Mad_Michael

That may be so, but you can't just assume it as a generally accepted principle in order to cite it in support of another argument entirely. And, since you mention it, I'd be inclined to accept the general argument that the form of authoritarian socialism that was historically applied in Leninist/Stalinist USSR or in Maoist China did indeed have as its goal and policy to supplant, subsume and symbolise the traditional and institutional role of Church and God in those nation-states. No doubt of this. But that doesn't make communism into a 'religion', no matter how much it theoretically seeks to subsume that role for political purposes. Indeed, the abject failure to achieve it with anything less than the rule of an iron fist tends to mitigate against the validity of this interpretation. And communist theory - as per Marx - is a fundamentally rational theory. Its only claim is that it is entirely rational and based on human history. It makes no claim for the supernatural. Ergo, it is not a 'religion'. All religions are based entirely upon faith and make a claim of some supernatural force. In practice, some people may hold 'communism' on faith, like one may hold some 'religion' on faith, but this is a similarity of people's actions, not the similarity of the object believed in.

This is called 'rationalising' or 'justifying' your faith. You have your faith (first) and then you seek to create rational reasons or justifications for holding it so. This is an interesting and apparently 'heart-felt' testamonial. I respect that - and indeed, I may even admit to being a bit envious of it. But with all due respect, I must say that your 'explanation' is described in terms of 'event-based' emotive responses, and ultimately, it comes across as a description of the 'process' by which you became aware of the particular faith that you inherited from your family - which puts you in with the other 85% of the population on the planet. Nothing wrong with that either. Obviously, that's the 'normal' thing that human beings do on this issue. I'm just pointing it out.

And if that's human nature, that's fine. It is human nature, as far as I understand. What if G-d exists and doesn't choose to lay an Occom's razor straight path to hie or her door? Is there anything wrong with a little mystery and awe? Certainly nothing is wrong with a little mystery and awe. However, it is by by this very fact that application of Ockham's Razor suggests that it is irrational to believe it. That doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, only that belief that God does exist, is irrational. And as I pointed out above, humans have a noted passion for irrational beliefs. Sidenote: The man who originated this famous 'philosophic rule' was a 14th century Fransican Friar named William from the town of Ockham, thus he is styled William of Ockham. It is a town in England. I've never been able to determine the origin of the American passion for spelling it as "Occam" other than it did appear as a Hollywood movie under that name (Occam's Razor).

I already have used "epistemology" in a sentence. Such are examples of rational faith. You are illustrating precisely my point. Faith can be rationalised under certain conditions. Now you hit the wall. There is no rational basis for religion itself, qua religion.

Actually, it is. There are literally hundreds of valid reasons to show a lack or, or opposition to, "patriotism". But it is not an excuse for rudeness and disrespect to the soldiers.

One apparently can get into most Toronto Nightclubs at midnight on a Friday or Saturday these days. Five years ago, if you weren't on the VIP list, don't bother to show up after midnight because you wouldn't be let in at all. Now the Club-zone neighborhood is teeming with people outside all night while the Clubs themselves are half-empty. Bars and nightclubs laying off staff and are closing in and around Toronto. These used to be a big form of tourism draw for Toronto and tourism used to be one of the most important industries in Toronto. And the bars and hotels are all suffering a slump here going on five years now. And the City officals act like the cause is some mystery that can be wished away by yet another tourism advertising campaign.

Actually between Hitler and Stalin there were as many as 14 million Jews killed due to their religion. That closes the gap pretty quick. Did the Chinese cultural revolution have anything to do with religion? So some amongst the 20+ million in the cultural revolution were killed for their religion. In your own citation, the figure of "as many as half a million people died" is the claim. Then you claim it as evidence for a claim of 20 million? And I don't see how you can claim Chinese atheist communists were being driven by 'religion' to kill religious people. Btw, religious martyrs are not a particularly viable example of how religion kills.

If you are going try and debate me atleast get what I said right when you are trying to put words in my mouth. Go back to my original post and try reading what I wrote. (I am assuming that "did" was a typo and was meant to be "died"). You here assert that religion or belief in God has killed more people than any other reason. For that to be true, the vast majority of wars that have been fought would have to be entirely religious wars. Ergo, my argument that the majority of wars fought in history have not been primarily religious wars. Wars fought for secular reasons or secular goals have killed far more people than religion ever has.

