i always saw and will see all acts of proseletysation as acts of intolerance for another's beliefs. i like red shirts, so i am going to make sure the next guy also takes to red shirts, chucking his blue ones for good.
You can't make anyone do anything they don't choose to do. It's called free will. If you can "make the guy take to red shirts", I'm going to have to assume he chose to do so of his own accord.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm going to have to assume he chose to do so of his own accord.
nope.
they were and still are taken advantage of. back in the days of charlemagne and his genocidal evangelism, the choice offered to the saxons was to convert or die. they converted "on their own accord". same story during witch burning, inquisition and latin american (and also most new world countries) mass conversions of the natives by the sword. same in phillipines.
today the situation is somewhat different. they dont convert by the stick, they convert by the carrot. they zero in on the underpriviledged people in the society and offer them medicine, schooling, clothes etc in exchange of conversion. they zero in on people who are numerically disadvantaged - for ex - the last few natives remaining in australia, usa, canada etc. their kids are made to grow up with white christian parents (in australia), offered jobs and a ticket to a decent life in exchange of conversion etc. during the tsunami dozens of missionaries were kicked out cos they offered aid in exchange of conversion. thats just inhuman. to zero in on people who have lost everything else in their lives and offer to help them if they forego the last thing they have left - their cultural-religious identity. how would you like it if you were hanging from a ledge (or living in a cardboard house on the street) and someone offered to help you, on condition you turn shinto.
missionaries have done irreparable damage to the social and religious and cultural heritage of the earth. they are social criminals identically, witches like mother teresa included. back in colonial days, they were pretty much the "brains" behind most genocides. today they have switched to social genocide instead.
i have no time or compassion to such narrow minded people like missionaries, surely the greatest bunch of liars ever walked the earth and one of the causes of history's greatest carnage - the killing out of the natives of the "new world" (done in the name of variously "manifest destiny", "white man's burden", "harvesting the soul" and other canards).
i am amazed that you of all people dont disagree with something as intolerant as proselytisation and cant see through the veil and canards of the missies.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
my point was not that the bible (or any scripture) said "go kill people who aren't your faith" but people choose religion to back up what they do!
Look at the fucking crusades if you want a perfect example.
I can't even believe you'd fucking argue that people kill in the name of their god, that's not even the issue we're debating here, really. Maybe that the violence is caused by lots of other things but very often led by the "killing in the name of" mentality for reasons we've been talking about..
Seriously, chill out you quack, you can talk about the bad sides of religion without attack anyone's beliefs.
Testy? Take a prozac and address my points. I didn't say people havn't killed and claimed it to be "in God's name". I said religion doesn't cause the evils of which you speak. I suggested its fucking stupid to say it does. It is. What is so hard to understand? Until you can show me ONE core teaching of ANY religion that encourages, justifies, or in anyway condones random acts of evil and ruthless killing, I will not accept your statement that religion has CAUSED evil. I could brutally slaughter thousands of people on their way into a Toby Keith concert and claim to be killing in the name of Pearl Jam. By your standards you would have to say that Pearl Jam caused me to kill those thousands. That would, of course be a stupid fucking thing to say. Why don't you, instead of calling me a quack, address the points? Heck I welcome ANYONE to address my points. Since making them this thread has gone on for pages and noone has. It makes me laugh.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
they were and still are taken advantage of. back in the days of charlemagne and his genocidal evangelism, the choice offered to the saxons was to convert or die. they converted "on their own accord". same story during witch burning, inquisition and latin american (and also most new world countries) mass conversions of the natives by the sword. same in phillipines.
today the situation is somewhat different. they dont convert by the stick, they convert by the carrot. they zero in on the underpriviledged people in the society and offer them medicine, schooling, clothes etc in exchange of conversion. they zero in on people who are numerically disadvantaged - for ex - the last few natives remaining in australia, usa, canada etc. their kids are made to grow up with white christian parents (in australia), offered jobs and a ticket to a decent life in exchange of conversion etc. during the tsunami dozens of missionaries were kicked out cos they offered aid in exchange of conversion. thats just inhuman. to zero in on people who have lost everything else in their lives and offer to help them if they forego the last thing they have left - their cultural-religious identity. how would you like it if you were hanging from a ledge (or living in a cardboard house on the street) and someone offered to help you, on condition you turn shinto.
missionaries have done irreparable damage to the social and religious and cultural heritage of the earth. they are social criminals identically, witches like mother teresa included. back in colonial days, they were pretty much the "brains" behind most genocides. today they have switched to social genocide instead.
i have no time or compassion to such narrow minded people like missionaries, surely the greatest bunch of liars ever walked the earth and one of the causes of history's greatest carnage - the killing out of the natives of the "new world" (done in the name of variously "manifest destiny", "white man's burden", "harvesting the soul" and other canards).
i am amazed that you of all people dont disagree with something as intolerant as proselytisation and cant see through the veil and canards of the missies.
I'm talking about proselytizing. According to dictionary.com, it means:
"To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another."
It sounds like you are talking about abuse of power, killing, and control. Abuse of power is different than merely converting someone. If you recall, I earlier I pointed out that I believe there is a difference between attempting to convert someone with love and sharing your view, and with abuse of power. The problem is, we can't apply a blanket view to each person who attempts to "share" their religious views with others--those who proselytise, or missionaries, for example. It is misleading in my opinion.
It is very different to try and convince people to wear red shirts, and to abuse them, and take advantage of them in your effort to get them to wear red shirts. In the end, trying to get them to wear red shirts is not criminal/morally reprehensible--the abuse may be.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
ppl can say 'it wasn't TRUE believers...' all they want, did very many stand up to them? no one implied religion had the market cornered.
well i do believe the thread starter's initial premise was that religion has caused more death than any other human concept. so yes, while that leaves room for other reasons for killing...to me, that implies 'religion corners the market'...and i simply disagree. people have been killing people over land and borders forever....probably even longer than recorded history, and sure, definitely many have killed in the name of religion too. imho i do not believe more blood has been shed over religion than any other 'cause'...in faqct i would think taking over other lands has probably caused more bloodshed, so pure outright greed would corner the market. either way, religion or not...humans always seem to find reasons to kill each other. it's a shame, but true.
btw - i really don't know why you're quoting me and then discussing 'true believers'....? i never even discussed such. i am not a religious person, but i do not lay 'blame' for the bulk of the world's ills at the feet of religion. is it devisie? sadly so...but that is the fault of humanity and not religion...b/c somehow most of the world's religions are against killing, so i never quite understood how so many chose to kill in God's name anyway.
