Oppositions to Arabs

[Buster13]

And let's not forget that when the Mongolians had pretty well conquered China, they kept the Chinese culture in place, but took over the government, and created a "Forbidden City" which was open to only Mongols, not the indigenous Chinese.

The way they told the difference was that they made the Chinese wear thier hair in long braids. It was effectively a caste system. That's one reason the Taoist and Buddhist monks were bald, so they could avoid this labelling.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


U.S. law is primarily derived from English "Common Law", which, in turn, has its roots --

(1) In the canonized customs of the (feudal) middle ages.

(2) In the spirit of the medieval-renaissance Parliament (and associated evolution of law and individual liberties), aruguably dating best from 1486, when Parliament accepted the new Tudor dynasty on the condition that it live on the profits from its own estates and customs duties -- ie, no more traditional feudal income.

(3) With the re-emergence of urban centers in medieval Europe -- and the concomittant need for all the laws required for a city to run smoothly -- most turned first to remaining examples of Roman law (better suited to the re-emergence of capital-based commerce than feudal regulations), modified these -- and then borrowed them from one another; the "Law Of Lubeck" (north Germany) being arguably the most prominently copied. And Roman law was COMPLETELY uninfluenced by the Talmud.

-- And, nope, I'm not an expert in legal history, and will happily debate this at greater length.

Best,

Oz

Correct, but English "Common Law" has its roots in Judeo-Christian ethics. For example, *******. was originally based on a law applied to carnal misdeeds. It stood for "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" (it wasn't always a vulgar term). Anyways, the law was generally applied to prostitutes and the like, and apparently (at least from what I've read), their view toward such acts was inherited from Judeo-Christian ethics. It certainly was not inherited from Romanized codes of laws, because history has not always dubbed the Roman Empire to be the most moral society.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Now the Mongols had a massive effect on the history of the world, yes it was mostly military but they shook they literally shook the world. This was direct effect, not indirect like the contribution of religious teachings and texts later co-opted re-interpreted and spread by other people.

Since the cultural influence of the Jews spread after their "civ"(in a game sense) had died and largely due to the strength of the Roman world I can't say this is much of an arguement for civhood. Also, while Jesus was a Jew he was living in the Roman empire at the time. In a game sense this doesn't stand for much. With 8 slots to choose from its not a natural choice.

Like I said before, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You'll never convince me that the size of an empire is as important as its overall culture, and I'll never convince you my way.

[gsmoove23]

You notice how no one ever says "you're right I agree with you" after an arguement? Its damn annoying cause I'm almost always right and I'd like some acknowledgement once in awhile

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
You notice how no one ever says "you're right I agree with you" after an arguement? Its damn annoying cause I'm almost always right and I'd like some acknowledgement once in awhile

HAHA no way will I admit defeat on this one. Not when we all know that religion is much more important to human civilization than whether or not someone's borders were 2500 miles long or 2510 miles long!

[gsmoove23]

You should realize you're posting to an atheist.

[roalan]

gsmoove23

almost does'nt count except in horseshoes and grenades.

[gsmoove23]

Fair enough

[roalan]

gsmoove23

atheist to bad your loss

[sabrewolf]

actually atheism is the best, because you have a reason less to fight, kill and die for.

no more "for allah"-suicide bombings, no more catholic-protestant wars, no more islam-hindu wars, no more shiites-sunnites wars and endless other reasons.

in an ideal world there isn't any reason to fight for: no nationalism, no racism, no poverty, no unfairness and... no religionism.

but as i said: in an ideal world... that's completely illusionary

[sabrewolf]

i prefer an atheist who accepts people from other religions, than god-believers who don't tolate other faiths.

[roalan]

atheist

Religious dogma and fighting for and killing in the name of "their"religion is a human problem. Do not blame the Lord for Human stupidity.

[sabrewolf]

i didn't say, humans wouldn't fight and kill any more. i said, they'd have one major reason less to fight and kill (other reasons: nationalism, racism, etc.).

and: i've never heard of a war between two atheist groups

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by sabrewolf

and: i've never heard of a war between two atheist groups

... Sino-Soviet border clashes in the 1970s ...

[sabrewolf]

sino (chinese): afaik usually buddhists
soviet: majority russian-orthodox (christians)

and anyway... the reason for those clashes were probably territorial reasons, not religious one ("you bastards don't believe in the same god we don't either believe in" )