Forced to be Christian

[Iliad]

I'm sorry but I have the right to voice my opinion. Until secularity and freedom of religion religion was the cause of greatest atrocities. After secularity the scale of such atrocities and conflicts reduced, as its effectiveness as a mass-propaganda tool weakened.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I can't see the base for your assertion though. The 20th Century was probably the bloodiest in history. The scale of atrocitices was unprecedented and that was after secularity and freedom of religion. Religious atrocities went down and other more heinous atrocities took their place.

It was so bloody because there were much more people. Other atrocities happened, just like other atrocities happened when religion was in full swing.

You cannot see why religion would be the biggest source of atrocities?
Let's see- Religion

Claims that it knows exactly how the world came about

• Claims that at its source is a holy being and you should not even try to dispute it
• Knows exactly how you should behave
• Threatens that if you do no follow the god, or that you do not follow the rules set out, you will suffer a punishment nothing else can save you from
• Allures with promises of great things in the afterlife if you do follow the rules and the god
• Denounces any other religions

Yeah geez, I can't see that would be source of conflicts, or used as as justification.

The problem that I have with this line of reasoning is that it's based on a general dismissal of religious adherents' ability to see through anyone trying to manipulate them. With a literacy rate of 90% in most industrialized countries people have access to the religious texts themselves and can use them to refute would be manipulators. Yet Communism wasn't a very easy way to manipulate people?

But religions will have priests and leaders who are supposed to be very knowledgeable about the word of god, and if they claim something a lot of people will not think to try and dispute as the priest is supposed to be very knowledgeable about it.

For instance, we accept most of our information about say space, decently readily. We assume it comes from a reliable source, but if our field of expertise lay elsewhere it could be hard to differentiate false from truths, yet we accept that's it's the truth. Likewise they would.

Frankly I'm kinda tired of this debate. Point is-I think religion is a major cause of atrocities, you do not. I pointed out in the bullet point format why religion would be such a major cause throughout history. Fortunately secularity and freedom of religion have pushed away religion's manipulative head away, but it still sparks conflicts and you do not need to see far to find a conflict kickstarted by a religion.

I might come back to this, but frankly it's 4 over here and it's summer and I'm kinda bored by this.

[CrazyAnglican]

You cannot see why religion would be the biggest source of atrocities?
Let's see- Religion
Claims that it knows exactly how the world came about

Which in and of itself would be no cause for conflict other than a debate.

Claims that at its source is a holy being and you should not even try to dispute

Certainly but that Holy being for Christianity has a Son who clearly abhors any maltreatment of others.

Knows exactly how you should behave

See the note about the Son above.

Threatens that if you do no follow the god, or that you do not follow the rules set out, you will suffer a punishment nothing else can save you from

And yet the adherents have access to the rulebook themselves. Governments have the authority to enforce punishments as well and with greater immediacy.

Allures with promises of great things in the afterlife if you do follow the rules and the god

And yet, the adherents have access to the rulebook themselves. Really? I wouldn't go out and commit an atrocity because I thought I'd be rewarded for it, would you?

Denounces any other religions

Sure some do; others don't, but that's hardly unique to any ideology (ie Capitalism vs. Communism; Democratic vs. Totalitarian; Conservative vs. Liberal)

The problem that I have with this line of reasoning is that it's based on a general dismissal of religious adherents' ability to see through anyone trying to manipulate them. With a literacy rate of 90% in most industrialized countries people have access to the religious texts themselves and can use them to refute would be manipulators. Yet Communism wasn't a very easy way to manipulate people?

But religions will have priests and leaders who are supposed to be very knowledgeable about the word of god, and if they claim something a lot of people will not think to try and dispute as the priest is supposed to be very knowledgeable about it.

For instance, we accept most of our information about say space, decently readily. We assume it comes from a reliable source, but if our field of expertise lay elsewhere it could be hard to differentiate false from truths, yet we accept that's it's the truth. Likewise they would.

If someone is an expert about something it hardly means that they should be taken at their word on any given topic in any given subject. Sure, one can respect another's level of learning and still see that they are dead wrong on a given point. One would certainly hope that if anyone were to try to base an argument for the maltreatment of others on the teachings of Christ there would be those handy to refute such nonsense, because anyone with the barest knowledge of the gospels should be able to see that Christ was not about hurting people. The analogy is a bit flawed here, we are not just talking about taking a scientist's word for what is in space.

