The "Religion Causes Peace" put-up or shut-up challenge:

[cosmik debris]

Can anyone name an instance where war was raging and it was brought to an equitable peaceful conclusion by religion.

Many religions claim to be religions of peace, so this should be easy.

:popcorn:

[BlooInBloo]

1. Who in the world would be stupid enough to think that?

[cosmik debris]

4. It is a follow up on a thread in the R/T forum. n/t

[Ian David]

2. Of course.

It's called Genocide.

Eventually, one side is all dead, and then there is peace.

[hobbit709]

3. The peace of the grave, maybe.

[MNDemNY]

5. I hope your not waiting around for an answer.

You will be called a bigot, or worse, before you get an answer.

[Bluerthanblue]

6. while we're at it, how about 'democracy causes peace'?

just because a group of people do things and 'claim' it's in the name of "religion" or "freedom" or "good" doesn't mean squat.

Reasearch the Quakers. You'll find a history of a people who do everything within their power to end war, injustice and suffering among all people. There are other groups as well, but they come to mind first.


peace

[cosmik debris]

7. Have Quakers ever ended a war? n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

11. has any "group" ever really ENDED a war?

seriously.

This is a silly argument.

Have Quakers ever begun a war?

:shrug:

[cosmik debris]

13. The United Nations has. n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

14. ?

then where is the UN now???

And why wasn't the UN able to stop the US from invading Iraq?

:shrug:

[cosmik debris]

15. You are straying from the question

The question was, when has religion ended war?

If you have examples I would very much like to hear about them.

Thank you.

[Bluerthanblue]

16. You are correct- I am,

the question is one that doesn't have a genuine answer though. (IMO)
The claim could be made that 'religion' neither starts nor ends wars, because religion is nothing more than a label- Something that one can adopt or discard at will, rather than something that is part of the essence of a group of people. The problem with questions like this is that the ....'agenda'... (for lack of a better word) is to demonize a group of individuals under a single 'classification'. People throughout history have used "god" or "allah" or "jehovah" or "the gods" or _________ as the 'authority figure' that gives them the 'right' to do what they know (IMO) is wrong. When we argue about "spreading freedom and democracy" with the aid of cluster bombs, bunker busters, and white phosphate, we are destroying the very thing we claim to be fighting to support.

Do people start wars hiding their real motives (greed, lust, hunger desire for power) under the banner of 'religion'? Hell yes- but that doesn't mean that a 'religion' has been the CAUSE of a war- it is simply a scape-goat. We humans are pretty crafty in our ability to justify (if only to ourselves) the most ridiculous things as 'reasons' why we do what we do - against our own better judgment- in hopes of fooling.... who?


Sorry- I'll quit hopping this train car- it's a circular track (IMO).

peace
:hi:

[struggle4progress]

30. The Nobel Peace Prize 1976

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1976/

[Ozymanithrax]

8. Bishop Lupus of Troyes in the 4th Century.

With Attilla about to plunder Troyes, Bishop Lupus went forth with the power of God and Christ and, somehow, managed to convince Atilla to turn away and head back home.

Atila returned eastward, with Troyes direclty in his path. It was an ominous moment, and once more everyone truned to Bishop Lupus. This time Lupus negotiated in person, and he scored a surprising success. Attila spared Troyes, and, taking the bishop with him as far as the Rhine, sent him home laden with honors. For this diplomatic feat Lupus was first denounced as a collaborator and exiled, but later, on sober second thought, restored to h is see, to be eventually canonized as St-Loup.
Life in a Medieval City - Joseph and Frances Gies - Page 3 published 1981

Every now and then, religion does cause peace to break out. But, you shouldn't hold your breath.

And, The Bahai Faith outlaws war.
The Baha'i Faith

Fanaticism represents a perversion of religion and is directly contrary to the humane teachings brought by the Founders of all the great religions of the world. We believe that the purpose of every religion has been to promote unity among all the peoples of the world, and to outlaw war and violence in human affairs. All the major religions have taught the "Golden Rule." The violence and disruption associated with religious fanaticism testifies to its spiritual emptiness. Fanaticism destroys the very foundations of human solidarity by dividing the world into contending factions, each believing itself to be superior to others and to have an exclusive claim on religious truth. These actions and attitudes negate the very purpose of religion.

