Religious Wars

mwwjr
mwwjr's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-08-30
User is offlineOffline
Religious Wars

Here is a quote from a friend of mine.

I would like to know if there is a lick of truth to this:

 

"Bloodiest war in American history, have you heard of it? The Civil war. Was it fought by religious extremists? No.
Vietnam, religion?
Korea, religion?
World War II, religion?
World War I, religion?
Spanish American War, religion?
War of 1812, religion?
American Revolution, religion?
Darfur, religion?
If you answered no to all of these, you are right. Religion didn't play a role in any of these wars. Religion is not dangerous. People are. There is a huge difference."


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
This list is highly

This list is highly selective. They're all wars the US fought in, except Darfur. The US isn't going to fight relgious wars because we have a secular government.


Apostate
Apostate's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Ahh... I spot a logical

Ahh... I spot a logical fallacy here. What seems to be the misunderstanding is this:

"Religion is one of the biggest causes of war in human history, therefore every war in which the United States has been involved is caused by religion."

There are many factors giving rise to conflict among humans throughout history, religion is one of them. No atheist would ever assert that religion is the only cause of every war, nor would any assert that religion was one of many causes in every war.

By listing several wars for which religious conflict was not a principal factor proves nothing. It is a very weak rebuttal to the assertion that religion is the cause of many wars.


mwwjr
mwwjr's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-08-30
User is offlineOffline
but is it true that religion

but is it true that religion "didn't play a role in any of these wars". I mean come on they had to have some religious influence!


Apostate
Apostate's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
One could argue that

One could argue that religion is inherent in nationalism. For example in Japan the nationalistic point of view that was behind the Japanese expansion in the Pacific before the second world war had religious overtones. There were religious overtones in the German National Socialist movement.

The words culture and cult share the same root: cultus (Latin meaning belief, which in turn is derived from an earlier root meaning "care&quotEye-wink. Therefore, in a broader sense, a culture is a set of views and beliefs, among which are religious in nature.

The wars, however, were not fought on a religious basis, per se. Nationalism is more of the cause of the major conflicts of the last century.

In the case of the Civil War in the United States, there were religious sentiments present, but there were also economic sentiments. A great deal of the symbolism from both sides of the conflict drew heavily upon religious themes. I don't think, however, any historian would claim that the Civil War was a religious conflict.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
mwwjr wrote: but is it true

mwwjr wrote:
but is it true that religion "didn't play a role in any of these wars". I mean come on they had to have some religious influence!

Frankly, I think that military leaders have more important things to do and better causes than the naivity of most people. Most wars were started on interest (territory, gold, oil, strategic points) than on delusions of lower-than-average masses.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
9/11

9/11

The Spanish Inquisition

The Reformative Split

The Israeli Arab Wars

The Crusades

Darfur genocide is fought between the ethnic Muslims and Christians over the land

The Pacific Theatre of WWII (Japan was ruled by an insane quasi religious dictatorship bent on self destruction)

America's "bloodiest war" was her war with Japan. This is taken from an essay I wrote:  By 1941, Japan’s dictatorship had morphed into a quasi-religious state that worshipped the Emperor Hirohito as the descendant of the Sun Goddess who had burst forth from Mount Fuji at the time of creation. Brainwashing of Japanese society by the military machine was so thorough it outdid even the Nazis. The Japanese believed they were the Shinzo Minzuko, the divine race, and that it was their duty to cleanse the Earth of the Americans, the Chinese, and a host of other peoples. Fanatical commanders threw away countless lives in banzai charges, choosing to rely of seishin, spirit, because of their material inferiority, a classic example of the psychosis that held Japan’s military at the time. The Americans reacted to this with horrified fascination. On Saipan in 1944, US Marines discovered that Japanese soldiers had ritually disemboweled themselves, and of course, the American press devoted many inches to the terrible Kamikaze at Leyte Gulf. The Japanese held similar view of their enemy’s capability that the Americans held of theirs. Japanese cryptographers dismissed fears that the Americans had broken their naval codes on the grounds that they were not smart enough. Japanese destroyer skippers neglected antisubmarine precautions because they believed that the Americans did not have the stamina for the rigors of undersea warfare.

 

The case and point of Japanese religious insanity was the kamikaze.

Throughout the appalling cruelty, death and destruction of the war, the kamikaze really stand out, they are in many ways the embodiment of the horrific physce driving Japan’s insane military conquest, that same mindset that drove them to justify setting unarmed men on fire and burying people alive. The word kamikaze means divine wind, a word with etymology from the 13th century, when a miraculous typhoon drove back the Mongol invaders of Japan.

 

The kamikazes were suicide pilots, Japanese airmen who loaded their planes with as much ordnance as possible and smashed them into the decks of American ships. Seeing as the Japanese had run out of trained airman, once the world’s most elite air force, their cadre had been lost at Midway and Guadalcanal, the Japanese were losing airman faster then they could train them. The Kamikaze was the solution for these ill-trained pilots eager to throw away their lives. It was much simpler then conventional naval air attack. Some of the kamikazes were 15 years old. It is estimated that 3,000 kamikazes were sent to their death, and they wreaked tremendous havoc on the Americans, sinking 30 ships and killing 6500 sailors. They would be the divine wind, driving back the American hordes from the sacred Home Islands.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
wwii is mentioned in there,

wwii is mentioned in there, but did he think of the holocaust? or was it just coincidential they all happened to be jews


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
And of Course Darfur is also

And of Course Darfur is also religious - done be Moslem extremists.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10634
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Religion can be tied to the

Religion can be tied to the American civil war as well.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
true, religion was highly

true, religion was highly involved in both the abolitionist's point of view and the pro-slavery men.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The 30 years war (between

The 30 years war (between Catholics and Protestants in the 17th Century)

Centuries of near Civil war in N Ireland (Catholics and protestants)

The former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s (Eastern Orthodox Serbs vs Moselems and Croatian Catholics)

Sudan (besides Darfur) (Moslems vs Christians and indiginous beliefs.)