I might come back to this, but frankly it's 4 over here and it's summer and I'm kinda bored by this.

Enjoy the Sun, it's getting down to -5 C tonight.

[mpjh]

Don't worry Iliad, It will be here tomorrow. I'll try and spice it up a bit. Crazy will bite any bait, so that should be fairly easy.

[CrazyAnglican]

Bait you may have; hooks you're short on

goodnight guys.

[luns101]

Religion has been a major cause of atrocities throughout history.

...as well as one of the vehicles for some of the greatest humanitarian efforts throughout history.

While sure religion with its
"We know exactly how the world came about and how you should live about" started some goodwill through the unifying trait of monotheistic religions "follow me and don't be a dick and you'll go a good place, don't follow me or be a dick and go to a bad place" if you would excuse my french. However I believe the other side was much larger.
"Those guys at the other side of the valley think this is how the world came about and they don't think our god is true! Kill them" and "That guy didn't follow this rule which means he is a witch/ghost/demon. Kill him!"

While perhaps some people were spurred by its teachings to do good, this is almost unseen next to the larger amount of leaders who used it easily to dupe superstitious subjects into atrocities.

Wow! You really have a warped interpretation of what people believe if they don't happen to share your worldview.

[mpjh]

I pointed out that the population growth of China during the period in question contradicts the kind of draconian deaths that the antI-communists claim. That answers the post about Mao's influence in China. The death rates throughout Europe and Asia were high both during WWII, for obvious reasons, and afterwords because of the severe damage those countries had experienced, but the evidence that Mao and the revolution in China caused extra deaths beyond those that flowed from WWII, continued famine from the colonial era, and a civil war is not supported by the data.

Really now, you want to go into WWII? Of course there were high casualties in both parts of the world, there was a world war going on. However, after WWII, the only countries that truly suffered, were those behind the Iron Curtain and other Communistic countries. I mean, how many people from Western Europe tried to go and join the Soviets compared to those that tried to cross into Western Europe to escape them? The Western World that had embraced capitalism were experiencing massive economic booms. Those in Communist countries, only the ones at the top actually had any economic growth. (And we'll call that good for Europe, yes?)
China though, after the Japanese surrendered in 1945, their Civil War continued from before the Japanese invasion between the Nationalist Party (Pro Capitalist) and the Communist Party. The Communist Party had the advantage in numbers and eventually drove the outnumbered Nationalist Party out (as has been stated). It was following this, that during the Great Leap Forward (which you seem to ignore) is when the easily 20 million people died, not counting the purges of during the Civil War of course. And would you please, just please, post this link of yours that you claim is refuting what is often excepted by many respected historians? Otherwise, your argument is baseless and continuing is rather pointless.
As for your population growth, did you not read what I posted? Guess not. And, as I just wrote, it does not contradict it, unless you are writing about a population growth at the exact same time that millions upon millions of innocents were dying due to numerous causes? So if you please, post the link in which you get this "information," otherwise it is merely an opinion which is soon swept under the tug.

First, you can goggle the information as easy as I can. Second, my point is simply that the population growth rate in China during the years when 75 million were supposedly slaughtered was such that it added 100 million people to a base population of 574 million. That reflected a rate of growth consistent with the rest of the world. To have lost 75 million at the same time as adding 100 million, the Chinese would need a growth rate of almost twice what the rest of the world experienced -- too improbable to be true. To be true, the Chinese would have to have experienced a vastly accelerated growth rate while also experiencing famine, the end of WWII, civil war, and revolution. They are good, but not that good.

[luns101]

I pointed out that the population growth of China during the period in question contradicts the kind of draconian deaths that the antI-communists claim. That answers the post about Mao's influence in China. The death rates throughout Europe and Asia were high both during WWII, for obvious reasons, and afterwords because of the severe damage those countries had experienced, but the evidence that Mao and the revolution in China caused extra deaths beyond those that flowed from WWII, continued famine from the colonial era, and a civil war is not supported by the data.

Neutrino?

[Martin Ronne]

Funny how the "civilians" were Russian.

