Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?

Expand Messages
  • Edgar Owen
    Hibbsa, I have no problem with secular Christmas displays like Santa Claus but since religion is delusion the display of religious displays perpetuates
    Message 1 of 24 , Jan 1, 2012
      Hibbsa,

      I have no problem with secular Christmas displays like Santa Claus but since religion is delusion the display of religious displays perpetuates delusion. It should be allowed on private property but certainly not on public property. And if Christian displays are ever allowed then most certainly Atheist and Muslim should be also.

      I assure you that this country does NOT belong to the Christians....

      Edgar



      On Jan 1, 2012, at 10:20 AM, hibbsa wrote:

       

      Whose Country Is It, Anyway?

      By Patrick J. Buchanan

      Half a century ago, American children were schooled in Aesop's fables. Among the more famous of these were "The Fox and the Grapes" and "The Tortoise and the Hare."

      Particularly appropriate this Christmas season, and every Christmas lately, is Aesop's fable of "The Dog in the Manger."

      The tale is about a dog who decides to take a nap in the manger. When the ox, who has worked all day, comes back to eat some straw, the dog barks loudly, threatens to bite him and drives him from his manger.

      The lesson the fable teaches is that it is malicious and wicked to deny a fellow creature what you yourself do not want and cannot even enjoy.

      What brings the fable to mind is this year's crop of Christmas-haters, whose numbers have grown since the days when it was only the village atheist or the ACLU pest who sought to kill Christmas.

      The problem with these folks is not simply that they detest Christmas and what it represents, but that they must do their best, or worst, to ensure Christians do not enjoy the season and holy day they love.

      As a Washington Times editorial relates, the number of anti-Christian bigots is growing, and their malevolence is out of the closet:

      "In Leesburg, Va., a Santa-suit-clad skeleton was nailed to a cross. … In Santa Monica, atheists were granted 18 of 21 plots in a public park allotted for holiday displays and … erected signs mocking religion. In the Wisconsin statehouse, a sign informs visitors, `Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.' A video that has gone viral on YouTube shows denizens of Occupy D.C. spewing gratuitous hatred of a couple who dared to appropriate a small patch of McPherson Square to set up a living Nativity scene."

      People who indulge in such conduct invariably claim to be champions of the First Amendment, exercising their right of free speech to maintain a separation of church and state.

      They are partly right. The First Amendment does protect what they are doing. But what they are doing is engaging in hate speech and anti-Christian bigotry. For what is the purpose of what they are about, if not to wound, offend, insult and mock fellow Americans celebrating the happiest day of their calendar year?

      Consider what this day means to a believing Christian.

      It is a time and a day set aside to celebrate the nativity, the birth of Christ, whom Christians believe to be the Son of God and their Savior who gave his life on the cross to redeem mankind and open the gates of heaven.

      Even if a man disbelieves this, why would he interfere with or deny his fellow countrymen, three in four of whom still profess to be Christians, their right to celebrate in public this joyous occasion?

      This mockery and hatred of Christmas testifies not only to the character of those who engage in it, it says something as well about who is winning the culture war for the soul of America.

      Not long ago, the Supreme Court (1892) and three U.S. presidents — Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter — all declared America to be a "Christian nation."

      They did not mean that any particular denomination had been declared America's national religion — indeed, that was ruled out in the Constitution — but that we were predominantly a Christian people.

      And so we were born.

      Around 1790, America was 99 percent Protestant, 1 percent Catholic, with a few thousands Jews. The Irish immigration from 1845 to 1850 brought hundreds of thousands more Catholics to America. The Great Wave of immigration from 1890 to 1920 brought millions of Southern and Eastern Europeans, mostly Catholic and Jews. As late as 1990, 85 percent of all Americans described themselves as Christians.

      And here one must pose a question.

      How did America's Christians allow themselves to be dispossessed of a country their fathers had built for them?

      How did America come to be a nation where not only have all Christian prayers, pageants, holidays and holy days been purged from all government schools and public institutions, but secularism has taken over those schools, while Christians are mocked at Christmas in ways that would be declared hate crimes were it done to other religious faiths or ethnic minorities?

      Was it a manifestation of tolerance and maturity, or pusillanimity, that Christians allowed themselves to be robbed of their inheritance to a point where Barack Obama could assert without contradiction that we Americans "do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation"?

      What are these Christmas-bashers, though still a nominal minority, saying to Christians with their mockery and ridicule of the celebration of the birth of Christ?

      "This isn't your country anymore. It is our country now."

      The question for Christians is a simple one: Do they have what it takes to take America back?

      These might be related:



    • Julienne
      One must pity Buchanan s poverty of spirit, mean ignorance, and religious tyranny. Julienne. ... One word frees us of all the weight and pain in life. That
      Message 2 of 24 , Jan 1, 2012

        One must pity Buchanan's poverty of spirit, mean ignorance, and religious
        tyranny.

        Julienne.



        At 10:20 AM 1/1/2012, hibbsa wrote:


        Whose Country Is It, Anyway?

        By Patrick J. Buchanan

        Half a century ago, American children were schooled in Aesop's fables. Among the more famous of these were "The Fox and the Grapes" and "The Tortoise and the Hare."

        Particularly appropriate this Christmas season, and every Christmas lately, is Aesop's fable of "The Dog in the Manger."

        The tale is about a dog who decides to take a nap in the manger. When the ox, who has worked all day, comes back to eat some straw, the dog barks loudly, threatens to bite him and drives him from his manger.

        The lesson the fable teaches is that it is malicious and wicked to deny a fellow creature what you yourself do not want and cannot even enjoy.

        What brings the fable to mind is this year's crop of Christmas-haters, whose numbers have grown since the days when it was only the village atheist or the ACLU pest who sought to kill Christmas.

        The problem with these folks is not simply that they detest Christmas and what it represents, but that they must do their best, or worst, to ensure Christians do not enjoy the season and holy day they love.

        As a Washington Times editorial relates, the number of anti-Christian bigots is growing, and their malevolence is out of the closet:

        "In Leesburg, Va., a Santa-suit-clad skeleton was nailed to a cross. … In Santa Monica, atheists were granted 18 of 21 plots in a public park allotted for holiday displays and … erected signs mocking religion. In the Wisconsin statehouse, a sign informs visitors, `Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.' A video that has gone viral on YouTube shows denizens of Occupy D.C. spewing gratuitous hatred of a couple who dared to appropriate a small patch of McPherson Square to set up a living Nativity scene."

        People who indulge in such conduct invariably claim to be champions of the First Amendment, exercising their right of free speech to maintain a separation of church and state.

        They are partly right. The First Amendment does protect what they are doing. But what they are doing is engaging in hate speech and anti-Christian bigotry. For what is the purpose of what they are about, if not to wound, offend, insult and mock fellow Americans celebrating the happiest day of their calendar year?

        Consider what this day means to a believing Christian.

        It is a time and a day set aside to celebrate the nativity, the birth of Christ, whom Christians believe to be the Son of God and their Savior who gave his life on the cross to redeem mankind and open the gates of heaven.

        Even if a man disbelieves this, why would he interfere with or deny his fellow countrymen, three in four of whom still profess to be Christians, their right to celebrate in public this joyous occasion?

        This mockery and hatred of Christmas testifies not only to the character of those who engage in it, it says something as well about who is winning the culture war for the soul of America.

        Not long ago, the Supreme Court (1892) and three U.S. presidents — Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter — all declared America to be a "Christian nation."

        They did not mean that any particular denomination had been declared America's national religion — indeed, that was ruled out in the Constitution — but that we were predominantly a Christian people.

        And so we were born.

        Around 1790, America was 99 percent Protestant, 1 percent Catholic, with a few thousands Jews. The Irish immigration from 1845 to 1850 brought hundreds of thousands more Catholics to America. The Great Wave of immigration from 1890 to 1920 brought millions of Southern and Eastern Europeans, mostly Catholic and Jews. As late as 1990, 85 percent of all Americans described themselves as Christians.

        And here one must pose a question.

        How did America's Christians allow themselves to be dispossessed of a country their fathers had built for them?

        How did America come to be a nation where not only have all Christian prayers, pageants, holidays and holy days been purged from all government schools and public institutions, but secularism has taken over those schools, while Christians are mocked at Christmas in ways that would be declared hate crimes were it done to other religious faiths or ethnic minorities?

        Was it a manifestation of tolerance and maturity, or pusillanimity, that Christians allowed themselves to be robbed of their inheritance to a point where Barack Obama could assert without contradiction that we Americans "do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation"?

        What are these Christmas-bashers, though still a nominal minority, saying to Christians with their mockery and ridicule of the celebration of the birth of Christ?

