Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Religion & War

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Laura005 View Post

    Very thoughtful reply. This is what my feeling, in general, was as well. I think "element" is a good word for it. For example, even if Germany's impetus for WWII was economic, they certainly used Christianity to unify their base against the Jews and generate a general sense of justification in their persecution.
    As far as I am aware, they did not use Christianity as an argument. They used Jews (more the race than the religion) as scapegoats to rally support for their expansionary ambitions. They targeted Sinti and Roma in the same way. They, just as easily, referred to Slavs (that are mostly Orthodox and Roman Catholics) as Untermenschen.

    Jews have been persecuted for a long time. Mostly, that has been for economic reasons whilst using the flag of religion to justify it. Whereas Christians were not allowed to charge interest on loans, Jews could. Rather hypocritically, Christians were very happy to borrow money at interest from Jews to finance their enterprises or expeditions. When their enterprises went belly-up and they had to repay their loans, It was all too easy to blame the person that they owed the money. By getting rid of that person, the problem would disappear. That is the moment when Christians used the religion argument. It never arose when they were looking for someone to finance their enterprises and expeditions.

    There is not much unity in Christianity either. Germany, at the time, was a mixture of Protestant and Catholic Christianity. Those religions do not maintained very amiable relations in the past. And I am referring to Protestantism as a religion, whereas it is not a religion at all, but a blanket term for a wide range of Christian religions that mostly share being non-Catholic.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Boliches View Post
      They used Jews ...
      ​Really? Easier to use Roger Carmel than a Jew.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Laura005 View Post
        For example, even if Germany's impetus for WWII was economic, they certainly used Christianity to unify their base against the Jews and generate a general sense of justification in their persecution.
        I have never heard somebody saying something like this, not a teacher and also no older (German) person who lived during that time. Nobody ever mentioned religion in connection with the last war or anti-Jewish propaganda in whatever direction. Is this your personal assumption or is this taught in your schools?

        Originally posted by Boliches View Post
        As far as I am aware, they did not use Christianity as an argument. They used Jews (more the race than the religion) as scapegoats to rally support for their expansionary ambitions. They targeted Sinti and Roma in the same way. They, just as easily, referred to Slavs (that are mostly Orthodox and Roman Catholics) as Untermenschen.
        exactly this. It all based on racial idiology and not religious idiology.
        Last edited by Suna123; 10-12-2018, 03:52 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Laura005 View Post

          ... This is what my feeling, in general, was as well. I think "element" is a good word for [religion being an element in wars]...
          "Element". That's a term I can live with. Europe's Religion Wars were between different religions (Catholicism & Protestantism) but were also driven by more practical reasons as well: money, territory, power.



          Comment


          • #20
            The main causes of war are mostly economic gain, territorial gain and wish to have influence and power. When a territoty gets conquered, the inhabitants of the territory are usually forced into a religion of those who conquer. We have very good examples of it concerning the spread of Islam for example.

            There were also civil wars, revolutionary wars.

            Religion in some wars was used as a tool for the blind masses of followers to justify the ambitions of the conquerors to get power, land and gain.

            Comment


            • #21
              A not so well constructed and worded OP. I'll demonstrate why as well and additionally show the effect of constructing writing on hand-held devices...

              Originally posted by Laura005 View Post
              Throughout recorded history (present included) these two appear hand in hand.
              "appear hand in hand" is an weak formulation whose meaning could be either "coincidental" or "causal". Given the OP's final question's very causal nature - read "breed" in the 3rd sentence of the OP - then it is extremely poor phrasing. Even if "hand in hand" were used as something causal, it could be implying a causal chain of religions -> war -> amplifying religious belief and so on.

              To make it much clearer, the OP could have written something along these lines: "Throughout recorded history (including the present), systemised belief in supernatural deities has lead to war."

              Originally posted by Laura005 View Post
              Some look at it as Good vs. Evil, but I shudder to classify or paint an entire populations as good or evil based on their religion.
              A random thought put in by the OP between the first and last sentence which completely kills connectivity and flow between the first and last sentence - the question being asked by the OP.

              This looks more like an introductory sentence. If the OP poster so desperately wanted to use it in the OP, there needs to be a linking sentence between it and the modified former 1st sentence. I'll leave that as an exercise

              "an entire populations" is a very common grammatical mistake which tends to manifest itself when writing on mobile devices - even for native speakers. More about mobile devices a bit later on.

