Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

such as ??

Look at Europe before 1960 and Europe after 1960. Iran would be a strong example of a closed society, but the USA should also be named. From the death penalty to gay rights or abortion, religious beliefs are a major consideration in politics.

Citation. easy to make a claim, please back it up.

Even easier to google 5 minutes. This is, or ought to be, common knowledge. Or does an eye for an eye not ring a bell to you? There are quite a few other examples, specifically in the old testament. In the kur'an there is also enough unpleasant stuff.

politics, ethnic background, culture, nationalism, greed, prejudice to me, are the main reasons for 'toxicity'

As said, nationalism is very much comparable. Doesn't change the fact religion, for the stated reasons, is toxic as well.

sorry, you are trying to put words into my mouth. as stated, God is to judge people for their belief, or lack of it, not me.

You said these words yourself. Either you do not accept their meaning or you cannot understand their meaning. You very clearly make a difference between those who believe and those who do not. Now you say God will pass judgement, but you know - or think you know - on what grounds he will do so, don't you?

World War I and World War II were NOT religious wars.

Convoluted examples. The persecution of jews might very well be considered a persecution based on religion. If you look back at, for example the thirty years wars in Europe, you'll see the difference between politics and religion very clearly.

The Japanese occupation of the Manchuka region of china in before and during World War II was not due to religion, rather economics of Japan's expansion- with Japan killing 15-22 million Chinese civilians.

The killings did not have a political motivation. They are a historical fact, but the reason behind them is hotly disputed. However, not everyone was killed. Religiously motivated killing doesn't stop till everyone is dead, usually. However, ethnic nationalism does seem to share this unfortunate trait.


No let me restate, there ARE some people whose religious beliefs are dangerous and and they resort to violence.

Ask yourself why that could be so. Once again, I do not say religious people are evil, I say religion is evil, or rather, has a strong potential for evil.
(edited)

politics, ethnic background, culture, nationalism, greed, prejudice to me, are the main reasons for 'toxicity'

- moderate politics don't consider their own group as superior, they don't exclude the other political ideas
- not all nationalism isn't ethnic, you also have something like civic or liberal nationalism, which has nothing to do with excluding people

However, religion does exclude people because they don't agree with the religion itself ("If you're not a christian, you're going straight to hell").

Convoluted examples. The persecution of jews might very well be considered a persecution based on religion.

1. Persecution of jews was not at all a matter of religion, but of race theory and darwinism. 2. It was not the main reason for the war.

I agree with you on some points, but that religious conflicts always have the highest numbers of victims is just not true. Just look at what communism did in Russia or China for example. True, 30-years-war was horrible, but also religion "developed" since then.

I'd rather state that mankind is evil, cause everything we come up with we tend to abuse in some way or another :p (religion, nuclear technology, darwinism, etc.)

1. Persecution of jews was not at all a matter of religion, but of race theory and darwinism. 2. It was not the main reason for the war.

A race theory based on a religion. The religious undercurrent is undeniable. It isn't a purely religious issue thugh and it wasn't the reason for the war even though it was a justification, hence my assertion it's a convoluted example. You cannot say it wasn'religious, nor can you say it was.

I agree with you on some points, but that religious conflicts always have the highest numbers of victims is just not true.

I should have said that religious wars tend to be the most thorough, however, nationalist conflicts (of the ethnic kind, mostly) share many similarities with religious conflicts. To make it really complicated, the two are often intermingled. Srebenica is an unfortunate example, if a relatively mild one since the females were allowed to live.

True, 30-years-war was horrible, but also religion "developed" since then.


Did it, really? I doubt it. The fault lines changed though, and a status quo has been archieved in many places. But that isn't because religion changed. People did change.

I'd rather state that mankind is evil

Which would be too easy and ignore the fact that most people prefer to do the 'right thing'. It's interesting to ascertain what makes people act different.
(edited)

the USA should also be named
you think the USA is a closed society? laughable. The USA may not be the society you would like it to be, but I do not think, as a whole, it is a closed one.
there are many religious people who support in the death penalty and oppose gay rights
there are many religious people who oppose the death penalty and support gay rights
there are many non-religious people who have a mixture of feelings also.

Citation. OK. Then I will not defend others, but rather Christianity.
The old testament 'eye for an eye' is not valid. That is referring to self-defense, NOT initiated violence. So please, spend 5 more minutes Googling for 'common knowledge' citations that ARE valid, not stating something that is NOT valid, OK?

doesnt change that politics is toxic as well OK, so you have gone from 'most toxic' to toxic as well. Making progress. However this is your opinion, cant change that.

You very clearly make a difference between those who believe and those who do not.
Not to split hairs, I guess so. But I do not judge them, God does. I come into contact with Jews, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, Christians, atheists, Sikhs, and others on a weekly basis. Regardless of what religion they are ( or are not, I see good human beings in most of these people). God will decide who is rewarding of going to Heaven.
So just because you do not believe as I do, don't say that my religion is toxic.

convoluted examples most major wars in the last 100 years are political, not religious, so no, not convoluted examples

But I do not judge them, God does.

