And you know why? 'Cuz they don't deserve it. Just being here first is no defense against God-sanctioned genocide!
Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:38 AMBy Bryan Fischer
In all the discussions about the European settlement of the New World, one feature has been conspicuously absent: the role that the superstition, savagery and sexual immorality of native Americans played in making them morally disqualified from sovereign control of American soil.
International legal scholars have always recognized that sovereign control of land is legitimately transferred in at least three ways: settlement, purchase, and conquest. Europeans have to this day a legitimate claim on American soil for all three of those reasons.
Um, really? Conquest is considered a legitimate transfer of sovereignty? So if I beat you up and take your wallet, do I have a legitimate legal claim to your money? And does "settlement" really count if someone else is already living there? Can I "settle" in your living room and claim your house as mine since I've already unpacked my stuff and I'm pretty much settled in? I think I might like these rules, assuming that I could take you in a fight.
Oh, yeah. I'm gonna like these rules.
Much of the early territory in North American that came into possession of the Europeans came into their possession when the land was purchased from local tribes, Peter Minuit’s purchase of Manhattan being merely the first.
I don't know where you're getting this, but even if we pretend that Manhattan was a legitimate purchase, that's still a pretty miniscule fraction of the North American land mass. "Buying" a tiny portion doesn't excuse or mitigate taking the rest by force of arms.
And the Europeans proved superior in battle, taking possession of contested lands through right of conquest. So in all respects, Europeans gained rightful and legal sovereign control of American soil.
"Contested lands?" When I kick your ass and take your money, will you refer to "contested funds?" How in the hell do you get the idea that forceful conquest somehow equates to legitimate acquisition?
But another factor has rarely been discussed, and that is the moral factor.
I think the moral angle would have to be that stealing and killing is bad?
In the ancient tradition of the Hebrews, God made it clear to Abraham that the land of Canaan was promised to his descendants. But he told Abraham the transfer of land to his heirs could not happen for 400 years, for one simple reason: “[T]he iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Gen. 15:16).
Hmm, what an odd coincidence. The book says that God promised the land to the people who wrote the book? What are the odds? And why would God wait until their "iniquity" was "complete?" If He knew that there was 400 more years of iniquity coming, why not just launch a pre-emptive strike? Had He not seen "Minority Report?"
The Amorites, or Canaanite peoples, practiced one moral abomination after another, whether it was incest, adultery, sexual immorality, homosexuality, bestiality or child sacrifice, and God finally said “Enough!”
His patience was not rewarded, and finally the day came when the sin had reached its full measure. The slop bucket was full, and it was time to empty it out. Israel under Joshua was God’s custodian to empty the bucket and start over.
Really? So how does this work? How many child sacrifices can I get away with before God gets fed up enough to do something about it? Is any of this in writing? How do I know how much sexual immorality I can indulge in before the slop bucket fills up? (Insert your own filthy joke here)
The native American tribes at the time of the European settlement and founding of the United States were, virtually without exception, steeped in the basest forms of superstition, had been guilty of savagery in warfare for hundreds of years, and practiced the most debased forms of sexuality.
Okay, you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? I certainly don't pretend to know anything about the sex lives of Native Americans
(I'm guessing this wasn't a documentary)
but I can tell you that the Native Americans that the first white folks encountered were pretty peaceful.
Does this ring a bell?
And those groups that were more bellicose were certainly not any more guilty of "savagery" than the Europeans who developed practices like the "Blood Eagle" burning at the stake and Crucifixion.
One of the complaints listed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence was that King George “has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”Sounds a lot like "shock and awe." And of course, there's no way that Thomas Jefferson would just be saying something totally racist! (*cough* had slaves *cough*)
The native American tribes ultimately resisted the appeal of Christian Europeans to leave behind their superstition and occult practices for the light of Christianity and civilization. They in the end resisted every attempt to “Christianize the Savages of the Wilderness,” to use George Washington’s phrase.
Oh, well, why didn't you say so? Fuck 'em then. If they won't adopt the ways of the guys with guns, then they deserve to be wiped out and. . . wait, that doesn't sound right.
God explained to the nation of Israel that because of the “abomination(s)” of the indigenous Canaanite tribes, the land had become unclean and “vomited out its inhabitants (Lev. 18:25).”
Is this to say the same holds true for native American tribes today? In many respects, the answer is of course no.
Oh, wow, I thought for sure you were going to say "yes!" It's nice to see that you have some shred of dignity. . .oh, you weren't done yet, were you?
In many respects, the answer is of course no. But in some senses, the answer is yes.
Many of the tribal reservations today remain mired in poverty and alcoholism because many native Americans continue to cling to the darkness of indigenous superstition instead of coming into the light of Christianity and assimilating into Christian culture.
You do know how alcohol came to America, right? Maybe once the Indians tried the European custom of booze and saw how much harm it could do, they decided not to adopt other European practices? Just a thought. And we all know that there are no alcoholics in Christendom!
Sadly, this column will likely generate a firestorm of nuclear proportions among wingers on the left rather than the thoughtful reflection the thesis deserves.
Oh my God, I've seen episodes of Sponge Bob that deserve more thoughtful reflection than your "thesis!"
If I'm understanding this right, your "thesis" is that anyone who doesn't share your religious beliefs is undeserving of land and whoever takes it from them is doing God's will. I assume that that would include the Christian epicenter of Europe, 8th Century Spain being conquered and ruled by the Moors for almost 8oo years. And the Ottoman Empire. And the empire of Alexander the Great?
Also, you're a racist asshole. And no one has defended Manifest Destiny in decades.