Muslims. Later on, crusading itself was regarded as a holy pilgrimage - thus, people paid penance for their sins by going off and slaughtering adherents of another religion. Indulgences, or waivers of temporal punishment, were granted by the church to anyone who contributed monetarily to the bloody campaigns.

Thus, we have centuries of systemized slaughter, no only driven the greed of kings and the church, or man’s inherent tendency to accept any justification to be inhumane towards his fellow man, but scripturally justified, or , at the very least, justified by religious authority.

When Muslim cities were captured by Christian crusaders, it was standard operating procedure for all inhabitants - no matter what their age - to be summarily killed. It is not an exaggeration to say that the streets ran red with blood as Christians reveled in church-sanctioned horrors. Jews who took refuge in their synagogues would be burned alive, not unlike the treatment they received in Europe. In his reports about the conquest of Jerusalem, Chronicler Raymond of Aguilers wrote that "It was a just and marvelous judgment of God, that this place [the temple of Solomon] should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers." St. Bernard announced before the Second Crusade that "The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."

In 1208, Pope Innocent III raised an army of over 20,000 knights and peasants eager to kill and pillage their way through France. When the city of Beziers fell to the besieging armies of Christendom, soldiers asked papal legate Arnald Amalric how to tell the faithful apart from the infidels. He uttered his famous words:"Kill them all. God will know His own." Such depths of contempt and hatred are truly frightening, but they are easily made possible in the context of a religiousdoctrine of eternal punishment for unbelievers and eternal reward for believers. Later, of course, this phrase would be reapplied in various western conflicts under a variety of contexts, and even wind up on popular T-shirts as “Kill ‘em all and let God sort them out.”

I’ll say it again: to attribute such horrific behavior and philosophy to God is so blasphemous as to defy belief.

Today, my country faces an enemy that, whatever its true motivations, justifies a wide variety of violence with scripture. Islamic terror justifies its actions through a warped, twisted and selfish interpretation of the Koran. They've beheaded innocents, bombed non-combatatants (for decades, now) and given us 9/11: to attribute such horrific behavior and philosophy to God is so blasphemous as to defy belief.

And what about the U.S.? Are we guilty of using religious language to justify what we do?

The general charged with finding Osama bin Laden, William Boykin, famously stated back in June of 2003 that knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this,” andon at least one occasion, in Sandy, Ore.,Boykin said of President Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there."


Somewhat less on the fringe, we have the “Reverend” Jimmy Swaggart, who in 2004 said of a gay men that he’d …"kill him and tell God he died.” His programs regularly appear on SpikeTV, interestingly enough, and his Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, since splitting from the Assemblies of God, claims a worldwide membership in the millions, and a U.S. membership in the (probably exaggerated) hundreds of thousands.

Pat Robertson's 'Christian Coalition' controlled 40% of the delegates at the 1988 Republican Convention and helped to put George W's father into the White House; I don’t have the exact figures for their current support of Rpeublicans, but it’s safe to say it’s pretty high. Today he continues to represent a potentially genocidal cocktail of American Ultra-Nationalism and Charismatic 'Christian' Fundamentalism in support of extreme elements of Israeli Zionism. On Monday, Mar. 13, 2006, he said this that the purpose of the Islamic faith is global control and that terrorists are motivated by Satan.

After watching a news segment about radical Islam in Europe, Robertson remarked that the torrent of rage provoked by cartoon drawings of the Prophet Mohammed "just shows the kind of people we're dealing with. These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it's motivated by demonic power. It is satanic and it's time we recognize what we're dealing with."

Robertson also said that "the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen whether you like it or not, is world domination." He has suggested the assassination of Hugo Chavez, that Ariel Sharon’s stroke was a punishment from God, and that the treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is not only humane, but that it night “bring them closer to Christ…”

And what about our president?

