Yes, yes.

Documenting Coulter's remarks is useless.

That's why she's still trying to clean up the mess at this late date.

Ann's not trying to clean up anything. She keeps being asked about it.

Think about this: How is it that Ann can say what she did, and there is this firestorm about it, but I would assume that most of the posters here do not believe that Judaism is true.

If you think that what the Jewish religion teaches is not true, how is what Ann said worse?

Whatever I think about Judaism isnt the same as me telling them they need to believe the way I do to be perfected or that they just arent as good as me.

She only stated the Christian belief that everyone needs to be saved through Jesus. It would apply to Muslims, Hindus, atheists, or any other religion. No one is suggesting forced conversions to Christianity.

Would you say the world would be better if more people believed the way you do?

 

 

care to admit you're wrong?  she has suggested forced conversions.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410050004

Saying that someone should become a Christian is not the same as forcing someone to become a Christian.

By the way: It would be better if no one was Muslim. We would have a lot fewer terrorists.

"we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, convert them to christianity". 

Yes. "we should ... convert them to Christianity"

Christianity is never spread by force. It is spread by sharing the gospel and Christ-like love with people. I don't think you are understanding what Christians believe on this point.

I believe I should try to convince everyone to follow Christ, but no one can be forced to accept Christianity.

I may not agree with Coulter on every point, but one thing that I do agree with is that it would be better if everyone were Christian.

 

then exactly why are we invading their countries?

Because they keep sending people to kill us.

no sale, buddy.  that is not the issue.  if a country is sending people to kill us, then we do invade them.  that is not what coulter is talking about.  she's just saying any muslim country.  it's moronic on top of it, from the point of invading what, 30 countries.  get a grip on yourself.

The issue was whether it's wrong to express the belief that another person would be better off (and the world would be better off) if they believed the way I and other Christians believe.

no, the issue was you saying she was not in favor of forced conversions.  she plainly is.  and as for the world being a better place because others act as you believe, i do not dismiss the idea of radicalism among some muslims.  what is absurd is the idea that you just going around invading countries solely because the majority of the people are of that  certain religion. 

You never answered my original question. Do you think it would be better if more people believed the way you do?

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. George S. Patton

You didn't answer the question

No, the world would not be better off.   You christians are just as kooky as the rest of the religious nuts.

 

happy? 

So you agree that the world would not be better if more people thought like you? That is something I agree with.

Your entire line of argument here is based on a fallacy called the Psychologist's Fallacy.

Personally, I believe that whatever works for you is fine as long as you don't disparage others for their own choices and as long as it helps you be a better person.  If you espouse some sort of superiority of your view, then any challenge should be expected as in Coulter's case.

It comes down to truth. Do you believe that what Judaism teaches is true? If not, then you have just told millions of Jews that their beliefs are wrong.

do you think everything in christianity is "true"?

Yes, that's why I believe it.

noah's ark?

Yes, I believe the Bible literally.

so tell me where all the water came from.  enough to cover the earth to 35,000 feet above sea level.  and where did it go. 

Why do you keep taking this off topic? Do you believe what Jews teach is true? I would assume you don't. Therefore you think they believe a lie. At least Ann said she believes in their Old Testament.

you were perfectly willing to discuss it, except when i ask the tough questions. 

Debates don't work if the topic keeps changing. I can't go in depth on every inane point you try to make. you're asking me to prove noah's ark because I asked if you believe the Jews. I've had enough. Goodbye.

no, you just can't defend your statements.  i asked you if christianity was "true", which is well with the subject of religions being "true".

look up AIG.com if you're so interested.

wrong site: answers in genesis

Then you're a fool.

I believe that whatever works for you, them  or anyone is just fine.  You are projecting.

You are avoiding my question. You don't believe that Judaism or Christianity is true.

so what?  is it stopping you from believing? 

I believe it all. Are you telling me I am wrong?

The question is irrelevant.  Coulter's remarks suggest that she knows what is right and Jews (and everyone else) don't.  I make no such contention.  I admit that I don't know who is right - including myself.

You have finally made it clear that you don't really believe anything is true or not true. So do you admit that I or Ann may be right then?

Um duh?  You both could be right obviously because no one can know for sure.  It is a moot point though.  Ann is being patronizing by assuming she is right and everyone else is wrong.  It is really pretty simple.

I don't think you even read my link.  Your response just repeats the same fallacious reasoning as before.

whatever you want to think dogrun,  the issue between us was whether coulter suggested forced conversions.  she did do that.  sorry you were unable to refute the point.

Alright, but it is hard to argue against several people at once on several different topics. The only point I wanted to make was that Coulter merely said that it would be better if more people were Christian. Donny Deutsch started comparing that to Hitler. Apparently it is wrong to ever think any philosophy is better than any other.

well my point was that you were saying she's only stating it's a good idea, and she's not suggesting any forced conversions.  she is.

And my point is that not everyone believes that what works for them works for everyone.  It is based on a fairly common fallacy.

The point is this: is it true, and can you say that either Judaism or Christianity (or both) are not true?

You cannot say either is true or that they are not true.  They are both unproven.  Saying that someone in another religion needs to be "perfected" (as we all know Ann did) is needlessly patronizing.

Except that ISNT all she said. Even if it were its STILL the hiegth of arrogance. Whenever you are saying you are good thats all fine when you begin saying you are BETTER that is arrogance. Ann said she wanted Jews to be perfected by believing the way SHE does that is saying that they would be BETTER if they believed the way SHE does. That is arrogant and offensive.

That did answer the question. Diversity trumps your homogenous views of utopia every time.

So you don't think people should agree with you? If you want to have diverse thought, then why are conservatives so horrible? Shouldn't you welcome other points of view?

That's just a strawman argument.  Why am I not surprised.

So you do think people should believe like you?

Of course not.  It is called maturity.

So you don't think people should believe like you?

I don't care.  You are entitled to your opinions - as long as they don't negatively impact other people and serve to make you a better person, I am all for it.  It is okay to disagree.

Who was it who said if your religion makes you a better person than me your religion is better than mine?

the difference would be we are not forcing religion on anyone.  something that you and annie are doing.

I am not forcing religion on anyone. I am not forcing you to believe like me. Don't be dishonest.

don't you want to invade those countries and convert them to christianity?

Wanting someone to convert does not equate with force.

again, one more time.  she suggested invading any and all muslin countries, regardless of whether they are a threat to us or not.  if that is not forcing i don't know what is. 

All other points aside - what does an invasion have to do with conversion?

so then why are you doing the invasion if you are not trying to make people convert?  what give you the right to invade another country and cause chaos and death merely so you can try to convert other people? 

This hypothetical invasion should be about security. Faith and religion don't have anything to do with that in this case.

you are completely wrong.  coulter's statements were not limited to security.  she suggested invading "their" countries.  that would be all muslim countries, threat or not. 

When I was young I wrestled. I was very thin and not very strong. IF I had used the techniques most wrestlers do, had I just taken the road the majority of wrestlers took, I would never have been very good. What I did was develop a techinque that was unusual and it worked very well for me. I was very successful because I DIDNT do what most did since most people start wrestling because they are fast and strong. So NO. I think people ought to go THEIR route, I dont think for one SECOND that one route is best for everybody.

Lets just say the world wouldnt be better off if everyone believed the way YOU do.

apart from that, dogrun is plain wrong. What country did Osama bin Laden represent? That's the whole problem with a 'war on terror.' There is no 'nation state' to wage war against. Terrorists don't represent a country. And as for your 'there would be fewer terrorists if there were fewer moslems' comment - well, as equally 'valid,' there would be a lot more democracy in latin america if there was no such country as the united states. there would be a lot more, er, ALIVE people in Iraq if it weren't for the united states. Moslems are not terrorists. If we could equate moslems with terrorists, we would be royally screwed, because around 1 in 6 people in the world follow Islam. good luck with your war against a billion people, buddy. 

Not all muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are muslim.

lol. your tax dollars are funding an illegal and unjust war that have cost anywhere between 300,000 and 1,000,000 innocent lives. And you're telling me that most terrorists are moslem?

 define terrorism for me, and then explain to me how America is not the number one sponsor of terrorism? Influence by force over the political self determination of others? The murder of innocent people for political and/or power incentives? Dismissal of laws governing war, treatment of criminals etc? Do I have to keep going with this tired line?

But I'm not ignorant enough to say 'Americans are terrorists' because I can distinguish between Americans (= your Muslims) and the homicidal cretins causing the destruction (=Al Qaeda etc). 

Yes you are right. Al Qaeda is not made up of Muslims. My bad.

We are fighting against Islamic extremists who want us either dead or converted to Islam. They do not hide this as their goal. That is what they believe.

We have had suicide bombings by Muslims for the past 20 years.

I think you're missing my point. There are extremist Moslem's who commit terrorist acts. Thats a long way from being able to say 'most terrorists are moslems.' The United States government, but the definition of terrorist, is a far worse, statistically speaking, sponsor and perpetrator of terrorists acts, and its made up of christians, and empowered by christian voters in the US. The Tamil tigers are Hindu, fyi, and most importantly, suicide bombing is NOT the only method of committing terrorism.  

If we are fighting Islamic extremists why did we invade Iraq again the most SECULAR Islamic country in the entire REGION? You make no sense. Just repeat the propaganda. Again the Tamil Tigers have done more suicide bombings in the past 30 years than ANY Islamic group. Also a study done by Robert Pape of every suidice bombing ever done shows that it is a military and political strategy and has no religious component, though religion is important for recruiting.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/schuster.column/

"There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions," he says.

 

Or, from a broader perspective, most terrorists are religious conservatives.

Yeah, we keep hearing about all those Christian bombings all the time. And those Hindus, boy we better watch out for them.

are you suggesting that you've not heard about christians who murder in the name of their faith?

Do you deny that osama is a religious conservative?

In fact, let's go ahead and take this all the way:

Can you think of a presidential assassination attempt that was perpetrated by a liberal?

Can you think of any historically significant horrible crimes that were not committed by a conservative?

How about Stalin and Mao for starters?

Stalin was a socialist, and he worked against both the left and the right.

Mao is a bit closer, but he was a communist, and by virtue of his eager support of violent, armed revolution, was not liberal.

The point I'm making is that liberals don't have a history of killing those with whom they disagree and that conservatives do.

If you are relating Osama to American conservatism, then Stalin and Mao certainly would apply to American liberals.

Conservatism is conservatism.  The basic principles are the same.  I think it may be more accurate to use the words right-wing fundamentalists instead.  The problem with the Middle-East is that there are so few strong secular liberals historically.  We have been much more lucky in the west as liberalism has had more opportunity for success and progress.  We take for granted basic concepts that liberals advanced at their time.  Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights, even Democracy in general was a very liberal concept at one time.

The point is not that you can find someone who says he is Christian that does some awful thing. The point is that 99+% of Christians denounce acts of violence/terrorism.

I don't know exact numbers, but there are millions of Muslim extremists who support suicide bombings against non-Muslims.

I don't think those numbers are correct (they might be, but I don't know). I don't think that there are "millions" of muslims who support killing non-muslims any more than I would believe the same of christians. I think there are few people who think that way.

All I'm saying is that terrorist movements in history, with a few exceptions, have FAITH as a common denominator.

oh what a joke! how ignorant can you get???? you dont have ANY sources to back up ANYTHING you're saying, you're just making wild accusations about millions of people! What i can tell you, though, is that clearly millions of christians do support the killing of moslems, or more generally, arabs and persians. We call them Republican voters. 

I'm not sure why you're flipping out. Have you read the whole thread?

sorry- its a response to dog run

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=257

This report shows a minimum of 9% of Muslims supporting suicide bombings. Remember if the worldwide percentage is 10%, that's about 100 million who think suicide bombings are ok.

Would you kill to defend Christianity?

I guess Kosovo just blows that argument out of the water, it was christians ethnically cleansing the muslims from their country. Nice try though, claiming 99%...

Dogrun:

"The point is not that you can find someone who says he is Christian that does some awful thing. The point is that 99+% of Christians denounce acts of violence/terrorism.

I don't know exact numbers, but there are millions of Muslim extremists who support suicide bombings against non-Muslims. "

Where do you get your data???  MANY Christians condone violence and many commit violent acts.  Historically, Christians have been extraordinarily violent.  If, by your own admission, you don't know exact numbers, then you've made your claims worthless at the outset other than stating what you WANT to be true.  Find the data first.

