Sudan Massacre

[pood]

Religion is almost always used as a prop, especially for wars.

Sure, but the point stands that none of the wars you cite were fought because of Christianity. Germany’s attack on Poland was an attack by an ostensibly Christian nation on a Catholic nation. And?

Nothing you have posted rebuts my observation "In the 20th century, one would be hard pressed to deny that Christian countries weren’t the most dangerous countries." That statement does not mean no other type of country is not dangerous.

The point that stands that none of this warmaking was because of Christianity, but because of power politics, so I do not see what point you are trying to make.

 

[laughing dog]

Religion is almost always used as a prop, especially for wars.

Sure, but the point stands that none of the wars you cite were fought because of Christianity. Germany’s attack on Poland was an attack by an ostensibly Christian nation on a Catholic nation. And?

Nothing you have posted rebuts my observation "In the 20th century, one would be hard pressed to deny that Christian countries weren’t the most dangerous countries." That statement does not mean no other type of country is not dangerous.

The point that stands that none of this warmaking was because of Christianity, but because of power politics, so I do not see what point you are trying to make.

Fair enough, even though I disagree.

 

[pood]

Religion is almost always used as a prop, especially for wars.

Sure, but the point stands that none of the wars you cite were fought because of Christianity. Germany’s attack on Poland was an attack by an ostensibly Christian nation on a Catholic nation. And?

Nothing you have posted rebuts my observation "In the 20th century, one would be hard pressed to deny that Christian countries weren’t the most dangerous countries." That statement does not mean no other type of country is not dangerous.

The point that stands that none of this warmaking was because of Christianity, but because of power politics, so I do not see what point you are trying to make.

Fair enough, even though I disagree.

Are you saying you think the cause of World War II was Christianity? I think it was Hitler, who was not a Christian but pretended to be; Mussolini, who was a fascist, and the military dictatorship of Japan, which had nothing to do with Christianity.

 

[pood]

Of course soldiers fighting in the war leaned on their respective faiths to keep up morale, but that is a different thing.

 

[laughing dog]

Religion is almost always used as a prop, especially for wars.

Sure, but the point stands that none of the wars you cite were fought because of Christianity. Germany’s attack on Poland was an attack by an ostensibly Christian nation on a Catholic nation. And?

Nothing you have posted rebuts my observation "In the 20th century, one would be hard pressed to deny that Christian countries weren’t the most dangerous countries." That statement does not mean no other type of country is not dangerous.

The point that stands that none of this warmaking was because of Christianity, but because of power politics, so I do not see what point you are trying to make.

Fair enough, even though I disagree.

Are you saying you think the cause of World War II was Christianity? I think it was Hitler, who was not a Christian but pretended to be;

No I am not. A war does not have be a religious crusade to be facilitated or driven by religious beliefs. The European Axis powers - who started the WWII in Europe -were very much traditional conservative Christian nations. That heritage and history is part of their culture, which helped the Germans and the Italians to follow and obey their brutal leaders.

Russia is also one of them.

Mussolini, who was a fascist, and the military dictatorship of Japan, which had nothing to do with Christianity.

Mussolini was an avowed atheist before he took power. Once he rose to lead Italy, he harnessed the power of the Catholic Church to help him govern.

 

[pood]

Religion is almost always used as a prop, especially for wars.

Sure, but the point stands that none of the wars you cite were fought because of Christianity. Germany’s attack on Poland was an attack by an ostensibly Christian nation on a Catholic nation. And?

Nothing you have posted rebuts my observation "In the 20th century, one would be hard pressed to deny that Christian countries weren’t the most dangerous countries." That statement does not mean no other type of country is not dangerous.

The point that stands that none of this warmaking was because of Christianity, but because of power politics, so I do not see what point you are trying to make.

Fair enough, even though I disagree.

Are you saying you think the cause of World War II was Christianity? I think it was Hitler, who was not a Christian but pretended to be;

No I am not. A war does not have be a religious crusade to be facilitated or driven by religious beliefs. The European Axis powers - who started the WWII in Europe -were very much traditional conservative Christian nations. That heritage and history is part of their culture, which helped the Germans and the Italians to follow and obey their brutal leaders.

Russia is also one of them.

Mussolini, who was a fascist, and the military dictatorship of Japan, which had nothing to do with Christianity.

