You either have a very limited scope of knowledge in history or you are a bigot. Either way...not cool.
That's a funny juxtaposition. The Crusades weren't all the fault of Christians, those Moooslims had it coming. The Jihad isn't all the fault of the...well hell those Moooslims be crazy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades So you are part of the crew that purely sees them as a one-sided affair where the Christians are the bad guys and the poor Muslims are the victims? Does that make you a bigot or does it make you someone with a very limited scope of knowledge in history?
He was 25 lol From your own link: In Churchill’s War, author Max Hastings makes this conclusion on Churchill's views: "Churchill’s view of the British Empire and its peoples was unenlightened by comparison with that of America’s president [Franklin Roosevelt], or even by the standards of his time." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...-family-feared-he-might-convert-to-Islam.html
You do realize that the first and second Crusades were planned and launched by the Roman Catholic Church, right?
So are you suggesting it's 100% Christians who perpetuated the Crusades? Wouldn't that be bigoted? Or are Christians not humans?
Regardless, no one here is willing to take me on on the theological perspectives of both religions and how theologically one is inherently more benevolent than the other. Can anyone dispute this claim? Can anyone dispute that the belief that a man who lived around 600AD who ordered the execution of Jewish poets, possessed sex slaves, raped a 9 year old girl is infallible and the closest to a perfectly moral man is a bad idea?
What difference does it make... America is a Christian based nation but look at our crime rate, look at the drug issues, the gun issues, social issues, and we spend a big chunk of money building weapons of destruction and not bibles. We have our own homegrown terrorists here that blow up government buildings, assassinate presidents, and kill minorities. You guys are just having a pis'n contest arguing over this religion stuff when truly no one can point fingers because there will always be 3 fingers pointing back at you.
ATW, no wonder you have such a nutty view of Muslims. You blame them for everything including the Crusades.
More quotes from Churchill, ATW's guru on ethnic and religious matters. ********** http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...nston-churchills-legacy-no-one-should-forget/ Churchill's detractors point to his well-documented bigotry, articulated often with shocking callousness and contempt. "I hate Indians," he once trumpeted. "They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." He referred to Palestinians as "barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung." When quashing insurgents in Sudan in the earlier days of his imperial career, Churchill boasted of killing three "savages." Contemplating restive populations in northwest Asia, he infamously lamented the "squeamishness" of his colleagues, who were not in "favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes." But that should not obscure the dangers of his worldview. Churchill's racism was wrapped up in his Tory zeal for empire, one which irked his wartime ally, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt. As a junior member of parliament, Churchill had cheered on Britain's plan for more conquests, insisting that its "Aryan stock is bound to triumph." India, Britain's most important colonial possession, most animated Churchill. He despised the Indian independence movement and its spiritual leader, Mahatma Gandhi, whom he described as "half-naked" and labeled a "seditious fakir," or holy man. Most notoriously, Churchill presided over the hideous 1943 famine in Bengal, where some 3 million Indians perished, largely as a result of British imperial mismanagement. Churchill was both indifferent to the Indian plight and even mocked the millions suffering, chuckling over the culling of a population that bred "like rabbits." Leopold Amery, Churchill's own Secretary of State for India, likened his boss's understanding of India's problems to King George III's apathy for the Americas. Amery vented in his private diaries, writing "on the subject of India, Winston is not quite sane" and that he didn't "see much difference between [Churchill's] outlook and Hitler's."
America is secular... relative to the Middle East. I can personally attest that I feel much safer in a Massachusetts suburb than any Muslim dominated nation I have visited previously. With the notable exception of North Korea, the more secular a nation the higher that nation scores on societial health factors. Relative to Norway the United States is less secular and coincidently has a lower standard of living.
You might want to start a whole thread on this worthy topic. Not sure you can blame America's lower standing of living for the 99% just or religion.
I disagreed with fchow on the last page, but I agree completely with this (except the thing about North Korea -- they worship the ruling family there so religiously and zealously that they can no longer consider themselves secular, in my opinion). Forget about Christian vs Muslim. The real question is secular vs religious. This is why I encourage everyone to support the secular and woman empowering Kurds in Rojava. They are much more secular than the current allies we have in the region (Turkey and the "Free" Syrian Army). And why I also would encourage people from ceasing to elect moralistic religious zealots into office in this nation as well.
You can't blame it just on religion, of course not -- but, as books like What's the Matter With Kansas point out, religion is a wedge issue that causes people to vote and act against their economic and political issues in such a way that leads to the type of issues we have in America and that more secular Europeans nations do not have (especially in regards to things like health care standards, education, infrastructure, prison systems...)
wow, really -- you support the libertarian socialists in Rojava? I am very glad to hear it, but I'd be lying if I said I was not surprised.
I believe there is a credible debate between the notions that secularism arises first and then prosperity or prosperity arises first and then secularism. I believe that it is a mixture of both. Like you have mentioned, religion can make an individual irrational and vote against their own economic interest. But again, there is also a strong correlation between the level of education and wealth in a household and the household's level of religiosity.
