I dont think you've thought it through. It's a genuine question on my part. I can think of WW1, WW2, hiroshima, nagasaki, pol pot and khmer rouge, rwanda, the 10 million or so massacred by Stalin, slavery. These are just off the top of my head, none of which done in the name of religion.
Stalin was not religious. but he worked his way through about 13m of his own people. It is not religion it is one person trying to impose their beliefs on someone else. It could be a religious belief or a political belief, it results in the same carnage.
I did say needlessly. In my view, the Second World War in particular was unavoidable and unfortunately necessary! Hitler would not have been stopped any other way.
It claims to represent some Brits. In fact it does, or did. A minority obviously. Isis represents the ideology of some Muslims. Just because some are evil scum doesn't mean they all are. Same how were all not pig faced racists. Because they have don't wrong does not change who they are. Muslims should use these evil men to teach the next generation that extremism is wrong and there is no place for it. Muslims are the key. Those susceptible to being radicalised won't listen to the west, only to their own, as they see it. Like we would teach our kids about the wrongs of the past, so they don't repeat them. So they don't become BNP members or murderers.
Yes, but throughout all of human history, I still think religion has played the major part in senseless slaughter. Perhaps religion may have been used as an excuse for other motives, but the name of God was invoked as the reason for the start of the conflict.
I was talking about Hitler though and the atrocities he committed. Not our actions against him which you're right about. I think what Garlic posted was spot on.
Some wars are necessary, the Second World War I would include in that. I concede that in terms of total numbers of those killed, perhaps religion hasn't been the worst annihilator, but in terms of the sheer number of conflicts, it probably is.
Exactly. This is all that anyone in this thread has said, and yet racist and bigot have been chucked around by the PC goons.
I dont disagree with that if I'm reading you right. But here's the thing UIR. The views of the BNP did represent some British ppl BUT that does NOT mean their views were BCOS they were British. I hope you see the difference. So by saying that having "British" in their title means that they are racist bcos they are British, is clearly twaddle. Likewise just bcos ISIS have Islamic in their title doesnt mean they're extremist because of Islam. Yes they represent a small minority of muslims (just like the BNP represent a small minority of Brits) but it's not bcos of Islam. I think some find this distinction difficult to understand. Also regarding your other comments, how do you or I know muslim parents arent doing this. We all raise our kids the best we can but some will still be brainwashed or wander off on the wrong path. 7 billion ppl, 5hit's gonna happen.
Joseph Stalin was raised to be a Catholic Priest and I remain curious as to why his Christianity is shoved aside in all these arguments. Yes, there is no way to get around the fact that in his early career, Stalin made a vast effort to rid Russia of religion, but that had nothing to do with atheism. It was the only way he knew to seize power of the country. For generations the entire populace of Russia had been taught that the head of state was supposed to be close to god. At the time in question, the head of the church in Russia was a tyrant. The Russians were already disposed to servility and all Stalin did was exploit these two facts, and place himself in the position of god. Once Stalin was firmly seated in office, he revived the Russian Orthodox Church in order to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. Stalin was part of a council convened to elected a new church Patriarch. Then the Russian theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. Even the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary was re-opened, after being closed since 1918. So, while Stalin was no peach, he was not exactly what you would call a died-in-the-wool atheist. He was more a secular minded religious opportunist, which is a personal character trait. He did not use atheism to gain control, but religious principles that were modified to fit his own, sick and twisted method of revolution. From the examiner. Atheism isn't a belief system. Stalin clearly had a belief system. As did Hitler, Christianity of course. Both these men were raised under various christian beliefs, Stalin was a trained priest, he simply played the political game of the day.
But all you're proving there is that a tyrant used a religion to gain power and carry out atricities. Not that the religion was the root cause of it.
Even today, there are frequently religious services for our troops before they go into battle. Where they can all pray for the safe return of the soldiers, and the defeat ( I.e. Slaughter) of the opposition. With God on our side, as Mr Dylan so eioquently put it....
They believe they are and all religion is open to scrutiny. There are so many different branches of the many different religions. They all believe they are performing the will of Allah. Same with the BNP, they believe they represent Britain. We show them as a nation that we don't through education and distancing ourselves from their hate. I suspect they already are, because Muslim parents want their children to live a a better world just as we do. That 1% (and its far lower than that, 160million would be game over) can't be beaten in battle. They won't listen to reason, they can't be bribed. Education is the key.
All jokes aside I've lived in London since the 80s, there's pockets of the city where you would think it was already an Islamic state, Slough, hayes, Southall to name a few, this imo is wrong, whoever is to blame I don't know but it breeds resentment on both sides and they can become places that fuel hate and create brainwashed idiots, though it's never that simple of course
Religion gives power. Stalin recognised this and first used it to gain power, then tried for a period to rid Russia of religion, likely because he believed it would mean he never lost power. The fact religion played a huge part in shaping Stalin into the man he was, shouldn't be ignored either. Religion isn't solely at fault of course.
This is another issue entirely. The sad fact is. Some simply don't want to integrate and would rather turn here into there.