Nothing, absolutely nothing in WWII compares to the Holocaust. Next on the list are the firebombing of cities including Dresden and Tokyo, and finally, the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All performed by so-called Christians.

"War is cruelty, you cannot refine it." - William Tecumseh Sherman

Religious leaders justify war every day.

I did not say it could not be justified, I said it could not be refined. The afore mentioned bombing are tactics of war, and have nothing to do with religion. To Thoroughly defeat your enemy, you must crush his will to fight, even if that means attacking his home. The Japanese are a proud people, and at the time many were well versed, and truly believe Bushido. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, convince the japanese higher ups that continuing to fight was not worth the lives of their people. If an invasion of the Japanese main land had been mounted, over a million american and allied troops would have fallen. Even more would have perished on the the Japanese side, not to mention that more civilians would have died from an invasion than did from the two atomic bombs combined. Ultimately there are two rules of war. The first, is that young men die. The second, is that the civilians around them die. The Stray bullet is the fairest creature, it does not discriminate.

[mpjh]

To the contrary, without religious leaders to justify the bombing of innocent civilians, war would be neigh impossible to pursue. Why then armies would have to fight armies. Think of it, being limited to military installations and armed forces.

[Iliad]

Religion has been a major cause of atrocities throughout history.

...as well as one of the vehicles for some of the greatest humanitarian efforts throughout history.

While sure religion with its
"We know exactly how the world came about and how you should live about" started some goodwill through the unifying trait of monotheistic religions "follow me and don't be a dick and you'll go a good place, don't follow me or be a dick and go to a bad place" if you would excuse my french. However I believe the other side was much larger.
"Those guys at the other side of the valley think this is how the world came about and they don't think our god is true! Kill them" and "That guy didn't follow this rule which means he is a witch/ghost/demon. Kill him!"

While perhaps some people were spurred by its teachings to do good, this is almost unseen next to the larger amount of leaders who used it easily to dupe superstitious subjects into atrocities.

Wow! You really have a warped interpretation of what people believe if they don't happen to share your worldview.

So you are saying there have been no religious wars? None whatsoever?

[CrazyAnglican]

Religion has been a major cause of atrocities throughout history.

...as well as one of the vehicles for some of the greatest humanitarian efforts throughout history.

While sure religion with its
"We know exactly how the world came about and how you should live about" started some goodwill through the unifying trait of monotheistic religions "follow me and don't be a dick and you'll go a good place, don't follow me or be a dick and go to a bad place" if you would excuse my french. However I believe the other side was much larger.
"Those guys at the other side of the valley think this is how the world came about and they don't think our god is true! Kill them" and "That guy didn't follow this rule which means he is a witch/ghost/demon. Kill him!"

While perhaps some people were spurred by its teachings to do good, this is almost unseen next to the larger amount of leaders who used it easily to dupe superstitious subjects into atrocities.

Wow! You really have a warped interpretation of what people believe if they don't happen to share your worldview.

So you are saying there have been no religious wars? None whatsoever?

Of course he isn't, I believe he's rightly questioning the motives you attribute to religion. Can you substantiate that religion boils down to these rather strereotypical statements? It a big topic with literally billions of adherents. The chances of boiling any of their opinions/beliefs down to such simplistic statements is a stretch, at best.

[Iliad]

...as well as one of the vehicles for some of the greatest humanitarian efforts throughout history.

While sure religion with its
"We know exactly how the world came about and how you should live about" started some goodwill through the unifying trait of monotheistic religions "follow me and don't be a dick and you'll go a good place, don't follow me or be a dick and go to a bad place" if you would excuse my french. However I believe the other side was much larger.
"Those guys at the other side of the valley think this is how the world came about and they don't think our god is true! Kill them" and "That guy didn't follow this rule which means he is a witch/ghost/demon. Kill him!"

While perhaps some people were spurred by its teachings to do good, this is almost unseen next to the larger amount of leaders who used it easily to dupe superstitious subjects into atrocities.

Wow! You really have a warped interpretation of what people believe if they don't happen to share your worldview.

So you are saying there have been no religious wars? None whatsoever?

Of course he isn't, I believe he's rightly questioning the motives you attribute to religion. Can you substantiate that religion boils down to these rather strereotypical statements? It a big topic with literally billions of adherents. The chances of boiling any of their opinions/beliefs down to such simplistic statements is a stretch, at best.

In today's society I hope those statements are no longer met, however beforehand those opinions were extremely regular.

[Martin Ronne]

To the contrary, without religious leaders to justify the bombing of innocent civilians, war would be neigh impossible to pursue. Why then armies would have to fight armies. Think of it, being limited to military installations and armed forces.

Was Eisenhower a religious leader? No. Was Churchill a religious leader? He has church in his name, but no. Was F.D.R. a religious leader? HA!!!! Most certainly not!

Stalin, a secular communist, Is responsible for 40-60 million deaths. Mao, another secular communist, killed around 30 million. Without a fear of being held accountable, people do even worse things. Hitler, believed that the germans were descendant of the "Gods", and did not have any fear of the consequences of his actions. Thus allowing his evil mind to prosper.

[mpjh]

Eisenhower and Churchill certainly allied with religious leaders to justify their roles in the war. Such religious support was necessary to ignore the Jewish situation before America came into the war. Such religious support was necessary to quash objections to the Dresden and Tokyo type fire bombing of civilians, and certain the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs. Such religious support was necessary to launch the anti-communist slaughter of French partisians as the war wound down. Such religious support was necessary to fuel the anti-communist hysteria that followed.

Neither Stalin nor Mao killed the numbers claimed in the post, that is pure anti-communist propaganda, ironicaly still pushed by the religious.

Today, in polls in both Russia and China Stalin and Mao are selected as the most respected men of the century.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well at this stage, it's virtual holocaust denial.

[Martin Ronne]

Eisenhower and Churchill certainly allied with religious leaders to justify their roles in the war. Such religious support was necessary to ignore the Jewish situation before America came into the war. Such religious support was necessary to quash objections to the Dresden and Tokyo type fire bombing of civilians, and certain the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs. Such religious support was necessary to launch the anti-communist slaughter of French partisians as the war wound down. Such religious support was necessary to fuel the anti-communist hysteria that followed.

Neither Stalin nor Mao killed the numbers claimed in the post, that is pure anti-communist propaganda, ironicaly still pushed by the religious.

Today, in polls in both Russia and China Stalin and Mao are selected as the most respected men of the century.

Eisenhower and Churchill did not ally them selves with religious leaders. If they had, they would not have ignored the slaughter of jews in europe. Stalin and Mao did indeed kill so many, the real propaganda are the so called poles of which you speak. I am tempted to believe you even made that up, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you merely had a socialist professor of religion in college, (they aren't hard to come by). Stalin and Mao, like Hitler, were Murderers.

[mpjh]

Actually, it was teh anti-semitism of Christians that made the Holocaust possible. Certainly Eisenhower and all the major leaders in the US acquiesced in that horror by not acting on the information they had.

[muy_thaiguy]

Well at this stage, it's virtual holocaust denial.

You too huh?

[CrazyAnglican]

Actually, it was teh anti-semitism of Christians that made the Holocaust possible. Certainly Eisenhower and all the major leaders in the US acquiesced in that horror by not acting on the information they had.

The Nazi's were the political party that instigated the Holocaust. It's pretty well documented by their own records. Among the dead were many Christians. When the Allies took over an area in which a camp was operating; that camp was shut down, the prisoners were cared for, and the local populace was forced to go through and clean up in the aftermath. This is well documents and your counterclaim has little if any documentation because it's simply not true.

Despite revisionist claims this is one of the best documented atrocities of the 20th Century. Records from both sides (Nazi records of the organization and operation & Allied pictures of the results and shutting down of the camps) clearly show who was responsible. It has never been clearer to me that you don't want to be bothered with facts because your mind is made up. Yet in case anyone else is reading this and is interested in the story this is a good place to start.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/whats-new/

[mpjh]

Yeah, so many trains of cattle cars with Jews in them traveling across Europe that the Nazi troops did not have transport wen unnoticed, partisan reports of 24 hours furnaces at death camps burning the remains went ignored, entire ghettos of people disappearing and reported to allies staff officers went without action, Jewish business laws that confiscated land, business and belongings were undetected, wholesale carting of entire towns of Jews from Poland, Belarus, Hungary, France, Slovakia, and other co9untries went without the allies caring one ioa.

