Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on February 27, 2014 by Allahpundit

On Tuesday, American Atheists President David Silverman received a phone call from American Conservative Union Executive Director Dan Schneider informing him that the ACU board is breaking its agreement to permit American Atheists to host an information booth at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), March 6-8.

According to Silverman, Schneider cited “the tone” in the quote “The Christian right should be threatened by us.”, which was in a Tuesday CNN article, as the reason for the revocation. This reversal came just hours after a press release from American Atheists announcing the booth, one week before the conference…

“Continuing to conflate religion and conservatism is not a viable strategy; this was apparently too scary for CPAC attendees to hear,” Silverman said. “America’s religious conservatives can deny it all they want, but soon they’re going to realize that ignoring the growing number of atheist constituents is a losing proposition.”

***

Why did you want a booth at CPAC?

To raise the awareness of the fact that 20 percent of America’s conservatives are non-religious people — they never pray, according to Pew …

And they should include the non-religious in their talks … They should acknowledge the non-religious. And they should rethink the conservative marriage with Christianity …

Conservatism is declining, obviously … And the reason that they are suffering is because they are doing the wrong thing, by taking the fastest growing … religious demographic in the country — the fastest-growing in all 50 states — and shoving it off to the side for the sake of Jesus …

What CPAC has done is effectively bury its head in the sand, and is pretending that things aren’t changing. They are pretending that atheists aren’t relevant. And they are pretending that Christianity still holds water in American society.

***

Although the many conservatives are uncomfortable with atheists, it’s not clear that the atheist movement is necessarily much more comfortable with conservatives. When Edwina Rogers, who had previously worked for Senator Trent Lott and President George W. Bush, was tapped as Executive Director of the Secular Coalition of America, Greta Christina, a popular atheist writer, said that her work as a Republican was “a real problem” and that the aims of the GOP were “diametrically opposed to those of the atheist and secular community.” Christina subsequently resigned her membership in the SCA, when she felt that Rogers did not adequately address these concerns.

***

Before the 1990s, Republicans won as much as 43 percent of non-religious voters, but suddenly began losing them by a 2 to 1 margin just as the group began to grow. By 2008, voters with no religion had grown to 12 percent of the electorate – more than Hispanics – and Barack Obama won them in 2008 and 2012 with wider margins than any previous Democrat. Mitt Romney narrowed the gap in 2012, though at 44 points he was hardly competitive. It’s important to note that most of these voters are not full-on atheists espousing intense opposition to religion on principle, but agnostic or “nothing in particular.”*

Why did this shift happen? In their book American Grace, sociologists David Campbell and Robert Putnam argue that the rising number of “nones” and their increasing Democratic tilt are a reaction to the Republican Party’s tightening alignment with Christian conservatives since the 1980s. In one recent example, a 2012 Pew Research Center poll found two in three religiously unaffiliated Americans agreeing that religious conservatives have too much control over the Republican Party.

***

According to CPAC’s spokeswoman, Meghan Snyder, Silverman, in a conversation with her about his comments, pledged to attack the very idea that Christianity is an important element of conservatism. Snyder adds: “People of any faith tradition should not be attacked for their beliefs, especially at our conference. He has left us with no choice but to return his money.”

So what exactly is the controversy here? Why should the country’s chief conservative conference welcome a group that is not conservative and is antagonistic towards many conservatives’ belief systems? And as for the idea of an embracing “big tent,” should CPAC open up shop to gun-control groups, too, under that big tent?

America is grappling to define conservatism. In a movement that once combated “amnesty, abortion, and acid,” nowadays (a) one cannot throw a rock without hitting a GOP politico pushing for amnesty for illegal immigrants, (b) a not-insignificant chunk of conservatives in private shrug over abortion, and (c) drug legalization makes immense headway. So while a big-tent philosophy welcoming of respectful atheists and agnostics is certainly the right course, make no mistake: If no tenet of conservatism will survive the night, let the movement at least — while welcoming non-believers — treasure and respect the faithful.

