Religous Wars!

[Guest]

It's had worse.

I'll rephrase that.

It's supposedly had worse, according to the opinion of some.

[Yaya]

Seriously, I cannot belive whats going on in the world you have Muslims in Iraq killing each other because they are from slightly different tribes? WTF? Religon is good?

See, this is why sometimes I have problems debating with you Impactor, its because you take everything you see and hear on the tele as truth.

What if, what if Impactor, all those so called suicide bombings that happen in Iraq, a country that was devoid of suicide bombing for centuries, were not suicide bombings at all but a certain action taken by a certain nation to rid the country of certain young Iraqi figting men so they could acquire a certain oil interest?

NO! Can't be that! The tele says its suicide bombers! It's got to be suicide bombers!

[Dead Head]

See, this is why sometimes I have problems debating with you Impactor, its because you take everything you see and hear on the tele as truth.

What if, what if Impactor, all those so called suicide bombings that happen in Iraq, a country that was devoid of suicide bombing for centuries, were not suicide bombings at all but a certain action taken by a certain nation to rid the country of certain young Iraqi figting men so they could acquire a certain oil interest?

NO! Can't be that! The tele says its suicide bombers! It's got to be suicide bombers!

That's one vivid imagination you have.

[sprunkner]

But when somthing that is essentially just a way to lead your life can kill alot of ppl do we still need it in the modern world?

Any philosophy can be used to justify murder. If I believe that hamsters are the cutest things ever, and someone makes a remark about how much they hate hamsters, I could justify killing that person because they are a potential threat to the cutest things in the world.

It doesn't mean I would or should. But there are crazy people out there who would.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Seriously, I cannot belive whats going on in the world you have Muslims in Iraq killing each other because they are from slightly different tribes? WTF? Religon is good?

See, this is why sometimes I have problems debating with you Impactor, its because you take everything you see and hear on the tele as truth.

Then I would say your a prat. And that you have no idea whats going on in the world.
That and the notion that every paper,website and TV I see from all politcal angles must be in a masive consipracy - yeah.
YaYa, you have no idea what I watch,read, see or hear, where i go, who I talk to or whatever, so dont go making utterly stupid ideas about what ppl might do.
Im sorry your religion is faliable in every way and that your waking up to life as a real person.

Any philosophy can be used to justify murder. If I believe that hamsters are the cutest things ever, and someone makes a remark about how much they hate hamsters, I could justify killing that person because they are a potential threat to the cutest things in the world.

It doesn't mean I would or should. But there are crazy people out there who would.

That would be cool if 'ppl' were just a few but your talking about entire nations. Ive already gone over this.

[Yaya]

And that you have no idea whats going on in the world.

And you do?

I'm supposed to take the word of someone who checks under his bed for religion before he goes to sleep as knowing something about the true happenings of the world?

As I said, the tele says its suicide bombers so its got to be suicide bombers.

Let me know when you know as many Iraqi's as I do. Let me know when you have actually talked with U.S. soldiers about what's really going on over there, as I have.

Then I might believe something you have to say.

[Metal Vendetta]

U need a reason to pull a trigger - Religon is the reason.

Im sorry but I was a follower of any faith right now id feel embaressed with whats going on the world, its disgusting.

Wasn't world war 2 mostly based on German politicians wishing to turn Germany into a world empire? The other nasty aspects tended to be racial hatred. It's never been claimed it was a mostly religious thing nor is there any evidence as such. Economic and power hungry was the main causes. Heck the Nazi cause was always argued on fairly scientific arguements even if they were ignorant ones.

Not sure I agree with your reasoning there Jets. I'm sure it's pure coincidence that the Nazis had a religious symbol as their logo, one based around a cross no less. I'm sure it's also pure coincidence that their ideal physique was based around White Anglo-Saxon and I'll bet that most of Nazi society was Protestant. And I'm sure it's again pure coincidence that the people they persecuted were either of a different religion (Jews) or those that didn't fit in with Christian ideals (homosexuals, atheists). How about the 1933 Concordat between the Vatican and the Third Reich?

There are a few examples of Christians speaking out against the Nazis during this period, most notably Martin Niemöller and his associates, but out of a country of millions, that's less than pathetic. Sure the goals may have been economic and territorial expansion, but Christianity was complicit in the Nazi regime from the bottom to the top, because by and large they were the ones to benefit from the system.

What about Japan's involvement the bombing of Pearl harbour or the use of atomic bombs hardly needed a religious cause.

Hmmm. This is the same Japan where they believed that the Emperor was a god in the Shinto religion, right?

I've never heard of the Vietnam war having religious causes, nor the Korean war.

I'm sure America wouldn't have been so quick to get involved if their opponents where white Christians, though. Religion works indirectly too - "They ain't like us, they're barely human, they don't even pray..." Same in Iraq right now.

Starlin is responsible for more murder and death than anyother person who has lived. He certainly had no religious conviction.

Yeah, but the Russian Orthodox Church supported him to the hilt, leading to a massive schism with the Orthodox church outside Russia. Again, Christians complicit in mass slaughter, though the motives may not have been religious, the participants most certainly were.

I'm not saying that tribalism and nationalism don't have their part to play but more often than not a national identity and a religious identity are often inexticably intertwined, and you can't point to one and say that is the root cause of a problem over the other. Equally, religious people, organisations and institutions are not above allying themselves with the prevailing political movement if they will benefit from it.






...







And I'm glad that Rwanda's been brought up, because you'll never guess what TEN MINUTES OF RESEARCH will tell you...

