It is to my abiding horror that the United States is hosting ignorance on the scale of a Creation Museum that tries to pass off young earth creationism as a science worthy of having a museum dedicated to it. It horrifies me that this is one of those "only in America" things, where pitiful creationists can raise enough cash (upwards of $27 million) to build this travesty to reason.
However, as humor and horror go hand in hand, and a hat tip to Deep Thoughts, I present Behold the Creation Museum. It's a picture gallery devoted to the museum. Revealing the horror and humor of what lay within!
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Creation Museum Ahoy!
Bookmark this post!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Thanks Chris! I got a huge laugh out that! The captions & the comments were very funny. :)
Mind boggling, isn't it?
It boggles my mind.
I think my favorite part was one of the ones trying to explain "human reason" vs. "god's reason". And on this one they had a quotation from Descartes, the "I think therefore I am" quote and . . . I thought to myself, "Self, uh, wasn't the point of The Meditations to prove the Christian god exists?" So they didn't know enough about Descartes to accurately pin down that he was ON THEIR SIDE, hehe.
L>T, here,
yeah, It shows the modern fundimental christians fear of Philosophy.
Philosophy is evil, because it involves using your own rational mind. That's scarey stuff! Who knows what it might lead to...some evil decedance no doubt. ;]
The total lack of faith in humanity & themselves that those people have that makes so willing to lap up that idiotic drivel & follow any kind of authority figure with a beard. tsk tsk
Personally, I think Descrates is a good place to start with Philosophy(I started really understanding the concepts of philosophy with him)
I still haven't read the Greek philosophers much, but now that I'm into this citizen vrs. police problem, that kind of civil philosophy keeps popping up.
I think I'm going to have to read some Machiavelli, anyway.
What am I thinking *slaps forehead* I could just read the Bible. The whole meaning of life in a 'nut'shell. The civil law part is pretty easy, too. Strict punishment
involving torture for those ungodly pot smokers & traffic violators.
So now it's wrong to build a creation museum, even when no public funds are involved? "Separation of church and state" isn't enough for you now? Now you want the separation of Christian beliefs from EVERYTHING? Why does it bother you so much that there is one major museum that presents an alternative to the flawed evolutionary theory?
Aren't you people the ones who always rant and rave about being open minded, tolerant, and encouraging the free exchange of ideas?
Activist,
Wrong in what sense? I think that the creation museum is insulting to a person's intelligence, I think it's full of lies masquerading as reason, etc., etc., and it is wrong because of that -- but I never said, nor inferred, that people shouldn't have the right to build it, or go to it. I am 100% certain that I'm more pro-free speech than you are. I want crazy fundie nutjobs or psycho Nazi fucktards or whomever to have the rights of freedom of speech, because I think that's MUCH better than having them hide and grow their twisted philosophies in the dark corners of the earth. Now, just because I disagree is me exercising my options of free speech. I wouldn't DREAM of doing anything to prevent the creation museum from opening or for people from going to it! But it's silly, intellectually insulting and filled with crude lies.
So, yeah, that's tolerance. Tolerance is tolerating something, not approving of it. Tolerance doesn't mean a person's gotta like it, or approve of it, or help someone else do it, or anything like that. Tolerance is merely not doing anything to stop it from happening, and it doesn't mean I give up my rights to criticize it in a broad, full and robust way.
Also, when a member of a religion that tries to intimidate people -- including little children -- with horror stories of eternal suffering to grow the size of their sick cult start talking about tolerance, I always get a laugh out of it. I'm not the person trying to intimidate people! I'm not saying that they'll suffer forever unless they agree with me! Xtians are amongst the most intolerant people on earth, gleefully condemning the largest measure of humanity to eternal suffering! :)
L>T,
I don't think Descartes is a bad place to start with philosophy, but his Meditations are about proving the existence of the Xtian god, hehe. They could have done a LOT better than Descartes, I think. Like, Epicurus, Democritus, Lucretius, Seneca, Anaxagoras that lot, just from Western philosophy - y'know, get a real SKEPTIC. Descartes was, ultimately, on their side. ;)
But, yeah, I agree that theists fear philosophy. Because it, like science and history, generally leads AWAY from religion. The same is true of any field that truly promotes the use of reason in a broad and full way, particularly if it intersects with claims made by religions -- and religions make a lot of philosophical, historical and scientific claims. They make less, say, economic claims or literary claims or mathematical claims or logical claims (the Bible is a very crude book compared to philosophy, even philosophies of the time -- it's pretty embarrassing, really, how intellectually underdeveloped the ancient Jews were compared to just about everyone around them).
