Is the Christian ethic militaristic?  Bertrand Russell in "Why I Am Not A Christian and other essays" said [A]s the Mohammedans first proved, belief in Paradise has considerable military value as reinforcing natural pugnacity.  We should therefore admit that militarists are wise in encouraging the belief in immortality."  Would we still be in so many wars if we were not a largely Christian nation?

Views: 877

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

We are the biggest terrorists? Maybe you should move to Saudi Arabia and enjoy your brethren there. Until then, get your head out of your ass and understand that we have freedoms in which people are killed all around the world for simply being a certain religion, race, sexual orientation, creed, or holding certain beliefs. We in the west are a force for good, freedom, and democracy all over the world. We demonstrated our values by standing with the Libyan people in a conflict which had no direct benefit to the United States.
You have demonstrated time and again that you are unable to have civil discourse with people. You are personally an example of what is wrong with our civilisation. This is the last time I ever bother responding to you.
Of course not. Christians, and Catholics especially live to be hypocritical.  They preach about peace but practice war.  They preach about love but encourage hate.  More and more atheists in the military is a good thing because they are logical and take responsibility for their actions, instead of "putting it in God's hands".  Do Christians actually think that praying to "God" will have any affect on their well being?  Personally, I've never heard of someone dying and coming back to tell us if all that praying was worth it.

i find it interesting that our entry into wwII wasnt presented as a war against facism at the time.  also interesting that facism is government and big business in kahoots. and that sounds strangely familiar.

if there were no relinions, wud we have no war? i dont think so. i think we'd have much more peace, but humans seem to like to fight

i thot terror was the indiscriminate killing of people. of you accept that definition, what country or group has lkilled the most people? say in the last ten years? if you want to use civilians, a word which bush and his friends have disemboweled, fine. whatever the word you choose is, my country,the land of freedom, equality, and justice, the USA has killed more people or civilians then any other, BY FAR!

Ergo, yes, we are the biggest terrorists

You are a self-hating masochist. We have assisted in the liberation of three nations now and provided hope for millions of people. Hopefully Syria and Iran to soon be followed. We have freed nations of tyrants, oppressors, and terrorists. We have provided in their rebuilding and continue to do so. America is a beacon for hope, democracy, and freedom to those who are oppressed worldwide. It is no surprise that Iranians inside of Iran are pro-American and that President Bush is quite a popular figure inside of Iran.

To add: only those naive individuals who have never lived under oppression and tyranny can spit in the face of what our nation stands for and call us "terrorists". That is because you have no idea what terror and oppression is. You should pack your bags and move to an Islamic country of your choice and enjoy your life there until you have a little bit of appreciation for our troops, our nation, and our values.

ha ha ha ha ha,very funny ha ha
more comedy!!!
seriously, you want me to document our bombing of iraq??  anti-american,  ha ha ha.  no, since i am a citizen of the US, remember by the people, for the people, of the people, i have a duty to express my thots on the actions of my country. i do not feel any obligation at all to convince you or anyone else that i am right, thus i will not give you any links. try google "iraq war" or watever. our terror there was further dsocumented in al gharib prison, and recently by the video showing our helicopter pilots killing innocent civilians.

Our liberation of Iraq has resulted in a future Iraqi's can decide by themselves without Saddam's henchmen. In addition, sanctions have now been lifted. Saddam himself was killing millions of Iraqis so with all the total numbers of people who have died due to conflict and the sheer number of people who would have perished under Saddam's rule due to murder, genocide, fraud with the oil-for-food program, sanctions, etc etc, less people have died as a result of conflict and now they can decide their own future. Indeed, the majority of the Iraqi people are grateful for our assistance (although not enough since they are still Arabic Muslims); hence, although Iraq and the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein - I think liberating Iran first would have been more wise as the Iranian people are pro-American, pro-west, and non-religious.

I would be slightly more impressed with the abundance of "LOOK AT THE USA COURAGEOUSLY LIBERATING COUNTRIES AROUND THE GLOBE" slogans if there was actual evidence that that was going on.


The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that the US invasion of Iraq was done for the good of the Iraqi people, and abundant evidence that the primary motivation was a concern for Saddam's oil weapon and American geo-political interests (which is why the invasion happened in 2003 and not any sooner, and why planners from the Energy taskforce were involved in planning the war).


So pan the liberation rhetoric.

There are multiple reasons to everything - and at the end of the day - free and democratic societies don't resort to terrorism or fight wars with other democracies. The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein - although, I feel that the liberation of Iran would have been easier and the Islamic Republic was an even graver threat than Saddam and would have been much much easier and quick.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service