Of course Eisenhower knew, Roosevelt knew, DeGaule knew, Churchill knew, and Stalin knew. They all knew that a genocide was underway.

Blow back from the Holocaust haunts us today. The middle east has not had peace since the end of WWII, and is an indicia of the unresolved consequences of the world's participation in the slaughter of so many innocent people. This would has not yet healed, and your response is typical of the head-in-the-sand approach most have taken. But that is not surprising given the acquiescence of most churches, and especially the Catholic church, in the slaughter. Hell, the Catholics even have and ex-member of the Nazi youth for a Pope.

[Napoleon Ier]

Right. Assuming they all did know, which is highly improbable, but assuming they did, what would you have them do?

Fight a gigantic war against the Nazis that would cost the lives of millions of their young men, dominate the economic landscape for a decade, and take over the lives of everyone in their country for the realization of a colossal War Effort?

Oh, wait...

[mpjh]

What would I have them do?

Let's see.

First, I would have removed the racial laws to barred the immigration of all oppressed people. That alone would have saved millions.

Second, I would have removed the discrimination laws that barred groups like the Jews, blacks, gays, and Irish from full participation in civil life. This too would have saved millions because of the influence those groups could then use to persuade further necessary actions.

Third, I would have gotten into the war earlier, say about the time of Gernica, to end the Nazi threat. But, wait, the Nazi sympathizers in the US, British, and French governments would have, and did, resist that. Well, then revolution there was necessary.

That good for starters.

[CrazyAnglican]

And you would have set up your own totalitarian dictatorship (albeit initially a nice guy variety) to enact all of these things? Nappy is 100% right on this, they waged the costliest war in human history and did in fact stop the perpetrators of the Holocaust. It's that simple

Before: Nazi's in power, Holocaust under way

After: Nazi's no longer in power, Holocaust ended and Nazi's held accountable.


Armchair quarterback all you like. The people of the Allied nations and their leaders did a fine job of stopping Facsism. It was done at great personal expense, and your assertion that you could have done better nearly seventy years after the fact is just the tiniest bit silly. If you consider the people that were responsible for stopping the Holocaust to be anti-semitic then that's your opinion. I can only surmise that it's a pretty lonely camp though.

At this point it's pretty pointless citing a source. Try any credible history of WWII and you get a similar story to what Nappy pointed out. I think that it's probably not Nappy with his head in the sand since he can cite sources to back his opinon up.

[Martin Ronne]

Actually, it was teh anti-semitism of Christians that made the Holocaust possible. Certainly Eisenhower and all the major leaders in the US acquiesced in that horror by not acting on the information they had.

So then, what do you call going to war? Acting on the information that they didn't have?

The way you speak, you sound like an aspiring U.N. member. I would love to see you fight a real war. As you ask for the form to have some guy come from the rear to load your weapon, and then ask for the form to fire, only to be denied because you might hit a civilian.

Also, it was the anti-semitism of the Germans, not the Christians, not the Americans, British or French, (with the french it was just laziness) that allowed the Holocaust to happen. CrazyAnglican is right in saying that you don't wish to be bothered by the facts, your mind is made up.

[Napoleon Ier]

What would I have them do?

Let's see.

First, I would have removed the racial laws to barred the immigration of all oppressed people. That alone would have saved millions.

Second, I would have removed the discrimination laws that barred groups like the Jews, blacks, gays, and Irish from full participation in civil life. This too would have saved millions because of the influence those groups could then use to persuade further necessary actions.

Third, I would have gotten into the war earlier, say about the time of Gernica, to end the Nazi threat. But, wait, the Nazi sympathizers in the US, British, and French governments would have, and did, resist that. Well, then revolution there was necessary.


That good for starters.

Right. So basically, you're saying they should have done a load of stuff they already did (take in as many Jewish refugees as they possibly could given German control of the borders), based on bollocks that has no grounding in history (Nazi sympathizers having next to any influence in France and Britain).

You're also arguing for a moral foreign policy which involves intervention in foreign affairs, and frankly, if the holocaust were to happen today with say, Christians as primary victims, you'd be the first to apologize for those responsible and crying out against any military intervention.