I have categorically denied making that statement. I have stated that religion is not the majority of war, or violence in human history - in contradiction to your assertion to the contrary. Your site reference is not credible.

Your epistemology here seems rather muddled. There is such a thing as rational faith. It just doesn't apply to God or religion though. But every human being uses it every day. Believing that the sun shall rise tomorrow, is clear-cut case of 'rational faith'. Yes, I've already said this.

so Mad_Michael what you are saying is that any belief in religion is not a rational belief? No, I didn't say that particularly. I said that humans quite often act without rational reasons. Or that humans don't need rational reasons to act. Once you decide you want to believe in God, then many religious beliefs are indeed, rational. But one cannot claim that belief in God is rational. I hold that it is irrational by application of Ockham's Razor.

The Roe descision was 'good politics' and 'bad law'. It is upheld by politics, not law. It stands on no substantive legal ground - it was made up 'whole cloth' - probably the single greatest pieces of judicial activism ever created in the USA. Roe stands because no one has the political guts to strike it down. It has no substantive support from the Constitution or written law. It just stands out there like SCOTUS's decision on Bush vs Gore. A totally unjustifiable prescendent set without any prescedent or substantive justification in law. And Alitio, Thomas, Roberts and Scalia would certainly decide against it if it came up.

I wouldn't be so sure about this. The present SCOTUS could do it if you put the right case on the docket. The reason that hasn't happened yet is because the Republicans haven't put it there. They are the ones ultimately who would suffer from the striking down of Roe vs Wade. The political standoff is much more electorally beneficial to both parties.

I should like to think that as I am most certainly not intolerant of religious minded folks. Indeed, I am, 'theoretically speaking', defending 'religion' against the charge of 'most mass murderer' here. I respect religion as religion, so long as we follow the liberal principle of separation of Chuch and State. My respect for religion is held as a fundamental tenet of liberalism. Live and let live. When the Church tries to step over the State line, only then I shall draw the sword. But that is unlikely since that battle has already been fought long ago. The 'seculars' won. It is over. No need to fight.

I did read about half your post before you deleted it - half scanning the quote blocks looking for the error! Then I closed out figuring you might be trying to fix it.

Oh, I'll certainly agree that Ontario has an ugly tax regime. No disputes there! My point is that the level of tax (within a certain range) probably is one of the lesser important government effects upon the operation of private commerce in any given region. Quebec's language laws gave Ontario a free corporate bonus cheque that still pays dividends to this day. And as for Atlantic Canada, I'm certainly not suggesting that they are the victims entirely of thier own design. My argument here has been directed at the opposite point, that 'central Canada' is not to be blamed for causing economic weakness in Atlantic Canada. Atlantic Canada has many geographic and historical reasons for having a weak economy, just as Ontario has equal reasons for having a relatively stronger one. And Alberta is blessed with oil/gas otherwise they'd be struggling like Manitoba.

