Comparative Violence: Muslims, Christians, etc.

[DoctorNO]

because your facts are racist, doctor!

and what particular race does it malign? eh?

 

[DoctorNO]

“

May I remind you that this thread is about religious violence. American violence has nothing to do with religion.

”
Is there a point to this response of yours?

Point #1: The topic is about religious violence, not secular violence. Violence involved should have religious implications.
Point #2: American violence had generally NOTHING to do with religion. Those crimes, wars against terrorism, iraq war, Vietnam war had nothing to do with religion. Those are purely economic, defense or political in nature.

Got it?

This thread is about recorded facts, not recorded myths & legends. That disqualifies your “God punishes” argument. Historical?

”
Funny, you seem to be ignoring history by ignoring economic factors.

So much for your "historical" argument, eh?

I am open to suggestion. Can you please give a couple of examples of religious violence in each of the mentioned religions which was founded through economic factors?

“

And who said “purely”? We are only concerned with the religious objective of each violence.

”
Which undermines your topic, as you refuse to account for the role of economy in violence.

Please excuse my shortcoming but I forgot to include “religious” between “Comparative” and “violence” in my topic. But I thought including “muslim” and “Christian” should make it obvious that this is indeed about religious violence.

Here, don't bother reading a book; it's obscure and even I haven't found a print copy of it yet. So instead, read a book review of a book that mentions a book. Ten points if you can find the important phrase.

Hold on as I read your link….

 

[otheadp]

DoctorNo,

you have angered Allah. Do you not see that your facts are racist? Do you deny that you defame Islam with your photos and eyewitness accounts? Let Allah assure you, you can only hide behind news reports for so long. Soon all the people of the world will realize that Islam means peace, for those who don't will be stabbed with swords.

!

 

[DoctorNO]

From tiassa's 10 point article (with hundreds of points bonus for the wise )

For hundreds of years, spices -- clove, nutmeg and pepper -- were the primary cause of religious conflict. Their value was inestimable: as food preservative (essential in the age before refrigeration), as medicine and, at a time when the variety of food was almost unfathomably limited, for taste.

I suppose this is your precious 10 points. My friend that was just the author’s opinion and doesn’t even specify the “why”. But by logic & historical knowledge, trade had only been an indirect cause of religious conflict. In what sense? Peaceful Christian & Pagan trade caravans & caravels are either blocked or pillaged by muslim raiders for reason that they are non-muslims or not in submission to muslim rule and thus considered as enemies of allah. Action reaction. And so Christians react with rage and conflicts ensue.

Spain and Portugal, Europe's two great seafaring nations of the time, set out to find the answer. To preserve order among Catholic countries, a line of demarcation was drawn (later made official by Pope Alexander VI in 1493), giving Spain the right to conquer all non-Christian lands to the west of the Cape Verde Islands, and Portugal the authority to take pagan countries to the east of the islands and as far as the 125th meridian (which falls near the Philippines). It was for this reason that Columbus, helmsman for the Spanish fleet, sailed west and found a continent instead of the source of spices.

Look at the contradiction there, tiassa. The author initially assumed that the reason for sailing west was to conquer non-christian lands. And later as, I underlined the point, the author admitted the actual reason for sailing west… to find a better route to India for source of spices. I guess I get 1,000 points for seeing that author’s blunder.

I wonder if you know why Europeans would rather sail than use the traditional trading routes to India. :bugeye:

The Holy Wars were waged not just to reclaim Jerusalem but also to expel the Moors from Spain and, in so doing, gain control over the spice trade.

See the order of objectives listed by the author himself. The reclamation of Jerusalem and the liberation of spain. Trade was just a bonus. 500 points for me?




And the rest of the article merely discusses the skirmishes that results from colonialism.

 

[DoctorNO]

otheadp,

 

[DoctorNO]

Or perhaps from the US Army?

