The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Religion & Philosophy

The JW Cult

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...5 6 7 8 9 10 · >>
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#91New Post! Jan 08, 2017 @ 04:54:47
@DiscordTiger Said

Bats***.

Bats*** started a war in South America.

ETA: it could have been bird s***. It was definitely s*** from a flying animal though.


Eyeliner!
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#92New Post! Jan 08, 2017 @ 04:57:35
@shinobinoz Said

You so negative about white folks!


Hardly, humans have treated each other in such a manner since recorded history no matter what race they have been. It's an unfortunate reality. The Incas and Aztecs for example behaved no differently...
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#93New Post! Jan 08, 2017 @ 05:04:47
@shinobinoz Said

Kind of a stretch from leaving others out of their teachings & concentrating on living their good points opposed to expressing opinion don't you think?


Their 'teachings' are also their opinions. Just the same as the 'teachings' of BLM are their opinions etc etc etc. What the video is doing is expressing their views on a particular topic. Your idea of "leaving others out of their teachings" seems to mean that they shouldn't publicly express their opinion. If however you are saying they have a right to express their views then fair enough. If you are saying for example that they have a right to publish the video in question then fine (obviously doesnt mean you agree with them). If however you are saying they shouldnt make public their views then this is hypocritical and a dangerous attempt at a form of censorship.
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#94New Post! Jan 08, 2017 @ 05:11:01
@shadowen Said

Their 'teachings' are also their opinions. Just the same as the 'teachings' of BLM are their opinions etc etc etc. What the video is doing is expressing their views on a particular topic. Your idea of "leaving others out of their teachings" seems to mean that they shouldn't publicly express their opinion. If however you are saying they have a right to express their views then fair enough. If you are saying for example that they have a right to publish the video in question then fine (obviously doesnt mean you agree with them). If however you are saying they shouldnt make public their views then this is hypocritical and a dangerous attempt at a form of censorship.


MEH. We have enough with the boarding schools to know what slippery slope this becomes.
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#95New Post! Jan 08, 2017 @ 05:11:56
More on religion & manifest destiny.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#96New Post! Jan 08, 2017 @ 05:20:38


Only it doesnt mention anything about broken treaties (nor does it touch upon the driving forces that led to the colonising of the Americas).

Some 500 plus treaties were made and broken in relation to native peoples in north america. Let's look at just one as an example, that being the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty that designated the sovereignty of the Lakota people and prohibited outside settlers from ever occupying their lands. This treaty essentially only lasted 6 years. For in 1874 gold was found in the Black Hills and in other areas held sovereign by the Lakota, and non-Indian miners swarmed the Black Hills. Consequently, the federal government reneged on the Fort Laramie Treaties and took total control of the Black Hills. So are you telling me this treaty (as but one example) was broken due to 'religious dogma'? Is this really what you believe?
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#97New Post! Jan 08, 2017 @ 05:21:55
@shinobinoz Said

MEH. We have enough with the boarding schools to know what slippery slope this becomes.


So tell me straight up. Should the JW's have the right to publicly express their views or should they be prohibited from doing so.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#98New Post! Jan 08, 2017 @ 05:28:35
@shinobinoz Said

MEH. We have enough with the boarding schools to know what slippery slope this becomes.


A particularly dangerous slippery slope is when you seek to deny people the ability to publicly express views that you dont agree with.
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#99New Post! Jan 08, 2017 @ 13:33:17
@shadowen Said

Only it doesnt mention anything about broken treaties (nor does it touch upon the driving forces that led to the colonising of the Americas).

Some 500 plus treaties were made and broken in relation to native peoples in north america. Let's look at just one as an example, that being the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty that designated the sovereignty of the Lakota people and prohibited outside settlers from ever occupying their lands. This treaty essentially only lasted 6 years. For in 1874 gold was found in the Black Hills and in other areas held sovereign by the Lakota, and non-Indian miners swarmed the Black Hills. Consequently, the federal government reneged on the Fort Laramie Treaties and took total control of the Black Hills. So are you telling me this treaty (as but one example) was broken due to 'religious dogma'? Is this really what you believe?


