I honestly believe that the whole Christianity Vs Islam conspiracy has grown because of people's search for a cause for their problems, since all it really does is give people something to fight against.

I had to read, for my English course, some poetry by a guy called Michael Longley who has an interesting idea about the troubles. His way of looking at it is a war that the upper class intellectuals wage on the working class, only given the appearance of a sectarian conflict so that the working class Protestants think they are being wronged by the working class Protestants, and vice versa. That way the upper class can look after their interests to the detriment of the working class, but without anyone noticing the class issue.

I'm not sure how valid this is when talking about the Troubles, but the suggestion that sectarian conflict is an effective way to mask more real issues seems very relevant when you look at the whole anti-Islam, anti-"Terrorism", über-patriotism that has sprung up in some countries.

Really?
Well it's been mentioned in loads of history documentaries and books
I am a history geek
When I was little the only books I would willing read were history books, so I got given loads

But yeah, Imagine if a Muslim or pagan, Satanist (generally a non-Christian) went to a gathering and preached...
Plus remember when those atheist adverts were put out, and loads of religious people got angry
Yet there are loads of Christian adverts, for such things as Alpha courses.
Oh and have you seen those bus adverts which are in America, encouraging people to leave Islam, and offering them support?
Imagine if there was one aimed at Christians!!!

In the end I blame revelations. It put's Christians into this defensive apocalypse mood.

Really? I didn't know that o.0 (about the Jews in the Crusades that is)

The "history" refers to my previous reply where I said that if I was blind, than any scholar who studies sectarian conflict is blind also, followed by "history doesn't lie" in reference to past conflicts.

Yes, I do often wonder if people don't realize that they've set up double standards when it comes to interpreting religious incidents. Don't know if you've seen the thread posted recently about the Christians at the Muslim festival - it reminds me of a previous thread (before you had joined I think) that started off with people complaining about how Christians are often forced to leave various non-Christian events for preaching (including scientific functions and renaissance festivals). One of the LaVeyans ended up spinning it into an argument by noting that the ban on inappropriate preaching isn't in place to discriminate or prevent people from practising their religion, and in fact the Christians should be grateful that they are more likely to be allowed to stay than any other religion. Yet I see alarmist "Christians arrested - clear signs of Islamic takeover" stories cropping up constantly. Perhaps it's time for some education on the dangers of witch hunts?

It really gets me when Christians criticise Muslims non-stop and do all they can to insult them. Then when the Muslims either try to convert a Christian or criticise Christianity (you get the idea), they go berserk. Bah, peoples hypocrisy. Yes I know Christians are persecuted in Muslim countries, but when that convert to Islam from Christianity had his home attacked in America or when Mosques are vandalised -there is very little media coverage. But if they were Christian or Jewish the story would explode.

Besides I would like to know this history he is talking about.

You know how people always go on about how the west is better because of scientific achievements.Well what about during the medieval age, when the Islamic world was way a head of Europe -which was being held back by the Church.
Plus the Crusaders basically killed anyone - Muslim , Jews and Christians. Yet Saladin did not have Christians killed when he took Jerusalem.
Actually it's rather ironic that during the Crusades - most of the Jewish population fought with the Muslim armies.

Yeah, I just ended up counselling her. Weird way to go about starting a conversation though...

On the Youtube debate, the guy just replied "History doesn't lie. Muslims do." I think it would work more in my favour to simply not reply - never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake...

Some people are just confused
What did they ask you afterwards, how awkward did it get

Just had the following convo in the chatroom:


>you guy or girl?
>>guy!
>sweet!

Should I be scared?

Ah, the usual guy who claims that his side is only doing what is just while the enemy is a bunch of fanatical murderers frothing at the teeth (what I hear: We have a right to kill, but they don't). In other words the fuel that sectarianism runs on. Pity Youtube is so debate-unfriendly...

As an aside, if the following:

all the arabs r just doing troubles - zero contribution 2 the world, 100% violence n hostility n 100% towards the ppl that represent the complete opposite of their ignorence

...is considered a valid argument then I propose the theory that diplomacy hasn't advanced since palaeolithic times

Paganism doesn't have to necessarily mean polytheism - though most pagans are, or are at least henotheist or pantheist. But I do see what you mean. There is polydeism as well
Ha so many terms - it gets confusing sometimes

So what was the debate you were having, I'm intrigued

Yes, possibly a form of Pandeism expressed through Pagan symbolism. However I think it lies on the opposite side to Pandeism than Spinoza's God does. If I remember correctly, Spinoza's God is all of the world, while in Pagan Atheism the world is made up of (or at least represented by) several gods. Unity vs Division. Both are Pandeist in their own ways, but I can't imagine reconciling them.

As an aside, I think I've got two debates on the Israelo-Palestinian thing running on the same Youtube page...