After Germany's loss in World War I, the protectorate [of Rwanda] was taken over by Belgium with a League of Nations mandate. Belgian rule in the region was far more direct and harsh than that of the Germans. However, the Belgian colonizers did realize the value of native rule. Backed by Christian churches, the Belgians used the minority Tutsi upper class over lower classes of Tutsis and Hutus. Belgian-forced labor policies and stringent taxes were mainly enforced by the Tutsi upper class, whom the Belgians used as buffers against people's anger, thus further polarising the Hutu and the Tutsi. Many young peasants, in order to escape tax harassment and hunger, migrated to neighboring countries. They moved mainly to Congo but also to Ugandan plantations, looking for work.

It had been ten years since the Hutus attacked the Tutsis in Rwanda, killing almost one million people in the space of just one hundred days. Rwanda is a Christian country and some of the killers were Christian leaders.

Nowhere in Africa has Christianity had a more decisive impact than in Rwanda. The Hutu revolution derived much of its egalitarian inspiration from the teachings of the European clergy, and Catholic seminaries served as recruiting grounds for Hutu leaders. Roman Catholicism claims the allegiance of about two-thirds of the population.

Barley 1 years ago genocide occured in Rwunda with some 3 million wiped out or forced to flee the country. No religious motivation. Nobody doing it in the name of God. Just evil people doing what evil people do for their own ends.

That's easily the worst post war event that has occured IMO.

So these "evil people" doing "what evil people do" to cause the "worst post war event that has occurred" (in your opinion) were Christian leaders recruited in Catholic seminaries.

Have I made my point yet, or do you need pwning some more?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Yaya - I just dont understand you. Just because u have spoken with different groups of ppl doesnt make every news service on earth wrong and you right.
I have friends in the UK forces who give me points of view, I read 2 News papers a day - the Times and the guardian.
I watch BBC, C4 and sky News every day aswell
Are you claiming that all these news stories are BS and u know better? - im sorry but you have to open your eyes a bit, stop painting a rosey picture.

MV - Its interesting information you have here and it returns me to my point at hand in that does the world still neeed religon - obviously Religion is never the single factor but it is almost 99.9% of the time a very big factor in major global conflicts.

We dont have to look far to see that problems in chechnyan and recently Bosnia have result in conflicts that have in part had huge problems because of religion.

Its my belife that anyone can be a good person - and a religious person is no better then anyone else on earth - but u will never find me killing in the name of or being recruited into a country sized conflict because of my faith. Its place in the modern world seems backwards - yes it might once have done good but I fail to see what it brings anyone any more.

Anyone can be a good person - but to be bad requires a catalyst.

[Professor Smooth]

I'd say that basic ignorance is more of a factor in such conflicts than religion. Though the two are not mutually exclusive.

[Yaya]

I read 2 News papers a day - the Times and the guardian.
I watch BBC, C4 and sky News every day aswell
Are you claiming that all these news stories are BS and u know better?

All Western, my friend.

All Western news sources that garner their information from each other.

Now I'm not saying that because they are Western they are inaccurate. But please tell me how many Arab or Middle Eastern news sources you tap into? How many of those media sources you credit above have Muslim reporters?

That's the point I'm making.

I say the same thing about Eastern media. We know that Saddam Hussein had his own twisted spin on things to convince his people of what he wanted them to believe. We know how inaccurate such information is Do you believe that Western media cannot be guilty of the very same, that it is infallible?

The very nation I live in believed there were weapons of mass destruction. Was that accurate?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Actually, all of them have muslim reporters.

Western news is pretty sound and holds many in depth talks, interviews and doesnt have the propoganda drivel that is seen from many arabic news stations.

Out of interest goto any of the aboves web sites and find me somthing u dont agree with.

[Dead Head]

all those so called suicide bombings that happen in Iraq

'so-called'? You are definitely coming off as a loon.

NO! Can't be that! The tele says its suicide bombers! It's got to be suicide bombers!

[sprunkner]

I'm sure it's pure coincidence that the Nazis had a religious symbol as their logo, one based around a cross no less.

The swastika is actually a very old symbol within polytheistic religion, particularly Jainism and Hinduism. It occurs naturally in most Indo-European cultures, and was even adopted by Native Americans. It is probably the root mythic symbol that led to the Christian cross.

The symbol was adopted by Hitler based on his ideas of a pure Aryan race that somehow, despite the science that places the Indo-Europeans in Iran, came from Germany. Yea. Right. He believed it was the symbol of all that the original Aryan race stood for.

Again, religion and religious symbols get caught up in pure tribalism, especially in this case. It's a part of the total package-- the killings in Rwanda were tribal first, especially considering that these were Christians killing other Christians. I'm not saying religion doesn't have its part in tribalistic horrors. But it is always subverted to the total idea.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I thought the Swastika was actually the reverse of the greek symbol of life - so it means death the other way around...

[Guest]

The Swastika reversed is still a Swastika. It's only the Nazis who made a preference to its appearance.

And that you have no idea whats going on in the world.

And you do?

I'm supposed to take the word of someone who checks under his bed for religion before he goes to sleep as knowing something about the true happenings of the world?

As I said, the tele says its suicide bombers so its got to be suicide bombers.

Let me know when you know as many Iraqi's as I do. Let me know when you have actually talked with U.S. soldiers about what's really going on over there, as I have.

Then I might believe something you have to say.

So, basically, you're saying that noone here is qualified to talk to you on this matter?

I've spoken to British soldiers who've been stationed in Iraq recently and one of my best friends is an Iranian who left his homeland during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war. Who here is qualified to talk to me?

[Metal Vendetta]

I'm sure it's pure coincidence that the Nazis had a religious symbol as their logo, one based around a cross no less.

The swastika is actually a very old symbol within polytheistic religion, particularly Jainism and Hinduism.

