aelf
Ashen One
Religion is only fatal when consumed together with politics.
So, politics.
You're being unfair to Christian liberals, for example.
Religion is only fatal when consumed together with politics.
So, politics.
Religion is quite harmless as long it stays out of politics. Unfortunately for a lot of people it doesn't.
You're being unfair to Christian liberals, for example.
As commie, all the more we can't separate the two.
Or do you think the Stalinist ideology is lacking in its superstructural character?
Out of the two, it is clearly politics. But there are just so many factors in a war, so it is never possible to say that one factor fully contributed to the cause of war, but based on the 20th where more people have been killed in war than in most of history, it was caused by political ideologies that caused the vast majority of the wars. Any religious conflict has never been as brutal at the 20th century
You forgot about centuries of religious genocides, human sacrifices, and executions.
Methinks that pushes the numbers up beyond even industrial era slaughter...
Woulnd't you agree? (not that I expect you to)
.
You forgot about centuries of religious genocides
human sacrifices
and executions.
Inevitably linked to politics.
Again, political in nature; strengthens the power of the ruling elite
Also political. Useful solution for "dangerous" ideas
I didn't say religion is always fatal with politics.
Many commies would denounce you comparing vanilla communism with Stalin's tyrannical cult...
.
Yes, we know you do. We are saying that you are wrong.
I wasn't saying that, exactly. I agree that religious motivations played a role in getting people to participate in certain conflicts. I would also say that a kaleidoscope of other motivations worked on the participants, and that sometimes it's not so easy to disassociate one from the others. Actually, screw "sometimes"; it's pretty hard to tell most of the time.The whole point Dachs was making in the other thread was that whilst these things on the surface appear to be purely based on religion, the underlying causes and motivations were political. Or at least I think that's what he was saying; don't wanna put words in his mouth.
Not always - A group of rabid fanatics are not thinking about who a witch votes for.
Not when the ruling elite are born into power anyway.
Aztecs for instance, truly believed they were appeasing their gods.
Religions also have a list of dangerous ideas - They call it heresy.
Never underestimate the irrationality if religious fervour...
Many inquisitors and clerics only had god in mind when doing their crimes.
History repeatedly shows us men are totally clear-cut in their fanaticism.
Not always - A group of rabid fanatics are not thinking about who a witch votes for.
Not when the ruling elite are born into power anyway.
Aztecs for instance, truly believed they were appeasing their gods.
Religions also have a list of dangerous ideas - They call it heresy.
Never underestimate the irrationality if religious fervour...
Many inquisitors and clerics only had god in mind when doing their crimes.
History repeatedly shows us men are totally clear-cut in their fanaticism.
To call them political is putting too cynical a point on their evil acts...
.
I compared nothing. I just have no idea what your comment is supposed to mean
Since when do witches constitutes an ethnic group?
So? Dictators still need popular support.
That's what they want us plebeians to think.
Who determines what's heretical? The people in power. Politicians, in one sense.
Hardly. "Heretical" ideas after all represent a direct threat to their authority. God is never the only reason.
I don't really think you can separate things that neatly. That's the point.The problem here is separating the underlying causes of different killings, and the more personal justifications. A witch-hunt could be ordered by the Church, for example, in order to create fear and increase conformity and obedience, completed unrelated to religious beliefs, but using it as a justification. Sure, the individuals that actually burn people at the stake may believe that what they are doing is good because of their religion, but the underlying reason, and cause of such a witch-hunt in the first place, is purely political.
The fact that religion is capable of being used to obtain political goals is not so much a reflection on religion or specific religions themselves, but on how important religion and religions are to some people, that they can be manipulated by their religious overlords, or however you wish to describe them.
Which leads to the need to divide religious beliefs from organised religion.
Edit: And this last bit can kinda act as a reply to Dachs as well.