I saw this yesterday and it was just too fun! It was the most hilarious museum ever! The scary part is... people take it SERIOUSLY! To think that people are going in there and eating up all this "information" as "facts" is a little horrifying.
I can only hope that people come out of there thinking "huh.. you know, I USED to believe in Creationism, but after all those, obviously flawed, facs..."
Maybe this "museum" will work against them? :)
"Xtians are amongst the most intolerant people on earth, gleefully condemning the largest measure of humanity to eternal suffering! :)"
You're wrong, Chris. And the proof is that Christians, despite representing the overwhelming majority of the US population even still today, have allowed all kinds of sin and perversion, even to the point of legitimizing it in the law. I know of no Christian who is "gleeful" that another human soul will choose to spend eternity in Hell.
"I'm not the person trying to intimidate people! I'm not saying that they'll suffer forever unless they agree with me!"
And I suppose that, if you were an oncologist, you wouldn't tell a reluctant patient that unless he goes through chemotherapy he will die? I guess you would consider it more loving to just let him die from his cancer, huh? Well, that doesn't sound at all loving to me. In fact, it sounds pretty hateful.
Parents use "fear" all the time to keep their kids safe. "Don't touch the stove or you will get burned", "Don't run into the street, because a car might hit you", "Don't stick anything in the electrical outlet because you could get shocked", etc. All "fear tactics". Is that the sign of a loving parent, or a sadistic one? The answer is obvious.
The same applies to Christians. If we do not warn people of the wrath to come, THAT is being hateful and uncaring. The most loving thing we can do is share the truth with them.
Activist,
You live in whacky delusion world. Xtians don't allow that "sin and perversion" -- they were FORCED TO STOP it by the progress of secular reasoning. You didn't stop it, Xtians were stopped. There is a huge difference, there.
And the argument that your death cult's fantasies are true is insulting. Why should I believe your death cult's "truth" but ignore Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, traditional Chinese religion, blah, blah, blah. The facts -- as opposed to that book of fantasy you worship -- do not suggest that there is any afterlife at all, much less the nature of that afterlife.
And you're not my parent! How arrogant you are! To think that you have either the intelligence or wisdom to dictate to me what is real and true!
And there are lots of Xtians who regard with glee the suffering of those in their hell (even tho' it's a fable). You might want to start with Tertullian who said that the chief joy of those in Heaven was watching the suffering of those in Hell. Or just watch fundie preachers on TV talk about the End Times with that creepy glee they get. Or read the LaHaye novels or whatever.
Chi,
A lot of people are saying that the museum isn't actually a financially viable venture, hehe. So, let's hope they take a bath on it and there isn't enough interest in a creation museum to keep it afloat. Or, perhaps even better, that it barely struggles on as a really seedy place, full of squalor and cheap gimmicks that is a parody of itself. ;)
I will also note that "activist" isn't even trying to address the point of me being intolerant, anymore, which was his initial scam. ;)
See! Watch the goal posts move! Now he's all about how Xtians are tolerant because they don't kill everyone! Y'know. They just threaten them because it's the TRUTH. *rolls eyes*
I never thought about the ancient Jews being intellectually underdeveloped. I still haven't got ahold of any Jewish history besides what's in the OT, you are right IT being a crude book.
I guess the fact that they have held on to their ancient myths all these thousands of years makes them a little backward.
Of course one advantage the Greeks would have back then was that their paganist religion allowed for freer thought. maybe they were more tolerant? :)
I'm thinking the Creation museum might acually do more to expose the fallacy then perpetrate it. i hope anyway.
& what's with the Dragons? I don't remember being taught about Dragons in Sunday School. & the dinosuar with a saddle? surely they aren't implying people rode dinosuars? It seems a little over the top even for wacky fundies.
This creation science is such insidiuos propaganda because it masquerades as being something long astablished when it's not. I noticed that when I was a Christian, it's to easy to turn something someone came up with yesterday into God's timeless astablished word. Alot of mainstream Christians just don't seem to realize the dangerous direction they are being taken in.Like you said they are being led away from reason & logic. Their own authorities don't give a damn how true or real this fake science is. They are just keen into reinforcing their hold over peoples minds.
sorry, I didn't mean to rag on. But, it pisses me off! We try to encourage people to be intellectualy honest & think for themselves & these jerks tell them it's bad for them.
activist needs to come up with some new material...those arguments are way old & tired.