 

Read my tagline (for those of us who can't see taglines, it says "Religious war is people killing each other over who has the best invisible friend.)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
The number of wars in a

The number of wars in a historical sense were almost always about conquest and gaining power over other people and land. Not to advance religious beliefs. I know there have been many wars for religious purposes, we all know the biggies. But non of the religious wars killed nearly as many people as the wars waged in conquest. 76 million or so died in WW I and II combined 70million if you subtract the Holocaust. Thats is just two wars in 40 years. There were only 200 million people on the planet in 1950.


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: The number

Colby R wrote:
The number of wars in a historical sense were almost always about conquest and gaining power over other people and land. Not to advance religious beliefs. I know there have been many wars for religious purposes, we all know the biggies. But non of the religious wars killed nearly as many people as the wars waged in conquest. 76 million or so died in WW I and II combined 70million if you subtract the Holocaust. Thats is just two wars in 40 years. There were only 200 million people on the planet in 1950.

i have trouble pretending that wasn't a moronic statement. first of all, there were over 2 billion people in the world in 1950

and why are you subtracting the holocaust? because that was the religous part?


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Rev0lver wrote: Colby R

Rev0lver wrote:

Colby R wrote:
The number of wars in a historical sense were almost always about conquest and gaining power over other people and land. Not to advance religious beliefs. I know there have been many wars for religious purposes, we all know the biggies. But non of the religious wars killed nearly as many people as the wars waged in conquest. 76 million or so died in WW I and II combined 70million if you subtract the Holocaust. Thats is just two wars in 40 years. There were only 200 million people on the planet in 1950.

i have trouble pretending that wasn't a moronic statement. first of all, there were over 2 billion people in the world in 1950

and why are you subtracting the holocaust? because that was the religous part?

Sorry didnt mean to make a wording error. I did mean 2billion not 2million. I am subtracting the Holocaust because it wasnt the cause of the war it wasnt a war at all and it wasnt to promote one religious belief over another but to eradicate a religious people by an athiest. But you can add it back in if you want

But was there something else that you thought was moronic about the statement besides my error. If so would you care to back it up with historical data. Knowing that you most likely think the Bible is crap, please leave out all the wars in the Bible actually add them in just for fun.


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
hitler wasn't an atheist, if

hitler wasn't an atheist, if i wasn't too lazy to find it right now id redirect you to that topic.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
If that is all you can

If that is all you can reject then so be it. I will take back my statement of him being an Athiest and say he was a Nazi that believed in some Christianity but rejected most of it. He was to egotistical to have a God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10634
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: The number

Colby R wrote:
The number of wars in a historical sense were almost always about conquest and gaining power over other people and land. Not to advance religious beliefs. I know there have been many wars for religious purposes, we all know the biggies. But non of the religious wars killed nearly as many people as the wars waged in conquest. 76 million or so died in WW I and II combined 70million if you subtract the Holocaust. Thats is just two wars in 40 years. There were only 200 million people on the planet in 1950.

Gaining power over people and land is exactly what religion does. Or did you think it was cooincidence that the catholic church is the biggest land owner on the planet? You think they just bought it all? The vast majority of those wars over land and people you talk about were religious. WWII's holocaust was a perfect example of the religious overtones to the entire war. WWI wasn't so religious to my knowledge, but the laws of probability suggest there should be at least a few secular wars.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Colby R

Vastet wrote:
Colby R wrote:
The number of wars in a historical sense were almost always about conquest and gaining power over other people and land. Not to advance religious beliefs. I know there have been many wars for religious purposes, we all know the biggies. But non of the religious wars killed nearly as many people as the wars waged in conquest. 76 million or so died in WW I and II combined 70million if you subtract the Holocaust. Thats is just two wars in 40 years. There were only 200 million people on the planet in 1950.
Gaining power over people and land is exactly what religion does. Or did you think it was cooincidence that the catholic church is the biggest land owner on the planet? You think they just bought it all? The vast majority of those wars over land and people you talk about were religious. WWII's holocaust was a perfect example of the religious overtones to the entire war. WWI wasn't so religious to my knowledge, but the laws of probability suggest there should be at least a few secular wars.

Please dont guess, the majority of the worlds wars throughout history have not been religious and you cant prove it to be otherwise. The Catholic Church is the largest land owner in the world (if they are) because it was the state religion of the largest empire in the world, you know the Roman Empire. WWII was not a religious war and there is absolutely no evidence to say it was. The Holocaust was an action taken by Hitler alone and the only hint of Religious anything in the war but it was not the cause of the war nor the reason anyone else entered the war.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Please tell me what you

Please tell me what you think constitutes a religious war. People that simply have a religious belief that declare war is not a good enough answer. See unlike science or religion, History is not left to interpretation and it doesnt change, it is only whether you can accept facts without injecting your personal feelings.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10634
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: Please dont

Colby R wrote:
Please dont guess, the majority of the worlds wars throughout history have not been religious and you cant prove it to be otherwise.