Since I'm obviously not as enlightened as you, please explain to me how the religion caused or made the black plague worse...
the christians thought cats were tools of satan and therefor evil...so they began killing all the cats...drowning them, throwing them off of roofs, burning them...w/ the cat population decimated it allowed the rat population to explode, which lead to the black plague.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
what christianity and islam are in the realm of religion, marxism and communism are in the realm of politics. both pairs, are means of fully controlling others lives - in one case religiously and in another politically, just cos someone/some ideology, said that thats the way a person's religious/political life and beliefs should be. and both pairs have stopped at little (or nothing) to propage their religious/political beliefs and exert their control over more people.
The same can be said for Capitalism and consumerism. Do you not think that capitalism attempts to exert control over people? Turn on the t.v and watch a few advertisements. Then take a walk and look at some billboards. Then take a walk past a few shops and see if you don't feel like buying something. Do you believe that you are immune from the political forces that surround you? Think again. You do not exist in a vacuum my friend. You may well discover that you are just as indoctrinated in your own particular way as anyone who happened, or happens to, live under communism, or who lives within the sphere of a particular religion - i.e, if you had been born in Louisiana, or in Tennesee, it would have been pretty difficult for you to have avoided the influence of the church.
the christians thought cats were tools of satan and therefor evil...so they began killing all the cats...drowning them, throwing them off of roofs, burning them...w/ the cat population decimated it allowed the rat population to explode, which lead to the black plague.
If that's true, then I have just one thing to say....Fuck me! :eek: Where did you learn that? You've got my attention now!
I would not blame religion, it's the people the fanatics that twist religion to serve their needs, Just like Communism. Comminism can work if it is actually followed. It is one man that ruins it for the rest.
Even though I know I am, I still cast no shadow.
"We'd rather challenge our fans and make them listen to our songs than give them something that's easy to digest. There is a lot of music out there that is very easy to digest but we never wanted to be part of it."
I'm talking about proselytizing. According to dictionary.com, it means:
"To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another."
It sounds like you are talking about abuse of power, killing, and control. Abuse of power is different than merely converting someone. If you recall, I earlier I pointed out that I believe there is a difference between attempting to convert someone with love and sharing your view, and with abuse of power. The problem is, we can't apply a blanket view to each person who attempts to "share" their religious views with others--those who proselytise, or missionaries, for example. It is misleading in my opinion.
It is very different to try and convince people to wear red shirts, and to abuse them, and take advantage of them in your effort to get them to wear red shirts. In the end, trying to get them to wear red shirts is not criminal/morally reprehensible--the abuse may be.
right so how do you like it that the few remaining natives in canada have today no clue of their religious beliefs, cultural traditions, perhaps even their language and have taken to a faith which has nothing whats so ever to do with them. same story applies all over the new world and parts of asia. heck it even applies to europe - all the ancient european beliefs and religions have died down and today live only vicariously through christianity (eg - christmas = asatru/germanic festival of "the feast of the invincible sun", celebrated on 25th of december, cause Mitras - Mitraism was very popular in rome - was born on the 25th of december. similarly solstice = festival for germanic dawn cum fertility godess Eostra.)
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
right so how do you like it that the few remaining natives in canada have today no clue of their religious beliefs, cultural traditions, perhaps even their language and have taken to a faith which has nothing whats so ever to do with them. same story applies all over the new world and parts of asia. heck it even applies to europe - all the ancient european beliefs and religions have died down and today live only vicariously through christianity (eg - christmas = asatru/germanic festival of "the feast of the invincible sun", celebrated on 25th of december, cause Mitras - Mitraism was very popular in rome - was born on the 25th of december. similarly solstice = festival for germanic dawn cum fertility godess Eostra.)
The few remaining natives?? Shit, check your facts! You are talking about hundreds of thousands of Native Americans here. Contrary to popular belief, they are not a thing of the past. And they do have a clue about their religious beliefs. You are painting with too broad a brush here matey.
A priest, a Pentecostal preacher and a Rabbi would get together twice a week for coffee to talk shop.
One day, someone made the comment that preaching to people isn't really all that hard. A real challenge would be to preach to a bear.
One thing led to another and they decided to do an experiment. They would all go out into the woods, find a bear, preach to it, and attempt to convert it.
Seven days later, they're all together to discuss the experience.
Father Flannery, who has his arm in a sling, is on crutches, and has various bandages on his body and limbs, goes first. "Well," he says, "I went into the woods to find me a bear. And when I found him I began to read to him from the Catechism. Well, that bear wanted nothing to do with me and began to slap me around. So I quickly grabbed my holy water, sprinkled him and, Holy Mary Mother of God, he became as gentle a lamb. The bishop is coming out next week to give him first communion and confirmation."
Reverend Billy Bob spoke next. He was in a wheelchair, with an arm and both legs in casts, and an IV drip. In his best fire and brimstone oratory he claimed, "WELL brothers, you KNOW that we don't sprinkle! I went out and I FOUND me a bear. And then I began to read to my bear from God's HOLY WORD! But that bear wanted nothing to do with me. So I took HOLD of him and we began to wrestle. We wrestled down one hill, UP another and DOWN another until we came to a creek. So I quick DUNKED him and BAPTIZED his hairy soul. And just like you said, he became as gentle as a lamb. We spent the rest of the day praising Jesus."
They both looked down at Rabbi Goldberg, who was lying in a hospital bed. He was in a body cast and traction with IV's and monitors running in and out of him. He was in bad shape. The rabbi looks up and says, "Looking back on it, circumcision may not have been the best way to start."