I never said it wasn't.

It occurs naturally in most Indo-European cultures, and was even adopted by Native Americans. It is probably the root mythic symbol that led to the Christian cross.

And you don't think that the Nazis might have known this when they chose it as their symbol, thinking that it would probably appeal to people who, say, follow the Christian cross?

The symbol was adopted by Hitler based on his ideas of a pure Aryan race that somehow, despite the science that places the Indo-Europeans in Iran, came from Germany. Yea. Right. He believed it was the symbol of all that the original Aryan race stood for.

I'm not trying to deny that he was motivated by whacky ideas about race and purity. I'm just sick of this notion that religion played no part whatsoever in the Holocaust. Every time we have one of these discussions, someone from the Christian side will disregard Godwin's law (again) and wheel out Hitler and the Nazis as an example of secular evil, despite the fact that they operated under a religious symbol and had the full blessing of the Vatican and millions of Christians across Germany. Let's look at a few pictures, shall we?


Here we see Hitler signing an autograph for a nun.


Here we see Hitler greeting an envoy from the Pope.


Bishop Müller and Abbot Schachleitner here, greeting Hitler.


Another papal envoy.

Let's remember that Germany's non-Jewish population is 90+% Christian. Let's remember centuries of Christian anti-Semitism across Europe, yes, even here in England. If Hitler stood any chance of succeeding, he had to have the support of most of the people in Germany. He had to appeal to tha Christian masses. And how did he succeed in making them follow him? He promised them that he would "solve the problem" of the Jews and the gypsies and the homosexuals and all those other untidy elements that don't fit in to a perfect Christian society.

The simple facts are that if he hadn't had the support of millions of Christians, Hitler's plans would never have got off the drawing board. The church endorsed him. The church supported him and no doubt convinced millions of Christians to do likewise. At the very best, and this is the thinnest end of the wedge, they did nothing to stop him. And as we all know, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing", written incidentally, about 200 years previously.

Again, religion and religious symbols get caught up in pure tribalism, especially in this case. It's a part of the total package-- the killings in Rwanda were tribal first, especially considering that these were Christians killing other Christians. I'm not saying religion doesn't have its part in tribalistic horrors. But it is always subverted to the total idea.

Hang on, Rwanda is tribal, but you can't deny that this most recent clash between the tribes is as a direct result of the influence of the Christians. First the Belgian churches promote the upper caste Tutsis over everyone else, then the Hutus get God, and their church leaders get everyone together at the seminaries to grab a machete and hack the legs off of any Tutsis they find. If it was a purely tribal matter, why would they meet at the churches? Why would the church leaders be involved? Killing in the name of God, perhaps?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

This story was reported last week on many tv stations and news papers but I forgot to bring it up - again we see a Nigeria with 90% muslim population involved in violent struggles because of religion.

Its obvious that orginaly the tribes didnt have religion, you introduce and what do u suddenly have? controll, exactlly what the church was invented for - when another religion pops up you have a fight.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050430a.aspx

crapy news site but the storys wide spread I just googled out the first.

[Yaya]

all those so called suicide bombings that happen in Iraq

'so-called'? You are definitely coming off as a loon.

You accept it only because you hear it on television.

Iraq and Iran fought wars. India-Pakistan have fought three wars. Iraq and Kuwait have fought wars. Afghanistan and Russia fought a long war.

In none of them was suicide bombing a military tactic. Yet now its reported in every nation, in every conflict.

The only case where I can believe that someone might blow themselves up to inflict harm on their enemy is in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, where acts of desperation believable occur.

But to tell me that a Iraq suicide bomber is blowing himself up to kill other Iraqis? And almost always in locations of young Iraq men?

Blowing yourself up, even for the most down trodden individual, is a very hard thing to do. Yet, all of a sudden, its the way to go all over the world?

And if someone blows themselves up, how do authorities discern between someone blowing themselves up and someone who simply plants a bomb and leaves? I mean, there's nothing left!

Sorry. I believe suicide bombing happens, but no way does it happen with the frequency reported from Iraq.

[Jetfire]

So these "evil people" doing "what evil people do" to cause the "worst post war event that has occurred" (in your opinion) were Christian leaders recruited in Catholic seminaries.

Have I made my point yet, or do you need pwning some more?

My point was that most of Impys examples were not on religious terms. Not that some people who claim to be Christian/Jewish etc are always good and pure. And not all non-religious people wouldn't perform extream actions for good or ill


In all your particular examples not once was the church the cause, which was my point. It's political bodies weather democratic/royal/dictorship/religious who lust for more power/land or are ignorant who are the cause of it all.

Bad people exist every where. Saddam Hussain is suddleny using the perscuted muslim angle dispite killing more muslims than anybody ele ein history (Who I knwo of) because it suits him.
You could claim he is religious but he clearly isn't. But on paper he played that particular card.


I could claim that Mao Tse-tung, Starlin, Lennin were somewhat anti-religious in their practices but nobody is claiming atheists or being an atheist will make you a bigger murderer than Hitler which Impy is more or less stating on a regular basis. I wanted to point out these people will use whatever method

Wikipedia wrote:
After Germany's loss in World War I, the protectorate [of Rwanda] was taken over by Belgium with a League of Nations mandate. Belgian rule in the region was far more direct and harsh than that of the Germans. However, the Belgian colonizers did realize the value of native rule. Backed by Christian churches, the Belgians used the minority Tutsi upper class over lower classes of Tutsis and Hutus. Belgian-forced labor policies and stringent taxes were mainly enforced by the Tutsi upper class, whom the Belgians used as buffers against people's anger, thus further polarising the Hutu and the Tutsi. Many young peasants, in order to escape tax harassment and hunger, migrated to neighboring countries. They moved mainly to Congo but also to Ugandan plantations, looking for work.