Loving parents don't brainwash their children & frighten them with eternal torment, sadistic ones do.
Not just the Greeks, tho'! The Babylonians, Persians and farther afield you have the Indians and Chinese. All were more intellectually developed than ancient Jews in the arts and sciences. I suspect it's just because the Jews were a rather insular people not terribly interested in trade and commerce with outsiders. That's a fairly rank guess, tho'. ;)
Tho', uh, that is basically a way of saying that these other people were more tolerant, isn't it? Hehe.
I was wondering about the dragons, too! WTF? It's not natural history, nor is it Xtian religion. I guess someone down there is slippin' in some pagan mythology. :)
And creation science also pisses me off in a big way, yeah. It fairly clearly demonstrates the lengths that these people will go to keep a hold on people -- they'll do or say ANYTHING.
where the dragons come from The dragons of eden
To Ham and other creationists, the time of Eden was a time when “Dragon’s Hearts Were Good” and the rampaging dinosaurs that helped exemplify the ramifications of man’s Fall gave rise to the still persisting tales of dragons, sea monsters, and monsters hidden in far-away jungles.
the sacred god breathed collection of books written by the leaders of archaic middle easterners, aka the christian bible.
references dragon 18 times.
6 times in the old testament.
12 in the new.
Of the 6 in the old, 4 are prophetic ramblings obvious analogies for bad guys, and 1 is a name of a certain well and 1 is in the psalms where it proclaims that god will give you power to kick lions asses and dragon asses too... cool.
all 12 in the new are in revelation and seem to be referring to that failed creation of old god dude called the devil who old god dude has to fight with and subdue and all.
now the old sea monster (leviathan) is mentioned 4 times in the old testament, once analogous, but 3 times straight up referenced as a beast you gotta contend with.
Anon,
Ah, well, there is that, isn't there? I should have bothered to think a little more. I mean, just recently I was going through Revelations where, yeah, dragons do get mentioned fairly regularly. I opened mouth, inserted foot. :)
"activist needs to come up with some new material...those arguments are way old & tired."
The truth is still the truth, no matter how "old" it is. We have lost wisdom in this culture in the last few generations, not gained it.
"Loving parents don't brainwash their children & frighten them with eternal torment, sadistic ones do."
The analogy still holds. You claim it is wrong to use "fear" to influence a child's belief system. I say fear can be a beneficial way to help children (and adults) avoid disastrous consequences. If one looks at the alternative, using fear is the most loving thing you can do, if it will save a person from certain death.
The analogy still holds. You claim it is wrong to use "fear" to influence a child's belief system. I say fear can be a beneficial way to help children (and adults) avoid disastrous consequences. If one looks at the alternative, using fear is the most loving thing you can do, if it will save a person from certain death.
Well, no, the analogy doesn't hold. There is a widely recognized difference between discipline and psychological abuse. Saying to a child, "Obey, or you're grounded!" is universes away from "Obey, or I swear I'll skin you alive and boil you in oil". The first is merely discipline. The second, particularly if repeated, is child abuse (unless done in a religious context, where it's suddenly OK).
Amongst the people able to make such distinctions are teachers and the courts. Indeed, I suspect you would be amenable to the idea that religious indoctrination is child abuse when divorced from your particular faith.
Furthermore, two wrongs still don't make a right . . . unless religion is involved. It is not right to intimidate people with horrific torments to "save their souls". So, if I say to my wife that I'll tear her arms and legs off and hang her from a hook and whip her until she dies unless she loses some weight as recommended by a physician, I'd be wrong to do it both legally and morally. When religion isn't involved, it is acknowledged that compulsion through threats of violence is wrong even when the end result is benevolent towards the victim. Except, again, when religion is involved. It's OK for Christians to threaten people to save their souls -- a line of reasoning that has no chance of holding up in a human court of law.
Also, note, it is not god that is doing the intimidation, but people. So you can't even say that it's OK 'cause god says it. God's not doing it. People are.
Also, human law trumps religious law time and again. If you stone a witch, you're guilty of murder.
"You live in whacky delusion world. Xtians don't allow that "sin and perversion" -- they were FORCED TO STOP it by the progress of secular reasoning. You didn't stop it, Xtians were stopped."