I'm talking about proselytizing. According to dictionary.com, it means:
"To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another."
but i'll admit, that its not proselitysing, but the ways and means adopted to go about proselytising thats objectionable.
but wait, i'll change that - even proselytising is very objectionable.
firstly cos the end result it achieves - of sheer social-cultural-religious genocicde. its not possible to convert a hopi indian (assuming there are any left, thanks to the missionary planned "manifest destiny" crap) to christianity, without the number of people who still keep the flame of hopi indian religion and culture alive, by going down by one.
secondly, cos its intolerant in its very premise. that i am of religion "A"- of ofcourse all the people not of religion "A" are missing out (since mine if the real thing - how very respectful of other's religions) and need to be told and explained how religion "A" is great and their religion sucks.
thirdly, it (proselytisation) reduces religion to a commodity, with missionaries going all around the world hardselling their "product", often with marketing strategies rivalling that of cunsumer goods. (eg - buy a nike shoe, get durex condoms free - become christian get schooling free).
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Is it religion that has caused it or mankind distortion of religion?
its not religion or mankind's distortion of religion.
its mankind's decision to shove their religion or even a distorted version of their religion, down other's throats and the fact that to that end (the end of proselytising/conversion) they stop at very little - crusades, inquisitions, genocides, witch burning, taking advantage of the poor, hogwash, cunning et al. the best of both the stick and the carrot approaches.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
The same can be said for Capitalism and consumerism. Do you not think that capitalism attempts to exert control over people? Turn on the t.v and watch a few advertisements. Then take a walk and look at some billboards. Then take a walk past a few shops and see if you don't feel like buying something. Do you believe that you are immune from the political forces that surround you? Think again. You do not exist in a vacuum my friend. You may well discover that you are just as indoctrinated in your own particular way as anyone who happened, or happens to, live under communism, or who lives within the sphere of a particular religion - i.e, if you had been born in Louisiana, or in Tennesee, it would have been pretty difficult for you to have avoided the influence of the church.
yes capitalism too. and feminism.
and they all stem from the same source, and are caused by the same human trait.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
I would not blame religion, it's the people the fanatics that twist religion to serve their needs, Just like Communism. Comminism can work if it is actually followed. It is one man that ruins it for the rest.
notice it dont happen with other religions barring christianity and islam - the two religions that have the controlling of other's religious beliefs at the centre of their system. same with communism - no other political ideology has caused as much damage (wars, deaths) as communism - cos communism has the controlling of other people's political beliefs at the centre of their ideology.
basically whether in the realm of religion or politics (2 of the biggest forces/factors in the lives of humans), the problem is caused by dictatorial attampts - ie. the attempt of one man (eg- muhammed, marx) or one body of people (church, cpsu - communist party of soviet union) to control others and to dictate to others how they should live their religious/political lives.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
The few remaining natives?? Shit, check your facts! You are talking about hundreds of thousands of Native Americans here. Contrary to popular belief, they are not a thing of the past. And they do have a clue about their religious beliefs. You are painting with too broad a brush here matey.
are u saddened that they still exist in their thousands??
i am saddened that they dont exist in their millions like they used to.
and as for their beliefs/culture being alive - bollocks. their languages are dead, their culture is dead, their mythology is dead (surving only in history books), their religion is dead.
the examples you are citing are the exeptions that prove the law.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
are u saddened that they still exist in their thousands??
i am saddened that they dont exist in their millions like they used to.
and as for their beliefs/culture being alive - bollocks. their languages are dead, their culture is dead, their mythology is dead (surving only in history books), their religion is dead.
the examples you are citing are the exeptions that prove the law.
Current status
There are 563 Federally recognized tribal governments in the United States. The United States recognizes the right of these tribes to self-government and supports their tribal sovereignty and self-determination. These tribes possess the right to form their own government, to enforce laws (both civil and criminal), to tax, to establish membership, to license and regulate activities, to zone and to exclude persons from tribal territories. Limitations on tribal powers of self-government include the same limitations applicable to states; for example, neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or coin money. [9]
According to 2003 United States Census Bureau estimates, a little over one third of the 2,786,652 Native Americans in the United States live in three states: California at 413,382, Arizona at 294,137 and Oklahoma at 279,559 [10].
As of 2000, the largest tribes in the U.S. by population were Cherokee, Navajo, Choctaw, Sioux, Chippewa, Apache, Lumbee, Blackfeet, Iroquois, and Pueblo. In 2000 eight of ten Americans with Native American ancestry were of mixed blood. It is estimated that by 2100 that figure will rise to nine of ten. [11] In addition, there are a number of tribes that are recognized by individual states, but not by the federal government. The rights and benefits associated with state recognition vary from state to state.
Then there are Tribal Nations that have been denied recognition such as the Muwekma Ohlone[4] and the Miami tribe of Indiana. Many of the smaller eastern tribes have been trying to gain official recognition of their tribal status. The recognition confers some benefits, including the right to label arts and crafts as Native American and they can apply for grants that are specifically reserved for Native Americans. But gaining recognition as a tribe is extremely difficult because of a Catch-22 in the process. To be established as a tribal group, members have to submit extensive genealogical proof of tribal descent, yet in past years many Native Americans denied their Native American heritage, because it would have deprived them of many rights, such as the right of probate.
Military defeat, cultural pressure, confinement on reservations, forced cultural assimilation, outlawing of native languages and culture, termination policies of the 1950s and 1960s and earlier, as well as slavery have had deleterious effects on Native Americans' mental and physical health. Contemporary health problems include poverty, alcoholism, heart disease, diabetes, and New World Syndrome.
As recently as the 1970s, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was still actively pursuing a policy of "assimilation" [12], dating at least to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The goal of assimilation — plainly stated early on — was to eliminate the reservations and steer Native Americans into mainstream U.S. culture. In July 2000 the Washington state GOP [13] adopted a resolution of "termination" for tribal governments. As of 2004, there are still claims of theft of Native American land for the coal and uranium it contains. [14] [15] [16]
In the state of Virginia, Native Americans face a unique problem. Virginia has no federally recognized tribes, largely due to Walter Ashby Plecker. In 1912, Plecker became the first registrar of the state's Bureau of Vital Statistics, serving until 1946. Plecker believed that the state's Native Americans had been "mongrelized" with its African American population. A law passed by the state's General Assembly recognized only two races, "white" and "colored". Plecker pressured local governments into reclassifying all Native Americans in the state as "colored", leading to the destruction of records on the state's Native American community.