You pick one specifically. The term means "struggle", not "war", and as such, your statement has no actual meaning. So jihads have nothing to do with religion? And they are not violent? OK. It is perfectly obvious that I've said no such thing. I repeat, please give a specific example of a particular 'Jihad' war. It is your argument and your challenge. You are dodging your own point. As I stated above, the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite is entirely cultural & political. They share the same religion entirely and completely. There is no difference between them on any religious issue. The only distinction is in partisanship for two different lines of succession of the Caliphs in descent from the Prophet - a dispute that occured some 1200 years ago and cause a political faction split within the Islamic community. Ergo, Sunni vs Shi'ite battles inside Iraq are of the character of a 'civil war' (for control of the state apparatus between two domestic factions) rather than a 'religious war' (for religious domination). Indeed, no matter who wins or loses between Sunni vs Shi'ite in Iraq, they are all Islam and nothing would change in the mosques and schools. Sure. Pro V. Cath. not a religious war, or violence even. Even though they kill each other. Gotcha. Please cite a major battle that occured between these alleged 'Protestant' and 'Catholic' armies in Ireland. Remember, it is your thesis here that religious war is the dominant or most prevailent form of war throughout history. I didn't say that. I only stated that it quite obviously wasn't a 'religious war' - or if it was, it was a very one-sided one. But I do believe that the Nazi extermination of Jews (and many others such as homosexuals and gypsies) is entirely explicable in secular terms. Certainly the arguments that Hitler used to justify hating Jews and for politically repressing them in Germany throughout the 1930's wasn't religious driven. Hitler's fanatical hatred of Jews was entirely political and economic (and woefully misguided - see Mein Kampf) And while it is true that Hitler made nice with the Catholic Church in Bavaria in the early days in order to have their blessing for his election, it is also true that once the Nazis were in power, they paid nothing more than lip service (if even that much) to any Christian notions and didn't blink at throwing priests in jail. Official Nazi Germany was most certainly a secular state in extremis. The history of the Roman Church and their various 'methods' of ensuring doctrinal purity amongst their followers does not constitute a "religious war". It does constitute an interesting period of history though. So, your thesis here is that "religious war" is the primary cause of war throughout history, and yet you have been so far unable to actually offer a 'clear-cut' case. I have shown that secular motives dominate each of your examples so far. The mere presence of a religious label applied to the combatants in a war does not constitute a 'religious war'. And I certainly have never disputed the historical fact that many many people have died at the hands of the Church, or at the hands of 'religious zelots' without any official 'Church' sanction, or at the hands of religion or religious ideals in general. Nor have I denied that the name and authority of religion has often been invoked to support these secular wars. But on the big scale of history, the number of people killed in actual 'religious wars' or by the Church itself, through methods such as the Inquisition, is a relatively small number in history. You can include the Islamic Caliphate here too. Even if you include the early 13th century AD Albegensian Crusade in Southern France, the total number through the last couple thousand years, is still not much more than a few million, certainly less than ten million. Witch trials aren't a "religious war". And quite remarkably, most modern scholarship now places this one clearly in the 'secular' camp. 'Witch', as it now turns out, was a term used in Court to get rid of widows who owned valuable land that was desired by more powerful interests within the town. As for the others, I can't claim any competence in the study of Islamic or Asian history. Though I would suggest that the two 20th century examples here were clearly secular wars with secular goals, fought between two sides that just happened to have different religions. In neither case was the goal of the war to 'religiously dominate' the other. The goals in both wars was control of territory - and/or nationalism. So even if we grant a few of the older historical examples (that I'm not going to research right now), I still suspect that the overall 'religious war' kill number remains relatively and/or comparatively low (in a large scale historical perspective). Religion, in all of its guises and forms, over the course of the last 2000 years can easily account for a few million killed - perhaps ten million as a good estimate if we are to include the whole of the planet. But this number barely just matches Stalin alone in his early days and he's just one 'secular' killer. Religion needs the whole planet and several thousand years to get this kind of number. Not much comparison here.

All of our existing police forces and RCMP are what is needed to maintain normal, everyday 'peace-keeping'. There are very few 'extra' police forces available for emergency assignment. Nowhere near the numbers needed. In the case of a major emergency such as a extended urban black-out or natural disaster, the local need for 'peacekeeping' forces rises exponentially.

Religion was also used by Hitler to gain support for war. Self-serving or not, it played a role. Saying WW2 had nothing at all to do with religion is false. "We have experienced a miracle, something unique, something the like of which there has hardly been in the history of the world. God first allowed our people to be victorious for four and a half years, then He abased us, laid upon us a period of shamelessness, but now after a struggle of fourteen years he has permitted us to bring that period to a close. It is a miracle which has been wrought upon the German people.... It shows us that the Almighty has not deserted our people, that He received it into favour at the moment when it rediscovered itself. And that our people shall never again lose itself, that must be our vow so long as we shall live and so long as the Lord gives us the strength to carry on the fight." (Adolf Hitler, in a speech to the "Old Guard" of the Party at Munich on March 19, 1934) Just about every speech by a Presidential candidate in the US invokes "Lord give us the strength", and "God bless America" etc., etc. Does that mean USA is a theocracy? A few citations of 'God' doesn't make a religious war. For a war to be a 'religious war', some religious purpose or some religious goal must serve as the principle element of the war. Besides which, if it was a religious war, why did Roman Catholic Hitler, allied with Roman Catholic Italy make war on Roman Catholic Belgium? And Hitler was a fanatical vegitarian - does that mean WW2 was a vegitarian war? I'm sure he praised vegitables often.

