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: 878

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

sassan you are the one who is making a claim that bush was influenced only by foreign policy in his decision to attack iraq. butterfly has shown you evidence to the contrary. if you google it you can find thousands of references to the depth of bushes belief in god. your position is not common knowledge. it is uncommon, and flies in the face of reality.

also please lets discuss idea and refrain from the silly, childish personal attacks.

Third-rate sources from members of the PLO are not credible sources. Bush's belief in god may have strengthened his resolve and as I stated, had a vague idea he was doing "god's work" by liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from oppressors and tyrants by helping those people and bringing democracy to the region; but there is absolutely no evidence that his foreign policy decisions were influenced by his faith. Again, watch the Bill Clinton videos above and see what he states in regards to Saddam Hussein. Was he too a "Crusader" influenced by "god"?

And I apologize for going over-the-top with the personal characterizations but you are anti-American and it is shameful for you calling our nation the "biggest terrorist". That says a lot about you and your values (or lack of).

man, bush expressed his profound and deep belief  many many times. further, he claimed to have a direct connection to god and that god directed his every action.  google it!!!!

once again, you call me anti -american.this is, as i have told you, an impossibility. i am an american. adding anti or pro to this word makes it meaningless.  i am against or for many policies of my government directly because i am an american. if i was not an american i wud not feel any responsibility for the actions of the US government. it is my duty, as an american, to express myself and let my opinions be known. this is known as patriotism.

on the other side, the side of agreeing with whatever policy your government follows, what do we find in the world? there are many governments, as you yourself have expressed, in which everyone agrees with their government. one such government was iraq under saddam hussein.

when i say we are the biggest terrorist, i'm right, we are. this is a fact. terror is the use of indiscriminate force. we, my country is, in recent years, the biggest user of indiscriminate force. i, directly because i am an american, am bound by my duty to my constitution to speak out against these actions by my government. how can this be "shameful". america is not a dictatorship because of me and other americans who have, thruout our history, expressed opinions that some did not like. remember the oft-repeated quote "i may disagree with what you say, but i will die to defend your right to say it"

please forgive me for thinking you meant what you said when you said "pres bush was a secular president who made his decisions based on foreign policy, not religion"  for ypur information, the main reason pres clinton didnt use troops against iraq or afganistan was the loud shouts from the republican party that  "we are not the worlds police force". it was all he cud do to bomb the serbs into compliance with the UN.  butterfly is right about oil being a big reason for us attacking iraq.  but the neocons were in power uder bush and they knew that they would be able to funnel money in vast quantities to their friends in halliburton and carlisle etc, in a war, which has caused our near national bankruptcy.  of course saddam was a murdering dictator, but so are many of our friends, like the suadi kings and the emirs in the emerites, not to mention the terribly repressive african dictators.

i remain happy we haven't attacked iran and i hope we never do. the thing is my country the US is not good at building other nations, we seem to have developed an idea that all of our national quirks are necessary for democracy, and lost our principles. if the iranian people decide they want a more representative, secular government they will have my support, but i'm afraid it has to be the iranian people who will have to do it, not us

Fortunately, you don't make decisions. :) I am confident that NATO and the international community will step up to the plate in approximately 2-years when Iranians riser up once again during their next round of fake elections. These are bloody religious madmen who will kill every last Iranian to keep power and we need international assistance. I predict that now NATO will be freed up, Syria will be liberated with 4-6 months and Iran in 2-2.5 years. :) I was right on the mark with Libya :)
but i do make decisions. where do you get these prophesys from.  what do you mean by "now NATO will be freed up", i thot the NATO nations were free.  you say "we need international assistance", are you iranian? i'm afraid your chances of involving the US in a war of "liberation" in iran are slim, and getting slimmer every day. it seems we dont have the money.
NATO is freed up from the Libyan mission. I predict next will be Syria to be liberated as Syrians are being massacred and the Syrian people desperately need/want NATO's help - followed by Iran in approx. 2-years during their next round of fake elections when the people rise up once again. It is not slim - it is going to happen. It is an international effort and I applaud Obama for that although if he acted decisively in supporting the Iranian people in 2009', regime change could have already happened. And yes, I am Iranian and I know what a grave threat this apocalyptic regime occupying my homeland is to not only the Iranian people, but the international community; particularly once/if they acquire nuclear weapons.

ok sassan so you think our country did not bomb iraq? please just google numbers of people killed in the iraq war.

to return to the topic, actually i havent seen christians granting free passes to paradise to other christians who die in our wars. so i believe i can see an difference there between the two religions

We fought a war - we did not systematically target civilians. Less overall people have died than would have died under the reign of Saddam Hussein and his cronies - in particular with Saddam committing illegal acts of fraud against the oil-for-food program and allowing hundreds of thousands of his people to perish every year (away from the thuggery, murders, and genocide he inflicted upon his people).

Forcing other people to give up their natural resources while assuring them we're bringing them freedom and lotsa other good stuff has been the American way since long before we were americans (1789).

 

If these people want the blessing of freedom,they can get it the way Washington, Adams, Jefferson, et. al. did, not by having it forced upon them by a brutal, occupying, distant bully.

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