Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (63737)	1/31/2008 4:44:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"One relevant one would be nice. I'm still waiting." You already got them. No I haven't, at least not from your posts. Italy (Roman Catholic) invaded Ethiopia (60% Christian) prior to WWII. Because they wanted a colony not for religious reasons. "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? The fact that they where different races didn't make it a war about race (I'm not saying race didn't play a role, it did and not a small one, but it wasn't a primary role). It also didn't make it a nationalistic war. It was such a war, but not because you had Caucasians fighting Asians. n 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! I wouldn't call it a non-religious war exactly, just not purely a religious one. Here religion played a crucial role. But it was far from the only cause. It was a war about religion and about other things. Its also irrelevant to the issue that you took exception to. You want to change the argument so that your on stronger ground, but the battle isn't here. I'm not endorsing the crusades as a good idea, and I'm not saying religion didn't play a major role in the war. If the Christians are always so peaceful, why do they need that concept? You must enjoy beating up straw men. I didn't claim, or quote or link to anyone else who claimed they where always peaceful. "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. 1 - That isn't the only reason, or even the main reason. 2 - Even if it was the main reason, it wouldn't change the fact that such a response did not happen. But the idea of freedom of religion and freedom from religion has pretty well penetrated the American population. Exactly. It was largely a fight for control of land. You ever heard of a war that DIDN'T involve control of real estate? I didn't say "it involved control of real estate", I said it was about such control. You think you wouldn't be burning incense at the shrines of your ancestors had Japan won WWII? Yes. I think I wouldn't be burning incense at the shrines of my ancestors if Japan had won WWII. "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? "Meant nothing"?? Again with the straw men. Saying the war was not a religious war doesn't even vaguely resemble saying those incidents meant nothing. More generally trying to take any war where the participants are of different religions, or (in some of your arguments) trying to take any war were the participants have a religion (and one other than Islam), as examples of non-Islamic religious wars doesn't make a lot of sense. WWII was not a religious war, arguing otherwise is ridiculous. "Your attacking a straw man, not my actual response, despite the fact that you quote it." You evaded the question. The question isn't relevant to the issue being discussed, its changing the topic while trying to pretend you aren't changing the topic. Its also implying that I said or implied that those killing did have nothing to do with religion. They did have a religious connection. But the point is that religious connection is irrelevant to the issue for the reasons I laid out. The violence wasn't a mass movement or one with wide spread support, it also wasn't a response to an insult or a work of art. If you really want to change the subject, than do so explicitly. Something like "OK your right about that, but I think the much more important issue is X, and my opinion of X is..." Then you don't have to worry about all your arguments being irrelevant to the issue because your changing the issue. But instead of doing that you want to pretend that your arguments are relevant when they are not.