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

Yea, verily!
That mention of a "Crusade" by President Bush was never uttered a second time, once his handlers explained to him what it meant.

I believe that Schlack is right. Look at Spain's invasion of the New World-it was an excursion to find a quicker way to the Indies, in order to benefit more quickly from the natural resources. Religion was used(as it is now) by these "explorers" in order to rationalize their stealing and enslavement. Just ask Montezuma.

In Japan's case religion was the excuse for Commodore Perry to come and force the Japanese open up trade with the United States and the rest of Europe followed. Great Britain did it throughout it's history. The Crusades of yore were nothing more than knights, who were landless in England, France and Germany(and whatever other countries that deigned to join under the Papal flag), to aggrandize wealth for the church and themselves.

For most of those in government of any kind, money and power are the real Gods-religion is just a cover to suck in the masses.

live and let live.

That and Do unto others are the two best rules to live by.

Thanks Churlpy for this refresher of American history. I did forget about missionaries.

'
Imperialism has been succinctly summed up as:

FIRST, THE MISSIONARIES.

THEN, THE MERCHANTS.

AND THEN, THE SOLDIERS.

...and where have you been ALL day numan?

A concession made in error based upon an argument of false equivilency meant to decieve you and others, rick.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Well, lets see, Schlack, I gave the opinion that, based on recent history, the signs an atheist group have put up were put up for the Christmas season instead of Ramadan because if Ramadan was to be their chosen target for making their statement there would have been a good chance unpleasant things would happen to some of them for doing so. Note that I used the term "recent history". I used the term in reference to things that have happened recently. Having happened recently they are now history. Putting them together we come up with "recent history". Reading in context, the time frame of "recent history" is not hard to determine. Recent history was used because that was what was pertinent to the posting.

A poster, seeing an opening to project politically correct conditioning, then states, "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." I then mention to rick that the poster is smart enough to know that religion was not the motivation for the wars he referenced. You then post in defense of his ignorant claim telling me that I am ignoring "US Imperial history", but, apparently recognizing how stupid the claim is, you try to shift the emphasis by slipping in the words "cover story". That alone negates any claim you make that Christianity was the motivating factor. Indeed, anyone thinking that would have to have an extraordinarilly childish view of how the world works. I suspect that is not so in your case, though I am not sure why you attempt to defend such patent drivel.

You are, of course, free to show me how Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. are or were religious wars. Take your time.
Yours in patience,
Issodhos

Assuming it were possible to do so, ask him what? Advice on how he may have rationalized Aztec "stealing and enslavement"? Or, how it felt having the tables turned? ....
Yours,
Issodhos