They’re coming for the Knights of Columbus

[Mrchatsworth]

Because one of the goals of the knights of Columbus is to get new membership and the marketing is suffering. Defend Columbus all day long, I may even agree, but he isn’t a saint in our faith and the connotation for a group of men who are literally hard pushers for their organization is poor. Talk about a hard sell for Latinos in today’s society!

 

[RhodesianSon]

Bad publicity for caving to the mob too

 

[BornInMarch]

The vast majority of the Taino deaths were due to plague, and the Spaniards weren’t handing out disease blankets at this time.

Sure, it’s not that fast.

Actually, Smallpox is that fast when it’s spread to a population with no immunity to it.

 

[Neithan]

Yes because a population of 200k shrinks to 1000 overnight.

I have to ask, as you’ve indicated your religion as “Norse”: what exactly is wrong with killing people by way of conquest?

It’s very difficult to parse out the facts in the accounts of Columbus’s treatment of the indigenous, although the conquistadors afterwards took over the colonial project; but the judgment of their behaviour came from Catholic convictions, demonstrated by de las Casas.

 

[RhodesianSon]

I have to ask, as you’ve indicated your religion as “Norse”: what exactly is wrong with killing people by way of conquest?

Good catch. That’s hilarious. By the tenets of his claimed religion there’s nothing wrong with killing weaker people and taking their land and women.

 

[Mrchatsworth]

I somehow doubt that. Some old guy talks to you at church and you say,” no thanks you caved with your name? “ Or “no thanks you disregard the connotation.”

If you think the potential loss is from those who like the name Columbus then you have a very odd business sense in the marketing world.

 

[MikeInVA]

If you think the potential loss is from those who like the name Columbus then you have a very odd business sense in the marketing world.

I have never had someone decline joining the Knights because of the name. Many, many other reasons, but never the name.

 

[Anrakyr]

Good catch. That’s hilarious. By the tenets of his claimed religion there’s nothing wrong with killing weaker people and taking their land and women.

How many crusades have you been on lately?
Oh, you don’t do that anymore?

 

[Neithan]

How many crusades have you been on lately?
Oh, you don’t do that anymore?

No, the church gave that up a long time ago. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen again if an aggressor acted in odium fidei and a military response was a legitimate defense (see CCC 2307–17).

So what basis does a Norse have for condemning conquest?

 

[Anrakyr]

Ad hominem, but I’ll answer anyway.
We live in a society where fighting or more specifically war is not required.
Ergo raid to expand ones influence and power is counter productive when trade, commerce and politics can acquire the same things.

 

[Neithan]

Ad hominem, but I’ll answer anyway.

Thank you; but it’s not an ad hominem fallacy when it’s a direct question to ask someone about how they assume a moral high ground, and why they feel justified in condemning historical figures.

We live in a society where fighting or more specifically war is not required.
Ergo raid to expand ones influence and power is counter productive when trade, commerce and politics can acquire the same things.

OK so it’s counter productive based on the political and economic situation of the contemporary world. I guess the conquistadors would debate how productive their tactics were.

 

[JimG]

If I recall correctly, Columbus wanted to establish a trading post in the actual east Indies as a prelude to preparing to retake Jerusalem for Christianity. He was expecting the Second Coming soon, 1500 years after the Incarnation, and he thought that it would happen in Jerusalem. In the meantime he wanted to convert as many people as possible to Christianity, so they could be baptized and saved.

 

[Anrakyr]

Thank you; but it’s not an ad hominem fallacy when it’s a direct question to ask someone about how they assume a moral high ground, and why they feel justified in condemning historical figures.

You are pointing out something about me to render the point moot.
For example no one trusts a drunk. Doesn’t mean the drunk can’t be correct.

OK so it’s counter productive based on the political and economic situation of the contemporary world. I guess the conquistadors would debate how productive their tactics were.

The didn’t need to kill anyone.

 

[pnewton]

You are pointing out something about me to render the point moot.
For example no one trusts a drunk. Doesn’t mean the drunk can’t be correct.

Theoretically, yes. Practically, one does not trust the opinions of one who is double-minded. If blantant hypocrisy exists in someone’s arguments, I always toss it out, along with supposed facts dredged from centuries old propaganda.

 

[Anrakyr]

Cool, lets me know when that happens.