Anti-Religious Extremism!

Hello Idlewild!

Actually my point is contrary to your observation. Most of devastating non-religious extremist events actually happened more recently (in the last century) than Religiously extremist crimes. Even currently, suicide bombings and secular terrorism is done more by secular forces under secular agendas than the religious forces under religious motives.

I fully agree that most of the extremists are only a small minority but they get publicized. I also think that media which is in the hands of secular hands is playing a very dirty role in emphasizing on some, and leaving bigger crimes. Media itself is part of the game.

Thank you for sharing your views with us, Idlewild!:-)

Hello TheSpy!:-)

Yes, I did say that I'll tell you and I hope you got the message where I told you about this discussion!?

In fact, there are lots and lots of wars and battles which were started without religious hatred. Read last century's war history in depth and you will find that the claims that are being made are uneducated.

You have a good point about learning about other cultures and religions and then telling others would definitely be a slow but positive activity.

Thanks for sharing your views!:-)

What wars were the ones that were not started over religion?

I have given several examples in my post.

How can you say Afghan war, the Iraq war, Khalistan Movement, Tamil Tigers movement, Kashmir, Chinese-Indian war,and the war between the north and south in Ireland and Scotland, (freedom) are not based on religion.

In Afiganstan the Muslems and the other religions don't agree.

The Sunni, Shites and Kurds don't agree.

India, (mostly Hindu) and Pakistan, (mostly Muslems)both want Kashmire.

The Chinese were Buddistw and the Indians were Hindu
during the Chinese-Indian war.

In Ireland the north was mostly Protistant and the south mainly Catholic.

Scotland is mostly Catholic and doesn't want to be ruled by the Church of England, (Protistant).

So where are the ones that were not about relgion?

Ivor

Hello TheSpy!:-)

I truly wish that you had not only read about these historical events but also had knowledge of security and intelligence issues of the region.

I am sorry but your reasoning is like a person who, seeing a muslim drinking Alcohol, says that drinking Alcohol is an Islamic fact. My post was precisely to shed these types of misperceptions about wars.

The most important point when one desires to investigate an event is the motive. If the motive is religious then it's ok to term it as religious war, like the Crusades were, but if the motives and background realities are of political or geo-political nature then it would be naive to declare some war as religious war just because it was done by a person who belongs to a certain religion or just because some media outlets are telling us that way.

Specifically, Sunnis, Shias and Kurds (who are basically sunni and mainly came from Iran) have been living in Afghanistan side by side without problem for centuries. All three groups fought against invaders be it British, Soviets or Americans. Their fight mainly has been to free their LAND. whether they were religious or not, any freedom loving mind would fight against invaders. Same is the case in Kashmir.

Tamil Tigers fighting in India are themselves basically Hindus but secular ones at that (A marxist secular group). They aren't fighting India (a Hindu country) and Sri-Lanka (mainly Buddhist) for hinduism but for a LAND for themselves. Same is the case with Khalistan movement.

Chinese-Indian war was neither inspired by Buddhism nor by Hinduism. That was a regional conflict over AREA and not on Religion. Moreover, Chinese Government do not profess any religion, if you know that. So, what would make this conflict a religious one?

Scotish as well as Irland's people fought for the LAND and FREEDOM. I don't know why people try to drag religion in between.

So where are the ones that were about Religion?

If you wish to go into details of any of these events and war history, I would very much appreciate your questioning:-)

I am not going to argue with you. Life isn't worth loosing a friend.

I'll just saw you win.

Ah my friend! there is no winning or losing in a debate for me. Debate is just a learning experience. Whenever I debate, It doesn't cause loss of respect and love for my friends, it is just for learning:-)

Thanks I did think about the wars that were not based on religion.

Some of them was the Russian, French and American cival wars.

Thanks for giving me the best response.