Yes they have, and you can't prove it to be otherwise.

Colby R wrote:
The Catholic Church is the largest land owner in the world (if they are) because it was the state religion of the largest empire in the world

Uh uh. Neither the Romans nor the Brits ever came remotely close to even a 50% stake in global authority(even combining the two doesn't achieve this). The state therefore cannot be attributed to such massive land holdings by the church.

Colby R wrote:
WWII was not a religious war and there is absolutely no evidence to say it was.

Yes it was and yes there is. The jews weren't the only ones being taken out either.

Colby R wrote:
The Holocaust was an action taken by Hitler alone and the only hint of Religious anything in the war but it was not the cause of the war nor the reason anyone else entered the war.

Wrong. Relearn your history of the day. Specifically how he gained power in the first place, with his anti-jew talk. Also specifically how Hitler was hardly alone in the slaugher of jews, christians, and others. Even more specifically his "supreme race" bullshit. That's a religion right there. The religion the war was based on. Not all religions make a supernatural deity. Some of them are grounded in the events of the day.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
and going along with

and going along with hitler, he banned atheism and despised it. him being a religious nut like that, and the fact that he had one of the biggest roles in that war, alone suggests something.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Colby R

Vastet wrote:
Colby R wrote:
Please dont guess, the majority of the worlds wars throughout history have not been religious and you cant prove it to be otherwise.
Yes they have, and you can't prove it to be otherwise.
Colby R wrote:
The Catholic Church is the largest land owner in the world (if they are) because it was the state religion of the largest empire in the world
Uh uh. Neither the Romans nor the Brits ever came remotely close to even a 50% stake in global authority(even combining the two doesn't achieve this). The state therefore cannot be attributed to such massive land holdings by the church.
Colby R wrote:
WWII was not a religious war and there is absolutely no evidence to say it was.
Yes it was and yes there is. The jews weren't the only ones being taken out either.
Colby R wrote:
The Holocaust was an action taken by Hitler alone and the only hint of Religious anything in the war but it was not the cause of the war nor the reason anyone else entered the war.
Wrong. Relearn your history of the day. Specifically how he gained power in the first place, with his anti-jew talk. Also specifically how Hitler was hardly alone in the slaugher of jews, christians, and others. Even more specifically his "supreme race" bullshit. That's a religion right there. The religion the war was based on. Not all religions make a supernatural deity. Some of them are grounded in the events of the day.

Youve given a lot of your opinions now lets see some facts. Please if you use facts site non-biased sources, so no infedels.com. Also how he came to power is of no consequence, the fact that war was waged because of Hitler invading other countries is what is important.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Rev0lver wrote:and going

Rev0lver wrote:
and going along with hitler, he banned atheism and despised it. him being a religious nut like that, and the fact that he had one of the biggest roles in that war, alone suggests something.

According to some he made Mind Kempf the "Bible" of the Nazi party.  there is no historical proof that  suggest his religious beliefs were the reason for the war.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10634
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: Vastet

Colby R wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Colby R wrote:
Please dont guess, the majority of the worlds wars throughout history have not been religious and you cant prove it to be otherwise.
Yes they have, and you can't prove it to be otherwise.
Colby R wrote:
The Catholic Church is the largest land owner in the world (if they are) because it was the state religion of the largest empire in the world
Uh uh. Neither the Romans nor the Brits ever came remotely close to even a 50% stake in global authority(even combining the two doesn't achieve this). The state therefore cannot be attributed to such massive land holdings by the church.
Colby R wrote:
WWII was not a religious war and there is absolutely no evidence to say it was.
Yes it was and yes there is. The jews weren't the only ones being taken out either.
Colby R wrote:
The Holocaust was an action taken by Hitler alone and the only hint of Religious anything in the war but it was not the cause of the war nor the reason anyone else entered the war.
Wrong. Relearn your history of the day. Specifically how he gained power in the first place, with his anti-jew talk. Also specifically how Hitler was hardly alone in the slaugher of jews, christians, and others. Even more specifically his "supreme race" bullshit. That's a religion right there. The religion the war was based on. Not all religions make a supernatural deity. Some of them are grounded in the events of the day.

Youve given a lot of your opinions now lets see some facts. Please if you use facts site non-biased sources, so no infedels.com. Also how he came to power is of no consequence, the fact that war was waged because of Hitler invading other countries is what is important.

You make me wonder just how much of the history of the day you actually know. How Hitler came to power is of critical importance. He believed the jews were evil and were destroying Germany and much of Europe. He believed much of Europe was conspiring with them to destroy Germany. He believed that white skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes made the perfect human. He believed perfect humans were destined to rule the world, and that he was the one to deliver it.

If you don't agree with any of these claims, I'll retrive links to back them up. If you agree with all of them, then you can't logically and honestly deny that Hitler's cause was a religious one.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Dont question my knowledge

Dont question my knowledge of WWII or any other war for that matter when it is obvious you are searching to advance an agenda. I will give you a simple link to follow, if you insist I will give overwhelimg evidence, like every historical account that proves you wrong. Here is the link to wiki, it is pretty good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_IIand dont give me lazy theist link poster, Here are facts, this is what all of you cry about when it comes to religion vs science so stick to it and stop trying to twist history to fit your ideals.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Nazis, blah blah blah.