This Census Bureau map depicts the locations of Native Americans in the United States as of 2000.In order to receive federal recognition and the benefits it confers, tribes must prove their continuous existence since 1900. The federal government has so far refused to bend on this bureaucratic requirement. [17] A bill currently before U.S. Congress to ease this requirement has been favorably reported out of a key Senate committee, being supported by both of Virginia's senators, George Allen and John Warner, but faces opposition in the House from Representative Virgil Goode, who has expressed concerns that federal recognition could open the door to gambling in the state. [18].
In the early 21st century, Native American communities remain an enduring fixture on the United States landscape, in the American economy, and in the lives of Native Americans. Communities have consistently formed governments that administer services like firefighting, natural resource management, and law enforcement. Most Native American communities have established court systems to adjudicate matters related to local ordinances, and most also look to various forms of moral and social authority vested in traditional affiliations within the community. To address the housing needs of Native Americans, Congress passed the Native American Housing and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA) in 1996. This legislation replaced public housing, and other 1937 Housing Act programs directed towards Indian Housing Authorities, with a block grant program directed towards Tribes.
Gambling has become a leading industry. Casinos operated by many Native American governments in the United States are creating a stream of gambling revenue that some communities are beginning to use as leverage to build diversified economies. Native American communities have waged and prevailed in legal battles to assure recognition of rights to self-determination and to use of natural resources. Some of those rights, known as treaty rights are enumerated in early treaties signed with the young United States government. Tribal sovereignty has become a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, and at least on the surface, in national legislative policies. Although many Native American tribes have casinos, they are a source of conflict. Most tribes, especially small ones such as the Winnemem Wintu of Redding, California, feel that casinos and their proceeds destroy culture from the inside out. These tribes refuse to participate in the gaming industry.
The Massachusetts legislature repealed a disused 330-year-old law that barred Native Americans from entering Boston on May 19, 2005.
In August 2005, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) banned the use of "hostile and abusive" Native American mascots from postseason tournaments [19]. The use of Native American themed team names in U.S. professional sports is widespread and often controversial, with examples such as Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians and the Washington Redskins.
Military defeat, cultural pressure, confinement on reservations, forced cultural assimilation, outlawing of native languages and culture, termination policies of the 1950s and 1960s and earlier, as well as slavery have had deleterious effects on Native Americans' mental and physical health. Contemporary health problems include poverty, alcoholism, heart disease, diabetes, and New World Syndrome.
As recently as the 1970s, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was still actively pursuing a policy of "assimilation" [12], dating at least to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The goal of assimilation — plainly stated early on — was to eliminate the reservations and steer Native Americans into mainstream U.S. culture. In July 2000 the Washington state GOP [13] adopted a resolution of "termination" for tribal governments. As of 2004, there are still claims of theft of Native American land for the coal and uranium it contains. [14] [15] [16]
i rest my case. sometimes i wonder if usa deserves all the 9/11's it gets.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
i rest my case. sometimes i wonder if usa deserves all the 9/11's it gets.
O.k, but as far as assuming that "...their languages are dead, their culture is dead, their mythology is dead (surving only in history books), their religion is dead." That is bollocks. In fact, not only is it bollocks, but it is blatant ignorance, bordering on racism.
Out of curiosity, do you know if your above views about the native Americans are common among most Americans? I'd be interested to know. I find it quite alarming that someone can harbour such opinions. And in case you're at all interested in the facts, then a good place to start, unless any of those web addresses I pasted above took your fancy, is Peter Matthiessen's book 'In the Spirit of Crazy Horse' which details the plight of Leonard Peltier and the American Indian movement. This is not history. This is the present.
Your obviously quite angry about a lot of things. Unfortunately, your not always right about a lot of things either. Sorry if this post sounds offensive to you. Some things tend to rub my fur the wrong way. Your comments in bold above fall into that category.
right so how do you like it that the few remaining natives in canada have today no clue of their religious beliefs, cultural traditions, perhaps even their language and have taken to a faith which has nothing whats so ever to do with them.
Are you asking me how I like what they were born into? I was born into a family with mental illness. I developed numerous serious mental illnesses. I had to make my own choices, given the circumstances of my life. Like anyone else, the native person or myself, or you for that matter, we have our life circumstances, and we have our choices on what to do with our lives.
To say a native person has taken to a faith which has nothing what so ever to do with them is a view that ignores key information. Most importantly: if a person practises a religion and chooses to continue that day in and out, I think it is a form a blindness that causes one on the outside to not notice that as a free choice in each moment. Do you assume such individuals have been rendered mindless and cannot choose with the same dignity that you make your choices with?
I have compassion for people who are highly challenged, or challenged, period. I have compassion for people who have been marginalised, or peoples who have been historically taken advantage of. I support humans in making positive, life affirming choices in their lives. And I believe in comforting them if they feel pain. I don't feel I know nearly enough about life and all it's inner workings or about the philosophical purposes to why each person experiences what they do, in order to be able to judge whether someone's life is "right" or "wrong" or "evil".
Due to my experiences as "the mentally ill", I also have compassion for those who are stigmatised--such as native people or even missionaries. I know that personal human experience is one thing. I also know that how others on the outside look at the situation, especially when it's with eyes that see one as "the victim" or lacking in base human dignity--this is about stigmatising and it's about the person judging, not about the Truth of the situation.
Human abuse remains human abuse. If you want to see all missionaries as evil, you will. If you want to see people as victims you will. I personally prefer to see realistically. All people have good qualities and bad qualities. Some people have a false sense of power. Others have a false sense of not having power. Others are balanced and see themselves and others on an even playing field.
