Extremist religion is at root of 21st-century wars, says Tony Blair

flammadraco

And in both cases, used their religious beliefs as a reason to fight these wars.

AKA Carrot on the Stick.
Not the Dude Holding the Stick.

*Government in my terminology is defined as anyone who "Governs" very loosely.
*Dear Leader is considered "Governor".

reply to post by muzzleflash


But religion has been the catalyst in all these wars. The fact that religion was the reason used to get people to fight means that religion caused these wars, only with the help of the government.

I think this is the main reason religions exist in the first place, governments create them in order to have excuses for the wars they want to fight.

reply to post by Shiloh7


Your comments are spot on, but until such time these "gits" are not removed from their religious order, then government and religion should be kept separate. Kind of getting their house in order before telling the rest of the sheeple to do so.

reply to post by flammadraco


Governments and religion have always gone hand in hand. Even in our "secular" government you can't keep the religious out of office, the religious are bound to get elected sooner or later. In fact, governments are usually the ones who create a certain religion, Rome being an example with Christianity.

The fact is governments and religion compliment one another, both teach obedience and loyalty and to never question the one in authority. Seems like they're a match made in heaven to me.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Then the fairest system I can see is a Secular Government and a cross religion "Faith Panel" that is referred to when required.

In that way, perhaps the best from all religions will be used rather than individual religious dogma.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

But religion has been the catalyst in all these wars. The fact that religion was the reason used to get people to fight means that religion caused these wars, only with the help of the government.

I think this is the main reason religions exist in the first place, governments create them in order to have excuses for the wars they want to fight.

No you are plain and simply wrong.

A catalyst facilitates a reaction it does not cause a reaction.

-FBB

PS
Christianity was around before Rome acknowledged it.
Christianity was around before the Bible.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


You know, If I agreed with you, we would both be wrong

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


So religion didn't facilitate these wars? Funny, because they were fought over religion between religious factions.

Your semantics didn't really work here because religion was the catalyst and/or facilitator in all these wars.

PS - Rome decided what went into the bible that you read today, Rome killed thousands of people for not converting to Christianity. If it were really the truth they wouldn't have to force it on people as they did.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

So religion didn't facilitate these wars? Funny, because they were fought over religion between religious factions.

Your semantics didn't really work here because religion was the catalyst and/or facilitator in all these wars.

PS - Rome decided what went into the bible that you read today, Rome killed thousands of people for not converting to Christianity. If it were really the truth they wouldn't have to force it on people as they did.

edit on 2/1/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Yes religion was used to escalate the conflicts, but you have to prove that it is actually what caused the conflict.

None of your little rant does anything to prove that Rome created Christianity . . . It was around before Rome named it the official religion. Before that Rome was killing people to take their land, women, resources. They did the same afterwards.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

Yes religion was used to escalate the conflicts, but you have to prove that it is actually what caused the conflict.

So now religion DID facilitate it? You just implied it didn't.

Let's look at the definition of catalyst why don't we?

catalyst - a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.

Religion increased, or as you put it "escalated", the tension. So no I'm not wrong and you actually ended up agreeing with me in a roundabout way.

If Rome killed those people over not converting, you have to wonder what their motives were behind legalizing Christianity, no? You kill people to gain control and since the catalyst (there's that word again) behind those killings was Christianity it goes to reason that they legalized it for control, certainly not to spread the truth.

fenian8
A bit rich coming from tony blair. Although to be honest he should be an expert on religious warfare after the sectarian violence which plagues Iraq today largely due to his illegal invasion with his old master george w bush.

It’s a bit cheap blaming Blair for the fact that Muslims belonging to different denominations hate each other and for decades have been merrily blowing each other up. Saddam presided a brutal dictatorship which ensured when the lid was lifted sectarian violence would flourish.

To topic. Religious intolerance, propagated by those who use violence to promote their narrow worldview is the root of most conflict in the world today. It is mostly Islamists. Intolerance with a medieval mind-set and mated with a gun.

I agree with Blair on this one.

Regards

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Yes religion was used to escalate the conflicts, but you have to prove that it is actually what caused the conflict.

So now religion DID facilitate it? You just implied it didn't.
Let's look at the definition of catalyst why don't we?
catalyst - a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.
Religion increased, or as you put it "escalated", the tension. So no I'm not wrong and you actually ended up agreeing with me in a roundabout way.

Why don't any of your types post links to where you are getting your definitions? You just post the info and expect others to take it as fact, anyways;

catalyst
www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of CATALYST
1: a substance that enables a chemical reaction to proceed at a usually faster rate or under different conditions (as at a lower temperature) than otherwise possible
2: an agent that provokes or speeds significant change or action

The extremist religious groups always seem to be formed, trained, and backed by secular government's intelligence agencies before they manage to get into any real trouble. Investigation usually leads back to individuals seeking to gain more power who will use whatever is available to them to get it. Mossad would be an exception to the secular intelligence, but for the most part they are secular agencies.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Did you not read the second definition? Key word is "or", provokes "or" speeds rapid change. Religion helped to speed up the tension. Again, you seem to agree with me in a roundabout way. You can't just ignore half of the definition, that's intellectually dishonest.

I see your game though, using semantics to try and derail the topic once again. This topic isn't about the word catalyst, and even if it was you'd still be wrong.

Also, what makes you think secular government is the only type of government that would back religious extremists? You really don't think theocrocies or atheist states would do the same? You were singing another tune in the other thread by saying any form of government will find an excuse to cause atrocities.