So indirectly, christianity does. And can a non-christian go to heaven according to you? (and don't say: God decides that; if you were God, would you let non-christian in heaven?)

moderate politics don't consider their own group as superior, they don't exclude the other political ideas
agreed 100%.

As to religion excluding people....how can I make this any clearer? Christianity WANTS all people to become Christians. How is that excluding? We want people to be included.
In my faith, God judges, not me. I do not know if my neighbor who claims to be a Christian really is.
~~~~~~~~
that being said, if that is exclusion, then so be it

As to religion excluding people....how can I make this any clearer? Christianity WANTS all people to become Christians. How is that excluding? We want people to be included.
In my faith, God judges, not me. I do not know if my neighbor who claims to be a Christian really is.
~~~~~~~~
that being said, if that is exclusion, then so be it

It is. Okay, you want to 'include' people. That automatically leads to the fact that people who refuse to be 'included' won't go into heaven, because they are 'worse humans' as they don't believe in your god. This often leads to religious people seeing themselves as the 'superior humans'.

PS: I use '...' these ones because sometimes it may sound 'harder' than it is.

you think the USA is a closed society? laughable.

Compared to most European countries? Definitely. No serious politician could ever afford to be openly atheist, for example. Just have a look at the gay rights debate. The only difference with Iran is the religion used to quote arguments against gay marriage and so forth. It's not fully closed, but it is very far from open indeed.

So please, spend 5 more minutes Googling for 'common knowledge' citations that ARE valid, not stating something that is NOT valid, OK?

The problem with citations is that people like you will give a twist to each and every of them. "But it's not meant like that!" Sorry, but it IS meant like that. An eye for an eye has nothing whatsoever to do with self defence, it's about a justification for revenge. I have read both books, from cover to cover, I know what is in there. I just can't be bothered to go and find what I know is in there as it will not matter one bit to people who believe and therefore will never be able to be anything but subjective.

OK, so you have gone from 'most toxic' to toxic as well. Making progress. However this is your opinion, cant change that.

I'm ever so glad you take the time to read what I say. From the very beginning I have compared nationalism with religion. However, I fam convinced religion is the most toxic of all as it asks for blind faith.

most major wars in the last 100 years are political, not religious, so no, not convoluted examples

Wars are never simple. Especially the big wars are a mire of different aims and goals, even within countries and alliances. Politics, nationalism, religious beliefs - everything does come into play. Take Afghanistan. I think you could safely say that 9-11 was a religously motivated attack. Does that make the response a religious war? I don't think so, but the people fighting the coalition, do.

maybe religious topic would be better for this :-)

A race theory based on a religion.

A race theory based on a people, not on a religion. You can refer to the Jews either as the people from the Near East or as the follower of a religion. Nazis referred to the first, as people with inherited bad attitudes. Their whole "classification" was based on ethnic backgrounds, not on religion. Nothing different with the Jews. Otherwise a simple convertion(?) could have helped it?

Did it, really? I doubt it. The fault lines changed though, and a status quo has been archieved in many places. But that isn't because religion changed. People did change.

Well if people change, religion does too. Since religion itself is always defined by what people make of it. Just my opinion though.

Which would be too easy and ignore the fact that most people prefer to do the 'right thing'. It's interesting to ascertain what makes people act different.

Possibly, but you should count the same thing for religion too, then ;-)

Just have a look at the gay rights debate. The only difference with Iran is the religion used to quote arguments against gay marriage and so forth.

You're kidding right? USA is another ridiculous country in which gays are sacred cows and no one has the right to say a bad word about them - the case of Carrie Prejean is the perfect proof of my thesis.

A race theory based on a people, not on a religion. You can refer to the Jews either as the people from the Near East or as the follower of a religion. Nazis referred to the first, as people with inherited bad attitudes. Their whole "classification" was based on ethnic backgrounds, not on religion. Nothing different with the Jews. Otherwise a simple convertion(?) could have helped it?

Clever, but unfortunately it doesn't hold any water. Fact of the matter is that the Germans had a lot of trouble defining what made a Jewish person a Jew. Which was because it was primarily a religious distinction which turned into an ethnical one. In other words, it was plain old fashioned nonsense.


Well if people change, religion does too. Since religion itself is always defined by what people make of it. Just my opinion though.

Very good point.


Possibly, but you should count the same thing for religion too, then ;-)

I've been at pains to make the distinction between ideas and people. Ideas, especially when they are written down, exist on their own. What concerns me is the potential for, shall we say, bad influence. In other words, what makes people act like they do.

An eye for an eye has nothing whatsoever to do with self defence, it's about a justification for revenge
agreed. I was late to work and did not properly state that it is for revenge, not true self-defense. However, as I stated, that is Old Testament. Not New Testament.

http://www.youtube.com/v/tnjZEZggkkA&feature=youtu.be

Long live Geert. Long live freedom. Long live the truth.

I hope he will be not guilty for all charges. However, the man has despicable ideas.
(edited)