Mussolini was an avowed atheist before he took power. Once he rose to lead Italy, he harnessed the power of the Catholic Church to help him govern.

Hitler and Mussolini despised Christianity. Japan was not Christian at all.

Yet you seem to be saying that Hitler and Mussolini, even though they despised Christianity, could only have risen to power because of Christianity and could not have led their nations into war except for their Christian cultural heritage. You have not even begun to make this case. Of course in the case of imperial Japan Christianity could not have been a factor at all.

You could perhaps argue that religion in general, with its doctrines, superstitions and various hierarchies, make it easier for people like Hitler and Mussolini to assume power and lead people into war because their polity was conditioned to be sheeple. Is that your claim? But if this is true, it is not particular to Christianity.

 

[pood]

Mussolini was an avowed atheist before he took power. Once he rose to lead Italy, he harnessed the power of the Catholic Church to help him govern.

Already noted this. This does not make the Catholic Church responsible for his aggressions against Italy’s neighbors. It just makes the church accommodationist cowards.

 

[pood]

Non abbiamo bisogno

 

[pood]

Fascism derives from the ancient Roman fasces, a symbol of power and authority. The megalomaniacal Mussolini wanted to restore the Roman Empire, pre-Christ. Both he and Hitler despised Christianity. To blame Christianity for World War II is, let’s face it, ridiculous.

 

[laughing dog]

Religion is almost always used as a prop, especially for wars.

Sure, but the point stands that none of the wars you cite were fought because of Christianity. Germany’s attack on Poland was an attack by an ostensibly Christian nation on a Catholic nation. And?

Nothing you have posted rebuts my observation "In the 20th century, one would be hard pressed to deny that Christian countries weren’t the most dangerous countries." That statement does not mean no other type of country is not dangerous.

The point that stands that none of this warmaking was because of Christianity, but because of power politics, so I do not see what point you are trying to make.

Fair enough, even though I disagree.

Are you saying you think the cause of World War II was Christianity? I think it was Hitler, who was not a Christian but pretended to be;

No I am not. A war does not have be a religious crusade to be facilitated or driven by religious beliefs. The European Axis powers - who started the WWII in Europe -were very much traditional conservative Christian nations. That heritage and history is part of their culture, which helped the Germans and the Italians to follow and obey their brutal leaders.

Russia is also one of them.

Mussolini, who was a fascist, and the military dictatorship of Japan, which had nothing to do with Christianity.

Mussolini was an avowed atheist before he took power. Once he rose to lead Italy, he harnessed the power of the Catholic Church to help him govern.

Hitler and Mussolini despised Christianity.

So?

Japan was not Christian at all.

So?

Yet you seem to be saying that Hitler and Mussolini, even though they despised Christianity, could only have risen to power because of Christianity and could not have led their nations into war except for their Christian cultural heritage. You have not even begun to make this case.

Why would I make a case for your straw man?

Of course in the case of imperial Japan Christianity could not have been a factor at all.

Yup, though why you keep bringing up Japan is s mystery.

 

[pood]

Religion is almost always used as a prop, especially for wars.

Sure, but the point stands that none of the wars you cite were fought because of Christianity. Germany’s attack on Poland was an attack by an ostensibly Christian nation on a Catholic nation. And?

Nothing you have posted rebuts my observation "In the 20th century, one would be hard pressed to deny that Christian countries weren’t the most dangerous countries." That statement does not mean no other type of country is not dangerous.

The point that stands that none of this warmaking was because of Christianity, but because of power politics, so I do not see what point you are trying to make.

Fair enough, even though I disagree.

Are you saying you think the cause of World War II was Christianity? I think it was Hitler, who was not a Christian but pretended to be;

No I am not. A war does not have be a religious crusade to be facilitated or driven by religious beliefs. The European Axis powers - who started the WWII in Europe -were very much traditional conservative Christian nations. That heritage and history is part of their culture, which helped the Germans and the Italians to follow and obey their brutal leaders.

Russia is also one of them.

Mussolini, who was a fascist, and the military dictatorship of Japan, which had nothing to do with Christianity.

Mussolini was an avowed atheist before he took power. Once he rose to lead Italy, he harnessed the power of the Catholic Church to help him govern.

Hitler and Mussolini despised Christianity.

So?

Japan was not Christian at all.

So?