***

Many CPAC attendees believe in God. Inviting a non-conservative group that thinks the God-believers are all idiots in need of “enlightenment” makes little sense to me. Put it this way. Most conservatives believe in limited government. Some believe in big government. I think such people are wrong but should be allowed to make their case — because they share a common desire to advance the conservative cause. But there are lots of non-conservatives who also believe in big government to advance the liberal cause. Should they be allowed to attend CPAC, just because their belief in big government is shared by a few conservatives? Should there be a Fabian Socialist booth?

As for Charlie’s position, this is a very old argument on the right and around here. I think it was Bill Buckley who said — amidst a discussion of Ayn Rand — that one didn’t need to be religious or a believer to be conservative, but one needed to have respect for the religious or “the transcendent.” I can’t find the exact quote. This standard put Rand outside the ranks of conservatism, by Bill’s lights. But it leaves plenty of room for people like Charlie, I think. I know plenty of good conservatives who are atheists or agnostics. But because they are conservatives, they understand that simply throwing the bleach of militant atheism on culture, custom, and tradition to dissolve any hint of God or religion would be folly.

***

Here is an eye-opener for you: Some people wonder more about the First Mover than you or I do. Some people find scientific explanations implausible or unsatisfying.

This does not make them fools; it makes them of a different personality type than you or I.

Now, you will say they’re wrong about what they believe; I’ll say I agree with you.

But you are essentially doing the same thing a gay-hater does when he knocks him for being gay. The religious were born with a quixotic nature, a need to look beyond the tangible and mundane.

You and I weren’t.

We should no more be “proud” of this than we’re proud of our sexualities or our eye color.

***

Indeed, given the troubled waters into which American religious liberty has of late been pushed, it strikes me that conservatives ought to be courting atheists — not shunning them. I will happily take to the barricades for religious conscience rights, not least because my own security as a heretic is bound up with that of those who differ from me, and because a truly free country seeks to leave alone as many people as possible — however eccentric I might find their views or they might find mine. In my experience at least, it is Progressivism and not conservatism that is eternally hostile to variation and to individual belief, and, while we are constantly told that the opposite is the case, it is those who pride themselves on being secular who seem more likely and more keen to abridge my liberties than those who pride themselves on being religious. That I do not share the convictions of the religious by no means implies that I wish for the state to reach into their lives. Nevertheless, religious conservatives will find themselves without many friends if they allow figures such as Mr. Bozell to shoo away the few atheists who are sympathetic to their broader cause…

A great deal of the friction between atheists and conservatives seems to derive from a reasonable question. “If you don’t consider that human beings are entitled to ‘God given’ liberties,” I am often asked, “don’t you believe that the unalienable rights that you spend your days defending are merely the product of ancient legal accidents or of the one-time whims of transient majorities?” Well, no, not really. As far as I can see, the American settlement can thrive perfectly well within my worldview. God or no God, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are all built upon centuries of English law, human experience, and British and European philosophy, and the natural law case for them stands nicely on its own. Thomas Jefferson, who penned the Declaration, was not a religious man in any broad sense but a Deist, and his use of the term “Nature’s God” in laying out the framework for the new country was no accident. Jefferson was by no means an “atheist” — at least not in any modern sense: He believed in the moral teachings of Jesus; his work owed a great debt to the culture of toleration that English Protestantism had fostered; and, like almost all 18th-century thinkers, he believed in a prime mover. Nevertheless, he ultimately rejected the truth claims of revealed religion (and the Divine Right of Kings that he believed such a position inevitably yielded) and he relied instead on a “Creator” who looked like the God of Deism and not of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob…

“Of the nature of this being,” Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1817, “we know nothing.” Neither do I. Indeed, I do not believe that there is a “being” at all. And yet one can reasonably easily take Jefferson’s example and, without having to have an answer as to what created the world, merely rely upon the same sources as he did — upon Locke and Newton and Cicero and Bacon and, ultimately, upon one’s own human reason. From this, one can argue that the properties of the universe suggest self-ownership, that this self-ownership yields certain rights that should be held to be unalienable, and that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. After all, that’s what we’re all fighting for. Right?