              Originally posted by Laura005 View Post
              So why does the institution of religion (in general) breed so much violence?
              So here, we have the question as the 3rd sentence of the OP. Now, is the OP talking about "violence" or "war" as the title of the OP states? While "war" and "violence" might be perhaps in some aspects synonymous, they are however two rather distinct words.

              In general, a very sloppy and poorly written OP. On the other hand, the OP sometimes demonstrated better coherence and organisation in other posts she has written. It comes down to the platform you are composing your posts on and the substance of the post. For stuff that doesn't require much thinking, you can stream it out. For things that require some thought and the editing of ideas, a tiny screen surface just doesn't cut it.

              The rather poor excuse for an OP all came down to composing the OP on a mobile device rather than on a bigger screen. With mobile devices, you can't really see all the sentences together. You need to see the connections between the different sentences on one surface and thereby better determine the flow and construction of the writing in general. Furthermore, you'd significantly reduce grammatical errors such as "an entire populations" when you go over a text as a whole several times.

              Reading anything off a mobile device is another topic altogether... If you want serious comprehension, just don't bother.

              Responding to Ascertained Topic Intended by OP:


              As for a specific topic "Does Religion Lead to War" (which I guess is what the OP was aiming for...).

              No, not always. Belief systems defined as religions such as "Islam" most definitely lead to war and aggression from its true believer followers. Crystal clear if you have happened to have examined the Quran and the Sahih Ahadith in any depth.

              Now, religions - even if they have no explicitly violent aspects in their belief system - also lead to war. Here's why. Religions lead to populations with completely suppressed critical thinking skills and thereby are easily manipulated. People bludgeoned into never questioning anything can be lead into just about anything.

              On the other hand, religion as a factor in war can be more coincidental rather than causal as very well illustrated by other posters who showed conclusively that race rather than religious affiliation was the factor in who the Nazis chose to fight and murder.

              Furthermore, it can be added that Jews who had converted to Christianity were also getting murdered by the Nazis in their war against the Untermenschen.




              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
                A not so well constructed and worded OP. I'll demonstrate why as well and additionally show the effect of constructing writing on hand-held devices...
                You mostly demonstrated once again that you’re an angry nit picker. An excellent demonstration of contempt for others as well.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by RogerCarmel View Post
                  You mostly demonstrated once again that you’re an angry nit picker.
                  Ummmmm no. If any of my students wrote something 1/2 as bad as that, I'd throw it back at them and tell them to come back with it rewritten - plus at least some hints how to do it. Oh, by the way, my students are not native English speakers.

                  Come to think of it, just about every person on the forum writes better topics than that OP. The OP had claimed to have had "experience in other forums" - but wasn't showing.

                  I'll say one thing though - the OP actually wrote a topic. Where are your OPs?

                  It's always "nitpicking" or "pendant" when the facts roll you over now, isn't it boy?

                  Originally posted by RogerCarmel View Post
                  An excellent demonstration of contempt for others as well.
                  Ummmm no.

                  Topics likes these are contempt:

                  http://forum.interpals.net/forum/int...s-of-interpals

                  http://forum.interpals.net/forum/int...vs-super-users

                  You parasitic inability to contribute to writing forum OPs is contempt - in spite of close to 3000 posts.

                  It's especially contempt from you given that most of your posts are full of shit such as the unsubstantiated verbal masturbation of this post of yours.

                  There's contempt in your outward pretenses of being "polite" when you write hypocritical shit like this:

                  Originally posted by RogerCarmel View Post
                  Most people have never bothered to read Darwin even though they hold him up as a prophet of Truth. Perhaps you have read The Descent of Man but it's unlikely that Anus321 has, so I'll post this snippet from Darwin's work for her benefit:
                  from this post.

                  http://forum.interpals.net/forum/int...46#post3033246

                  and even in the very same post you show us a different form of contempt and arrogance:

                  Originally posted by RogerCarmel View Post
                  I strongly suggest reading Darwin. He's quite interesting...and you may actually learn something.
                  which of course was easy to smack:

                  http://forum.interpals.net/forum/int...72#post3033272

                  And naturally, trying to show you are "special" and above others in this manner is contempt:

                  Originally posted by RogerCarmel View Post
                  Yes, you are the master of tu quoque aren't you. No wonder you whined about me in another forum post using that term...

                  In short, you deserve everyone's contempt you hypocrite.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X