Who's Doing What?

The CPC has paid for this minority govt's longevity with generous donations to the province of quecbec and it's "quebec first" federal party, at the expense of the rest of the country(ok Alberta and Ontario but still). There will be no election as long as the BQ keeps getting 9 and 10 figure cheques handed to quebec.

So if these people where not jewish would they have still been exterminated? I doubt it. They died because of their beliefs. They died because of their religion.

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. I have argued before that communism is a religion which suplants the state for the church and god. I think there is a good case to be made in that regard.

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. You know you really need to learn to read what people write instead of just making up your own CRAP out of bits and pieces taken out of context.

(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. No sorry I said nothing of wars. That is your own invention. Dying or being killed because of religion does not necessarily mean you are getting killed in a war. People fought the crusades in the name of god. You may argue that it was a land grab, but even if it was, that only involved a very few of the overall number of christians who thought they were doing "gods work".

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.

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.

No religious war and violence Mad Michael? How about 25 current religious conflicts and wars? http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

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. Really so two religious groups killing each other is not religous? OK Sure. Pro V. Cath. not a religious war, or violence even. Even though they kill each other. Gotcha. Really so singling out a certain religon for extermination has nothing to do with religion? People being killed for actions, real or imagined against the church. Again nothing to do with religion. People were just killed in it's name for crimes against it. You know if you repeat this type of stuff often enough for long enough it might actually become believable. I am sure you will try.

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) Ok if that is how you want to look at it. The "holy land" had nothing to do with being "holy" it was just that it was land. Please explain how the following conflicts and atrocities are not religious based: Jihad ( pick one or twenty) Iraq sectarian Ireland The Holocaust The Inquisition Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia Witch Trials (#s in the 000's) 10th century Afghanistan (Muslim/ hindu) Kashmir pre-14th century(Muslim/ hindu) Pakistan 1947(Muslim/ hindu) Bangledesh 1971(Muslim/ hindu) Goa 16th century (portugese christians/ hindu) Tarain 1192( Muslim/Bhuddhist) This is just the tip of the iceberg.

No please do explain how a bunch of christians trying to rid the "Holy Land" of non-christians is not a religious based war.

Personally I want an endorsement deal.

Well when you look around and can see wars and terrorism across the world perpetuated in the name of religion it makes you wonder what the use of something so destructive is. Then when you look through history more people have did in the name or their god than for any other reason, save perhaps disease. Then you flip around the TV and see these charlatans getting rich by hoodwinking the masses a few bucks at a time. Sure if you don't believe in a god you want to stand up and shout "smarten the **** up!!" So yes athiests should be more outspoken and critical of religion. If that makes them "evangelical" then so be it.

How do you know this? LMAO Makes one wonder. I think it should be likely added that they are probably "not allowed or strongly encouraged not to post on message boards" under any name that can be traced back to the party.

So what is the mental illness labelled onto those who believe the Harper can do no wrong? Headuphisassitis? Conservativeblindfaithatosis? Lemmingstothecliffatonia?

Personally I find it boring watching people spin their wheels I think there should be a lot more to racing than just making a left hand turn.

Sure, and when we build our next nuclear power plant, why not paint a great big bullseye right on top so the terrorists can find it easier. Personally on top of things like Chernobyl, I am not too keen on nuclear waste.

Hahaha True dat!

Well I thought I saw something with a telescope near Jupiter years ago, but it was just a fallen angel. I hear if you look real close at Uranus you might find something.

So you are saying that in Bhuddhism there is a god that is worshipped, and this god is "the sum totality of the universe"? Your dodge attempt is good. It is always a good tactic to jump on a subsidiary point and ride it out as far as possible in order to avoid the critique itself. So, would you prefer Roman Catholicism as an example? Surely you don't dispute that it is a religion and a god as you apparently do with Buddhism and Paganism? And just to keep your memory fresh, this is your assertion to which I am offering counter examples... Roman Catholicism, according to official doctrines, can logically stand with secular science and philosophy, including epistemology, evolution and big bang theory. One cannot logically refute the official doctrines of the Catholic faith, or the holding of same. In other words, the 'gaping hole' is in your sweeping assertion. LMAO The teachings of the Church have changed to adapt to science. It cannot stand against logic at all. Oh and I don't think of Catholic Religion as a god. As a religion that worships a god yes, but not as a god itself. ^ Just to refresh your memory.

So you are saying that in Bhuddhism there is a god that is worshipped, and this god is "the sum totality of the universe"?

LMAO Too easy.

Right. Just ask Shirley Maclean.

Speaking of gaping holes, find any religions which have a god, that can actually stand up to a logical argument? Besides Deism, Paganism and Buddhism? I believe I said "religions which have a god". And what part of Deism, Paganism or Buddhism doesn't apply here? And the GOD in Bhuddhism is who?

Speaking of gaping holes, find any religions which have a god, that can actually stand up to a logical argument? Besides Deism, Paganism and Buddhism? I believe I said "religions which have a god".