***

From September 2013.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

Over

Bmore on February 28, 2014 at 9:03 AM

Nt is NOT cool. She, onesheep(UPI’s sock), and Upi claim to be conservative-but conservatives wouldn’t get off on attacking a fellow conservative…me. they are trash trolls.
If they spent half as much time attacking the left as they do me…
Peggyy and Michelle-and Upi…GROW UP.
*They’re immature little ‘mean girls’. They won’t.*

annoyinglittletwerp on February 28, 2014 at 6:23 AM

Excuse me.

Onesheep isn’t me. If you want to accuse me of something I never did to begin with, we are going to go rounds. 1. Stop calling me out on Facebook, 2. you keep this up, you really are going to look dumb 3. Your little b.s. grade school games will catch up with you.

I don’t need or have a sock. My name frightens you enough as it is, and I have never done anything to you.

upinak on February 28, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Over

Bmore on February 28, 2014 at 9:03 AM

Walking around this thread looking for survivors. What to help me triage and so that we can get them out on the next chopper?

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 9:07 AM

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Thank you, brother!

kingsjester on February 28, 2014 at 9:11 AM

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 9:07 AM

; ) It wasn’t that bad. I don’t do FB so I have no clue as to the high drama regarding it. I mainly dealt with the NativeTexan character. New nom, good with the comment box thingy for someone new.

Bmore on February 28, 2014 at 9:11 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 28, 2014 at 6:23 AM

Excuse me.

Onesheep isn’t me. If you want to accuse me of something I never did to begin with, we are going to go rounds. 1. Stop calling me out on Facebook, 2. you keep this up, you really are going to look dumb 3. Your little b.s. grade school games will catch up with you.

I don’t need or have a sock. My name frightens you enough as it is, and I have never done anything to you.

upinak on February 28, 2014 at 9:06 AM

that’s the issue i have with the twit as well. not friends on FB, leave me out of the 5th grade BS.

if she charged rent to everyone living in her head, she might not need that Walmart job she hates so freakin’ much.

ProudinNC on February 28, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Any difficulty we talk about here is at least partially rectified by a more objective media.
hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 8:57 AM

The more I think about these things, the goal of an objective media seems a faint hope. It is becoming more and more obvious to me that the only thing that is going to change these things, barring outright armed civil disobedience, that is, are massive demonstrations in every major city, against both the corrupt media and corrupt government.

The legal avenues for redress of grievances have been effectively usurped by the Left and rendered not only ineffective but have been corrupted to aid their purposes. Elections will never change these things anymore and hoping that the right candidate will come along is simply whistling past the graveyard.

It’s gonna take all of us to get involved. I cannot believe that the majority of Americans are on board with this stuff.

Cleombrotus on February 28, 2014 at 9:14 AM

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 9:07 AM

P.S. Haven’t been up in a chopper in a few years. Not to much against them mind you. Always had good experiences when I did. Usually had great pilots. Military guys with lots of hours. The hourly on them has become kinda cost prohibitive on them for certain jobs. ; )

Bmore on February 28, 2014 at 9:15 AM

P.S. Haven’t been up in a chopper in a few years. Not to much against them mind you. Always had good experiences when I did. Usually had great pilots. Military guys with lots of hours. The hourly on them has become kinda cost prohibitive on them for certain jobs. ; )

Bmore on February 28, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Say what.

celtic warrior on February 28, 2014 at 9:31 AM

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 9:07 AM

P.S. Haven’t been up in a chopper in a few years. Not to much against them mind you. Always had good experiences when I did. Usually had great pilots. Military guys with lots of hours. The hourly on them has become kinda cost prohibitive on them for certain jobs. ; )

Bmore on February 28, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Or some private citizen trying to get a rating.

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Say what.

celtic warrior on February 28, 2014 at 9:31 AM

What? My cost on them is around $600.00 per hour. Generally I only need an hour or so. Budgets these days are tight with ever narrowing margins. So if there is a way around using them……….