Again, it is human arrogance that leads one to believe that they have a good life, but that also assumes that a native Canadian lives a "bad" life--and that the native Canadian does not have the basic ability to choose their very own personal religious beliefs or philosophies in each moment. It is human arrogance that leads a person to believe their religion is right to the point that they will entitle themselves to use control and abuse, it is not the act of proselytising or religion itself.
same story applies all over the new world and parts of asia. heck it even applies to europe - all the ancient european beliefs and religions have died down and today live only vicariously through christianity (eg - christmas = asatru/germanic festival of "the feast of the invincible sun", celebrated on 25th of december, cause Mitras - Mitraism was very popular in rome - was born on the 25th of december. similarly solstice = festival for germanic dawn cum fertility godess Eostra.)
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Some things tend to rub my fur the wrong way. Your comments in bold above fall into that category.
I agree that to assume "...their languages are dead, their culture is dead, their mythology is dead (surving only in history books), their religion is dead." is to indulge one's own ideas, rather than to see with an even eye. I know numerous people who have studied native culture. I consider myself a shaman of sorts, and I've studied native philosphies, myself. I'm not native, and if I can find the information, it's ludicrous to believe a native person is so crippled in understanding their own heritage.
IndianSummer, do you understand what message you send when you believe native people are unable to learn about their base lives and history? When you talk about how they don't choose their religions at all, do you realise you downgrade their very choices to uphold their religion of choice in each day?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I agree that to assume "...their languages are dead, their culture is dead, their mythology is dead (surving only in history books), their religion is dead." is to indulge one's own ideas, rather than to see with an even eye. I know numerous people who have studied native culture. I consider myself a shaman of sorts, and I've studied native philosphies, myself. I'm not native, and if I can find the information, it's ludicrous to believe a native person is so crippled in understanding their own heritage.
IndianSummer, do you understand what message you send when you believe native people are unable to learn about their base lives and history? When you talk about how they don't choose their religions at all, do you realise you downgrade their very choices to uphold their religion of choice in each day?
i didnt say they are unable to study their "base" lives (i hope there was no pun intended on base) and history.
i said they are almost nearly religio-culturally and linguistically extinct, and thats after being physically extinct.
and yes i maintain they dont choose christianity or any other religion over their onw - they are induced/hogwashed to do so.
and i dont indulge in my own ideas - for example a quick look at the cia fact book about most new world countries would tell you just how "thriving" native cauture, language, beliefs are.
missionaries and all other people who proselytise are evil. period. the church has been behing the deaths of more people than nazis.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
i rest my case. sometimes i wonder if usa deserves all the 9/11's it gets.
What a childish, immature and hateful thing to say. I'm sure the people who died on 9/11 didn't have very much to do with the horrible injustices committed against the people who inhabited this continent when Europe arrived here.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
What a childish, immature and hateful thing to say. I'm sure the people who died on 9/11 didn't have very much to do with the horrible injustices committed against the people who inhabited this continent when Europe arrived here.
i know i know.
but this denial of the plight of the natives and acting as if nothign happened, really pisses me off.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
and yes i maintain they dont choose christianity or any other religion over their onw - they are induced/hogwashed to do so.
Are they hogwashed in the same manner you've been hogwashed into accepting your own philosophical or religious beliefs?
i didnt say they are unable to study their "base" lives (i hope there was no pun intended on base) and history.
i said they are almost nearly religio-culturally and linguistically extinct, and thats after being physically extinct.
and i dont indulge in my own ideas - for example a quick look at the cia fact book about most new world countries would tell you just how "thriving" native cauture, language, beliefs are.
Life happens, independent of our opinions of it.
If people are not choosing specific religious beliefs and such beliefs fall into a fringe view, it is what it is.
As I said, I'm not native, and I've adopted native spiritual practises. I think the key is that humans at this time accept the outer practises of religion--the symbols and the dogma, and they overlook the inner spiritual connections with spirit, in general. Therefore the truly spiritual practises are maintained by a minority on the fringes. Again, if I can find the inner spirit ways of native practices, practise them, and connect with spirit in such a way, others could do so if they were so disposed.
missionaries and all other people who proselytise are evil. period. the church has been behing the deaths of more people than nazis.
You are passionate about your opinion. What happens is what it is, outside of how we choose to look at it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Are they hogwashed in the same manner you've been hogwashed into accepting your own philosophical or religious beliefs?
i have not been approached by missionaries. i was born into my religious and philosophical beliefs. so no hogwashing.
in contrast with the situation with native indians, who are induced to giving up their own values, culture, religion and traditions and accept whatever brand of christianity (catholic, baptist, mormon etc) the missionary shoves down his throwt, albeit with carrots not with the stick.
so no, not the same manner.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
i have not been approached by missionaries. i was born into my religious and philosophical beliefs. so no hogwashing.
When you were born as a blank slate, people told you what to believe, and you accepted it. How is that less hogwashed than others who accept what beliefs they are fed? Your family, I assume, controlled all of your survival needs. Therefore, to not accept their ideas and beliefs could equal death to a child's mind. Life and familial acceptance is a pretty massive carrot to a developing child's mind.
in contrast with the situation with native indians, who are induced to giving up their own values, culture, religion and traditions and accept whatever brand of christianity (catholic, baptist, mormon etc) the missionary shoves down his throwt, albeit with carrots not with the stick.
so no, not the same manner.