Nazis, blah blah blah. Hitler blah blah atheist blah blah blah, Hitler blah blah Jews. Catholics blah blah blah Hitler blah blah.

Hitler blah blah blah blah?!


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
OK. I am not going to say

OK. I am not going to say anything about Nazi Germany and whether Hitler was an atheist, because I have studied WWII intensively, and have concluded that while Hitler used the church to control Germany, whether or not he actually believed is a matter of intense dispute. Both sides fail in their insistence.

However, JAPAN, the most barbaric nation in WWII, was certianly quasi religious. It was essentially a quasi-religious cult and an armed camp. Read the essay which I posted in one of the above posts on this thread. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: OK. I am

deludedgod wrote:

OK. I am not going to say anything about Nazi Germany and whether Hitler was an atheist, because I have studied WWII intensively, and have concluded that while Hitler used the church to control Germany, whether or not he actually believed is a matter of intense dispute. Both sides fail in their insistence.

However, JAPAN, the most barbaric nation in WWII, was certianly quasi religious. It was essentially a quasi-religious cult and an armed camp. Read the essay which I posted in one of the above posts on this thread. 

But would you agree that the causes of WWII were not religious and that there is no historical data to support such a claim. Further more attempting to place religious overtones on the war is only to promote ones ideology.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
But would you agree that

But would you agree that the causes of WWII were not religious and that there is no historical data to support such a claim. Further more attempting to place religious overtones on the war is only to promote ones ideology.

I would argue that WWII was a battle of ideology. Fascism, communism, imperialism, and the defeat of these.

All of these ideologies were based on dogmatism, unquestioning, nonsense and fear. The leaders were often worshipped like demigods. In fact, in countries that were once religions (Germany and Russia) Stalin and Hitler were worshipped far more fervently then God. The only difference is that Hitler used the church to control people, while Stalin saw it as a threat and destroyed it.

The problem I have with monotheism specifically, is that it is dogmatic therefore quite dangerous. This is the same problem I have with the ideology of WWII.

Dogmatic ideology is a terrible force. Monotheism is a dogmatic ideology. Atheist communism is also a dogmatic ideology (Note: Atheism and communism are not interchangeable. Laos, Cuba and Vietnam are deeply religious). 

This debate is pointless. Whether or not religion was the cause of WWII is irrelevant (I still think the Pacific War had extreme cultist religious undertones from Japan). The fact is, history has taught us the evil of dogmatism, whether religious or not. The problem with monotheism is that it is inherently dogmatic. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
 I dont think it is

 I dont think it is pointless to argue the the cause of the war whether religious or not. It is very important because people often place blame for wars and conflict on religion when it is not to blame. I will agree with about Ideology being a key component in the war but there is no historical evidence that suggests the ideology was religion. Nationalism, Communism or the fear of, and racism are definite ideologies that fueled WWII but no religion. There is no doubt that any ideology that is followed to fanatacism is very dangerous and the cause of all war.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I will agree with about

I will agree with about Ideology being a key component in the war but there is no historical evidence that suggests the ideology was religion

I never argued that it was. I merely pointed out religion is a dogmatic ideology, and all dogmatic ideologies are bad. furthermore, I still think (as I am very well versed in this) that the Pacific War had deep cult-like religious causes that are partially explained if you read that short chunk of my essay that I posted on this thread earlier.

 There is no doubt that any ideology that is followed to fanatacism is very dangerous and the cause of all war.

Monotheism has always been such an ideology. It has softened considerably in the West, but certianly not in Islam, and dangerous fundamentalism is on the rise. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
This does remind me of

This does remind me of something interesting I read. It seems to not be true that democracies go to war less often than dictatorships, but democracies almost NEVER go to war with other democracies. Forget where and the evidence (it was at least 10 years ago I read this.)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
I read you essay and it is

I read you essay and it is good. Icant disagree with it in the sense that the Japanese were fueled by their religious and national fanatacism. The one thing I would say is that their nationalism was more of the reason they fought the way they did rather than their religion. It wasnt their religious views that kept some fighting after Japan surrendered it was their nationalism and wanting to fight until the death to saeve honor for their family and country. But you make a good point.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: This

MattShizzle wrote:
This does remind me of something interesting I read. It seems to not be true that democracies go to war less often than dictatorships, but democracies almost NEVER go to war with other democracies. Forget where and the evidence (it was at least 10 years ago I read this.)

It makes sense because a democracy is not a threat to another democracies way of life, like communism or totalitarianism is.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10634
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: Dont

Colby R wrote:
Dont question my knowledge of WWII or any other war for that matter when it is obvious you are searching to advance an agenda. I will give you a simple link to follow, if you insist I will give overwhelimg evidence, like every historical account that proves you wrong. Here is the link to wiki, it is pretty good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_IIand dont give me lazy theist link poster, Here are facts, this is what all of you cry about when it comes to religion vs science so stick to it and stop trying to twist history to fit your ideals.

