Countries like Australia prove secularism does not equal communism and other violent antitheisms

[Moz]

Couple of years? Wow, history re-written eh?

Sure Marx was wrong to the right wing, but his work has evolved. Nationalistic ideas vary by nation and both Russia and China, after the atrocities of the past have honed communism to make them both strong countries.

I was not talking secondary religious conflict but conflict in which one side or both fought either to impose their faith on the opposition or annihilate them completely?

Of course can excuse religious atrosities because it suites you so please feel free to explain these away as junior partners.



"US Western Expansion (Justified by ""Manifest Destiny""):20,000,000"
AIDS deaths in Africa largely due to religious opposition to condoms: 30,000,000
Al Qaeda, 1993-
Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49
Algeria, 1992-
Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE
Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-
Armenian Genocide: 1,500,000
Atlantic Slave Trade (Justified by Christianity): 14,000,000
Aztec Human Sacrifice: 80,000
Muslim/Bab’i conflict, 1848-54
Bosnia, 1992-95
Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
Christian Romans, 30-313 CE
Congolese Genocide (King Leopold II): 13,000,000
Croatia, 1991-92
Crusades, 1095-1291 - 6,000,000
Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609
Eighty Years' War: 1,000,000
English Civil War, 1642-46
First Sudanese Civil War: 1,000,000
French Wars of Religion: 4,000,000
Great Peasants' Revolt: 250,000
Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598
India, 1992-2002
India: Suttee & Thugs
Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947
Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979-
Iraq War: 500,000
Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92
Islamic Terrorism Since 2000: 150,000
Jewish Diaspora (Not Including the Holocaust): 1,000,000
Jews, 1348
Jonestown, 1978
Lebanon 1860 / 1975-92 250,000
Molucca Is., 1999-
Mongolia, 1937-39
Muslim Conquests of India: 80,000,000
Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s- 1,000,000
Northern Ireland, 1974-98
Russian pogroms 1905-06 / 1917-22
Rwandan Genocide: 800,000
Second Sudanese Civil War: 2,000,000
Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE
Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38
Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91
Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834 - 5,000
St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572
Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64
The Holocaust (Jewish and Homosexual Deaths): 6,500,000
Thirty Years War, 1618-48 - 11,500,000
Tudor England
Vietnam, 1800s
Witch Hunts, 1400-1800
Xhosa, 1857

Now i am sure you can excuse some of those, the fact remains religion was a major player in every one

Hi
Oh,,,,,,,, Marxism was wrong only to the right. That millions of deaths are needed for the system to be implemented was merely a glitch of poor implementation and if YOU had of been in charge it would have been different. Nuh.... Leventi Baria or someone like him would have knifed you so quick. The system requires totalitarian control to function and any wavering or compassion was death.

China.... your kidding right. The Chinese communists party failed miserably, they could not feed themselves so they opened the markets and are now little more that a nuclear armed mafia gang of 90 000 000 that is running a protection racket standing on the 1300 000 000 billion Chinese who they have trapped.
...........................................................................

Your list of conflicts was strange indeed.

The Arab-Israeli wars are probably a good example. Well it does seem that the religious problems between Jews and Arabs are the cause but the Kurds who are predominately Muslim have just as much trouble. It seems that it may be ethnic hatred not religion that is at the heart of the matter. Could it possibly be the political meddling in the region by the secular "great powers" that has caused a bit of the troubles?

The French religious wars were rival French nobility using religion as the goad for their personal ambitions.
The Tudors.... wow, the most cynical and obviously political use of religion as can be imagined.
The thirty years war.... yep those countries would never have clashed if not for religion. It had nothing to do with curbing Habsburg power.
The Crusades... They began as a political appeal from the Eastern Roman Empire for military aid against the Seljik turks. Urban 2, a truly secular Pope interested in the great game of power politics, saw the opportunity to reclaim what had once been Roman territories in the levant and had little trouble encouraging the knightly class to go a killing.
Yes religion was the propaganda, it was not the cause. Christians had NOT been clamouring for BLOOD and the freeing of the holy land and they did not force the decision upwards onto a reluctant ruling class.The militarization of the religious feelings of the common was merely the easiest lever for rulers to pull to get their war. If there was no religion involved the conflict would have happened anyway. The ideological difference between the East and the West is deeper than any religious explanation.
...............................................

