Perhaps you miss the point. This stuff flares up, dies down, flares up again, .....
No Laz its not just a random walk, or some long term cycle that constantly repeats. There is development over time. Things are different than they used to be.
Yeah. The calendar has a different date.
Which isn't to say that its impossible that it could ever happen again, but that would be a major change, that might not happen, or might not happen for a very very long time.
From about the 15th century till recently, Islam seemed to give up its imperialism and stick to the ground it had conquered. The West had abandoned its goal of the spreading Christianity by the sword about 150 years earlier. (BTW, a large number of Christians and other non-Muslims were killed in the Pope's Crusades. The 4th Crusade was particularly notable, resulting in the deaths of many thousands of Eastern Orthodox Christians when Constantinople was sacked.) But in the 5th Crusade a Christian roup formed an alliance with a Muslim group to fight another Christian group. And the Christian concept of "just war" came from the Crusades. (If the Christians are always so peaceful, why do they need that concept?)
How many examples do you need?
One relevant one would be nice. I'm still waiting.
You already got them. You just refuse to admit their relevance because they destroy your case. IRA. Doctor killings. Bosnia and Serbia.
Italy (Roman Catholic) invaded Ethiopia (60% Christian) prior to WWII.
Hey, keep coming back. I can keep finding more examples of just how "peaceful" a religion Christianity is. Is it the worst> No. Is it the best? No.
Yeah? Then why are all the IRA members Catholic and all their non-military opponents (military as in forces sent in by the UK) Protestant?
Yeah.
The fact that the different sides are different religions isn't enough to make a war in to a religious war.
I suppose the fact the essentially all our soldiers in the Pacific in WWII were Caucasian and all the enemy was Japanese didn't make it a nationalistic war then?
You think the sharp divide in religions in the Northern Ireland conflict or the Balkans conflict had nothing to do with matters?
OF COURSE you can always find other matters involved. In the Crusades, the Christians had bred excessively a produced a passle of noble sons with no land for them. They went east. They hassle the Muslims were creating for Christians going to Palestine provided another convenient excuse. But you only get to call it a non-religious war if you ignore the fact that successive Popes called for retaking the Holy Land in the name of Christ!
What's that mean in English?
That was in English, isn't all that complex, and was the actual point that you where supposedly replying to while you went off on a tangent about Constantine.
If a Christian had shot and killed Andy Warhol when he exhibited that crucifix in a jar of p***, would or would that not count?
Andres Serrano not Andy Warhol.
I stand corrected. Serranos also was not killed. Warhol was, but not for religious reasons. Anyone who ever met the man can thinkof plenty of other reasons. :-)
Interestingly, Serranos was Catholic (????!!!!).
That would count, but not as a mass movement or a typical response. If as a response Christians all over the country started massive protests, burning down several art galleries, and calling for Serrano to be tried and executed for blasphemy in a religious court it would count.
They'd face a wall of armed police and they know it. And soldiers if necessary. But the idea of freedom of religion and freedom from religion has pretty well penetrated the American population.
So you think their acts have nothing to do with beliefs taught by certain Christian sects?
Your attacking a straw man, not my actual response, despite the fact that you quote it.
You evaded the question.
"All of which isn't very relevant to the point that its pretty hard to find a violent reaction from Christian these days in response to someone insulting Christianity."
I'd agree with that.
But it was the whole point you where arguing against.
Did you miss the fact that you have to go back less than 15 years to find religiously motivated violence ny Christians? If the brand of Christian religion had nothing to do with Northern Ireland, why did leaders on both sides keep citing it as a reason for more violence?
WHy is Milosovic being tried? He didn't kill Christians.
A fraction of Muslims are like the Orthodox Jews or the Religious Right
That's true. And its a relatively large fraction.
I'm uncertain. A rather large fraction (the majority?) certainly keep their mouths shut about atrocities by their co-religionists. But is it out of agreement or fear? How do we even tell?
But the real point is the smaller fraction that is even more fundamentalist and is violent or at least supports violence in the name of the religious ideals. Such a faction exists in Christianity but its very tiny and marginalized.
OK. But a large fraction of Americans think this is a "Christian nation".
christianpost.com
usatoday.com
Now had the Founders Wanted a Christian nation they could simply have written it into the Constitution. Different states had different established churches and some had none? No problem. Simply say that a state had to designate its established church before entry. The fact that they instead opted for freedom of religion- -including the right not to believe, and they were well aware that was a consequence- -indicates they DIDN'T want a nation where all must be Christians.
Its much bigger and more popular in the Islamic world. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. aren't the equivalent of the "religious right", even the most extreme tenth of it. Maybe the most extreme 100,000th of it.
If the Mexican Wa had occurred 30 years ago, the US had Mexico on the ropes, then Britain and France had poured arms into Mexico and they had gone on and won the war, how do you think we would feel about those nations?
Remember Serbia and Bosnia?
Another irrelevant example. At least its fairly recent, but its not directly relevant because it isn't about a violent response to a religious insult
Np,it's about peaceful Christians killing and taking the territory of Mulims.
and also again its more a nationalist issue than a religious one.
Killing and stealing land? Yeah, that can be called 'nationalistic'. But NO WAR ever has a single cause! Especially in retrospect!
It wasn't a fight about theological interpretation
Neither were the Crusades. Or the Muslim conquest of the Middle East. I guess they weren't religious wars. I guess there never has been a religious war because multiple causes are always involved. The Pacific portion of WWII could be called a religious war because it was Primarily Christians against Shintos and Buddhists.
people where not trying to force worship practices or religious declarations on each other.
You think you wouldn't be burning incense at the shrines of your ancestors had Japan won WWII?
It was largely a fight for control of land.
You ever heard of a war that DIDN'T involve control of real estate?
Beyond that it was a fight between different nationalistic groups.
Nationalistic groups don't often have different religions that cause friction? Remember Protestant Northern Ireland and Catholic Republic of Ireland?
Yes the groups had distinct religions but that doesn't make it a religious war any more than WWII in the Pacific (with a mostly Christian US against Japanese who where mostly Buddhist or Shinto.
So the multiple incidents when Japanese soldiers killed Christians meant nothing?
Hey, I think we've about exhausted this topic. We need to find something else to disagree about. :-) |
