100,000 Christians are murdered for their faith each year

[thegreekdog]

Is a war a crusade for both sides when one side declares it a religious war? Maybe President Bush should have called it an anti-crusade or something.

Does anyone know some characteristics of a crusade? Does it involve rebuilding the country you invaded? Does it involve training the military forces of the country you invaded?

Perhaps you could look to other Crusades for examples, there were a few of them.

Does calling a war a crusade, alone, make it a crusade? I think that's what you're saying.

If the leader of a nation, when declaring war makes a national speech saying that it's a crusade, I would say that's strong evidence in favour.

I disagree, but that's okay. There are many other, way more important, indicia of a religious crusade than the president saying "crusade" in a speech one time. Like, for example, killing all the non-Christians instead of building them schools and training their military. Or tearing down all of their mosques instead and building churches. Or making them renounce their religion. Or invading a holy land that is holy to Christianity (and no offense to Afghanistan or Iraq, but I'm pretty sure Christians have no holy lands in those countries).

[Symmetry]

Is a war a crusade for both sides when one side declares it a religious war? Maybe President Bush should have called it an anti-crusade or something.

Does anyone know some characteristics of a crusade? Does it involve rebuilding the country you invaded? Does it involve training the military forces of the country you invaded?

Perhaps you could look to other Crusades for examples, there were a few of them.

Does calling a war a crusade, alone, make it a crusade? I think that's what you're saying.

If the leader of a nation, when declaring war makes a national speech saying that it's a crusade, I would say that's strong evidence in favour.

I disagree, but that's okay. There are many other, way more important, indicia of a religious crusade than the president saying "crusade" in a speech one time. Like, for example, killing all the non-Christians instead of building them schools and training their military. Or tearing down all of their mosques instead and building churches. Or making them renounce their religion. Or invading a holy land that is holy to Christianity (and no offense to Afghanistan or Iraq, but I'm pretty sure Christians have no holy lands in those countries).

You have an interesting definition of what constitutes a crusade, although I note that you also very much think in religious terms- "all of their mosques" even within your argument that there is no religious basis.

I'm slightly interested though, what would make it a crusade? A Papal declaration? You seem, to be fair, more interested in the aftermath.

[thegreekdog]

You have an interesting definition of what constitutes a crusade, although I note that you also very much think in religious terms- "all of their mosques" even within your argument that there is no religious basis.

Since this appears, at least based upon the title of the OP, the OP, and the various other responses, to be a religious-themed thread. I would not use the term "interesting" in describing my reaction to what constitutes a crusade given the title of the OP, the OP, and the various other responses. I used the "all of their mosques" as an example of what I believe would be evidence of a crusade. I used a lot of other examples that seem to be themes of most religious crusades. As far as I know, the United States did not attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity or Judaism, the United States did not destroy mosques and raise churches or temples, the United States did not forcibly convert any Muslims to Christianity or Judaism, and the United States did not kill Muslims because they were Muslim. If they did any of those things, I'd be happy to discuss.

So, was I incorrect to assume you used the term "crusade" in a religious context? Did you use it in a non-religious context? If so, then I agree the war in Afghanistan was a crusade (albeit a non-religious one). Although, if you did use it in a non-religious context, it was awfully misleading of you to do it in this particular thread in response to the particular posts you were responding to.

I'm slightly interested though, what would make it a crusade? A Papal declaration? You seem, to be fair, more interested in the aftermath.

Are we talking about a religious crusade? A papal declaration would be evidence of a religious crusade if it was accompanied with some semblance of the words "holy land" and "infidels" and some other phraseology demonstrating the religious nature of the war. I also tend to think a religious crusade would be a proactive war and not a responsive one. The war in Afghanistan could therefore be ruled out of the discussion of religious crusade on that basis alone (unless you think that the United States conceived and executed the events of 9/11 and not Al Qaeda terrorists).

[oVo]

Christians and Jews.

All the others are engaged in slaughter to at least some extent.

You've overlooked the Subject Line of this thread and the source of those fatalities.

Christians are being killed because of their faith. Christians are not killing others because of their faith. I stand by my statement.

Most Christians are being killed by other Christians, but 100,000 Christians are not being murdered annually because of their beliefs. That number is tossed out there simply to freak the faithful into a violent paranoid oblivion.

[Symmetry]

TGD- I've got to say I'm a little bemused by your strict terms of what has to happen after a Crusade is declared. I find them mostly irrelevant to the declaration of a Crusade.

Your argument seems to fall back on (once we dismiss the stuff that happened after the declaration as secondary) the idea that only a papal declaration can be admitted as evidence.

Is that fair?

I invite you to look at the first crusade, however, and see if it fits your terms.

[mrswdk]

crusade: a vigorous campaign for political, social or religious change

So there we go. A crusade is not necessarily a religious war.

It's funny how you whine about BBS being a troll, and yet your response to this thread has 'troll' written all over it. Make your mind up. You can't have your cake and eat it.

[thegreekdog]

TGD- I've got to say I'm a little bemused by your strict terms of what has to happen after a Crusade is declared. I find them mostly irrelevant to the declaration of a Crusade.

Your argument seems to fall back on (once we dismiss the stuff that happened after the declaration as secondary) the idea that only a papal declaration can be admitted as evidence.

Is that fair?

Short answer: No.
Slightly longer answer: You seem to have selective reading. But feel free to pay attention to whatever you want; it doesn't change that the correct answer is that the war in Afghanistan is/was not a religious crusade. If you want to make it into one because the president of the United States, a Christian man, said the word "crusade" then that's your bad.

[mrswdk]

A useful overview of the situation:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ilent.html

In Syria, Christians are under attack by Islamist rebels and fear extinction if Bashar al-Assad falls. This month, rebels overran the historic Christian town of Maalula, where many of its inhabitants speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus. The AFP reported that a resident of Maalula called her fiancé’s cell and was told by member of the Free Syrian Army that they gave him a chance to convert to Islam and he refused. So they slit his throat.

