Regardlesss of whether you think the Church is responsibile for spreading small pox in the America's or whether you think that they were part of a warring conquering culture, I'm just asking if its not true that the cultures that they made war upon werent just as bad.
maybe we should go visit those cultures and see if they're really all that bad. I mean, if they were around we could do that. Otherwise we can make judgements based on historical records written by people who used to draw sea monsters on their world maps and whatnot.
Regardlesss of whether you think the Church is responsibile for spreading small pox in the America's or whether you think that they were part of a warring conquering culture, I'm just asking if its not true that the cultures that they made war upon werent just as bad.
maybe we should go visit those cultures and see if they're really all that bad. I mean, if they were around we could do that. Otherwise we can make judgements based on historical records written by people who used to draw sea monsters on their world maps and whatnot.
Its not like they are the only extinct culture. Why don't you go visit the ancient Greeks or the Latins too.
because you're arguments are non-sensical. You argued that the germs were spread by Christians therefore it's religions fault. You brought up the conquistadors, silver mines, etc. none of which is really about religion. If you provided better examples of the bad side of religion I wouldn't be responding to you so much.
And my California example is a refutation of your argument about the Spanish empire in the Americas all being driven by religion. It's a perfect instance of how religion and the church were not the dominant factor in the conquest of the Americas and how the Spanish empire was administered there. Again if Christianity was the driving force for the Spanish taking over the Americas why did they neglect California and ignore the church/missions there????
PS the church's justifications for the conquest of the Americas and also the debate about how to treat the Indians there happened largely AFTER the Americas were already taken over. Again, it was justifying what the Spanish monarchy had already decided upon.
I don't want to distract from the hate of the Dali Lama, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day, Gene Robinson... but...
Has any one else noticed how the administration, politicians and commentators are wringing their hands over whether or not this is a coup? (In Egypt, remember Egypt?)
One year ago the military did the exact same thing, remove an elected government because they were not responding to the demands of the people.
Sorry the conquistadors were mostly soldiers on contract with the Spanish or Portuguese crown. They could give a fuck less about spreading religion. They're main concern was money the Catholic Church mostly came later after the conquest and again was subsidiary to the soldiers and colonial government under the monarchies. The silver mines that came later were run by the monarchy to generate money not because of Christianity or spreading religion.
This is a really odd and ahistorical view. Spain was a fanatically Catholic country at the time. It had just recently thrown out the Muslim Moors and was in the early days of the Spanish Inquisition. The notion that Spanish soldiers were just in it for the money is like saying US soldiers in WW2 didn't bear any racial animus towards the Japanese.
And the Church didn't "come later." Priests galore accompanied the early explorers and were always a part of the plan.
Because a person is religious, or claims to be, say Cortez or Obama, that does not mean their actions are religious.
because you're arguments are non-sensical. You argued that the germs were spread by Christians therefore it's religions fault. You brought up the conquistadors, silver mines, etc. none of which is really about religion. If you provided better examples of the bad side of religion I wouldn't be responding to you so much.
And my California example is a refutation of your argument about the Spanish empire in the Americas all being driven by religion. It's a perfect instance of how religion and the church were not the dominant factor in the conquest of the Americas and how the Spanish empire was administered there. Again if Christianity was the driving force for the Spanish taking over the Americas why did they neglect California and ignore the church/missions there????
maybe I'm not being clear enough: I'm not saying, and I don't think I ever said, that the Spanish invaded the Americas because of christianity - and let's be clear that I've been referring to the Catholic Church, not the religion as a whole. My argument is that the Catholic Church aided and provided justification for what happened and benefited greatly from it. My argument isn't that christianity was the driving force behind all this, rather that the driving force behind the Catholic Church is greed instead of any notion of spirituality. And one can look at the way the Catholic Church treated the native population to see the bad side of religion - including the burning of any written records they had, which I mentioned but apparently to you that's not an example "of the bad side of religion." I mean, to me condoning and providing justification as the word of God for the slaughter or enslavement of people and promoting the destruction of entire cultures falls on the list of fucked up things the Catholic Church did. But I guess you don't see it that way.
to bring up California as some sort of refutation of everything else fucked that the church did in the Americas is ridiculous. There wasn't an interest in that region because it didn't have a mighty civilization with vast amounts of precious metals to be stolen. That goes for both the Spanish Crown AND the Catholic Church. At any rate, a more obvious reason why the Spanish didn't bother with California is because it's pretty fucking far from what today is considered Southern Mexico, which is where they were at the beginning of the conquest.
