Multiculturalism

Not ad hominem, I can show evidence they post messages of hate.Still wondering why you won't tell us why we should listen to anything this guy has to say. Tell us why we should consider him an authority on anything.

I'm unclear what is it that you disagree with. That what was called Christianity in the 17th century was violent or that what is called Christianity today is pacified?Nor am I clear why you would disagree with either analysis.

Well, "dear", apart from the fact that you apparently don't know what "prescriptive" means, that depends who you talk to. A Dominionist, a Christian Reconstructionist, does want people to be killed for apostasy, and indeed pretty much everything else that's fun. A moderate Muslim would point out that all the bits in the Koran about killing infidels applied to particular circumstances no longer present. Theology, eh?

I find that hard to believe. The Abrahamic religions have a history of being pretty violent. Early Christianity, however, wasn't violent until it got entwined in the administration of the Roman Empire.There are plenty of peaceful religions. Your atheist-centered, Multiculturalism view that religions are inherently violent and only become non-violent through tempering by irreligion and secularism is not supported by any evidence. It isn't a matter of secularism vs. religion because not all secular philosophies are equal and neither are all religions equal.You have to look at the specific beliefs.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

It got violent when it got powerful and stayed that way for over a thousand years. There are a few - but we're talking about Islam and Christianity at the moment. It is supported by the evidence - there's actually a lot of it. It's interested me for a while now, I'll start a thread on it sometime.

Okay. You probably should have said so to begin with. Your statement in Message 1018: "Left to their own devices, religion would be as primitive and destructive as extreem Islam is today." seemed very general to me. When you do start that thread, you might want to consider that the reverse of your opinion is possibly true regarding Christianity: It became violent only when it started concerning itself with the very secular matter of running an empire.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

What Catholic Lies Faith? That during the Great Potato Famine, there was enough food aside from potatoes to stave off many of the deaths from starvation that Irish Catholics suffered but that the Protestant English refused to share this food with Catholics, instead choosing to have some of it shipped and some of it even spoil in docked ships? Or is the Protestant system of taking land rights away from Irish Catholics for over a hundred years? What lies from the Catholics are you speaking of? While I don't agree with the IRA's resort to violence in the 1900's, the fact that they turned to violence does not negate the terrible things that were done to Irish Catholics by the Protestants for hundreds of years.

It was not just an Ireland issue either. When JFK was running for office the Protestant Christian nutjobs in the US were claiming that if he was elected the Pope would run the US.

You're welcome to attend our End of Civilization victory party.

quote:

---

Fin de sicle (French pronunciation: ​[fɛ də sjɛkl]) is French for end of the century. The term typically encompasses not only the meaning of the similar English idiom turn of the century, but also both the closing and onset of an era, as the end of the 19th century was felt to be a period of degeneration, but at the same time a period of hope for a new beginning. The "spirit" of fin de sicle often refers to the cultural hallmarks that were recognized as prominent in the 1880s and 1890s, including 'ennui', 'cynicism', 'pessimism', and "...a widespread belief that civilization leads to decadence." link

---

I agree that the potato famine was a horrible miscarriage of justice on the part of England against the Irish.The lies concern who instigates the violence, and it's the IRA against the Protestants, always the Catholics in any such conflicts.I wish the following were in print but all I have is the talk itself by Ivan Foster, an Irish pastor, on the history of the violence in Ireland, A Layman's Understanding of the Northern Ireland Conflict. It starts out with his testimony of how he became a Christian, which you may want to skip, and the history of the violence begins at 14 on the slider. It continues to about 42 at which point he finishes by preaching a Biblical sermon, which again I suppose you might want to skip.Again, the part about the historical conflicts is from 14 to 42.

Fortunately Kennedy was an honest public servant and didn't follow the Pope, but some think that's why he was murdered. I think most American Catholics are honest Americans, but it hasn't been put to the test.

There are lots of people that think really stupid things Faith and that is a great example. What hasn't been put to the test?What is really scary is the decision by Justice Alito that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows folk to opt out of Federal Law based on their religious beliefs. And that has been put to the test with terrifying results.

First off, I am at work so I am unable to watch a video at this time, I'll check it out when I get home. However, on this comment: You are looking at only the origination of physical violence. And I would agree that the IRA made the first moves toward actually inflicting physical violence on their enemies. However, in addition to physical violence, there is violence that is more subtle, such as forcefully taking land from individuals, creating an unequal justice system, (With no land rights and the corn laws) forcing Irish farmers into a life of subsistence farming, and creating a wealth of absentee landowners so profits were funneled out of Ireland and into England. In addition to not providing for the poor during the famine and allowing a million Irish Catholics to die of starvation. Is it any surprise that the IRA resorted to violence to protect their rights after all of this? Again, I don't agree with the actions, but while the IRA (and Irish Catholics) may have started the physical violence when they decided that they had enough of being second class citizens, the main cause was the subtle violence the Protestant English had inflicted on them for several hundred years.Faith, let's look at it from another perspective. Let's say in a hypothetical future America, a decision is made that Protestants can no longer purchase land, own land, run a small business or receive assistance when in desperate need from the majority/wealthy/land owners. A major crop failure occurs and the Protestants' crops are failing and the US government not only barely assists, but they tell other countries to not assist more (at risk of making them look bad) and let a million (or for accuracy 1/8 of the entire Protestant population of the US) die from starvation while the US government continues to export crops from the areas, while reducing assistance even more. If a Protestant uprising aimed at gaining rights back that were taken from the Protestants, would you support that movement? What if some members of the movement took a violent turn? Does that negate the needs of the basic freedoms that are being denied?Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Well that's the point of a discussion isn't it? If you find contrary evidence, you'll no doubt be presenting it. I'm not sure why that distinction is relevant even if true. The fact that Christianity became violent is all that matters.

Whether when it comes to a conflict American Catholics would side with America or with the Pope. The fact that two Catholics in Congress have invited Pope Francis to speak there, which I believe is planned for September, raises some doubts in my mind. Not aware of this, perhaps you can explain?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.