Now i am sure you can excuse some of those, the fact remains religion was a major player in every one
A major player............ Well considering that mankind has in general always had a religious component it is only natural that the powers that be would try and use that influence any way that they can.
But your contention is not that religion is merely a player, you seem to be saying that if not for religion then the conflicts may not have happened. The examples from the 20th century of the radical left, the radical right and the secular middle have shown that religion is not needed to inspire the killing of millions.

Peace

 

[SomeRandom]

Hi.
What a well argued point.
The OP is about how secular government is somehow more nonviolent than the systems that came before. The ease with which the Australian people agree to the killing of people in other countries proves that nothing has changed. Politics has just replaced religious identity with national identity and pull the same levers to manipulate people.
Peace

I think the OP was talking more about instigating violence. And we don’t. Australia is merely following diplomacy. If it’s allies are attacked or under threat, it will answer the call to arms. But we don’t do so lightly. It’s not like our government is sitting watching the news like “oh look, a chance to go to war. Hooray!”
In war, it’s usually our own citizens getting killed as well.
We would much rather settle disputes through diplomacy. But that’s not always reality.
I mean would you rather we not go to war over Hitler’s aggression? Even America didn’t want that. It was dragged into it after a direct attack by the Axis. Or after 9/11? Our allies were literally attacked on their own soil. What did you expect us to do? Sit on our thumbs and send some flowers?
We certainly would have preferred peaceful negotiations as a society, I’m sure. But that’s not always possible.
I lost count of the amount of people lamenting America’s treatment of nuclear warheads and it's “sanctions” against other nations. When I was a little kid even, people were practically praying that America didn’t do anything drastic. Because there’s always an underlying fear that America will either push its luck too far with other countries arming themselves or that one of its enemies will attack. And being that we are American allies, we will have to go to yet another war or be nuked into oblivion by both sides. No one wants to go to war, no one wants their allies to do something that could potentially start a war. But you just have to roll will reality instead of dreaming.

 

[Moz]

I think the OP was talking more about instigating violence. And we don’t. Australia is merely following diplomacy. If it’s allies are attacked or under threat, it will answer the call to arms. But we don’t do so lightly. It’s not like our government is sitting watching the news like “oh look, a chance to go to war. Hooray!”
In war, it’s usually our own citizens getting killed as well.
We would much rather settle disputes through diplomacy. But that’s not always reality.
I mean would you rather we not go to war over Hitler’s aggression? Or after 9/11?
We certainly would have preferred peaceful negotiations as a society, I’m sure. But that’s not always possible.

Hi
No the op was implying that secularism is a more peaceful philosophy that is less prone to violence than the religious philosophies and when the mass secular killing of the 20th century was used in example he freaked out and tried to divorce himself from the logical extension of his ideology by saying that "we" are not like those bad communists who let secularism get out of hand.
.............................................
Scott Morison was in the states last week crowing about how Australia is going to get its self into the arms industry as deep as they can. Our secular governments love the instability of a warring world, they get to identify the "other" as enemy and make a lot of money out of the defence industry.
Should we have stayed out of the European wars...... YES
Should we have stayed out of the middle eastern wars..... YES.
The only thing that keeps Australia from becoming just as violent as any other part of the world is money.

Peace

 

[SomeRandom]

Hi
No the op was implying that secularism is a more peaceful philosophy that is less prone to violence than the religious philosophies and when the mass secular killing of the 20th century was used in example he freaked out and tried to divorce himself from the logical extension of his ideology by saying that "we" are not like those bad communists who let secularism get out of hand.
.............................................
Scott Morison was in the states last week crowing about how Australia is going to get its self into the arms industry as deep as they can. Our secular governments love the instability of a warring world, they get to identify the "other" as enemy and make a lot of money out of the defence industry.
Should we have stayed out of the European wars...... YES
Should we have stayed out of the middle eastern wars..... YES.
The only thing that keeps Australia from becoming just as violent as any other part of the world is money.

