POTUS mis speaking.

[Sean Renaud]

I was being wry. I agree that they, like everyone else that ever went to war, are doing so because they think they will personally gain from it.

Apologies. It can be difficult to tell tone.

And for the record I'm not saying there aren't crazy people and maybe, just maybe ISIS is one of those groups. But I see them taking and holding strategic territory. I think their religion makes them easily united. . .by the people who seem to wake up every so often and go, you knwo what we haven't done in a few months? Bombed us some Arabs. (And yes I'm fully aware that it's much, much more complicated than that but I can very easily see how being on the other side of equation it would be easy to buy that narrative.

At least as easy as it is for many over here to buy that they hate our freedom. I'm sure some of them are jealous but. . .the freedom issues would lie with their governments and the isn't a damn thing in the world stopping any one of their governments from printing up the Constitution and saying, "THIS IS THE LAW!" (Aside from lots and lots of tradition that would take a while to get past. . .but lets not pretend we followed it for at least the first hundred years or so at least not according to modern interpretations.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

This article addresses Vetteman's rant better than anything else.


The Foolish, Historically Illiterate, Incredible Response to Obama's Prayer Breakfast Speech

People who wonder why the president does not talk more about race would do well to examine the recent blow-up over his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. Inveighing against the barbarism of ISIS, the president pointed out that it would be foolish to blame Islam, at large, for its atrocities. To make this point he noted that using religion to brutalize other people is neither a Muslim invention nor, in America, a foreign one:

Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.

The "all too often" could just as well be "almost always." There were a fair number of pretexts given for slavery and Jim Crow, but Christianity provided the moral justification. On the cusp of plunging his country into a war that would cost some 750,000 lives, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens paused to offer some explanation. His justification was not secular. The Confederacy was to be:

The first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society ... With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so.

It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws.

Stephens went on to argue that the "Christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa" could only be accomplished through enslavement. And enslavement was not made possible through Robert's Rules of Order, but through a 250-year reign of mass torture, industrialized murder, and normalized rape—tactics which ISIS would find familiar. Its moral justification was not "because I said so," it was "Providence," "the curse against Canaan," "the Creator," "and Christianization." In just five years, 750,000 Americans died because of this peculiar mission of "Christianization." Many more died before, and many more died after. In his "Segregation Now" speech, George Wallace invokes God 27 times and calls the federal government opposing him "a system that is the very opposite of Christ."

Now, Christianity did not "cause" slavery, anymore than Christianity "caused" the civil-rights movement. The interest in power is almost always accompanied by the need to sanctify that power. That is what the Muslims terrorists in ISIS are seeking to do today, and that is what Christian enslavers and Christian terrorists did for the lion's share of American history.

That this relatively mild, and correct, point cannot be made without the comments being dubbed, "the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime,” by a former Virginia governor gives you some sense of the limited tolerance for any honest conversation around racism in our politics. And it gives you something much more. My colleague Jim Fallows recently wrote about the need to, at once, infantilize and deify our military. Perhaps related to that is the need to infantilize and deify our history. Pointing out that Americans have done, on their own soil, in the name of their own God, something similar to what ISIS is doing now does not make ISIS any less barbaric, or any more correct. That is unless you view the entire discussion as a kind of religious one-upmanship, in which the goal is to prove that Christianity is "the awesomest."

Obama seemed to be going for something more—faith leavened by “some doubt.” If you are truly appalled by the brutality of ISIS, then a wise and essential step is understanding the lure of brutality, and recalling how easily your own society can be, and how often it has been, pulled over the brink.

 

[JohnnySavage]

You'd think god (of whatever flavor) would be powerful enough to slap down the non-believers him (or her) self. If you are killing in the name of your god, you have a pretty piss-poor excuse for a god.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

obaNa the great PUTZ

 

[Que]

You'd think god (of whatever flavor) would be powerful enough to slap down the non-believers him (or her) self. If you are killing in the name of your god, you have a pretty piss-poor excuse for a god.

A conundrum pointed out with the story of the priests of Ba'al.

I do kind of feel God is phoning it in these days. Usta be plagues, pestilence, earthquakes, floods, transmogrification into salt, lightening, being struck deaf and blind.

Now you have to strap on a vest and kill yourself in the name of being an instrument in the hands of God.

 

[miles]

At a prayer breakfast today, POTUS siad that Isis is similar to to killing in the name of Jesus Christ during the Crusades. Really? He will rue that muttering.

No he won't. The Fraud gets away with everything. Skeptical journalism is dead.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Probably because God's a myth and once upon a time anything you couldn't explain was god. Now that we can explain shit. . .well I did remember hearing some folk say that the Earthquake in. . . Puerto Rico? Jamaica one of them islands was caused by gays. And it was gonna tip over. But nobody thinks that the ebola outbreak is because they didn't get out of the way when God said something.

We understand how erosion works these days so when you see rock formations in the shape of a man you don't go. "MEDUSA!"