        "This isn't your country anymore. It is our country now."

        The question for Christians is a simple one: Do they have what it takes to take America back?

        These might be related:

        "One word frees us of all the weight and pain in life. That word is Love." Sophocles


      • michael haaheim
        Among many, the deep seated distrust and hatred between atheists and theists alike continues to thrive, and this is a very sad thing. I would point out,
        Message 3 of 24 , Jan 2, 2012
          Among many, the deep seated distrust and hatred between atheists and theists alike continues to thrive, and this is a very sad thing.
          I would point out, however, that this article only continues to fuel the hatred. Buchanen talks about the hatre of some atheists, while unleashing his own against them. He wishes to take the country back... but this is why the atheists distrust the theists in the first place... because atheists never took it in the first place. It should be remembered as well that it was the Christians who first STOLE the land from the native amerindian communities. Whose country is it? IT IS THEIRS, BY RIGHT.
          I am saddened that some atheists go too far. Buchanen represents Christians who have gone too far, but wish to go further still.


          De : hibbsa <hibbsa@...>
          À : evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
          Envoyé le : Dimanche 1 Janvier 2012 16h20
          Objet : [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?

           
          By Patrick J. Buchanan
          Half a century ago, American children were schooled in Aesop's fables. Among the more famous of these were "The Fox and the Grapes" and "The Tortoise and the Hare."
          Particularly appropriate this Christmas season, and every Christmas lately, is Aesop's fable of "The Dog in the Manger."
          The tale is about a dog who decides to take a nap in the manger. When the ox, who has worked all day, comes back to eat some straw, the dog barks loudly, threatens to bite him and drives him from his manger.
          The lesson the fable teaches is that it is malicious and wicked to deny a fellow creature what you yourself do not want and cannot even enjoy.
          What brings the fable to mind is this year's crop of Christmas-haters, whose numbers have grown since the days when it was only the village atheist or the ACLU pest who sought to kill Christmas.
          The problem with these folks is not simply that they detest Christmas and what it represents, but that they must do their best, or worst, to ensure Christians do not enjoy the season and holy day they love.
          As a Washington Times editorial relates, the number of anti-Christian bigots is growing, and their malevolence is out of the closet:
          "In Leesburg, Va., a Santa-suit-clad skeleton was nailed to a cross. … In Santa Monica, atheists were granted 18 of 21 plots in a public park allotted for holiday displays and … erected signs mocking religion. In the Wisconsin statehouse, a sign informs visitors, `Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.' A video that has gone viral on YouTube shows denizens of Occupy D.C. spewing gratuitous hatred of a couple who dared to appropriate a small patch of McPherson Square to set up a living Nativity scene."
          People who indulge in such conduct invariably claim to be champions of the First Amendment, exercising their right of free speech to maintain a separation of church and state.
          They are partly right. The First Amendment does protect what they are doing. But what they are doing is engaging in hate speech and anti-Christian bigotry. For what is the purpose of what they are about, if not to wound, offend, insult and mock fellow Americans celebrating the happiest day of their calendar year?
          Consider what this day means to a believing Christian.
          It is a time and a day set aside to celebrate the nativity, the birth of Christ, whom Christians believe to be the Son of God and their Savior who gave his life on the cross to redeem mankind and open the gates of heaven.
          Even if a man disbelieves this, why would he interfere with or deny his fellow countrymen, three in four of whom still profess to be Christians, their right to celebrate in public this joyous occasion?
          This mockery and hatred of Christmas testifies not only to the character of those who engage in it, it says something as well about who is winning the culture war for the soul of America.
          Not long ago, the Supreme Court (1892) and three U.S. presidents — Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter — all declared America to be a "Christian nation."
          They did not mean that any particular denomination had been declared America's national religion — indeed, that was ruled out in the Constitution — but that we were predominantly a Christian people.
          And so we were born.
          Around 1790, America was 99 percent Protestant, 1 percent Catholic, with a few thousands Jews. The Irish immigration from 1845 to 1850 brought hundreds of thousands more Catholics to America. The Great Wave of immigration from 1890 to 1920 brought millions of Southern and Eastern Europeans, mostly Catholic and Jews. As late as 1990, 85 percent of all Americans described themselves as Christians.
          And here one must pose a question.
          How did America's Christians allow themselves to be dispossessed of a country their fathers had built for them?
          How did America come to be a nation where not only have all Christian prayers, pageants, holidays and holy days been purged from all government schools and public institutions, but secularism has taken over those schools, while Christians are mocked at Christmas in ways that would be declared hate crimes were it done to other religious faiths or ethnic minorities?
          Was it a manifestation of tolerance and maturity, or pusillanimity, that Christians allowed themselves to be robbed of their inheritance to a point where Barack Obama could assert without contradiction that we Americans "do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation"?
          What are these Christmas-bashers, though still a nominal minority, saying to Christians with their mockery and ridicule of the celebration of the birth of Christ?
          "This isn't your country anymore. It is our country now."
          The question for Christians is a simple one: Do they have what it takes to take America back?
          These might be related:


        • clarence_sonny_williams
          Hibbsa, Early America in the colonial period was characterized by theocratic states; early Massachusetts, for instance, was not much different than modern-day
          Message 4 of 24 , Jan 2, 2012
            Hibbsa,

            Early America in the colonial period was characterized by theocratic
            states; early Massachusetts, for instance, was not much different than
            modern-day Iran. It was also characterized by brutal enforcement of the
            theoretic precepts common to a particular colony; baptist parents were
            jailed (in the Virginia colony), Catholic priests tarred and feathered
            and Quakers hung...if they happened to try and practice their particular
            brand of Christianity in the wrong place.

            I think we secularists and/or atheists should all lay low and give in to
            the Christian nazi movement. Let's go back to these "good old days" of
            sectarian strongholds...and watch American Christians kill one another
            again. When enough of them are killed by other Christians, we can rise
            up again and make America purely secular again. Sigh. History keeps
            repeating itself.


            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...>
            wrote:
            >
            >
            > >Whose country is it? IT IS THEIRS, BY RIGHT. (the amerinds)
            >
            > I'm sorry Micheal but it is not their land by right, any more than
            > Britain belongs to the indigenous peoples who were there before the
            > Roman and Saxon invasions (assuming for the sake of argument they were
            > dispossessed).
            >
            > The amerinds were invaded, and fought bravely and often brutally to
            > resist that invasion, in which they were fought bravely and brutally
            > against. They lost. That's part of the story of human kind.
            >
            > The difference that Buchanan is raising is that Christians in the US
            are
            > the vast majority of people and hold incredible power...and aren't
            even
            > fighting for what is theirs. That's the big difference. They're not
            even
            > fighting against their own dispossession.
            >
            > And that is interesting. Or should be. Whatever you believe or
            whichever
            > side you take. From an evo-psych and social studies perspective it is
            > surely an historically fascinating phenomenon.
            >
            > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, michael haaheim
            > MIKKELHPANDA@ wrote:
            > >
            > > Among many, the deep seated distrust and hatred between atheists and
            > theists alike continues to thrive, and this is a very sad thing.
            > >
            > > I would point out, however, that this article only continues to fuel
            > the hatred. Buchanen talks about the hatre of some atheists, while
            > unleashing his own against them. He wishes to take the country back...
            > but this is why the atheists distrust the theists in the first
            place...
            > because atheists never took it in the first place. It should be
            > remembered as well that it was the Christians who first STOLE the land
            > from the native amerindian communities. Whose country is it? IT IS
            > THEIRS, BY RIGHT.

            <snip>
          • Edgar Owen
            Hibbsa, I d point out there is enormous hate speech against Atheists. In fact surveys indicate that Atheists are among the most hated group in America. Almost
            Message 5 of 24 , Jan 2, 2012
              Hibbsa,

              I'd point out there is enormous hate speech against Atheists. In fact surveys indicate that Atheists are among the most hated group in America. Almost all that hatred comes from Christians...

              Given the chance, and sadly I believe the chance is fast approaching, Christian hatred will again boil over and we will again see the old Christian modes of inquisition, torture and burning at the stake that have characterized Christianity since shortly after its beginning....

              Edgar



              On Jan 2, 2012, at 5:35 AM, hibbsa wrote:

               

              Edgar - I don't necessarily agree with everything in an article just
              because I post it. The part that I am interested in - is whether as
              Buchanan says, there is abuse/hatred expressed toward Christians, that
              would qualify as hate speech if directed against, say Jews or Muslisms
              or another religion.

              Does anyone have any comments specifically on that matter?

