(September 12, 2013 at 11:01 am)A Theist Wrote: ...and I thought you admired Napoleon. He was far better than the Reign of Terror that preceded him. Or do you support shedding a bit of blood as a consideration when it comes to guillotining people who actually work and make money for a living. Screw your Socialism!
I don't see where Min advocated violence or bloodshed, only that religion is useful for keeping the poor and oppressed in line and docile.
The French Revolution, however it may have turned ugly against the aristocrats, was about democracy, not socialism. And the aristocrats weren't capitalists but a privileged class born to land and title, who lived lavishly and exempt from taxes while others toiled and supported the system. There was no democratic means for the masses to peacefully redress their grievances against this system and so bloody revolution was the only option.
Neither was Napoleon in charge of a democratic France, where any of his citizens had a peaceful means of redressing their grievances. He crowned himself emperor.
Of course, I shouldn't have to lecture a so-called "Tea Partier" about the value of a responsive, democratic government that offers a peaceful means of redressing grievances at the ballot box and the violence that can result when a government closes these means off.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