Well it was Roman Catholic missionary Father De Smet that told others of the Lakota having gold. But beyond that- you still cannot separate european/american mindset from religion. It provides all of the excuses & cover for what transpired.
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#100New Post! Jan 08, 2017 @ 13:37:41
@shadowen Said

So tell me straight up. Should the JW's have the right to publicly express their views or should they be prohibited from doing so.


Depends. Should the Mormans be allowed to push such bigotry in public schools in Utah? Slippery slope with bigotry. I understand freedom of speech- but there certainly can be limits to promoting violence & intolerance.
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#101New Post! Jan 08, 2017 @ 13:39:00
@shadowen Said

A particularly dangerous slippery slope is when you seek to deny people the ability to publicly express views that you dont agree with.


Look. You are talking to someone whose peoples have little voice. I understand the concept behind freedom of speech. It certainly is not free for many of us.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#102New Post! Jan 10, 2017 @ 04:10:10
@shinobinoz Said

Well it was Roman Catholic missionary Father De Smet that told others of the Lakota having gold. But beyond that- you still cannot separate european/american mindset from religion. It provides all of the excuses & cover for what transpired.


Unbelievable. In the early 1860's De Smet told a dinner party (who were discussing the prospect of gold in the west) that he had come across gold in his travels but despite all efforts to persuade him to reveal the location of his discovery he refused to do so saying "he did not wish his children (the Indians) to be disturbed". Multiple sources all confirm that De Smet never told anyone where he had found gold.

Let us look though at the background to the 'discovery' of gold in the Black Hills. Soon after the discovery of gold in Wyoming and Montana, the belief became prevalent that gold in paying quantities could he found in the Black Hills. Lieutenant Warren, of the United States topographical engineers, made a report of his visit to the Hills in 1857, in which he said: "The Black Hills are composed of the same formations of stratified rocks as are found in the gold bearing gulches of the Wind river and Big Horn mountains where gold has been found in paying quantities."

This belief was further strengthened by the widespread circulation of stories, mythical or otherwise, of immense finds of the precious metals there by the native peoples. One of these stories went back as far as 1811, when the natives would come to a trading post of the American Fur Company, located at the confluence of the north and south forks of the Big Cheyenne river, about twenty-five miles from the Hills, bearing fine nuggets of gold, which they would exchange for sugar, coffee, gaudy trinkets and alcohol. These Indians always claimed that
they found the gold somewhere in the Black Hills country, but neither threats nor bribes could induce them to betray the exact locality. In 1862 two natives brought about twenty thousand dollars' worth of gold to Fort Laramie, and sold it to Mr. Bullock, the post trader.

in 1857, Lieutenant Warren started to enter the Hills, even though he had been told by priests to keep clear of the area as it was sacred ground (how does this fit in with your narrative?). He went anyway.

in 1870 a company was organized at Bozeman to explore the Hills. The company was called "The Big Horn Mountain and Black Hills Mining Association". In the spring of 1874 this association sent an expedition of 150 well armed and well mounted men, accompanied by Colonel Murnn's battery, which consisted of one small cannon, to the eastern slope of the Big Horn mountains, with instructions to reach the Black Hills if
possible.

The same year the government sent an expedition to the Black Hills under the command of Gen. George A. Custer. According to R. B. Cowan, acting secretary of the interior, it was sent out "merely as a military reconnaissance of the country for the purpose of ascertaining the best location if in future it should become necessary to establish there a military post." Nevertheless a number of scientists, practical miners, etc., accompanied the expedition, and the result of their investigations was included in General Custer's report upon his return.

In his report to the adjutant general, for the department of Dakota, General Custer gave a flattering account of the country, particularly regarding its possibilities for agricultural pursuits. That part of his report, bearing on the question of gold mining said: "The miners report that they found gold among the roots of the grass, and from that point to the lowest point reached, gold was found in paying quantities. It has not required an expert to find gold in the Black Hills, as men without former experiences in mining have discovered it at an expense of but little time or labour." The report also stated that the
scientists with the expedition were satisfied that lead and silver could be found in paying quantities.

