| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: February 18 2013 at 04:35 |
 BaldJean wrote:
Dean wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Dean: The Crusades weren't driven by religious fanaticism; at first, they were defensive wars meant to protect pilgrims to the Holy Land who the Islamic occupants were persecuting, and to take back the land Muslims had taken from Christians. Later, they became power/money/fame/status grabs for kings who wanted lots of cash and props from the pope. I don't deny that there was most likely fanaticism among the soldiers who went on crusade, but the root cause of the crusades was not fanaticism.
|
Don't make excuses for the Crusades, a holy war is a holy war no matter the apparent justification. No religion = no holy wars. |
Unfortunately it is not quite that easy, Dean. The crusades, for example, may seem like typical religious wars on the surface, but there were important economic reasons behind them, like access to the silk and spice trade routes. I am absolutely certain these wars would have taken place too if there had not been any religion at all. For more detailed information read this article by Abigail Pfeiffer:
http://www.abigailpfeiffer.com/2011/02/the-first-crusade-social-and-economic-factors-of-the-late-eleventh-century/
|
I am fully aware of the political and econmic reasons behind the crusades, the Venitian involvement in the sacking of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade is evidence enough of that. If the Crusades didn't have a holy attribute they would not have been so widely supported in Western Europe and they would not have been "holy wars", ergo - no religion = no holy wars. When a pope (Urban II the sequel) says "Let's go to war" then that is a holy war.
|
|
What?
|
 |
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 05:03 |
Dean wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
Dean wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Dean: The Crusades weren't driven by religious fanaticism; at first, they were defensive wars meant to protect pilgrims to the Holy Land who the Islamic occupants were persecuting, and to take back the land Muslims had taken from Christians. Later, they became power/money/fame/status grabs for kings who wanted lots of cash and props from the pope. I don't deny that there was most likely fanaticism among the soldiers who went on crusade, but the root cause of the crusades was not fanaticism.
|
Don't make excuses for the Crusades, a holy war is a holy war no matter the apparent justification. No religion = no holy wars. |
Unfortunately it is not quite that easy, Dean. The crusades, for example, may seem like typical religious wars on the surface, but there were important economic reasons behind them, like access to the silk and spice trade routes. I am absolutely certain these wars would have taken place too if there had not been any religion at all. For more detailed information read this article by Abigail Pfeiffer:
http://www.abigailpfeiffer.com/2011/02/the-first-crusade-social-and-economic-factors-of-the-late-eleventh-century/
|
I am fully aware of the political and econmic reasons behind the crusades, the Venitian involvement in the sacking of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade is evidence enough of that. If the Crusades didn't have a holy attribute they would not have been so widely supported in Western Europe and they would not have been "holy wars", ergo - no religion = no holy wars. When a pope (Urban II the sequel) says "Let's go to war" then that is a holy war. |
I agree that the existence of religion made it easier to "sell" these wars; good propaganda is always helpful. your statement, however, appears to be a bit tautological to me. of course there can be no "holy wars" if there is no religion. but would that mean that these wars would not have taken place at all? I have my doubts about that
Edited by BaldJean - February 18 2013 at 05:04
|
 A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 05:22 |
BaldJean wrote:
I agree that the existence of religion made it easier to "sell" these wars; good propaganda is always helpful. your statement, however, appears to be a bit tautological to me. of course there can be no "holy wars" if there is no religion. but would that mean that these wars would not have taken place at all? I have my doubts about that
|
There is no tautological meaning in my statement. If the public (propaganda) justification for the war was based upon religion and came from the orders of a religious leader then any other reason (real or otherwise) or ulterior motive for that war is rendered irrelevant. You either fight a holy war or you do not - onward christian soldiers and all that - the word crusdade comes from croisade and means marked by the cross. Of course those wars would have happened without religion - just as they are ongoing now, albeit under another duplicitous justification, but in the Middle Ages they would have been on a completely different scale, far less supported and considerably shorter if they had not been fought as holy wars.
|
|
What?