              My prediction is that people won't even feel comfortable thinking about it. And this is probably why it interests me. I am interested in
              evo-psych and no area is more revelatory than when social taboos
              conflict with social justice taboos. What I mean is, when a social taboo
              creates a social injustice that should also be taboo. Then you get the
              situation, potentially, of abuse or racism or bigotry expressed against
              a group, that everyone else turns a blind eye to.

              And that's dangerous, right?

              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
              <mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com> , Edgar Owen
              <edgarowen@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hibbsa,
              >
              > I have no problem with secular Christmas displays like Santa Claus but
              since religion is delusion the display of religious displays perpetuates
              delusion. It should be allowed on private property but certainly not on
              public property. And if Christian displays are ever allowed then most
              certainly Atheist and Muslim should be also.
              >
              > I assure you that this country does NOT belong to the Christians....
              >
              > Edgar
              >
              >
              <Snip>


            • devilboy6x9@yahoo.com
              Here s a great example of the belief in the great white evil. What other people of color do to whitey is well deserved. One must pity Buchanan s poverty of
              Message 6 of 24 , Jan 2, 2012
                Here's a great example of the belief in the great white evil. What other people of color do to whitey is well deserved.


                "One must pity Buchanan's poverty of spirit, mean ignorance, and religious
                tyranny."

                Julienne.



                Exquisite Corpse 77
                Chance Favors The Prepared Mind~ L Pasteur

                --- On Mon, 1/2/12, hibbsa <hibbsa@...> wrote:

                From: hibbsa <hibbsa@...>
                Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?
                To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Monday, January 2, 2012, 5:35 AM

                 

                Edgar - I don't necessarily agree with everything in an article just
                because I post it. The part that I am interested in - is whether as
                Buchanan says, there is abuse/hatred expressed toward Christians, that
                would qualify as hate speech if directed against, say Jews or Muslisms
                or another religion.

                Does anyone have any comments specifically on that matter?

                My prediction is that people won't even feel comfortable thinking about it. And this is probably why it interests me. I am interested in
                evo-psych and no area is more revelatory than when social taboos
                conflict with social justice taboos. What I mean is, when a social taboo
                creates a social injustice that should also be taboo. Then you get the
                situation, potentially, of abuse or racism or bigotry expressed against
                a group, that everyone else turns a blind eye to.

                And that's dangerous, right?

                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                <mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com> , Edgar Owen
                <edgarowen@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hibbsa,
                >
                > I have no problem with secular Christmas displays like Santa Claus but
                since religion is delusion the display of religious displays perpetuates
                delusion. It should be allowed on private property but certainly not on
                public property. And if Christian displays are ever allowed then most
                certainly Atheist and Muslim should be also.
                >
                > I assure you that this country does NOT belong to the Christians....
                >
                > Edgar
                >
                >
                <Snip>

              • michael haaheim
                The Christians took the land by might. They stole it, pure and simple. Actually, worse, they murdered for it. If the Christians lose it, it is fitting. It was
                Message 7 of 24 , Jan 2, 2012
                  The Christians took the land by might. They stole it, pure and simple. Actually, worse, they murdered for it. If the Christians lose it, it is fitting. It was never theirs to begin with.
                  Yes, the amerindinans lost. But might does not male right.
                  Although there is the point that they never considered the land theirs. They considered that the land belongs to no one. They were gardians of the land, and respected the land. When they fought, it was not to keep the land, but to be allowed to live their lives, their way.
                  As it happens, Christians are not being dispossessed. All that is happening is that their stranglehold is being broken. As I said, some atheists go to far. I have no objection to living with theists. However, those who believe as Buchanan does are setting things up so that the only option is a war.
                  I have many friends and family who are Christian, but if certain of them push for an agenda of domination rather than cooperation, they deserve to share the fate of the amerindians.


                  De : hibbsa <hibbsa@...>
                  À : evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                  Envoyé le : Lundi 2 Janvier 2012 11h42
                  Objet : Re: Re : [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?

                   

                  >Whose country is it? IT IS THEIRS, BY RIGHT. (the amerinds)

                  I'm sorry Micheal but it is not their land by right, any more than
                  Britain belongs to the indigenous peoples who were there before the
                  Roman and Saxon invasions (assuming for the sake of argument they were
                  dispossessed).

                  The amerinds were invaded, and fought bravely and often brutally to
                  resist that invasion, in which they were fought bravely and brutally
                  against. They lost. That's part of the story of human kind.

                  The difference that Buchanan is raising is that Christians in the US are
                  the vast majority of people and hold incredible power...and aren't even
                  fighting for what is theirs. That's the big difference. They're not even
                  fighting against their own dispossession.

                  And that is interesting. Or should be. Whatever you believe or whichever
                  side you take. From an evo-psych and social studies perspective it is
                  surely an historically fascinating phenomenon.

                  --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, michael haaheim
                  <MIKKELHPANDA@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Among many, the deep seated distrust and hatred between atheists and
                  theists alike continues to thrive, and this is a very sad thing.
                  >
                  > I would point out, however, that this article only continues to fuel
                  the hatred. Buchanen talks about the hatre of some atheists, while
                  unleashing his own against them. He wishes to take the country back...
                  but this is why the atheists distrust the theists in the first place...
                  because atheists never took it in the first place. It should be
                  remembered as well that it was the Christians who first STOLE the land
                  from the native amerindian communities. Whose country is it? IT IS
                  THEIRS, BY RIGHT.
                  >
                  > I am saddened that some atheists go too far. Buchanen represents
                  Christians who have gone too far, but wish to go further still.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > De : hibbsa hibbsa@...
                  > À : evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                  > Envoyé le : Dimanche 1 Janvier 2012 16h20
                  > Objet : [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?
                  >
                  >
                  > Â
                  > Whose Country Is It, Anyway?
                  > By Patrick J. Buchanan
                  > Half a century ago, American children were schooled in Aesop's fables.
                  Among the more famous of these were "The Fox and the Grapes" and "The
                  Tortoise and the Hare."
                  > Particularly appropriate this Christmas season, and every Christmas
                  lately, is Aesop's fable of "The Dog in the Manger."
                  > The tale is about a dog who decides to take a nap in the manger. When
                  the ox, who has worked all day, comes back to eat some straw, the dog
                  barks loudly, threatens to bite him and drives him from his manger.
                  > The lesson the fable teaches is that it is malicious and wicked to
                  deny a fellow creature what you yourself do not want and cannot even
                  enjoy.
                  > What brings the fable to mind is this year's crop of Christmas-haters,
                  whose numbers have grown since the days when it was only the village
                  atheist or the ACLU pest who sought to kill Christmas.
                  > The problem with these folks is not simply that they detest Christmas
                  and what it represents, but that they must do their best, or worst, to
                  ensure Christians do not enjoy the season and holy day they love.
                  > As a Washington Times editorial relates, the number of anti-Christian
                  bigots is growing, and their malevolence is out of the closet:
                  > "In Leesburg, Va., a Santa-suit-clad skeleton was nailed to a cross.
                  … In Santa Monica, atheists were granted 18 of 21 plots in a
                  public park allotted for holiday displays and … erected signs
                  mocking religion. In the Wisconsin statehouse, a sign informs visitors,
                  `Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves
                  minds.' A video that has gone viral on YouTube shows denizens of Occupy
                  D.C. spewing gratuitous hatred of a couple who dared to appropriate a
                  small patch of McPherson Square to set up a living Nativity scene."
                  > People who indulge in such conduct invariably claim to be champions of
                  the First Amendment, exercising their right of free speech to maintain a
                  separation of church and state.
                  > They are partly right. The First Amendment does protect what they are
                  doing. But what they are doing is engaging in hate speech and
                  anti-Christian bigotry. For what is the purpose of what they are about,
                  if not to wound, offend, insult and mock fellow Americans celebrating
                  the happiest day of their calendar year?
                  > Consider what this day means to a believing Christian.
                  > It is a time and a day set aside to celebrate the nativity, the birth
                  of Christ, whom Christians believe to be the Son of God and their Savior
                  who gave his life on the cross to redeem mankind and open the gates of
                  heaven.
                  > Even if a man disbelieves this, why would he interfere with or deny
                  his fellow countrymen, three in four of whom still profess to be
                  Christians, their right to celebrate in public this joyous occasion?
                  > This mockery and hatred of Christmas testifies not only to the
                  character of those who engage in it, it says something as well about who
                  is winning the culture war for the soul of America.
                  > Not long ago, the Supreme Court (1892) and three U.S. presidents
                  â€" Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter â€" all
                  declared America to be a "Christian nation."
                  > They did not mean that any particular denomination had been declared
                  America's national religion â€" indeed, that was ruled out in the
                  Constitution â€" but that we were predominantly a Christian people.
                  > And so we were born.
                  > Around 1790, America was 99 percent Protestant, 1 percent Catholic,
                  with a few thousands Jews. The Irish immigration from 1845 to 1850
                  brought hundreds of thousands more Catholics to America. The Great Wave
                  of immigration from 1890 to 1920 brought millions of Southern and
                  Eastern Europeans, mostly Catholic and Jews. As late as 1990, 85 percent
                  of all Americans described themselves as Christians.
                  > And here one must pose a question.
                  > How did America's Christians allow themselves to be dispossessed of a
                  country their fathers had built for them?
                  > How did America come to be a nation where not only have all Christian
                  prayers, pageants, holidays and holy days been purged from all
                  government schools and public institutions, but secularism has taken
                  over those schools, while Christians are mocked at Christmas in ways
                  that would be declared hate crimes were it done to other religious
                  faiths or ethnic minorities?
                  > Was it a manifestation of tolerance and maturity, or pusillanimity,
                  that Christians allowed themselves to be robbed of their inheritance to
                  a point where Barack Obama could assert without contradiction that we
                  Americans "do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation"?
                  > What are these Christmas-bashers, though still a nominal minority,
                  saying to Christians with their mockery and ridicule of the celebration
                  of the birth of Christ?
                  > "This isn't your country anymore. It is our country now."
                  > The question for Christians is a simple one: Do they have what it
                  takes to take America back?
                  > These might be related:
                  >



