Which Civilization has been the biggest bunch of bastards throughout history?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
I was picking an example with fundamental Islamic views I.E. the Taliban regime vs. fundamental Catholic views

There seems to be a mistake here. Catholicism is by definition not fundamentalist as of today.

[MrFun]

Fundamentalists are considered to be extremist -- no matter what religion it is.

The MAJORITY of any religion are moderate people, who are faithful to their religion.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Sorry, but Muslim agression streches centuries, as I already shown, unless you deny events such as the siege of vienna in the 17th century, or the fall of Constantanople in 1453.

This is disingenous.

Muslims didn't create a Dark Age, Christians did.

Muslims didn't set up Inquisitions and witch-hunts. Christians did.

Muslims didn't invade the New World, brought terrible diseases and Old World lifeforms that decimated native Man, animals, and plants alike. Christians did.

No matter how you look at it, Christians have been worse.

[gopher]

Definatly China.

Not the people, but the rulers. From the Reunification and the Shu(sp?) empire, where the first Emperor of China had all but one copy of every philosophical, historical, and literary book destroyed. And yes, they have been around and organized for a VERY long time, so they have been very efficient bastards for longer than others.

After that, give me Western Europe. Colonization era says it all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There isn't any such thing as a fundamental Catholic in the Islamic sense... although Italy's social policy is almost in lock step with the Church.

You mean like allowing abortion?

Sorry, but Italy doesn't fit into that fundamentalist Catholic ideal.

And I don't know if you were speaking of just now or all time, but there have been fundamentalist Catholics before.

[Az]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


This is disingenous.

Muslims didn't create a Dark Age, Christians did.

well, I think that the fall of the Western Roman Empire is considered as the beginning of the Dark Age. If so , it wasn't the christianity, but the huns , that cause mass migration throughout europe.

Muslims didn't set up Inquisitions and witch-hunts. Christians did.

Well Christians didn't make wars to spread christianity. Muslims did, as the single arab halifat was the sole muslim great power.

Muslims didn't invade the New World, brought terrible diseases and Old World lifeforms that decimated native Man, animals, and plants alike. Christians did.

true. But this actions weren't claimed to be serving christianity. At least not after the first stages.

No matter how you look at it, Christians have been worse.

it has nothing to do with them being christian. Neither it cleans Islam from it's crimes. The point is that the christian countries learned , and changed , while the muslim ones didn't.

Islam also destroyed civilizations , and cultures( f.e: Persia ), organized an african slave trade( East African coast ), and practiced racial segragation( f.e. : Zanzibar ), was empirialist, etc.

so did the countries in the west. but they changed.

[KrazyHorse]

Well Christians didn't make wars to spread christianity

EDIT: Christians fought wars to spread Christianity, and like the Muslims also fought rather nasty wars amongst themselves to spread their own version of it...

[Az]

which ones? I may be wrong here.

[Urban Ranger]

Dalgetti,

"it has nothing to do with them being christian. Neither it cleans Islam from it's crimes."

That's not the point. The point I am contenting is Muslims aren't worse off than Christians. Both groups were bad. Parts of both groups are still bad.

"The point is that the christian countries learned , and changed , while the muslim ones didn't."

Don't forget that Indonesia is the biggest Islamic country in the world. It seems that they are also changing, slowly opening. That they don't see eye to eye with Uncle Sam doesn't mean they are automatically bad. You need to see what they have done domestically, what they have done to combat poverty, eradicate diseases, conserve the environment, eliminate illiteracy, etc.

[KrazyHorse]

Dalgetti

Well, there were these 4 interesting little military adventures called crusades...

They grew out of Muslim invasions of Christian territory, but they weren't counters against those attacks; they were truly religious wars for the express purpose of gaining control of the holy city.

IIRC, it was also a Roman Catholic army that first sacked Constantinople (Orthodox city), and then you've got the lovely little period surrounding the reformation. The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre springs to mind, as does the 30 Years War.

In addition to all of these you have the sordid history of the Church when it used its spiritual supremacy to wage war against its temporal enemies.

Persecution of heretics ran rampant through Europe, lying at the heart of dozens of revolts and massacres, and the original conversion of barbarian Europe was accomplished as much at the point of the sword as it was through contemplation of the Gospel.

[Imran Siddiqui]

KH: And don't mention the wars that Pope's would start so that the person that was most friendly to the Church would win... you could also call those wars to spread the faith.

true. But this actions weren't claimed to be serving christianity. At least not after the first stages.

Of course it was! We were spreading west, or Westerners were going all over the world, in the name of God, who gave them such a wonderful civilization. Have you never heard of the "white man's burden"?

[Cybergod]

:looks at the thread:



Tut tut tut - this just shows how intolerant humanity is, no matter what religion/belief, culture, nation or ethnic group they come from. I say that this whole Christian/Islam thing you guys have going is very destructive and is killing the point of this thread.

