This makes one wonder...

[Iceweasel]

Catholics and Protestants were killing one another over their religion from 1524 through 1648.

Could you be more specific? I'm not saying you're wrong, plenty of wrongs have been done in the name of religion but there's only one that is still at it today.

European wars of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You apparently didn't read your source.

"The European wars of religion were a series of religious wars waged in Europe from ca. 1524 to 1648, following the onset of the Protestant Reformation in Western and Northern Europe. Although sometimes unconnected, all of these wars were strongly influenced by the religious change of the period, and the conflict and rivalry that it produced. This is not to say that the combatants were neatly or only divided by religion, as they were often not."

 

[Derideo_Te]

Could you be more specific? I'm not saying you're wrong, plenty of wrongs have been done in the name of religion but there's only one that is still at it today.

European wars of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You apparently didn't read your source.

"The European wars of religion were a series of religious wars waged in Europe from ca. 1524 to 1648, following the onset of the Protestant Reformation in Western and Northern Europe. Although sometimes unconnected, all of these wars were strongly influenced by the religious change of the period, and the conflict and rivalry that it produced. This is not to say that the combatants were neatly or only divided by religion, as they were often not."

Apparently you don't comprehend what it is saying.

 

[Iceweasel]

Apparently you don't comprehend what it is saying.

Apparently you don't. What were the principles involved? Your way of thinking is that the Catholics and Protestants were in a religious war in Ireland. It was about power and control, the regions were religiously divided but they weren't in a doctrine struggle. Details matter and often you have to leave the quick and easy access of wikipedia.


Were Disagreements Over Christian Doctrine the Main Cause for European ?Religious Wars? of the 16th and 17th Centuries? | Questions.org
Two well-known examples involved the establishment of Lutheranism and Anglicanism. In the 16th century, Martin Luther’s reasons for breaking with the Catholic Church were theological, but the Reformation would have been quickly crushed if it hadn’t been supported by powerful European rulers whose motivations were primarily political and economic. King Henry VIII of England separated from Rome and formed the Anglican Church for pragmatic, nonreligious reasons—largely due to the refusal of the pope to grant an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. He believed the Catholic Church was interfering with the internal affairs of his kingdom. He also wanted to nationalize the vast holdings of the Catholic Church in England to consolidate his power.

In The Myth of Religious Violence (Oxford Press), William Cavanaugh refers to recent scholarship to show that the underlying causes of the “religious wars” of the 16th and 17th centuries weren’t religious. Cavanaugh includes eight pages of examples, of which the following quotation is only the first:

If there truly were a war of all sects against all, one would expect that war would have broken out soon after Europe split into Catholic and Protestant factions. However, between the time that Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the church door at Wittenberg in 1517 and the outbreak of the first commonly cited religious war—the Schmalkaldic War of 1546–1547—almost thirty years would pass. The Catholic prosecutor of the Schmalkaldic War, Holy Roman emperor Charles V, spent much of the decade following Luther’s excommunication in 1520 at war not against Lutherans, but against the pope. As Richard Dunn points out, “Charles V’s soldiers sacked Rome, not Wittenberg, in 1527, and when the papacy belatedly sponsored a reform program, both the Habsburgs and the Valois refused to endorse much of it, rejecting especially those Trentine decrees which encroached on their sovereign authority.” The wars of the 1540s were part of the ongoing struggle between the pope and the emperor for control over Italy and over the church in German territories (The Myth of Religious Violence, 143-44).

Cavanaugh provides massive documentation showing that rather than the state being the peace-making force that eventually solved the problem of religiously motivated violence, the process of centralizing public authority in a secular state was itself the most significant cause of violence. “There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the transfer of power to the emergent state was a cause, not the solution, to the wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” (ibid., p. 162).

These wars replaced the religion of the church with the religion of the state.

The historical evidence renders . . . the idea that the modern state saved Europe from religious violence . . . unbelievable. State building . . . was a significant cause of the violence. An important aspect of state building was the absorption of the church by the state, which exacerbated and enforced ecclesial differences and therefore contributed to warfare between Catholics and Protestants. In the process, the state did not rein in and tame religion but became itself sacralized. The transfer of power from the church to the state was accompanied by a migration of the holy from church to state (ibid., p. 176).

 

[thereisnospoon]

You didn't refute the facts!

And to be honest I would rather live in a secular nation which was the basis for this nation.