Bmore on February 28, 2014 at 9:47 AM

It’s gonna take all of us to get involved. I cannot believe that the majority of Americans are on board with this stuff.

Cleombrotus on February 28, 2014 at 9:14 AM

I was told by a smart officer one time that once you get greater than half of a populace voting for free stuff, you’re done as a nation.

I hate to pick on them, but the young adults of my daughter’s generation. In their parents homes and mostly underemployed or outright unemployed. Healthy folks using EBT cards and having children out of wedlock. WIC subsidies and claiming health disabilities on Medicaid and Medicare. (and they complain about older Americans getting their SS Check) I know a lot of the families these younger folks come from and they didn’t get the attitude from their parents.

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Some members of this group need to take heed with regards to using people’s names in here instead of their HA handles:

5. USER CONTENT

(c) You represent, warrant, and covenant that you will not submit any User Content that:

(i) Violates or infringes in any way upon the rights of others, including, but not limited to, any copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, moral right, or other intellectual property or proprietary right of any person or entity;

(v) Includes personal information such as messages which identify phone numbers, social security numbers, account numbers, addresses, or employer references;

Moreover, any conduct by a user that in our sole discretion restricts or inhibits any other user from using or enjoying our Services will not be permitted.

Of course if it’s cool with Allah & Ed, then I have no qualms throwing out a butt load of info on some folks in here. It works both ways after all.

mizflame98 on February 28, 2014 at 9:48 AM

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 9:41 AM

My favorite pilot is a guy named Mike. Nam vet. He likes to scare the heII out of my clients and such. I like it. Lolz! ; )

Bmore on February 28, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Say what.

celtic warrior on February 28, 2014 at 9:31 AM

I’m curious celtic warrior, what struck you as odd with my comment?

Bmore on February 28, 2014 at 9:59 AM

First I heard about this and since I trust your posts I know there is something there. Going to go take a look. Thanks for the heads up.

HonestLib on February 28, 2014 at 8:00 AM

Thank you. I try my best to post accurate factual material and if I am in error, I admit it as quickly as possible and correct myself.

For more on the scandals I mentioned check out the Boston Herald. Jeff Kuhner has been discussing these topics on WRKO in the morning as well and he can be heard via iHeart or just go to WRKO.com and click the live streaming button.

dogsoldier on February 28, 2014 at 10:05 AM

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 9:41 AM

My favorite pilot is a guy named Mike. Nam vet. He likes to scare the heII out of my clients and such. I like it. Lolz! ; )

Bmore on February 28, 2014 at 9:50 AM

I’ve only ever scared my Crew Chiefs and Door Gunners on purpose. (I’ve managed to scare some passengers and myself inadvertently from time to time.)

If my guys ever feel asleep on their guns, I would make a rapid collective reduction and yell on the intercom, “WE’RE GONNA DIE!!!”

Homie with an AK ain’t sleeping as he watches you fly by, you need to stay awake too.

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 10:13 AM

dang, fell asleep …

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM

I know a lot of the families these younger folks come from and they didn’t get the attitude from their parents.
hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Agreed. A good Christian friend of mine was startled recently to hear his high school kids, kids raised in church, come home from school and telling him he’s a “homophobe”.

The Left has done its work well.

Cleombrotus on February 28, 2014 at 10:28 AM

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Lolz! Indeed! I’d probably enjoy a ride with you as pilot just fine. My clients, not so much. ; )

Bmore on February 28, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Agreed. A good Christian friend of mine was startled recently to hear his high school kids, kids raised in church, come home from school and telling him he’s a “homophobe”.

The Left has done its work well.

Cleombrotus on February 28, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Indeed.

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 10:35 AM

But then again, if you’re a Christian and send your children to public school…

Cleombrotus on February 28, 2014 at 10:35 AM

If my guys ever feel asleep on their guns, I would make a rapid collective reduction and yell on the intercom, “WE’RE GONNA DIE!!!”