Peace

Why should we have kept out of the European Wars? Just let Hitler kill even more of the people he deemed degenerate?
Oh how peaceful indeed.
I’ll grant you that everyone’s hands are always blood soaked in all wars. But it’s not like we randomly went around starting wars. Germany invaded Poland. ISIS attacked the US. We’re not going to have a pleasant conversation with the aggressors over a spot of tea.
Like this is the real world. As much as we’d like to pretend otherwise, we have obligations. We can’t just duck out of wars like cowards. Our allies are our allies. Granted the recent kerfuffle with Syria doesn’t paint the US in the best light. But we have diplomatic ties and you know that.
ScoMo is just sucking up to The Donald. Trying to boast that our tiny island are valuable allies. That’s just politics. Pfft. Who cares.

 

[Moz]

Why should we have kept out of the European Wars? Just let Hitler kill even more of the people he deemed degenerate?
Oh how peaceful indeed.
I’ll grant you that everyone’s hands are always blood soaked in all wars. But it’s not like we randomly went around starting wars. Germany invaded Poland. ISIS attacked the US. We’re not going to have a pleasant conversation with the aggressors over a spot of tea.
Like this is the real world. As much as we’d like to pretend otherwise, we have obligations. We can’t just duck out of wars like cowards. Our allies are our allies. Granted the recent kerfuffle with Syria doesn’t paint the US in the best light. But we have diplomatic ties and you know that.
ScoMo is just sucking up to The Donald. Trying to boast that our tiny island are valuable allies. That’s just politics. Pfft. Who cares.

Hi
First the European stuff was more than the "nasty Gremans" needing to be put down. That was the direct result of the secular governments treatment of Germany from the first world war. You should be thankful that it was Hitler and not someone militarily competent at the helm. There are many historians who think that in hindsight it would have been better to have just left the Europeans in WW1 to fight it out on the continent and for the British to have stayed out of the whole mess.
................................................................................
ScoMo is just sucking up to The Donald. Trying to boast that our tiny island are valuable allies. That’s just politics. Pfft. Who cares

Committing to the goal of becoming one of the leading suppliers of high tech weaponry
Pfft who cares is exactly the point.
.............................................................................
But i suppose the point is that Australia's enthusiastic support of military interventions shows that a secular government is no less prone to warfare than a religious one.

Herman Göring........: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

• 
  
  
  • In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)

Peace

 

[MikeDwight]

I'm not racist. It's an Indian playing a Byzantine on the "Last Legion"

Look its marauding European barbarians from somewhere. She's a committed Christian
What's that a piece of the Parthenon, I better take it to England. Sword behind back taekwondo.

Australians are literal racists obviously.​

 

[SomeRandom]

Hi
First the European stuff was more than the "nasty Gremans" needing to be put down. That was the direct result of the secular governments treatment of Germany from the first world war. You should be thankful that it was Hitler and not someone militarily competent at the helm. There are many historians who think that in hindsight it would have been better to have just left the Europeans in WW1 to fight it out on the continent and for the British to have stayed out of the whole mess.
................................................................................
ScoMo is just sucking up to The Donald. Trying to boast that our tiny island are valuable allies. That’s just politics. Pfft. Who cares

Committing to the goal of becoming one of the leading suppliers of high tech weaponry
Pfft who cares is exactly the point.
.............................................................................
But i suppose the point is that Australia's enthusiastic support of military interventions shows that a secular government is no less prone to warfare than a religious one.

Herman Göring........: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

• 
  
  
  • In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)

Peace

Well there is certainly something to be said for just leaving Europe to just sort themselves out and what that could look like in an alternative timeline. But I mean how many more would have been exterminated is the counter I suppose.
Actually the lead up to WWII is something that fascinates me.
I was never taught that it was down to the “evil Germans” even back in High School. My teacher even went out of her way to stress that the so called “Axis of evil” was just shorthand and nothing more than propaganda. And we’re talking like really early high school, when nuance was just starting to crop up in class.

ScoMo doesn’t necessarily speak for the Australian public. It’s important to point out that in Australia we don’t actually vote for specific candidates, like America does. We vote for parties and those parties have their leaders but if the party disagrees with the leader, then that leader can be voted out. Even against the wishes of the Australian public. And people wonder why we have mandatory voting. Geez.
So I wouldn’t take his word as gospel. He can make all the promises he likes. I’m frankly more concerned with the nuclear race and like I said, if something happens that causes a blowout. That is more important to me. You can manufacture all the guns you like, a nuclear war head would still obliterate you regardless.

