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

So assuming that Montezuma was not a nice guy... that proves what about the Spanish Conquistadors? Perhaps they would not have conquered the Aztecs if the Aztecs were warm and friendly? What is that thingie about straw men?

Think of it as counterpoint to the "noble savage" crap so often embraced by muliticulturally indoctrinated modern 'libs'.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos
p.s. Just keepin' it real, don'cha know.

Apparently the Aztecs forfeited their natural rights because they were insufficiently noble.

By the way, wasn't enlightenment European colonialism the seminal version of multicultural indoctrination?

OR, they are putting their signs up in American cities as a reaction to the large, vocal contingent of Christian fundamentalists and their loud whining about the supposed "War on Christmas". In which case it is reasonable and logical to A) set up the billboards around Christmas B) use the billboards to address Christian mythology.

Plus, while I have seen many of the annoying Christian billboards all over the place(which is another factor in choosing billboards for the message), I don't believe I have ever seen an Islamic billboard. Admittedly, I live in the middle of nowhere, aka bible belt America, maybe there are just as many Islamic billboards in larger cities. In any case, should Islamic billboards become as ubiquitous as the Christian, then I would expect an opposing billboard campaign from atheists.

well seeing as I never said they were religious wars, that i will not do. What i did say was:


Only those ignorant of history and the propaganda that abounded during the cold war, particularly throughout the 50s, would think of refuting the importance of the religious element of the sales pitch of that conflict. The good god fearing (Christian) freedom lovers versus the godless communists. A powerful propaganda driving force throughout the cold war not just for Vietnam. This Christian warrior, good vs evil theme was one of the baseline and foundational justifications for action presented to the US people - you know manipulation for political and financial gain.

Shall I drag out some quotes from pastors exhorting action against communistst from their pulpits? shall i drag out some from the current war of terror that are remarably similar? Would that be recent enough for you?

It is nonsene to ignore the improtance of the psychological massaging of people to support state action. It is one of the levers of "democracy". The good thing about using religion is that if you set it up right, peope will do it to themsleves!


As to it being THE motivating factor.. it would take an extraordinarly childish view of history and how the world works to think that wars are not born from multiple interbreeding factors - of which religion is (an important) one and has been throughout recent US imperial history.

I dont beleive that I did say it but its probably easier to fight agains thte strawmen than what I actually said.

Hey, Schlack. How's that Ireland meltdown thing coming over there? Just wondering if that's a recent development. Hmmm. And while we're talking about recent, wondering if you can help me out for a sec.

The planet on which we live is rumored to be over 4 billion years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Man is rumored to have begun walking the face of planet 200,000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

My dictionary says "recent" means:
"Belonging to a past period of time comparatively near to the present."

If something (let's say the subjugation and wholesale elimination of the New World's native population in the name of Jesus) happened beginning 200 years ago (one tenth of 1% of the history of mankind; .000005% of the history of the planet) is that "recent"?

What if it happened (the beginning of efforts to force a jewish population into the middle east to "protect" our precious religious artifacts) 100 years ago (divide the above numbers by 2), is that recent?

What if it (lynching and sicking dogs on black folk who didn't comport with white America's view of jesus) happened 60 years ago?

Ireland is a bit older than my own country. Just curious how you view "recent" over there.

christianity is the creation of a group of people who followed an even smaller group of people who followed jesus (for skeptics, let's just assume he existed, i know i will). their instrument for spiritual salvation varied but ultimately one group's view dominated the scene and the roots for christianity as we know it pushed all other views. the irony is, of course, that what was created - primarily in the fourth century, based upon several hundred years of fighting - resembled nothing of the man and his message. in the end, regardless of the message, or the messenger, human beings will create their own reality to suit their DESIRES. the primary desire of the human animal is security, i suspect, and that has many tentacles. each individual, and groups, will bastardize the previous message to suit their needs, etc., without regard for their fellows. in other words, they will step on your toes if you get in their way. and isn't history a story of people getting in one anothers' way? christianity, at is foundation, does not exist. a message, however, of spiritual enlightenment does exist and it is one that is as powerful as any tradition, yet it was co-opted by the political beasts of its time and thus the tradition continues. ergo, the political, rather than the spiritual, is always the first consideration.

really? and there i was thinking that the state in its current form has only existed since 1937.

The US is a far older country. were only a recent arrival on the world stage.

Natural rights cannot be forfeited, Ardy, they can only be restricted by another or not exercised by oneself.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

No. What I would like you to do is support your attempt to support the extraordinarilly stupid claim that, " "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...". Instead you are trying to substitute what motivates those who decide to engage in war with propaganda. You slipped "cover story" into the mix to inform us of what is well known -- those in positions of control who decide to engage in war will use propaganda to justify it. That is not the motive -- it is not even a motive. Why do I have to explain something so obvious to you? So, know, Schlack, you lent your support to it, so I want you to explain how the claims made in loganrbt's post are factual.
Yours,
Issodhos