Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Anti-Religious Ads Spark Anger

And yet, after years of what I consider to have been cheapshots and personal insults directed at me by you I can say without equivication that I remain quite comfortable sharing this forum with you. Have a cup?
Yours,
Issodhos

Yes, indeed. Listen up, and think about it as you stare fondly into the mirror!


Well, gosh, iss, if you don't like it, then quit bringing them into the discussion at every turn. You attack them, especially for unfounded and bigoted reasons, some will defend them.


The fact that the great christian nation, USA, USA, has a recent history of killing tens, yea hundreds of thousands of innocents in the name of their savior and lord should not be ignored just so as to condemn another belief system that has done little damage on a relative scale of mayhem. Add it up, Iss. American deaths inflicted on civilian populations in Viet Nam, Iraq (twice) Afghanistan, throughout Latin America through mercenaries and secret operatives, and the list goes on and on.


Yep, that's why "our" friends at the ACLU are running around defending free speech irrespective of ideology. Nazis as well as communists; skinheads as well as armenians; etc.


Well, no, Iss, you injected Christians into the discussion by contrasting them with atheists.


Dadgum talk radio shows and Fox and the Robinson and Falwell communications networks; why must they always be attacking christians?? Why can't they ever go after people of other belief systems!! Really, iss, do you really think you can sell this tripe?

T
Yep, including atheists and muslims and sikhs and jews, and native americans, and . . .


Not sure why you feel such a restriction on your utterances. Good luck with that.


Yes, Iss, some of us would. So stop with the hypocrisy, already.

And I with you, despite yours.

Remember that time the Priest ask you to come by his Office to study Catechism one-on-one and it turned out to be more of an Anatomy lesson?

That should be good for another "zero."

I agree that the US has killed many, many people in Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Latin America. However, I do not believe it was religious motivated.

I do believe these deaths were a byproduct of Corporate interest and greedy Imperialism.

Loganrbt is smart enough to know that religion was not the motivation, rick. However, it is an old tactic in which false equivelencies are drawn in the hope of conning the gullible and the ignorant. Sophomoric though it is, since it works on many who make up the left-dressed element in America, it frequently gets used.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

If you are suggesting that the actions taken in the name of their savior and lord were disingenuous, even hypocritical, then you will get no argument from me. But even a cursory look at the stated reasons and justifications for these incursions are replete with references to our christian tenets and our right, yea our duty, to carry our culture and ethos to these lost nations and their benighted peoples.

Are those claims to religious mission any more or less valid or heartfelt than those of other religious missions carried out in the name of other prophets and other gods? Probably not. But the assertion is made, ad nauseum.

I concede that Iraq "war2" had religious elements as former President GW Bush stated that the "war" was a "crusade."

However, the other wars were based on natural resources and other designs that corporate interests had on a particular region.

The very fact that America wants to introduce the ideology of "Democracy" across the world is indeed the very definition of Imperalism , is it not?

Oh dear oh dear Issodhos, ignoring inconvenient parts of US imperial history?

The US, like the brits, french and germans did indeed use the motivation/excuse/cover story of bringing christianity (and pants) to the uncivilised when engaged in acts of imperial agression. - oh indeed these acts may not have started off overtly military but sure as eggs is eggs they usually ended up that way and no less an act of imperial aggression.

The manipulative use of religion for political and financial gain is an age old tactic far from exclusive to muslim demagogues.

I believe, Schlack, that you will find throughout history the curious fact that in many areas the proselytizers went first, followed by the politicians.

Who was first to go into Japan? Missionaries.

Who was first into the Indies? Missionaries as well.

Who was first into many parts of Africa? People like Livingstone.

Ditto for much of Central and South America. The missionaries led the way.

Granted, this gave the political powers the excuse to go in and protect the missionaries, but history in this case is pretty clear.