Yet you seem to be saying that Hitler and Mussolini, even though they despised Christianity, could only have risen to power because of Christianity and could not have led their nations into war except for their Christian cultural heritage. You have not even begun to make this case.

Why would I make a case for your straw man?

Of course in the case of imperial Japan Christianity could not have been a factor at all.

Yup, though why you keep bringing up Japan is s mystery.

I have no idea how the above is remotely responsive to anything I wrote. What straw man?

What is your actual argument? You connect Christianity to the wars of the 20th century. Please spell out how so in detail.

 

[pood]

Hitler and Mussolini both despised Christianity and were Fascists. Imperial Japan was non-Christian. The Vatican condemned Mussolini in 1931 but later made a cowardly accommodation with him, but of course this does not mean that the Vatican was responsible for Mussolini’s aggressions.

So again, what is your actual argument here?

 

[laughing dog]

Religion is almost always used as a prop, especially for wars.

Sure, but the point stands that none of the wars you cite were fought because of Christianity. Germany’s attack on Poland was an attack by an ostensibly Christian nation on a Catholic nation. And?

Nothing you have posted rebuts my observation "In the 20th century, one would be hard pressed to deny that Christian countries weren’t the most dangerous countries." That statement does not mean no other type of country is not dangerous.

The point that stands that none of this warmaking was because of Christianity, but because of power politics, so I do not see what point you are trying to make.

Fair enough, even though I disagree.

Are you saying you think the cause of World War II was Christianity? I think it was Hitler, who was not a Christian but pretended to be;

No I am not. A war does not have be a religious crusade to be facilitated or driven by religious beliefs. The European Axis powers - who started the WWII in Europe -were very much traditional conservative Christian nations. That heritage and history is part of their culture, which helped the Germans and the Italians to follow and obey their brutal leaders.

Russia is also one of them.

Mussolini, who was a fascist, and the military dictatorship of Japan, which had nothing to do with Christianity.

Mussolini was an avowed atheist before he took power. Once he rose to lead Italy, he harnessed the power of the Catholic Church to help him govern.

Hitler and Mussolini despised Christianity.

So?

Japan was not Christian at all.

So?

Yet you seem to be saying that Hitler and Mussolini, even though they despised Christianity, could only have risen to power because of Christianity and could not have led their nations into war except for their Christian cultural heritage. You have not even begun to make this case.

Why would I make a case for your straw man?

Of course in the case of imperial Japan Christianity could not have been a factor at all.

Yup, though why you keep bringing up Japan is s mystery.

I have no idea how the above is remotely responsive to anything I wrote.

Fair enough.

What straw man?

See bolded above.

 

[pood]

Religion is almost always used as a prop, especially for wars.

Sure, but the point stands that none of the wars you cite were fought because of Christianity. Germany’s attack on Poland was an attack by an ostensibly Christian nation on a Catholic nation. And?

Nothing you have posted rebuts my observation "In the 20th century, one would be hard pressed to deny that Christian countries weren’t the most dangerous countries." That statement does not mean no other type of country is not dangerous.

The point that stands that none of this warmaking was because of Christianity, but because of power politics, so I do not see what point you are trying to make.

Fair enough, even though I disagree.

Are you saying you think the cause of World War II was Christianity? I think it was Hitler, who was not a Christian but pretended to be;

No I am not. A war does not have be a religious crusade to be facilitated or driven by religious beliefs. The European Axis powers - who started the WWII in Europe -were very much traditional conservative Christian nations. That heritage and history is part of their culture, which helped the Germans and the Italians to follow and obey their brutal leaders.

Russia is also one of them.

Mussolini, who was a fascist, and the military dictatorship of Japan, which had nothing to do with Christianity.

Mussolini was an avowed atheist before he took power. Once he rose to lead Italy, he harnessed the power of the Catholic Church to help him govern.

Hitler and Mussolini despised Christianity.

So?

Japan was not Christian at all.

So?

Yet you seem to be saying that Hitler and Mussolini, even though they despised Christianity, could only have risen to power because of Christianity and could not have led their nations into war except for their Christian cultural heritage. You have not even begun to make this case.

Why would I make a case for your straw man?

Of course in the case of imperial Japan Christianity could not have been a factor at all.

Yup, though why you keep bringing up Japan is s mystery.

I have no idea how the above is remotely responsive to anything I wrote.

Fair enough.

What straw man?

See bolded above.