[cosmik debris]

9. Thank you. n/t

[baldguy]

18. Then Attila went and invaded Italy.

I'm sure the Italians were eternally grateful to Lupus for steering the Huns their way.

[Jim__]

10. During WWI, almost.

The song is based on an actual event:

Christmas in the Trenches
by John McCutcheon

My name is Francis Tolliver, I come from Liverpool.
Two years ago the war was waiting for me after school.
To Belgium and to Flanders, to Germany to here
I fought for King and country I love dear.
'Twas Christmas in the trenches, where the frost so bitter hung,
The frozen fields of France were still, no Christmas song was sung
Our families back in England were toasting us that day
Their brave and glorious lads so far away.

I was lying with my messmate on the cold and rocky ground
When across the lines of battle came a most peculiar sound
Says I, "Now listen up, me boys!" each soldier strained to hear
As one young German voice sang out so clear.
"He's singing bloody well, you know!" my partner says to me
Soon, one by one, each German voice joined in harmony
The cannons rested silent, the gas clouds rolled no more
As Christmas brought us respite from the war
As soon as they were finished and a reverent pause was spent
"God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen" struck up some lads from Kent
The next they sang was "Stille Nacht." "Tis 'Silent Night'," says I
And in two tongues one song filled up that sky
"There's someone coming toward us!" the front line sentry cried
All sights were fixed on one long figure trudging from their side
His truce flag, like a Christmas star, shown on that plain so bright
As he, bravely, strode unarmed into the night
Soon one by one on either side walked into No Man's Land
With neither gun nor bayonet we met there hand to hand
We shared some secret brandy and we wished each other well
And in a flare-lit soccer game we gave 'em hell
We traded chocolates, cigarettes, and photographs from home
These sons and fathers far away from families of their own
Young Sanders played his squeezebox and they had a violin
This curious and unlikely band of men

Soon daylight stole upon us and France was France once more
With sad farewells we each prepared to settle back to war
But the question haunted every heart that lived that wonderous night
"Whose family have I fixed within my sights?"
'Twas Christmas in the trenches where the frost, so bitter hung
The frozen fields of France were warmed as songs of peace were sung
For the walls they'd kept between us to exact the work of war
Had been crumbled and were gone forevermore

My name is Francis Tolliver, in Liverpool I dwell
Each Christmas come since World War I, I've learned its lessons well
That the ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame
And on each end of the rifle we're the same

[cosmik debris]

12. I had heard that story, but forgotten it. Thanks. n/t

[baldguy]

17. There are billions who rest in peace because of religion.

By force if necessary.

[struggle4progress]

19. Dietrich Bonhoeffer on Faith and Politics

By William J. Federer on February 4th, 2009

Jimmy Carter, in his book Sources of Strength, 1997, wrote: “Rev. Niebuhr urged Dietrich Bonhoeffer to remain in America for his own safety. Bonhoeffer refused. He felt he had to be among the other Christians persecuted in Germany. So he returned home, and…in resistance to Hitler…preached publicly against Nazism, racism, and anti-Semitism…Bonhoeffer was finally arrested and imprisoned, and FEBRUARY 4, 1945, just a few days before the allied armies liberated Germany, he was executed on orders of Heinrich Himmler. He died a disciple and a martyr.”

Jimmy Carter concluded: “The same Holy Spirit…that gave Bonhoeffer the strength to stand up against Nazi tyranny is available to us today” ...

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/02/dietrich-bonhoeffer-on-faith-and-politics/

[cosmik debris]

20. A touching story, but

I'm looking for instances where religion ended a war.

[laconicsax]

22. You're misinterpreting history.

A prominent religious figure who was imprisoned almost a full year before VE day and executed a month before VE day single-handedly brought an end to the war.

Any other interpretation of the facts at hand is wrong.

[cosmik debris]

24. Boy, do I feel deceived.

All this time I thought the Russian Army marching into Berlin was the key to ending the war. Who would have ever thought that the war would end a month before VE Day?

I'm so glad we have S4P to keep me straight.