This is different than shoving ideas down an innocent baby's throat?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
You can't make anyone do anything they don't choose to do. It's called free will. If you can "make the guy take to red shirts", I'm going to have to assume he chose to do so of his own accord.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
nope.
they were and still are taken advantage of. back in the days of charlemagne and his genocidal evangelism, the choice offered to the saxons was to convert or die. they converted "on their own accord". same story during witch burning, inquisition and latin american (and also most new world countries) mass conversions of the natives by the sword. same in phillipines.
today the situation is somewhat different. they dont convert by the stick, they convert by the carrot. they zero in on the underpriviledged people in the society and offer them medicine, schooling, clothes etc in exchange of conversion. they zero in on people who are numerically disadvantaged - for ex - the last few natives remaining in australia, usa, canada etc. their kids are made to grow up with white christian parents (in australia), offered jobs and a ticket to a decent life in exchange of conversion etc. during the tsunami dozens of missionaries were kicked out cos they offered aid in exchange of conversion. thats just inhuman. to zero in on people who have lost everything else in their lives and offer to help them if they forego the last thing they have left - their cultural-religious identity. how would you like it if you were hanging from a ledge (or living in a cardboard house on the street) and someone offered to help you, on condition you turn shinto.
missionaries have done irreparable damage to the social and religious and cultural heritage of the earth. they are social criminals identically, witches like mother teresa included. back in colonial days, they were pretty much the "brains" behind most genocides. today they have switched to social genocide instead.
i have no time or compassion to such narrow minded people like missionaries, surely the greatest bunch of liars ever walked the earth and one of the causes of history's greatest carnage - the killing out of the natives of the "new world" (done in the name of variously "manifest destiny", "white man's burden", "harvesting the soul" and other canards).
i am amazed that you of all people dont disagree with something as intolerant as proselytisation and cant see through the veil and canards of the missies.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Testy? Take a prozac and address my points. I didn't say people havn't killed and claimed it to be "in God's name". I said religion doesn't cause the evils of which you speak. I suggested its fucking stupid to say it does. It is. What is so hard to understand? Until you can show me ONE core teaching of ANY religion that encourages, justifies, or in anyway condones random acts of evil and ruthless killing, I will not accept your statement that religion has CAUSED evil. I could brutally slaughter thousands of people on their way into a Toby Keith concert and claim to be killing in the name of Pearl Jam. By your standards you would have to say that Pearl Jam caused me to kill those thousands. That would, of course be a stupid fucking thing to say. Why don't you, instead of calling me a quack, address the points? Heck I welcome ANYONE to address my points. Since making them this thread has gone on for pages and noone has. It makes me laugh.
I'm talking about proselytizing. According to dictionary.com, it means:
"To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another."
It sounds like you are talking about abuse of power, killing, and control. Abuse of power is different than merely converting someone. If you recall, I earlier I pointed out that I believe there is a difference between attempting to convert someone with love and sharing your view, and with abuse of power. The problem is, we can't apply a blanket view to each person who attempts to "share" their religious views with others--those who proselytise, or missionaries, for example. It is misleading in my opinion.
It is very different to try and convince people to wear red shirts, and to abuse them, and take advantage of them in your effort to get them to wear red shirts. In the end, trying to get them to wear red shirts is not criminal/morally reprehensible--the abuse may be.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
well i do believe the thread starter's initial premise was that religion has caused more death than any other human concept. so yes, while that leaves room for other reasons for killing...to me, that implies 'religion corners the market'...and i simply disagree. people have been killing people over land and borders forever....probably even longer than recorded history, and sure, definitely many have killed in the name of religion too. imho i do not believe more blood has been shed over religion than any other 'cause'...in faqct i would think taking over other lands has probably caused more bloodshed, so pure outright greed would corner the market. either way, religion or not...humans always seem to find reasons to kill each other. it's a shame, but true.
btw - i really don't know why you're quoting me and then discussing 'true believers'....? i never even discussed such. i am not a religious person, but i do not lay 'blame' for the bulk of the world's ills at the feet of religion. is it devisie? sadly so...but that is the fault of humanity and not religion...b/c somehow most of the world's religions are against killing, so i never quite understood how so many chose to kill in God's name anyway.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
the christians thought cats were tools of satan and therefor evil...so they began killing all the cats...drowning them, throwing them off of roofs, burning them...w/ the cat population decimated it allowed the rat population to explode, which lead to the black plague.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
The same can be said for Capitalism and consumerism. Do you not think that capitalism attempts to exert control over people? Turn on the t.v and watch a few advertisements. Then take a walk and look at some billboards. Then take a walk past a few shops and see if you don't feel like buying something. Do you believe that you are immune from the political forces that surround you? Think again. You do not exist in a vacuum my friend. You may well discover that you are just as indoctrinated in your own particular way as anyone who happened, or happens to, live under communism, or who lives within the sphere of a particular religion - i.e, if you had been born in Louisiana, or in Tennesee, it would have been pretty difficult for you to have avoided the influence of the church.
If that's true, then I have just one thing to say....Fuck me! :eek: Where did you learn that? You've got my attention now!
"We'd rather challenge our fans and make them listen to our songs than give them something that's easy to digest. There is a lot of music out there that is very easy to digest but we never wanted to be part of it."
right so how do you like it that the few remaining natives in canada have today no clue of their religious beliefs, cultural traditions, perhaps even their language and have taken to a faith which has nothing whats so ever to do with them. same story applies all over the new world and parts of asia. heck it even applies to europe - all the ancient european beliefs and religions have died down and today live only vicariously through christianity (eg - christmas = asatru/germanic festival of "the feast of the invincible sun", celebrated on 25th of december, cause Mitras - Mitraism was very popular in rome - was born on the 25th of december. similarly solstice = festival for germanic dawn cum fertility godess Eostra.)
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
The few remaining natives?? Shit, check your facts! You are talking about hundreds of thousands of Native Americans here. Contrary to popular belief, they are not a thing of the past. And they do have a clue about their religious beliefs. You are painting with too broad a brush here matey.
One day, someone made the comment that preaching to people isn't really all that hard. A real challenge would be to preach to a bear.
One thing led to another and they decided to do an experiment. They would all go out into the woods, find a bear, preach to it, and attempt to convert it.
Seven days later, they're all together to discuss the experience.
Father Flannery, who has his arm in a sling, is on crutches, and has various bandages on his body and limbs, goes first. "Well," he says, "I went into the woods to find me a bear. And when I found him I began to read to him from the Catechism. Well, that bear wanted nothing to do with me and began to slap me around. So I quickly grabbed my holy water, sprinkled him and, Holy Mary Mother of God, he became as gentle a lamb. The bishop is coming out next week to give him first communion and confirmation."