Facts? What facts? Your opinion.
And we don't prove negatives here. Them's the rules.

Historical facts were provided as to the 124 year period when Catholics and Protestants were killing each other over Christianity.

What negatives are you referring to?

"Historical facts were provided as to the 124 year period when Catholics and Protestants were killing each other over Christianity."
Which has absolutely ZERO to do with modern day religious extremism and resulting terrorism.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Apparently you don't comprehend what it is saying.

Apparently you don't. What were the principles involved? Your way of thinking is that the Catholics and Protestants were in a religious war in Ireland. It was about power and control, the regions were religiously divided but they weren't in a doctrine struggle. Details matter and often you have to leave the quick and easy access of wikipedia.


Were Disagreements Over Christian Doctrine the Main Cause for European ?Religious Wars? of the 16th and 17th Centuries? | Questions.org
Two well-known examples involved the establishment of Lutheranism and Anglicanism. In the 16th century, Martin Luther’s reasons for breaking with the Catholic Church were theological, but the Reformation would have been quickly crushed if it hadn’t been supported by powerful European rulers whose motivations were primarily political and economic. King Henry VIII of England separated from Rome and formed the Anglican Church for pragmatic, nonreligious reasons—largely due to the refusal of the pope to grant an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. He believed the Catholic Church was interfering with the internal affairs of his kingdom. He also wanted to nationalize the vast holdings of the Catholic Church in England to consolidate his power.

In The Myth of Religious Violence (Oxford Press), William Cavanaugh refers to recent scholarship to show that the underlying causes of the “religious wars” of the 16th and 17th centuries weren’t religious. Cavanaugh includes eight pages of examples, of which the following quotation is only the first:

If there truly were a war of all sects against all, one would expect that war would have broken out soon after Europe split into Catholic and Protestant factions. However, between the time that Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the church door at Wittenberg in 1517 and the outbreak of the first commonly cited religious war—the Schmalkaldic War of 1546–1547—almost thirty years would pass. The Catholic prosecutor of the Schmalkaldic War, Holy Roman emperor Charles V, spent much of the decade following Luther’s excommunication in 1520 at war not against Lutherans, but against the pope. As Richard Dunn points out, “Charles V’s soldiers sacked Rome, not Wittenberg, in 1527, and when the papacy belatedly sponsored a reform program, both the Habsburgs and the Valois refused to endorse much of it, rejecting especially those Trentine decrees which encroached on their sovereign authority.” The wars of the 1540s were part of the ongoing struggle between the pope and the emperor for control over Italy and over the church in German territories (The Myth of Religious Violence, 143-44).

Cavanaugh provides massive documentation showing that rather than the state being the peace-making force that eventually solved the problem of religiously motivated violence, the process of centralizing public authority in a secular state was itself the most significant cause of violence. “There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the transfer of power to the emergent state was a cause, not the solution, to the wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” (ibid., p. 162).

These wars replaced the religion of the church with the religion of the state.

The historical evidence renders . . . the idea that the modern state saved Europe from religious violence . . . unbelievable. State building . . . was a significant cause of the violence. An important aspect of state building was the absorption of the church by the state, which exacerbated and enforced ecclesial differences and therefore contributed to warfare between Catholics and Protestants. In the process, the state did not rein in and tame religion but became itself sacralized. The transfer of power from the church to the state was accompanied by a migration of the holy from church to state (ibid., p. 176).

Your source has an inherent bias and is therefore not credible wrt to this topic!

 

[Iceweasel]

Your source has an inherent bias and is therefore not credible wrt to this topic!

Translation="I can't refute that level of documentation so I will stuff my head back up my ass."

 

[Derideo_Te]

Facts? What facts? Your opinion.
And we don't prove negatives here. Them's the rules.

Historical facts were provided as to the 124 year period when Catholics and Protestants were killing each other over Christianity.

What negatives are you referring to?

"Historical facts were provided as to the 124 year period when Catholics and Protestants were killing each other over Christianity."
Which has absolutely ZERO to do with modern day religious extremism and resulting terrorism.

The facts provided refuted the fallacious allegation that Christians had not been involved in religious wars during the last 1000 years. Since that was the foundation upon which IW was basing his entire position and it is factually wrong his position is null and void.

Your attempt to move the goalposts doesn't negate that IW's allegation has been established to be utterly baseless.