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 05:43 |
Dean wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
I agree that the existence of religion made it easier to "sell" these wars; good propaganda is always helpful. your statement, however, appears to be a bit tautological to me. of course there can be no "holy wars" if there is no religion. but would that mean that these wars would not have taken place at all? I have my doubts about that
|
There is no tautological meaning in my statement. If the public (propaganda) justification for the war was based upon religion and came from the orders of a religious leader then any other reason (real or otherwise) or ulterior motive for that war is rendered irrelevant. You either fight a holy war or you do not - onward christian soldiers and all that - the word crusdade comes from croisade and means marked by the cross. Of course those wars would have happened without religion - just as they are ongoing now, albeit under another duplicitous justification, but in the Middle Ages they would have been on a completely different scale, far less supported and considerably shorter if they had not been fought as holy wars. |
that is a contrafactual statement and hence has no validity at all. you can of course speculate what might have happened if there had been no religion, but you might as well speculate what would have happened if for example Germany had won the second world war
|
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 06:35 |
Well, duh.
barely an hour ago in this very establishment of drunks and assorted miscreants wrote:
...but would that mean that these wars would not have taken place at all? I have my doubts about that |
Neither of us doubt that these wars would not have been fought. I can speculate with a modicum validity on the relative magnitude these wars with or without papal instigation by looking at how wars are waged and have been waged through history. When the rallying call for a war is made by the head of a group of people then those people go to war. In this case the leader involved was not a king or other such leader of a geographical location who would stir his own subjects into action, but the leader of a pan-European organisation that held the kings of said countries in his grasp so would rally the kings and their subjects. Then it is not a flight of fancy to speculate that more people would be mobilised and for longer periods as each king sort to gain favour with their god through "his" representative on Earth. Simply put - without the backing of the Pope the crusades would have been sponsored by the merchants of Venice and thus been significantly smaller conflicts and the merchants of other kingdoms and principalities would probably not joined in.
|
|
What?
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 06:47 |
Dean wrote:
Well, duh.
barely an hour ago in this very establishment of drunks and assorted miscreants wrote:
...but would that mean that these wars would not have taken place at all? I have my doubts about that |
Neither of us doubt that these wars would not have been fought. I can speculate with a modicum validity on the relative magnitude these wars with or without papal instigation by looking at how wars are waged and have been waged through history. When the rallying call for a war is made by the head of a group of people then those people go to war. In this case the leader involved was not a king or other such leader of a geographical location who would stir his own subjects into action, but the leader of a pan-European organisation that held the kings of said countries in his grasp so would rally the kings and their subjects. Then it is not a flight of fancy to speculate that more people would be mobilised and for longer periods as each king sort to gain favour with their god through "his" representative on Earth. Simply put - without the backing of the Pope the crusades would have been sponsored by the merchants of Venice and thus been significantly smaller conflicts and the merchants of other kingdoms and principalities would probably not joined in. |
I certainly agree that the pope held a significant grasp over monarchs; just look at the walk to Canossa in 1077. but it is not so easy to distinguish between papal and royal power. after all the pope owned significant areas of land, not to mention the monasteries which were quite wealthy. he may not have been a monarch de jure, but he was one de facto
|
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 06:48 |
|
I'm glad you agree with me then.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 08:15 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I fully agree, in my country Evangelics get the most poor and desperate people with very little self esteem and an incredibly low IQ, usually from the most violent and ignorant neighborhoods. offer them economic prosperity (This is the latest fashion), and they will kill for any of the 30,000 sects they joined.
They don't need brainwashing, desperation already did that, and a high percentage of this persons are already violent and some even anti-social before their Pare de Sufrir or Bethel put their hands on them. |
One minor observation of course is that if I (or any other athiest) had made this post we would have been torn asunder and thrown to the dogs.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I don't remember a Catholic, Anglican, traditional Lutheran or Orthodox religious act of violence or bigotry in my country, but it's very common among evangelists. |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Don't you believe this means something? |
I beleive it means that violent acts of terrorism are normally not comitted by those in the majority. There isn't a major religion in the history of everything that does not have blood on its hands.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
For God's sake, why you always search for an excuse when a criminal has atheist motives? If he's a mass murderer like pol pot....It has to be his communism not his atheism If he's a violent crime..He has to be mad. |
You yourself said in this very thread:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
But I also clearly stated that their atheism was not the direct cause of their crimes....But the fact they were atheists and instituted atheism as the official elief of the state, can't be denied. |
(your emphasis, not mine) Pol Pot's direct cause for his crimes was not his atheism - his "year zero" compaign was not enacted on religious grounds. I make no appologies for anyone who kills so I need not look for an excuse to ignore athiests motives if such a thing exists - given the huge number of senseless murders that are committed every day finding some that are athiest or vegan or prog fans is simply a matter of statisitcs but no matter how many you find, there will be more that are motivated by religion. If an atheist kills in the name of atheism I wonder what cause he is fighting for if not the lunacy between his ears?