Not true. It is Christians sitting on the sidelines that has allowed depravity to become the norm. If we hadn't been so worried about "offending" the unsaved, and would have instead continued boldly proclaiming biblical truths, as our forefathers did, we would not be at the point we are today. The only "progress" we have seen is to further progress toward evil.
Chris, you are too hateful and irrational to continue a discussion with. No matter what I say, you will either twist my words, ignore them, refuse to accept them, or come back with something totally off the wall. I enjoy debating those with whom I disagree, but your heart and mind are obviously closed and you are not looking for an intelligent debate, but only the opportunity to name call and ridicule Christians and your Creator.
PS - I can't decide if your childish refusal to use the word "Christian" is cute or just idiotic.
We have lost wisdom in this culture in the last few generations, not gained it.
Amen to that! Just look at the Creation Museum & The wars being waged in the name of God & those idiot TV preachers &...
Chris Excellent reply. I assume it went over his/her head, but I appreciated it.
My zealous pentecostal mother who fucked up my childhood & the childhood of my seven siblings, still will not acknowledge she was wrong to what she did "in the name of God."
It really frustrates me that religious people condone this type of abuse. Not that my mother would of been any better if she wasn't religious, she might of been worse. But that's the point! Child abuse is what it is, no matter whether in's done in Gods name or satans name.
Activist, I'm sure, wouldn't go the extremes my mother did to save a little soul from eternal torment, but by his stubborn beliefs he is condoning & perpetrating abuse, IMO.
L>T - And the fact remains that though your mother still may have been abusive, absent religious influence... she probably wouldn't have *gotten away with it* without religion as a shield to the abuse.
diva yes, religion legitimizes(?) human rights violations to serve it's own ends. it always has & it always will. that is the nature of it.
I'm so fuming about this because my mother called me Sat. morning to remind me what a pitiful & lost fool I was to turn my back on the Lord. This kinda stuff usually puts me into a real tailspin of depression, but now i'm just really angry.
This is why I hang out at blogs like this. (besides it being witty :)
I want to be around people that understand my perspective. People who validate what I went through mired in that cesspool that is religion.
Activist,
Are these the same murderous forefathers who started the Crusades or enslaved the Indians and started the slave trade? Those morally upright ancestors? Because it seems to me that when people praise the moral forthrightness of bygone people, they're really praising a bunch of murderous savages. I know you've said the discussion has gotten "hateful" tho' I have not called you a single name or attacked your specific person at all (and I feel it is a means of getting out of a conversation you simply can't address using reason) but I'd like to know when it was that people were more moral than they are today, so we can really analyze that time and those people. However, amongst moral historians -- by which I mean historians of the moral -- the separation of church and state is nigh universally seen as a tremendous moral advance, the reduction of religious power in government a great good. Indeed, the view held by most Christians is (or at least was of about 15 years ago) that such a separation was good for religion, too, because religion had become too corrupted with secular power. But there is no doubt that religion was forced to get rid of it's secular power, often with great armed struggles (such as the Thirty Year's War or the French Revolution).
I think you simply cannot address, without repeating again and again unprovable that the Bible is somehow "true" and thus justifies Xtian intimidation (Xtian, BTW, is a v. common abbreviation of Christian that has been used by, amongst others, C. S. Lewis -- it's sort of a literary tradition; most of the time I do type out Christian, save in comments where I abbreviate it to this normal abbreviation). I think you simply have no response to the legal and moral truth that just because something is true justifies fearmongering (much less the additional question of why an omnibenevolent god feels the urge to create a place of eternal suffering in the first place). I think you can't find a way to address the issue of other religions using fearmongering and intimidation to advance what you think are wrong religions while defending your own right to bully and intimidate your own people with threats of eternal hellfire.
I think that you're using the Bible to justify religious intimidation using the same arguments that people have traditionally used to justify their religiously inspired crimes and misdeeds. The Crusaders used Biblical justifications for their wars, as did conquering "missionaries" the world over -- the "Word of God" had to be spread to all corners of the earth, even with shot, sword and bayonet. By and large, that sort of religious conversion is not allowed, but you're using the same reasoning for the lesser offense of using intimidation and fear for the purposes of compulsion. You're saying that your religion is TRUE so society ought to hold a double standard for religious organizations and allow them to engage in truly massive campaigns of fear to keep and convert additional people. You liken yourself to people's parents (like we don't already have parents!) or a physician (like it is possible to prove the existence of your god in the same way a physician can prove the existence of cancer!) to arrogate to yourself a special status justifying your intimidation.
