Forced to be Christian

[mpjh]

OK, if you say so.

[Napoleon Ier]

You also managed to call me and respected medieval historians such as Henry Kamen racist in the process. This I found especially funny.

[mpjh]

Well, nappy, you are known for making some pretty blatantly racist statements in these fori. If the shoe fits......

[Juan_Bottom]

Well, nappy, you are known for making some pretty blatantly racist statements in these fori. If the shoe fits......

If it's a white shoe MPJH. Only if it's a white shoe.....

(Just a joke Napoleon.)

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, nappy, you are known for making some pretty blatantly racist statements in these fori. If the shoe fits......

Fora, actually.

"Forum" declines like "Bellum". 2nd declension neuter.

Now, rather than regurgitate pathetic attempts at calling people racist you got off the West Wing, how about you respond to my posts and have w serious debate, or go read some books and get cultivated.

[MeDeFe]

Well, nappy, you are known for making some pretty blatantly racist statements in these fori. If the shoe fits......

Fora, actually.

"Forum" declines like "Bellum". 2nd declension neuter.

Now, rather than regurgitate pathetic attempts at calling people racist you got off the West Wing, how about you respond to my posts and have w serious debate, or go read some books and get cultivated.

"have a serious debate", actually, the letter 'w' carries no semantic nor syntactic meaning in english.

[PLAYER57832]

To clarify, the expulsions of Jews was perfectly justifiable on the grounds that there was and is conclusive evidence that many were collaborating with Morisco violent agitators, Barbary Coast raiders, and Ottoman forces having designs on Malta as a forward base from which to attack Spain.

Was that a basis to force them to convert?

Certainly not a religious one! But sadly, politicians find it convenient to use religion... and too often religious leaders capitulate or even convince themselves they are really doing what is best in the long run. If you really and truly believe that Jews are condemned to hell... then the idea of forcing them to convert, knowing many won't really, but also knowing that many, particularly the children, WILL become true converts ... can become pallatable.

UNDERSTAND, this is why freedom of religion is so important, MUST be a FUNDAMENTAL right and not subject to any sort of question... because else, there is always the possibility of heading down this path.


AND, I would put forward that this is really what terrifies so many of us, what the real warning is from Germany. It is NOT that Germans were inherently evil. The scary part is that they were JUST LIKE US. They were not some obscur folkd in history "when times were differant/less enlightened" (as in the Middle Ages), it was not some distant land with "strange customs" and "barbarian values". Most Americans can trace ancestry to Germany, but even when not the case, Germany was an example of industrialization, science, and even (prior to WWII) tolerance. If THEY could go down that terrible path, then could not the rest of us?

So, to bring this back. Spain and the Roman Catholic Church were examples of a very differant value system, of Christianity gone horribly, horribly wrong, mixed in with a good deal of corruption, fear and various power struggles. It is something from which we should learn.

As for "what might have been". This is an impossible question. If your how many times great grandparents had not converted, chances are you would not exist today. So, from evil comes good. We cannot undo the past, only go forward.

[mpjh]

Cogent thought player, and I liked the tie-in to the Holocaust, bringing the past into the almost present.

I do agree that our separation of church and state is a precious aspect of our government for exactly the reason you gave.

Only thing I take exception to is the idea that Christianity went horribly wrong during the period of the middle ages. That is the period in which it reigned supreme. I believe exactly the same thing would happen again if our secular government were corrupted and failed to enforce the separation of church and state provision. I think civil government with checks and balances such as these is essential to protect us against religious persecution.

[FabledIntegral]

You kidding? Germany wasn't tolerant - it was filled with anti-semitic hate even before Hitler. It just wasn't at the point it peaked during WWII. The Germans originally wanted to merely exile the Jews, not kill them. But no other countries, INCLUDING the USA, would take them in, because the other countries disliked Jews as well and felt "they already had too many." Of course, if they had any idea what the Germans would have done to the Jews they obviously would have taken them in, yet they were unaware, so they merely denied any Jewish immigrants.