                • michael haaheim
                  Does such abuse exist? Of course. Just as there has been such hatred, abuse, and bias on the part of Christians toward other non-Christian communities... or
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jan 2, 2012
                    Does such abuse exist? Of course. Just as there has been such hatred, abuse, and bias on the part of Christians toward other non-Christian communities... or even among Christian communities.
                    Is it the prevalent doctrine. No.
                    Individuals are involved in the hate speech. Buchanan ignores that fact, and pretends that such acts are more widespread than they in fact are. Buchanan is spewing rhetoric in order to create violence between Christians and atheists. This is how he gets followers... by leeching upon peoples fears and mistrust. Buchanan fuels the fire.
                    There is the danger that atheists might get caught up in the language... that they begin to promote bias and hatred, and overcompensate in the name of justice. That is true of anyone. The difference is that Christians crossed that line long, long ago.


                    De : hibbsa <hibbsa@...>
                    À : evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                    Envoyé le : Lundi 2 Janvier 2012 11h35
                    Objet : Re: [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?

                     
                    Edgar - I don't necessarily agree with everything in an article just
                    because I post it. The part that I am interested in - is whether as
                    Buchanan says, there is abuse/hatred expressed toward Christians, that
                    would qualify as hate speech if directed against, say Jews or Muslisms
                    or another religion.

                    Does anyone have any comments specifically on that matter?

                    My prediction is that people won't even feel comfortable thinking about it. And this is probably why it interests me. I am interested in
                    evo-psych and no area is more revelatory than when social taboos
                    conflict with social justice taboos. What I mean is, when a social taboo
                    creates a social injustice that should also be taboo. Then you get the
                    situation, potentially, of abuse or racism or bigotry expressed against
                    a group, that everyone else turns a blind eye to.

                    And that's dangerous, right?

                    --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                    <mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com> , Edgar Owen
                    <edgarowen@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hibbsa,
                    >
                    > I have no problem with secular Christmas displays like Santa Claus but
                    since religion is delusion the display of religious displays perpetuates
                    delusion. It should be allowed on private property but certainly not on
                    public property. And if Christian displays are ever allowed then most
                    certainly Atheist and Muslim should be also.
                    >
                    > I assure you that this country does NOT belong to the Christians....
                    >
                    > Edgar
                    >
                    >
                    <Snip>


                  • devilboy6x9@yahoo.com
                    Solutreans i.e; peoples from the areas now known as France and Spain, were in North America first by 5 to 12 thousand years. Exquisite Corpse 77 Chance Favors
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jan 2, 2012
                      Solutreans i.e; peoples from the areas now known as France and Spain, were in North America first by 5 to 12 thousand years.

                      Exquisite Corpse 77
                      Chance Favors The Prepared Mind~ L Pasteur

                      --- On Mon, 1/2/12, hibbsa <hibbsa@...> wrote:

                      From: hibbsa <hibbsa@...>
                      Subject: Re: Re : [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?
                      To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Monday, January 2, 2012, 5:42 AM

                       


                      >Whose country is it? IT IS THEIRS, BY RIGHT. (the amerinds)

                      I'm sorry Micheal but it is not their land by right, any more than
                      Britain belongs to the indigenous peoples who were there before the
                      Roman and Saxon invasions (assuming for the sake of argument they were
                      dispossessed).

                      The amerinds were invaded, and fought bravely and often brutally to
                      resist that invasion, in which they were fought bravely and brutally
                      against. They lost. That's part of the story of human kind.

                      The difference that Buchanan is raising is that Christians in the US are
                      the vast majority of people and hold incredible power...and aren't even
                      fighting for what is theirs. That's the big difference. They're not even
                      fighting against their own dispossession.

                      And that is interesting. Or should be. Whatever you believe or whichever
                      side you take. From an evo-psych and social studies perspective it is
                      surely an historically fascinating phenomenon.

                      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, michael haaheim
                      <MIKKELHPANDA@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Among many, the deep seated distrust and hatred between atheists and
                      theists alike continues to thrive, and this is a very sad thing.
                      >
                      > I would point out, however, that this article only continues to fuel
                      the hatred. Buchanen talks about the hatre of some atheists, while
                      unleashing his own against them. He wishes to take the country back...
                      but this is why the atheists distrust the theists in the first place...
                      because atheists never took it in the first place. It should be
                      remembered as well that it was the Christians who first STOLE the land
                      from the native amerindian communities. Whose country is it? IT IS
                      THEIRS, BY RIGHT.
                      >
                      > I am saddened that some atheists go too far. Buchanen represents
                      Christians who have gone too far, but wish to go further still.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ________________________________
                      > De : hibbsa hibbsa@...
                      > À : evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                      > Envoyé le : Dimanche 1 Janvier 2012 16h20
                      > Objet : [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?
                      >
                      >
                      > Â
                      > Whose Country Is It, Anyway?
                      > By Patrick J. Buchanan
                      > Half a century ago, American children were schooled in Aesop's fables.
                      Among the more famous of these were "The Fox and the Grapes" and "The
                      Tortoise and the Hare."
                      > Particularly appropriate this Christmas season, and every Christmas
                      lately, is Aesop's fable of "The Dog in the Manger."
                      > The tale is about a dog who decides to take a nap in the manger. When
                      the ox, who has worked all day, comes back to eat some straw, the dog
                      barks loudly, threatens to bite him and drives him from his manger.
                      > The lesson the fable teaches is that it is malicious and wicked to
                      deny a fellow creature what you yourself do not want and cannot even
                      enjoy.
                      > What brings the fable to mind is this year's crop of Christmas-haters,
                      whose numbers have grown since the days when it was only the village
                      atheist or the ACLU pest who sought to kill Christmas.
                      > The problem with these folks is not simply that they detest Christmas
                      and what it represents, but that they must do their best, or worst, to
                      ensure Christians do not enjoy the season and holy day they love.
                      > As a Washington Times editorial relates, the number of anti-Christian
                      bigots is growing, and their malevolence is out of the closet:
                      > "In Leesburg, Va., a Santa-suit-clad skeleton was nailed to a cross.
                      … In Santa Monica, atheists were granted 18 of 21 plots in a
                      public park allotted for holiday displays and … erected signs
                      mocking religion. In the Wisconsin statehouse, a sign informs visitors,
                      `Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves
                      minds.' A video that has gone viral on YouTube shows denizens of Occupy
                      D.C. spewing gratuitous hatred of a couple who dared to appropriate a
                      small patch of McPherson Square to set up a living Nativity scene."
                      > People who indulge in such conduct invariably claim to be champions of
                      the First Amendment, exercising their right of free speech to maintain a
                      separation of church and state.
                      > They are partly right. The First Amendment does protect what they are
                      doing. But what they are doing is engaging in hate speech and
                      anti-Christian bigotry. For what is the purpose of what they are about,
                      if not to wound, offend, insult and mock fellow Americans celebrating
                      the happiest day of their calendar year?
                      > Consider what this day means to a believing Christian.
                      > It is a time and a day set aside to celebrate the nativity, the birth
                      of Christ, whom Christians believe to be the Son of God and their Savior
                      who gave his life on the cross to redeem mankind and open the gates of
                      heaven.
                      > Even if a man disbelieves this, why would he interfere with or deny
                      his fellow countrymen, three in four of whom still profess to be
                      Christians, their right to celebrate in public this joyous occasion?
                      > This mockery and hatred of Christmas testifies not only to the
                      character of those who engage in it, it says something as well about who
                      is winning the culture war for the soul of America.
                      > Not long ago, the Supreme Court (1892) and three U.S. presidents
                      â€" Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter â€" all
                      declared America to be a "Christian nation."
                      > They did not mean that any particular denomination had been declared
                      America's national religion â€" indeed, that was ruled out in the
                      Constitution â€" but that we were predominantly a Christian people.
                      > And so we were born.
                      > Around 1790, America was 99 percent Protestant, 1 percent Catholic,
                      with a few thousands Jews. The Irish immigration from 1845 to 1850
                      brought hundreds of thousands more Catholics to America. The Great Wave
                      of immigration from 1890 to 1920 brought millions of Southern and
                      Eastern Europeans, mostly Catholic and Jews. As late as 1990, 85 percent
                      of all Americans described themselves as Christians.
                      > And here one must pose a question.
                      > How did America's Christians allow themselves to be dispossessed of a
                      country their fathers had built for them?
                      > How did America come to be a nation where not only have all Christian
                      prayers, pageants, holidays and holy days been purged from all
                      government schools and public institutions, but secularism has taken
                      over those schools, while Christians are mocked at Christmas in ways
                      that would be declared hate crimes were it done to other religious
                      faiths or ethnic minorities?
                      > Was it a manifestation of tolerance and maturity, or pusillanimity,
                      that Christians allowed themselves to be robbed of their inheritance to
                      a point where Barack Obama could assert without contradiction that we
                      Americans "do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation"?
                      > What are these Christmas-bashers, though still a nominal minority,
                      saying to Christians with their mockery and ridicule of the celebration
                      of the birth of Christ?
                      > "This isn't your country anymore. It is our country now."
                      > The question for Christians is a simple one: Do they have what it
                      takes to take America back?
                      > These might be related:
                      >