If you want to debate "modern day religious extremism and resulting terrorism" you are going to have to define your terms more specifically. Exactly what period do you consider to be the "modern day"? What constitutes "religious extremism" and how exactly do you define "terrorism"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your source has an inherent bias and is therefore not credible wrt to this topic!

Translation="I can't refute that level of documentation so I will stuff my head back up my ass."

Your need to resort to puerile insults is a tacit concession that you cannot defend your position with hard facts, logic and reason. Better luck next time and have a nice day.

 

[Iceweasel]

Historical facts were provided as to the 124 year period when Catholics and Protestants were killing each other over Christianity.

What negatives are you referring to?

"Historical facts were provided as to the 124 year period when Catholics and Protestants were killing each other over Christianity."
Which has absolutely ZERO to do with modern day religious extremism and resulting terrorism.

The facts provided refuted the fallacious allegation that Christians had not been involved in religious wars during the last 1000 years. Since that was the foundation upon which IW was basing his entire position and it is factually wrong his position is null and void.

Your attempt to move the goalposts doesn't negate that IW's allegation has been established to be utterly baseless.

If you want to debate "modern day religious extremism and resulting terrorism" you are going to have to define your terms more specifically. Exactly what period do you consider to be the "modern day"? What constitutes "religious extremism" and how exactly do you define "terrorism"?

The facts you "established" was a wikilink that didn't even really defend your position.

Your source has an inherent bias and is therefore not credible wrt to this topic!

Translation="I can't refute that level of documentation so I will stuff my head back up my ass."

Your need to resort to puerile insults is a tacit concession that you cannot defend your position with hard facts, logic and reason. Better luck next time and have a nice day.

I did defend my position. You couldn't deal with it so you dismissed it. That's dishonest so now you want to play the moral and intellectual high ground? It doesn't work that way.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"Historical facts were provided as to the 124 year period when Catholics and Protestants were killing each other over Christianity."
Which has absolutely ZERO to do with modern day religious extremism and resulting terrorism.

The facts provided refuted the fallacious allegation that Christians had not been involved in religious wars during the last 1000 years. Since that was the foundation upon which IW was basing his entire position and it is factually wrong his position is null and void.

Your attempt to move the goalposts doesn't negate that IW's allegation has been established to be utterly baseless.

If you want to debate "modern day religious extremism and resulting terrorism" you are going to have to define your terms more specifically. Exactly what period do you consider to be the "modern day"? What constitutes "religious extremism" and how exactly do you define "terrorism"?

The facts you "established" was a wikilink that didn't even really defend your position.

Translation="I can't refute that level of documentation so I will stuff my head back up my ass."

Your need to resort to puerile insults is a tacit concession that you cannot defend your position with hard facts, logic and reason. Better luck next time and have a nice day.

I did defend my position. You couldn't deal with it so you dismissed it. That's dishonest so now you want to play the moral and intellectual high ground? It doesn't work that way.

Your "defense" has zero credibility. You need to find an unbiased source. You tacitly admitted that you couldn't by resorting to insults. You opted to take the low road and now you are whining because you put yourself in that position. That is not my problem.

 

[Iceweasel]

Your "defense" has zero credibility. You need to find an unbiased source. You tacitly admitted that you couldn't by resorting to insults. You opted to take the low road and now you are whining because you put yourself in that position. That is not my problem.

Your statement is one that thinks he can puff himself up and demand what sources are acceptable and which aren't. And while he used a quick wikipedia link! And one that didn't even make the case.

If a source is wrong and you dispute it, you show where it's wrong. Do people normally fall for your bullshit?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your "defense" has zero credibility. You need to find an unbiased source. You tacitly admitted that you couldn't by resorting to insults. You opted to take the low road and now you are whining because you put yourself in that position. That is not my problem.

Your statement is one that thinks he can puff himself up and demand what sources are acceptable and which aren't. And while he used a quick wikipedia link! And one that didn't even make the case.

If a source is wrong and you dispute it, you show where it's wrong. Do people normally fall for your bullshit?

Your source is RBC Ministeries which has a religious agenda as stated right on the top of the webpage your link goes to. That agenda includes rewriting the history of Christianity. (The author of the article you quoted has also written in support of intolerance.) Furthermore he quotes someone making an utterly false equivalence and an equally erroneous conclusion which all goes to the motivation of whitewashing history.