• 
  “ The clear distinction and premise of this essay is that, while religion may motivate, and in fact may become the essential ingredient for the sustainment of war, it is seldom the cause. Perhaps this is where the misjudgment and the false assertion of religious blame takes root. It is the failure to scrutinize the distinction between the reaction and the initial cause of conflict. The cause is the "gain principle" in conflict with the "retain principle." It is the collision of societies, not the societal reaction and justification to wage war when faced with immanent conflict. Occasionally war is fought over religion, as is perhaps the case during the reformation period in Europe. More often than not however, the cause of war can't be laid at the door of religion. (Maj. John P. Conway, US Army) ”

My recommendation is to actually take the time to do some research so that on those occasions that you don't know what you're talking about, it isn't so immediately apparent.

Dear tiassa, please read the underlined words in your posted article. That is the very reason why I distinguish between religious violence and secular violence. Why I said that majority of wars have nothing to do with religion. Please remember that I am only referring to religious violence and Im not limiting this to wars alone. I am also referring to murders & oppression in the name of religion.

There's also a hint in an article by ReliefWeb; twenty points, this time, if you can find the right paragraph.

A broader examination in a random paper I found with Google.

I have already gained hundreds of points to care for a mere 20. Why should I care with 2 more of your articles if your first one was flawed already. Instead why don’t you do as you did with John Conway’s essay? Post the portion that you think supports your views. Don’t ask me to do what is your duty.

 

[DoctorNO]

Still waiting for tiassa

 

[otheadp]

it's hard to speak when he has his foot in his mouth
i guess you're so wrong you're not worth his precious time

 

[Tiassa]

Oh, please. Two-on-one or not, it's still generally considered unfair to drop a Buick on a couple of midgets. And people seem to have a problem whenever they perceive me being unfair.

Be patient, we'll get to it already . . . .

 

[(Q)]

To what is the violence being compared?

If we remove the religious struggle, does the violence dissappear?

 

[Preacher_X]

communism has killed over 120, MILLION people this centuruy. the countries involved were mainly CHRISTIAN. the countries vary but mainly fall on Germany, America, Russia wither by thier direct involment or becasue they supplied the killers with wealth or weapons for that purpose. Christrians invented every weapon around from the bullet to the nuke.

 

[Tiassa]

Vienna

Don't be so damned obtuse.

Dr. No

please read the underlined words in your posted article. That is the very reason why I distinguish between religious violence and secular violence

Dear Dr. No -

Please learn to read.

When you do, please read the boldfaced portion from the same excerpt; I shall reflect your underline, as well:

The clear distinction and premise of this essay is that, while religion may motivate, and in fact may become the essential ingredient for the sustainment of war, it is seldom the cause. Perhaps this is where the misjudgment and the false assertion of religious blame takes root. It is the failure to scrutinize the distinction between the reaction and the initial cause of conflict. The cause is the "gain principle" in conflict with the "retain principle." It is the collision of societies, not the societal reaction and justification to wage war when faced with immanent conflict. Occasionally war is fought over religion, as is perhaps the case during the reformation period in Europe. More often than not however, the cause of war can't be laid at the door of religion. (Conway)

Did you get all that? See all that you missed?

• "Perhaps this is where the misjudgment and the false assertion of religious blame takes root."

In other words, the words you underlined as the very reason you distinguish religious and secular violence are part of a false assertion. Okay, good. You seem to wish to distinguish between religious and secular violence. Well, the rest of the paragraph tells you some more about that.

• "It is the failure to scrutinize the distinction between the reaction and the initial cause of conflict."

I would venture a guess that you're repeatedly failing to make this distinction. Because, as you note, "Why I said that majority of wars have nothing to do with religion."

Well, again, we can look to what you're overlooking, or at least choosing to not respond to:

• "Occasionally war is fought over religion, as is perhaps the case during the reformation period in Europe."

You'd think that Major Conway would find something more recent, wouldn't you? It's hardly definitive, but by that measure, you might wish to look up the word fitnah.

Religion? Patriotism? Do we blame "patriotism" for the National Socialists, Khmer Rouge, or present Iraqi resistance?

I have already gained hundreds of points to care for a mere 20

Ahhh ... the confidence of an--oh, right. We're trying to be nicer these days.