                    • devilboy6x9@yahoo.com
                      The United States was never meant to be a christian nation. Despite what Buchanan says, there s not much left of christian beliefs in Xmas and most people
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jan 2, 2012
                        The United States was never meant to be a christian nation.
                        Despite what Buchanan says, there's not much left of christian beliefs in Xmas and most people don't associate christmas with religion. Besides, the traditions originally come from pagan rituals and made/make perfect sense as a seasonal celebration (based on length of days).

                        Exquisite Corpse 77
                        Chance Favors The Prepared Mind~ L Pasteur

                        --- On Mon, 1/2/12, michael haaheim <MIKKELHPANDA@...> wrote:

                        From: michael haaheim <MIKKELHPANDA@...>
                        Subject: Re : [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?
                        To: "evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com" <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
                        Date: Monday, January 2, 2012, 4:34 AM

                         

                        Among many, the deep seated distrust and hatred between atheists and theists alike continues to thrive, and this is a very sad thing.
                        I would point out, however, that this article only continues to fuel the hatred. Buchanen talks about the hatre of some atheists, while unleashing his own against them. He wishes to take the country back... but this is why the atheists distrust the theists in the first place... because atheists never took it in the first place. It should be remembered as well that it was the Christians who first STOLE the land from the native amerindian communities. Whose country is it? IT IS THEIRS, BY RIGHT.
                        I am saddened that some atheists go too far. Buchanen represents Christians who have gone too far, but wish to go further still.


                        De : hibbsa <hibbsa@...>
                        À : evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                        Envoyé le : Dimanche 1 Janvier 2012 16h20
                        Objet : [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?

                         
                        By Patrick J. Buchanan
                        Half a century ago, American children were schooled in Aesop's fables. Among the more famous of these were "The Fox and the Grapes" and "The Tortoise and the Hare."
                        Particularly appropriate this Christmas season, and every Christmas lately, is Aesop's fable of "The Dog in the Manger."
                        The tale is about a dog who decides to take a nap in the manger. When the ox, who has worked all day, comes back to eat some straw, the dog barks loudly, threatens to bite him and drives him from his manger.
                        The lesson the fable teaches is that it is malicious and wicked to deny a fellow creature what you yourself do not want and cannot even enjoy.
                        What brings the fable to mind is this year's crop of Christmas-haters, whose numbers have grown since the days when it was only the village atheist or the ACLU pest who sought to kill Christmas.
                        The problem with these folks is not simply that they detest Christmas and what it represents, but that they must do their best, or worst, to ensure Christians do not enjoy the season and holy day they love.
                        As a Washington Times editorial relates, the number of anti-Christian bigots is growing, and their malevolence is out of the closet:
                        "In Leesburg, Va., a Santa-suit-clad skeleton was nailed to a cross. … In Santa Monica, atheists were granted 18 of 21 plots in a public park allotted for holiday displays and … erected signs mocking religion. In the Wisconsin statehouse, a sign informs visitors, `Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.' A video that has gone viral on YouTube shows denizens of Occupy D.C. spewing gratuitous hatred of a couple who dared to appropriate a small patch of McPherson Square to set up a living Nativity scene."
                        People who indulge in such conduct invariably claim to be champions of the First Amendment, exercising their right of free speech to maintain a separation of church and state.
                        They are partly right. The First Amendment does protect what they are doing. But what they are doing is engaging in hate speech and anti-Christian bigotry. For what is the purpose of what they are about, if not to wound, offend, insult and mock fellow Americans celebrating the happiest day of their calendar year?
                        Consider what this day means to a believing Christian.
                        It is a time and a day set aside to celebrate the nativity, the birth of Christ, whom Christians believe to be the Son of God and their Savior who gave his life on the cross to redeem mankind and open the gates of heaven.
                        Even if a man disbelieves this, why would he interfere with or deny his fellow countrymen, three in four of whom still profess to be Christians, their right to celebrate in public this joyous occasion?
                        This mockery and hatred of Christmas testifies not only to the character of those who engage in it, it says something as well about who is winning the culture war for the soul of America.
                        Not long ago, the Supreme Court (1892) and three U.S. presidents — Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter — all declared America to be a "Christian nation."
                        They did not mean that any particular denomination had been declared America's national religion — indeed, that was ruled out in the Constitution — but that we were predominantly a Christian people.
                        And so we were born.
                        Around 1790, America was 99 percent Protestant, 1 percent Catholic, with a few thousands Jews. The Irish immigration from 1845 to 1850 brought hundreds of thousands more Catholics to America. The Great Wave of immigration from 1890 to 1920 brought millions of Southern and Eastern Europeans, mostly Catholic and Jews. As late as 1990, 85 percent of all Americans described themselves as Christians.
                        And here one must pose a question.
                        How did America's Christians allow themselves to be dispossessed of a country their fathers had built for them?
                        How did America come to be a nation where not only have all Christian prayers, pageants, holidays and holy days been purged from all government schools and public institutions, but secularism has taken over those schools, while Christians are mocked at Christmas in ways that would be declared hate crimes were it done to other religious faiths or ethnic minorities?
                        Was it a manifestation of tolerance and maturity, or pusillanimity, that Christians allowed themselves to be robbed of their inheritance to a point where Barack Obama could assert without contradiction that we Americans "do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation"?
                        What are these Christmas-bashers, though still a nominal minority, saying to Christians with their mockery and ridicule of the celebration of the birth of Christ?
                        "This isn't your country anymore. It is our country now."
                        The question for Christians is a simple one: Do they have what it takes to take America back?
                        These might be related:


                      • ED
                        ... The reality is that an ethnic group or groups, whether in a majority or not has the right to take over and control a piece of land if it has the power to
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jan 2, 2012
                          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > >Whose country is it? IT IS THEIRS, BY RIGHT. (the amerinds)


                          > I'm sorry Micheal but it is not their land by right, any more than
                          > Britain belongs to the indigenous peoples who were there before the
                          > Roman and Saxon invasions (assuming for the sake of argument they were
                          > dispossessed).

                          The reality is that an ethnic group or groups, whether in a majority or not 'has the right' to take over and control a piece of land if it has the power to do so and get away with it.


                          > The amerinds were invaded, and fought bravely and often brutally to
                          > resist that invasion, in which they were fought bravely and brutally
                          > against. They lost. That's part of the story of human kind.

                          To fight bravely and brutally over land is a normal and natural human activity, which even women (mothers, wives, sisters, daughters) rarely disapprove of, as a man's natural and normal role in a group/tribe/nation is to defend and enhance the power and prosperity of the group/tribe/nation.