OK. So you are NOT saying that. That was just a speculation on my part, not a straw man, because I honestly do not understand what you are arguing for.

If you are not arguing for the bolded bit above, then what are you arguing for? I am genuinely stumped.

 

[laughing dog]

I am genuinely stumped.

Based on my understanding of history, it is my opinion that kn general, Christian nations were more dangerous to world than Islamic countries during the 20th century based on them starting WWI and WWII in Europe, and their willingness to violently intervene in 3rd world countries/colonies. This dangerous potential is exhibited in this century as well.

In my opinion. Islamic countries are more dangerous in general to their citizens than Christian countries.

 

[pood]

I am genuinely stumped.

Based on my understanding of history, it is my opinion that kn general, Christian nations were more dangerous to world than Islamic countries during the 20th century based on them starting WWI and WWII in Europe, and their willingness to violently intervene in 3rd world countries/colonies. This dangerous potential is exhibited in this century as well.

In my opinion. Islamic countries are more dangerous in general to their citizens than Christian countries.

I do not understand how you think that certain nations (but not others) that were predominantly Christian started 20th century wars because of Christianity. This seems to be your implication, but clearly this was not the case. If it is not the case that you think these wars were started because of Christianity, then I again have no idea what your point is, except to slur Christians. Note that I am an atheist.

 

[pood]

Maybe you are saying that “true Christians,” whatever that means, adhering to supposed Christian values, would never have let people like Hitler or Mussolini come to power in the first place? I am spitballing here because your argument remains opaque rather than transparent.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am genuinely stumped.

Based on my understanding of history, it is my opinion that kn general, Christian nations were more dangerous to world than Islamic countries during the 20th century based on them starting WWI and WWII in Europe, and their willingness to violently intervene in 3rd world countries/colonies. This dangerous potential is exhibited in this century as well.

In my opinion. Islamic countries are more dangerous in general to their citizens than Christian countries.

I do not understand how you think that certain nations (but not others) that were predominantly Christian started 20th century wars because of Christianity. This seems to be your implication, but clearly this was not the case. If it is not the case that you think these wars were started because of Christianity, then I again have no idea what your point is, except to slur Christians. Note that I am an atheist.

I have traced this discussion all the way back to here:

.... Whether you consider it against the core teachings of the religions or not, I think it's willfully blind to look at the state of islam-dominated countries versus christian-dominated countries and come to the conclusion that they're equally dangerous.

Russia is a Christian country. I happen to think it is more dangerous than any Islam country. Something tells me I am not alone in that view.

In the 20th century, one would be hard pressed to deny that Christian countries weren’t the most dangerous countries.

Islamic countries may be more dangerous to their own population compared to Christian countries now, but European Christian countries and the USA are more dangerous to their regions.

I have highlighted what I think is the relevant context to LD's post. Emily's proposition is that Islam-dominated countries are more dangerous than Christian-dominated countries. When you look at the phrasing of what she prefaced this proposition with, i.e. "[w]hether you consider it against the core teachings of the religions or not...," this appears to mean ignoring the issue of whether one thinks Christianity or Islam is the cause of the danger....look at the correlation. OR at least one can interpret the bold preface to the claim in that way. Perhaps this isn't what Emily intended--perhaps she intended to mean that the correlation is so strong and obvious that one can neglect what Toni (whom she was writing to) claims she thinks she knows about the cause.

Either way of interpretation, LD's response is strictly about the data, not the question of causal relations. Perhaps you read Emily's post differently and therefore thought LD's response was addressing the possible causal interpretation portion.

 

[pood]

Well, correlation is not causation.

I still don’t get what LD is arguing for. If Christianity is correlated with but not causative of the wars of the 20th century then so what? I am correlated with but not causative of tonight’s shitty weather, with three inches of snow (white shit or celestial dandruff as I call this crap) in the forecast.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Maybe you are saying that “true Christians,” whatever that means, adhering to supposed Christian values, would never have let people like Hitler or Mussolini come to power in the first place? I am spitballing here because your argument remains opaque rather than transparent.

"True Christians" would have opposed Hitler. Socialists opposed him, so I guess that they could be considered true Christians (even if many of them may have been atheists). Hitler was a theist. Also Hitler's hatred of Jews came from centuries of European Christian hatred of Jews. He read some anti-Semitic pamphlets after WWI that radicalised his beliefs.