Obviously you "fall" for what was written in your link but others prefer to have facts that don't come with an inbuilt bias towards a religious agenda.

You still need to come up with an unbiased source to support your position. So far you haven't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Neither do 99% of muslims.

True, 99% of muslims are descent folk. The question is what makes the 1% who would be willing to put on a vest packed with explosives tick?

I would to see the source for which 99% is claimed. Regardless, for those of us who have suffered at the hands of these scumbags percentage points do not mean shit!

Don't always believe statistics, they will tell you that the average human has one breast and one testicle.

 

[PoliticalChic]

With all due respect, we don't go running around with suicide vests strapped to our bodies, and blowing ourselves up.

True, instead we pick up a gun and start shooting people. Deaths by terrorism are on a par with being struck by lightning.

Guns, cars, smoking, obesity kill off way more people each year.

So what makes Americans "tick" so that they overlook the self inflicted carnage on our doorsteps and point a finger at others?

And even then - most acts of terrorism in the US are not done by Muslims so, if by chance you miss being struck by lightening and get hit by a terrorist instead...it's likely to be a Christian (given the demographics here).

What a moron.


Now, if you promise to go away quietly, I have a friend who can get you a job in Tehran at the ‘Century Seven’ realtors.

 

[Iceweasel]

Your source is RBC Ministeries which has a religious agenda as stated right on the top of the webpage your link goes to.

That doesn't make them liars or wrong. The content makes them right or wrong.

That agenda includes rewriting the history of Christianity. (The author of the article you quoted has also written in support of intolerance.)

So ministries are in the business of rewritting history? Interesting. Can you back that up. I mean with something other than a braindead wikilink. I have no idea what you find intolerant, you don't say but it took several posts to figure out what wars you were talking about.

Furthermore he quotes someone making an utterly false equivalence and an equally erroneous conclusion which all goes to the motivation of whitewashing history.

Obviously you "fall" for what was written in your link but others prefer to have facts that don't come with an inbuilt bias towards a religious agenda.

You still need to come up with an unbiased source to support your position. So far you haven't.

You haven't offered any criticism of the article so far besides bigotry. That isn't much of a rebuttal.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Historical facts were provided as to the 124 year period when Catholics and Protestants were killing each other over Christianity.

What negatives are you referring to?

"Historical facts were provided as to the 124 year period when Catholics and Protestants were killing each other over Christianity."
Which has absolutely ZERO to do with modern day religious extremism and resulting terrorism.

The facts provided refuted the fallacious allegation that Christians had not been involved in religious wars during the last 1000 years. Since that was the foundation upon which IW was basing his entire position and it is factually wrong his position is null and void.

Your attempt to move the goalposts doesn't negate that IW's allegation has been established to be utterly baseless.

If you want to debate "modern day religious extremism and resulting terrorism" you are going to have to define your terms more specifically. Exactly what period do you consider to be the "modern day"? What constitutes "religious extremism" and how exactly do you define "terrorism"?

No one ever mentioned "wars"...You decided to take the gist of this thread and twist it into how you wanted it to proceed.
I never mentioned 1000 years. I don't have a dog in your fight with the OP.
If you'd look back at my OP, you'll note that the subject matter is 'converting to a particular religion and taking said conversion to an extreme view and doing it with violent intents".
Modern day means just that.
You know damned well the definition of religious extremism. Don't try playing mind checkers here. This is simple stuff.
And unless your address is "under a rock" you are well aware of what constitutes terrorism.
Enough nonsense.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your source is RBC Ministeries which has a religious agenda as stated right on the top of the webpage your link goes to.

That doesn't make them liars or wrong. The content makes them right or wrong.

That agenda includes rewriting the history of Christianity. (The author of the article you quoted has also written in support of intolerance.)

So ministries are in the business of rewritting history? Interesting. Can you back that up. I mean with something other than a braindead wikilink. I have no idea what you find intolerant, you don't say but it took several posts to figure out what wars you were talking about.

Furthermore he quotes someone making an utterly false equivalence and an equally erroneous conclusion which all goes to the motivation of whitewashing history.

Obviously you "fall" for what was written in your link but others prefer to have facts that don't come with an inbuilt bias towards a religious agenda.

You still need to come up with an unbiased source to support your position. So far you haven't.

You haven't offered any criticism of the article so far besides bigotry. That isn't much of a rebuttal.