Why should I care with 2 more of your articles if your first one was flawed already

Dr. No, just because something contradicts your blind prejudice doesn't mean it's flawed. Perhaps you're flawed. After all, you're human.

Instead why don’t you do as you did with John Conway’s essay?

Umm ....

(1) Because sometimes it would be nice to think you're capable of reading more than a few sentences at a time.
(2) If all ideas were as simplistic and childish as to be summed up in the short arguments you require, even you would already understand what's wrong with the way you're approaching this.
(3) Sometimes you might actually get the benefit of deeper understanding if you come out of the cheese-puff, sound-bite, altogether-too-complicated-for-your-comprehension-Al-Franken-joke alternate reality from within which you seem to be arguing.

Post the portion that you think supports your views.

Yawn. Look how lazy you are. Don't you see how your lack of commitment to the issues undermines the authority of your argument?

Don’t ask me to do what is your duty.

I can't think for you, Dr. No.

So do your own damn duty, and everything will work out just fine.

Now, let's deal with your ... uh ... "points."

The topic is about religious violence, not secular violence. Violence involved should have religious implications.

Religious implications are generally symptomatic, not causative.

This is what you're failing to account for. If it's not religion it will be many other things--e.g. ethnicity, nationalism, &c.

American violence had generally NOTHING to do with religion. Those crimes, wars against terrorism, iraq war, Vietnam war had nothing to do with religion. Those are purely economic, defense or political in nature.

(chortle!)

Let's revisit the point of contention:

• "May I remind you that this thread is about religious violence. American violence has nothing to do with religion."

Convenient argument, I admit. It lets you duck all sorts of considerations that could mitigate your hatred of Islam.

It is as convenient as it is false, Dr. No.

At one point Christians were hauling women half-naked through the streets in carts in the middle of winter and whipping them. At another, they were attempting to enslave--kidnapping and attempting to convert--indigenous children. There was the infamous bit with the piling of the stones on the old man's chest in Salem that really turned out to be a property fight. Manifest Destiny looks to God as the justification for biological warfare and attempted genocide. Cold War? Remember that? Hey, we stamp "God" on our coins, recite it in our pledge because the god-fearing also fear the Communists. What? Is fifty years ago too distant? How about, "God is on our side!" (2001) How about, "God told me to invade Iraq." (2003) How about those rabid savages advocating the invasion and forced conversion of nations of people? They wouldn't happen to be ... American, would they?

You're focusing on the wrong label. You and Path share that trait in your argumentation. And it leads you to make irresponsible, unfounded, insupportable assertions:

• "American violence has nothing to do with religion."
• "American violence had generally NOTHING to do with religion."

Absolutely untenable. You cannot demonstrate these assertions. American primary documents are fascinating things; you'll find the "areligious" or "atheistic" bent accused of present-day America is, while nothing new in and of itself, only now finding firm voice in recent years.

I understand that it makes your argument easier if you pretend that "American violence has nothing to do with religion," but you really ought to go talk to soldiers and ask them how their Christian conscience sits with the idea of being a paid professional killer. Generally, if you haven't misfired and asked an atheist, Muslim, Jew, or otherwise non-Christian, you'll find that connection between God and rifle that you've been ignoring.

Having covered that, let's move back in time a little and take a look at your earlier ducking of the issue:

In the meantime, the lack of consideration given economic factors is highly suggestive.

Of Americans, who live better than most of, if not the entirety of the world, I can say that Christians are a more frequent source of violence than any other religion.

Furthermore, the topic overlooks alleged historic examples; e.g. God punishes a man in the Bible for not committing genocide.

Or a 450 year-old grudge by God being given over to the Hebrews to execute?

Revenge is the "Jewish man's burden." Just ask Golda Meier.

Bring me a war that's purely about religion, and I'll make the call.

You responded to this by attempting to cut religion out of the argument:

1. May I remind you that this thread is about religious violence. American violence has nothing to do with religion.

2. This thread is about recorded facts, not recorded myths & legends. That disqualifies your “God punishes” argument. Historical? eheheh.

