Christians in India again - Orissa.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Heresson
Exactly, they're not british, and their aim was change of borders, not any benefit of their faith.

So what? Still minorities. Still kicking things off.

Or is there something super-special about religious conflict that means different principles apply?

[Kuciwalker]

This is a stupid comparison. Ockham's Razor says, no, the christians didn't do anything that merits pogroms.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


So what? Still minorities. Still kicking things off.

Uh, there weren't Philippinians bombing hindu temples in Orissa.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


IIRC the Pope declared a Roman Catholic fatwa on Queen Elizabeth I. By that I mean he actually offered a reward for her assassination.

She was a ruler who abandoned catholic church and persecuted catholics in her, still majorly catholic, kingdom. People acting against her were freedom fighters, not terrorists.

And I believe people did notice the confiscation of church property or destruction of monasteries, as well as rise of importance and audacity of "real" protestants.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Heresson


She was a ruler who abandoned catholic church and persecuted catholics in her, still majorly catholic, kingdom. People acting against her were freedom fighters, not terrorists.

And I believe people did notice the confiscation of church property or destruction of monasteries, as well as rise of importance and audacity of "real" protestants.

So you're OK with the Papacy using assassins to suppress Protestantism? You know what they say: "Turn around is fair play."

Do you have any proof that the majority of English people felt more loyalty to the Pope than the new national church? The English army at that time was pitifully small. There is no way they could have squelched a true mass uprising. Furthermore I might point out that relatively shortly after her reign there was a successful religious uprising - against a king perceived as being too pro-Catholic. You fail to realise how powerful the desire to be permitted to read the Bible in one's own language was in those days. By the end of the 16th century over 2/3rds of the English population were literate. They learned to read because they wanted to be able to read the Bible.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
This is a stupid comparison. Ockham's Razor says, no, the christians didn't do anything that merits pogroms.

That's entirely possible. I'm just taking the piss out of Heresson's dumb argument, not seriously suggesting the God-botherers have been kicking off.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
<--- My avatar has relevance to this thread.

Is that one of the dinosaurs that got killed in Noah's flood?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Maybe because they're not English?

All four of the UK national groups are pretty much the same damn thing with slightly different accents. Remember the Genetics in Europe thread? Genetically the Irish and British are 80% the same which is more then just about any large state in Europe. The only reason Ireland really had an independence movement was over religion and even then it took hundreds of years and was only partially successful. In all likelihood Ireland would be better off today if they'd just stayed in the union.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


So you're OK with the Papacy using assassins to suppress Protestantism? You know what they say: "Turn around is fair play."

Do you have any proof that the majority of English people felt more loyalty to the Pope than the new national church? The English army at that time was pitifully small. There is no way they could have squelched a true mass uprising. Furthermore I might point out that relatively shortly after her reign there was a successful religious uprising - against a king perceived as being too pro-Catholic. You fail to realise how powerful the desire to be permitted to read the Bible in one's own language was in those days. By the end of the 16th century over 2/3rds of the English population were literate. They learned to read because they wanted to be able to read the Bible.

The people in their mass were catholic, though perhaps mostly not very aware of it. I do find it acceptable to fight with a tyrant changing state religion and supressing the old one, also by a assasination.
During these times, it were protestants trying to change the state religion and trying to impose their own views on majority of not-too-interested-in-what-they-actually-believe-in population. It was before confesionalisation, or 2nd reformation, as it is sometimes called. During these times, yes, they had right to defend their feelings, but I'd be more convinced to accept their right weren't protestants fundamentalists without any tolerance for catholicism, church property robbers, church buildings stealers, and weren't calling pope an antichrist. If papacy captured an once-catholic-now-protestant land and tried to supress protestantism by Elisabeth's means, the opposition would be even more right. If this protestant land was NEVER catholic, thic would be completely right.
Elisabeth's reign
was very long, and during it great changes have occured. Also, that it was successful doesn't mean ir was majorly supported.