As for Goreing comments, yes, the public can be worked into a frenzy if you really try. But he was also working with a post WWI proud nation who felt that they were honourably defeated, their old Kaiser was a traitor and that they were already being treated unfairly. Both by the treaty of Versailles and by the world basically regarding them as the instigators. I would argue that though they were hesitant to engage in any more battles, they were broken, humiliated and looking for strength. They were probably already susceptible to going to war, despite their scars. They just didn’t realise it.

Australia is not. At least not as susceptible. It is proud and it will answer the call of duty. It will do what it can to be supportive of allies. But we don’t go out looking for a fight. We are just some island in the middle of nowhere that keeps being dragged into scraps by everyone else. We don’t seek to police the world or cause conflicts. We just do our thing and pray that no more of our blood is necessary.
America is probably more violent, arguably. It will absolutely not stand for any mere act of aggression. Though it’s own relationship with war is complicated at best. As all ours are.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Countries like Australia prove secularism does not equal communism and other violent antitheisms.

This thread is basically about secularism vs theocracy

I don't really know much about the connection you're making here, can you throw out some stats or maybe an article. I don't even know all that much about Australia

 

[ChristineM]

Hi
Oh,,,,,,,, Marxism was wrong only to the right. That millions of deaths are needed for the system to be implemented was merely a glitch of poor implementation and if YOU had of been in charge it would have been different. Nuh.... Leventi Baria or someone like him would have knifed you so quick. The system requires totalitarian control to function and any wavering or compassion was death.

China.... your kidding right. The Chinese communists party failed miserably, they could not feed themselves so they opened the markets and are now little more that a nuclear armed mafia gang of 90 000 000 that is running a protection racket standing on the 1300 000 000 billion Chinese who they have trapped.
...........................................................................

Your list of conflicts was strange indeed.

The Arab-Israeli wars are probably a good example. Well it does seem that the religious problems between Jews and Arabs are the cause but the Kurds who are predominately Muslim have just as much trouble. It seems that it may be ethnic hatred not religion that is at the heart of the matter. Could it possibly be the political meddling in the region by the secular "great powers" that has caused a bit of the troubles?

The French religious wars were rival French nobility using religion as the goad for their personal ambitions.
The Tudors.... wow, the most cynical and obviously political use of religion as can be imagined.
The thirty years war.... yep those countries would never have clashed if not for religion. It had nothing to do with curbing Habsburg power.
The Crusades... They began as a political appeal from the Eastern Roman Empire for military aid against the Seljik turks. Urban 2, a truly secular Pope interested in the great game of power politics, saw the opportunity to reclaim what had once been Roman territories in the levant and had little trouble encouraging the knightly class to go a killing.
Yes religion was the propaganda, it was not the cause. Christians had NOT been clamouring for BLOOD and the freeing of the holy land and they did not force the decision upwards onto a reluctant ruling class.The militarization of the religious feelings of the common was merely the easiest lever for rulers to pull to get their war. If there was no religion involved the conflict would have happened anyway. The ideological difference between the East and the West is deeper than any religious explanation.
...............................................

Now i am sure you can excuse some of those, the fact remains religion was a major player in every one
A major player............ Well considering that mankind has in general always had a religious component it is only natural that the powers that be would try and use that influence any way that they can.
But your contention is not that religion is merely a player, you seem to be saying that if not for religion then the conflicts may not have happened. The examples from the 20th century of the radical left, the radical right and the secular middle have shown that religion is not needed to inspire the killing of millions.

Peace

Yes i thought you would excuse 800 million deaths in the name of religion

 

[Moz]

Well there is certainly something to be said for just leaving Europe to just sort themselves out and what that could look like in an alternative timeline. But I mean how many more would have been exterminated is the counter I suppose.
Actually the lead up to WWII is something that fascinates me.
I was never taught that it was down to the “evil Germans” even back in High School. My teacher even went out of her way to stress that the so called “Axis of evil” was just shorthand and nothing more than propaganda. And we’re talking like really early high school, when nuance was just starting to crop up in class.