Reverend Billy Bob spoke next. He was in a wheelchair, with an arm and both legs in casts, and an IV drip. In his best fire and brimstone oratory he claimed, "WELL brothers, you KNOW that we don't sprinkle! I went out and I FOUND me a bear. And then I began to read to my bear from God's HOLY WORD! But that bear wanted nothing to do with me. So I took HOLD of him and we began to wrestle. We wrestled down one hill, UP another and DOWN another until we came to a creek. So I quick DUNKED him and BAPTIZED his hairy soul. And just like you said, he became as gentle as a lamb. We spent the rest of the day praising Jesus."
They both looked down at Rabbi Goldberg, who was lying in a hospital bed. He was in a body cast and traction with IV's and monitors running in and out of him. He was in bad shape. The rabbi looks up and says, "Looking back on it, circumcision may not have been the best way to start."
but i'll admit, that its not proselitysing, but the ways and means adopted to go about proselytising thats objectionable.
but wait, i'll change that - even proselytising is very objectionable.
firstly cos the end result it achieves - of sheer social-cultural-religious genocicde. its not possible to convert a hopi indian (assuming there are any left, thanks to the missionary planned "manifest destiny" crap) to christianity, without the number of people who still keep the flame of hopi indian religion and culture alive, by going down by one.
secondly, cos its intolerant in its very premise. that i am of religion "A"- of ofcourse all the people not of religion "A" are missing out (since mine if the real thing - how very respectful of other's religions) and need to be told and explained how religion "A" is great and their religion sucks.
thirdly, it (proselytisation) reduces religion to a commodity, with missionaries going all around the world hardselling their "product", often with marketing strategies rivalling that of cunsumer goods. (eg - buy a nike shoe, get durex condoms free - become christian get schooling free).
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
its mankind's decision to shove their religion or even a distorted version of their religion, down other's throats and the fact that to that end (the end of proselytising/conversion) they stop at very little - crusades, inquisitions, genocides, witch burning, taking advantage of the poor, hogwash, cunning et al. the best of both the stick and the carrot approaches.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
and they all stem from the same source, and are caused by the same human trait.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
basically whether in the realm of religion or politics (2 of the biggest forces/factors in the lives of humans), the problem is caused by dictatorial attampts - ie. the attempt of one man (eg- muhammed, marx) or one body of people (church, cpsu - communist party of soviet union) to control others and to dictate to others how they should live their religious/political lives.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
are u saddened that they still exist in their thousands??
i am saddened that they dont exist in their millions like they used to.
and as for their beliefs/culture being alive - bollocks. their languages are dead, their culture is dead, their mythology is dead (surving only in history books), their religion is dead.
the examples you are citing are the exeptions that prove the law.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Current status
There are 563 Federally recognized tribal governments in the United States. The United States recognizes the right of these tribes to self-government and supports their tribal sovereignty and self-determination. These tribes possess the right to form their own government, to enforce laws (both civil and criminal), to tax, to establish membership, to license and regulate activities, to zone and to exclude persons from tribal territories. Limitations on tribal powers of self-government include the same limitations applicable to states; for example, neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or coin money. [9]
According to 2003 United States Census Bureau estimates, a little over one third of the 2,786,652 Native Americans in the United States live in three states: California at 413,382, Arizona at 294,137 and Oklahoma at 279,559 [10].
As of 2000, the largest tribes in the U.S. by population were Cherokee, Navajo, Choctaw, Sioux, Chippewa, Apache, Lumbee, Blackfeet, Iroquois, and Pueblo. In 2000 eight of ten Americans with Native American ancestry were of mixed blood. It is estimated that by 2100 that figure will rise to nine of ten. [11] In addition, there are a number of tribes that are recognized by individual states, but not by the federal government. The rights and benefits associated with state recognition vary from state to state.
Then there are Tribal Nations that have been denied recognition such as the Muwekma Ohlone[4] and the Miami tribe of Indiana. Many of the smaller eastern tribes have been trying to gain official recognition of their tribal status. The recognition confers some benefits, including the right to label arts and crafts as Native American and they can apply for grants that are specifically reserved for Native Americans. But gaining recognition as a tribe is extremely difficult because of a Catch-22 in the process. To be established as a tribal group, members have to submit extensive genealogical proof of tribal descent, yet in past years many Native Americans denied their Native American heritage, because it would have deprived them of many rights, such as the right of probate.
Military defeat, cultural pressure, confinement on reservations, forced cultural assimilation, outlawing of native languages and culture, termination policies of the 1950s and 1960s and earlier, as well as slavery have had deleterious effects on Native Americans' mental and physical health. Contemporary health problems include poverty, alcoholism, heart disease, diabetes, and New World Syndrome.
As recently as the 1970s, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was still actively pursuing a policy of "assimilation" [12], dating at least to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The goal of assimilation — plainly stated early on — was to eliminate the reservations and steer Native Americans into mainstream U.S. culture. In July 2000 the Washington state GOP [13] adopted a resolution of "termination" for tribal governments. As of 2004, there are still claims of theft of Native American land for the coal and uranium it contains. [14] [15] [16]
In the state of Virginia, Native Americans face a unique problem. Virginia has no federally recognized tribes, largely due to Walter Ashby Plecker. In 1912, Plecker became the first registrar of the state's Bureau of Vital Statistics, serving until 1946. Plecker believed that the state's Native Americans had been "mongrelized" with its African American population. A law passed by the state's General Assembly recognized only two races, "white" and "colored". Plecker pressured local governments into reclassifying all Native Americans in the state as "colored", leading to the destruction of records on the state's Native American community.
This Census Bureau map depicts the locations of Native Americans in the United States as of 2000.In order to receive federal recognition and the benefits it confers, tribes must prove their continuous existence since 1900. The federal government has so far refused to bend on this bureaucratic requirement. [17] A bill currently before U.S. Congress to ease this requirement has been favorably reported out of a key Senate committee, being supported by both of Virginia's senators, George Allen and John Warner, but faces opposition in the House from Representative Virgil Goode, who has expressed concerns that federal recognition could open the door to gambling in the state. [18].