President Bush uses religious language more than any president in U.S. history, and some of his key speechwriters come right out of the evangelical community. Sometimes he draws on biblical language, other times old gospel hymns that cause deep resonance among the faithful in his own electoral base. The problem is that the quotes from the Bible and hymnals are too often either taken out of context or, worse yet, employed in ways quite different from their original meaning. For example, in the 2003 State of the Union, the president evoked an easily recognized and quite famous line from an old gospel hymn. Speaking of America's deepest problems, Bush said, "The need is great. Yet there's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people." But that's not what the song is about. The hymn says there is "power, power, wonder-working power in the blood of the Lamb" (emphasis added). The hymn is about the power of Christ in salvation, not the power of "the American people," or any people, or any country. Bush's citation was a complete misuse.
On the first anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush said at Ellis Island, "This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind…. That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness has not overcome it." Those last two sentences are straight out of John's gospel. But in the gospel the light shining in the darkness is the Word of God, and the light is the light of Christ. It's not about America and its values. Even his favorite hymn, "A Charge to Keep," speaks of that charge as "a God to glorify"—not to "do everything we can to protect the American homeland," as Bush has named our charge to keep.

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum says of the president, "War had made him…a crusader after all." At the outset of the war in Iraq, George Bush entreated, "God bless our troops." In his State of the Union speech, he vowed that America would lead the war against terrorism "because this call of history has come to the right country." Bush's autobiography is titled A Charge to Keep, which is a quote from his favorite hymn.

In Frum's book The Right Man, he recounts a conversation between the president and his top speechwriter, Mike Gerson, a graduate of evangelical Wheaton College. After Bush's speech to Congress following the Sept. 11 attacks, Frum writes that Gerson called up his boss and said, "Mr. President, when I saw you on television, I thought—God wanted you there." According to Frum, the president replied, "He wants us all here, Gerson."

(Oh yeah, Ray-how’s that for “knowing God’s will?)

Bush has made numerous references to his belief that he could not be president if he did not believe in a "divine plan that supersedes all human plans." As he gained political power, Bush has increasingly seen his presidency as part of that divine plan. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, recalls Bush once saying, "I believe God wants me to be president." After Sept. 11, Michael Duffy wrote in Time magazine, the president spoke of "being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment."

I think that every Christian hopes to find a vocation and calling that is faithful to Christ. But a president who believes that the nation is fulfilling a God-given righteous mission and that he serves with a divine appointment has become quite theologically and civically unsettling. Theologian Martin Marty voices the concern of many when he says, "The problem isn't with Bush's sincerity, but with his evident conviction that he's doing God's will." As Christianity Today put it, "Some worry that Bush is confusing genuine faith with national ideology." The president's faith, wrote Klein, "does not give him pause or force him to reflect. It is a source of comfort and strength but not of wisdom."

Before becoming an engineer and going on to, well, what it is that I do, I earned a degree in religious studies. I have found, well, beauty and truth in all the world’s religious scriptures-though, not necessarily my truth…What I initially posted was not at all meant as an attack on Christianity, or the Bible, but on the thought processes that led to its being used as justification for the most un-Christian of behavior, thought processes that I think continue today in much of our population and policy.

If, no matter what America’s real ends and motivations are, Biblical scripture and religious authority and mandate are used to justify the dehumanization of participants of Islam, their torture, the war in Iraq, and if such things are turned inward to the variety of domestic issues that demonstrate the very real cultural war taking place in this country (gay marriage, abortion, , well, how long is it going to be before we have a modern day Chivington, or Arnald Amaric telling us that whatever wrong we do, as a country or individuals, is okay with God, and have thousands of people believing on it and acting on it? Maybe, in fact, it’s already happening….. we already have abu Ghraib (where Graner, one of the convicted perpetrators, often spoke of his Christianity), Guantanamo Bay (where the F.B.I. has reported Islamic sensibilities being used for torture), and our own homegrown Christian terrorists who preach that it’s good to bomb abortion clinics, or target doctors for murder: to attribute such horrific behavior and philosophy to God is so blasphemous as to defy belief.

 

[Xue Sheng]

First, Robertson is a kook, albeit a kook on TV but still a kook.

The Crusades are no doubt religiously motivated and in most cases incredibly violent. The supposed religious crusade, the first crusade, that whipped out every man, woman, child, Muslim, Jew and Christian in Jerusalem is an excellent example of great evil done in the name of religion.

Hitler and the Holocaust, although the Jewish people were murdered and the fact they are Jewish brings religion in to it, they were not killed based on their religion they were killed because they were blamed for the economic situation and based on their genetics. Also most of the acts of Genocide that Hitler committed were more based on Science that religion; once again Social Darwinism was more the culprit than religion.

As for the current situation in the world to today, the fact that the President has thrown western religion into it is of great concern to me.

