Subject:
|
Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:53:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3786 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> In the spirit of avoiding sweeping generalizations that due a disservice to
> one's arguments, I believe that your statements above need clarification. I'll
> not excuse the atrocities committed in the name of religion, but a great deal
> (and I'd wager most) of those atrocities were in fact committed in the name of
> economic and political power.
Simple question: Was the Vatican a political and economic power during the
conquest of the Americas? You know the answer.
> To say that all such atrocities were committed by
> White Christians is to say that 1) Imperial Britain (for example) was a
> monolithically Christian society/culture, and 2) White men are almost
> universally Christian, and thus any crime committed by a White is in fact a
> crime committed as a person of religious faith.
You are inferring more than what I wrote. The fact remains that Christianity
came down like an iron fist on the native peoples of the Americas and Africa.
> While I'm ashamed to say that
> many crimes have been committed by "Christians," I firmly deny your assertion
> that it was a consensus of Christianity committing these abuses.
Never asserted or meant it was a consensus. Let's talk about the leadership:
the power behind the leadership was the church in one way or another.
Monarchies of the time maintained that the king was appointed by God.
Therefore, the king was only doing God's work. Think of Galileo getting
shafted for saying the earth wasn't the center of the solar system, in fact
just an ordinary planet circling the sun? That sort of religious ignorance
is what I'm talking about.
> I am taking a
> class this semester called Historical Geography of the United States; it is by
> far the most detailed historical study of this country that I have had the
> fortune to encounter, and I can unequivocally state with confidence, based on
> what I have learned, that economics was the prime (but not the sole) motivation
> for exploitation of the Americas.
Of course it was, but who was behind it? The leadership is to blame, taking
Jesus's good name and dragging it through the filth of war and oppression.
I'm sure Jesus never imagined this in his wildest dreams.
> And one final point: Being born of an ethnic or nominally Christian culture/
> heritage does not make one a Christian. By such rationale, many of us are
> guilty of religious crimes.
Well, we do what we can and help those in need. That's the best anyone can
expect and we shouldn't have to answer for the crimes of our ancestors.
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
| (...) That is a good point; in terms of colonization, the Spanish had a more overtly religious tone to the economic exploitation. An interesting irony is that while the Spanish often used divine right as a justification, they also, over the course (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
| (...) Daniel: In the spirit of avoiding sweeping generalizations that due a disservice to one's arguments, I believe that your statements above need clarification. I'll not excuse the atrocities committed in the name of religion, but a great deal (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
137 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