The BBC wrote:
It had been ten years since the Hutus attacked the Tutsis in Rwanda, killing almost one million people in the space of just one hundred days. Rwanda is a Christian country and some of the killers were Christian leaders.


Encycopaedia Britannica wrote:
Nowhere in Africa has Christianity had a more decisive impact than in Rwanda. The Hutu revolution derived much of its egalitarian inspiration from the teachings of the European clergy, and Catholic seminaries served as recruiting grounds for Hutu leaders. Roman Catholicism claims the allegiance of about two-thirds of the population.

Ah yes the same articles that discuss the tribal racism from hundreds of years being what caused it. It was also openly discussed in government.
And one of the central reasons for it Ugandan interfearence and tribal rivalies as to who "ownded the country" There is no indication that religion had any significant infulence on matters to kick i off. It was Hutu vs tutsis. Racial or tribal a problem long before major religions approached the area. Here's another quote:

"Either you took part in the massacres or you were massacred yourself," said one Hutu, rationalizing an ambivalent mixture of regret, fear, and shame at being forced to kill Tutsis.

Hardly people using religion as an excuse to kill. Naturally people of any background would be frightened into doing the dirtys. i imagine Christians, Agnostics and Atheists were frightened into it all. It doesn't mean atheist belief or being undecided about God leads to mass slaughter or gets you motivated for genocide.
What about

In some towns the victims were forcibly crammed into churches and school buildings, where Hutu extremist gangs massacred them. In June about 3,000 Tutsis sought refuge in a Catholic church in Kivumu. Local Interahamwe then used bulldozers supplied by the local police to knock down the church building. People who tried to escape were hacked down with machetes.

Sounds like the opposite of what you are saying. The killers were indifferent to religion, they wern't not using any sort of religious conviction to motivate themselves to do so. You have decided to pick what you want from those articles dispite the overwelming evidence that it was racially/tribally motivated in said articles.

Next you'll claim that it's always blacks who get involved in most civil rights abuses in africa so all of them should be blamed. Or that hey commit higher rates of crime and ignore the actural factors such as poverty, lack of role models etc.

I fail to see how "Pwned" I am. get a large enough group of people and it will represent it's area in many ways. For good or bad. Politics takes whatever face is to it's advantage.

[Jetfire]

We dont have to look far to see that problems in chechnyan and recently Bosnia have result in conflicts that have in part had huge problems because of religion.

And most wars/conflicts hae had a non-religious basis. Doesn't that mean not having a religion makes a area more prone to conflict?

Its my belife that anyone can be a good person - and a religious person is no better then anyone else on earth - but u will never find me killing in the name of or being recruited into a country sized conflict because of my faith.

Many people kill without any faith. Some of example above were motivate by secularism and all were motivated/brought about by political idealism or lust for power.

Its place in the modern world seems backwards - yes it might once have done good but I fail to see what it brings anyone any more.

Personnal fulfilment?
Spirtual enlightenment.

Anyone can be a good person - but to be bad requires a catalyst.

According the police stats 90% of all criminals reoffend. However that figure drops if the person has a religious conversion. I could use that to say means becomming religious is a catalyst for being good. Seeing as most crime, like national or racial conflicts aren't religious motivated. Crime like conflict is motivated by greed/power lust etc and those sorts manilipute people/laws/situations for their own advantages. Not due to religious conviction. In Michaels MooreFahrenheit 9/11 most of the sick americans were firing off in their tanks and laughing at Iraquie body counts to heavy metal. I'd never Heavy metal music motivated them to kill cilivians but I could certainly draw taht conclusion if I didn't look at the actural factors involved (Dehumanising of soliders, maniliputing national pride, Bush lust for oil, the cold war betwee the USSR and the USA/West, Saddam's devestating human righst record making it all so easy, etc)

[Jetfire]

P.S: I generally was infering that most causes of conflict isn't due to weather someone has a religious belief or not. But tired so I hope I didn't come across agressive (will reread tomorrow when I'm less tired), I believe most of all tollerence, understanding and ensuring political leaders are held to account are the only true ways forward.

Plenty of non-religious people gives their lives for causes (look at any war, police man or cornered criminal) good or bad. But generalising that religion=bad is as ignorant as the beliefs that cause people to do bad things.

In fact it's somewhat irrevelant compared to factors like imperilism, racism, tribalism, power lust and ignorance.
Any conflict or war or terrorist action has some c### benifitting from it. Bin Laden only turned anti-american when he lost his funding afterall and I don't see him on the front lines.

[Metal Vendetta]

So these "evil people" doing "what evil people do" to cause the "worst post war event that has occurred" (in your opinion) were Christian leaders recruited in Catholic seminaries.

Have I made my point yet, or do you need pwning some more?

My point was that most of Impys examples were not on religious terms. Not that some people who claim to be Christian/Jewish etc are always good and pure. And not all non-religious people wouldn't perform extream actions for good or ill

No, your point was that nowhere in Rwanda were people killing in the name of God. Except, that they were recruited by their own Christian leaders in their own churches. So they were encouraged by those who had religious influence over them to rise up and slaughter those who had been put in positions of power over them by Christian missionaries a few decades before. Christianity created the problem. Christianity exacerbated it.

Ah yes the same articles that discuss the tribal racism from hundreds of years being what caused it...There is no indication that religion had any significant infulence on matters to kick i off. It was Hutu vs tutsis. Racial or tribal a problem long before major religions approached the area.

Of course, yeah, sure. Let's examine that theory too, shall we?