:sarcasm:

[struggle4progress]

29. Perhaps the closest I can come to that is something like this:

The Nobel Peace Prize 1976
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1976/

... She started to go from door to door in the actual street where the tragedy had occurred. The cup of horrors had now run over: the time had come when the ordinary man and woman must rise in protest against this senseless use of violence. It was no longer a question of political attitudes or religious convictions. There was only one remedy: the people themselves must cry halt ...
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1976/press.html

... Compassion is more important than intellect, in calling forth the love that the work of peace needs, and intuition can often be a far more powerful searchlight than cold reason ... We are angry at the waste of resources that goes on everyday for militarism while human beings live in misery ... Someday there will be a "war" but no one will come. And of course, if no one comes there will be no war ...
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1976/williams-lecture.html

The Peace People
http://www.peacepeople.com/Manefesto_2000_-_Decade_Nonviolence.htm

Such example may not really address the question that you intended: if so, my only defense is that this is the answer I can give and that this answer seems to me to answer the question that needs to be asked, whether or not the question I'm answering is the question you actually asked

[cosmik debris]

31. The Troubles in Northern Ireland ended in 1998

Not 1976.

So no, you did not provide an instance when religion ended war.

[struggle4progress]

32. "... In 1977, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize for 1976 to Mairead Corrigan and

Betty Williams, Northern Ireland's Peace People. It has since been said that the time was not ripe. This time, too, we have heard that our choice may be premature, that lasting peace is still far to seek. The argument is easy to understand, and nothing could have pleased us more than to have been able to say today that peace was certain. But in connection with these awards, as with a number of others, the Committee bore in mind Nobel's clear intention that the prize should reflect current affairs, and that it should advance the cause of peace. We know that a peace process may be long and difficult and suffer frequent reverses. In such processes, it is important to focus on the advances, made perhaps against the odds, and on the persons brave enough to stand up in a good cause. Reverses do not mean that their efforts have been in vain ..."
The Nobel Peace Prize 1998
Presentation Speech
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1998/presentation-speech.html

[cosmik debris]

33. And 22 years later the troubles ended.

And you don't think that is a mighty big stretch?

Oh well.

[struggle4progress]

34. These things take time

[cosmik debris]

35. And credulity. n/t

[laconicsax]

21. A Lutheran pastor executed a month before the VE day ended the war?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed on April 9th, 1945, not February 4th as your source inaccurately states (link 1, link 2). Either way, Germany surrendered on May 7th, 1945 and despite being a member of the German resistance, he was not instrumental in ending the war and as the victory in Europe was military in nature, religion was not instrumental in ending the war either.

[struggle4progress]

26. Of course, neither Bonhoeffer nor his execution shortened the war. I suppose a natural reaction is

that Bonhoeffer is not a very inspiring success, since he managed to get himself arrested and hanged. But that's the religion: it does, after all, ascribe a certain prominence to the ugly execution of a Jewish peasant by imperial Rome. If one wants to discuss Christians and war, Bonhoeffer is a good example -- though perhaps Francis of Assisi is less depressing

It's a minor point that the little snippet confuses the day of Bonhoeffer's death with his birthday, but thanks for pointing it out

[conscious evolution]

23. Didn't the Church help end

the Soccer War in Central America?

[cosmik debris]

25. Normally I would demand a link

But I'm willing to take your word for it.

:)

[Occam Bandage]

27. I'm pretty sure that God has been invoked in as many declarations of peace

as in declarations of war. Some prefer to credit religion for the former and blame man for the latter, some prefer to blame religion for the latter and credit man for the former.

[cosmik debris]

28. But the question was:

"Can anyone name an instance where war was raging and it was brought to an equitable peaceful conclusion by religion."

Talking about god after the fact is hardly ending a war.

[Occam Bandage]

36. Then talking about God before the fact is hardly starting a war.

Either way, it's just a thin layer of religion painted over politics. Anyway, the fundamental problem here is that you're asking for religion to act as an independent diplomatic intercessor, which is not the nature of religion. I mean, one could point to a number of disputes in the middle ages that were settled by the Pope, but the Pope in that case was clearly acting in a political and not a religious capacity.