3. And who said “purely”? We are only concerned with the religious objective of each violence.

(1) This thread is about comparative violence. Why don't you want to compare situations?

(2) Why do you seek to separate the religious traditions from an examination of comparative violence involving various religious traditions?

(3) Why do you seek to separate religion from your examination of comparative violence involving religious traditions? Your "Point #3" only reinforces my argument. Run your Point #3 through the Conway thresher and have another try, Dr. No.

I am open to suggestion. Can you please give a couple of examples of religious violence in each of the mentioned religions which was founded through economic factors?

I figured someone as allegedly smart and sharp as you would have done the reading already.

Warning, though . . . it will take ten to twenty-thousand words. If I am to go to the effort of trying to explain such simple things to you, who has made it abundantly clear that he is not interested in learning, but rather in hating and denouncing, I will require a guarantee up front that you will give it serious consideration. After all, since you don't have time to mention your sources or provide anything more than unsourced, fallacious, bullet-list agit-prop with only a slender chance of having any effect on the Teletubbies market, at which it seems to be aimed; since you don't have time to read relatively short articles; since you obviously don't understand what you're talking about and just as obviously don't care to, why should I believe that you're doing anything but covering your retreat? I have no indication in your conduct as a poster that a 10 - 20,000 word post explaining very basic relationships between humans and their economic considerations (certes you realize that religion is subject to economics and politics?) would merit more than a few seconds' of your consideration, long enough to type, "I don't have the time to go through all that right now."

So given that you have no sources, are unable to back your assertions, and are posting in your usual, childish, provocative manner not designed to communicate but rather to obfuscate, I think it incumbent upon you to establish the veracity of your comparison. The effort you're going to in order to box out any religion but Islam is rather conspicuous.

Give it an honest try for once. You might be surprised at the results.

 

[Vienna]

Warning, though . . . it will take ten to twenty-thousand words. .

Stuff ten to twenty-thousand words - here's three words that speak volumes

Twin Tower Terror

 

[Tiassa]

Twin Tower Terror

What?

Can I get a show of hands, here? Who didn't expect a terrorist organization to eventually attempt to take a large chunk out of the United States of America?

That's what I thought.

 

[Preacher_X]

A sudden concern for the Palestinian child

By Gideon Levy

Suddenly, Israelis are worried about the bitter fate of a Palestinian child. To judge by the public shock over Hussam Bilal Abdu, who was caught wearing an explosives belt at the Hawara checkpoint, it would seem that nothing of a humane nature is foreign to us, even when it pertains to an enemy and his children. But this is an infuriating show of concern. The fate of a Palestinian child only touches us when it suits us, when it serves our purposes and when our hands are not involved.

The hundreds of children who have been killed, the thousands who have been crippled, and the hundreds of thousands who live under conditions of siege and poverty, and are exposed every day to violence and humiliation - all this has failed to move the Israeli public. Just the child with the belt.

Why weren't we shocked by the killing of Christine Sa'ada, who was shot dead in an IDF ambush while traveling in a car with her parents in Bethlehem, exactly a year ago today? Why was there no public outcry following the killing of Jamil and Ahmed Abu Aziz, two brothers who were riding their bicycles in Jenin in broad daylight when a tank fired a shell at them? How is their killing, which was documented on video, less cruel? Why didn't we show pictures of Basil and Abir Abu Samra, who were killed together with their mother in their vineyard near Nablus, just as we displayed pictures of Hussam Abdu? Why have we never discussed the killing of children at the entrance to the Qalandiyah refugee camp, where a child is killed by Border Police or IDF fire every few weeks? Why is a putting an explosives belt on a child more shocking than firing a shell at him?

The harshest expressions are being uttered here, with much clucking of the tongue: "crossing the red line," "the pinnacle of cruelty," "a satanic act." And, in truth, it's impossible to understand such cruelty toward an innocent child who was cynically sent to his death. But Israelis have no moral right to criticize the Palestinians for their cruelty toward children; we are no less cruel.