There is little difference between the cultures of the Tutsi and Hutu; both groups speak the same language. Traditionally the rate of intermarriage has been very high, and relations between the groups were generally peaceful until the 20th century.

Where are these "hundreds of years" of "tribal racism"? These two tribes lived together peacefully until the Christian missionaries arrived. Are you spotting a pattern yet?

"Either you took part in the massacres or you were massacred yourself," said one Hutu, rationalizing an ambivalent mixture of regret, fear, and shame at being forced to kill Tutsis.

Hardly people using religion as an excuse to kill.

Note the word "rationalizing" in your quote there.

Someone who took part in genocide, after the event says that it wasn't their fault they had to slaughter over a million people. Wow. Great quote there, Jetfire. Next up, we have a quote from Hitler who says he definitely had to kill all the Jews because otherwise they would have destroyed German society.

In some towns the victims were forcibly crammed into churches and school buildings, where Hutu extremist gangs massacred them. In June about 3,000 Tutsis sought refuge in a Catholic church in Kivumu. Local Interahamwe then used bulldozers supplied by the local police to knock down the church building. People who tried to escape were hacked down with machetes.

Sounds like the opposite of what you are saying. The killers were indifferent to religion, they wern't not using any sort of religious conviction to motivate themselves to do so.

Where exactly does it say that? It says some of the massacres happened in churches, but since most of the recruiting for this massacre also took place in churches, then presumably they believed God favoured their cause.

Next you'll claim that it's always blacks who get involved in most civil rights abuses in africa so all of them should be blamed. Or that hey commit higher rates of crime and ignore the actural factors such as poverty, lack of role models etc.

Of course, I'm anti-religious so I must be racist as well.
Wrong.
Skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, height, nose shape and shoe size are all physical characteristics. They are things that a person is born with and all they can tell you about a person is what they look like. Religion, on the other hand, is something that someone actively does. It tells you a lot about them, and if you examine the ideals of that religion it tells you about what that person ideally should be like. For example I know that Christians are encouraged to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. When I look at the actions of all these millions of Christians who have taken part in genocide, how can I draw any other conclusion that Christianity as a religion has failed these people? My original point was that religion is useless, and if, as you say, "...naturally people of any background would be frightened into doing the dirtys. i imagine Christians, Agnostics and Atheists were frightened into it all" then what is the point of being a Christian in the first place?

Again, that's near the thin end of the wedge. Religious people are also sometimes motivated by their religion to commit atrocities. So, essentially, they have all the same reasons as atheists to go on a killing spree, plus one more which is more powerful than all the others put together. Great.

Then there's the "us and them" mentality that religion engenders in its followers, and which people like Hitler and Stalin played upon. Both were backed by their respective churches because they represented their followers' interests over those of rival factions. Again, great.

I fail to see how "Pwned" I am. get a large enough group of people and it will represent it's area in many ways. For good or bad. Politics takes whatever face is to it's advantage.

You're "Pwned" because you brought up the example of Rwanda as a religion-free genocide, and it took me ten minutes in Google to prove you wrong. That's my definition of "Pwned", anyway This sentence alone:

The Hutu revolution derived much of its egalitarian inspiration from the teachings of the European clergy, and Catholic seminaries served as recruiting grounds for Hutu leaders.

kicks your argument into the back of someone's garden. Sorry.

If you look, I just did it again up there with the hundreds of years of tribal racism thing. To avoid it in future, try and check your facts before posting

[Impactor returns 2.0]

And most wars/conflicts hae had a non-religious basis. Doesn't that mean not having a religion makes a area more prone to conflict?

Ok - two areas of conflict - onw with war without religious backing - one with war because religous backing.

remove religoin and we haveld the problem already!

Many people kill without any faith. Some of example above were motivate by secularism and all were motivated/brought about by political idealism or lust for power.

Yeah but murder and war are two different scales.

Personnal fulfilment?
Spirtual enlightenment.

what about it tho? You make yourself a better person, magic doesnt flow int you when you join a religion and u gain these new super powers.
Just be a good person. you dont need a religion to do so.

According the police stats 90% of all criminals reoffend. However that figure drops if the person has a religious conversion. I could use that to say means becomming religious is a catalyst for being good.

were not talking about someone robbing my house mate.

Yaya - thiere are suicide bombings every day in iraq - If you dont belive it type it into youtube or go to ogreish . com there u will find 1000's of videos of young men driving up in cars and blowing themselves up.

so unless thats all special effects footage then im confused.

[Jetfire]

By the way I have quite a bad hangover. And have typed the various answers to each point in random orders and I may have done quotes wrong, as they came to me. I may not be making sense. Why does the front room smell of J.D?

So these "evil people" doing "what evil people do" to cause the "worst post war event that has occurred" (in your opinion) were Christian leaders recruited in Catholic seminaries.

Have I made my point yet, or do you need pwning some more?

My point was that most of Impys examples were not on religious terms. Not that some people who claim to be Christian/Jewish etc are always good and pure. And not all non-religious people wouldn't perform extream actions for good or ill

No, your point was that nowhere in Rwanda were people killing in the name of God.

No it wasn't. I said the cause of the conflict wasn't a religious cause. When you have 300,000 people doing one thing I'm sure all sorts of reasons.

Except, that they were recruited by their own Christian leaders in their own churches. So they were encouraged by those who had religious influence over them to rise up and slaughter those who had been put in positions of power over them by Christian missionaries a few decades before. Christianity created the problem. Christianity exacerbated it.

As you see further down and from all the experts on the conflict show the factors that lead to the event were mostly in place before Belgium arrived.