                          > The difference that Buchanan is raising is that Christians in the US are
                          > the vast majority of people and hold incredible power...and aren't even
                          > fighting for what is theirs. That's the big difference. They're not even
                          > fighting against their own dispossession.

                          I wish Buchanan or anyone else could specify what *actions* Protestants should take to re-establish their supremacy in the US.


                          > And that is interesting. Or should be. Whatever you believe or whichever
                          > side you take. From an evo-psych and social studies perspective it is
                          > surely an historically fascinating phenomenon.

                          --Al

                          The occurrence of land grabs, being in consonance with human tribal nature, has been commonplace throughout history. But recently the pace may have slowed down, the last major land-grab having been that of the lands of the Palestinian people, (which land-grab was aided and abetted by the US and the UK.)

                          And so now we are all innocent victims of terrorism, as some Islamists will not accept how the world is supposed to work a la evolutionary psychology, citing the Qur'an's recommendation to drive out non-Muslim occupiers, rulers and land-grabbers.

                          --ED



                        • devilboy6x9@yahoo.com
                          You can steal something no one ever owned. Exquisite Corpse 77 Chance Favors The Prepared Mind~ L Pasteur ... From: michael haaheim
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jan 2, 2012
                            You can steal something no one ever owned.

                            Exquisite Corpse 77
                            Chance Favors The Prepared Mind~ L Pasteur

                            --- On Mon, 1/2/12, michael haaheim <MIKKELHPANDA@...> wrote:

                            From: michael haaheim <MIKKELHPANDA@...>
                            Subject: Re : Re : [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?
                            To: "evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com" <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
                            Date: Monday, January 2, 2012, 10:36 AM

                             

                            The Christians took the land by might. They stole it, pure and simple. Actually, worse, they murdered for it. If the Christians lose it, it is fitting. It was never theirs to begin with.
                            Yes, the amerindinans lost. But might does not male right.
                            Although there is the point that they never considered the land theirs. They considered that the land belongs to no one. They were gardians of the land, and respected the land. When they fought, it was not to keep the land, but to be allowed to live their lives, their way.
                            As it happens, Christians are not being dispossessed. All that is happening is that their stranglehold is being broken. As I said, some atheists go to far. I have no objection to living with theists. However, those who believe as Buchanan does are setting things up so that the only option is a war.
                            I have many friends and family who are Christian, but if certain of them push for an agenda of domination rather than cooperation, they deserve to share the fate of the amerindians.


                            De : hibbsa <hibbsa@...>
                            � : evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                            Envoy� le : Lundi 2 Janvier 2012 11h42
                            Objet : Re: Re : [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?

                             

                            >Whose country is it? IT IS THEIRS, BY RIGHT. (the amerinds)

                            I'm sorry Micheal but it is not their land by right, any more than
                            Britain belongs to the indigenous peoples who were there before the
                            Roman and Saxon invasions (assuming for the sake of argument they were
                            dispossessed).

                            The amerinds were invaded, and fought bravely and often brutally to
                            resist that invasion, in which they were fought bravely and brutally
                            against. They lost. That's part of the story of human kind.

                            The difference that Buchanan is raising is that Christians in the US are
                            the vast majority of people and hold incredible power...and aren't even
                            fighting for what is theirs. That's the big difference. They're not even
                            fighting against their own dispossession.

                            And that is interesting. Or should be. Whatever you believe or whichever
                            side you take. From an evo-psych and social studies perspective it is
                            surely an historically fascinating phenomenon.
                            <snip>
                          • mark hubey
                            No singing, no dancing. No games. Work, work, work. Probably no fiction-reading. :-) On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:13 AM, clarence_sonny_williams
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jan 2, 2012
                              No singing, no dancing. No games. Work, work, work. Probably no fiction-reading. :-)

                              On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:13 AM, clarence_sonny_williams <clarencew@...> wrote:
                               

                              Hibbsa,

                              Early America in the colonial period was characterized by theocratic
                              states; early Massachusetts, for instance, was not much different than
                              modern-day Iran. It was also characterized by brutal enforcement of the
                              theoretic precepts common to a particular colony; baptist parents were
                              jailed (in the Virginia colony), Catholic priests tarred and feathered
                              and Quakers hung...if they happened to try and practice their particular
                              brand of Christianity in the wrong place.

                              I think we secularists and/or atheists should all lay low and give in to
                              the Christian nazi movement. Let's go back to these "good old days" of
                              sectarian strongholds...and watch American Christians kill one another
                              again. When enough of them are killed by other Christians, we can rise
                              up again and make America purely secular again. Sigh. History keeps
                              repeating itself.

                              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > >Whose country is it? IT IS THEIRS, BY RIGHT. (the amerinds)
                              >
                              > I'm sorry Micheal but it is not their land by right, any more than
                              > Britain belongs to the indigenous peoples who were there before the
                              > Roman and Saxon invasions (assuming for the sake of argument they were
                              > dispossessed).
                              >
                              > The amerinds were invaded, and fought bravely and often brutally to
                              > resist that invasion, in which they were fought bravely and brutally
                              > against. They lost. That's part of the story of human kind.
                              >
                              > The difference that Buchanan is raising is that Christians in the US
                              are
                              > the vast majority of people and hold incredible power...and aren't
                              even
                              > fighting for what is theirs. That's the big difference. They're not
                              even
                              > fighting against their own dispossession.
                              >
                              > And that is interesting. Or should be. Whatever you believe or
                              whichever
                              > side you take. From an evo-psych and social studies perspective it is
                              > surely an historically fascinating phenomenon.
                              >
                              > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, michael haaheim
                              > MIKKELHPANDA@ wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Among many, the deep seated distrust and hatred between atheists and
                              > theists alike continues to thrive, and this is a very sad thing.
                              > >
                              > > I would point out, however, that this article only continues to fuel
                              > the hatred. Buchanen talks about the hatre of some atheists, while
                              > unleashing his own against them. He wishes to take the country back...
                              > but this is why the atheists distrust the theists in the first
                              place...
                              > because atheists never took it in the first place. It should be
                              > remembered as well that it was the Christians who first STOLE the land
                              > from the native amerindian communities. Whose country is it? IT IS
                              > THEIRS, BY RIGHT.

                              <snip>




                              --
                              Regards,
                              Mark Hubey

                              "If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion." — Robert Heinlein--Spoken by character Lazarus Long in Time Enough for Love (1973). In Leon E. Stover, Heinlein (1987)


                            • michael haaheim
                              Then, following your reasoning, it is their right to do so, and it would be their right to occupy whatever lands they succeed in concuring. It would also
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jan 3, 2012
                                Then, following your reasoning, it is their "right" to do so, and it would be their "right" to occupy whatever lands they succeed in concuring. It would also be their "right" to exterminate Christians who get in their way, in order to hold that land that they have taken.
                                Might does not make right. Those who believe it does are the terrorists, whether they be muslim, christian, atheist, or of any other religion, culture, or community.


                                De : ED <seacrofter001@...>
                                À : evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                Envoyé le : Lundi 2 Janvier 2012 19h07
                                Objet : Re: Re : [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?

                                 

                                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > >Whose country is it? IT IS THEIRS, BY RIGHT. (the amerinds)

                                > I'm sorry Micheal but it is not their land by right, any more than
                                > Britain belongs to the indigenous peoples who were there before the
                                > Roman and Saxon invasions (assuming for the sake of argument they were
                                > dispossessed).
                                The reality is that an ethnic group or groups, whether in a majority or not 'has the right' to take over and control a piece of land if it has the power to do so and get away with it.

                                > The amerinds were invaded, and fought bravely and often brutally to
                                > resist that invasion, in which they were fought bravely and brutally
                                > against. They lost. That's part of the story of human kind.
                                To fight bravely and brutally over land is a normal and natural human activity, which even women (mothers, wives, sisters, daughters) rarely disapprove of, as a man's natural and normal role in a group/tribe/nation is to defend and enhance the power and prosperity of the group/tribe/nation.


                                > The difference that Buchanan is raising is that Christians in the US are
                                > the vast majority of people and hold incredible power...and aren't even
                                > fighting for what is theirs. That's the big difference. They're not even
                                > fighting against their own dispossession.
                                I wish Buchanan or anyone else could specify what *actions* Protestants should take to re-establish their supremacy in the US.