For instance, one might look at the Peace of God and the Truce of God, both of which were Church movements/proclamations designed to limit the brutal nature of constant feudal war. However, I would instead argue those were done in large part to impose some degree of political stability, as the constant raid and pillage of bandit armies in the post-Viking period became an enormous threat to the cohesion of the feudal structure.

On the flip side, I would also argue that the exact same forces that led to the Peace and Truce of God also led directly to the Crusades. Whether God was being used to justify war or to justify peace, God was in the end just another convenient justification for political ends.

But to your original claim about religion being peaceful? No religious person, in saying that, means to say that their religion is a nonviolent geopolitical peacekeeping force. Rather, they suggest that adherents of their religion are more likely to personally promote or believe in peace. Such a claim isn't easily provable or disprovable.

[cosmik debris]

41. You have a temporal discontinuity there.

What happens before the war matters.

What happens before the peace matters.

Actions or words after the fact are not causes.

Causes must precede the result.

[Occam Bandage]

42. While I am disappointed you apparently did not read beyond the subject line,

I'll take it and continue. Religion as a justification for war is, historically, usually brought up after war is made inevitable by secular issues. It is also, historically, usually brought up as a justification for peace after peace is made inevitable by military reality.

This does not mean that religion is not ever a cause for war; religion is often bound up in both politics and culture, and there have been many wars in which a primary difference between the belligerents has been religion. However, I think calling those "religious wars" is simply a fair and reasonable simplification. Whether we're talking about the wars following the Protestant Reformation, the Irish Troubles, or the series of wars and violence over Kashmir, religion may be the primary motivating factor for the average combatant, but yet I'd say each were caused entirely by secular politics.

[kwassa]

37. Bad premise. War would be prevented by religion-proposed peace in the first place.

The idea that religion can stop a raging war misses the point. Nothing can, once the dogs of war are loosed.

The real key is that religion can prevent the war from ever happening in the first place, by promoting both justice and reconciliation.

Two examples:
Martin Luther King probably prevented race war in America. Desmond Tutu had that same influence in South Africa.

[laconicsax]

38. Do you mean to say that justice and reconciliation can prevent war, regardless of religious input?

"The real key is that religion can prevent the war from ever happening in the first place, by promoting both justice and reconciliation."

Promotion of justice and reconciliation are necessary to prevent war, religion can play only play a role in fostering the two when it is used as common ground between opposing sides. When religion is not shared ground between groups, it cannot (and is not) used to reconcile differences. Even when it is shared, the interpretation of what constitutes the religion's stance on contentious issues often leads to further conflict. Take the Civil War for example. Both abolitionists and anti-abolitionists quoted different passages from the same holy book to support their mutually exclusive positions. Each believed their position to be correct and the other's to be a perverse interpretation.

The examples you give of religion possibly preventing war are arguably instances of charismatic leaders promoting justice and reconciliation. Does the fact that Dr. King and Archbishop Tutu were religious necessarily lead to them promoting justice and reconciliation? I would think that since non-religious figures came to the same conclusions about the need to end racial inequality in the United States and South Africa without religious influence means that the role religion played in both instances can be overlooked beyond the de facto positions of respect that King and Tutu were afforded as a result of their chosen professions.

(Since wars do end, your assertion that they are impossible to stop is undoubtedly flawed.)

[trotsky]

39. Interesting post - and it made me realize...

Many believers excuse the violence and wars caused in the name of their religion saying those were really due to other factors, and religion just happened to be a convenient tool a charismatic leader could manipulate. Seems to me that such logic would equally apply against their favorite religious "peacebringers," too.

[kwassa]

43. Nope.

"Promotion of justice and reconciliation are necessary to prevent war, religion can play only play a role in fostering the two when it is used as common ground between opposing sides. When religion is not shared ground between groups, it cannot (and is not) used to reconcile differences. Even when it is shared, the interpretation of what constitutes the religion's stance on contentious issues often leads to further conflict."

Religious leaders, from different religions, can and do lean across the religious divide everyday. In this country we call them interfaith coalitions. They look for common principles and areas of agreement to deal from. We are specifically talking about the prevention of war, not certain divisive issues surrounding exact biblical interpretation, on which such colitions would be unlikely.