You are welcome, TheSpy!:-)

Good Evening Angelwhispers!:-)

You are very right about the definition of "Religion", In fact what I was referring to was peoples' perception about Organized Religions. Some think that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the only Organized Religions, others would include some of the denominations in the definition. But, if we think that every religious fellowship always try to organize itself, the defintion of Organized Religion would not be different from Religion itself. LOL! even the Atheist organize themselves and have gatherings. So, in terms of Organization, every group is organized. Some, however, choose to be away from group. In this sense, Yes, Almost every belief system is a religion and an organized one for that matter.

But, I myself was not excluding Pagans from the definition of Religion. I mentioned them separately because of peoples' perceptions as I have detailed above.

Other than that, my point about Anti-Religious environment
did not exclude Pagans per se. What I am trying to say is that All war crimes by all religious forces under religious motives have been much less disastrous and claimed much less human toll than by the crimes committed by non-Religious people under non-religious, secular or Atheistic agendas.

I do find it a little unfair especially when hatred against religion is tried to be presented selectively and for certain political motives. People are made to believe that secular systems are peaceful and not as criminal as religious systems are, which, I find an unfounded claim. The point that I am trying people to see, with facts and figures, is that secular systems have been much more cruel, barbaric and criminal compared to religious forces. It doesn't make the crimes done by religious motives any good but I do wish that people see these crimes, objectively and honestly, to draw a balanced and judicious conclusion.

Thanks for sharing your views, it's always good to see you!:-)

Hello lecanis!:-)

Yours was an intelligent post, lecanis! and not off-topic. I also hope that you take proper rest.

What I see as a problem is that Seculars/Atheists try to use war history to claim that religion should be taken out because it committed crimes. Even the acclaimed scholar Richard Dawkins use the same point to make a case against Religions. I see this same bias perpetuated by the secular media for certained vested interests. They always try to offer Atheism and secularism as 'peaceful' alternatives. My only objective of this post is to request people that they should be objective and educated when dealing with war history, that secular forces has been more cruel, barbaric and criminal than the religious forces.

I respect the right of Atheists or seculars to choose to be Atheists or seculars but to say that they are peaceful in unconditional terms is not a very truthful statement to make. Their, as well as secular forces' recent past is as painted in blood as the religious past is. This world has seen more devastation from the hands of seculars than any Religious fanatic.

Hello polachicago!:-)

Good to see you! I agree with you on everything you said. I have nothing to add more to that:-)

Hello ClaraListensprechen!

Welcome to mylot and sorry for this late response as I was away for many weeks.

Thank you for your addition here but the question in hand is not about morality, if I remember the content and my intention about this discussion correctly. The question is given the war history and the atrocities committed by religious and non-religious governments and institutions, what should be the approach which is not partial, in principle?

Hope you will enjoy your stay here!:-)

Hello sndcain!

So, is the honor of having you respond to my discussion because of agreement? as I see that this is your first participation in any of my discussions, if I remember correctly. You are welcome, anyway, even if you disagree:-)

You are right about Mao and Stalin; yet, I do not hold Atheism as the direct cause behind these atrocities just as I do not hold Christianity responsible for Inquisitions or Hitler’s actions, even though he personally would make us believe so, or present day Christian Terrorist groups, and just as I do not hold Islam responsible for Muslim terrorist groups, or Hinduism for Hindu terrorist groups and so on and so forth. That would bring me to your concluding remark made in the last line which I find to be of great relevance here.

I would also tend to agree with you that Religion, as a whole, does more good (and have a “potential” of even more) than Evil. I am extremely wary of the concept of crime by association and mindless generalization. For example, even if 99.9999% of Atheists are corrupt (not that they are, with apologies to Atheists, anybody can put any name here e.g. Muslims, Christians whatever), I won’t charge the rest of 0.0001% with corruption.

Seems like we have more than one agreements:-) Thanks for sharing your views!:-)

Hello 4ftfingers!

"I see religion as the excuse for war, rather than the cause...In reality it has nothing to do with the religion, but everything to do with man's inate greed, as they are both unwilling to share the land."

Your opening and closing statements sums it all quite well and quite wisely. I really appreacite your thoughts and insights here!:-)

Thanks for your participation!:-)