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Don't you think that most religious fanatics were mad or racist or had genocidal tendencies before they adopted a religion with fanatism?
Do you think guys like Fred Phelps, Jim Jones or David Koresh were ever normal?
Do you think that a kid who blows an abortion clinic is normal? The ten Commandments, Deuteronomy and New Testament say don't kill, this guys don't blow a clinic because of the abortions or religion, they don't give a damn about religion, they are convinced abortion is wrong, and they are ready to break God and men law to destroy the sinner, without even thinking that they are worst..
Have you ever seen a Catholic or an Orthodox or a traditional Protestant blowing clinics, no, the violent guys are always desperate people from small sectarian evangelical groups, who joined the most radical option they had, because they were already violent.
They were born crazy, the religion only gave them an excuse, they would had been violent for politics, racism or even a sport if they weren't pseudo Christians
Iván |
The Provisional IRA. Crazy pseudo christians?!!! O....kay. *backs away slowly*
|
|
What?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 10:27 |
Dean wrote:
The Provisional IRA. Crazy pseudo christians?!!! O....kay. *backs away slowly* |
Ehhh..,Aren't they a political movement with communist agenda trying to break the ties with England?
So....Isn't the politics the cause of their violence?
Yes they are Catholic, as Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists
The same case...different conclusions Dean?
Iván
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 10:40 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
The Provisional IRA. Crazy pseudo christians?!!! O....kay. *backs away slowly* |
Ehhh..,Aren't they a political movement with communist agenda trying to break the ties with England?
So....Isn't the politics the cause of their violence?
Yes they are Catholic, as Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists
The same case...different conclusions Dean?
Iván |
No, the Provisional IRA were not communist. They had no political agenda beyond seperation from Britain (please, after all this time can we all stop usng "England" to mean The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). The Official IRA (different club) were socialist, but not communist, they wanted seperation and a social change. However, I never said they weren't politically motivated. They were catholic. They were excluisively catholic. They were exclusively catholic to the point of sectarian violence. Politics or not, their violence was religious sectarianism. The case is different therefore the conclusion is different, Iván.
|
|
What?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 10:56 |
Dean wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
The Provisional IRA. Crazy pseudo christians?!!! O....kay. *backs away slowly* |
Ehhh..,Aren't they a political movement with communist agenda trying to break the ties with England?
So....Isn't the politics the cause of their violence?
Yes they are Catholic, as Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists
The same case...different conclusions Dean?
Iván |
No, the Provisional IRA were not communist. They had no political agenda beyond seperation from Britain (please, after all this time can we all stop usng "England" to mean The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). The Official IRA (different club) were socialist, but not communist, they wanted seperation and a social change. However, I never said they weren't politically motivated. They were catholic. They were excluisively catholic. They were exclusively catholic to the point of sectarian violence. Politics or not, their violence was religious sectarianism. The case is different therefore the conclusion is different, Iván. |
Not communist or Socialist?
| The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) (Irish: Óglaigh na hÉireann) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation whose aim was to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a socialist republic within a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion.[5] |
They were Catholic YES, but their main interest is exclusively POLITICAL
Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao were atheist to the point of sectarian violence (Priests, monks, Rabbis, Imams and pastors were murdered)
The situation is exactly the same, but your conclusions are different
You have a different set of rules for religious and atheists
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 18 2013 at 10:59
|
|
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 11:05 |
It's about motivation, Ivan. If some random deranged individual who happens to be religious kills somebody out of greed, lust, thrill killing, etc., then there is no religious element involved and his religion is of zero relevance to the killing. The same if an atheist kills someone for the above reasons. Now if a religious person kills someone because they don't believe or have a different faith or "violate" the rules of the killer's religion, that is a religiously-motivated killing. If an atheist kills somebody because they aren't atheists, that would be an atheism-motivated killing. I'm sure you can find many more examples of the former than of the latter. And political motivation is not the same as religious/non-religious motivation. If a person blows up a factory because he feels the owner is exploiting his workers, and the person also happens to be an atheist, his atheism is irrelevant to the crime. It is a politically/economically-motivated crime, not a religious/anti-religious one.