 

[elder999]

First, Robertson is a kook, albeit a kook on TV but still a kook.

A kook on TV with a huge membership in the 700 Club, worldwide distribution and a tax free annual income of $140 million. Not as marginalized a figure as you’d like to think-someone who talks on a regular basis (as in more than once or twice a year) with the president.

That he's a kook, I don't doubt, but he's a kook he brings in votes....

……and,yeah, they said Hitler was a kook, too.

The Crusades are no doubt religiously motivated and in most cases incredibly violent. The supposed religious crusade, the first crusade, that whipped out every man, woman, child, Muslim, Jew and Christian in Jerusalem is an excellent example of great evil done in the name of religion.

Religiously motivated for whom? They were also largely about greed-however, all of that violence, was, as I said religiously justified, and therein lies the difference.

Hitler and the Holocaust, although the Jewish people were murdered and the fact they are Jewish brings religion in to it, they were not killed based on their religion they were killed because they were blamed for the economic situation and based on their genetics. Also most of the acts of Genocide that Hitler committed were more based on Science that religion; once again Social Darwinism was more the culprit than religion.

[Actually, most of the science used to justifiy the Holocaust was b.s., as was the religious justification, and there was religious justification-you see, it doesn’t matter if the Nazis did it to seize Jewish assets, to remove gold teeth, or to make less people using up good German air; what matters-in terms of what I’m trying to get across-is what allows a man, with a wife and children, who went to church every week and said his prayers regularly, who was a good neighbor to those around him and a good citizen, what allows such a man to barbecue babies, gas women and children, line people up ni mass graves and machine gun them, and then go eat lunch? What it is, as Kacey pointed out, is that he has de-humanized the object of his violence, to the point where it’s not only tolerable, but, as in armed conflict, it’s necessary and right-he’s justified in removing what is no more than vermin to him. There are probably many justifications for this throughout history-justifications that are, I think, altogether separate from the motivations-but I believe that the most prevalent one, in one form or another, is a religious one-that through (sigh) warped, twisted and selfish misinterpretation of scripture, or, in many cases (like the Crusades) the mere say-so of religious authority.

In the case of the Nazis, there was a religious component to this justification.
Hitler and other Nazi leaders clearly made use of both Christian and Pagan symbolism and emotion in propagandizing the Germanic public, and it remains a matter of controversy whether Hitler believed himself a Christian, a heathen, or something else entirely. Some historians have typified Hitler as a Satanist or occultist, whereas other writers have referred to Nazism's occasional outward use of Christian doctrine, regardless of what its inner-party mythology may have been. IN any case, there was a nationalist religion built up around Hitler’s Aryan mythos, one of Volk and Fatherland, that justified the men who perpetrated all that evil to believe that they were doing good.

There’s a much bandied misquote of Edmund Burke:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

He never said it, what he actually said was:

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle

Which basically means that good men must, because evil will, and while I can agree with that, I have to say that I believe the first one-which is so popular-is a crock:.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to evil, believing that what they do is good.

These people (note: these images are harsh) believed they were right…..and justified? Whatever the motivation was for their crime, why did they believe it was okay to do these things? Were they evil people, or simply people who were convinced of the rightness of what they did?


See, if it’s justified, then it’s the right thing to do, and if it’s the right thing to do, then how can it be evil? All that is needed is for the people to be convinced of the rightness of their cause-by religious means, or social means, or nationalist means-and they’ll march along and do the most reprehensible things, and not loose any sleep over it….thus we have Crusaders marching off and making the streets literally run red with blood-in Byzantium, it was Christian blood, but it was justified, excused and pardoned by the Church-we have Nazis commiting the Holocaust, while an entire nation of good German people denied it, denied knowledge of it , or said that it was necessary-we have a history genocide toward the American Indian, and lynchings in the South, and we have Lyndie Englund echoing the Nuremberg Trials and saying that she was following orders…..

As for the current situation in the world to today, the fact that the President has thrown western religion into it is of great concern to me.

Did the President throw western religion into it, or was he put into office by a faction of western religion? And, whichever the case is, if the things that are being done can be justified from a “Christian” perspective, how long is it before worse things are justified from that same perspective, and supported by the people who helped put him in office, remain his fiercest supporters, while the rest of us continue to do what we’ve been doing……nothing.