The world has generally hated Jews. As said - was Spain ultimately wrong in their decision? Yes, but given the context of their situation and what decisions they faced, they did it in the best interest of the country - the intentions are there and that's what counts.

[mpjh]

There is no excuse for religious based hatred. My point is that our form of government, secular, with a required separation of church and state, if the best form to avoid religions taking us back into the dark ages.

[PLAYER57832]

You kidding? Germany wasn't tolerant - it was filled with anti-semitic hate even before Hitler. It just wasn't at the point it peaked during WWII. The Germans originally wanted to merely exile the Jews, not kill them. But no other countries, INCLUDING the USA, would take them in, because the other countries disliked Jews as well and felt "they already had too many." Of course, if they had any idea what the Germans would have done to the Jews they obviously would have taken them in, yet they were unaware, so they merely denied any Jewish immigrants.

The world has generally hated Jews. As said - was Spain ultimately wrong in their decision? Yes, but given the context of their situation and what decisions they faced, they did it in the best interest of the country - the intentions are there and that's what counts.

You are correct that Germany was not a paradise pre WWII (or WWI, where it began). However, Jews were found in all strata of society. They were as accepted in Germany as anywhere.

AS for the rest... I find any apology for those actions simply horrific .. and dangerous because yes, the spector is always there. Change then names, the identities and we face the same basic battle over and over throughout human history. There are ALWAYS "good reasons" ... and yet, history tends to see the horror, not all those "good reasons"

[Napoleon Ier]

I still don't see what's wrong with expelling potential national security threats in such a tense geopolitical climate.

[mpjh]

Yes, we know you are willing to accept racist profiling and treatment of others, nappy, we have heard this from you before.

[FabledIntegral]

Yes, we know you are willing to accept racist profiling and treatment of others, nappy, we have heard this from you before.

I perfectly accept the racial profiling of Middle Easterns at airports. Depending on the context of the situations, people have to go through more hardships than others. Such is life.

I am also a minority and have been discriminated against before. Why is it necessary? Chances are - it's going to be a Middle Eastern going to hijack something before any other ethnic group. When it comes to protecting the lives of its citizens and security, freedom is always under fire and compromises need to be made depending on the situation.

[lgoasklucyl]

Yes, we know you are willing to accept racist profiling and treatment of others, nappy, we have heard this from you before.

I wonder how all these individuals stating it's a logical loophole to exile threats during unstable, tense political eras feel about the current states of Muslim individuals located in their countries. Would forcing them to be converted to another religion or expelling them from the country be a viable solution to the minute potential that they have something to do with terrorist operations?

No, I don't support this opinion. In fact, I think people who do support opinions similar to this are incompetent and need to pull their heads out of their asses. I'm simply questioning why you feel it was okay then, and not now. Or, why you're arrogant enough to think it's okay period. There may be FAR less potential for them to be involved in such operations- but they have far more powerful weapons than the expelled individuals who are the subject of debate.

[mpjh]

I think it was Ben Franklin who said:

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

I would only add that the same is true for those that would give up the essential liberty of other citizens.

[FabledIntegral]

Yes, we know you are willing to accept racist profiling and treatment of others, nappy, we have heard this from you before.

I wonder how all these individuals stating it's a logical loophole to exile threats during unstable, tense political eras feel about the current states of Muslim individuals located in their countries. Would forcing them to be converted to another religion or expelling them from the country be a viable solution to the minute potential that they have something to do with terrorist operations?

No, I don't support this opinion. In fact, I think people who do support opinions similar to this are incompetent and need to pull their heads out of their asses. I'm simply questioning why you feel it was okay then, and not now. Or, why you're arrogant enough to think it's okay period. There may be FAR less potential for them to be involved in such operations- but they have far more powerful weapons than the expelled individuals who are the subject of debate.

You don't understand the difference with how things were taken care of at the time? You're using today's morals to condemn the actions of a past situation. Are you going to say someone who took a slave back in the 1700's in America for plantations were damned people that were completely immoral as a whole? Or was it just that's how they were raised - such is how society works and has worked before. All your neighbors support the exact same thing, and the slaves are needed for your economic well-being.

