Shyone Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Judges 118. The men of Judah also took Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron--each city with its territory. 19. The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots. The men of Custer’s army took the Cheyenne, Sioux and Lakota, each tribe with its territory. The Lord was with the men of Custer’s army. They took possession of the plains, but they were unable to drive the people out of the Little Big Horn because they had guns of iron. The similarities between the conquest of the Promised Land and the Manifest Destiny of the United States have long been recognized, sometimes favorably, sometimes not. John O’Sullivan, an influential columnist, believed that Manifest Destiny was a moral ideal (a "higher law") that superseded other considerations. Congressional Representative Robert Winthrop was the first in a long line of critics who suggested that advocates of Manifest Destiny were citing "Divine Providence" for justification of actions that were motivated by chauvinism and self-interest. (cf. McDougall, Walter A. Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World Since 1776. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997.) “Manifest Destiny had serious consequences for Native Americans, since continental expansion implicitly meant the occupation and annexation of Native American land.” The heathen Indians were considered (and treated) as less than human, and the United States was loathe to recognize their rights to the lands they called theirs. They were, after all, obstacles to the realization of Manifest Destiny. Treaties reduced the Indians to the effective status of prisoners and many were essentially executed. The Trail of Tears was scarcely more merciful than the wholesale execution of the captive Midianite women and children. Numbers 31 17. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18. but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Many Native Americans suffered from exposure, disease, and starvation while en route to their destinations, and many died, including 4,000 of the 15,000 relocated Cherokee. In the recorded history of the United States, we have witnessed the process of taking land from its aboriginal occupants in order to make room for the occupation of a conquering people. It is easy, in retrospect, to see this as a land grab “motivated by chauvinism and self-interest.” The slaughter, if not the intended genocide, of Indians is a blight on our history. There are too many examples to list, but here is one: 1818, April 22, Chehaw Affair: U.S. troops attacked a non-hostile Muscogee village during the First Seminole War, killing an estimated 10 to 50 men, women and children. Why is it so difficult to recognize the same motivations (if not methods) in the massacres of the indigenous population of Canaan? The attribution of such acts of atrocity to “Divine Providence” does not excuse the taking of innocent lives. It never has, and it never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted March 18, 2010 Super Moderator Share Posted March 18, 2010 Oh my name it is nothin' My age it means less The country I come from Is called the Midwest I's taught and brought up there The laws to abide And the land that I live in Has God on its side. Oh the history books tell it They tell it so well The cavalries charged The Indians fell The cavalries charged The Indians died Oh the country was young With God on its side. The Spanish-American War had its day And the Civil War too Was soon laid away And the names of the heroes I's made to memorize With guns on their hands And God on their side. The First World War, boys It came and it went The reason for fighting I never did get But I learned to accept it Accept it with pride For you don't count the dead When God's on your side. When the Second World War Came to an end We forgave the Germans And then we were friends Though they murdered six million In the ovens they fried The Germans now too Have God on their side. I've learned to hate Russians All through my whole life If another war comes It's them we must fight To hate them and fear them To run and to hide And accept it all bravely With God on my side. But now we got weapons Of the chemical dust If fire them we're forced to Then fire them we must One push of the button And a shot the world wide And you never ask questions When God's on your side. In a many dark hour I've been thinkin' about this That Jesus Christ Was betrayed by a kiss But I can't think for you You'll have to decide Whether Judas Iscariot Had God on his side. So now as I'm leavin' I'm weary as Hell The confusion I'm feelin' Ain't no tongue can tell The words fill my head And fall to the floor If God's on our side He'll stop the next war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 The attribution of such acts of atrocity to “Divine Providence” does not excuse the taking of innocent lives. It never has, and it never will. Unfortunately in a practical sense, it always has, just ask Godlimations. I think this is what truly highlights why rationalists truly have to keep speaking up about religion, even if we don't get people to deconvert we can at least sow enough doubt that they go with their gut instead of their dogma when it comes this sort of inhumanity (I was about to delete this part because I thought nowadays this sort of nastiness wouldn't come up anyway, but then I realized that apparently within recent memory Pat Robertson actually advised the killing of gays on television).. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted March 18, 2010 Author Share Posted March 18, 2010 The attribution of such acts of atrocity to “Divine Providence” does not excuse the taking of innocent lives. It never has, and it never will. Unfortunately in a practical sense, it always has, just ask Godlimations. I think this is what truly highlights why rationalists truly have to keep speaking up about religion, even if we don't get people to deconvert we can at least sow enough doubt that they go with their gut instead of their dogma when it comes this sort of inhumanity (I was about to delete this part because I thought nowadays this sort of nastiness wouldn't come up anyway, but then I realized that apparently within recent memory Pat Robertson actually advised the killing of gays on television).. Strictly speaking, you are absolutely right. I meant that it was not a good excuse to slaughter. Maybe I should add "IMO". Although I should not have to (IMO...). And it wasn't just Pat Robertson; it is an entire movement of Christianity (and Islam) in this country and many other countries around the world. In fact, the entire motivation behind the violent form of jihad is essentially "Divine Providence" of Allah. The Muslims are convinced that the entire world can be subjugated to the will of Allah by the use of force combined with persuasion. "Come to Allah, or we will kill you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dB-Paradox Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 Why is it so difficult to recognize the same motivations (if not methods) in the massacres of the indigenous population of Canaan? I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but in recent decades, we've learned through archeology that these stories of Canaanites being defeated in war is not supported. So, either the biblical stories were exaggerated, or made up entirely. Like I said, I'm not any word of authority on the subject, so maybe some of the stories were true. But it's becoming increasingly clear that the Israelites were Canaanites. No war. No destruction. Just a nice peaceful emergence between two groups of Canaanites who would eventually become the Israelites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted March 20, 2010 Author Share Posted March 20, 2010 Why is it so difficult to recognize the same motivations (if not methods) in the massacres of the indigenous population of Canaan? I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but in recent decades, we've learned through archeology that these stories of Canaanites being defeated in war is not supported. So, either the biblical stories were exaggerated, or made up entirely. Like I said, I'm not any word of authority on the subject, so maybe some of the stories were true. But it's becoming increasingly clear that the Israelites were Canaanites. No war. No destruction. Just a nice peaceful emergence between two groups of Canaanites who would eventually become the Israelites. Well, yes, that's absolutely true, but since the Christians who come here think of the Bible as historical I decided to make the comparison to recent history. It's like saying "God ordered the massacre" when there is no God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but in recent decades, we've learned through archeology that these stories of Canaanites being defeated in war is not supported. So, either the biblical stories were exaggerated, or made up entirely. Like I said, I'm not any word of authority on the subject, so maybe some of the stories were true. But it's becoming increasingly clear that the Israelites were Canaanites. No war. No destruction. Just a nice peaceful emergence between two groups of Canaanites who would eventually become the Israelites. Well, yes, that's absolutely true, but since the Christians who come here think of the Bible as historical I decided to make the comparison to recent history. It's like saying "God ordered the massacre" when there is no God. Most of the biblical stories probably were made up or at least exaggerated, but those conquest stories serve as a source of justification for heinous acts by adherents to the Abrahamic religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Congressional Representative Robert Winthrop was the first in a long line of critics who suggested that advocates of Manifest Destiny were citing "Divine Providence" for justification of actions that were motivated by chauvinism and self-interest. I agree completely. When I was a kid in history class, the issue of Manifest Destiny was basically just a matter of words in a textbook pertaining to things that seemed extremely ancient to me. It didn't really connect. As a thoughtful adult, I am appalled at the way this country treated others. We can say that we helped stop the Nazi Holocaust, but we had a holocaust of our own. It was bad enough that we enslaved Africans and considered them only 3/5 human, but we treated the Natives even worse and sugarcoated it with Manifest Destiny lingo. Augh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev. Dr. Sparki Hooker Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 And don't forget the Japanese concentration camps and shipping anyone who looked Latino into Central Mexico when the depression started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Why is it so difficult to recognize the same motivations (if not methods) in the massacres of the indigenous population of Canaan? I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but in recent decades, we've learned through archeology that these stories of Canaanites being defeated in war is not supported. So, either the biblical stories were exaggerated, or made up entirely. Like I said, I'm not any word of authority on the subject, so maybe some of the stories were true. But it's becoming increasingly clear that the Israelites were Canaanites. No war. No destruction. Just a nice peaceful emergence between two groups of Canaanites who would eventually become the Israelites. I doubt it was peaceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts