The Irony 

We live in a nation of unbelievers who, on one hand, hate Columbus for his genocide, yet, they turn around and vote to keep genocide “safe and legal.” Assuming Columbus was a mass murdering lover of genocide, he doesn’t hold a candle to 60 million. Our nation is a nation of genocide still. We still love to slaughter innocent people. Only now they are not indigenous people, but unborn people. We slaughter millions of children legally, and for many, joyfully, every year.

Who are we to look down on Columbus? Did Columbus own slaves? Did he sell slaves? Columbus at least had the decency to owning and selling them in one piece. That is a courtesy Planned Parenthood has no interest in offering. Columbus took whole slaves, Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of dismembered ones. One cannot criticize a man for genocide if one votes for genocide. One cannot hold up a “I Stand with Planned Parenthood” sign, and then put it down today in order to have both hands available to hold the “I Stand against Columbus’ Genocide!” sign.

By What Standard?

Along the lines of criticizing folks at all, another important aspect to Columbus Day is having the worldview which can even account for any criticisms of human behavior at all.

We live in a post-modern nation that believes we have no right to judge other societies, and we teach that morality is subjective…..except for Columbus’ society: they were objectively immoral apparently. What a convenient exception. A culture which has embraced a worldview which cannot account for objective morality has nowhere to stand in order to criticize a man for committing objective evil.

Columbus was evil? Says who? What worldview can provide the objective moral criteria that is transcendent upon all people and all nations and is unchanging, from 1492 all the way to 2019? Certainly not the one held by most of the people who protest Columbus Day.

The native Americans owned this land first? Why does being here first give you rights over it? What worldview can provide that moral criteria? “You were here first so it belongs to you”… Says who? Certainly not Darwin. Nothing about Darwin’s lies commit one to believing man cannot travel to a new land, kill people, and take it. That is much closer to a “virtue” in Darwinian evolution than it is a “vice.” After all, look at the rich prosperity that has come from European inhabitation of the Americas! What Darwinist could ever argue against this?

The strong survive in the dog-eat-dog world painted by Naturalism. Columbus and his European colleagues were stronger, their teeth sharper, and their bite harder than that of the native Americans. They deserved the land by virtue of being more powerful and superior in battle. Deal with it Naturalists, your worldview demands you do.