Edited by The Doctor - February 18 2013 at 11:06
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 11:26 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
The Provisional IRA. Crazy pseudo christians?!!! O....kay. *backs away slowly* |
Ehhh..,Aren't they a political movement with communist agenda trying to break the ties with England?
So....Isn't the politics the cause of their violence?
Yes they are Catholic, as Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists
The same case...different conclusions Dean?
Iván |
No, the Provisional IRA were not communist. They had no political agenda beyond seperation from Britain (please, after all this time can we all stop usng "England" to mean The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). The Official IRA (different club) were socialist, but not communist, they wanted seperation and a social change. However, I never said they weren't politically motivated. They were catholic. They were excluisively catholic. They were exclusively catholic to the point of sectarian violence. Politics or not, their violence was religious sectarianism. The case is different therefore the conclusion is different, Iván. |
Not communist or Socialist?
| The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) (Irish: Óglaigh na hÉireann) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation whose aim was to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a socialist republic within a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion.[5] |
They were Catholic YES, but their main interest is exclusively POLITICAL
Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao were atheist to the point of sectarian violence (Priests, monks, Rabbis, Imams and pastors were murdered)
The situation is exactly the same, but your conclusions are different
You have a different set of rules for religious and atheists
Iván
|
I never said they were not socialist.You may not be aware of the difference between communist and socialist but in the UK we do make the distinction.
| The Official Irish Republican Army or Official IRA (informally "the Officials" or "the Stickies") is an Irish republican paramilitary group whose goal was to create a "32-county workers' republic" in Ireland.[1] It emerged from a split in the Irish Republican Army in December 1969, shortly after the beginning of "The Troubles". The other group emerging from this split was the Provisional Irish Republican Army. Both groups continued to refer to themselves as the Irish Republican Army and rejected the political legitimacy of the other. |
Two different clubs, two different political ideals. The Provos were not interested in creating a 32-country workers' republic ... Of the two the Provos were the more violent (and more indiscriminate). Try joining the either IRA as a communist protestant and let's see whether they are communist. If you want to see that as exactly the same situation as Pol Pot then be my guest, but don't tell me what rules I have unless I tell you what rules I have.
|
|
What?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 11:27 |
The Doctor wrote:
It's about motivation, Ivan. If some random deranged individual who happens to be religious kills somebody out of greed, lust, thrill killing, etc., then there is no religious element involved and his religion is of zero relevance to the killing. The same if an atheist kills someone for the above reasons. Now if a religious person kills someone because they don't believe or have a different faith or "violate" the rules of the killer's religion, that is a religiously-motivated killing. If an atheist kills somebody because they aren't atheists, that would be an atheism-motivated killing. I'm sure you can find many more examples of the former than of the latter. And political motivation is not the same as religious/non-religious motivation. If a person blows up a factory because he feels the owner is exploiting his workers, and the person also happens to be an atheist, his atheism is irrelevant to the crime. It is a politically/economically-motivated crime, not a religious/anti-religious one.
|
So, if Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao killed people because they were not atheists...Is that a religious genocide?
I think yes
I agree communism is the main reason, but religion is another motivation.
If you include IRA, you have to Include USSR, Cambodia, Cuba, China, etc
Iván
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 11:28 |
Dean wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
The Provisional IRA. Crazy pseudo christians?!!! O....kay. *backs away slowly* |
Ehhh..,Aren't they a political movement with communist agenda trying to break the ties with England?
So....Isn't the politics the cause of their violence?
Yes they are Catholic, as Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists
The same case...different conclusions Dean?