Rather than answer that, you're just saying I'm being mean. Excuse me if I roll my eyes at that.
L>T,
Yeah, it's part and parcel of abusive people to have all manner of justifications for it. To try to say that their abuse isn't abuse because, y'know, they're parents and they need to discipline a trouble making child or, the favorite of religious folks, the "reality" of hell is so compelling it's OK to turn people into psychological nutjobs fearful of everything in this world (and, incidentally, swell the ranks of their religious organization) because of this "reality".
And like Becky said, when religions do it . . . well, they're protected by the government! Can you imagine what would happen if a atheist day care center was found to to use threats of physical harm to compel obedience? "You little boys and girls will be thrown into the wood chipper if you don't do what mommy and daddy say!" Religious folks would immediately point to it and say how awful it was and use that as proof that atheists are immoral rat bastards. But religions can, and do, use the same intimidation and are praised by society for their uprightness.
Indeed, they are even praised by most atheists for doing this, for having the courage of their convictions or whatever. Which I find to be quite odd.
*smooches L>T, too* Sheesh. I don't get calls like THAT.
"Are these the same murderous forefathers who started the Crusades"
Your ignorance is really showing now. Just about everyone knows that the Crusades were defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
"defending your own right to bully and intimidate your own people with threats of eternal hellfire"
So you think telling someone how to avoid eternal hellfire is bullying and intimidation?
"I'd like to know when it was that people were more moral than they are today"
Well, let's go back just 20 years or so, before we had the following:
Almost everyone lives together before getting married; almost no one saves sex for marriage.
Homosexuality is being accepted as normal. In fact, it is being written into law, and anyone who disagrees will be punished. We have same-sex marriage.
School shootings.
Killing of pre-born children.
Widespread drug use.
Widespread pornography.
Sexuality is everywhere.
Divorce is rampant.
A high percentage of children don't live with their father. A significant number never see their father or know who he is.
We can't build prisons fast enough to hold all the criminals.
Human life is created for the purpose of destroying it.
Almost weekly, there is a new scandal involving a politician, union leader, or CEO.
Politicians won't enforce our immigration laws, not because they want to do what is right, but because they want a new voting bloc.
That's for starters.
Your posts are so off base and your positions so uninformed that it is too laborious for me to correct them all.
Activist,
The "Christians lands" being invaded by the Turks were Greek lands, not French, English, Italian, Spanish or German ones. Furthermore, Alexis Comnenus was actually just asking for some mercenaries for defending his borders, not an attempt to conquer Palestine, which had not been in Byzantine hands in 400 years. The notion that the wars were "defensive" is absurd and, flatly, untrue.
So you think telling someone how to avoid eternal hellfire is bullying and intimidation?
First, you'd have to prove it exists. Second, you'd have to demonstrate that your particular religion avoids that specific fate, as opposed to all the other religions that say that their teachings are the specific method to avoid hell.
And, even then, to intimidate people with it as many Xtians to (see my most recent post) wouLd STILL be wrong.
I don't consider pre-marital sex or homosexuality to be wrong, but it isn't like violence in schools doesn't have an ancient tradition. Neither was abortion, crime, scandal, etc., etc. I am also unconcerned about "illegal immigration", and I'm a Californian.
Scandal, for instance, well, 20 years ago was 1987, when the US was involved in the Iran-Contra Scandal. Don't remember it? Let me remind you. It was President Reagan's administration selling weapons to Iranians in violation of US law. Had some convictions, too, including people like admirals. And scandal? THAT was small compared to Watergate, in which a sitting US President's agents broke into his competitors offices and stole things and spied. Or raft of criminality, scandal and such of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. The same is roughly true of all the things you're talking about. The idea that the 80s were some moral period of time is preposterous.
But, interestingly enough, 20 years ago there was more drug use and divorce. Indeed, virtually all crime metrics in the US are down from 20 years ago. I think all, actually. But in most ways that can be measured, we're a less criminal society than we were 20 years ago.
No, it is not I who am misinformed. I mean, if you can with a straight face claim that the 80s had fewer scandals than today (much less the 70s) then you've either got a short memory or are being intentionally deceptive.
On the scandal thing, too, hehe. Isn't Bush a born again Christian?
Just sayin'.
"you're using the same reasoning for the lesser offense of using intimidation and fear for the purposes of compulsion."