Who is this Christian leader that endorses violence?

Pat Robertson called for Chavez' assassination a while back just off the top of my head.

Dogrun:

You claim that no mainstream Christian leader would advocate violence.  Please look up Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, and many other televangelicals and/or Fundamentalists; all have advocated violence.  Or are you claiming that they are too far to the right to be mainstream?  That is not a rhetorical question, I truly would like to hear your answer. 

Christians don't kill?  Man where have you been living?Wasn't it the Christian Pilgrims that gave the native Americans blankets knowingly contaminated with smallpox? What about the slave "catechisms"?  Not to speak of the good christian people that enjoyed the hanging of evil "black" men for Saturday night entertainment. How about the crusades-guess that don't count.  Recent history-how about the shooting of doctors that work in womens health clinics, or the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma. I agree with snoop and his great Patton quote,I mean if everyone thought and believed alike someone is not thinking.  What a terrible and tragic world that would be.  The problems of the world is not that were not believing or thinking alike, and I don't for a minute claim to have the "IDEA" that will solve the worlds problems,but maybe a start would be less greed and more compassion for others.

Christian leaders do not support violence. We denounce any of the so-called "Christians" who do. Which religion is calling for people to be killed today?

certainly not islam. its not a dichotomy.

Coulter has many examples of calling for violence.  According to her new remarks, she is on the side of the religious.

Robertson has called for violence as I mentioned above.  Falwell and Dobson (among many others) have loudly supported the Iraq War.  I am not quite sure if you reallize it, but violence has been known to happen in them.

; )

''Yeah, we keep hearing about all those Christian bombings all the time. And those Hindus, boy we better watch out for them.''

 Lol.... I can't tell if you're being serious or not!? Tamils= Hindu. Christians = The Bush Administration?!?! We better watch out for them, indeed; there are literally millions of Iraqis who have to do just that!

AGAIN the Tamil Tigers have done more suicide bombings than anyone, to the extent they are religious at all they have Hindu roots. You NEVER know what you are talking about.

The Irish Republican Army.

im sorry pbg but your wrong to equate the IRA  to religious fundementalists or religious conservatives that line was fed to the world by thatchers propaganda machine to take focus from the real reason for the existance of the IRA , nationalism the IRA  targeted police army and protestant PARAMILITARIES and never for religious reasons .Wolfe Tone is one of irish nationalisms most revered martyrs as is Roger Casement both were british protestants im not saying the means of the IRA wasnt terrorism im saying it was never a religious war that was suggested so the world would equate them with muslim fundemenalists apologies for going off topic being a native irish catholic i just had to clear that up 

 

 

 

halfaworldaway, you left out my old man's namesake, Robert Emmett. But good list otherwise. ;0)

Hey Lefty,

"When my country takes her place among the nations of the world, then and not until then, let my epitaph be written."

All cats have four legs.  My dog has four legs. Therefore my dog is a cat.

Take a logic class, moron.

Try selling this garbage to anyone who lost a loved one in the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.  Or to the Unabomber.  Or to the IRA - the group that was fought in the longest running operation in the history of the modern British militray, ending only a few short years ago.  (And the list goes on...)

Most of the terrorists that we are fighting, at the moment are muslim.  No broader statement can be made without a complete disregard for history and facts.

And how you can look at the currrent conflict between the US and the middle east and think that MORE religion (of any stripe) can possibly be the answer is beyond me.  This is not a war of christianity vs. islam.  You're no better than they are if you believe that.  This is a war of common sense vs. religious extremism. 

I never said the war is a Christian war. It isn't. And I stand by what I said. Terrorism in the past 20 years has been vast majority Muslim. And there are millions of them who want us dead or converted.