Look at it from today's standards, slavery was very immoral. But in the context, it's nothing more than "what else am I supposed to do to live? That's how society works." Am I saying what the Spanish did were morally right? No. I'm saying that in the context of their situation they did it with the better intentions for the best of the country. Different morals applied to the situations then.

It's similar to Kant's philosophy - morality can only be determined from one's intentions. If one enjoys giving to the poor and has satisfaction from it which makes their own life better, there is no moral worth. Why? Because they did it not to help the poor, but because it makes them feel good about themselves. Only giving to the poor and NOT wanting to do it has moral worth, because it shows that you did the right thing even though it wasn't going to help you in any way. That's just a nutshell of however many damn scripts he wrote.

[FabledIntegral]

I think it was Ben Franklin who said:

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

I would only add that the same is true for those that would give up the essential liberty of other citizens.

And I highly disagree with this man - security is essential for wellbeing. If you were told that free speech would be denied for a single day but had a 95% chance of avoiding the death of 5 million innocents in a nuclear explosion, would you do it? I would - such is common sense to me. Security and freedom/rights/liberties are on the opposite spectrums. Such balance and compromise is necessary. What do you feel of the draft when the country needs to fight? There are tons of things the country does for security reasons that compromise freedom. A proper balance is necessary.

[lgoasklucyl]

Yes, we know you are willing to accept racist profiling and treatment of others, nappy, we have heard this from you before.

I wonder how all these individuals stating it's a logical loophole to exile threats during unstable, tense political eras feel about the current states of Muslim individuals located in their countries. Would forcing them to be converted to another religion or expelling them from the country be a viable solution to the minute potential that they have something to do with terrorist operations?

No, I don't support this opinion. In fact, I think people who do support opinions similar to this are incompetent and need to pull their heads out of their asses. I'm simply questioning why you feel it was okay then, and not now. Or, why you're arrogant enough to think it's okay period. There may be FAR less potential for them to be involved in such operations- but they have far more powerful weapons than the expelled individuals who are the subject of debate.

You don't understand the difference with how things were taken care of at the time? You're using today's morals to condemn the actions of a past situation. Are you going to say someone who took a slave back in the 1700's in America for plantations were damned people that were completely immoral as a whole? Or was it just that's how they were raised - such is how society works and has worked before. All your neighbors support the exact same thing, and the slaves are needed for your economic well-being.

Look at it from today's standards, slavery was very immoral. But in the context, it's nothing more than "what else am I supposed to do to live? That's how society works." Am I saying what the Spanish did were morally right? No. I'm saying that in the context of their situation they did it with the better intentions for the best of the country. Different morals applied to the situations then.

It's similar to Kant's philosophy - morality can only be determined from one's intentions. If one enjoys giving to the poor and has satisfaction from it which makes their own life better, there is no moral worth. Why? Because they did it not to help the poor, but because it makes them feel good about themselves. Only giving to the poor and NOT wanting to do it has moral worth, because it shows that you did the right thing even though it wasn't going to help you in any way. That's just a nutshell of however many damn scripts he wrote.

I agree with what you're saying, and must note props on the Kant, one of my top three philosophers

If a large number of individuals in the United States (ie: soon after 9/11) felt that expelling Muslim individuals was right (let's just assume hypothetically it was a majority) would that make it morally right? Simply because it was what a good proportion of society felt they should do, though it was simply an ignorant statement made out of fear?

I just like to think that there's better ways of handling things than profiling, exiling, exterminating, etc...

Call me an optimist if you'd like

[mpjh]

Yes, we know you are willing to accept racist profiling and treatment of others, nappy, we have heard this from you before.

I wonder how all these individuals stating it's a logical loophole to exile threats during unstable, tense political eras feel about the current states of Muslim individuals located in their countries. Would forcing them to be converted to another religion or expelling them from the country be a viable solution to the minute potential that they have something to do with terrorist operations?

No, I don't support this opinion. In fact, I think people who do support opinions similar to this are incompetent and need to pull their heads out of their asses. I'm simply questioning why you feel it was okay then, and not now. Or, why you're arrogant enough to think it's okay period. There may be FAR less potential for them to be involved in such operations- but they have far more powerful weapons than the expelled individuals who are the subject of debate.