Ah yes the same articles that discuss the tribal racism from hundreds of years being what caused it...There is no indication that religion had any significant infulence on matters to kick i off. It was Hutu vs tutsis. Racial or tribal a problem long before major religions approached the area.

Of course, yeah, sure. Let's examine that theory too, shall we?

There is little difference between the cultures of the Tutsi and Hutu; both groups speak the same language. Traditionally the rate of intermarriage has been very high, and relations between the groups were generally peaceful until the 20th century.

Where are these "hundreds of years" of "tribal racism"? These two tribes lived together peacefully until the Christian missionaries arrived. Are you spotting a pattern yet?

"Either you took part in the massacres or you were massacred yourself," said one Hutu, rationalizing an ambivalent mixture of regret, fear, and shame at being forced to kill Tutsis.

Hardly people using religion as an excuse to kill.

Note the word "rationalizing" in your quote there.

Someone who took part in genocide, after the event says that it wasn't their fault they had to slaughter over a million people. Wow. Great quote there, Jetfire. Next up, we have a quote from Hitler who says he definitely had to kill all the Jews because otherwise they would have destroyed German society. [/quote]

Again wildly out of context. If people are told "Kill or we will kill you"

In some towns the victims were forcibly crammed into churches and school buildings, where Hutu extremist gangs massacred them. In June about 3,000 Tutsis sought refuge in a Catholic church in Kivumu. Local Interahamwe then used bulldozers supplied by the local police to knock down the church building. People who tried to escape were hacked down with machetes.

Sounds like the opposite of what you are saying. The killers were indifferent to religion, they wern't not using any sort of religious conviction to motivate themselves to do so.

Where exactly does it say that? It says some of the massacres happened in churches, but since most of the recruiting for this massacre also took place in churches, then presumably they believed God favoured their cause. [/quote]

Sigh.

Because of the favorable environment, it is one of the most densely populated parts of Africa. This has led to a great deal of competition for scarce land and resources.[citations needed]

In his book Collapse, author-scientist Jared Diamond argues that this overpopulation contributed heavily to the violence. He believes that the mayhem of the genocide provided a pretext for some Rwandans to kill their wealthier neighbors in order to seize their land.

Of course, I'm anti-religious so I must be racist as well.[/quote]

Not at all. You missed the point. I could say Gone with the Wind is a film about black superoity because a black character cosistently undermines Scarlette through out. Neither the less it's still wildly out of context with the rest of the film and ignores the vast majority of other facts. Not one of the experts who wrote those articles say religion was a factor. As there were no cultural differences. Taking minor details or twisting them


Non of those articles you have quoted as saying religion was the factro which caused the tragic events to occur. They do go into fepth divisions were made by europeans on racial grounds because one tribe have european features. Taking a few lines out of thousands which point out the places in which it occured where churchs which are the main cultural gathering places

Wrong.
Skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, height, nose shape and shoe size are all physical characteristics. They are things that a person is born with and all they can tell you about a person is what they look like. Religion, on the other hand, is something that someone actively does. It tells you a lot about them, and if you examine the ideals of that religion it tells you about what that person ideally should be like. For example I know that Christians are encouraged to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. When I look at the actions of all these millions of Christians who have taken part in genocide, how can I draw any other conclusion that Christianity as a religion has failed these people? My original point was that religion is useless, and if, as you say, "...naturally people of any background would be frightened into doing the dirtys. i imagine Christians, Agnostics and Atheists were frightened into it all" then what is the point of being a Christian in the first place?

That is another point all together. People who attend church because it's what the majrity do doesn't make them a Christian.
Weirdly we are both making similar points so i don't know why we are banging on aout this. I was pointing out that religion isn't the motivating factor or the cause in most conflicts that impy claims they are. Isolating Christians in the whole thing Rwanda thing like

Hang on, Rwanda is tribal, but you can't deny that this most recent clash between the tribes is as a direct result of the influence of the Christians. First the Belgian churches promote the upper caste Tutsis over everyone else, then the Hutus get God, and their church leaders get everyone together at the seminaries to grab a machete and hack the legs off of any Tutsis they find. If it was a purely tribal matter, why would they meet at the churches? Why would the church leaders be involved? Killing in the name of God, perhaps?

Thats pure assumption. An assumption most of the literature on the event has never formed and there isn't any evidence anywhere that the attackers had any God motivation to do so. I suspect the Churchs were easy to recruit as gathering places.

Again, that's near the thin end of the wedge. Religious people are also sometimes motivated by their religion to commit atrocities. So, essentially, they have all the same reasons as atheists to go on a killing spree, plus one more which is more powerful than all the others put together. Great.

Then there's the "us and them" mentality that religion engenders in its followers, and which people like Hitler and Stalin played upon. Both were backed by their respective churches because they represented their followers' interests over those of rival factions. Again, great.

Not great and yes those religious leaders were

You're "Pwned" because you brought up the example of Rwanda as a religion-free genocide, and it took me ten minutes in Google to prove you wrong. That's my definition of "Pwned", anyway This sentence alone:

The Hutu revolution derived much of its egalitarian inspiration from the teachings of the European clergy, and Catholic seminaries served as recruiting grounds for Hutu leaders
kicks your argument into the back of someone's garden. Sorry.
.

Again any place were the masses gather would be easy recruitment and the egalitarian ideals were in place before the Belgiums took over.

Because of the favorable environment, it is one of the most densely populated parts of Africa. This has led to a great deal of competition for scarce land and resources.

In his book Collapse, author-scientist Jared Diamond argues that this overpopulation contributed heavily to the violence. He believes that the mayhem of the genocide provided a pretext for some Rwandans to kill their wealthier neighbors in order to seize their land.