BTW, what is the point of this thread apart from promoting mutual hatred between members of this forum?

--Nikola

[Az]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Dalgetti,

"it has nothing to do with them being christian. Neither it cleans Islam from it's crimes."

That's not the point. The point I am contenting is Muslims aren't worse off than Christians. Both groups were bad. Parts of both groups are still bad.

I am against most religions in general. Some that do appeal to me is parts of Confucianism (sp?) , f.e. the way humans should generally treat each other. Less the 'woman must know her place' part . But that I can ignore , copy-paste the good stuff to my rule-book and go on.

"The point is that the christian countries learned , and changed , while the muslim ones didn't."

Don't forget that Indonesia is the biggest Islamic country in the world. It seems that they are also changing, slowly opening. That they don't see eye to eye with Uncle Sam doesn't mean they are automatically bad. You need to see what they have done domestically, what they have done to combat poverty, eradicate diseases, conserve the environment, eliminate illiteracy, etc.

and I welcome that, don't get me wrong. I just wish that it could be in much more places . And sadly , we see that it's not going on in most muslim countries. even the richer ones.

Imran : The colonization of the western hemisphere was serving primarily the interests of the European monarchies, not the pope. The top he was gaining is another cross that he had no control of. Christian catholics fought with each other to control lands, So they were not for "christianity" , but for " His Majesty" . That King was also " The protector of the faith" , or whatever, but it has little to do with that, because people regarded the pope as their supreme spiritual leader on earth , not the king. The English king is the exeption being the leader of his own , Anglican church, and even that because of a (relative to history ) minor feud over divorce.

In contrast , All the Expansionist wars of Islam were lead by Muhammad , A religious leader, and the ones that followed him were also the Khalifs , "the replacements" ( translation ) of muhammad. Muslims did fight with each other , but only after much after their initial expansion. The case with the two houses springs to mind. yes.

you could also call those wars to spread the faith.

no you cannot , because mostly both kingdoms populations regarded the pope as their leader.

Well, there were these 4 interesting little military adventures called crusades...

there are two layers of this , as I've learned recently.
The proclaimed reason: The 'liberation' of Jerusalem. - Jerusalem was originally their home turf ( the christians ) . True , the wars were not led by the countries that were attacked, but it was surely not a war to SPREAD christianity, rather than return it to it's original borders.
The real reason was the percieved economical benefits for many of the western leaders, and extraction of cash from Bizantium in order fund it. Even if that was the reason for the war , an evil one by any standard ,you couldn't call it religious, and that's we're talking about.

IIRC, it was also a Roman Catholic army that first sacked Constantinople (Orthodox city), and then you've got the lovely little period surrounding the reformation. The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre springs to mind, as does the 30 Years War.

yes , of course. But I thought we were talking about inflicting pain to other people . The wars waged were much more about the throne rather than the cross.

In addition to all of these you have the sordid history of the Church when it used its spiritual supremacy to wage war against its temporal enemies.

evil . noone disagrees. not a case of spreading christianity , though.

Persecution of heretics ran rampant through Europe, lying at the heart of dozens of revolts and massacres, and the original conversion of barbarian Europe was accomplished as much at the point of the sword as it was through contemplation of the Gospel

the persecution of heretics , I agree.

but I don't remember any christian armies invading pagan Ireland , for example.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This is disingenous.

Hardly.

Muslims didn't create a Dark Age, Christians did.

No, those were pagens, altough some did subscribe to an Aryian Christianity" that was considered hersey in the Christian church.

Muslims didn't set up Inquisitions and witch-hunts. Christians did.

Inquisitions wern't needed, they already had set up laws for non-muslims, look at my earlier posts.
They also punished those commiting "magic" acts, which is a form of "witchcraft".

Muslims didn't invade the New World, brought terrible diseases and Old World lifeforms that decimated native Man, animals, and plants alike. Christians did.

There cultures were not maritime in the Atlantic, they did indeed invade the east and Africa, as well as Europe.
It might be worth noting that later Mongol states were Muslim in nature, such as the Golden Horde, which held back the Russians for centuries.

No matter how you look at it, Christians have been worse.

Sorry, not even close, Islam is still way in the lead in this contest.

Don't forget that Indonesia is the biggest Islamic country in the world. It seems that they are also changing, slowly opening. That they don't see eye to eye with Uncle Sam doesn't mean they are automatically bad. You need to see what they have done domestically, what they have done to combat poverty, eradicate diseases, conserve the environment, eliminate illiteracy, etc.

I just saw, this very week, that Indonesia's leading cleric called for a holy war on the USA, and refused to lift a finger against terror.
Opening up?
No, they are headed in the other direction.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Sprayber
I haven't seen many of those 20 or so people try to make their case. They just vote and scurry away.

you have no proof.