You don't understand the difference with how things were taken care of at the time? You're using today's morals to condemn the actions of a past situation. Are you going to say someone who took a slave back in the 1700's in America for plantations were damned people that were completely immoral as a whole? Or was it just that's how they were raised - such is how society works and has worked before. All your neighbors support the exact same thing, and the slaves are needed for your economic well-being.

Look at it from today's standards, slavery was very immoral. But in the context, it's nothing more than "what else am I supposed to do to live? That's how society works." Am I saying what the Spanish did were morally right? No. I'm saying that in the context of their situation they did it with the better intentions for the best of the country. Different morals applied to the situations then.

It's similar to Kant's philosophy - morality can only be determined from one's intentions. If one enjoys giving to the poor and has satisfaction from it which makes their own life better, there is no moral worth. Why? Because they did it not to help the poor, but because it makes them feel good about themselves. Only giving to the poor and NOT wanting to do it has moral worth, because it shows that you did the right thing even though it wasn't going to help you in any way. That's just a nutshell of however many damn scripts he wrote.

It is not a moral question. It is a question of human dignity, and the essential freedom needed to ensure justice. There is no context that justifies removing the freedom of a people, eliminating justice, and denying them dignity in life. Excusing the past when these horrific acts occurred, can only create an excuse for similar acts today. This is why we need religion out of our civil life, because regligious leaders are capable of such cruelty when left to their own devices.

[Napoleon Ier]

I agree with what you're saying, and must note props on the Kant, one of my top three philosophers

Oh dear Lord... this is just too good. Who else is on the list, Sponge-Bob-Square-Pants™ and Elton John?

If a large number of individuals in the United States (ie: soon after 9/11) felt that expelling Muslim individuals was right (let's just assume hypothetically it was a majority) would that make it morally right? Simply because it was what a good proportion of society felt they should do, though it was simply an ignorant statement made out of fear?

Right, except 9/11 is very, very different from the Reconquista.

[FabledIntegral]

Yes, we know you are willing to accept racist profiling and treatment of others, nappy, we have heard this from you before.

I wonder how all these individuals stating it's a logical loophole to exile threats during unstable, tense political eras feel about the current states of Muslim individuals located in their countries. Would forcing them to be converted to another religion or expelling them from the country be a viable solution to the minute potential that they have something to do with terrorist operations?

No, I don't support this opinion. In fact, I think people who do support opinions similar to this are incompetent and need to pull their heads out of their asses. I'm simply questioning why you feel it was okay then, and not now. Or, why you're arrogant enough to think it's okay period. There may be FAR less potential for them to be involved in such operations- but they have far more powerful weapons than the expelled individuals who are the subject of debate.

You don't understand the difference with how things were taken care of at the time? You're using today's morals to condemn the actions of a past situation. Are you going to say someone who took a slave back in the 1700's in America for plantations were damned people that were completely immoral as a whole? Or was it just that's how they were raised - such is how society works and has worked before. All your neighbors support the exact same thing, and the slaves are needed for your economic well-being.

Look at it from today's standards, slavery was very immoral. But in the context, it's nothing more than "what else am I supposed to do to live? That's how society works." Am I saying what the Spanish did were morally right? No. I'm saying that in the context of their situation they did it with the better intentions for the best of the country. Different morals applied to the situations then.

It's similar to Kant's philosophy - morality can only be determined from one's intentions. If one enjoys giving to the poor and has satisfaction from it which makes their own life better, there is no moral worth. Why? Because they did it not to help the poor, but because it makes them feel good about themselves. Only giving to the poor and NOT wanting to do it has moral worth, because it shows that you did the right thing even though it wasn't going to help you in any way. That's just a nutshell of however many damn scripts he wrote.

I agree with what you're saying, and must note props on the Kant, one of my top three philosophers

If a large number of individuals in the United States (ie: soon after 9/11) felt that expelling Muslim individuals was right (let's just assume hypothetically it was a majority) would that make it morally right? Simply because it was what a good proportion of society felt they should do, though it was simply an ignorant statement made out of fear?