"The examples you give of religion possibly preventing war are arguably instances of charismatic leaders promoting justice and reconciliation. Does the fact that Dr. King and Archbishop Tutu were religious necessarily lead to them promoting justice and reconciliation?"

It certainly does in the case of each of these men. Their charisma and their beliefs in justice and reconciliation come from their religious faith.

"I would think that since non-religious figures came to the same conclusions about the need to end racial inequality in the United States and South Africa without religious influence means that the role religion played in both instances can be overlooked"

I find that some atheists take this position in order to minimize the very positive role of religion in social progress, so they can continue to attribute only negative attributions to religious practices. This position also complete ignores what THESE INDIVIDUALS believe to be the source of their belief in justice and reconciliation: which is, of course, the Bible, and their studies of it.

[trotsky]

47. ...

I find that some Christians take this position in order to minimize the very negative role of religion in social progress, so they can continue to attribute only positive attributions to religious practices. This position also complete ignores what THESE INDIVIDUALS believe to be the source of their belief in justice and absolute judgment: which is, of course, the Bible, and their studies of it.

Ooh those double-edged swords are sharp.

[laconicsax]

48. Any objective observer would take a similar position concerning religion's necessity.

Say you have three people: Persons A, B, and C. Persons A and B are religious and identify as members of the same faith, person C is not religious.

Person A believes that their religion teaches that racial inequality is wrong.
Person B believes that their religion teaches that racial inequality is acceptable.
Person C concludes that racial inequality is wrong.

All three work equally hard to put their views on the issue into practice.

Since A and B, both belonging to the same faith have adopted opposite positions, it is dishonest to say that their religion is a catalyst for efforts to end racial inequality without acknowledging that it is also a catalyst for furthering racial inequality AND is clearly not a necessary catalyst to end racial inequality.

If A and B's religion was a necessary catalyst to work against racial inequality, C would not independently conclude that racial inequality is wrong. Furthermore, the simple fact that A and B use the same religion to justify opposite claims implies that their shared religion is not a necessary catalyst for A's position since it led B to an opposite position. If A believes their religion to be a source of inspiration, then that's fine for them. It's accurate to say that religion can play a positive role in social progress but dishonest to say that it is necessary.

[kwassa]

52. sorry, you apply "objective observer" to what is only a personal opinion

"Since A and B, both belonging to the same faith have adopted opposite positions, it is dishonest to say that their religion is a catalyst for efforts to end racial inequality without acknowledging that it is also a catalyst for furthering racial inequality AND is clearly not a necessary catalyst to end racial inequality."

It is not dishonest to say any such thing. It is just incomplete. Also, their faith is a necessary catalyst to these individuals, as I already pointed out, but you apparently don't accept that. Your personal opinion on this part of the question isn't really relevant, because only they can decide the source of their belief, not you.

"If A and B's religion was a necessary catalyst to work against racial inequality, C would not independently conclude that racial inequality is wrong."

I never said it was the only catalyst, only that it was a catalyst. There can be multiple different catalysts that lead to the same conclusion. I don't know why you assume that there can only be one necessary catalyst. I think this is a very weak presumption on your part.

"Furthermore, the simple fact that A and B use the same religion to justify opposite claims implies that their shared religion is not a necessary catalyst for A's position since it led B to an opposite position."

No, it doesn't, it simply means that they drew different lessons from a certain body of teachings. That is unfortunately fairly common, when considering a book as long and as complex as the Old and New Testaments

"If A believes their religion to be a source of inspiration, then that's fine for them. It's accurate to say that religion can play a positive role in social progress but dishonest to say that it is necessary."

It isn't dishonest at all, it it necessary to these religious individuals, and it is not necessary to you, and both of those things are true.

[laconicsax]

57. I think you misread my response.

(To start, when I say that something is dishonest, I mean intellectually dishonest. If I meant factually dishonest, I would have called it a lie or false.)

I said, "If A and B's religion was a necessary catalyst..."
You responded, "I never said it was the only catalyst..."

I certainly never said that religion was the only catalyst, nor did I say that you did. I said "a necessary catalyst" meaning that while there can be others, religion is necessary. You in fact affirmed this by saying that it was "necessary to these religious individuals."