PS the church's justifications for the conquest of the Americas and also the debate about how to treat the Indians there happened largely AFTER the Americas were already taken over. Again, it was justifying what the Spanish monarchy had already decided upon.
where did you learn your history? How long do you think the conquest took? Do you think the Spanish landed in the Americas and that's it, they've conquered the continent? And do you consider colonization a separate, completely unrelated period? - this would explain why you try to say the church had no involvement in the conquest, since you think they only joined in later.
There were priests in the expeditions from the very beginning. Christopher Columbus had a priest on his ship. A lot of the exploration of Brazil was led by priests. Not only that, the Treaty of Tordesillas, which divided South America between Portugal and Spain, was brokered by the Pope. Y'know, the Pope of the Catholic Church. This wasn't after anything, it was at the very beginning of this process. Popes at that time were members of nobility, the Catholic Church clearly had a vested interest in this.
Haha so you're going with "I was trolling all along!" That old chestnut. A time-honored defense mounted by morons who have shown their asses for 5 pages -- and suddenly realize how dumb they've been sounding.
Haha so you're going with "I was trolling all along!" That old chestnut. A time-honored defense mounted by morons who have shown their asses for 5 pages -- and suddenly realize how dumb they've been sounding.
You're totally right. I'm a lawyer that bills out more for an hour of work than you earn in a week and I don't know what Latin is. Do you want to keep playing? I have no problem tooling you around for another five pages.
You probably didn't even know that all the Latins spoke Romanese which is now used to describe romance languages because they were a very romantic people?
I love how this thread hasn't even mentioned the terrible events taking place in Egypt over the last couple days, it's just pages of dudes trolling each other with one hand and punishing their crotch with the other
I love how this thread hasn't even mentioned the terrible events taking place in Egypt over the last couple days, it's just pages of dudes trolling each other with one hand and punishing their crotch with the other
hey c'mon I'm only guilty of 4 posts in this entire thread.
as for Egypt over the last couple of days, will the Brotherhood be cracked-down 'pon, driven underground once again, only to rear its head in some ugly way 5-10 yrs hence?
I love how this thread hasn't even mentioned the terrible events taking place in Egypt over the last couple days, it's just pages of dudes trolling each other with one hand and punishing their crotch with the other
Sorry. I got caught up in the religion thing. I'm going to disengage now.
Sorry the conquistadors were mostly soldiers on contract with the Spanish or Portuguese crown. They could give a fuck less about spreading religion. They're main concern was money the Catholic Church mostly came later after the conquest and again was subsidiary to the soldiers and colonial government under the monarchies. The silver mines that came later were run by the monarchy to generate money not because of Christianity or spreading religion.
This is a really odd and ahistorical view. Spain was a fanatically Catholic country at the time. It had just recently thrown out the Muslim Moors and was in the early days of the Spanish Inquisition. The notion that Spanish soldiers were just in it for the money is like saying US soldiers in WW2 didn't bear any racial animus towards the Japanese.
And the Church didn't "come later." Priests galore accompanied the early explorers and were always a part of the plan.
Because a person is religious, or claims to be, say Cortez or Obama, that does not mean their actions are religious.
That sentence has no meaning. What the hell is a religious action?
The sentence is perfectly clear.
For pages people have made the argument that actions done by all kinds of people and governments are religious.
The reality is that Cortez and the Kennedy's worshiped in the same church and their actions were mostly blessed by that church.
If religion is evil, as has been argued, and actions taken in the name of religion are evil, then it would logically follow that Obama is evil.
He often talks about the religious moral justification for his policies, meets with religious leaders, uses religious institutions to further his agenda and ends all of his major policy speeches with a blessing to god.
The only reason you have a problem understanding this simple truth is it goes against your beliefs.
I love how this thread hasn't even mentioned the terrible events taking place in Egypt over the last couple days, it's just pages of dudes trolling each other with one hand and punishing their crotch with the other
because you're arguments are non-sensical. You argued that the germs were spread by Christians therefore it's religions fault. You brought up the conquistadors, silver mines, etc. none of which is really about religion. If you provided better examples of the bad side of religion I wouldn't be responding to you so much.