In the early 21st century, Native American communities remain an enduring fixture on the United States landscape, in the American economy, and in the lives of Native Americans. Communities have consistently formed governments that administer services like firefighting, natural resource management, and law enforcement. Most Native American communities have established court systems to adjudicate matters related to local ordinances, and most also look to various forms of moral and social authority vested in traditional affiliations within the community. To address the housing needs of Native Americans, Congress passed the Native American Housing and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA) in 1996. This legislation replaced public housing, and other 1937 Housing Act programs directed towards Indian Housing Authorities, with a block grant program directed towards Tribes.
Gambling has become a leading industry. Casinos operated by many Native American governments in the United States are creating a stream of gambling revenue that some communities are beginning to use as leverage to build diversified economies. Native American communities have waged and prevailed in legal battles to assure recognition of rights to self-determination and to use of natural resources. Some of those rights, known as treaty rights are enumerated in early treaties signed with the young United States government. Tribal sovereignty has become a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, and at least on the surface, in national legislative policies. Although many Native American tribes have casinos, they are a source of conflict. Most tribes, especially small ones such as the Winnemem Wintu of Redding, California, feel that casinos and their proceeds destroy culture from the inside out. These tribes refuse to participate in the gaming industry.
The Massachusetts legislature repealed a disused 330-year-old law that barred Native Americans from entering Boston on May 19, 2005.
In August 2005, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) banned the use of "hostile and abusive" Native American mascots from postseason tournaments [19]. The use of Native American themed team names in U.S. professional sports is widespread and often controversial, with examples such as Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians and the Washington Redskins.
http://www.nativeweb.org/
http://www.dickshovel.com/AIMIntro.html
http://www.nativethreads.com/index.php
http://www.freepeltier.org/
http://www.nativespirits.com/
i rest my case. sometimes i wonder if usa deserves all the 9/11's it gets.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
O.k, but as far as assuming that "...their languages are dead, their culture is dead, their mythology is dead (surving only in history books), their religion is dead." That is bollocks. In fact, not only is it bollocks, but it is blatant ignorance, bordering on racism.
Out of curiosity, do you know if your above views about the native Americans are common among most Americans? I'd be interested to know. I find it quite alarming that someone can harbour such opinions. And in case you're at all interested in the facts, then a good place to start, unless any of those web addresses I pasted above took your fancy, is Peter Matthiessen's book 'In the Spirit of Crazy Horse' which details the plight of Leonard Peltier and the American Indian movement. This is not history. This is the present.
Your obviously quite angry about a lot of things. Unfortunately, your not always right about a lot of things either. Sorry if this post sounds offensive to you. Some things tend to rub my fur the wrong way. Your comments in bold above fall into that category.
To say a native person has taken to a faith which has nothing what so ever to do with them is a view that ignores key information. Most importantly: if a person practises a religion and chooses to continue that day in and out, I think it is a form a blindness that causes one on the outside to not notice that as a free choice in each moment. Do you assume such individuals have been rendered mindless and cannot choose with the same dignity that you make your choices with?
I have compassion for people who are highly challenged, or challenged, period. I have compassion for people who have been marginalised, or peoples who have been historically taken advantage of. I support humans in making positive, life affirming choices in their lives. And I believe in comforting them if they feel pain. I don't feel I know nearly enough about life and all it's inner workings or about the philosophical purposes to why each person experiences what they do, in order to be able to judge whether someone's life is "right" or "wrong" or "evil".
Due to my experiences as "the mentally ill", I also have compassion for those who are stigmatised--such as native people or even missionaries. I know that personal human experience is one thing. I also know that how others on the outside look at the situation, especially when it's with eyes that see one as "the victim" or lacking in base human dignity--this is about stigmatising and it's about the person judging, not about the Truth of the situation.
Human abuse remains human abuse. If you want to see all missionaries as evil, you will. If you want to see people as victims you will. I personally prefer to see realistically. All people have good qualities and bad qualities. Some people have a false sense of power. Others have a false sense of not having power. Others are balanced and see themselves and others on an even playing field.
Again, it is human arrogance that leads one to believe that they have a good life, but that also assumes that a native Canadian lives a "bad" life--and that the native Canadian does not have the basic ability to choose their very own personal religious beliefs or philosophies in each moment. It is human arrogance that leads a person to believe their religion is right to the point that they will entitle themselves to use control and abuse, it is not the act of proselytising or religion itself.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
IndianSummer, do you understand what message you send when you believe native people are unable to learn about their base lives and history? When you talk about how they don't choose their religions at all, do you realise you downgrade their very choices to uphold their religion of choice in each day?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i said they are almost nearly religio-culturally and linguistically extinct, and thats after being physically extinct.
and yes i maintain they dont choose christianity or any other religion over their onw - they are induced/hogwashed to do so.
and i dont indulge in my own ideas - for example a quick look at the cia fact book about most new world countries would tell you just how "thriving" native cauture, language, beliefs are.
missionaries and all other people who proselytise are evil. period. the church has been behing the deaths of more people than nazis.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
What a childish, immature and hateful thing to say. I'm sure the people who died on 9/11 didn't have very much to do with the horrible injustices committed against the people who inhabited this continent when Europe arrived here.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
but this denial of the plight of the natives and acting as if nothign happened, really pisses me off.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Life happens, independent of our opinions of it.
If people are not choosing specific religious beliefs and such beliefs fall into a fringe view, it is what it is.
As I said, I'm not native, and I've adopted native spiritual practises. I think the key is that humans at this time accept the outer practises of religion--the symbols and the dogma, and they overlook the inner spiritual connections with spirit, in general. Therefore the truly spiritual practises are maintained by a minority on the fringes. Again, if I can find the inner spirit ways of native practices, practise them, and connect with spirit in such a way, others could do so if they were so disposed.
You are passionate about your opinion. What happens is what it is, outside of how we choose to look at it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i have not been approached by missionaries. i was born into my religious and philosophical beliefs. so no hogwashing.
in contrast with the situation with native indians, who are induced to giving up their own values, culture, religion and traditions and accept whatever brand of christianity (catholic, baptist, mormon etc) the missionary shoves down his throwt, albeit with carrots not with the stick.
so no, not the same manner.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
This is different than shoving ideas down an innocent baby's throat?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!