To say that something is necessary for an event, you are saying that without it, the event cannot proceed. As a result, you have implied that without religion, Dr. King and Archbishop Tutu would not have embraced justice and reconciliation to end racial inequality. Do you agree with this, or do you believe that even without religion, they would have still adopted similar, if not identical positions?

Doesn't the fact that a religious text is so self-contradictory (or 'complex' as you put it) as to be easily used to serve opposite ends degrade its worth and by extension, the religion that embraces it? If a piece of legislation outlaws wearing hats in part 1 and then establishes a "national wear-a-hat day" in part 2, then isn't the legislation essentially worthless? Wouldn't a government that enacted such legislation be seen as a joke?

[kwassa]

59. to reply

"To say that something is necessary for an event, you are saying that without it, the event cannot proceed. As a result, you have implied that without religion, Dr. King and Archbishop Tutu would not have embraced justice and reconciliation to end racial inequality. Do you agree with this, or do you believe that even without religion, they would have still adopted similar, if not identical positions?"

There is no way to know whether or not they would have embraced these ideas without their faith, but embracing those ideas within their faith, which also embraces these ideas, caused it to resonate with countless others within and without their faith who joined the cause and made these men moral forces.

"Doesn't the fact that a religious text is so self-contradictory (or 'complex' as you put it) as to be easily used to serve opposite ends degrade its worth and by extension, the religion that embraces it?"

I don't believe so, because the essential messages are indeed essential, and have been carried along for 2000 years because they reverberate within so many people, and those messages are about justice and mercy. There is much other material in the Bible, of course, but many hands wrote it with somewhat different purposes, still the major ideas stand strong.

[cosmik debris]

40. You are changing the question because

you don't like the answer to my question.

You and S4P both decided to change the question so that you could give an answer more flattering to you religious beliefs.

In another thread the question was asked does religion start war.

In my thread the question is does religion stop war.

Can you describe any instance where religion brought a war to a halt?

If you want to answer your own question, feel free to start your own thread.

[kwassa]

44. I'm changing the question to reflect your thread title.

"The "Religion Causes Peace" put-up or shut-up challenge:"

Religion can cause peace, just not the way you narrowly framed it. It can cause peace in the prevention of war, as I pointed out. Your question did not allow for that possibility, while your thread title did and does.

[cosmik debris]

45. I asked the question I wanted answered. You could not answer it

In a way that made your superstition look good, so you changed it.

It seems like you can only live with a frame that makes you look good.

Is that cognitive dissonance or what?

[Occam Bandage]

46. Well, that's a bit of an unfair argument.

For an analogy, I might well say, "How many times has the Democratic party stopped a rape in progress?" If you respond "zero times," I will say, "see? The Democratic party doesn't do anything to stop violence against women."

If you say, "that's not a very good question; you should instead be looking to the laws and policies it promotes," I will reply, "Well, you're changing the subject because can't answer the original question in a way that makes your party look good. It's sad you can live only within a frame that makes you look good."

[cosmik debris]

49. Aw bullshit

You are imagining that I might say something that I haven't said.

You are imagining a conclusion that I have not reached.

You're just making up shit to make me look bad and make you look good.

Stick to the facts. Stop projecting your expectations on to me.

[Occam Bandage]

50. Ah, you're right. The OP was not even remotely suggesting

that the question had anything to do with whether religion causes peace. Rather, the question was a complete non sequitur, and the question of whether religion causes peace is only marginally related if at all. Your subject line was not at all intended to suggest that the answer to the question was related to the peace-causing ability, or lack thereof, of religion.

Come on.

[cosmik debris]

51. That doesn't even make sense.

How can a question be a non sequitur?

A non sequitur requires a premise and a conclusion.

A question is neither of those.

It is obvious at this point that you are afraid that the answer to my question reflects badly on religion. So you are attempting to distort the question to the greatest degree in order to prevent an answer that would reflect negatively.

You are not required to answer my question. If you don't have an answer you can live with, just don't answer.

[kwassa]

53. You ask the question you want answered, but you falsed represented the issue in your question

You just did a poor job of setting up your OP.

[cosmik debris]

54. That doesn't make sense either.

I understand why you are uncomfortable with the question, but it is just a question. It doesn't misrepresent anything, it just asks a question.