And my California example is a refutation of your argument about the Spanish empire in the Americas all being driven by religion. It's a perfect instance of how religion and the church were not the dominant factor in the conquest of the Americas and how the Spanish empire was administered there. Again if Christianity was the driving force for the Spanish taking over the Americas why did they neglect California and ignore the church/missions there????
maybe I'm not being clear enough: I'm not saying, and I don't think I ever said, that the Spanish invaded the Americas because of christianity - and let's be clear that I've been referring to the Catholic Church, not the religion as a whole. My argument is that the Catholic Church aided and provided justification for what happened and benefited greatly from it. My argument isn't that christianity was the driving force behind all this, rather that the driving force behind the Catholic Church is greed instead of any notion of spirituality. And one can look at the way the Catholic Church treated the native population to see the bad side of religion - including the burning of any written records they had, which I mentioned but apparently to you that's not an example "of the bad side of religion." I mean, to me condoning and providing justification as the word of God for the slaughter or enslavement of people and promoting the destruction of entire cultures falls on the list of fucked up things the Catholic Church did. But I guess you don't see it that way.
to bring up California as some sort of refutation of everything else fucked that the church did in the Americas is ridiculous. There wasn't an interest in that region because it didn't have a mighty civilization with vast amounts of precious metals to be stolen. That goes for both the Spanish Crown AND the Catholic Church. At any rate, a more obvious reason why the Spanish didn't bother with California is because it's pretty fucking far from what today is considered Southern Mexico, which is where they were at the beginning of the conquest.
PS the church's justifications for the conquest of the Americas and also the debate about how to treat the Indians there happened largely AFTER the Americas were already taken over. Again, it was justifying what the Spanish monarchy had already decided upon.
where did you learn your history? How long do you think the conquest took? Do you think the Spanish landed in the Americas and that's it, they've conquered the continent? And do you consider colonization a separate, completely unrelated period? - this would explain why you try to say the church had no involvement in the conquest, since you think they only joined in later.
There were priests in the expeditions from the very beginning. Christopher Columbus had a priest on his ship. A lot of the exploration of Brazil was led by priests. Not only that, the Treaty of Tordesillas, which divided South America between Portugal and Spain, was brokered by the Pope. Y'know, the Pope of the Catholic Church. This wasn't after anything, it was at the very beginning of this process. Popes at that time were members of nobility, the Catholic Church clearly had a vested interest in this.
seriously guy, go study some history.
I've taught California History for the last ten years. The Franciscans were very interested in California as they ran all the missions there. They got no support from the Mexican government exactly as you said because there was nothing there of importance. The church however wanted to convert the Indians there. I love how you've finally come around to saying that the church was simply supporting what the Spanish crown wanted which is what I said about 20 posts ago while you were still talking about Christian germs killing the Indians. Unknowingly you've just come around to my point and agreed with me. Good job!
Sorry the conquistadors were mostly soldiers on contract with the Spanish or Portuguese crown. They could give a fuck less about spreading religion. They're main concern was money the Catholic Church mostly came later after the conquest and again was subsidiary to the soldiers and colonial government under the monarchies. The silver mines that came later were run by the monarchy to generate money not because of Christianity or spreading religion.
This is a really odd and ahistorical view. Spain was a fanatically Catholic country at the time. It had just recently thrown out the Muslim Moors and was in the early days of the Spanish Inquisition. The notion that Spanish soldiers were just in it for the money is like saying US soldiers in WW2 didn't bear any racial animus towards the Japanese.
And the Church didn't "come later." Priests galore accompanied the early explorers and were always a part of the plan.
When the Spain and Portugal came to the new world who was in the lead the soldiers or the priests? Yes the priests came on the expeditions but the parties were working for the monarchies and led by the conquistadors. The church was there to support the state.
Please google the the shit out of it and find me sources that will say Cortez and those other guys weren't a bunch of adventurers looking for gold, plunder and fame. They could be religious in personal life, but their main concern could still be greed. Therefore I'm not going to say that their conquering of the Aztecs and Incas was a religious mission by them, and hence a reason why religion is the worst thing in the world.
Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement was largely based upon organizing through the church. Who is going to condemn the movement because it had a religious element?
Aretha Franklin, Sam Cooke and countless other soul singers started off in the church singing gospel before they went commercial. How many of you are going to condemn them because of their religious beliefs and background?