[_sabotage_]

What situation? The terrorists paid by and taking the blame for US atrocities is in its fourth decade and doesn't particularly discriminate.

[2dimes]

Since this appears, at least based upon the title of the OP, the OP, and the various other responses, to be a religious-themed thread.

I'm willing to remove all references to religion in this or a new thread, in order to discuss whether or not those wanting to down play the slaughter of Christians and or simply prove the 90000 is being grossly exaggerated to 100000, is ok if it is for some other reason, real or imagined.

Or better yet turn it around so we can blame the real killers.

The Chinese and North Koreans are secretly Christians posing as Muslims and communists while crusading.

How's that for a conquer club style scientifically sound hypothesis?

[thegreekdog]

Since this appears, at least based upon the title of the OP, the OP, and the various other responses, to be a religious-themed thread.

I'm willing to remove all references to religion in this or a new thread, in order to discuss whether or not those wanting to down play the slaughter of Christians and or simply prove the 90000 is being grossly exaggerated to 100000, is ok if it is for some other reason, real or imagined.

Excellent point.

[2dimes]

I enjoy being a vocal opponent of Christians as much as the next guy but anyone with the slightest ability to be honest, should be able to admit, they have not had a good crusade in centuries.

To credit them with the wars of the 1900s is silly.

[thegreekdog]

I enjoy being a vocal opponent of Christians as much as the next guy but anyone with the slightest ability to be honest, should be able to admit, they have not had a good crusade in centuries.

To credit them with the wars of the 1900s is silly.

I have made the argument that most, if not all, wars are not prosecuted for religious reasons. Even the crusades were land and money grabs. That assumes that people of the middle ages were less interested in religion and more interested in power and cash.

[chang50]

I enjoy being a vocal opponent of Christians as much as the next guy but anyone with the slightest ability to be honest, should be able to admit, they have not had a good crusade in centuries.

To credit them with the wars of the 1900s is silly.

I have made the argument that most, if not all, wars are not prosecuted for religious reasons. Even the crusades were land and money grabs. That assumes that people of the middle ages were less interested in religion and more interested in power and cash.

True then and now,I've long thought the religious to be way more interested in this life than the next whilst professing the opposite.

[Metsfanmax]

Since this appears, at least based upon the title of the OP, the OP, and the various other responses, to be a religious-themed thread.

I'm willing to remove all references to religion in this or a new thread, in order to discuss whether or not those wanting to down play the slaughter of Christians and or simply prove the 90000 is being grossly exaggerated to 100000, is ok if it is for some other reason, real or imagined.

You completely missed the point of the BBC piece. The 90,000 are the ones that are not being killed for their religion (the ones from the DRC war). They're at least exaggerating 10,000 to 100,000.

[2dimes]

This thread then?

If those 10 - 100 thousand guys were not retards they wouldn't have been killed.

[oVo]

Drunk drivers have been murdering Christians
in America for decades, but they don't actually
discriminate.

18,000,000 Russian fatalities in WWII, with more
than half of those being civilians. Bet there are
some Christians in there to boost the BBC stats.

[2dimes]

That should for sure be a different thread. Atheists kill 18 000 000.

[chang50]

That should for sure be a different thread. Atheists kill 18 000 000.

18m Russian fatalities in ww2 were killed by atheists?

[2dimes]

That is what I was told about communist Russians.

[thegreekdog]

I enjoy being a vocal opponent of Christians as much as the next guy but anyone with the slightest ability to be honest, should be able to admit, they have not had a good crusade in centuries.

To credit them with the wars of the 1900s is silly.

I have made the argument that most, if not all, wars are not prosecuted for religious reasons. Even the crusades were land and money grabs. That assumes that people of the middle ages were less interested in religion and more interested in power and cash.

True then and now,I've long thought the religious to be way more interested in this life than the next whilst professing the opposite.

I had that discussion with a professor in college (who was a medieval and crusades expert). His thought that the rank and file consisted mainly of those with a lot of religious fervor or those without much opportunity in their current situation that saw an opportunity. He also said that the religious leaders (e.g. popes) were driven for religious reasons, but the military leaders of the crusades were in it for power.

[_sabotage_]

You mean the religious leaders (ie popes) were in it for money and power and harassed and cajoled the military leaders into spilling blood for them, against the teachings of Jesus?

[chang50]

That is what I was told about communist Russians.

the 18m Russians who died were killed by communists?The Nazis weren't responsible for any of them?

[thegreekdog]

You mean the religious leaders (ie popes) were in it for money and power and harassed and cajoled the military leaders into spilling blood for them, against the teachings of Jesus?

Yes.

[Symmetry]

TGD- I've got to say I'm a little bemused by your strict terms of what has to happen after a Crusade is declared. I find them mostly irrelevant to the declaration of a Crusade.

Your argument seems to fall back on (once we dismiss the stuff that happened after the declaration as secondary) the idea that only a papal declaration can be admitted as evidence.

Is that fair?

Short answer: No.
Slightly longer answer: You seem to have selective reading. But feel free to pay attention to whatever you want; it doesn't change that the correct answer is that the war in Afghanistan is/was not a religious crusade. If you want to make it into one because the president of the United States, a Christian man, said the word "crusade" then that's your bad.

My "bad", huh, are you trying to tell me that hearing the President of the US declaring the war a crusade was my mistake?

I'm all for Bush gaffes, but your pushing it a wee bit here TGD.

On the up side, it looks like Dubya is the keynote speaker for an organisation that seeks to convert Jewish people to Christianity;

George W Bush's new 'crusade': converting Jews to Christianity