God is not (so bad after all)

[mal4mac]

Don't you mean being burned by the Catholic Church (a specific institution).

Are Catholics not Christians? Protestants also persecuted heretics, for similar reasons, so I think it's worth using the general term.

[mortalterror]

In earlier times scientists had to believe in God, or at least pretend belief, or they risked being burned at the stake by Christians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

The recent scientific believers quoted are insignificant figures. I mean who are John Lennox and Mike Hulme? Anyone heard of them? Having looked at their wikipedia pages, they appear to be worthy workers in intellectual fields, but no more so than millions of other people. The main claim to fame for Lennox seems to be that he managed to engage Dawkins in a debate or two. Dawkins tries to avoid debating minor figures too much as it raises their profile beyond what they deserve. He doesn't consider Lennox a worthy opponent:

"... the onus is on those who espouse 'serious theologians' to nominate at least ONE who is serious enough to be worth bothering to engage. It cannot be ... John Lennox, who masquerades as a scientist while believing Jesus turned water into wine..." - Richard Dawkins, http://old.richarddawkins.net/articl...omments?page=2

I see that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ers_in_science contains Bruno, even though the Catholic Encyclopedia labels his system of beliefs "an incoherent materialistic pantheism." I guess he sneaks on because some Christians think "incoherent materialistic pantheism" is still Christianity, whatever the Catholics say. What I take from this is that Christianity is incoherent claptrap.

Wasn't Bruno killed for his unorthodox religious beliefs rather than his science?

Also, if you want recent Christians who are top level scientists how about the Belgian priest who first hypothesized the Big Bang Theory: Georges Lemaitre. You might also consider Pierre Teilhard de Chardin a Jesuit priest who discovered Peking Man a major figure. Then there is Charles Hard Townes, who won the Nobel Prize for invention of the maser, and Francis Collins project director for the Human Genome Project.

[mortalterror]

Saying that atheistic regimes committed horrific acts is different than saying those horrific acts were motivated by their atheism. As long as Hitchens (and others) aren't saying "they aren't REAL atheists" then they're not committing the Scotsman fallacy, since that's what the fallacy requires. Religious people can't really say that such horrors weren't committed directly in the name of religion, so they resort to the Scotsman fallacy.

While you can't say that all of the violence of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, or the Khmer Rouge in the twentieth century was motivated by atheism, even though the perpetrators were nominally atheists, you could claim that the anti-clerical violence was motivated by atheism. That goes for parts of the reign of terror during the French Revolution too.

It is an enormous problem, as the 20th century saw the worst persecution of Christians since Roman times. For instance, millions of Orthodox believers perished in purges by atheists in the former Soviet Union. In the anti-Christian campaign by Stalin and Soviet communism, many churches were closed, and monks were arrested and deported to labor camps. As many as 40,000 Orthodox priests were killed or died from abuse during the first half of 1936 alone, and it is believed that the total number of priests, monks, and nuns killed during the purges of the 1930s are in excess of 200,000 (Foreset, 1997, pp. 134-149; Wynot, 2004). Estimates of the total number all Christian martyrs in the former Societ Union are about 12 million. Estimates from the 20th century of Christians who died from secular antireligious violence worldwide are over 25 million, more than all previous centuries combined (Bergman, 1996).
http://books.google.com/books?id=LBv...page&q&f=false

The French Revolution, particularly in its Jacobin period, initiated one of the most violent episodes of anti-clericalism in modern Europe; the new revolutionary authorities suppressed the church; destroyed, desecrated and expropriated monasteries; exiled 30,000 priests and killed hundreds more.[2] As part of a campaign to de-Christianize France in October 1793 the Christian calendar was outlawed, replaced with one reckoning from the date of the Revolution, and then an atheist Cult of Reason was inaugurated, all churches not devoted to that cult being closed.[3] In 1794, the atheistic cult was replaced with a deistic Cult of the Supreme Being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism

Following the Mexican Revolution of 1910, the new Mexican Constitution of 1917 contained further anti-clerical provisions. Article 3 called for secular education in the schools and prohibited the Church from engaging in primary education; Article 5 outlawed monastic orders; Article 24 forbade public worship outside the confines of churches; and Article 27 placed restrictions on the right of religious organizations to hold property. Most offensively to Catholics[citation needed], Article 130 deprived clergy members of basic political rights. Many of these laws were resisted, leading to the Cristero Rebellion of 1927–1929. The suppression of the Church included the closing of many churches and the killing of priests. The persecution was most severe in Tabasco under the atheist"[26] governor Tomás Garrido Canabal.