Again, not all Muslims, but millions of Muslims want to kill us. Every time someone offends them there is a riot. 

you still need to define terrorism. and you also need to think about why, potentially, 'millions of moslems' might want to kill us.... i mean, you have no evidence apart from your own misconceptions and prejudices to prove that what you're saying is even true, but lets assume it is... could it be that failed decolonization, blind support of Israel and her Apartheid policies, the support of both Iran and Iraq during the 1980s war, the continual bombing of the entire middle east, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.... could these all be reasons for some ill feeling toward the west from the people of the middle east? have you even tried to understand the context? no, its much easier to just think of 'them' as 'evil doers' and cast out blanket generalisations, much like Coulters illiterate rhetoric. Your ignorance only perpetuates our problems.

Oh my!  Lions and tigers and bears..oh my!

 You want them to "think"?  On top of the fear?

 

You cannot support the statement, a bigoted statement at that, that millions of Muslims want us dead or converted.

also the farc rebels in colombia cuban nationalists basque serperatists september 17 (i believe they are called) in greece that japanese cult the name escapes me the KLA in kosovo the list goes on 

Since when did the KKK and neo nazi party convert from christianity to muslim?

The KKK and other fringe groups call themselves Christian. No mainstream Christian leaders support them.

(Note: If you want to bring the KKK into this: There are more Democrat former KKK members than Republicans.)

How about current members?

lol. point me to a Muslim in your local community who believes bin Laden is a real Muslim. Show me one who believes Islamic Jihad is a group representative of their beliefs.

Oh, really? Name them. I've already got a list of Republicans. Shoot away.

For the most part (Byrd and whoever else notwithstanding) they were Dixiecrats who switched after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.  They are now Republicans.

Dogrun:

"Not all muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are muslim."

Where do you get your data?  Do you count terrorists in Central and South America?  How do you define "terrorist?"

That is bigoted bunk. The Middle East is a political nightmare. When the worst terrorists in the world were Jewish, check out the King David Hotel bombing, the Cairo Haifa train bombings, the SS Patria, the assasinations of Lord Moyne and Folke Burnadotte, no one blamed Judaism. When it was the IRA, no one blamed Catholicism. When it was the disparate European groups left and right but mostly secular no one blamed secularism but now because the political instability is in Islamic regions suddenly bigots want to blame Islam. Do you know what group has done by FAR the most suicide bombings in the entire world? That would be the Tamil Tigers. They are not Islamic. They are a fiercly secular quasi Maoist group in Sri Lanka. You talk like a bigot

they keep sending people to kill us

Iraq sent people to kill us? 

Name the Iraqi who has "come here to kill us."

REALLY? Cough up the last time Iraq sent anyone to kill us. Oh you cant, because IT NEVER HAPPENED? What a shock that you dont know what you are talking about. Or is one Arab or one Muslim pretty much like another? Get map for God sake.

"It is spread by sharing the gospel and Christ-like love with people."

And the killing and political murders, of course.  You can't have a decent mass of Christian conversion with slavery, mass murder and/or overthrow of pagan governments, followed by a message of "love and peace."

*dies laughing*  You fundies crack my (*&@ up, you really do.

"Christianity is never spread by force.  It is spread . . . ' ?

Were you asleep during history classes? MayI suggest you pick up The Sword of Constantine by James Carroll. 

I'm talking about people who follow Christ. The Crusades were misguided. Although it was mainly about taking back land that the Muslim armies had taken years before.

Although I completely disagree that your remarks on the Crusades prove otherwise, Christianity has often spread by force in other places and killed non-believers and heretics often throughout our history. 

The Western conquest and colonization (and forced conversion of much) of Latin America and much of the world was dubiously justified by the patronizing concept of "White Man's Burden" to spread the Gospel to the "savages".

The Spanish Inquisition was not only a brutal effort by the Church and its followers to grab power and land from the Jews.

Just saying they were "misguided" doesn't seem to distinguish these Christian extremists from the Muslim extremists of whom we could also make that very same claim.

"Christianity is never spread by force."

Better check your history...ever hear of the Crusades?

