To: Krowbar who wrote (63811 ) 11/22/1999 8:35:00 AM From: greenspirit Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
Del, res- <<Nice try Michael, but facts are getting in the way of your perceived view of the world. Again, I will not spend time on this. If you search hard enough you can find people who agree with you, and thus make you feel you are right. >>> As I'm sure you will too Del. To suggest that Hitler was waging a religious war because of his influence from Marthin Luther, and not because of his lust for power is ludicrous in the extreme. I'm not sure why you felt the need to defend atheism. The article never pointed toward atheism as being the culprit of wars. It did however, point at the simple lust for power . Which any objective person looking at history could easily conclude. Just to refresh where your disagreement is coming from, let's review a few of the passages in the article...Beyond the borders of North America, the bloodiest, most ambitious conquerors in human history accomplished their deadly work with little reference to religious priorities. Pure lust for power, rather than some sense of holy mission, drove Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar (and his Roman successors), Attila, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin. None of these tyrants made serous attempts to impose their faith on victim nations-and each of them, to a greater or lesser extent, faced troubled relations with the religious authorities in their own societies. I believe that most historical scholars who look at history objectively would agree with that passage wholeheartedly. And no where is it mentioned that atheisms is to blame for wars. Or, are you suggesting that the absence of blame toward religion, equates to blaming atheists?? If so, that's strange logic indeed Del. Another passage....The twentieth century provides little or no evidence in any corner of the globe to support the contention that religion causes most human conflict. The greatest and costliest struggles of the uniquely blood-soaked hundred year epic just now concluding -World War I, World War II, the many "hot" conflicts of the Cold War-could scarcely be defined as religious disputes. Even Hitler's targeting of the Jews for annihilation bore little connection to faith-based concerns or hatreds. The Nazis killed according to ethnicity and an alleged genetic taint; they spared neither Jewish atheists, nor sincere Jewish converts to Christianity, like the Catholic nun (and saint) Edith Stein, who died at Auschwitz. Relatively minor wars of the last hundred years (the Arab-Israeli conflicts, the struggle in Northern Ireland, the fighting in the Balkans) may contain unmistakable religious elements. But these struggles claimed only a fraction of the victims of horrific battles between co-religionists (the unspeakably bloody Iran-Iraq war), or genocidal tribal conflicts (in Rwanda and elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa Once again, sounds perfectly reasonable to me Del. And no mention of blaming atheism at all. So what exactly inspired you to make this comment? Because the article never suggested such a position at all as near as I can tell. But maybe I'm missing something. Please enlighten. res- <<The Communist countries that were cited did not use Atheism to inspire their troops. I never heard of a soldier killing sombody in Madalyn O'hare or Darwin's name. >> Michael