Really just chalk it up to people need answers and didn't have the time or equipment to get them. And undoubtedly SOME of the answers we think we have will be found laughable false. The only main difference is I can't imagine Vegans, Vegetarians, Gluten Free and Turducken eaters separating out enough to war in the first place and even if we did I think if the people in charge were like "THEY HATE YOUR BACON" "THEY HATE YOUR LETTUCE WRAPPED SPINACH ROLLS!" The response would be. "Wait, wait. That makes no fucking sense. I'll go fry up some bacon, come over." "Deal, got the Spinach rolls. "You can leave those, if I wanted them I'd make them." WAR!!! LOL JK I so random.

 

[unregistered]

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Yes the land stolen from its original Christian owners by the Muslims after centuries of jihad.

kingofAssTards, can't accept the fact that muslims and islamic nutjobs make for a very weak military. hell, the girl scouts could take over 1/2 of their "land"

seanR would get his ass kick by a girl in the Brownies

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

False statement as usual:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Force

You know what? You are correct, and I was mistaken (I'm not bound by the Vietnam-era Marine Corps "sacred Marine honor", so I can admit when I am mistaken).

We had a minimal "troops on the ground" force there, yet somehow accomplished our mission with minimal casualties. Compare that against your own Vietnam clusterfuck, or the massive Iraq campaign that you wholeheartedly endorsed.

Sometimes "less is more" (excluding your own intelligence).

 

[Disgustipated]

Yes the land stolen from its original Christian owners by the Muslims after centuries of jihad.

Is this like the land stolen from the Indians because they were too weak like you always say? Fucking moron.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yes the land stolen from its original Christian owners by the Muslims after centuries of jihad.

you really need to read up on your history before you talk. It's original Christian owners? Christians aren't the original owners of anything save maybe the moon.

What we see today is simply a continuation of historical Islamic behavior we all learned about before liberals took over the education of our youth.

Well thank God we got rid of the propaganda engine and replaced it with an actual education.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

you really need to read up on your history before you talk. It's original Christian owners? Christians aren't the original owners of anything save maybe the moon.



Well thank God we got rid of the propaganda engine and replaced it with an actual education.

quoted for the Derp value

 

[Boxlicker101]

This article addresses Vetteman's rant better than anything else.


The Foolish, Historically Illiterate, Incredible Response to Obama's Prayer Breakfast Speech

People who wonder why the president does not talk more about race would do well to examine the recent blow-up over his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. Inveighing against the barbarism of ISIS, the president pointed out that it would be foolish to blame Islam, at large, for its atrocities. To make this point he noted that using religion to brutalize other people is neither a Muslim invention nor, in America, a foreign one:

Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.

The "all too often" could just as well be "almost always." There were a fair number of pretexts given for slavery and Jim Crow, but Christianity provided the moral justification. On the cusp of plunging his country into a war that would cost some 750,000 lives, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens paused to offer some explanation. His justification was not secular. The Confederacy was to be:

The first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society ... With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so.

It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws.

Stephens went on to argue that the "Christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa" could only be accomplished through enslavement. And enslavement was not made possible through Robert's Rules of Order, but through a 250-year reign of mass torture, industrialized murder, and normalized rape—tactics which ISIS would find familiar. Its moral justification was not "because I said so," it was "Providence," "the curse against Canaan," "the Creator," "and Christianization." In just five years, 750,000 Americans died because of this peculiar mission of "Christianization." Many more died before, and many more died after. In his "Segregation Now" speech, George Wallace invokes God 27 times and calls the federal government opposing him "a system that is the very opposite of Christ."

Now, Christianity did not "cause" slavery, anymore than Christianity "caused" the civil-rights movement. The interest in power is almost always accompanied by the need to sanctify that power. That is what the Muslims terrorists in ISIS are seeking to do today, and that is what Christian enslavers and Christian terrorists did for the lion's share of American history.

That this relatively mild, and correct, point cannot be made without the comments being dubbed, "the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime,” by a former Virginia governor gives you some sense of the limited tolerance for any honest conversation around racism in our politics. And it gives you something much more. My colleague Jim Fallows recently wrote about the need to, at once, infantilize and deify our military. Perhaps related to that is the need to infantilize and deify our history. Pointing out that Americans have done, on their own soil, in the name of their own God, something similar to what ISIS is doing now does not make ISIS any less barbaric, or any more correct. That is unless you view the entire discussion as a kind of religious one-upmanship, in which the goal is to prove that Christianity is "the awesomest."

Obama seemed to be going for something more—faith leavened by “some doubt.” If you are truly appalled by the brutality of ISIS, then a wise and essential step is understanding the lure of brutality, and recalling how easily your own society can be, and how often it has been, pulled over the brink.

If you carefully read the direct quotes, you will see nothing whatsoever about Jesus of Nazareth or the New Testament or Christianity or anything else you claim is there. The indirect quotes are just your opinion of what was said and mean nothing.

This is not to defend slavery or Jin Crow laws, all of which were supported by Democrats, but it is to point out those abominations had nothing to do with any religion.