You pick one specifically. The term means "struggle", not "war", and as such, your statement has no actual meaning. Was the US invasion of Iraq a religious war? And what do you call those who seek to defend their land from foreign invaders and occupation armies? And amongst the Sunni vs Shi'ite, that is not a religious dispute. There is no doctrinal difference between Sunni and Shi'ite. These religious labels really only serve to distinguish socio-cultural-political differences between two groups that share the identical religion. Neither group is attacking Islam. Entirely political. The Irish have been fighting against English overlordship for centuries. Catholic vs Protestant is mere 'short-hand' for Irish and British. This wasn't a war. However, it was a bunch of people dying. A bunch of people who had the misfortune to inhabit territory that Nazi Germany claimed as their own. I don't see how one can assert that Nazi murder of Jews was religious driven. There is no substantive religious component there at all - it was a very secular policy, done for entirely secular political reasons. The Counter-reformation was a political act in response to the Reformation removing significantly large numbers from under the Roman Catholic family. It was a Catholic policy applied in Catholic countries primarily against Catholics. Perhaps I'll deal with your other examples later on when I have more time.

Because ruling the country is not something that is just passed around the schoolyard for everyone to take turns at. Dion has a better chance of being elected PM than Layton does - no matter what. And Dion's chances are somewhere between 'slim' and 'none'.

Was WW2 not about religion at all? "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Hitler's religious posturings were entirely self-serving. For the most part, he was most consistently a mystic - a strong believer in astrology and all kinds of occult theories. And the whole of WW2 from the German perspective is about two things: 1) 'Living Space' - Germany was full and needed more room to grow, and 2) Revenge on the west for the humiliation of Versailles. The Jews just happen to have been convenient scapegoats for both of these policies: 1) Jews were very numerous in Poland and Russia (Germany's traditionally desired 'living space'), and, 2) Jews were blamed for selling out Germany in WW1. I can't see any religious angle at all for the Soviets, Brits, French, Japanese or Americans in WW2.

The Western European 'Crusader Wars' of the 12th and 13th century were all about land. Europe was at that time suffering from a huge population boom (that ended with the Plague in 1350's) that was caused by a variety of improvements in agriculture (3 fields rotation and the deep-furrow plow and halter). A surfeit of aristocratic young males with no land to endow them with was a major source of political instability in Europe at that time. The Crusades were an attempt to annex Middle Eastern land to the European feudal system. Urban II preached at Clermont about conquering the 'land of milk and honey' - not about smiting Muslims. Count Behemond was one of the leaders of the 1st crusade - certainly the most illustrious and respected military leader of the 1st Crusade (that had no official leader). Antioch was one of the first cities of the Middle East conquered by the Crusaders. Behemond, whose troops were the ones that actually took Antioch, promptly proclaimed himself Count of Antioch and immediately started to make alliances with his new Muslim neighbours in defence of his new territory against the claims of other Christian Crusaders. This was the first official act of the Crusades. It established a pattern that was endlessly repeated for several centuries and a half-dozen Crusades. The minute any Crusader got his hands on some land, he immediately stopped crusading and set about establishing a feudal state under his own control - and was ready and willing to ally with Muslims against Christians to maintain it. It was the constant alliances of these people with the Muslims against their fellow Crusaders that shows the true nature of the game - it was a land-grab plain and simple, with a bit of religious rhetoric thrown on top. If it was all about religion (or even partly about religion) we wouldn't see dozens and dozens of alliances signed between Crusader Lords and Muslims against other Christian Crusaders. (I don't have access to my library right now so I can't list for you a bunch of these alliances in detail)

I've impressed Americans with my knowledge of American history, though I don't memorise election results. Heck, I've impressed Brits and Scots with my knowledge of their history. I can be weak on Canadian history. It is a subjective thing. Some people are into history, others aren't. And substantive knowledge of history is lacking EVERYWHERE.

I'm not trying to 'diss' Americans at all - only I would observe that Americans pay little or no attention to any nation on the planet (let alone Canada). That is because they believe the USA is the greatest nation on earth and thus, no other country matters very much. That is to say, Americans don't show much respect for ANY nation on the planet save their own. Nothing new or unusual here. This is not a critique, just an observation.