                                > And that is interesting. Or should be. Whatever you believe or whichever
                                > side you take. From an evo-psych and social studies perspective it is
                                > surely an historically fascinating phenomenon.
                                --Al
                                The occurrence of land grabs, being in consonance with human tribal nature, has been commonplace throughout history. But recently the pace may have slowed down, the last major land-grab having been that of the lands of the Palestinian people, (which land-grab was aided and abetted by the US and the UK.)
                                And so now we are all innocent victims of terrorism, as some Islamists will not accept how the world is supposed to work a la evolutionary psychology, citing the Qur'an's recommendation to drive out non-Muslim occupiers, rulers and land-grabbers.
                                --ED




                              • artemistroy
                                It would be better to get back to the winter solstice, Nature and the seasons. That s what it all started out to be and then co-opted by newbie religions. All
                                Message 15 of 24 , Jan 3, 2012
                                  It would be better to get back to the winter solstice, Nature and the seasons. That's what it all started out to be and then co-opted by newbie religions. All of the festivals and celebrations can be traced back to the ancient pagan rites and rituals, agriculture, etc. What's the big fuss? View some Paleolithic cave art and you'll see fertility rituals. The need for rituals cannot be repressed, it must be in the genes.

                                  Artemis

                                  --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Hibbsa,
                                  >
                                  > I have no problem with secular Christmas displays like Santa Claus but since religion is delusion the display of religious displays perpetuates delusion. It should be allowed on private property but certainly not on public property. And if Christian displays are ever allowed then most certainly Atheist and Muslim should be also.
                                  >
                                  > I assure you that this country does NOT belong to the Christians....
                                  >
                                  > Edgar
                                  >
                                  > On Jan 1, 2012, at 10:20 AM, hibbsa wrote:
                                  >
                                  <snip>
                                • artemistroy
                                  Most of those problems were eliminated after the Separation of Church and State was passed. Then came the religion renaissance and what followed was many more
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Jan 3, 2012
                                    Most of those problems were eliminated after the Separation of Church and State was passed. Then came the religion renaissance and what followed was many more and varied Xian sects and churches.

                                    Artemis


                                    --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams" <clarencew@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Hibbsa,
                                    >
                                    > Early America in the colonial period was characterized by theocratic
                                    > states; early Massachusetts, for instance, was not much different than
                                    > modern-day Iran. It was also characterized by brutal enforcement of the
                                    > theoretic precepts common to a particular colony; baptist parents were
                                    > jailed (in the Virginia colony), Catholic priests tarred and feathered
                                    > and Quakers hung...if they happened to try and practice their particular
                                    > brand of Christianity in the wrong place.
                                    >
                                    > I think we secularists and/or atheists should all lay low and give in to
                                    > the Christian nazi movement. Let's go back to these "good old days" of
                                    > sectarian strongholds...and watch American Christians kill one another
                                    > again. When enough of them are killed by other Christians, we can rise
                                    > up again and make America purely secular again. Sigh. History keeps
                                    > repeating itself.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    <snip>
                                  • artemistroy
                                    Honestly, people didn t migrate to North America because they were Xian, but to get out of Europe, and to find some free or cheap land and opportunity. That s
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Jan 3, 2012
                                      Honestly, people didn't migrate to North America because they were Xian, but to get out of Europe, and to find some free or cheap land and opportunity. That's what they did and their religion somehow gave them strength in the face of hostility and hardship. These were pioneers, risking everything for a fresh start. Xianity is intrinsic to American history and culture. Whether we like it or not, when Xianity is gone, so too will the USA as we know and knew it. Then we can tear down the world's great cathedrals, churches, and shrines, nothing left but what was once the fantastic Greek and Roman civilizations that were destroyed by non-believers in the gods.

                                      Artemis

                                      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Michael,
                                      >
                                      > You'll find similar events involving invasion and land grabs, in the
                                      > history of all civilizations. Why pick on Christians? Why not pick on
                                      > the Ottomans? Man historical events involving land grabs, genocides,
                                      > invasions.
                                      >
                                      > Or the Amerinds themselves? You say Christians murdered for the land.
                                      > But Amerinds murdered Christians because they didn't want them settling
                                      > the land. Why did Amerinds have the right to murder men women and
                                      > children settlers?
                                      >
                                      > Why frame things now that Christians aren't being dispossessed they are
                                      > just losing their stranglehold, yet not frame things like that for the
                                      > time Christians were settling the land. Why not say that the amerinds
                                      > never lost the land to Europeans, they just lost their stanglehold on
                                      > the land?
                                      >
                                      >
                                      <snip>
                                    • Robert Karl Stonjek
                                      ... From: artemistroy To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 7:47 PM Subject: Re: Re : Re : [evol-psych] Whose Country Is
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Jan 3, 2012
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 7:47 PM
                                        Subject: Re: Re : Re : [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?

                                        Honestly, people didn't migrate to North America because they were Xian, but to get out of Europe, and to find some free or cheap land and opportunity. That's what they did and their religion somehow gave them strength in the face of hostility and hardship. These were pioneers, risking everything for a fresh start. Xianity is intrinsic to American history and culture. Whether we like it or not, when Xianity is gone, so too will the USA as we know and knew it. Then we can tear down the world's great cathedrals, churches, and shrines, nothing left but what was once the fantastic Greek and Roman civilizations that were destroyed by non-believers in the gods.

                                        Artemis
                                         
                                        RKS:
                                        Religious iconography has been consistently destroyed throughout recorded history by the religious, those who believe in the Gods.
                                         
                                        Atheist scientists consistently and throughout the recorded history of science, preserve history including religious iconography, monuments and so on.  There has never been, to my knowledge, a religious building destroyed by atheists but there have been plenty, more recently by the Taliban Muslims in Afghanistan (e.g. destruction of the Buddhist statues), records of destruction of religious iconography by religionists.
                                         
                                        If you have evidence to the contrary then please let's hear it.
                                         
                                        BTW Australia, New Zealand, Great Brittan, Germany and whole lot of other countries that have less than a tenth the church attendance and religiosity of the USA and are doing fine.  Thus it is reasonable to assume that religiosity in the US could drop by a similar amount (1/10th current levels) without any negative effects.
                                         
                                        Robert
                                      • Edgar Owen
                                        Michael, I m sympathetic to your idealist view but it s not the way of the world. By your criterion nearly every people and government on earth would be
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Jan 3, 2012
                                          Michael,

                                          I'm sympathetic to your idealist view but it's not the way of the world. By your criterion nearly every people and government on earth would be labeled a terrorist since nearly every one invaded and grabbed someone else's land.

                                          Edgar



                                          On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:08 AM, michael haaheim wrote:

                                          > Then, following your reasoning, it is their "right" to do so, and it would be their "right" to occupy whatever lands they succeed in concuring. It would also be their "right" to exterminate Christians who get in their way, in order to hold that land that they have taken.
                                          > Might does not make right. Those who believe it does are the terrorists, whether they be muslim, christian, atheist, or of any other religion, culture, or community.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > ________________________________
                                          > De : ED <seacrofter001@...>
                                          > À : evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Envoyé le : Lundi 2 Janvier 2012 19h07
                                          > Objet : Re: Re : [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>> Whose country is it? IT IS THEIRS, BY RIGHT. (the amerinds)
                                          >
                                          >> I'm sorry Micheal but it is not their land by right, any more than
                                          >> Britain belongs to the indigenous peoples who were there before the
                                          >> Roman and Saxon invasions (assuming for the sake of argument they were
                                          >> dispossessed).
                                          > The reality is that an ethnic group or groups, whether in a majority or not 'has the right' to take over and control a piece of land if it has the power to do so and get away with it.
                                          >
                                          >> The amerinds were invaded, and fought bravely and often brutally to
                                          >> resist that invasion, in which they were fought bravely and brutally
                                          >> against. They lost. That's part of the story of human kind.
                                          > To fight bravely and brutally over land is a normal and natural human activity, which even women (mothers, wives, sisters, daughters) rarely disapprove of, as a man's natural and normal role in a group/tribe/nation is to defend and enhance the power and prosperity of the group/tribe/nation.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >> The difference that Buchanan is raising is that Christians in the US are
                                          >> the vast majority of people and hold incredible power...and aren't even
                                          >> fighting for what is theirs. That's the big difference. They're not even
                                          >> fighting against their own dispossession.
                                          >
                                          > I wish Buchanan or anyone else could specify what *actions* Protestants should take to re-establish their supremacy in the US.
                                          >
                                          >> And that is interesting. Or should be. Whatever you believe or whichever
                                          >> side you take. From an evo-psych and social studies perspective it is
                                          >> surely an historically fascinating phenomenon.
                                          > --Al
                                          > The occurrence of land grabs, being in consonance with human tribal nature, has been commonplace throughout history. But recently the pace may have slowed down, the last major land-grab having been that of the lands of the Palestinian people, (which land-grab was aided and abetted by the US and the UK.)
                                          > And so now we are all innocent victims of terrorism, as some Islamists will not accept how the world is supposed to work a la evolutionary psychology, citing the Qur'an's recommendation to drive out non-Muslim occupiers, rulers and land-grabbers.
                                          > --ED
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                        • Edgar Owen
                                          I m for that. Sorry you missed my Winter Solstice festival! Edgar
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Jan 3, 2012
                                            I'm for that. Sorry you missed my Winter Solstice festival!