If you look, I just did it again up there with the hundreds of years of tribal racism thing. To avoid it in future, try and check your facts before posting

Tutsi are believed to have arrived around the 15th Century, and this caused tensions with the established Hutu society.

Really? The fact that Tutsi's considered themselves superior and looked down on Hutus and even demoted criminals and social outcasts to Hutus status. The fact one tribe kept military power to keep the other surpressed hundreds of years before the belgiums arrived and the fact.

Anyways. My point was that religion wasn't the main cause of the killings. It was planned by the government to gain power on racial jealousy grounds in the coldest possible way. European infulence hadn't helped but thats impearlism issues rather than religious:

According to Linda Melvern, in Conspiracy to Murder: The Rwanda Genocide and the International Community, convicted war criminal Rwandan Prime Minister Jean Kambanda revealed, in his testimony before the ICTR, that the genocide was openly discussed in cabinet meetings and that "one cabinet minister said she was personally in favour of getting rid of all Tutsi; without the Tutsi, she told ministers, all of Rwanda's problems would be over." In addition to Kambanda, the genocide's organizers included Colonel Théoneste Bagosora, a retired army officer, and many top ranking government officials and members of the army, such as General Augustin Bizimungu (who is portrayed in the film Hotel Rwanda). On the local level, the Genocide's planners included Burgomasters, or mayors, and members of the police.

[Bouncelot]

Thought I'd deal with a couple of points left unanswered.

Not sure I agree with your reasoning there Jets. I'm sure it's pure coincidence that the Nazis had a religious symbol as their logo, one based around a cross no less. I'm sure it's also pure coincidence that their ideal physique was based around White Anglo-Saxon and I'll bet that most of Nazi society was Protestant. And I'm sure it's again pure coincidence that the people they persecuted were either of a different religion (Jews) or those that didn't fit in with Christian ideals (homosexuals, atheists). How about the 1933 Concordat between the Vatican and the Third Reich?

When did the Nazis specifically persecute atheists? The Jews had been victims of European prejudice for centuries because they were an obviously different minority, not to mention one that was considered to be a lot richer and more influential than most of the people around them. If you were around in the 1930s looking for a scapegoat to pin the world's problems on, then they'd be top of the list. And homosexual activity was considered immoral and deviant even amongst most non-religious people in that era.

There are a few examples of Christians speaking out against the Nazis during this period, most notably Martin Niemöller and his associates, but out of a country of millions, that's less than pathetic. Sure the goals may have been economic and territorial expansion, but Christianity was complicit in the Nazi regime from the bottom to the top, because by and large they were the ones to benefit from the system.

There are few examples of ANYBODY speaking out or acting against the Nazi regime. The only groups who offered anything approaching resistance to the Nazis were Christians and Socialists. And if Christianity was complicit with the Nazi regime, why did so many Nazi publications and spokespeople attack Christianity and many of its ideals?

I've never heard of the Vietnam war having religious causes, nor the Korean war.

I'm sure America wouldn't have been so quick to get involved if their opponents where white Christians, though. Religion works indirectly too - "They ain't like us, they're barely human, they don't even pray..." Same in Iraq right now.

So you're basically objecting to tribalism that could be reinforced by having some level of religious identity rather than to religion itself.

Starlin is responsible for more murder and death than anyother person who has lived. He certainly had no religious conviction.

Yeah, but the Russian Orthodox Church supported him to the hilt, leading to a massive schism with the Orthodox church outside Russia. Again, Christians complicit in mass slaughter, though the motives may not have been religious, the participants most certainly were.

This is really wierd. You appear to be blaming Christianity for the actions of a strongly atheistic totalitarian regime which heavily persecuted Christianity. And even raising the question seems to be suggesting that the Russian Orthodox leaders believed they had a choice about backing Stalin. In Stalin's Russia, you backed Stalin or were taken to the Gulag.

I'm not saying that tribalism and nationalism don't have their part to play but more often than not a national identity and a religious identity are often inexticably intertwined, and you can't point to one and say that is the root cause of a problem over the other.

Except that in most cases the religious identity transcends the tribal one. It is not limited to that tribal group but shared between several, so it stands to reason that the tribal identity is the predominant factor. One of the reasons Nazi thinkers despised Christianity was because it was an allegiance that spread across racial lines - it was in conflict with working for the good of your own race.

Equally, religious people, organisations and institutions are not above allying themselves with the prevailing political movement if they will benefit from it.

I would say that it tends to be the other way around, the prevailing political movement attempting to co-opt religion to bolster their support. Usually when religious and political power are combined, the politics ends up overriding the religion. Religious leaders start becoming power-hungry, and political ends become more important than religious ones.

[Metal Vendetta]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani ... n_Genocide
http://www.geocities.com/missionalia/rwanda1.htm
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/jul/000710a.html
http://www.ebeneezer.net/main/special/c ... xtian.html
http://www.afrol.com/Countries/Rwanda/b ... nocide.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... anda.shtml
http://www.paragonhouse.com/catalog/pro ... cts_id=327

Essentially, Christian involvement in the Rwandan genocide is everywhere you look. Unless apparently, you're a Christian, in which case it's all tribal and political. Mmmm.

Now we seem to be in the same ballpark at least, so let me just ask this. If Christianity doesn't prevent a person (or a group of people, or a church) from doing very evil things, then what possible use is it? If entire Christian countries can whip the machetes out and start slicing and dicing the neighbours, then why on earth should anyone want to adopt their belief system?

Christianity failed in the 30s in Germany and it failed in the 90s in Rwanda. It failed in the 50s in the USSR, and despite record membership numbers, it's not doing anyone any good right now. So what possible use is it beyond self-aggrandising?