I just like to think that there's better ways of handling things than profiling, exiling, exterminating, etc...

Call me an optimist if you'd like

You're applying YOUR moral standards as if they were absolute. Morals are not necessarily universal (which is my opinion and is a whole debate in itself, with God knows how many philosophers will disagree with what I just said), but relative to the society they are in.

First let it be known, and I think it is relevant, I don't believe in God, or a moral God at least (so out goes the Christian/Muslim/Jewish/etc.). So morals are developed by humans to determine what is "right." You're asking me if I believe it would be "right" to expel all the Muslims after 9/11. Well - you're asking ME. Do I believe it's right? No - because I'm applying my own morals to the situation. Do THEY believe they are right? Well you already stated it's a premise to the question, so of course they believe they are morally right in doing it. How I view the situation is completely irrelevant to the context of their situation. They are justified in doing so because that is what they know - from my personal view of ignorance (while such people may in fact believe I am the ignorant one for believing it ISN'T right to expel them).

There is no absolute "yes it is right." It depends on who's analyzing the situation. I can say they are morally wrong, but it doesn't mean the act is morally wrong. It's simply what I garner from the situation from my own beliefs.

[lgoasklucyl]

You're applying YOUR moral standards as if they were absolute. Morals are not necessarily universal (which is my opinion and is a whole debate in itself, with God knows how many philosophers will disagree with what I just said), but relative to the society they are in.

First let it be known, and I think it is relevant, I don't believe in God, or a moral God at least (so out goes the Christian/Muslim/Jewish/etc.). So morals are developed by humans to determine what is "right." You're asking me if I believe it would be "right" to expel all the Muslims after 9/11. Well - you're asking ME. Do I believe it's right? No - because I'm applying my own morals to the situation. Do THEY believe they are right? Well you already stated it's a premise to the question, so of course they believe they are morally right in doing it. How I view the situation is completely irrelevant to the context of their situation. They are justified in doing so because that is what they know - from my personal view of ignorance (while such people may in fact believe I am the ignorant one for believing it ISN'T right to expel them).

There is no absolute "yes it is right." It depends on who's analyzing the situation. I can say they are morally wrong, but it doesn't mean the act is morally wrong. It's simply what I garner from the situation from my own beliefs.

Well I suppose we can't really make a solid statement on it then, as everyone is going to have different views of morals from every possible angle.

Do YOU personally feel that Christians were right in expelling Jews? That's where my problem was. I understand people can look back and say 'It's what they thought was best', but if it wasn't best- does that not make it wrong? It's an act instigated through ignorance. Though it seemed right at the time (like all of the other situations/hypothetical situations presented), we can look back and say it wasn't.

Obviously we can't determine moral culpability because we're all going to disagree on what morals are. I do agree with what MP had to say though, in that we can't simply say 'They were right because they thought they were right' and dismiss it at that. We need to learn from our mistakes, not pardon them.

[lgoasklucyl]

Oh dear Lord... this is just too good. Who else is on the list, Sponge-Bob-Square-Pants™ and Elton John?

Normally I wouldn't respond to your asinine comments, but congratulations on posting, taking 15 minutes, then editing your post to come up with the most half assed 'witty' response I have ever seen, even from YOU.

Comments like these are why your puerile self is on my foe list. The forum has become surprisingly more interesting and mature since I ceased to see your comments.

Grow up.

[mpjh]

Oh dear Lord... this is just too good. Who else is on the list, Sponge-Bob-Square-Pants™ and Elton John?

Normally I wouldn't respond to your asinine comments, but congratulations on posting, taking 15 minutes, then editing your post to come up with the most half assed 'witty' response I have ever seen, even from YOU.

Comments like these are why your puerile self is on my foe list. The forum has become surprisingly more interesting and mature since I ceased to see your comments.

Grow up.

Oh, don't beat up on nappy, he is hysterical over the thought of losing his sponge bob cartoons, and well, we know why he has such an interest in Elton.