I'm getting more and more amazed at how sensitive theists can get when questions are asked.

[kwassa]

55. You are so funny when you lose a debate.

You go off on all kinds of unrelated tangents. This is the basic reason I rarely engage you.

[cosmik debris]

56. I'm sorry, but you are not making any sense at all.

You can't seem to understand my question.

You can't seem to answer my question.

And you insist that your shortcoming is the fault of the question.

Why is it that theists are the only ones who are unable to understand or answer the question?

[laconicsax]

58. I think you know the answer to that one.

"Why is it that theists are the only ones who are unable to understand or answer the question?"

[kwassa]

60. Uh, I answered the question directly in my very first post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=196577&mesg_id=196640

I've repeated it several times.

Cosmik has been unable to debate my answer, and then goes off on thinly-veiled personal attacks. You too?

[laconicsax]

63. Only you didn't answer the question directly.

You denounced the question, gave an explanation of how religion could prevent war before it starts, and gave two examples to support your argument.

The question was "Can anyone name an instance where war was raging and it was brought to an equitable peaceful conclusion by religion," not "Can anyone name a way in which religion can prevent war."

I don't think that anything I've said constitutes a personal attack against you.

[cosmik debris]

65. He can't answer.

He can only complain about the question.

[trotsky]

66. I guess you struck a mighty sensitive nerve.

He sure is sputtering, when clearly his answer to your question was a simple "No." But as you pointed out, he doesn't like that answer because it doesn't make his religion look good.

[cosmik debris]

67. This whole thing started as a spoof of S4P's thread

I really had no idea I would get so deeply under the skin of the religionists.

But it sure did rattle a few cages. :)

[kwassa]

69. Like I said, you can't stay on point, and rebut.

As usual.

[cosmik debris]

71. trotsky is right

I really hit a nerve.

[kwassa]

68. Oh, yes I did, read it again.

"The idea that religion can stop a raging war misses the point. Nothing can, once the dogs of war are loosed."

translation for the reading impaired:
Religion can't stop a raging war. It is clearly implied from these two sentences together.

Make you happy, now?

of course, religion can still cause peace.

[cosmik debris]

70. Gee, I didn't think you meant that seriously.

The second sentence is so obviously wrong, I thought it was a rhetorical exaggeration.

[laconicsax]

74. If that's what you meant, then you answered it indirectly.

Your answer doesn't read as one since it directly denies the validity of the question and justifies the attack with a factual error.

"The idea that religion can stop a raging war misses the point. Nothing can, once the dogs of war are loosed."

You say that "the idea of religion stopping wars misses the point because nothing can stop a war." Mediated cease-fires, military victories, changes in leadership, and other events can directly cause the end of a war at virtually any point in the conflict. Wars usually end before there's no one left to fight, so something must cause an end to hostilities. Look at the end of WWII--victory over Japan was a result of Japanese surrender following nuclear attacks on civilian population centers, if not for those attacks, the war may very well have raged on for months.

If you intended to say that religion can't stop a war, then maybe you should have said so rather than imply it through a factual error.

I also contend that it is more accurate to say that 'religion can inspire charismatic leaders to promote peace' rather than 'religion can cause peace' since religion's ability to cause peace is fairly indirect.

[kwassa]

61. I make lots of sense, you are just can't rebut.

Old and familiar stuff from you.

When you lose your argument, you pretend it is a different argument, but you are only fooling one person, though I don't think you even fool yourself, really. I answered your question long ago. You just can't deal with it. Business as usual.

[cosmik debris]

62. Your incoherent rambling does not constitute "argument"

And you answered YOUR question, not mine.

But that is all I ever expect from you.

And nobody really cares about your answer any way.

:rofl:

[kwassa]

64. Like I said, only one person is fooled, and probably not even that

[Bluerthanblue]

72. geez-

"And nobody really cares about your answer any way."

that's a pretty telling statement coming from the person who started this "question"-

What a waste of time it would be for anyone to 'answer' any question you pose???

You sure you meant to say that? or were you simply replying in anger?


I DO care about your answer to my question. It would help me decide whether to open any posts that have your name as author.

thanks-

[cosmik debris]

73. Don't waste your time

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like anything I had to say.