My point stays: if there's a fight between a majority and a minority, it's more likely the majority is the one that attacked, especially if the minority is virtually defenceless. Muslims in UK are a very different case: they are immigrants, so they aren't actually part of the society; they aren't persecuted, their houses aren't being burned, they aren't fleeding to the forests to save their lives. And some of them would want to implement shari'a. There is nothing like shari'a in christian world.

[DaShi]

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Heresson


The people in their mass were catholic, though perhaps mostly not very aware of it. I do find it acceptable to fight with a tyrant changing state religion and supressing the old one, also by a assasination.

Again, where do you get this idea that the majority of the English population were pro-Roman Catholic by the time of Elizabeth's reign? You have utterly nothing to back up your claim do you? Elizabeth ascended to the throne 25 years after Henry VIII declared himself head of the church of England. When Mary restored Roman Catholicisim as the state religion there were widespread rebellions throughout England. There were no comparable rebellions when Elizabeth signed the Act of Supremecy and the Act of Conformity. Why? Because the majority of people in England supported Protestant ideals. It was Mary who tried to impose an unwanted religion on the people of England. Would it have been OK for her to have been assassinated.

During these times, it were protestants trying to change the state religion and trying to impose their own views on majority of not-too-interested-in-what-they-actually-believe-in population. It was before confesionalisation, or 2nd reformation, as it is sometimes called. During these times, yes, they had right to defend their feelings, but I'd be more convinced to accept their right weren't protestants fundamentalists without any tolerance for catholicism, church property robbers, church buildings stealers, and weren't calling pope an antichrist. If papacy captured an once-catholic-now-protestant land and tried to supress protestantism by Elisabeth's means, the opposition would be even more right. If this protestant land was NEVER catholic, thic would be completely right.

Elizabeth didn't have to force Protestantism on the English people. The Act of Supremacy and the Act of Conformity both passed the House of Commons with large majorities.

Elisabeth's reign
was very long, and during it great changes have occured. Also, that it was successful doesn't mean ir was majorly supported.

Nevertheless there's ample evidence that the English people favored Protestant reform. The major changes as I said were having religious services they could understand, a Bible in their own language, the abolition of phony relics and indulgences, the removal of physical barriers between the clergy and the people and greater participation of the laity. Seriously, what why would they not desire these changes?

My point stays: if there's a fight between a majority and a minority, it's more likely the majority is the one that attacked, especially if the minority is virtually defenceless.

I think history shows that's not always the case. For example, the Union outnumbered the Confederacy by 2 to 1, but it was the Confederates who opened fire on Fort Sumter. Israel was clearly outnumbered by the Arab alliance surrounding her in 1968, but she attacked first. Prussia was outnumbered by Austria and her allies in the 18th century, but Frederick declared war first.

Muslims in UK are a very different case: they are immigrants, so they aren't actually part of the society; they aren't persecuted, their houses aren't being burned, they aren't fleeding to the forests to save their lives. And some of them would want to implement shari'a. There is nothing like shari'a in christian world.

I don't see how this is relevant to anything we were discussing.

Oh, and I might point out that Anglicans consider themselves to be Catholic. They profess their faith in one Catholic church at every service. It's just that we don't believe that we need to have a Pope.

[Theben]

How about "fundies of all stripes are stupid, throw rocks and stone them to death?"

I'll also accept religion is stupid.

[aneeshm]

Well, too bad.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Oerdin


All four of the UK national groups are pretty much the same damn thing with slightly different accents. Remember the Genetics in Europe thread? Genetically the Irish and British are 80% the same which is more then just about any large state in Europe. The only reason Ireland really had an independence movement was over religion and even then it took hundreds of years and was only partially successful. In all likelihood Ireland would be better off today if they'd just stayed in the union.

Celtic Tiger

You do realize the how much the EU did for Ireland?

[Heraclitus]

Are people here the Christians in India are seriously to blame for this pogrom or do you just like trolling Herreson?

Originally posted by aneeshm
Well, too bad.

Covert or die and that is all you have to say? Especially since Christianity was in India long before British rule in fact long before Muslim rule! Those Christians are as much proper Indians as Hindus or Sikhs.