🚀 go-pugleaf

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> 
> In <61hp1q$23v@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> "M. Poletti"
> <polz@junoxxx.com> writes:
> 
> (edit)
> 
> >You are correct on several counts. Actually one of the main thrusts
> >behind abolition was Christian individuals and groups such as Quakers.
> >It was these individuals and groups that actively aided and
> >abetted the Underground Railroad and other facets of the struggle
> >against slavery.
> 
>             ---------
>             Those same good Quakers who helped fight against slavery
>             also fostered EQUALITY between men and women.  Looks like
>             there are good Christians and bad ones, just like what
>             you'll find in any other group of people.
>             ------------------
> >
> >After the Civil War, it was Christian missionary societies that
> >went down south to provide badly needed education for ex-slaves.
> >It was Christian groups that pressured the British government to
> >send the Anti-Slavery squadron to African waters to *suppress*
> >the slave trade- a trade that African and Arab polities (Zanzibar)
> >refused to stop.
> 
>             --------
>             I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here;  most
>             of those who created the slave-situations were
>             Christians (who comprised the predominent religion
>             at the time), and most of those who helped prevent
>             it were ALSO Christians, since that was the group
>             in power.
>             -------------------------

Yup, those good righteous decendants of the Pilgrims did ply the
molassess-rum-slave trade.  Of course they only sailed the ships - -
and not only was it the slave trade from Africa - - look at what
they did in bringing Chinesse and Japanesse to work in the
West and Hawaii.
> >
> >As for the "savages" teaching the good Christians "descent medical
> >pratices, good environmental skills," it appears that Hornschuch
> >is the one that needs to brush up on his/her history. In fact,
> >it was Christian individuals and missions that introduced modern
> >education, advanced technical skills and more advanced hygiene
> >practices in many areas, particularly Africa. The great Kenyan
> >leader Jomo Kenyatta for example was educated in one such
> >mission school.
> 
>             ------------
>             Well, it was also the Christian "white men" who gave
>             "small pox" blankets to the Indians, saying the only
>             good Indian was a dead Indian.  ...Christians, like
>             any other group come in all flavors.  As for learning
>             things, the white man always had an aversion to
>             learning anything that his own "advanced society"
>             didn't already have.  If it was foreign;  it was suspect.
>             Even today, we are learning about herbal remedies that
>             less sophisticated societies have used, that are less
>             invasive than what our doctors prescribe.  For example,
>             St. John's Wort is now being recognized as a non-harmful
>             natural anti-depressant, but it isn't likely that those
>             who wanted to claim superiority would have wanted to
>             recognize it.
>             ----------------------------------------

How many 'white' settlers died from fevers because they wouldn't
drink the willow bark tea of the natives?  But, when you synthesize
it, add marketing and but Bayer on the label - then it's okay.

> >
> >It was Christian individuals and groups that lobbied hard against
> >such "advanced" non-Christian practices as head-hunting and
> >cannibalism, and also the sutee in India, a quaint custom requiring
> >that widows should be burnt alive after their husbands died.
> 
>             --------
>             Was scalping in America started by the Indians?
>             ----------

And let us not forget the theory of driving the devil out of the
heathens even if it killed them.  Look what Cook's discovery of
the Hawaiian islands did for the people he found there.  Between
the missonaries (whose decendents made out quite well!) and the
whalers, they managed to almost kill off all of the islanders.
> >
> >As for labeling people as "savages" this hardly originated with
> >Christianity. Hornsusuch should check the arrogant ethnocentrism
> >of histrorical China which divided the peoples of the world into
> >advanced Chinese and backward barbarians- a culture pround and
> >boastful enought to conceive of their land as the Middle Kingdom-
> >the center of the earth. Then there are the those other
> >non-Christians- the Japanese- who take no back seat in
> >arrogance. Just check the hiistory of WWII.
> 
>             ----------
>             Sure; classism exists all over the world.  So is the
>             idea of caste.  In other countries we do it by name
>             and title;  in America we do it by race and gender.
>             ----------
> >
> >As for Hitler he despised Christianity as a "Jewish Fable" and
> >thought it for weaklings. The fact that he was born a Roman Catholic
> >has little relevance for the point at hand. Using this approach
> >we could say that any crime you comit is because of your religion of
> >birth. Great logic that....
> 
>         ------------
>             But, that's the very logic you used when speaking
>             of the Quakers and the those who helped the Indians.
>             How do we know whether their motivation was an accident
>             of birth, or from their Christian moral perspective?
>             It works both ways.
>         ------------------------
> 
> Chairman Mao grew up under the Buddhist
> >faith as did mass murderer Pol Pot of Cambodia. Using Hornsuch's
> >logic, the mass crimes they committed "is all due" to Buddhism.
> >But then again, since they werre both atheists, we can conclude
> >that all atheists are mass murders. Great logic....
> >
> >To repeat a phrase "history speaks for itself.."
> 
>             -----------
>             It sure does.  More wars have been fought in the name
>             of God than for any other single reason.  Even today
>             we have Arabs who won't live with Jews, and Irish
>             Catholics who don't want to share the rule with Irish
>             Protestants.  Even today we have arrogant twits stating
>             (like a bully) "my religion can beat the shit out of
>             your religion".  Now, PK wants to start a new war; it's
>             not enough to pit one religion against the other; now
>             they also want to pit men against women.  Of course,
>             there's not really much new about patriarcy, but when-
>             ever it was tried before it wasn't met with the power
>             that women possess today.  It's a new world.
> 
>                 Lefty

People have always used religion as a way to disguise their own
power grabs.  It doesn't matter where or when, those who want power
will use any tools at their power to try and subvert the will of others.


The one question I've never had answered is what type of decision could 
not be resolved in a family through discussion and comprimise?  I can
not
imagine a situation where a 'decision' must be made that can not be
discussed and agreed upon by the couple.  If one must MAKE THAT
DECISION,
then it isn't a marriage, it is master and servant - - but then, that
is precisely what many people are seeking.

Barb