The reality is, it doesn't matter what form of government is in charge. Atrocities are going to happen no matter what religious or secular ideology is being preached.

What sets secular governments apart now?

reply to post by flammadraco

Don't think that had anything to do with government. Think you'll find that's the Vatican and European Royalty to blame for this one.

First of all, government, The Vatican and Royalty were all pretty much intertwined and co-dependant at the time.

And secondly, whilst its right that you apportion some of the 'blame' and responsibility for The Crusades in their direction you also quite tellingly ignore the not insignificant role that certain Islamic elements played in them.

The political considerations were as much a cause for war as were the religious ones.
And when viewed and judged by todays morals and standards both sides were guilty of committing many barbaric acts.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
If Rome killed those people over not converting, you have to wonder what their motives were behind legalizing Christianity, no? You kill people to gain control and since the catalyst (there's that word again) behind those killings was Christianity it goes to reason that they legalized it for control, certainly not to spread the truth.

edit on 2/1/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Then what was Rome's reasoning for initially persecuting these people?
You seem to think Rome began at the same time they embraced Christianity . . . You need to read up on this topic

Roman Republic
en.wikipedia.org...

The Roman Republic (Latin: Res Pvblica Romana) was the period of the ancient Roman civilization when the government operated as a republic. It began with the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, traditionally dated around 509 BC . . .

Roman Empire
en.wikipedia.org...

The Roman Empire (Latin: Imperium Romanum) was the post-Republican period of the ancient Roman civilization, characterised by an autocratic form of government and large territorial holdings around the Mediterranean in Europe, Africa, and Asia.[6] The 500-year-old Roman Republic, which preceded it, had been destabilized through a series of civil wars. Several events marked the transition from Republic to Empire, including Julius Caesar's appointment as perpetual dictator (44 BC); the Battle of Actium (2 September 31 BC); and the granting of the honorific Augustus to Octavian by the Roman Senate (16 January 27 BC).

The first two centuries of the Empire were a period of unprecedented stability and prosperity known as the Pax Romana ("Roman Peace").[7] It reached its greatest expanse during the reign of Trajan (98–117 AD). In the 3rd century, the Empire underwent a crisis that threatened its existence, but was reunified and stabilized under the emperors Aurelian and Diocletian. Christians rose to power in the 4th century, during which time a system of dual rule was developed in the Latin West and Greek East. After the collapse of central government in the West in the 5th century, the eastern half of the Roman Empire continued as what would later be known as the Byzantine Empire.

I don't get your logic. You think because an organization calls itself something, but then proceeds to break all the laws created by that thing is in reality still that thing which they called themselves.

I guess rats are actually whales so long as we call them that( your logic.)

Christianity was just a banner the leaders could wave to get peasants to go to war for them so that they could increase their power. This is how it works with all forms of government throughout history.

Oh but you want to think Christianity is the cause of all strife throughout history because people identifying as Christian have hurt your feelings at some point in your life.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


I'm very familiar with Rome's history with Christianity, I don't need a history lesson. This is not the topic of this thread though, if you want to discuss this make your own thread but stop derailing this one like you did mine.

reply to post by Freeborn


I'm not blaming Christianity, I'm blaming all religions and despite your assertions that the Crusades were politically motivated, the other side was not and thus religion was the reason for this war.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Did you not read the second definition? Key word is "or", provokes "or" speeds rapid change. Religion helped to speed up the tension. Again, you seem to agree with me in a roundabout way. You can't just ignore half of the definition, that's intellectually dishonest.

I see your game though, using semantics to try and derail the topic once again. This topic isn't about the word catalyst, and even if it was you'd still be wrong.

Also, what makes you think secular government is the only type of government that would back religious extremists? You really don't think theocrocies or atheist states would do the same? You were singing another tune in the other thread by saying any form of government will find an excuse to cause atrocities.

The reality is, it doesn't matter what form of government is in charge. Atrocities are going to happen no matter what religious or secular ideology is being preached.

What sets secular governments apart now?

edit on 2/1/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/1/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Yeah . . I didn't read the definition that I highlighted . . . right . . .

You are operating in 'could and would' while I am talking about the actual reality. The evidence shows most of these religious extremists were backed and supported by secular intelligence agencies with a few exceptions.

All you can focus on is religion bad, meanwhile I have been trying to point out that it is the human condition itself regardless of religious or secular beliefs.

I only argue with you because your blind hatred of religion and religious folks by proxy. Historically this attitude has led to far worse atrocities over short periods of time then religions were able to accomplish over centuries.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

Christianity was just a banner the leaders could wave to get peasants to go to war for them so that they could increase their power. This is how it works with all forms of government throughout history.

Now you're getting on topic! This is exactly why it was legalized, to gain more control and power, the same with all religion. Religion is not legalized or made to spread the truth, it is legalized or made to spread ignorance. They use the truth to spread their lies, lies on top of a foundation of truth. Wolves in sheeps clothing.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


No, I'm operating on the "fact" that religion was used as a catalyst by governments to incite these wars. Rome was a theocrocy yet they still committed atrocities in the name of both paganism AND Christianity. You are ignoring the older theocrocy side of the debate and choosing to only focus on the more recent secular governments.

By the way, it's not in me to "hate" anything. I may not like something but that does not mean I hate it. I do not like religion and the lies it spreads, but that does not mean I hate it or its followers. I love all of life, not just the ones in my particular group.