5 ms·

We were founded by deeply religious Christians who were exactly the opposite of that mindset. Your perspective is one of ignorance about well established histor

We were founded by deeply religious Christians who were exactly the opposite of that mindset. Your perspective is one of ignorance about well established historical facts that most children learn in grade school. Free market liberalism was not the goal of puritans. Tough they may have traded with natives, they were quite religious, arguably to a fault.

datsci_est_2015 8mo ago
> We were founded by deeply religious Christians who were exactly the opposite of that mindset. This is ahistorical nonsense. You’re really saying the country of “Manifest Destiny” had no attitude of “Fuck you, I got mine” because they were deeply religious Christians? Not to mention “Christian” has been bastardized so hard that I find it hard to imagine there’s really much overlap between what a “Christian” today believes vs what they believed in 1776. Let’s take, for example, their recorded views on the “personhood” of indigenous peoples (and Africans!) and whether they were capable of being saved by Christ. Never mind the absolute multitude of sects that existed then but don’t exist now and vice versa. Your perspective is one of myth-building and religious supremacy, which is well-refuted by the significant evidence in the form of history books as well as primary sources. > Tough the may have traded with natives How benevolent. You should really read about what it actually means to perform a genocide on indigenous peoples. The ugly side. Read the diary of Thomas Thistlewood, a self-proclaimed Christian. Let me know how you feel about the passage where he forced an enslaved person to defecate into another enslaved person’s mouth.
- learingsci 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - datsci_est_2015 8mo ago
    What’s the weird bias? Where did I contradict myself? What was the stupid fallacy? Calling out the hypocrisy of those who call themselves Christians, both modern and historical, has never been a way of striking out at “my father”. The label, Christian, is a convenient one to hide behind for those hypocrites, as if it absolves them of their moral and ethical responsibilities.
    - learingsci 8mo ago
      [flagged]
joe_mamba 8mo ago
>We were founded by deeply religious Christians who were exactly the opposite of that mindset. Doesn't matter who founded which thing in the distant past, what matters is who is currently running the system and making the rules. If you check the Epstein files, the self anointed people pulling the strings are not very Christian at all, but contempt to them.
brazukadev 8mo ago
> they were quite religious, arguably to a fault to what fault, slavery?
- learingsci 8mo ago
  Slavery was ended for largely religious reasons so unless you think slavery is a good thing then that wouldn’t make sense. I was thinking more of rigid and highly dogmatic moral beliefs that cause people to condemn heretics. “Anyone who disagrees with me is a nazi/witch” sort of stuff. It’s a very American thing I would argue, but it seems to be spreading quite quickly.

datsci_est_2015 8mo ago

> We were founded by deeply religious Christians who were exactly the opposite of that mindset. This is ahistorical nonsense. You’re really saying the country of “Manifest Destiny” had no attitude of “Fuck you, I got mine” because they were deeply religious Christians? Not to mention “Christian” has been bastardized so hard that I find it hard to imagine there’s really much overlap between what a “Christian” today believes vs what they believed in 1776. Let’s take, for example, their recorded views on the “personhood” of indigenous peoples (and Africans!) and whether they were capable of being saved by Christ. Never mind the absolute multitude of sects that existed then but don’t exist now and vice versa. Your perspective is one of myth-building and religious supremacy, which is well-refuted by the significant evidence in the form of history books as well as primary sources. > Tough the may have traded with natives How benevolent. You should really read about what it actually means to perform a genocide on indigenous peoples. The ugly side. Read the diary of Thomas Thistlewood, a self-proclaimed Christian. Let me know how you feel about the passage where he forced an enslaved person to defecate into another enslaved person’s mouth.

learingsci 8mo ago
[flagged]
- datsci_est_2015 8mo ago
  What’s the weird bias? Where did I contradict myself? What was the stupid fallacy? Calling out the hypocrisy of those who call themselves Christians, both modern and historical, has never been a way of striking out at “my father”. The label, Christian, is a convenient one to hide behind for those hypocrites, as if it absolves them of their moral and ethical responsibilities.
  - learingsci 8mo ago
    [flagged]

joe_mamba 8mo ago

>We were founded by deeply religious Christians who were exactly the opposite of that mindset. Doesn't matter who founded which thing in the distant past, what matters is who is currently running the system and making the rules. If you check the Epstein files, the self anointed people pulling the strings are not very Christian at all, but contempt to them.

brazukadev 8mo ago

> they were quite religious, arguably to a fault to what fault, slavery?

learingsci 8mo ago
Slavery was ended for largely religious reasons so unless you think slavery is a good thing then that wouldn’t make sense. I was thinking more of rigid and highly dogmatic moral beliefs that cause people to condemn heretics. “Anyone who disagrees with me is a nazi/witch” sort of stuff. It’s a very American thing I would argue, but it seems to be spreading quite quickly.