So in other words you don't deny any thing I said, and agree that WWII had religious overtones. Thanks.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10634
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: MattShizzle

Colby R wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:
This does remind me of something interesting I read. It seems to not be true that democracies go to war less often than dictatorships, but democracies almost NEVER go to war with other democracies. Forget where and the evidence (it was at least 10 years ago I read this.)

It makes sense because a democracy is not a threat to another democracies way of life, like communism or totalitarianism is.

Yet another who has no idea what communism is.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Colby R

Vastet wrote:
Colby R wrote:
Don't question my knowledge of WWII or any other war for that matter when it is obvious you are searching to advance an agenda. I will give you a simple link to follow, if you insist I will give overwhelming evidence, like every historical account that proves you wrong. Here is the link to wiki, it is pretty good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_IIand don't give me lazy theist link poster, Here are facts, this is what all of you cry about when it comes to religion vs science so stick to it and stop trying to twist history to fit your ideals.
So in other words you don't deny any thing I said, and agree that WWII had religious overtones. Thanks.

No I don't agree with you if you read anymore of the posts I have made you would know that. I do believe you know nothing about this issue and cant produce any PROOF to support your empty claims.

I am very familiar with what communism is and I think it would be a great way to live if it it wasn't for inherent greed in humans. Any type of government that is not Democracy is viewed as a threat to Democracy. Read up on it you could start right after WWII, its called cold war and then you could look at Korea or any other war that America has fought to an extent.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10634
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote:Vastet

Colby R wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Colby R wrote:
Don't question my knowledge of WWII or any other war for that matter when it is obvious you are searching to advance an agenda. I will give you a simple link to follow, if you insist I will give overwhelming evidence, like every historical account that proves you wrong. Here is the link to wiki, it is pretty good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_IIand don't give me lazy theist link poster, Here are facts, this is what all of you cry about when it comes to religion vs science so stick to it and stop trying to twist history to fit your ideals.
So in other words you don't deny any thing I said, and agree that WWII had religious overtones. Thanks.

No I don't agree with you if you read anymore of the posts I have made you would know that. I do believe you know nothing about this issue and cant produce any PROOF to support your empty claims.

Which of my claims were wrong? I made only a very few and I specifically asked you to point out which ones you disagreed with. I said I'd back it up with evidence if you disagreed with one of them. Since you still have not done so, I must assume that you agree with what I said yet are stubbornly denying it.

Colby R wrote:

I am very familiar with what communism is and I think it would be a great way to live if it it wasn't for inherent greed in humans. Any type of government that is not Democracy is viewed as a threat to Democracy. Read up on it you could start right after WWII, its called cold war and then you could look at Korea or any other war that America has fought to an extent.

If you really knew communism then you'd know it's not a political philosophy, but an economical one. There is nothing that would stop communism and democracy working hand in hand. You'd also know that communism has never been put into practice anywhere in human history.

Edit:

I should note that I'll be off the next few days. Any response I make will come no sooner than tuesday morning.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
 I sent your communism

 I sent your communism comment to a friend of mine who immigrated from the Soviet Union and graduated from Rutgers with a minor in political science, this is what he said:

Sound bites. Capitalism and communism are both economic and political systems. In both cases the philosophies have to be enforced through government and laws and constitution.

Complete communism has never been achieved but the model was attempted in countries such as Soviet Union, no doubt about it.

Some academics say complete Democracy has never been achieved either.

 As for the rest of your crap. All you are trying to do is invent a cause that is not there. Hitler did hate he was a racist and he had a lot of mental problems. THe fact remains that his main drive to war was the fact the he felt Germany was screwed in the Treaty of Versaille.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Sound bites.

Quote:

Sound bites. Capitalism and communism are both economic and political systems. In both cases the philosophies have to be enforced through government and laws and constitution.

I sense a problem here.

A good definition of communism:
"communism is a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production."
Government and statelessness do not go together.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10634
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: I sent your

Colby R wrote:
I sent your communism comment to a friend of mine who immigrated from the Soviet Union and graduated from Rutgers with a minor in political science, this is what he said:
Sound bites. Capitalism and communism are both economic and political systems. In both cases the philosophies have to be enforced through government and laws and constitution. Complete communism has never been achieved but the model was attempted in countries such as Soviet Union, no doubt about it. Some academics say complete Democracy has never been achieved either.

In other words he agrees with me.

Colby R wrote:
As for the rest of your crap. All you are trying to do is invent a cause that is not there. Hitler did hate he was a racist and he had a lot of mental problems. THe fact remains that his main drive to war was the fact the he felt Germany was screwed in the Treaty of Versaille.

In other words you agree with everything I said, and that WWII had religious overtones. AGAIN.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: I dont

Colby R wrote:
I dont think it is pointless to argue the the cause of the war whether religious or not. It is very important because people often place blame for wars and conflict on religion when it is not to blame. I will agree with about Ideology being a key component in the war but there is no historical evidence that suggests the ideology was religion. Nationalism, Communism or the fear of, and racism are definite ideologies that fueled WWII but no religion. There is no doubt that any ideology that is followed to fanatacism is very dangerous and the cause of all war.

 

Fanatic devotion to ideology over reality is the culprit.

Religion inculcates dogmatic thinking.  Hence religion is a problem.

Religion helps people elevate their petty hatreds into rightous anger.... Their hatreds become the hatreds of a god, and this allows them to do anything at all, in the name of that god.

Betrand Russell was the first to note that communism is religion, sans religion....  