So now you have established that you have a comprehension problem exacerbated by an inability to apply logic and reason. No point in wasting any further time and effort with someone who doesn't understands the basics of debating and lacks the skills to engage in them. Have a nice day.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"Historical facts were provided as to the 124 year period when Catholics and Protestants were killing each other over Christianity."
Which has absolutely ZERO to do with modern day religious extremism and resulting terrorism.

The facts provided refuted the fallacious allegation that Christians had not been involved in religious wars during the last 1000 years. Since that was the foundation upon which IW was basing his entire position and it is factually wrong his position is null and void.

Your attempt to move the goalposts doesn't negate that IW's allegation has been established to be utterly baseless.

If you want to debate "modern day religious extremism and resulting terrorism" you are going to have to define your terms more specifically. Exactly what period do you consider to be the "modern day"? What constitutes "religious extremism" and how exactly do you define "terrorism"?

No one ever mentioned "wars"...You decided to take the gist of this thread and twist it into how you wanted it to proceed.
I never mentioned 1000 years. I don't have a dog in your fight with the OP.
If you'd look back at my OP, you'll note that the subject matter is 'converting to a particular religion and taking said conversion to an extreme view and doing it with violent intents".
Modern day means just that.
You know damned well the definition of religious extremism. Don't try playing mind checkers here. This is simple stuff.
And unless your address is "under a rock" you are well aware of what constitutes terrorism.
Enough nonsense.

Bzzzt wrong!

I suggest that you read IW's post #49.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8922113-post49.html

Christians, or Catholics, haven't warred over religion for at least 1,000 years.

Furthermore since you refuse to actually define your own allegation you have just conceded your own position! Have a nice day!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Your source is RBC Ministeries which has a religious agenda as stated right on the top of the webpage your link goes to.

That doesn't make them liars or wrong. The content makes them right or wrong.

That agenda includes rewriting the history of Christianity. (The author of the article you quoted has also written in support of intolerance.)

So ministries are in the business of rewritting history? Interesting. Can you back that up. I mean with something other than a braindead wikilink. I have no idea what you find intolerant, you don't say but it took several posts to figure out what wars you were talking about.

Furthermore he quotes someone making an utterly false equivalence and an equally erroneous conclusion which all goes to the motivation of whitewashing history.

Obviously you "fall" for what was written in your link but others prefer to have facts that don't come with an inbuilt bias towards a religious agenda.

You still need to come up with an unbiased source to support your position. So far you haven't.

You haven't offered any criticism of the article so far besides bigotry. That isn't much of a rebuttal.

That's it...When the facts don't fit your narrative, attack the source.
Lame.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The facts provided refuted the fallacious allegation that Christians had not been involved in religious wars during the last 1000 years. Since that was the foundation upon which IW was basing his entire position and it is factually wrong his position is null and void.

Your attempt to move the goalposts doesn't negate that IW's allegation has been established to be utterly baseless.

If you want to debate "modern day religious extremism and resulting terrorism" you are going to have to define your terms more specifically. Exactly what period do you consider to be the "modern day"? What constitutes "religious extremism" and how exactly do you define "terrorism"?

No one ever mentioned "wars"...You decided to take the gist of this thread and twist it into how you wanted it to proceed.
I never mentioned 1000 years. I don't have a dog in your fight with the OP.
If you'd look back at my OP, you'll note that the subject matter is 'converting to a particular religion and taking said conversion to an extreme view and doing it with violent intents".
Modern day means just that.
You know damned well the definition of religious extremism. Don't try playing mind checkers here. This is simple stuff.
And unless your address is "under a rock" you are well aware of what constitutes terrorism.
Enough nonsense.

Bzzzt wrong!

I suggest that you read IW's post #49.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8922113-post49.html

Christians, or Catholics, haven't warred over religion for at least 1,000 years.

Furthermore since you refuse to actually define your own allegation you have just conceded your own position! Have a nice day!

Now why would I want to waste keystrokes posting definitions of terms of which you are well aware?
Look, this is pointless. You are obviously a sympathizer to Islam. The latest addition to the long list of liberal protected classes.
You are arguing in circles. And that indicates you are arguing just to argue.
Now you will reply with some silly snarky comeback thinking you're the smartest person in the room. Go on now. You cannot help yourself. You're a lib....And you MUST have the last word.
Have at it.