According to several posts it doesn't matter what good the church or religion has done, the evil far outweighs that. So throw away your gospel records, burn the Aretha LPs and say fuck you to Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement!
This Impressions song has obvious Gospel overtones. It was also covered by a lot of Gospel singers like Clara Ward. Plus it was used as an inspiration by the Civil Rights Movement that was based upon church organizing. Those muthafuckas! Remember the church created anti-semitism so the Impressions are obviously condoning the Holocaust through this song! Plus don't forget Mayfield and Butler started off as gospel singers!
Morsi was just a really bad leader. He pushed too hard too quick, gave some horrible speeches, lost whatever momentum he had at the beginning. That being said, the current crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood could have long-term negative affects. The last time the Egyptian government came down on the MB with violence many of its members went underground and took up the gun. There was a really violent Islamist insurgency in Egypt for several decades as a result that didn't get put down until quit recently. It might also turn other Islamist groups in the region that are open to politics and elections that they can't win no matter what, which again could lead to violence later on.
Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement was largely based upon organizing through the church. Who is going to condemn the movement because it had a religious element?
Aretha Franklin, Sam Cooke and countless other soul singers started off in the church singing gospel before they went commercial. How many of you are going to condemn them because of their religious beliefs and background?
According to several posts it doesn't matter what good the church or religion has done, the evil far outweighs that. So throw away your gospel records, burn the Aretha LPs and say fuck you to Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement!
That's completely stupid and requires you to be unable to read what people have actually said in this thread.
How about you saying fuck you to the Catholic Church for raping thousands of kids and covering it up?
I'll say it again - yes, religious people have done many good things. But on balance, at this point in human history, religion is a net negative in terms of its effects on the human race.
Why you can't deal with that entirely reasonable statement is your problem. You're like a priest with a bone in this thread.
I'm just fucking with people. But go back and read some of the previous posts. There were a couple that explicitly said that it doesn''t matter what good religion has done it's bad and evil.
How about you saying fuck you to the Catholic Church for raping thousands of kids and covering it up?
The boy scouts just had a child molestation scandal as well and don't forget the Penn State football coach case. I don't think raping kids and covering it up is a problem of religion. Yes the Catholic Church was fucked up, but am I willing to condemn religion because of it? No.
I've taught California History for the last ten years. The Franciscans were very interested in California as they ran all the missions there. They got no support from the Mexican government exactly as you said because there was nothing there of importance. The church however wanted to convert the Indians there. I love how you've finally come around to saying that the church was simply supporting what the Spanish crown wanted which is what I said about 20 posts ago while you were still talking about Christian germs killing the Indians. Unknowingly you've just come around to my point and agreed with me. Good job!
Comments
maybe we should go visit those cultures and see if they're really all that bad. I mean, if they were around we could do that. Otherwise we can make judgements based on historical records written by people who used to draw sea monsters on their world maps and whatnot.
Its not like they are the only extinct culture. Why don't you go visit the ancient Greeks or the Latins too.
because you're arguments are non-sensical. You argued that the germs were spread by Christians therefore it's religions fault. You brought up the conquistadors, silver mines, etc. none of which is really about religion. If you provided better examples of the bad side of religion I wouldn't be responding to you so much.
And my California example is a refutation of your argument about the Spanish empire in the Americas all being driven by religion. It's a perfect instance of how religion and the church were not the dominant factor in the conquest of the Americas and how the Spanish empire was administered there. Again if Christianity was the driving force for the Spanish taking over the Americas why did they neglect California and ignore the church/missions there????
Has any one else noticed how the administration, politicians and commentators are wringing their hands over whether or not this is a coup? (In Egypt, remember Egypt?)
One year ago the military did the exact same thing, remove an elected government because they were not responding to the demands of the people.
The word coup was never uttered a year ago.
Whats up with that?