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
mwwjr wrote: Here is a

mwwjr wrote:

Here is a quote from a friend of mine.

I would like to know if there is a lick of truth to this:

Not really... you can pass this on to him.

Quote:
 

 "Bloodiest war in American history, have you heard of it? The Civil war. Was it fought by religious extremists? No.
Vietnam, religion?
Korea, religion?
World War II, religion?

Um... excuse me.... Why not ask the Jews if religious persecution played a role in WWII?

Wow. Talk about brain lock.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/hitler_and_martin_luther 

 

Quote:
 


World War I, religion?
Spanish American War, religion?
War of 1812, religion?
American Revolution, religion?
Darfur, religion?

Um... are you so sure religion doesn't play a role in Darfur?

 

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week837/cover.html

Religious, racial and political motives have been identified in the conflict. 

 

Quote:

If you answered no to all of these, you are right.

No, actually you're wrong. 

Quote:
 

Religion didn't play a role in any of these wars.

Except that it did, in several cases.

Quote:
 

Religion is not dangerous.People are. There is a huge difference."

Actually, there isn't a 'huge difference' - religion is in fact a danger, where it allows people to justify their hatreds as the hatreds of  a god . People tend to be dogmatic, they tend to believe that they are right, and they have tendencies to be violent towards those who disagree. Religion is a danger because it allows people to imagine that these tendencies are rightous anger. 19 muslims thought this way back around some time in september 2001. Plenty of others have thought the same way, before, and since.

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: I sent

Colby R wrote:

I sent your communism comment to a friend of mine who immigrated from the Soviet Union and graduated from Rutgers with a minor in political science, this is what he said:

 

Sound bites. Capitalism and communism are both economic and political systems. In both cases the philosophies have to be enforced through government and laws and constitution.

Saying it in that abstract sort of way makes them seem equitable... In the same vein, I could say that both the "average teenager and Ted Bundy sometimes use forceful tactics with females" 

The reality is that communist systems enforce laws a bit differently than democracies do.

Quote:
 

  Complete communism has never been achieved but the model was attempted in countries such as Soviet Union, no doubt about it.

Complete communism has never even been remotely acheived... The Soviet Union was not a communist state in anything other than name, in reality,  it was a socialist state, or perhaps, more accurately, a totalitarian state led by a ruthless psychopath (Stalin) and then a totalitarian state to lesser and lesser degree over time. 

Quote:


Some academics say complete Democracy has never been achieved either.

I'd have to agree...  

Quote:
 

As for the rest of your crap. All you are trying to do is invent a cause that is not there. Hitler did hate he was a racist and he had a lot of mental problems. THe fact remains that his main drive to war was the fact the he felt Germany was screwed in the Treaty of Versaille.

The fact remains that Hitler called upon pre existent christian hatred of jews, so as to have a nice scapegoat to arouse the hatred and anger of Germans. And this hatred goes back to Martin Luther.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/hitler_and_martin_luther

Were there other motives in the war? Absolutely. But this does not change the reality that christian sanctioned and fueled hatred was  a very helpful weapon for the nazis 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Todangst, I have to laugh

Todangst,

I have to laugh when you disagree with someone who has actualy lived in Communist Soviet Union. Thats like questioning what a guy ate for breakfast after he told you what he ate, its obsurd.

True communism will never be achieved simply because of the greed and envy in people. But to say it has not been attemted or implamented is wrong. Again lets look at the historical account of the Soviet Union which will tell you it was a communist country.

The fact remains that Hitler called upon pre existent christian hatred of jews, so as to have a nice scapegoat to arouse the hatred and anger of Germans. And this hatred goes back to Martin Luther.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/hitler_and_martin_luther

Were there other motives in the war? Absolutely. But this does not change the reality that christian sanctioned and fueled hatred was  a very helpful weapon for the nazis.

"The fact" I like how you guys keep using that term when you have no fact to back up your claim. The actual fact is that Hitler did not invade other countries to destroy the Jews. THe fact is the allied nation had little or no knowledge of the death camps until after WWII started. The fact is Hitler used nationalism to influence people to his cause and then after he had them he preached his hate for other races. These are facts and they are readily available to you at the library. I am not going to accept links to essays on this site written by some of you as evidence or fact of anything, nice try though. This is the craziest thing I have seen, all of you want proof og God and evidence or facts about Jesus. Yet when it comes to History you make up your own facts to support your cause, thats not very scientific.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Colby R

Vastet wrote:
Colby R wrote:
I sent your communism comment to a friend of mine who immigrated from the Soviet Union and graduated from Rutgers with a minor in political science, this is what he said: Sound bites. Capitalism and communism are both economic and political systems. In both cases the philosophies have to be enforced through government and laws and constitution. Complete communism has never been achieved but the model was attempted in countries such as Soviet Union, no doubt about it. Some academics say complete Democracy has never been achieved either.
In other words he agrees with me.
Colby R wrote:
As for the rest of your crap. All you are trying to do is invent a cause that is not there. Hitler did hate he was a racist and he had a lot of mental problems. THe fact remains that his main drive to war was the fact the he felt Germany was screwed in the Treaty of Versaille.
In other words you agree with everything I said, and that WWII had religious overtones. AGAIN.

Here is the statement you made:  You'd also know that communism has never been put into practice anywhere in human history.