As for what was happening in Africa, that was mostly being done by Africans to other Africans, many of them Muslims.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If you carefully read the direct quotes, you will see nothing whatsoever about Jesus of Nazareth or the New Testament or Christianity or anything else you claim is there. The indirect quotes are just your opinion of what was said and mean nothing.

This is not to defend slavery or Jin Crow laws, all of which were supported by Democrats, but it is to point out those abominations had nothing to do with any religion.

As for what was happening in Africa, that was mostly being done by Africans to other Africans, many of them Muslims.

Do you actually need people to dig up people using the Bible to defend those things? Are you really that ignorant of history? As for Democrats who gives a shit?

Yes, what is happening in Africa is being done by Afircans many of them Muslims. I fail to see your point. Ever hear of this place called Europe? World War 1, World War 2, 100 Years War? And that's just off the top of my head really that place used to erupt roughly every twenty years or so like goddamn clock work until dirty liberals said we should talk about our feelings and now nearly 70 years of more or less peace.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Do you actually need people to dig up people using the Bible to defend those things? Are you really that ignorant of history? As for Democrats who gives a shit?

Yes, what is happening in Africa is being done by Afircans many of them Muslims. I fail to see your point. Ever hear of this place called Europe? World War 1, World War 2, 100 Years War? And that's just off the top of my head really that place used to erupt roughly every twenty years or so like goddamn clock work until dirty liberals said we should talk about our feelings and now nearly 70 years of more or less peace.

He is really that ignorant. The fact that he and Vetteman try to use the topic to beat up Democrats (who were the conservative party at the time), ignoring that the vast majority of the Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) who supported Jim Crow laws and fought against civil rights flocked to the Republican Party is proof positive of that ignorance.

In VetteBigot's case at least, willful ignorance.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

If you carefully read the direct quotes, you will see nothing whatsoever about Jesus of Nazareth or the New Testament or Christianity or anything else you claim is there. The indirect quotes are just your opinion of what was said and mean nothing.

This is not to defend slavery or Jin Crow laws, all of which were supported by Democrats, but it is to point out those abominations had nothing to do with any religion.

As for what was happening in Africa, that was mostly being done by Africans to other Africans, many of them Muslims.

The hell they didn't.. Slavery and Jim Crow laws were both justified using Christianity. Slavery's moral justification was was "Providence," "the curse against Canaan," "the Creator," "and Christianization."

 

[Boxlicker101]

Do you actually need people to dig up people using the Bible to defend those things? Are you really that ignorant of history? As for Democrats who gives a shit?

Yes, what is happening in Africa is being done by Afircans many of them Muslims. I fail to see your point. Ever hear of this place called Europe? World War 1, World War 2, 100 Years War? And that's just off the top of my head really that place used to erupt roughly every twenty years or so like goddamn clock work until dirty liberals said we should talk about our feelings and now nearly 70 years of more or less peace.

I didn't dig up anything. I just cited what someone else had dug up and pointed out this other person's fallacies. And the references I made to Africa were in the past tense because that's how they were stated in the post I cited.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101

If you carefully read the direct quotes, you will see nothing whatsoever about Jesus of Nazareth or the New Testament or Christianity or anything else you claim is there. The indirect quotes are just your opinion of what was said and mean nothing.

This is not to defend slavery or Jin Crow laws, all of which were supported by Democrats, but it is to point out those abominations had nothing to do with any religion.

The hell they didn't.. Slavery and Jim Crow laws were both justified using Christianity. Slavery's moral justification was was "Providence," "the curse against Canaan," "the Creator," "and Christianization."

I must admit I have not read everything written on the subject but I did read what you posted. You cited "the curse against Canaan," which is described in Genesis and Providence, which is another way of saying Heaven and "The Creator," which is another way of saying God - or Allah or Jehovah or The Great Spirit or The Man Upstairs or other names. Everything you cited refers to a period long before the Christian Era.

You referred to Christianity but this was just your opinion or interpretation. However, I will make you an offer. If you can find any biblical reference in which the Nazarene speaks or writes favorably about slavery, I will concede you are right.

 

[Sean Renaud]

First, a verse by the Narzarene should be utterly unnecessary, unless you are going to hold Christians to the same standard on gay marriage. Which he also never to my knowledge speaks of. Or on abortion which isn't to my knowledge mentioned at all in the Bible which I've read several times cover to cover. Though to be honest it gets flowery at times and perhaps one of those verses about women and blood was about abortion and I just never put together that the leaves of the such and such tree before bleeding meant X.

Second what's that got to do with using your religion to justify an act?

 

[cjh]

kingofAssTards, can't accept the fact that muslims and islamic nutjobs make for a very weak military. hell, the girl scouts could take over 1/2 of their "land"

seanR would get his ass kick by a girl in the Brownies

That's why Russia rolled right over Afghanistan.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

That's why Russia rolled right over Afghanistan.

at that time, Russia forgot how to fight.

 

[Sean Renaud]

kingofAssTards, can't accept the fact that muslims and islamic nutjobs make for a very weak military. hell, the girl scouts could take over 1/2 of their "land"

seanR would get his ass kick by a girl in the Brownies

Bitch I eat brownies!