Custer's report of gold in the Black Hills was widely publicised and came during a time of significant economic hardship for the US as they were caught up in the great panic of 1873. An official government report of gold therefore provoked great excitement. Although old miners had never given much credence to the stories told of the fabulous wealth in the Hills, they hailed with delight the expedition of General
Custer, as a sure means of creating public sentiment in favour of opening up the country to settlement, which would in time force the government to act. They understood that the occupation of the Black Hills meant that the whole country west of them across the Powder river and Big Horn mountains must soon follow. General Custer, in his report, referred to the attitude of the native peoples as a "dog in the manger policy." He stated that they made no effort to develop the resources of the Hills themselves, and they were opposed to their development by the whites. General Custer recommended that the Black Hills either be opened to settlement, or be occupied as a military reservation.

As soon as the tenor of this report became generally known, companies were formed in various parts of the Northwest to go to the Black Hills with Sioux City and Yankton acting among the first.

In 1872, prior to the Custer expedition, territorial officials were already considering harvesting the rich timber resources of the Black Hills, to be floated down the Cheyenne River to the Missouri, where new plains settlements needed lumber.

And so here we have it. You try and blame religion for the gold rush in the Black Hills and the subsequent decision by the US government to break the 1868 Treaty of Laramie by referencing a missionary who never actually told anyone where gold was to be found. You blame religion even though it was official US government expeditions that sparked the gold rush. Expeditions that included scientists and miners. That alone should give you a hint as to what the driving forces were and they sure as hell werent religious. But why let facts get in the way.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#103New Post! Jan 10, 2017 @ 04:14:07
@shinobinoz Said

Look. You are talking to someone whose peoples have little voice. I understand the concept behind freedom of speech. It certainly is not free for many of us.


So because freedom of speech is "not free for many of us" it's all right to attempt to deny others freedom of speech? I would have thought that you would be more inclined to promote freedom of speech (even when you passionately disagree with the views of others) rather than try to stifle it. How can you complain about not having your voice heard when you try to silence the voice of others?
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#104New Post! Jan 10, 2017 @ 04:19:48
@shadowen Said

So because freedom of speech is "not free for many of us" it's all right to attempt to deny others freedom of speech? I would have thought that you would be more inclined to promote freedom of speech (even when you passionately disagree with the views of others) rather than try to stifle it. How can you complain about not having your voice heard when you try to silence the voice of others?


Not what I said mind you. Forcing beliefs on people is the issue. Not freedom of speech. Hate speech & speech that incites or causes pain is something that must be weighed as to it's intent & thus it's free usage.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#105New Post! Jan 10, 2017 @ 04:22:31
@shinobinoz Said

Depends. Should the Mormans be allowed to push such bigotry in public schools in Utah? Slippery slope with bigotry. I understand freedom of speech- but there certainly can be limits to promoting violence & intolerance.


Bigotry (much like offence) is generally subjective and is usually dependant upon someone's values/views. People call others bigots if they hold views different to their own. You may consider someone a bigot whereas someone else wont. That other person may infact consider you a bigot. I would say that in a democracy people have the right to freely voice their opinion provided they do not act illegally. People have the right to agitate for change within the democratic framework. They will then either be successful or unsuccessful. What is extremely dangerous is a situation where one group of people determine what views may be publicly aired. That is the role of government.

If the Mormons are promoting violence then surely that would be illegal. It would be here. The question of intolerance though is highly subjective.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...5 6 7 8 9 10 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Fashion
Wed Sep 19, 2007 @ 07:55
72 3285
New posts   Health & Fitness
Mon Jul 19, 2010 @ 05:38
10 995
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Wed Feb 22, 2017 @ 16:14
10 1217
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Sun Apr 26, 2009 @ 14:18
16 1348
New posts   Security
Mon Aug 31, 2009 @ 13:19
58 5960