Sending a child to his death with an explosives belt is indeed a satanic action, but the shocked public reaction is tainted with hypocrisy and double standards. The cheap attempt to win points on the international public relations front from the picture of the child is ridiculous: the world knows that Israel's hands are not clean, that they are stained with the blood of children.

From September 29, 2000 through February 29, 2004, IDF soldiers killed 486 children and teenagers, 255 of them under the age of 15, according to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG). This appalling figure should have long ago troubled the sleep of every decent Israeli and aroused a public protest. There can be no justification for the killing of children on such a large scale. The contention that the IDF does not intend to kill children has long ago lost its foundation. The real question is what is the IDF doing to prevent the killing of children. The answer - very little, if anything. When it drops bombs and missiles on population centers, such as during the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and when it sends tanks into residential neighborhoods, it cannot argue that it does not intend to kill children. There are many children living in the Darj neighborhood in Gaza City, where Mohammed Shehadeh lived. Whoever decided to toss a one-ton bomb there knew this very well. That is, he knowingly decided to kill children. No excuse can be made to relieve him of the responsibility for killing them.

However, we're not only responsible for the deaths of Palestinian children. We're also responsible for their lives. Most of the Israelis who were shocked at the sight of Hussam Abdu have no idea, and are not at all interested in knowing, about the conditions in which the next generation of Palestinians is growing up. More than 25 percent of the children, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), suffer from chronic malnutrition. They live in a backward environmental - without community centers, computers, extracurricular activities, sports facilities, or playgrounds. No less serious are the traumatic incidents every Palestinian child is witness to. These children see their parents being humiliated and are exposed to violence and horror every day. Their nights are plagued with nightmares and their days are empty and depressing.

Every brutal house search in the middle of the night and every contact with soldiers is a source of trauma. There is no Palestinian child who has not seen a house destroyed, an assassination operation, severe harassment or violence. They live in constant fear - that any moment soldiers will come, the tanks will enter and crush, the bulldozer will come and destroy, and the helicopter will fire a missile. Their fears are left untreated, just as their health and physical development are left unattended. As an occupier, we bear the responsibility for all of this.

There is no need for incitement to instill hatred in these children. The daily sights they are exposed to constitute the greatest incitement. You don't need to promise too much to a child with this kind of life to make him want to commit suicide. Why shouldn't he want to? Because of his present life? Because of the future that awaits him? It's hard to know what motivated the child Hussam Abdu to put on an explosives belt. Virgins? The NIS 100 promised to his mother? But instead of being shocked by those who dispatched him, it would be better for us to focus on our responsibility for the conditions of his life. Whoever is truly concerned over the fate of Palestinian children should not only take interest when explosives belts are attached to their bodies.

These children deserve a different fate. They deserve not to grow up among the rubble of their homes as children and be killed as teenagers - whether from a Palestinian explosives belt or from the bullet of an Israeli sniper. Both of these are cruel to exactly the same extent.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/409293.html

 

[DoctorNO]

I'll get to this tommorow. Im just so busy right now.

 

[path]

communism has killed over 120, MILLION people this centuruy. the countries involved were mainly CHRISTIAN. the countries vary but mainly fall on Germany, America, Russia wither by thier direct involment or becasue they supplied the killers with wealth or weapons for that purpose. Christrians invented every weapon around from the bullet to the nuke.

Umm excuse me preacher X but can you please tell me the relation between communism and religion? What is the main religion of communism? Thanks
Christians invented nearly every weapon around? Really, gee they are clever buggers those christians. Just don't tell it to the chinese, or mongolians or assyrians or egyptians or ancient greeks or the ottoman turks they might get a little indignant Unless of course you have an exhaustive list of those weapons and the names of the "christian inventor" but I have got a sneaky feeling you don't.

 

[Paula]

I have a general question here. If Tiassa is right and Islamist violence is linked solely to injustuce against Muslims, why did the first World Trade Center bombing happen during the Clinton administration?

