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: 879

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

More anti-American rhetoric

Funny you would say that now since it's your own little initiating little rant about anti-USA sentiment, directed at no one but your own imaginary strawman, that brought this specific country into this discussion while it had been nation neutral up until that point. You get what you ask for ;)
You might want to take a little jaunt to the library and do some reading, in such things as books, newspapers, magasines, and read up on our history since colonialism. I am not your teacher, the role of people talking to each other on forums such as these is not to take/give classes, it is to create a certain level of awareness and awaken curiosities. The leg work is yours to do, there are literally thousands of sources for you to read up on. It will take a while though, so lets say, we meet back here in 6 months or so when you've done some homework, yes?

I'm crying with laughter here. You just like talking to yourself!

I've never denounced the USA, I loved living in the USA. I am talking about colonialism, the impact of western civilisation at large. Colonialism killed off millions of First Nations peoples right here in the Americas. This is simply general knowledge, any book will do. But what your statements make abundantly clear is that you have decided that the USA is the nicest nation in the world, and nothing at this point would change your mind. So I'm giving you time, time may be your only ally. Good luck with your future discussions.

to return to the topic, secularization wud mean less wars. i have foundthat in general secular people do not go around picking fights with people based on unfounded rumors, like we did in iraq.  if president bush and say half of his administration were secular, no i do not believe we wud have even considered attacking iraq.

 

This is where you unfortunately have no brain. President Bush was a secular President who made his foreign policy decisions based on policy, not religion. We are not the Islamic Republic with a Mullah as the head of government deciding on foreign policy matters. Please learn how to read legitimate books, become wise and mature, grow a brain, and think with rationality. Atheists are supposed to be rational, and your likes are nothing but the most irrational degenerates to exist. You are the type of self-hating masochists Christopher Hitchens consistently has spoken about.
wowq now im brainless AND anti-american and irrational degenerate, how nice
thanks butterfly
These sources quoting Bush (as the one he told the Palestinians) come from sources that are not credible. There is no direct evidence from this and I personally wouldn't trust PLO sources. Bush may have had a "vague" belief that he was doing "god's work" but he did not make his foreign policy decisions based on "god's guidance" or his "religious belief". Religion may have given him more conviction and strength; but the decisions were not ultimately based on belief.
What sources do you want? It is common knowledge. That is kind of a statement that is not falsifiable directly. There are no credible sources that President Bush made any foreign policy decisions based on religion. He wasn't a "crusader". The one policy he may have made based on his beliefs (although it is certainly possible his decision was based on pressure from the religious establishment of his party) was stem cell research. That is bad enough - but on foreign policy, we were attacked on 9/11. He didn't hide in a room and make his decision based on religious delusions.
There are multiple reasons to everything. I don't claim that there was a single reason for the invasion. But oil was not the main reason we went to war. Saddam Hussein was a regional threat and his removal is a net positive for both the Iraqi people and humanity.

The world changed after 9/11. Saddam Hussein had defied the United Nations and the international community for years. Even President Clinton had said that eventually we would have to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The international community and intelligence agencies of foreign nations believed that he had biological, chemical, and potentially nuclear material. At the end of the day, the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. At the same time - I think Iran was a bigger threat and think that it would have been a wiser decision to liberate Iran as Iranians are secular, not divided into major ethnic groups like in Iraq, and simply are not fundamentalist like the Arab Muslims. The aftermath of Iran would have been nearly bloodless. The terrorists who infiltrated Iraq from other Arabic nations would not have been able to infiltrate into Iranian society.

 

And to note: just because Bin Laden and most of the terrorists were Saudi does not mean the Saudi government was involved. The Saudi government was very much trying to get rid of Bin Laden and his Saudi network.

May I ask, have you read Lawrence Wright's, "The Looming Tower"??

Butterfly, I agree with a lot of your assessment. Unfortunately, we made mistakes in the past in regards to our policy with Iraq and other foreign policy decisions; but past mistakes are no reason to delay further action. Saying this, I have said over and over it would have been preferable to liberate Iran as the Islamic Republic is a bigger threat as they are religious madmen and are involved in the most diverse array of terrorist financing/attacks worldwide. Iran would have been much easier as well as Iranians (the populace) are not religious, pro-American, and not ethnically in conflict with each other like that in Iraq with the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds. The aftermath would not have been bloody like Iraq as Arabic Islamists would not infiltrate into Iran for 2-reasons: 1) They hate Persians and Shiites, 2) Arabs can't infiltrate into Iranian society undetected; saying this, the world is a better place without Saddam although Iran should have been the country instead and we would have pressured Saddam into most likely complying with both Iran and Afghanistan having U.S. bases and troops.

 

I will respond further to the rest of your post hopefully later tonight. I have class soon and I am just finishing up some of my studying. :)

 

BTW, oil may have been one benefit to conflict but it was by no means the decision maker for the conflict. There were a multitude of reasons involved. And, sanctions were necessary. Blame Saddam for acting fraudulently against the oil-for-food program which was designed to help the Iraqi people.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service