ScoMo doesn’t necessarily speak for the Australian public. It’s important to point out that in Australia we don’t actually vote for specific candidates, like America does. We vote for parties and those parties have their leaders but if the party disagrees with the leader, then that leader can be voted out. Even against the wishes of the Australian public. And people wonder why we have mandatory voting. Geez.
So I wouldn’t take his word as gospel. He can make all the promises he likes. I’m frankly more concerned with the nuclear race and like I said, if something happens that causes a blowout. That is more important to me. You can manufacture all the guns you like, a nuclear war head would still obliterate you regardless.

As for Goreing comments, yes, the public can be worked into a frenzy if you really try. But he was also working with a post WWI proud nation who felt that they were honourably defeated, their old Kaiser was a traitor and that they were already being treated unfairly. Both by the treaty of Versailles and by the world basically regarding them as the instigators. I would argue that though they were hesitant to engage in any more battles, they were broken, humiliated and looking for strength. They were probably already susceptible to going to war, despite their scars. They just didn’t realise it.

Australia is not. At least not as susceptible. It is proud and it will answer the call of duty. It will do what it can to be supportive of allies. But we don’t go out looking for a fight. We are just some island in the middle of nowhere that keeps being dragged into scraps by everyone else. We don’t seek to police the world or cause conflicts. We just do our thing and pray that no more of our blood is necessary.
America is probably more violent, arguably. It will absolutely not stand for any mere act of aggression. Though it’s own relationship with war is complicated at best. As all ours are.

HI
I think you may be on the half full side, i see it as half empty. Btw where are ya, Gold Coast here just near dreamworld.
Peace

 

[SomeRandom]

HI
I think you may be on the half full side, i see it as half empty. Btw where are ya, Gold Coast here just near dreamworld.
Peace

Yeah that’s a fair assessment. I do sometimes lament at what I think humans are susceptible to (war, prejudice, hate etc.) But I think we can be better, or at least hope we can.

Oh mate, you’re actually near me. I’m down near Redcliffe.

 

[Moz]

Yes i thought you would excuse 800 million deaths in the name of religion

Hi
So it was not political forces using religion as a lever in the manipulation of the public, Rather it was Religion using politics so they could kill each other. Well it is easy to see where you are coming from. Yet without religion we still seem to be as murderous and warlike. Strange indeed.
Peace

 

[ChristineM]

Hi
So it was not political forces using religion as a lever in the manipulation of the public, Rather it was Religion using politics so they could kill each other. Well it is easy to see where you are coming from. Yet without religion we still seem to be as murderous and warlike. Strange indeed.
Peace

Not quite, religion is a catalyst for war and has been through the ages.

 

[danieldemol]

Hi
First the European stuff was more than the "nasty Gremans" needing to be put down. That was the direct result of the secular governments treatment of Germany from the first world war. You should be thankful that it was Hitler and not someone militarily competent at the helm. There are many historians who think that in hindsight it would have been better to have just left the Europeans in WW1 to fight it out on the continent and for the British to have stayed out of the whole mess.
................................................................................
ScoMo is just sucking up to The Donald. Trying to boast that our tiny island are valuable allies. That’s just politics. Pfft. Who cares

Committing to the goal of becoming one of the leading suppliers of high tech weaponry
Pfft who cares is exactly the point.
.............................................................................
But i suppose the point is that Australia's enthusiastic support of military interventions shows that a secular government is no less prone to warfare than a religious one.

Herman Göring........: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

• 
  
  
  • In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)

Peace

All your posts are overlooking that Scott Morrison is a right wing conservative leader. And pointing out that we helped the US in war is just silly when you consider the US war machine is mostly empowered by US Christian voters.

 

[Moz]

Not quite, religion is a catalyst for war and has been through the ages.

Hi
So you think that religion increased the rate of wars in the past. Other than just stating it do you have any reason to believe that religion has played any part that could not have been replaced by nationalism, Ethnicity, xenophobia or any other group identity applicable to the situation. Religion has been a handy tool to use in the past because it is one of the easier to levers to pull but it is by means the only one. The Roman republic and early Imperium did not need religion to whip up the masses for war. Ethnic superiority was more than enough to inspire genocidal action. The Persians and Greeks had no need of religion to fuel their conflicts. Philosophical differences between the Asian and European worldview were more than enough. Today's world seems to be able to generate conflict without having to use the pulpit. There seem to be many catalysts in the tool box.