Homie with an AK ain’t sleeping as he watches you fly by, you need to stay awake too.

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 10:13 AM

LOL! That’s viscous!

dogsoldier on February 28, 2014 at 10:45 AM

The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. Psalm 14:1

After reading an entire one-note QotD, I may have to add “ate up”.

Goatman on February 28, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Homie with an AK ain’t sleeping as he watches you fly by, you need to stay awake too.

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Thanks for the grins, hawk. Loved it.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Hot air is now going to be real interesting from now on ;)

You can count your cold noses on that.

upinak on February 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM

I will say this just once, to the good and bad ones, and you know who you are – keep this up, and all will be banned.

upinak and Lance, you are the cool-headed ones. This episode will not end well for anyone in the kerfuffle.

I expect the most from you upinak. Take this as a very friendly note, one of love, if you will.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Thanks for the grins, hawk. Loved it.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2014 at 11:08 AM

true stories. :-)

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 11:47 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 28, 2014 at 6:23 AM

consider the battle line drawn.

bring your best weapon, that lil pea shooter mouth of yours won’t cut it. maybe your b Lanceman will have your back, like usual.

ProudinNC on February 28, 2014 at 7:20 AM

alt, it’s high time that you move on. You know how this is meant, in the strictest objective ways. I need not explain anything further to you. YOU are smart to know the rest. NO more mentioning any private names and this or that from FB or your private anything. YOU endanger yourself. I say this as a repeat and I hate to repeat myself to adults.

ProudinNC, you are an incredible idiot. Threats, from and to all, are against ToU, as I stated in the comment previous to this one.

Now, all grow up, or act such.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2014 at 11:49 AM

true stories. :-)

hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 11:47 AM

I know. Nothing better than flying and all the stories that go with it.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2014 at 11:51 AM

ProudinNC, you are an incredible idiot. Threats, from and to all, are against ToU, as I stated in the comment previous to this one.

Now, all grow up, or act such.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2014 at 11:49 AM

she’s already drug her imaginary crap from FB here, i haven’t spoken with her in several years there (or here) yet she needs to bring me into it. she felt the need to rant on FB about me (and others) and then drag it here. maybe you should ask her about all that before you blame someone for telling her to back off. which was what i did. read my post again.

go back and read her comment i quoted, and see her epic fail at hiding names. she’s not fooling anyone. outting me won’t help her.

ProudinNC on February 28, 2014 at 12:00 PM

ProudinNC on February 28, 2014 at 12:00 PM

I wrote, clearly, that if any of you continue this, that you’re all gon’ be in trouble.

Now, grow up and knock it, all of you.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2014 at 12:04 PM

ProudinNC on February 28, 2014 at 12:00 PM

My comments are directed at all of you, good and bad. You’re now all in a clusterfark. If you don’t quit acting like hamsters on a wheel, you’ll all be sorry. All I’m saying, with regret and with good intentions.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM

as i said in an earlier comment, ALT leaves people alone, i got nothing to say to her. she starts with my name here, emails will fly.

ProudinNC on February 28, 2014 at 12:08 PM

upinak and Lance, you are the cool-headed ones. This episode will not end well for anyone in the kerfuffle.

I expect the most from you upinak. Take this as a very friendly note, one of love, if you will.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2014 at 11:41 AM

You’re getting things a bit confused here.

mizflame98 on February 28, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Cool/free advice – all take a deep breath and a break.

Focus on saving some of the land, which is hurtling toward the abyss. Your ‘fights’ are meaningless, in comparison.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2014 at 12:11 PM

ProudinNC on February 28, 2014 at 12:08 PM

I did address her directly already, about the very same.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2014 at 12:12 PM

You’re getting things a bit confused here.

mizflame98 on February 28, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Sorry, I think that you are.

Suit yourselves, all of you, regretfully.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2014 at 12:13 PM

mizflame98 on February 28, 2014 at 12:11 PM

You’d have to go back to two nights ago, to see the inanities of onesheep defending the true sheep HILLdabeast, who’s retired.

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2014 at 12:15 PM

true stories. :-)
hawkdriver on February 28, 2014 at 11:47 AM

I know. Nothing better than flying and all the stories that go with it.
Schadenfreude on February 28, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Roger that! I’ve been in love with ‘aeroplanes’ all my life. My best memories were visiting my grandfather and seeing an airplane in his two car garage (with the wings removed) and knowing he had another flyable one sitting at the local airport. He was an FAA judge, Squadron Commander of the Civil Air Patrol and a ‘Design Simplification Engineer’ for Pratt & Whitney* during WW2.
I was flying at ten and doing takeoffs and landings by twelve- with a 1949 Cessna 140A which is a tail dragger. I’ve flown docile aircraft that behave like a dream and I’ve wrestled some that want to kill you first chance it gets. Like bronc riding.
No better feeling than flying. I happen to be an atheist, btw.

*Once, I’ve been told, my grandpa did a time study that reduced valve lapping from a six hour job into two hours. That’s a 300% advance in production- thus more P&W R2800′s were put into more fighters (P-47 Thunderbolts, F4-U Corsairs etc) and bombers (B17 Flying Fortresses, B24 Liberators, B25 Billy Mitchell’s and one of my favorites- the B26 Marauder *the Widow Maker* (because it was a hot rod and killed those that didn’t respect that)).

Nape-wa-ste on February 28, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Schadenfreude on February 28, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Kudos for trying to keep the peace. I like upinak. Deadly intelligent.

Nape-wa-ste on February 28, 2014 at 4:45 PM

Ban us all and start over.

Bmore on February 28, 2014 at 5:27 PM

Ban us all and start over.

Bmore on February 28, 2014 at 5:27 PM

Kee! I like yer sense of humor.

Nape-wa-ste on February 28, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Ban us all and start over.

Bmore on February 28, 2014 at 5:27 PM

.
Kee! I like yer sense of humor.

Nape-wa-ste on February 28, 2014 at 5:32 PM

.
Total “reset”, huh ?

listens2glenn on February 28, 2014 at 7:11 PM

I also think the atheist will be a real ass and judgmental and arrogant and a prick.

bluegill on February 28, 2014 at 3:14 AM

.
Not all, just some.

upinak on February 28, 2014 at 3:16 AM

.
I’m sure glad none of us Christian believers are like that.

listens2glenn on February 28, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Total “reset”, huh ?

listens2glenn on February 28, 2014 at 7:11 PM

No, it’d be nice, but we have to go there from here. I’m just funnin’ how fearful folks can get.
I think the more we talk, the more we understand, that’s all.

Nape-wa-ste on February 28, 2014 at 7:33 PM

I haven’t told Allahpundit yet, but thanks for keeping ‘free thinking’ a viable attitude. As you have illustrated- you don’t necessarily have to have faith in a religion and not believe in an ideology. They are not mutually exclusive. You are absolutely correct that those of a faith (or lack thereof) shouldn’t be forcing their opinion (faith) on others.
But tell me this- how is it every Conquistador (in the Americas) always had a Catholic priest in the same conquering boat? Killing the natives and imposing your religion seems to be a Taliban objective(?)
Tell me, as a First Nation human being, what’s the difference?

Nape-wa-ste on February 28, 2014 at 7:47 PM

No, it’d be nice, but we have to go there from here. I’m just funnin’ how fearful folks can get.
I think the more we talk, the more we understand, that’s all.

Nape-wa-ste on February 28, 2014 at 7:33 PM

You’ve removed all doubt.

Murphy9 on February 28, 2014 at 9:46 PM

It’s gonna take all of us to get involved. I cannot believe that the majority of Americans are on board with this stuff.

Cleombrotus on February 28, 2014 at 9:14 AM

They don’t know who they are in the boat with.
Seriously.

AesopFan on March 1, 2014 at 12:51 AM

But tell me this- how is it every Conquistador (in the Americas) always had a Catholic priest in the same conquering boat? Killing the natives and imposing your religion seems to be a Taliban objective(?)
Tell me, as a First Nation human being, what’s the difference?