From Wikipedia:

The Crusades were, in part, an outlet for an intense religious piety which rose up in the late 11th century among the lay public. A crusader would, after pronouncing a solemn vow, receive a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a "soldier of the Church". This was partly because of the Investiture Controversy, which had started around 1075 and was still on-going during the First Crusade. As both sides of the Investiture Controversy tried to marshal public opinion in their favor, people became personally engaged in a dramatic religious controversy. The result was an awakening of intense Christian piety and public interest in religious affairs. This was further strengthened by religious propaganda, advocating Just War in order to retake the Holy Land—which included Jerusalem (where the death, resurrection and ascension into heaven of Jesus took place according to Christian theology) and Antioch (the first Christian city)—from the Muslims. Further, the remission of sin was a driving factor. This provided any God-fearing men who had committed sins with an irresistible way out of eternal damnation in hell. It was a hotly debated issue throughout the Crusades as what exactly "remission of sin" meant. Most believed that by retaking Jerusalem they would go straight to heaven after death. However, much controversy surrounds exactly what was promised by the popes of the time. One theory was that one had to die fighting for Jerusalem for the remission to apply, which would hew more closely to what Pope Urban II said in his speeches. This meant that if the crusaders were successful, and retook Jerusalem, the survivors would not be given remission. Another theory was that if one reached Jerusalem, one would be relieved of the sins one had committed before the Crusade. Therefore one could still be sentenced to hell for sins committed afterwards.

All of these factors were manifested in the overwhelming popular support for the First Crusade and the religious vitality of the 12th century.

Um...... DogRun,

You say that you are a Christian......

If this is the case.....then doesn't the teachings of Christ compell you to do everything in your power and those of every other Christian to work out your differences with everybody else, especially the Muslims? Regardless of what they had done to you.

Isn't also true that as a 'true' Christian you would be compelled by the Bible and all that it stands for in forgiving those that had hurt you or your fellow man?

Or to have understanding and compassion to those that are different than you?

Or do you simply use your religion, like Bush, or fake it, like Ann Coulter only when its convienient?

I'm an agnostic but it would seem to me that if God truely existed, wouldn't he be a bit more angry at any Christian that believes in Him, yet kills or hates in his name than say, the Muslims (since in many Christians eyes they are non-believers, you can't fault them for what they do then, using the illogic of Christian teaching)

Since Christians claim that you must do all of Gods teachings to go to Heaven!

Doesn't this all seem hypocritical to you?

It does to me!

Christianity is never spread by force.

Hello, is anybody home? What the heck do you think the Inquisition was all about? Or the forced conversions of the new world? Christianity was mostly spread by force.

No serious Christian leader today would advocate violence for the purpose of spreading Christianity. Islamic leaders do advocate violence for spreading Islam.

America's wars have nothing to do with spreading Christianity. They are serving whatever national interest our leaders believe.

Name one mainstream Christian who advocates forced conversions. I can name millions of Islamic extremists who do. 

You can name millions of mainstream Muslims, huh?  I'll settle for considerably less than 1% of that.  Name 100.  And ... go!

Oh hogwash, islamic leaders? just because Fox news broadcasts the voice of bin Laden does not make him a representive of Islam. In my country New Zealand, the national body that represents Muslims denounces the radical actions of Islamic fundamentalists at every opportunity. These radical terrorists do not represent Islam. 

Well there is Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sudan militias to name a few.

Kosovo. There, I named an entire country that advocated doing just that.

didnt that crazy b*****d pat robertson advocate the assasination of chavez ? i have heard that assination could be considered violent 

Dogrun:

You claim that no mainstream Christian leader would advocate violence.  Please look up Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, and other televangelicals.  Or are you claiming that they are too far to the right to be mainstream?  That is not a rhetorical question, I truly would like to hear your answer.

Yeah, tell that to those who were tortured and killed during the Inquisition...

"Christianity is never spread by force. It is spread by sharing the gospel and Christ-like love with people."

I guess the Spanish Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials and The Crusades were fictonal accounts foisted upon history by heretics. And these were only the really, really awful assaults on human decency committed by your loving Christianity. I won't bother schooling you on how the Catholic Popes, throughout most of history, were considered War Lords who violently crushed anyone suspected of not accepting Christianity into their hearts and minds.

 

Your ignorance isn't worth commenting upon any further.

cough...Crusades...cough...inquisition....cough...Masacres of Mormons...cough...

Dogrun,

When you say Christianity is never spread by force, do you mean that it never has been spread by force, or that Christians are not currently spreading it by force?

Christianity is never spread by force...

 ================================

I think a few million Aztecs might disagree with you.