Christianity is not a religion of compulsion. This, again, shows your ignorance of the subject. I would certainly NOT want someone to convert if he felt he was coerced to do so. Unlike the forced "conversions" to Islam at the point of a gun or the blade of a knife, conversion to Christianity comes only when a person is called by God, and freely accepts His gift.
And sharing the truth is not intimidation. Everyone has the freedom to accept or reject Christ.
"But, interestingly enough, 20 years ago there was more drug use and divorce. Indeed, virtually all crime metrics in the US are down from 20 years ago. I think all, actually. But in most ways that can be measured, we're a less criminal society than we were 20 years ago.
No, it is not I who am misinformed. I mean, if you can with a straight face claim that the 80s had fewer scandals than today (much less the 70s) then you've either got a short memory or are being intentionally deceptive."
How many school shootings were there 20 years ago? How many out-of-wedlock births? How many single-parent homes? How many co-habiting couples? How many laws legitimizing homosexuality? How many pornographic websites?
For some of the statistics, you may have to go back to the 50's - 60's as the benchmark, as it was in the 60's that society's moral decay really started accelerating.
Activist,
You card! Christianity has been doing forced conversions since the 4th century! After the Edict of Milan, Christians would go into pagan temples and take them over. And in Gaul and Germany, a large number of people were converted by the sword, and conversion by the sword continued north and east for centuries. In England, as late as the 11th century, pagans were being told to convert or die around York. Of course, the Russian pagans were converted by the Teutonic Knights.
More recently, there was the Christian conquests of North and South America, both of which would often require people to convert or be destroyed.
I'm not forgiving Islam it's history of conversion through violence. I detest that as well. But the notion that Christians haven't used force to convert people is so preposterous that it beggars my imagination! A great deal of Christian conversion was done through violence and threat of violence.
And to this day, of course, Christian missionaries are not slow to tell people that unless they convert they're going to suffer forever. So, while they're no longer much doing it at sword point, to the extent that they can get away with it they are definitely using threats and intimidation to advance their religion. This is simple fact.
And the crime statistics speak for themselves. There was more crime in the 80s than today. About specifics like "school shootings" -- I don't know where to look for that. But crime, measured broadly, and violent crime in particular, is down today.
And in the 50s it was considered moral to murder black men for looking white women wrong. The intense sexism and racism (supported by violence which was not considered criminal at the time; it was considered legitimate to beat or kill offenders) of the time makes it hard for me to think it was a better world, then. Unless you're a white Christian man. I guess if you're that it WAS the perfect world.
But a lot of that is interpretation. You say that morals went downhill in the 60s, and I think they improved with the struggles against white male Christian patriarchal authority. I know that your problem is, largely, that you are living in a time when the special status of white Christian men is eroding and you don't like that. I, on the other hand, am thrilled by the spread of equality.
Your ignorance is really showing now. Just about everyone knows that the Crusades were defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
&
School shootings.
Killing of pre-born children.
Widespread drug use.
Widespread pornography.
Sexuality is everywhere.
Divorce is rampant.
A high percentage of children don't live with their father. A significant number never see their father or know who he is.
We can't build prisons fast enough to hold all the criminals.
Human life is created for the purpose of destroying it.
Almost weekly, there is a new scandal involving a politician, union leader, or CEO.
I wouldn’t normally bother to even get into this (and usually the “Jew” trump gets me out of having to discuss religion with Christians), but “ignorance”?! The causes of the Crusades are pretty well historically established and Europe was no more “protecting itself” than the Germans were “protecting themselves” from the Poles.
Secondly, that list of horrors you’ve got there… Should I even bother to point out that this shit is no more widespread than it was 20 or 30 years ago, you’re just better informed, you can’t turn on a TV without getting misery and horror and scandal rubbed in your face. Because misery and horror and scandal are what get people to keep looking and the damn idiot box in the first place. People always claim that the “good old days” were simpler. One of the earliest archaeological finds in Egypt is a lamentation that the newfangled ways of the irresponsible youth will surely doom Egypt. This fragment is dated to around 6500bc.
Yona,
Yeah, people have mostly believed that people were more virtuous/stronger/better than modern people. You can read about it ancient literature from all cultures.
Indeed, one of the key facets of "modernity" is, I believe, a belief that the future will be better than the past. It's just pretty hard to believe, given the pace of technological innovation and all, that the past was "better". No world without bathrooms was better, right? ;)
Post a Comment