So how is he agreeing with you?

And again I dont agree with you but it seems that you insist on believing whatever you want and not actual history. Please give me your sources so  I can look over them and finaly see what you call facts.


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
i will say that communism

i will say that communism has been put into effect, i dont see how that is false

but something i would like to add, am i the only one to notice the ongoing conflict between sunni and shiite muslims? thats been one of the biggest conflicts recently.


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Short answer: ideology is

Short answer: ideology is the problem.


Long answer: 

I see three separate factors:
1. the method of holding a position
2. the motive (i.e. ideology)
3. the cause

- The METHOD I see as being dogma, faith held beliefs, irrationality and perhaps superstition. An unwillingness to admit you’re wrong, or engage in rational discourse.

 
- The MOTIVE (i.e ideology) can be many things, such as politics (e.g. Red Army Faction, or Communism), religious (e.g. Islamic extremism), or social (e.g. animal liberation).

- The CAUSE (or “trigger”), which can be simple criticism or disagreement in ones ideology (e.g Dutch Mohammed cartoons or Theo Van Gogh's murder or Christians killing doctors because of abortions), nationalism, social issues, or as in many cases, political.

While all factors contribute to the behavioural outcome, the ideology, I think, is clearly the root of the problem. Two factions or groups can have the same method of believing what they believe, and the same cause (e.g. the political situation) behind their behaviour or disagreement... yet, give them different ideologies and you’ll have different outcomes. Just look at the differences between moderate and radical Muslims. Change the brand of Islam and you get a major change in behaviour, yet moderates can be, and usually are, just as dogmatic in their version of the doctrine, and have just as much faith in that doctrine. It's just that that doctrine excludes or dilutes many of the things in the more radical version. Also look at the fanatical 9/11 conspiracy theorists (Alex Jones etc). They have political differences and a sheer conviction in their ideology that is easily on par with the radical Muslims, and yet, you don’t see the same outcomes.

I think religious ideology can often be more dangerous. While most ideologies create an ‘us versus them’ mentality, religious ideology creates such a mentality that it's inherent and divinely inspired. Thus, such people are now convinced they are inherently right, and everyone else is inherently wrong, or evil. And if this ideology states these evil people must be conquered or killed, it’s no surprise that this is exactly what happens.


The Terrorism Research Centre has an article on the cause of terrorism which makes some good points which pertain to this discussion.

http://www.terrorism.com/modules.ph...order=0&thold=0

See these two points from the article:

“Terrorism may be motivated by political, religious, or ideological objectives. In a sense, terrorist goals are always political, as extremists driven by religious or ideological beliefs usually seek political power to compel society to conform to their views.”


”Religion may be the most volatile of cultural identifiers because it encompasses values deeply held. A threat to one's religion puts not only the present at risk but also one's cultural past and the future. Many religions, including Christianity and Islam, are so confident they are right that they have used force to obtain converts. Terrorism in the name of religion can be especially violent. Like all terrorists, those who are religiously motivated view their acts with moral certainty and even divine sanctions. What would otherwise be extraordinary acts of desperation become a religious duty in the mind of the religiously motivated terrorist. This helps explain the high level of commitment and willingness to risk death among religious extremist groups.”

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote:Todangst,I

Colby R wrote:

Todangst,

I have to laugh when you disagree with someone who has actualy lived in Communist Soviet Union.

Actually, your friend's words are not all that disimilar from my own claim. He says:

"Complete communism has never been achieved but the model was attempted in countries such as Soviet Union, no doubt about it"

So he agrees it was never 'achieved", he merely says that the model was 'attempted" ....

So what really matters here is what he means, precisely, by 'attemped"

Quote:

True communism will never be achieved simply because of the greed and envy in people. But to say it has not been attemted or implamented is wrong.

No, it is not wrong to say that the Soviet Union never implemented communism. The Soviet Union was a socialist nation, it never even attempted true communism. True communism was the long range goal, but it was hardly the modus operandi of Lennin, Stalin, et al. These men simply did not implement communism. This is a matter of record.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as 'primitive communism'.

Commuism is stateless... ergo the Soviet Union could never undertake true communism. All that could be achieved were 'primitive communist' states... or pseudo communism. Real communism was a long range goal.....  in other words, it was always imagined that it would happen in a distant future.

 

Quote:

Again lets look at the historical account of the Soviet Union which will tell you it was a communist country.

Again? You've never actually looked at a historical account of the Soviet Union in the first place. All you've done is ask some unnamed friend, and then went off on a wild tangent.

If you actually looked at the history, you'd see that even the first paragraph of a Wiki entry on communism refutes your claim. So your post prove that you haven't actually read much of anything at all on soviet history... 

Quote:

The fact remains that Hitler called upon pre existent christian hatred of jews, so as to have a nice scapegoat to arouse the hatred and anger of Germans. And this hatred goes back to Martin Luther.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/hitler_and_martin_luther

Were there other motives in the war? Absolutely. But this does not change the reality that christian sanctioned and fueled hatred was a very helpful weapon for the nazis.

Quote:

"The fact" I like how you guys keep using that term when you have no fact to back up your claim.

Excuse me, but I posted you a link about Martin Luther and his anti semitism, that cites a christian source for my claim!

You refuse to even read it!

You can't use your refusal to read my evidence as meaning that I have no evidence!

