Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (8832)	3/16/2001 10:52:03 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

obdurate disinterest E, I don't believe I have ever before seen these two words used together. I'll tell you what's not worth speculating about: what percentage of this behavior was primarily religious, and what percentage was only secondarily religious, serving as rationalization. The reason it isn't, is that it doesn't really matter to the victims; You're in good form today. Karen

To: E who wrote (8832)	3/16/2001 11:36:22 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

E, lest anyone argue that religious excess is somehow unrelated and irrelevant to political arguments, I will again note this bit from last Sunday's paper. We could hope that the people arguing for more government support of religion weren't the same people arguing "original intent" in Constitutional matters. That would be a vain hope, though, as Scalia at least fashions himself an original intent type, except not particularly on the religion issue. How did Madison acquire this understanding of rights? In large part, through his powerful commitment to freedom of conscience. For Madison, as for Thomas Jefferson, the horrific religious persecutions of the 16th and 17th centuries were the equivalent of what the history of racial slavery and discrimination has been for us: the most compelling example of the systematic denial of fundamental rights to unpopular minorities. Their radical solution to the religion problem was to recognize that every individual retains a sovereign right to accept or reject the claims of religion, entirely free of the coercive authority of the state or community. Today, efforts are repeatedly made to suggest that Madison and Jefferson were not quite the ardent advocates of separating church and state that their strongest statements on the subject suggest. In fact, the more Madison thought about the subject, the more militant his thinking grew. nytimes.com

To: E who wrote (8832)	3/16/2001 3:16:35 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I'll tell you what's not worth speculating about: what percentage of this behavior was primarily religious, and that percentage was only secondarily religious, serving as rationalization. The reason it isn't, is that it doesn't really matter to the victims; and it was allowed; and try as you might, you can't "disappear" the association by defining all the bad guys, the vast numbers of them, as not what they thought they were. The vast majority of the killing was to get gold, land, and slaves. This was greed not religious motivation. It is an important point. Religious, specifically Christian thought was the dominant philosophy of the time in Europe, any Europeans looking to justify their actions would use it. In many cases though the conquistadors didn't even bother with justification, they just did what they wanted to do. It might not matter to the victims but it does matter if you are trying to assign blame to a school of religious thought rather then to the individuals involved. Personally I place greater stress on personal responsibility. If you kill, and burn, and enslave, and destroy, you are responsible for those actions and whether you thought God told you to do it, or your king ordered you to do it, or you just did it because it made you rich. Tim