Earlier quoted context omitted.
People like yourself that constantly bring up the wrongs of the past and constantly remind people that things were less than perfect in the past constantly don't seem to understand that: * Much like many things society progresses, generally in the western world that progression has tended towards greater liberty (in most respects) of its citizens e.g. Tom Holland (a documentary film maker in the UK) argues the separa…
> People like yourself You mean people who are interested in analysis of history? You don't want to consider it. That's fine...oh wait...what about: > Some argue the separation of church and state can be traced back to the bible Some people argue people rode Dinosaurs. That's about as compelling, as well. For the most of the cultures that contributed to writing portions of the Bible, religious text was law. > remind…
I never said that. I was criticisng how he was analysing it. Today there is a habit of denouncing all the progress someone did in the past because their attitudes and actions at the time weren't up today's standards.
> Some people argue people rode Dinosaurs. That's about as compelling, as well. For the most of the cultures that contributed to writing portions of the Bible, religious text was law.
The point is that a combination of things that culminated in Europe (partly because of Christianity but not wholly) resulted in the secular societies we have in the Western world today. I will remind you just because you don't find it compelling doens't mean that it isn't valid. I think there is little bit of truth to it, but I don't think it tells nearly the whole story.
I know that many people seem to think that Christians are fundamentalist lunatics like Ken Ham, but most aren't.
> The point is about intent, which is relevant. "less perfect" or whatever that's supposed to mean to you, is irrelevant. This is history, not a relative comparison of ideals.
Less perfect means that "It was a step in the right direction". This isn't really difficult to grok.
> Sure you can. Confusing Moral analysis and Contextual analysis is noise.
You really shouldn't. It distorts people's view of history.
> Characters are caricatures (incomplete) if you ignore known qualities. Interestingly enough, while you are objecting strongly to the characterization you could have noted that bladegash might have been wrong about the Patrick Henry quote.
I am not an American, I don't know anything about the people involved and don't claim to. I was simply commenting on the fact that people seem to view history through the standards of today.
> Maybe spend more time researching, instead of emotionally posting.
I did no such thing.