                                            Edgar



                                            On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:23 AM, artemistroy wrote:

                                             

                                            It would be better to get back to the winter solstice, Nature and the seasons. That's what it all started out to be and then co-opted by newbie religions. All of the festivals and celebrations can be traced back to the ancient pagan rites and rituals, agriculture, etc. What's the big fuss? View some Paleolithic cave art and you'll see fertility rituals. The need for rituals cannot be repressed, it must be in the genes.

                                            Artemis

                                            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Hibbsa,
                                            >
                                            > I have no problem with secular Christmas displays like Santa Claus but since religion is delusion the display of religious displays perpetuates delusion. It should be allowed on private property but certainly not on public property. And if Christian displays are ever allowed then most certainly Atheist and Muslim should be also.
                                            >
                                            > I assure you that this country does NOT belong to the Christians....
                                            >
                                            > Edgar
                                            >
                                            > On Jan 1, 2012, at 10:20 AM, hibbsa wrote:
                                            >
                                            <snip>


                                          • ED
                                            I have stated how humans and human groups ARE, not how they OUGHT to be. --ED ... would be their right to occupy whatever lands they succeed in concuring. It
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Jan 3, 2012
                                              I have stated how humans and human groups ARE, not how they OUGHT to be.

                                              --ED



                                              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, michael haaheim
                                              <MIKKELHPANDA@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > Then, following your reasoning, it is their "right" to do so, and it
                                              would be their "right" to occupy whatever lands they succeed in
                                              concuring. It would also be their "right" to exterminate Christians who
                                              get in their way, in order to hold that land that they have taken.
                                              > Might does not make right. Those who believe it does are the
                                              terrorists, whether they be muslim, christian, atheist, or of any other
                                              religion, culture, or community.



                                              > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" hibbsa@
                                              wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > >Whose country is it? IT IS THEIRS, BY RIGHT. (the amerinds)
                                              >
                                              > > I'm sorry Micheal but it is not their land by right, any more than
                                              > > Britain belongs to the indigenous peoples who were there before the
                                              > > Roman and Saxon invasions (assuming for the sake of argument they
                                              were
                                              > > dispossessed).
                                              > The reality is that an ethnic group or groups, whether in a majority
                                              or not 'has the right' to take over and control a piece of land if it
                                              has the power to do so and get away with it.
                                              >
                                              > > The amerinds were invaded, and fought bravely and often brutally to
                                              > > resist that invasion, in which they were fought bravely and brutally
                                              > > against. They lost. That's part of the story of human kind.
                                              > To fight bravely and brutally over land is a normal and natural human
                                              activity, which even women (mothers, wives, sisters, daughters) rarely
                                              disapprove of, as a man's natural and normal role in a
                                              group/tribe/nation is to defend and enhance the power and prosperity of
                                              the group/tribe/nation.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > > The difference that Buchanan is raising is that Christians in the US
                                              are
                                              > > the vast majority of people and hold incredible power...and aren't
                                              even
                                              > > fighting for what is theirs. That's the big difference. They're not
                                              even
                                              > > fighting against their own dispossession.
                                              >
                                              > I wish Buchanan or anyone else could specify what *actions*
                                              Protestants should take to re-establish their supremacy in the US.
                                              >
                                              > > And that is interesting. Or should be. Whatever you believe or
                                              whichever
                                              > > side you take. From an evo-psych and social studies perspective it
                                              is
                                              > > surely an historically fascinating phenomenon.
                                              > --Al
                                              > The occurrence of land grabs, being in consonance with human tribal
                                              nature, has been commonplace throughout history. But recently the pace
                                              may have slowed down, the last major land-grab having been that of the
                                              lands of the Palestinian people, (which land-grab was aided and abetted
                                              by the US and the UK.)
                                              > And so now we are all innocent victims of terrorism, as some Islamists
                                              will not accept how the world is supposed to work a la evolutionary
                                              psychology, citing the Qur'an's recommendation to drive out non-Muslim
                                              occupiers, rulers and land-grabbers.
                                              > --ED
                                              >
                                            • clarence_sonny_williams
                                              Artemis, I don t intend to be argumentative, but rather informative. Separation of Church and State was passed along with the Bill of Rights, but only years
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Jan 3, 2012
                                                Artemis,

                                                I don't intend to be argumentative, but rather informative. "Separation
                                                of Church and State was passed" along with the Bill of Rights, but only
                                                years later were the problems "eliminated." States were not beholden to
                                                apply to the Bill of Rights to their citizens; the Bill of Rights only
                                                applied to the Federal Government. They openly and often agregiously
                                                continued as theocracies until well after the Civil War. Only years
                                                after the 14th Amendment was passed did the Supreme Court finally
                                                declare that the Civil War-era 14th Amendment meant that States also had
                                                to practice the separation of church and state. For instance, all
                                                citizens of Connecticut paid taxes for building Congregationalist
                                                churches until some time in the 1930's and to this day Maryland still
                                                requires a religious oath of office.


                                                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "artemistroy"
                                                <artemispub@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Most of those problems were eliminated after the Separation of Church
                                                and State was passed. Then came the religion renaissance and what
                                                followed was many more and varied Xian sects and churches.
                                                >
                                                > Artemis
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com,
                                                "clarence_sonny_williams" clarencew@ wrote:
                                                > >
                                                > > Hibbsa,
                                                > >
                                                > > Early America in the colonial period was characterized by theocratic
                                                > > states; early Massachusetts, for instance, was not much different
                                                than
                                                > > modern-day Iran. It was also characterized by brutal enforcement of
                                                the
                                                > > theoretic precepts common to a particular colony; baptist parents
                                                were
                                                > > jailed (in the Virginia colony), Catholic priests tarred and
                                                feathered
                                                > > and Quakers hung...if they happened to try and practice their
                                                particular
                                                > > brand of Christianity in the wrong place.
                                                > >
                                                > > I think we secularists and/or atheists should all lay low and give
                                                in to
                                                > > the Christian nazi movement. Let's go back to these "good old days"
                                                of
                                                > > sectarian strongholds...and watch American Christians kill one
                                                another
                                                > > again. When enough of them are killed by other Christians, we can
                                                rise
                                                > > up again and make America purely secular again. Sigh. History keeps
                                                > > repeating itself.
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > <snip>
                                                >
                                              • artemistroy
                                                I should have been more explicit. I mean that Islam together with Marxists will destroy Xianity. Not that I personally care, I m not a Xian, and science will
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Jan 3, 2012
                                                  I should have been more explicit. I mean that Islam together with Marxists will destroy Xianity. Not that I personally care, I'm not a Xian, and science will probably replace most of the dogma. However, people need their rituals, so they'll dream up some new religions like they usually do.

                                                  Artemis

                                                  --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                                  > From: artemistroy
                                                  > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                                  > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 7:47 PM
                                                  > Subject: Re: Re : Re : [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Honestly, people didn't migrate to North America because they were Xian, but to get out of Europe, and to find some free or cheap land and opportunity. That's what they did and their religion somehow gave them strength in the face of hostility and hardship. These were pioneers, risking everything for a fresh start. Xianity is intrinsic to American history and culture. Whether we like it or not, when Xianity is gone, so too will the USA as we know and knew it. Then we can tear down the world's great cathedrals, churches, and shrines, nothing left but what was once the fantastic Greek and Roman civilizations that were destroyed by non-believers in the gods.
                                                  >
                                                  > Artemis
                                                  >
                                                  > RKS:
                                                  > Religious iconography has been consistently destroyed throughout recorded history by the religious, those who believe in the Gods.
                                                  >
                                                  > Atheist scientists consistently and throughout the recorded history of science, preserve history including religious iconography, monuments and so on. There has never been, to my knowledge, a religious building destroyed by atheists but there have been plenty, more recently by the Taliban Muslims in Afghanistan (e.g. destruction of the Buddhist statues), records of destruction of religious iconography by religionists.
                                                  >
                                                  > If you have evidence to the contrary then please let's hear it.
                                                  >
                                                  > BTW Australia, New Zealand, Great Brittan, Germany and whole lot of other countries that have less than a tenth the church attendance and religiosity of the USA and are doing fine. Thus it is reasonable to assume that religiosity in the US could drop by a similar amount (1/10th current levels) without any negative effects.
                                                  >
                                                  > Robert
                                                  >
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.