[Tinasblue]

Originally posted by Asher
Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. They're engines for conflict.

The fact that your entire country exists has caused countless peoples' deaths, and your religion is the reason your country exists.

Don't even ****ing try to pretend that it's mainly Islam, it's all of you. You just think you're the good guys, just like they think they're the good guys. It's really fun to paint things with a wide brush, but it's not the same and you have to know a bit more to realize the differences.

Of course, all religions are all potential engines of conflict. But some actually are and some aren't. Non-religious ideologies are also potential engines of conflict - but you can agree that fascism is more militaristic than democracy. I do agree that a theist ideology is more militaristic than a humanist one.

But if you choose to "compare" religions, you have to look at objective differences.

The fact of the matter is that Islam is the least mature of the major religions - making it more likely to go back to more primitive, militaristic expansionist phases.

Religions go through phases, and Islam, through out the 20th century, has been slowly reverting to middle ages school of thought, following the crisis in former Ottoman states during the 20th century, and their failure to challenge the west.

Most religions had an expansionist militaristic phase, during which they fought other religions and tried to convert other people by force. Islam is sadly, not far enough from that phase, as Christianity is, or Judaism is.

Also, the muslim world did not experience a renaissance like revolution in ethics and did not develop humanist thought.

Not only did it not happen, Islam is probably the least likely religion to undergo such a development, because it conflicts with its core values. Islam at it's core is very anti-individualistic, and conflicts with humanist values. Islam, at its core, rejects separation of church and state. Islam, at its core is an expansionist religion that believes in using violent means.

Much of this exists in Christianity but to a lesser degree and Christianity has mostly grown out of it already. Islam has not yet.

Judaism is mostly a different story, as it does not have expansionist theory. Judaism does not require converting people. The core thought always speaks of Jews as a small group among other nations, that strives to be more enlightened and give example, but never requires anyone else to convert. The only religious war in the Old Testament is the reconquest of Israel and the tribes' territories. All following conquests by David and Solomon are discussed as political endeavors. Later Judaism turned to become an even more personal religion.

Buddhism is probably a different story alltogether.

And my country does not exist because of religion, but rather because a lack of it.

Zionism was born as an entirely secular concept. It was born around the same time as other European secular nationalist movements. And even then, the main schools of thought talked about keeping your religion to yourself and attempting to integrate into the local statehood and values. Zionism was born as counter-reaction when that policy of integration failed.

At that time, pious Jews were all rabid anti-zionists.