Iván |
No, the Provisional IRA were not communist. They had no political agenda beyond seperation from Britain (please, after all this time can we all stop usng "England" to mean The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). The Official IRA (different club) were socialist, but not communist, they wanted seperation and a social change. However, I never said they weren't politically motivated. They were catholic. They were excluisively catholic. They were exclusively catholic to the point of sectarian violence. Politics or not, their violence was religious sectarianism. The case is different therefore the conclusion is different, Iván. |
Not communist or Socialist?
| The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) (Irish: Óglaigh na hÉireann) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation whose aim was to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a socialist republic within a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion.[5] |
They were Catholic YES, but their main interest is exclusively POLITICAL
Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao were atheist to the point of sectarian violence (Priests, monks, Rabbis, Imams and pastors were murdered)
The situation is exactly the same, but your conclusions are different
You have a different set of rules for religious and atheists
Iván
|
I never said they were not socialist.You may not be aware of the difference between communist and socialist but in the UK we do make the distinction.
| The Official Irish Republican Army or Official IRA (informally "the Officials" or "the Stickies") is an Irish republican paramilitary group whose goal was to create a "32-county workers' republic" in Ireland.[1] It emerged from a split in the Irish Republican Army in December 1969, shortly after the beginning of "The Troubles". The other group emerging from this split was the Provisional Irish Republican Army. Both groups continued to refer to themselves as the Irish Republican Army and rejected the political legitimacy of the other. |
Two different clubs, two different political ideals. The Provos were not interested in creating a 32-country workers' republic ... Of the two the Provos were the more violent (and more indiscriminate). Try joining the either IRA as a communist protestant and let's see whether they are communist. If you want to see that as exactly the same situation as Pol Pot then be my guest, but don't tell me what rules I have unless I tell you what rules I have. |
If you tried to Join the Kmer Rouge being Catholic, there was a plastic bag with your name on it.
It's exactly the same
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 18 2013 at 11:29
|
|
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 11:30 |
|
^If the killing were in fact because they were not atheists, then yes. If the motivation was political and not anti-religious, then no. If there were more than one reason, both religion and politics, then partially. Just because the people were not atheists does not mean the killing was motivated by such.
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 11:50 |
The Doctor wrote:
^If the killing were in fact because they were not atheists, then yes. If the motivation was political and not anti-religious, then no. If there were more than one reason, both religion and politics, then partially. Just because the people were not atheists does not mean the killing was motivated by such. |
| Marxist-Leninist ideology was opposed to religion, and people were told to become atheists from the early days of Communist rule. During the Destruction of Four Oldscampaign, religious affairs of all types were discouraged by Red Guards, and practitioners persecuted. Temples, churches, mosques, monasteries, and cemeteries were closed down and sometimes converted to other uses, looted, and destroyed.[29] Marxist propaganda depicted Buddhism as superstition, and religion was looked upon as a means of hostile foreign infiltration, as well as an instrument of the 'ruling class'.[30] Chinese Marxists declared 'the death of God', and considered religion a defilement of the Chinese communist vision. Clergy were arrested and sent to camps; many Tibetan Buddhists were forced to participate in the destruction of their monasteries at gunpoint.[30] |
They were killed, because they were not atheist
USSR
| The Soviet Union was the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion[1] and its replacement with universalatheism.[2][3] The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.[4]The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth. The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. "Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes. |
Clearly the target is religion
Now Pol Pot
| The Khmer Rouge also classified people by religion and ethnic group. They banned all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. They especially targeted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christians, Western-educated intellectuals, educated people in general, people who had contact with Western countries or with Vietnam, disabled people, and the ethnic Chinese, Laotians and Vietnamese. Some were put in the S-21 camp for interrogation involving torture in cases where a confession was useful to the government. Many others were summarily executed. |
And now?
They were executed because they were not Atheists
Can you deny that?
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 18 2013 at 11:55
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 12:00 |
Yes Ivan.
They were very bad people. Nasty evil wicked atheists.
Edited by Dean - February 18 2013 at 12:02
|
|
What?
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 12:04 |
|
Ivan, I guess not having lived through Sendero Luminoso reduces the chance of people to believe that maoist atheismcan cause as many deaths as religious fanaticism lunacy.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 12:06 |
The T wrote:
Ivan, I guess not having lived through Sendero Luminoso reduces the chance of people to believe that maoist atheismcan cause as many deaths as religious fanaticism lunacy. |
Pardon?
Are you being serious or just plain annoying?
|
|
What?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread