As Christianity wanes, immoral behavior increases

Im pro life myself, but your conflating the abortion issue with
your middle eastern sky god having the right to give away a womans body for whoever takes her by force is disgusting.

The "christian" myth that people are punished for the "sin" of adam and eve is also rather repulsive both morally and intellectually.

That it makes persons such as yourself such easy and casual apologists
for an atrocity is appalling.

I dont really know if it was or not. i did notice tho, that you rather dishonestly answered my question with a question.

It certainly acted often enough as a de facto policy, tho the USA has always been
so marginally under the control of any consistent policy thru time and
from one place to another, that one could neither say it was or was not
"the" official policy.

 

It would be helpful if you could find a statement Jackson made about Indians like this one from Hitler:

"Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will have gallows built in rows—at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example—as many as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated. Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews.[46]" Wikipedia

Otherwise I will have to conclude you made up the genocide part or read it in a Ward Churchill book. Anyway, atheists always remind us we have separation of state, so how are Jackson's actions as an elected official related to Christianity?

 

Sorry, I don't know who Churchill is.
Didn't I already say the Nazis were the exception to the rule?

 

Churchill is the University of Colorado professor who made up stories to say the US government intentionally gave smallbox-blankets to the Indians. He's big on the phoney genocide rhetoric we hear on this forum.

"In at least six different essays, Churchill alleged that the United States Army deliberately distributed smallpox-infected blankets to the Mandan Indians at Fort Clark in 1837 to spark a smallpox pandemic, and that hundreds of thousands of Indians died of smallpox as a consequence. Other scholars who have studied this episode agree that smallpox killed many Indians in this time frame, but deny that there is any evidence to support Churchill's allegations of deliberate genocide by means of smallpox blankets. They also charge Churchill with exaggerating the death toll and with falsifying the sources he cites in support of his claims. Professor Thomas Brown wrote in the journal Plagiary that, "Every aspect of Churchill's tale is fabricated."[18]
In November 2004, Guenter Lewy, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, published an essay charging Churchill with misrepresenting his sources. Lewy says Churchill's assertion that the U.S. Army intentionally spread smallpox among American Indians by distributing infected blankets in 1837 is false. "He just makes things up," said Lewy. Lewy calls Churchill's claim of 100,000 deaths from the incident "obviously absurd".[19][20]
In an article in the journal Plagiary, entitled "Did the US Army Distribute Smallpox Blankets to Indians? Fabrication and Falsification in Ward Churchill's Genocide Rhetoric", Lamar University sociology professor Thomas Brown also accused Churchill of fabricating the incident and falsifying his sources.[21] Brown argues that Churchill's claim that his cited source—Russell Thornton—supports Churchill's smallpox blanket allegations is a falsification of Thornton. Brown also charges Churchill with fabricating the presence of US Army personnel on the scene, with fabricating the distribution of blankets taken from a military infirmary in St. Louis, and with concealing evidence in his possession that disconfirms his allegations.
Three of the authors that Churchill cites in support of his smallpox thesis, Evan Connell, RG Robertson and Russell Thornton, have rejected Churchill's interpretation of their work. Thornton characterized Churchill's smallpox thesis as "fabrication."[22]
In an interview in 2005, Churchill stated that he had obtained documentary evidence confirming his description of events at Fort Clark.[22]
The May 2006 report by the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado corroborated Churchill's critics. The committee concluded that for over a period of 10 years, Churchill consistently falsified his sources and fabricated claims regarding the Fort Clark epidemic. The committee criticized Churchill for failing to recognize and correct his errors, and for his insistence that he intends to republish his indictment of genocide in the future without substantive changes. The committee also criticized Churchill for answering his critics with ad hominem attacks instead of reason and evidence.
Additionally, the committee found Churchill guilty of serious research misconduct in his claims that John Smith initiated a smallpox epidemic against Wampanoag Indians when he visited New England in 1614. The committee found that the source Churchill cited for his claim (Manitou and Providence: Europeans, Indians, and the Making of New England, 1500–1643 by Neal Salisbury) actually gave evidence contrary to his claim, namely that Smith viewed the Indians as a potential source of labor to be exploited militarily (rather than exterminated) and that the epidemic did not break out until at least eighteen months after Smith had left the area. Based on these and other inconsistencies, the committee determined that Churchill had fabricated this event and cited sources in a misleading way.[23]"

Wikipedia

 

That story was around before he was born.

 

Sorry.
I don't care who this man is. He is not my source.

 

And was just as fake then.

 

The US government never gave infected blankets to native Americans.

The Myth came about because a british officer in the French and Indian wars of the 18th centurywrote to another Officer and suggested that infected blankets be used in such a way and the officer who recieved the letter was horrified and refused to have anything to do the whole idea which was never put into practice.

 

sure, but why did you say it came from the fake indian, "Churchill?

 

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnasl7.html

A concise history of our destruction of the native American.
Zinn includes plenty of citations and quotations from the people of the time.
This is a book chapter, so it is not a quick read.

 

And there is no evidence in it of infected blankets.

 

Re-read.

 

No. if you want to provide evidence then quote the paragraph. Cut and paste it to here. if you refuse Ill know you are lying.

 

That's ok. Can't make you read.

 

As I thought.

There is no evidence so you played a rather well worn game of posting an essay which contained no evidence at all then demanded that people spotting there was no evidence re read it.

if there was evidence it would take you a couple of minutes to paste it but becase there isn;t you obfuscate and refuse to prove your own assertion.

If you pasted it I would read it but you can't because it isn't there.

So utterly predictable.

 

During Pontiac's uprising in 1763, the Indians besieged Fort Pitt. They burned nearby houses, forcing the inhabitants to take refuge in the well-protected fort. The British officer in charge, Captain Simeon Ecuyer, reported to Colonel Henry Bouquet in Philadelphia that he feared the crowded conditions would result in disease. Smallpox had already broken out.

On June 24, 1763, William Trent, a local trader, recorded in his journal that two Indian chiefs had visited the fort, urging the British to abandon the fight, but the British refused. Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/warfare.cfm

 

And how does this demonstrate that the USA gave infected blankets as the brucebeat maintains?

And secondly this quote is from a highly misleading passage. Perhaps you can tell me which fort the blankets came from by the passage above?

 

Most of what Andrew Jackson did to the natives were capital offenses, or at the very least impeachable ones. He spearheaded a policy of genocide without committing the U.S. to it legislatively by a continuously dishonest policy of treaties he would quickly break.

 

Brucebeat. I am waiting for your evidence of US use of infected blankets. Either post that evidence or admit you were wrong.

 

Don't want to respond to this one?
Ok.

 

Ah game playing again. I have offered to respond to any specific evidence you post. You are refusing to post it.

Once you either admit you were wrong or post evidence Ill respond to your comment about Jackson.

 

Then don't.
I'll construe that as an avoidance.
Enjoy your day.

 

Yup Typical christian. Runs away instead of admitting he is wrong. That's why we find you Christians so hilarious. You can't substantiate your beleifs on ANYTHING. You are dishonest to a fault and cowards to boot.

I am still offering to answer any question in return for the evidence or admittance that there is none. Not avoiding anything.

 

Oh yeah the perfect functioning society if you beleive that only white men should be employed and not have to compete against racial minorities or women in the workplace.

 

Where did you get the idea I was a Christian?
I think you're projecting onto me something you would prefer so you can have a simple characterization to attack.
Instead, you look foolish.