And I'm OK with that.

[Bluerthanblue]

75. there is a big difference between not "liking" what a person

says- (hell, none of us would be here very long if all we did was agree) and telling someone you are exchanging thoughts with

"nobody here cares what you say anyway"-

My 15yr old doesn't even retreat to that kind of immaturity any more. If you have a valid point to make, you shouldn't need to either.

as for wasting my time- don't fret, I've used my time in much stupider ways than this quite often. :evilgrin:

We could all stand to learn how to deal with constructive criticism more effectively.

Myself especially- otherwise how do we learn and grow?

peace~ :hi:

[cosmik debris]

77. I'm not impressed by your insults

And you don't have the power to hurt my feelings.

I am not sure why you care, but I sure why I don't.

[Bluerthanblue]

78. my intent never was to

hurt your feelings- I apologize if I did.

My intent was to try and get you to see how what you were saying was coming across to others, specifically myself.

I'll say again that if you have a point that you are trying to make- you should be able to make the point without name calling or attacking the person who dares to disagree with you. I have followed your OP to see where I may be missing the point- to hear a convincing argument to back up your idea that 'religion' is the cause of either "peace" or "war"- and I've yet to hear one. That doesn't mean there isn't one- and I'm not so pig-headed to think I'm never wrong.

So there is my reasoning for why I 'care'- Can I ask what your motive for posing the question really was? I'm not buying the 'take off on the other question'- Your responses to people who have commented speak much differently.

At any rate- I apologize for insulting you, I didn't mean to do that.

I wish you peace~

[cosmik debris]

80. There are 136,090 user registrations on DU. You are only one.

You insulted me and now you tell me that you don't believe me.

And I'm OK with that. But I've had enough.

Let's move on.

[Bluerthanblue]

82. Ok-

Peace- (I mean that sincerely)

[Dorian Gray]

76. See...

this is the problem. Religion doesn't cause anything. People do. People use religion as their justification for their actions, but it, in itself, is just ideas.

Religion doesn't cause Peace OR War. It just is. Human beings are responsible for their actions. (I don't think that there is anything inherently in conflict with any religious beliefs in that statement, either.)

[Bluerthanblue]

79. you said what

I wish i could have said myself-

beautifully.


Thanks
:hi:

[laconicsax]

84. Religion is not "just ideas."

Religion is ideas mixed with moral judgment and rules (usually laws) governing personal and societal conduct. To follow to a religion is to adhere to the rules of conduct and agree with the ideas and moral judgments. There's a ton of disagreement about the minimum level of adherence necessary to 'rightfully' self-identify, but generally speaking, people who use religion to justify reprehensible actions tend to argue more about the maximum level of adherence possible.

By providing moral judgments and rules of conduct, religion provides motive to act. To look at a person who follows the rules and say that they are only using those rules as justification ignores the fact that the rules and moral judgments concerning them most likely spurred them to action in the first place.

Would you say that laws are just ideas and the police only use them as justification for their action or would you say that laws are rules that the police are compelled to enforce?

Would you say that without laws concerning jaywalking, a cop would still try to ticket a jaywalker and find another justification, or would you say that without laws concerning jaywalking, a cop wouldn't consider ticketing a jaywalker in the first place?

[Evoman]

81. I can't name any. I mean, maybe somewhere along the line some pope may have used his authority to

stop a skirmish or something. That probably counts. But then again, it was probably counter balanced by another pope (or maybe the same one) sending some lootin' and rapin' soldiers to kill people.

Really, the whole thing is starting to become irrelevant to me. I want to deal in reality, and I see no reality in religion. Just defensiveness, and lying, and obfuscation, and stammering, and , well, bullshit.

The immorality of religion is as much in the denial of reality and truth, as it is in the actions of it's followers.

[Bluerthanblue]

83. yes-The Haudenosaunee (with link)

Led by Dekanawidah, ended the continual warring of the Five Nations.

"I am Dekanawidah and with the Five Nations' Confederate chiefs I plant the Tree of Great Peace." With these words begins Gayanerekowa, the Great Law of Peace, also called the Great Law or the Great Peace, under which five nations--Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca--ended their years of warring to form the Iroquois Confederacy.




http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-12898386_ITM