NationStates

Nakena wrote:

Lower Nubia wrote:
Because it makes the narrative of "evil" Europeans against the "peace-loving" natives more palatable.

Also there were many crusades inside Europe itself. With various tribes being slaughtered and genocided.

Lost Memories wrote:

Hakons wrote:
It's from St. John Henry Newman's work An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Here's a link to the quoted section. Newman was an Anglican priest and prominent theologian that converted to Catholicism. He was quite renown in 19th century British religious discourse, and he eventually became a Cardinal. He was canonized a saint last year.

So that quote was his? Was he paraphrasing someone else? Or was he quoting someone else? Who was that someone else?

Ayytaly wrote:Getting defensive and trying to justify Europeans genociding Amerindians in a Christian thread is one of the main reasons why we get a bad rep. It's as if being European automatically means Christian, despite the rather diabolical pagan culture Germanic tribes followed prior to Christianity's spread over Rome.

Hakons wrote:

Lost Memories wrote:So that quote was his? Was he paraphrasing someone else? Or was he quoting someone else? Who was that someone else?

That was his own words. It's his view of what other people outside the Church think of the Church.

Nakena wrote:

Lower Nubia wrote:
Because it makes the narrative of "evil" Europeans against the "peace-loving" natives more palatable.

Also there were many crusades inside Europe itself.

Nakena wrote:

Lower Nubia wrote:
Because it makes the narrative of "evil" Europeans against the "peace-loving" natives more palatable.

Also there were many crusades inside Europe itself. With various tribes being slaughtered and genocided.

Ayytaly wrote:Getting defensive and trying to justify Europeans genociding Amerindians in a Christian thread is one of the main reasons why we get a bad rep. It's as if being European automatically means Christian, despite the rather diabolical pagan culture Germanic tribes followed prior to Christianity's spread over Rome.

Celritannia wrote:

Hakons wrote:
The premise that the divine, the spiritual, and the religious, are not intimately involved with the physical reality, with the worldly estate, and the organization of people is itself a quasi-religious claim presented by a secular, modern worldview. It is our faith that the Divine is the cause that all things exist, is the Reason that forms political action, and is the Omnipotent that permits or topples government; for all these things are acted on or permitted to exist by He who commands Providence.

I do recognize that when modern polities succumb to secularism, they dramatically reject the previous religious government. As you mentioned Spain, to which I would add Quebec as another clear example. I don't think that's really a reply to my statement. When secularists take power, they're not establishing neutrality from religion or philosophy, they're establishing their own quasi-religion with its own precepts, rites, and blasphemies.

Is that why the least religious countries are the happiest?

Also, no. Secular countries establish a nation to ensure all relgions are free and not one takes precedence.
There is also the fact that he least religious countries focus on other, more human-centric endeavours.

Celritannia wrote:

Hakons wrote:
The premise that the divine, the spiritual, and the religious, are not intimately involved with the physical reality, with the worldly estate, and the organization of people is itself a quasi-religious claim presented by a secular, modern worldview. It is our faith that the Divine is the cause that all things exist, is the Reason that forms political action, and is the Omnipotent that permits or topples government; for all these things are acted on or permitted to exist by He who commands Providence.

I do recognize that when modern polities succumb to secularism, they dramatically reject the previous religious government. As you mentioned Spain, to which I would add Quebec as another clear example. I don't think that's really a reply to my statement. When secularists take power, they're not establishing neutrality from religion or philosophy, they're establishing their own quasi-religion with its own precepts, rites, and blasphemies.

Is that why the least religious countries are the happiest?

Also, no. Secular countries establish a nation to ensure all relgions are free and not one takes precedence.
There is also the fact that he least religious countries focus on other, more human-centric endeavours.

Eglaecia wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Is that why the least religious countries are the happiest?

Also, no. Secular countries establish a nation to ensure all relgions are free and not one takes precedence.
There is also the fact that he least religious countries focus on other, more human-centric endeavours.

Correlation and causation are two different things. The ten happiest countries are also among ten of the richest, with the highest standards of living, and also the whitest (though it would be racist to point that out, wouldn't it?). While the ten least happy are among the most underdeveloped, disease ridden and war-torn.

Europa Undivided wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Is that why the least religious countries are the happiest?

Switzerland: The country no one bothered to invade for the last 200 years is happy? Wow, I’m surprised.

Lost Memories wrote:

Europa Undivided wrote:
Switzerland: The country no one bothered to invade for the last 200 years is happy? Wow, I’m surprised.

Switzerland listed as not religious is super bullshit.
They take the swiss guards at the vatican as national pride.

Most of the unaffiliated they have now are ex protestants from after the 1973 popular removal from the constitution of the ban on jesuit activity. Which was imposed by protestants in 1848.

Eglaecia wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Is that why the least religious countries are the happiest?

Also, no. Secular countries establish a nation to ensure all relgions are free and not one takes precedence.
There is also the fact that he least religious countries focus on other, more human-centric endeavours.

Correlation and causation are two different things. The ten happiest countries are also among ten of the richest, with the highest standards of living, and also the whitest (though it would be racist to point that out, wouldn't it?). While the ten least happy are among the most underdeveloped, disease ridden and war-torn.

Lost Memories wrote:

Europa Undivided wrote:
Switzerland: The country no one bothered to invade for the last 200 years is happy? Wow, I’m surprised.

Switzerland listed as not religious is super bullshit.
They take the swiss guards at the vatican as national pride.

Europa Undivided wrote:

Lost Memories wrote:Switzerland listed as not religious is super bullshit.
They take the swiss guards at the vatican as national pride.

Most of the unaffiliated they have now are ex protestants from after the 1973 popular removal from the constitution of the ban on jesuit activity. Which was imposed by protestants in 1848.

Right.

If nonreligiousity made people happy then the Soviet Union should have been the happiest country on Earth.

Pyrghium wrote:

Nakena wrote:
Also there were many crusades inside Europe itself.

Some even against fellow Christians...

Lower Nubia wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
That a euro-centric position.
That's like me saying the house you are in is now mine because I broke into it stole your stuff and kicked you into the garden.

Apart from the fact I’d have the deed and a police force to cart you off.

Do nations in the 16th century have anything to enforce international recognition of territory? No?

Bad analogy.

In reality this shows your contempt for the Spanish because you don’t seem to care for the previously non-Aztec owners who the Aztec stole it off.

What’s the limit here on theft? If King Montezuma revokes land from his nobility and peasants is that legitimate? If no, then the Spanish did nothing that the Aztecs didn’t do. If yes, Then your simply targeting the Spanish for your narrative.

Tarsonis wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
And the indigenous peoples did try, however, the Europeans were able to destroy them (mainly though illness after the initial take over).

People get conquered all the time.

Salus Maior wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
I never was against that.
But you are missing the entire point.
The European powers, especially of Spain, stole land of the native inhabitants and forced them to be Christian. That land belonged to the native peoples.

Of course the Spanish stole land. They stole it to find gold.

The Spanish didn't really steal land from the natives, not like the English did.

The majority of peoples in Latin America are either of native descent or half native. Because the Spanish intermarried with them, rather than force them off.

Lower Nubia wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:Why are we treating "natives" as a cohesive block?

Because it makes the narrative of "evil" Europeans against the "peace-loving" natives more palatable.

Hakons wrote:
Secular countries don't ensure all religions are free. Secular countries establish a domineering secular ideology that has exclusive control on government, education, and public society. Secularism isn't neutrality, it's the establishment of non-religion as the state supported religion. With your secular ideology, you could teach it in schools and it would be legal. I'm not allowed to teach my religious ideology, because the secular state doesn't allow that. You can create a law based off of your secular philosophy, but I would not be allowed to make laws based off of my religious philosophy. It's not neutrality.

Finally, what do you mean by "human-centric endeavors"? Are religious people and countries not concerned with human endeavors?

Nakena wrote:

Pyrghium wrote:Some even against fellow Christians...

The one against Byzantium comes to mind.

Eglaecia wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Is that why the least religious countries are the happiest?

Also, no. Secular countries establish a nation to ensure all relgions are free and not one takes precedence.
There is also the fact that he least religious countries focus on other, more human-centric endeavours.

Correlation and causation are two different things. The ten happiest countries are also among ten of the richest, with the highest standards of living, and also the whitest (though it would be racist to point that out, wouldn't it?). While the ten least happy are among the most underdeveloped, disease ridden and war-torn.

Celritannia wrote:

Eglaecia wrote:Correlation and causation are two different things. The ten happiest countries are also among ten of the richest, with the highest standards of living, and also the whitest (though it would be racist to point that out, wouldn't it?). While the ten least happy are among the most underdeveloped, disease ridden and war-torn.

They were also the nations that established empires and used their power over their colonised peoples to take what they wanted.
European Colonisation is the result of two polar opposites. The least religious and happy nation with the most religious and poor nation (with the exception of the Arab world).

Celritannia wrote:And you are also correct, the better standards of living means better education, medicine, infrastructure etc so believing in a deity has become less of a necessity for them.
Where as the poorer nations, not having those benefits find solace in religion to cope.

Eglaecia wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
They were also the nations that established empires and used their power over their colonised peoples to take what they wanted.
European Colonisation is the result of two polar opposites. The least religious and happy nation with the most religious and poor nation (with the exception of the Arab world).

And you are also correct, the better standards of living means better education, medicine, infrastructure etc so believing in a deity has become less of a necessity for them.
Where as the poorer nations, not having those benefits find solace in religion to cope.

"Cope" yeah yeah heard this a million times before. How do you know they're coping? You're just imposing that on them when you don't know why they believe. I could flip it around and say actually they're not coping but they're dealing with reality while westerners have all these worldly possessions that allow them to cope.

One theory is that religion plays a more functional role in the world's poorest countries, helping many residents cope with a daily struggle to provide for themselves and their families. A previous Gallup analysis supports this idea, revealing that the relationship between religiosity and emotional well-being is stronger among poor countries than among those in the developed world.