Because a person is religious, or claims to be, say Cortez or Obama, that does not mean their actions are religious.
maybe I'm not being clear enough: I'm not saying, and I don't think I ever said, that the Spanish invaded the Americas because of christianity - and let's be clear that I've been referring to the Catholic Church, not the religion as a whole. My argument is that the Catholic Church aided and provided justification for what happened and benefited greatly from it. My argument isn't that christianity was the driving force behind all this, rather that the driving force behind the Catholic Church is greed instead of any notion of spirituality. And one can look at the way the Catholic Church treated the native population to see the bad side of religion - including the burning of any written records they had, which I mentioned but apparently to you that's not an example "of the bad side of religion." I mean, to me condoning and providing justification as the word of God for the slaughter or enslavement of people and promoting the destruction of entire cultures falls on the list of fucked up things the Catholic Church did. But I guess you don't see it that way.
to bring up California as some sort of refutation of everything else fucked that the church did in the Americas is ridiculous. There wasn't an interest in that region because it didn't have a mighty civilization with vast amounts of precious metals to be stolen. That goes for both the Spanish Crown AND the Catholic Church. At any rate, a more obvious reason why the Spanish didn't bother with California is because it's pretty fucking far from what today is considered Southern Mexico, which is where they were at the beginning of the conquest.
where did you learn your history? How long do you think the conquest took? Do you think the Spanish landed in the Americas and that's it, they've conquered the continent? And do you consider colonization a separate, completely unrelated period? - this would explain why you try to say the church had no involvement in the conquest, since you think they only joined in later.
There were priests in the expeditions from the very beginning. Christopher Columbus had a priest on his ship. A lot of the exploration of Brazil was led by priests. Not only that, the Treaty of Tordesillas, which divided South America between Portugal and Spain, was brokered by the Pope. Y'know, the Pope of the Catholic Church. This wasn't after anything, it was at the very beginning of this process. Popes at that time were members of nobility, the Catholic Church clearly had a vested interest in this.
seriously guy, go study some history.
Any action that proves to you that religion is bad.
Could you be any easier to troll? My sources say "no."
You're totally right. I'm a lawyer that bills out more for an hour of work than you earn in a week and I don't know what Latin is. Do you want to keep playing? I have no problem tooling you around for another five pages.
You probably didn't even know that all the Latins spoke Romanese which is now used to describe romance languages because they were a very romantic people?
Your turn.
hey c'mon I'm only guilty of 4 posts in this entire thread.
as for Egypt over the last couple of days, will the Brotherhood be cracked-down 'pon, driven underground once again, only to rear its head in some ugly way 5-10 yrs hence?
Sorry. I got caught up in the religion thing. I'm going to disengage now.
The sentence is perfectly clear.
For pages people have made the argument that actions done by all kinds of people and governments are religious.
The reality is that Cortez and the Kennedy's worshiped in the same church and their actions were mostly blessed by that church.
If religion is evil, as has been argued, and actions taken in the name of religion are evil, then it would logically follow that Obama is evil.
He often talks about the religious moral justification for his policies, meets with religious leaders, uses religious institutions to further his agenda and ends all of his major policy speeches with a blessing to god.
The only reason you have a problem understanding this simple truth is it goes against your beliefs.
LET'S BLAME THE GERMAN FOR THIS!
I've taught California History for the last ten years. The Franciscans were very interested in California as they ran all the missions there. They got no support from the Mexican government exactly as you said because there was nothing there of importance. The church however wanted to convert the Indians there. I love how you've finally come around to saying that the church was simply supporting what the Spanish crown wanted which is what I said about 20 posts ago while you were still talking about Christian germs killing the Indians. Unknowingly you've just come around to my point and agreed with me. Good job!
When the Spain and Portugal came to the new world who was in the lead the soldiers or the priests? Yes the priests came on the expeditions but the parties were working for the monarchies and led by the conquistadors. The church was there to support the state.
Please google the the shit out of it and find me sources that will say Cortez and those other guys weren't a bunch of adventurers looking for gold, plunder and fame. They could be religious in personal life, but their main concern could still be greed. Therefore I'm not going to say that their conquering of the Aztecs and Incas was a religious mission by them, and hence a reason why religion is the worst thing in the world.
Aretha Franklin, Sam Cooke and countless other soul singers started off in the church singing gospel before they went commercial. How many of you are going to condemn them because of their religious beliefs and background?
According to several posts it doesn't matter what good the church or religion has done, the evil far outweighs that. So throw away your gospel records, burn the Aretha LPs and say fuck you to Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement!
I'm just fucking with people. But go back and read some of the previous posts. There were a couple that explicitly said that it doesn''t matter what good religion has done it's bad and evil.
The boy scouts just had a child molestation scandal as well and don't forget the Penn State football coach case. I don't think raping kids and covering it up is a problem of religion. Yes the Catholic Church was fucked up, but am I willing to condemn religion because of it? No.
I guess we're in agreement then?
I think you can stop with your crusade now.