Do you know of the christian attempts in the middle ages to impose a concept called "the peace of God" the first mass peace movement in world history onto the secular authorities. I get that religion has been used for horrible purposes, i'm not an idiot, but it would be nice if some of the good stuff was acknowledged. It seems to me that this discussion is like all discussions of the past. it's the Kings and wars and nobles and the powerful that get all the attention. What you fail to consider i think is the average person in the pre-modern world who were not into the theological and political bull**** that christendom got up to. To these people it was the lessons of sacrifice, of courage in the face of malevolence, of the need to care for your neighbor and things of that nature that they got from scripture and forced ever so slowly over centuries from the bottom up into the hierarchical power structures of mankind that have brought about many of the better parts of humanity that secular people have appropriated as somehow their discovery. It is no surprise that human rights arose in the west and that is not from the greek philosophical part of our civilisational development.


Peace

 

[Moz]

All your posts are overlooking that Scott Morrison is a right wing conservative leader. And pointing out that we helped the US in war is just silly when you consider the US war machine is mostly empowered by US Christian voters.

Hi
I'm not sure why you would think that left or right come into it. Both sides are the same side in any real analysis of politics.
US war machine is mostly empowered by US Christian voters
This is the exact place that the supposed informed Bahai intellectual structure falls apart. You guys bang on about how Christendom got it wrong and yet you fail to call out Christendom as not true Christians. Anyone claiming to be Christian that votes or that supports war is no Christian.

That Australia has never found a war that it did not want a part of from the Boers until the present belies the claim of peaceful secularism. If Iran or Korea popped Australia would be the first country on board no matter who caused it or if it was unlawful by international law. No moral consideration of the right of the matter from the others perspective would be given. Luck and isolation and abundant resources are the things that make Australia seem peaceful and somewhat stable. it is an illusion.
Peace

 

[ChristineM]

Hi
So you think that religion increased the rate of wars in the past. Other than just stating it do you have any reason to believe that religion has played any part that could not have been replaced by nationalism, Ethnicity, xenophobia or any other group identity applicable to the situation. Religion has been a handy tool to use in the past because it is one of the easier to levers to pull but it is by means the only one. The Roman republic and early Imperium did not need religion to whip up the masses for war. Ethnic superiority was more than enough to inspire genocidal action. The Persians and Greeks had no need of religion to fuel their conflicts. Philosophical differences between the Asian and European worldview were more than enough. Today's world seems to be able to generate conflict without having to use the pulpit. There seem to be many catalysts in the tool box.

Do you know of the christian attempts in the middle ages to impose a concept called "the peace of God" the first mass peace movement in world history onto the secular authorities. I get that religion has been used for horrible purposes, i'm not an idiot, but it would be nice if some of the good stuff was acknowledged. It seems to me that this discussion is like all discussions of the past. it's the Kings and wars and nobles and the powerful that get all the attention. What you fail to consider i think is the average person in the pre-modern world who were not into the theological and political bull**** that christendom got up to. To these people it was the lessons of sacrifice, of courage in the face of malevolence, of the need to care for your neighbor and things of that nature that they got from scripture and forced ever so slowly over centuries from the bottom up into the hierarchical power structures of mankind that have brought about many of the better parts of humanity that secular people have appropriated as somehow their discovery. It is no surprise that human rights arose in the west and that is not from the greek philosophical part of our civilisational development.


Peace

See my list


Do you know that the christian imposing the peace of god go the middle ages was responsible for at least 6 million deaths during the various crusades? All of whom worshiped the same god

Edit : peace of god!!!, Have you actually read the bible?

 

[Moz]

See my list


Do you know that the christian imposing the peace of god go the middle ages was responsible for at least 6 million deaths during the various crusades? All of whom worshiped the same god

Edit : peace of god!!!, Have you actually read the bible?

Fair enough. A black and white issue and without religion we'd have had peace simple as that.

 

[ChristineM]

Fair enough. A black and white issue and without religion we'd have had peace simple as that.

Typical. No, not a binary issue but plenty of the colour of religion

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Countries like Australia prove secularism does not equal communism and other violent antitheisms.

This thread is basically about secularism vs theocracy

Secularism never equals "violent antitheisms."

A secular approach is neutral toward religion. Special punishments and restrictions for religions go just as much against the idea of secularism as special rewards and privileges for religions do.