I voted for Clinton twice and consider him brilliant but his internationalist, suave American routine did not lessen anti-Americanism around the world (take it from someone who was insulted almost daily in Britain during that time) and it did not distract Islamic militants from trying to kill us.

Clinton was foremost in refusing Tony Blair's attempts to get us to invade Iraq in '98, negotiated a peace deal that would have garnered for Palestinians 97% of their demands and sent troops to protect Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and attempted military action to secure food convoys to Somali Muslims. Still, numerous terror attacks were thwarted on our own soil, many such as the embassy attacks were carried out internationally and 9/11 was clearly planned long before Bush hit the scene.

In fact, I'm not a Bushite but if you count the number of terror attacks we've suffered prior to invading Afghanistan and Iraq and the number of attacks we've suffered since one might wonder if Bush is doing the right thing over the long haul by taking such an uncompromising stand. The irresistible force (Islamist militancy) just met the immovable object (W).

Also, if injustice is at the heart of Islamic motivation, where are the mujahideen protecting the rights of the People of the Book in Nigeria or Sudan? Christians are being killed in both countries and their homes destroyed in much larger numbers than in Israel/Palestine. Where are the holy warriors fighting the good fight to protect Lamaistic Buddhists in Kashmir or Copts in Egypt? Why don't Islamists complain when Kurdish Muslims are killed by Iraqi Muslims or when Sunni and Shia Muslims kill each other but when Muslims are killed by non-Muslims it's unjust?

It is radical ideology run amuck. Economics has precious little to do with it, particularly since most of the 9/11 hijackers were upper middle class.

 

[DoctorNO]

Did you get all that? See all that you missed?

• "Perhaps this is where the misjudgment and the false assertion of religious blame takes root."

In other words, the words you underlined as the very reason you distinguish religious and secular violence are part of a false assertion. Okay, good. You seem to wish to distinguish between religious and secular violence. Well, the rest of the paragraph tells you some more about that.

• "It is the failure to scrutinize the distinction between the reaction and the initial cause of conflict."

I would venture a guess that you're repeatedly failing to make this distinction. Because, as you note, "Why I said that majority of wars have nothing to do with religion."

Well, again, we can look to what you're overlooking, or at least choosing to not respond to:

• "Occasionally war is fought over religion, as is perhaps the case during the reformation period in Europe."

You'd think that Major Conway would find something more recent, wouldn't you? It's hardly definitive, but by that measure, you might wish to look up the word fitnah.

Religion? Patriotism? Do we blame "patriotism" for the National Socialists, Khmer Rouge, or present Iraqi resistance?

“

The topic is about religious violence, not secular violence. Violence involved should have religious implications.

”
Religious implications are generally symptomatic, not causative.

This is what you're failing to account for. If it's not religion it will be many other things--e.g. ethnicity, nationalism, &c.

This thread merely concerns violence with religious aspects, whether causative, symptomatic, or reactive.

Dr. No, just because something contradicts your blind prejudice doesn't mean it's flawed. Perhaps you're flawed. After all, you're human.

My dear tiassa I pointed out the flaws in that article. Why don’t you deal with those specific replies instead of immediately labeling me with names for no apparent reason?

Let's revisit the point of contention:

• "May I remind you that this thread is about religious violence. American violence has nothing to do with religion."

Convenient argument, I admit. It lets you duck all sorts of considerations that could mitigate your hatred of Islam.

It is as convenient as it is false, Dr. No.

At one point Christians were hauling women half-naked through the streets in carts in the middle of winter and whipping them. At another, they were attempting to enslave--kidnapping and attempting to convert--indigenous children.

And were any of those committed by Americans? I doubt it. Remember that the U.S. was born in 1776. If that was committed after that date then please be more specific and educate me.

There were instances of those but they mainly happened in the middle ages. As I said so in my introduction, remember?

There was the infamous bit with the piling of the stones on the old man's chest in Salem that really turned out to be a property fight.

A property fight which used religion as an excuse for conflict. Still in the middle ages.

Manifest Destiny looks to God as the justification for biological warfare and attempted genocide.