Nape-wa-ste on February 28, 2014 at 7:47 PM

At the time of Columbus (1492), Spain (or its constituent kingdoms at the time) had only recently liberated itself from Muslim domination, which began in the 8th century (roughly 600 years).

The Umayyad conquest of Hispania is the initial Islamic Umayyad Caliphate’s conquest, between 711 and 788, of the Christian Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania, centered in the Iberian Peninsula, which was known to them under the Arabic name al-Andalus. … According to the Islamic rule of law, the sharia, Jews and Christians are “people of the scriptures” who may be permitted to practice their respective faiths if they submit to Muslim domination.[3] For this reason numerous Jewish and Christian sects survived and even prospered through the centuries of Islamic rule in al-Andalus.[4]

from Wikipedia
Pagans, of course, were forcibly converted or killed.
The only role-model the Spaniards’ had was Islamic shari’a law, and what that entails in terms of forced conversions.
They transferred that intolerance to their particular practice of Christianity, and thus included priests in their invasion parties, since the New World Natives were, obviously, pagans requiring conversion.
So, to answer your question, there was not effectively any difference.

True Christianity contains no element of coercion in its origin or doctrine, and is in fact strictly opposed to anything except voluntary acceptance of Christ as Savior.

AesopFan on March 1, 2014 at 1:05 AM

Thank you, AesopFan. I’ve read when Jerusalem was controlled by the Muslims- Jews & Christians were allowed to practice their own beliefs- until the Crusaders received a fax from God to kill every man, woman and child inside (everyone regardless of religion), after a long siege. Folks can get cray-cray over religion. Thanks for the distinction.

Nape-wa-ste on March 1, 2014 at 8:10 AM

Pagans, of course, were forcibly converted or killed.– AesopFan

This isn’t a criticism about your history of the matter. This is about diction and how I get cranky when people use it offhandedly. As in when folks use the words ‘their, there and they’re’ interchangeably. Nitpicking, I know but that term ‘of course’ can be construed in several ways- as in ‘Well of course it had to happen’ or ‘Of course it’s natural’.
A more precise way of expressing this would be “as a matter of course” which simply states what happened. It bothers me because some things didn’t necessarily have to happen. It was wanton aggression. Yeah, I know, welcome to the real world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo8s5fuSwo8

Thanks for the history lesson.

Nape-wa-ste on March 1, 2014 at 8:33 AM

True Christianity contains no element of coercion in its origin or doctrine, and is in fact strictly opposed to anything except voluntary acceptance of Christ as Savior.

AesopFan on March 1, 2014 at 1:05 AM

That’s nice. Wish is were true. The same can be said about pushy atheists. My attitude it don’t push people in believing anything. If they see it so, they will come.
The same for war. The Lakota knew all men were a sovereign nation all upon themselves. You might ask to go on raiding party or on the war trail, but it was not mandatory. You couldn’t shame a brave to do your bidding unless he chose to. And the cool aspect of this is the other warriors wouldn’t blame or shame him for his decision. That’s how ‘braves’ rolled.

Nape-wa-ste on March 1, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Two commnts, one as a conservative and one as an atheist

1. As a conservative I don’t give a damn about anyone’s religious belief. It is between them and their god.

2. As an atheist, I don’t give a damn about anyone’s religious belief. It is between them and their god.

In both cases, I will not attempt to enforce my lack of religious convictions on anyone, nor do I truly care, as long as they get out of my face with theirs. Religous conservatives usually are not, they are control freaks much like the atheist who want to put up a booth at CPAC. A pox on both of your houses. If this is wha defines a consrvative, then I am not one.

georgeofthedesert on March 1, 2014 at 5:36 PM

Judge_Dredd on March

7, 2014 at 12:50 AM

Never has a name been more fitting! You, sir, are judicious, indeed. I would urge you, in all things, to continue to tell the truth & shame the Devil!

frank on March 7, 2014 at 1:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7