The war had a profound effect on the Church. Between 1926 and 1934 at least 40 priests were killed.[27] Between 1926 and 1934, over 3,000 priests were exiled or assassinated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism

La Violencia refers to an era of civil conflict in various areas of the Colombian countryside between supporters of the Colombian Liberal Party and the Colombian Conservative Party, a conflict which took place roughly from 1948 to 1958.[33][34]

Across the country, militants attacked churches, convents, and monasteries, killing priests and looking for arms, since the conspiracy theory maintained that the religious had guns, and this despite the fact that not a single serviceable weapon was located in the raids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism

The Civil War in Spain started in 1936, during which thousands of churches were destroyed, thirteen bishops and some 7,000 clergy and religious Spaniards were assassinated.[43] Catholics largely supported Franco and the Nationalist forces in the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939.

Anti-clerical assaults during what has been termed by the Nationalists Red Terror included sacking and burning monasteries and churches and killing 6,832 priests,[44] including 13 bishops, 4,184 diocesan priests, 2,365 members of male religious orders, among them 259 Claretians, 226 Franciscans, 204 Piarists, 176 Brothers of Mary, 165 Christian Brothers, 155 Augustinians, 132 Dominicans, and 114 Jesuits.

One source records that 283 nuns were killed, some of whom were badly tortured.[45] There are accounts of Catholic faithful being forced to swallow rosary beads, thrown down mine shafts and priests being forced to dig their own graves before being buried alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism

[Drkshadow03]

Are Catholics not Christians? Protestants also persecuted heretics, for similar reasons, so I think it's worth using the general term.

You confused the parts with the whole or in this case a specific institution with the general group.

Well, had you brought up many examples that included Protestant's burning scientists at the stake or the average population of Christians doing so without a particular institutions' authority you'd then be able to use the general term. But the specific example you have only demonstrates that the Catholic Church has done such things.


You originally wrote: "In earlier times scientists had to believe in God, or at least pretend belief, or they risked being burned at the stake by Christians:"

Notice that in your response as quoted above at the very top of this post compared to your original words: you switch from "scientists . . . burned at the stake," to any "persecuted heretic." We jump from "burning at the stake" to any kind of persecution.

But really my point is one needs to be careful with confusing an entire group of people with a specific institution that may include certain members of that group. Or to put it more simply not to confuse the parts with the whole.

[mal4mac]

While you can't say that all of the violence of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, or the Khmer Rouge in the twentieth century was motivated by atheism, even though the perpetrators were nominally atheists, you could claim that the anti-clerical violence was motivated by atheism.

I don't think you can, the communists destroyed any group that was not controlled by them. For instance, in the communist regimes of Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Hungry, post WWII, *all* non-communist activities were frowned upon. For instance, even the scouts were banned, and leaders of "the movement" imprisoned. If the social groups were not under direct control of the communist apparatus then they were hounded out of existence. Churches just happened to be part of the non-communist set up that had to be annihilated. I just read the "Iron Curtain : the crushing of Eastern Europe" 1944-56 by Anne Applebaum who shows the extent of totalitarian destruction imposed on these countries. The religious insitutions were thoroughly destroyed, but so was any atheist opposition (from social democrats, chess clubs (!), or anyone else...)

[mal4mac]

You confused the parts with the whole or in this case a specific institution with the general group.

Well, had you brought up many examples that included Protestant's burning scientists at the stake or the average population of Christians doing so without a particular institutions' authority you'd then be able to use the general term. But the specific example you have only demonstrates that the Catholic Church has done such things.

I thought it was a well known fact that protestants and catholics were burning all kinds of people for heresy. Do you really doubt that many scientists were amongst them? For instance, white witches, i.e., women with benign non-Christian beliefs, are famous for seeking out herbal cures, an early form of medical science. But its not hard to find examples of "heavyweight" scientists being persecuted. For instance, Michael Servetus, the first European to correctly describe the function of pulmonary circulation, was a polymath versed in many sciences. He was arrested in Geneva and burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the Protestant Geneva governing council. Calvin himself believed Servetus deserving of death on account of what he termed as his "execrable blasphemies". What were these blasphemies? Questioning the trinitarian nature of God and the necessity of pre-infant baptism (what a devil!)

The crucial ideology informing the decisions of the Roman Catholic church and the Protestant Geneva governing council was Christian - both Bruno and Servetus were burned for heresies against the Christian faith. It's the Christian faith that is the problem, and we don't want it taking "controlling power" again. Do we?

[MorpheusSandman]

Mortal, I think mal thoroughly covered my answer. In fact, I think I already addressed that issue on a previous page.

[mortalterror]

I thought it was a well known fact that protestants and catholics were burning all kinds of people for heresy. Do you really doubt that many scientists were amongst them? For instance, white witches, i.e., women with benign non-Christian beliefs, are famous for seeking out herbal cures, an early form of medical science.

Your definition of scientist is impractically inclusive to the point of being useless. You could define anyone as a scientist with that broad a rubric.

But its not hard to find examples of "heavyweight" scientists being persecuted. For instance, Michael Servetus, the first European to correctly describe the function of pulmonary circulation, was a polymath versed in many sciences. He was arrested in Geneva and burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the Protestant Geneva governing council. Calvin himself believed Servetus deserving of death on account of what he termed as his "execrable blasphemies". What were these blasphemies? Questioning the trinitarian nature of God and the necessity of pre-infant baptism (what a devil!)

Again, it seems that Michael Servetus, like Bruno, was killed for his heresies as a theologian, not for his scientific discoveries. When a scientist dies in an earthquake, we don't say that the earthquake targeted him for being a scientist. And when modern states execute scientists who've committed murder we don't claim they are persecuting scientists either. You have a case for institutional violence if you cite the Inquisition, but you don't have a case for the Church being anti-science. Besides, in the famous cases where a scientist was persecuted like say Galileo, we have many examples of church officials taking his side in the dispute or being his benefactors; so it's untrue to claim that the event was more than a localized incident perpetrated by the actions of a few politically motivated individuals. All of the available evidence points the other way, since the Catholic Church was the single greatest benefactor of science and education through the middle ages and the Renaissance. They are the ones responsible for all the universities in Europe after all.

The crucial ideology informing the decisions of the Roman Catholic church and the Protestant Geneva governing council was Christian - both Bruno and Servetus were burned for heresies against the Christian faith. It's the Christian faith that is the problem, and we don't want it taking "controlling power" again. Do we?

I'm for a separation of Church and state, but not because I think that churches are more violent than states. I view the violence of the world as a natural part of human nature and competition for resources. The Christian faith is actually with a few exceptions fairly benign and mostly occupies itself setting up hospitals, feeding and sheltering the poor.

[mal4mac]

Again, it seems that Michael Servetus, like Bruno, was killed for his heresies as a theologian, not for his scientific discoveries.

The Inquisition made sure to get Bruno every way they could; his scientific notions were part of Luigi Firpo's list of charges made against Bruno. From Bruno's wikipedia page, one such charge was 'claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity'. Others charges may have also have scientific aspects, but that one is sufficient to disprove your claim.

...the Catholic Church was the single greatest benefactor of science and education through the middle ages and the Renaissance.

They held science and education back. Their period of greatest power was called "the dark ages" for a good reason.

The Christian faith is actually with a few exceptions fairly benign...

More than a few, and certainly not benign, for instance:

The Crusades
European wars of religion
Expulsion of the Jews from Spain
The Salem Witch trials
... the list goes on and on...