Now, let's look at the record: It is a matter of record that anti semitism existed in Germany for centuries before Hitler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_jews

In medieval Europe, many persecutions of Jews in the name of Christianity occurred, notably during the Crusades—when Jews all over Germany were massacred—and a series of expulsions from England, Germany, France, and, in the largest expulsion of all, Spain. Jews were frequently tried and put to death for a variety of imagined religious offenses against Christianity. On many occasions, Jews were accused of a blood libel, the supposed drinking of the blood of Christian children in mockery of the Christian Eucharist. Jews were also falsely accused of torturing consecrated host wafers in a reenactment of the Crucifixion; this was known as host desecration.

During the black plagues of the 14th century, jews were burned by the hundreds, as scapegoats. And Jews suffered from pogroms for centuries afterwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Europe_%28Middle_Ages%29#The_demonizing_of_the_Jews

Much of this scapegoating went on in the areas of Europe that would become modern Germany.

Quote:

The actual fact is that Hitler did not invade other countries to destroy the Jews.

I didn't discuss such an issue, but it turns out that you're wrong here too.

As George Bush once said: You forgot Poland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_World_War_II_atrocities_in_Poland

It's common knowledge that Hitler's goal in Poland, and Russia, were to underpopulate these nations by killing jews and other undesirables.

You really have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about.

None.

At. All.

Quote:

THe fact is the allied nation had little or no knowledge of the death camps until after WWII started.

So? This has nothing to do with any point I made here. It concerns how Hitler called on christian based anti semitism in germany.

Quote:

The fact is Hitler used nationalism to influence people to his cause and then after he had them he preached his hate for other races.

Now you say 'fact' without any evidence. Funny how you have no problem doing what you falsely criticize others for...

The facts are that Hitler didn't create the idea of hating Jews. Christians did. Hitler called upon a pre existent hatred. Religion was a factor in WWII. Religious persecution led to the slaughter of millions of Jews.

Quote:

These are facts and they are readily available to you at the library.

Now it's my turn to laugh. No, you're claims are not facts at all, they are merely your opinions born of your ignorance. I've shown you what is really available at a library, and it refutes your ass.

Quote:

I am not going to accept links to essays on this site written by some of you as evidence or fact of anything, nice try though.

In other words, you complain, falsely, that I don't present facts, and now you concede that I do cite sources, but you refuse to even look at the facts....

You're a joke.

PS I wrote the essay myself. The essay cites a christian source. Your refusal to even read it speaks volumes about you. You ignored it without even looking at it.

Here, now I'll post it here so you can't dodge it anymore:

Some theists attempt to argue that Hitler was an atheist. While this claim is untrue, focusing on Hitler's religious beliefs is actually irrelevant: what matters is that Hitler called upon pre-existent, christian inspired hatred and persecution of Jews, and for this reason, christianity is one of the culprits for the holocaust:

Luther's Racism

The magazine Christian History, Issue 39, 1993 (published by Christianity Today) devoted a whole issue to Martin Luther's life and legacy. Pages 38-39 quote his work On the Jews and Their Lies which gives us an idea about how moral Luther's views were:

"Set fire to their synagogues and schools. Jewish houses should be razed and destroyed, and Jewish prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, curing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them." Their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb."

This is a man held to be a moral authority? Luther also urged that "safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews," and that "all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them." What Jews could do was to have "a flail, an ax, a hole, a spade" put into their hands so "young, strong Jews and Jewesses" could "earn their bread in the sweat of their brow." Do you think any Fuhrer you may have heard of might have gleaned an idea or two from that last passage alone? In fact, think of Hitler while reading the next paragraph.

Luther proposed seven measures of "sharp mercy" that German princes could take against Jews: (1) burn their schools and synagogues; (2) transfer Jews to community settlements; (3) confiscate all Jewish literature, which was blasphemous; (4) prohibit rabbis to teach, on pain of death; (5) deny Jews safe conduct, so as to prevent the spread of Judaism; (6) appropriate their wealth and use it to support converts and to prevent the Jews' practice of usury; (7) assign Jews to manual labor as a form of penance.

Is there no clearer blueprint for the Final Solution than the works of one of christianity's greatest reformers and moralists?

Worse yet, Luther was no paper philosopher - he advised clergy, their congregations, and all government officials to help carry out these measures. Since most Jews had been expelled from Germany before 1536, Luther's counsel was implemented by few officials. Yet a harsh anti-Jewish measure in 1543 mentioned Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies.

Both Luther's friends and his foes criticized him for proposing these measures. His best friends begged him to stop his anti-Jewish raving, but Luther continued his attacks in other treatises. He repeated as true the worst anti-Semitic charges from medieval literature: that Jews killed Christian babies; they murdered Christ over and over again by stabbing eucharistic hosts; they poised wells. As usual, he did not allow facts to deter him from his emotionally driven lies.

Luther now thought what he had accused Catholics of thinking in 1523: Jews were dogs. "We are at fault for not slaying them!" he fumed shortly before his death. Yet one more hypocricy for the master of hypocrisy.

 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: And again

Colby R wrote:

And again I dont agree with you but it seems that you insist on believing whatever you want and not actual history.

Did you stare into the  mirror as you typed this?

Quote:
 

Please give me your sources so I can...

totally ignore them, through some pathetic dodge, like you did in your last post? 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.