 

[Xue Sheng]

A kook on TV with a huge membership in the 700 Club, worldwide distribution and a tax free annual income of $140 million. Not as marginalized a figure as you’d like to think-someone who talks on a regular basis (as in more than once or twice a year) with the president.

That he's a kook, I don't doubt, but he's a kook he brings in votes....

……and,yeah, they said Hitler was a kook, too.

I doubt I would compare Robertson to Hitler. I'm not a fan, but he is hardly Hitler. But I do see your point, but he is still a kook

Religiously motivated for whom? They were also largely about greed-however, all of that violence, was, as I said religiously justified, and therein lies the difference.

For Whom, Christendom was Greed involved..Hell yea. The original motivation was to retake the holy lands. As far as I can tell form the side of Islam at that time they did not have much problem with other people of other faiths living in Jerusalem. However the pope did and if that is not religiously motivated I am not sure what is.

[Actually, most of the science used to justifiy the Holocaust was b.s., as was the religious justification, and there was religious justification-you see, it doesn’t matter if the Nazis did it to seize Jewish assets, to remove gold teeth, or to make less people using up good German air; what matters-in terms of what I’m trying to get across-is what allows a man, with a wife and children, who went to church every week and said his prayers regularly, who was a good neighbor to those around him and a good citizen, what allows such a man to barbecue babies, gas women and children, line people up ni mass graves and machine gun them, and then go eat lunch? What it is, as Kacey pointed out, is that he has de-humanized the object of his violence, to the point where it’s not only tolerable, but, as in armed conflict, it’s necessary and right-he’s justified in removing what is no more than vermin to him. There are probably many justifications for this throughout history-justifications that are, I think, altogether separate from the motivations-but I believe that the most prevalent one, in one form or another, is a religious one-that through (sigh) warped, twisted and selfish misinterpretation of scripture, or, in many cases (like the Crusades) the mere say-so of religious authority.

In the case of the Nazis, there was a religious component to this justification.
Hitler and other Nazi leaders clearly made use of both Christian and Pagan symbolism and emotion in propagandizing the Germanic public, and it remains a matter of controversy whether Hitler believed himself a Christian, a heathen, or something else entirely. Some historians have typified Hitler as a Satanist or occultist, whereas other writers have referred to Nazism's occasional outward use of Christian doctrine, regardless of what its inner-party mythology may have been. IN any case, there was a nationalist religion built up around Hitler’s Aryan mythos, one of Volk and Fatherland, that justified the men who perpetrated all that evil to believe that they were doing good.

There’s a much bandied misquote of Edmund Burke:



He never said it, what he actually said was:



Which basically means that good men must, because evil will, and while I can agree with that, I have to say that I believe the first one-which is so popular-is a crock:.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to evil, believing that what they do is good.

These people (note: these images are harsh) believed they were right…..and justified? Whatever the motivation was for their crime, why did they believe it was okay to do these things? Were they evil people, or simply people who were convinced of the rightness of what they did?


See, if it’s justified, then it’s the right thing to do, and if it’s the right thing to do, then how can it be evil? All that is needed is for the people to be convinced of the rightness of their cause-by religious means, or social means, or nationalist means-and they’ll march along and do the most reprehensible things, and not loose any sleep over it….thus we have Crusaders marching off and making the streets literally run red with blood-in Byzantium, it was Christian blood, but it was justified, excused and pardoned by the Church-we have Nazis commiting the Holocaust, while an entire nation of good German people denied it, denied knowledge of it , or said that it was necessary-we have a history genocide toward the American Indian, and lynchings in the South, and we have Lyndie Englund echoing the Nuremberg Trials and saying that she was following orders…..




Did the President throw western religion into it, or was he put into office by a faction of western religion? And, whichever the case is, if the things that are being done can be justified from a “Christian” perspective, how long is it before worse things are justified from that same perspective, and supported by the people who helped put him in office, remain his fiercest supporters, while the rest of us continue to do what we’ve been doing……nothing.

The Nazis did have ritual that could easily be interpreted as religion and I am not going to deny that based on that religion was part of it. But they justified invading other nations and killing people of other nations based on the belief that they were a superior race and that was all the justification they needed and that is Social Darwinism.

So I will agree to religion as part of Nazi motivation but it was not the sole motivation. Religion is far from the only evil in this issue.