Attempted genocide & biological warfare during and after 1840s? Could you be a little more specific? The only incidence I know of such happened around 1760s by the british commander. An isolated case (with tremendous consequences) and has nothing to do with religion.

Cold War? Remember that? Hey, we stamp "God" on our coins, recite it in our pledge because the god-fearing also fear the Communists. What? Is fifty years ago too distant?

“God” was placed on the coins, not on guns. And it wasn’t for any specific religion, right?

How about, "God is on our side!" (2001)

Still unspecific. For (mostly) everybody (muslims, christians, hindus, etc) fought against saddam at that time.

How about, "God told me to invade Iraq."

the “me” there proves its just one person using religion.

How about those rabid savages advocating the invasion and forced conversion of nations of people? They wouldn't happen to be ... American, would they?

forced conversion? I don’t think that happened recently. Were you again referring to the middle ages? Be more specific.

You're focusing on the wrong label. You and Path share that trait in your argumentation. And it leads you to make irresponsible, unfounded, insupportable assertions:

• "American violence has nothing to do with religion."
• "American violence had generally NOTHING to do with religion."

Absolutely untenable. You cannot demonstrate these assertions.

My friend. Since we are the negative claimant then it is not for us to prove anything. The burden of proof always fall on the shoulders of the positive claimant. You tried to do so and failed miserably. Your examples either fall on the middle ages as I asserted, it wasn’t specific to a particular religion, or it was a very isolated case.

I understand that it makes your argument easier if you pretend that "American violence has nothing to do with religion," but you really ought to go talk to soldiers and ask them how their Christian conscience sits with the idea of being a paid professional killer. Generally, if you haven't misfired and asked an atheist, Muslim, Jew, or otherwise non-Christian, you'll find that connection between God and rifle that you've been ignoring.

You are merely speculating.



To be continued…

 

[DoctorNO]

1. May I remind you that this thread is about religious violence. American violence has nothing to do with religion.

2. This thread is about recorded facts, not recorded myths & legends. That disqualifies your “God punishes” argument. Historical? eheheh.

3. And who said “purely”? We are only concerned with the religious objective of each violence.

”
(1) This thread is about comparative violence. Why don't you want to compare situations?


(2) Why do you seek to separate the religious traditions from an examination of comparative violence involving various religious traditions?

(3) Why do you seek to separate religion from your examination of comparative violence involving religious traditions? Your "Point #3" only reinforces my argument. Run your Point #3 through the Conway thresher and have another try, Dr. No.

(1) My mistake. I should have entitled it “Comparative RELIGIOUS violence”. For that was my real intention. I tried to rename it later but it wont allow me.

(2) Because nobody could prove the validity of those biblical & quranic myths.

(3) Im not. If the violence involved was the result of religious traditions then it should be classified as religious violence.

If I am to go to the effort of trying to explain such simple things to you, who has made it abundantly clear that he is not interested in learning, but rather in hating and denouncing, I will require a guarantee up front that you will give it serious consideration.

Im sure you only misunderstand me. One of the reasons I love debates is the new things I learn from them. Things my opponents are teaching me. New ideas to ponder on.

I guarantee I’ll give your examples & ideas serious consideration. But I cant promise that if you would only provide links to some very long articles. If you are going to provide links be sure to attract my interest by posting the parts of those articles which you think supports your arguments.

After all, since you don't have time to mention your sources or provide anything more than unsourced, fallacious,

All you need to do is point out what you think are the actual fallacies and I’ll go fetch the sources to justify them. Or admit outright if I made a mistake.

So given that you have no sources, are unable to back your assertions, and are posting in your usual, childish, provocative manner not designed to communicate but rather to obfuscate,

You tiassa are my living proof that my thread is able to establish “communication”. Believe it or not DoctorNO is here to make discussion.

I think it incumbent upon you to establish the veracity of your comparison. The effort you're going to in order to box out any religion but Islam is rather conspicuous.

Doesnt my mentioning of all those other religions prove that each one has their share of the cake. Im not placing the whole blame on Islam.