I would say that it tends to be the other way around, the prevailing political movement attempting to co-opt religion to bolster their support. Usually when religious and political power are combined, the politics ends up overriding the religion. Religious leaders start becoming power-hungry, and political ends become more important than religious ones.

Except the Vatican sought out an alliance with Hitler, even to the point of throwing him a birthday party each year. This really is true. Besides, if it's just that religious leaders become power-hungry, then that's yet another reason to get rid of religion.

I'll say it again. Hitler's plans would not have worked without the support of millions of Christians and the Christian churches. Which he had. Because they worked. Obviously. Now you can say your religion was co-opted or hoodwinked, or scared into this alliance. To which I say, no excuse. If Christianity has any worth then surely it must be that its members are "good". And as we've found, they are no better than anyone else. Ergo Christianity has failed.

[Yaya]

Essentially, Christian involvement in the Rwandan genocide is everywhere you look. Unless apparently, you're a Christian, in which case it's all tribal and political. Mmmm.

Now we seem to be in the same ballpark at least, so let me just ask this. If Christianity doesn't prevent a person (or a group of people, or a church) from doing very evil things, then what possible use is it? If entire Christian countries can whip the machetes out and start slicing and dicing the neighbours, then why on earth should anyone want to adopt their belief system?

Christianity failed in the 30s in Germany and it failed in the 90s in Rwanda. It failed in the 50s in the USSR, and despite record membership numbers, it's not doing anyone any good right now. So what possible use is it beyond self-aggrandising?

I would say that it tends to be the other way around, the prevailing political movement attempting to co-opt religion to bolster their support. Usually when religious and political power are combined, the politics ends up overriding the religion. Religious leaders start becoming power-hungry, and political ends become more important than religious ones.

Except the Vatican sought out an alliance with Hitler, even to the point of throwing him a birthday party each year. This really is true. Besides, if it's just that religious leaders become power-hungry, then that's yet another reason to get rid of religion.

I'll say it again. Hitler's plans would not have worked without the support of millions of Christians and the Christian churches. Which he had. Because they worked. Obviously. Now you can say your religion was co-opted or hoodwinked, or scared into this alliance. To which I say, no excuse. If Christianity has any worth then surely it must be that its members are "good". And as we've found, they are no better than anyone else. Ergo Christianity has failed.

Though Christians may well have lended support to Hitler, it likely was inadvertent and the full scope of the man was likely not known to the likes of the Pope.

No, I have to agree with Bouncelot here. One can only blame Christians for their passivity perhaps, or their lack of action in Rwanda, but one cannot blame Christianity itself for what happened.

It says nowhere in the Bible as far as I know that Christians should support the rounding up and utter extermination of any group of people. Of course, I'm not Christian, so I will defer this to Bouncelot, but I'm almost positive that such action would be categorically forbidden in Christian doctrine.

I think you have to be fair here. When a black man commits a crime, should all black men be labelled criminal? When an American, Iraqi, Muslim, Jew, etc. commits an evil act, should that be representative of entire groups of people? When Dead Head makes an unfounded generalization, should all members of Transfans.net be labelled vitriolic hatemongers?

I don't believe Christianity to be the truth, but to say that Chirstianity itself is repsonsible for the actions of Hitler is as preposterous as saying that Islam is responsible for the injustices committed by Saudi sheikhs and the like.

It's a dangerous extrapolation that only serves to fuel hate.

For example, I blame Muslims all the time for their passivity and the like, but you will never find me blaming Islam. People fall short, no matter what ideology or religion they follow. Being Muslim or Christian or atheist or whatever does not make a person infallible or incapable of committing atrocities.

Evil finds its way into everyones heart eventually. Its just a matter of correcting ourselves when we falter.

[Best First]

i love it when religous people try and maket heir choice of faith analagous with race, gender or sexuality.

sorry - doesn't work.

feel free to try again.

[Yaya]

i love it when religous people try and maket heir choice of faith analagous with race, gender or sexuality.

sorry - doesn't work.

feel free to try again.

I love it when people target the religious as a group of persons that should be devoid of the right to not be prejudged based on their affiliation.

When a religious person commits a crime, the religion is responsible. When a nonreligious person does, the evil is from within himself.

sorry-doesn't work either.

[Best First]

i love it when religous people try and maket heir choice of faith analagous with race, gender or sexuality.

sorry - doesn't work.

feel free to try again.

I love it when people target the religious as a group of persons that should be devoid of the right to not be prejudged based on their affiliation.

When a religious person commits a crime, the religion is responsible. When a nonreligious person does, the evil is from within himself.

sorry-doesn't work either.

so you concede the original point.

but to yours.

I'm sorry, but you seem to confuse criticism with prejudice. I don't have the right to criticise someone's for being of a gender, but is sure as hell have the right to criticise someone's religion.

Because it may be all magic and special to you but from an objective perspective its just another mode of thought, if we follow your thinking you might as well say capitalist behavior or comminist behaviour should not be criticised.

Which brings us back to your oringal false analogy. You like these.

Suggesting people of the same faith are more likley (that's more likley not will) to behave in a similar manner because of their faith is far more valid than saying someone is likley to behave in a similar manner because they have the same pigmentation in their skin becaused religion is a subscribed mode of thought. There is nothing preposterous about suggesting that people who subscribe to, lets say utilitarianism, have a greater possibility of shared behaviour.

MVs point is simply that if a religion cannot sustain you through the times when you are tempted to do the wrong thing then it is not, in fact, much kop.

Still, we can always just undermine the debate with trite stuff like "evil will always find its way into our hearts", whilst of course at the same time insisting that there is a God who is responsible for everything but then denying anything bad is his fault.