[mal4mac]

Again, it seems that Michael Servetus, like Bruno, was killed for his heresies as a theologian, not for his scientific discoveries.

The Inquisition made sure to get Bruno every way they could; his scientific notions were part of Luigi Firpo's list of charges against Bruno. From Bruno's wikipedia page, one such charge was 'claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity'. Others charges may have also have scientific aspects, but that one is sufficient to disprove your claim.

...the Catholic Church was the single greatest benefactor of science and education through the middle ages and the Renaissance.

They held science and education back. Their period of greatest power was called "the dark ages" for a good reason.

The Christian faith is actually with a few exceptions fairly benign...

More than a few, and certainly not benign, for instance:

The Crusades
European wars of religion
Expulsion of the Jews from Spain
The Salem Witch trials
... the list goes on and on...

[mortalterror]

The Inquisition made sure to get Bruno every way they could; his scientific notions were part of Luigi Firpo's list of charges made against Bruno. From Bruno's wikipedia page, one such charge was 'claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity'. Others charges may have also have scientific aspects, but that one is sufficient to disprove your claim.

Not necessarily. The complete charges were:

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass;
claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;
believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes;
dealing in magics and divination.

And you are assuming that the charge of "claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity" was based on an objection to his science and not his theology, or that his belief in a plurality of worlds was even based in science and not mysticism. Either way, it looks like a tacked on charge he could have easily walked away from, when the real meat of the prosecution was concerned with the divinity of Christ, the status of the trinity, and other religious concerns.

They held science and education back.

Actually, that is a popular misconception.

The relationship between religion and science has been a subject of study since Classical antiquity, addressed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and other commentators. Perspectives from different geographical regions, cultures and historical epochs are diverse. Recent commentators have characterized the relationship in varying categories. Discussions of what is science and what is not science, the demarcation problem in the philosophy of science, have intersected with discourse on religion in some instances and both have had complex relations in their historical interactions.

The conflict thesis, which states that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science, remains generally popular for the public; most historians of science no longer support it.[1][2][3][4] Some contemporary scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould, Francisco J. Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins have held that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber have proposed an interconnection between them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relatio...on_and_science

Actually, many of the best scientists of the period were Catholic clergy who studied natural theology as a way to understand God's universe.

Isidore of Seville (c.560–c.636) Catholic Archbishop who preserved many scientific selections from the ancient worlds. His most popular work was Etymologiae which contained information on medicine, mathematics, astronomy, atomic theory, geography, agriculture, zoology, minerology, physiology, and other topics. His work was widely used throughout the medieval ages for its extent of research topics.

Bede, the Venerable (c.672–735) Catholic monk, venerated as a saint and Doctor of the Church. He was an influence for early medieval knowledge of nature. He wrote two works on "Time and its Reckoning." This primarily concerned how to date Easter, but contained a new recognition of the "progress wave-like" nature of tides.

Leo the Mathematician (c.790–a.869) Archbishop of Thessalonica, he later became the head of the Magnaura School of philosophy in Constantinople, where he taught Aristotelian logic. Leo also composed his own medical encyclopaedia. He has been called a "true Renaissance man" and "the cleverest man in Byzantium in the 9th century".

Pope Sylvester II (c.950–1003) Benedictine monk, scientist, teacher, and later Pope; he promoted such knowledge as mathematics and astronomy in Europe. As professor of the cathedral school at Rheims, he raised it to the height of prosperity. He also reintroduced the abacus and armillary sphere to Europe, which had been lost to the continent since the end of the Greco-Roman era.

Hugh of Saint Victor (c.1096–1141) Influential mystic and philosopher who embraced science as a tool for approaching God. He was master of the monastic school of Saint Victor. His work presents knowledge of reality as redemptive of fallen man; and technology as source of physical relief and able to help reunite man with divine wisdom. "Learn everything," he urged; "later you will see that nothing is superfluous."

Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179) Benedictine abbess, writer, composer, philosopher, mystic, visionary, polymath and Germany's first female physician. She conducted and published comprehensive studies of natural science and medicine. Hildegard was well known in her own century as "the female prophet" and is venerated as a Catholic saint.

Robert Grosseteste (c.1175–1253) Bishop of Lincoln, he was the central character of the English intellectual movement in the first half of the 13th century and is considered the founder of scientific thought in Oxford. He had a great interest in the natural world and wrote texts on the mathematical sciences of optics, astronomy and geometry. He affirmed that experiments should be used in order to verify a theory, testing its consequences.

Roger Bacon (c.1214–1294) He was an English philosopher who emphasized empiricism and has been presented as one of the earliest advocates of the modern scientific method. He joined the Franciscan Order around 1240, where he was influenced by Grosseteste. Bacon was responsible for making the concept of "laws of nature" widespread, and contributed in such areas as mechanics, geography and, most of all, optics.

Thomas Bradwardine (c.1290–1349) He was an English archbishop, often called "the Profound Doctor". He developed studies as one of the Oxford Calculators of Merton College, Oxford University. These studies would lead to important developments in mechanics.

William of Ockham (c.1285–c.1350) He was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher. He is a major figure of medieval thought and was at the center of the major intellectual and political controversies of his time. Commonly known for Occam's razor, the scientific/methodological principle that bears his name, he also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology.

Nicole Oresme (c.1323–1382) Theologian and bishop of Lisieux, he was one of the early founders and popularizers of modern sciences. One of his many scientific contributions is the discovery of the curvature of light through atmospheric refraction.


Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464) Catholic cardinal and theologian who made contributions to the field of mathematics by developing the concepts of the infinitesimal and of relative motion. His philosophical speculations also anticipated Copernicus’ heliocentric world-view.

Their period of greatest power was called "the dark ages" for a good reason.

For the most part historians no longer use that term since they deem it inaccurate, and there was actually a great deal of progress and scholarship that occurred in the middle ages.

The Dark Ages is a historical periodization used originally for the Middle Ages, which emphasizes the cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Western Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire.[1][2] The label employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the "darkness" of the period with earlier and later periods of "light".[3] The period is characterized by a relative scarcity of historical and other written records at least for some areas of Europe, rendering it obscure to historians. The term "Dark Age" derives from the Latin saeculum obscurum, originally applied by Caesar Baronius in 1602 to a tumultuous period in the 10th and 11th centuries.[4]

Originally the term characterized the bulk of the Middle Ages, or roughly the 6th to 13th centuries, as a period of intellectual darkness between extinguishing the "light of Rome" after the end of Late Antiquity, and the rise of the Italian Renaissance in the 14th century.[5] [3] This definition is still found in popular use,[1][2][6] but increased recognition of the accomplishments of the Middle Ages has led to the label being restricted in application. Since the 20th century, it is frequently applied to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century).[7][8] However, many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.

While Petrarch's concept of a Dark Age corresponded to a mostly Christian period following pre-Christian Rome, the use of the term today applies mainly to those cultures and periods in Europe least Christianized and thus most sparsely covered by chronicles and other contemporary sources, nearly all written by Catholic clergy at this date.[citation needed]

However, from the mid-20th century onwards, other historians became critical of even this nonjudgmental use of the term for two main reasons.[10] First, it is questionable whether it is possible to use the term "Dark Ages" effectively in a neutral way; scholars may intend this, but it does not mean that ordinary readers will so understand it. Second, the explosion of new knowledge and insight into the history and culture of the Early Middle Ages, which 20th-century scholarship has achieved,[39] means that these centuries are no longer dark even in the sense of "unknown to us". To avoid the value judgment implied by the expression, many historians avoid it altogether. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ag...n_academic_use

More than a few, and certainly not benign, for instance:

The Crusades
European wars of religion
Expulsion of the Jews from Spain
The Salem Witch trials
... the list goes on and on...

If you take the whole of history, then every civilization and institution has some marks against it. But I was largely thinking of current events, the state of religion today and their attitudes toward charity.

Q. We often hear that religious people give more to charity than secularists. Is this true?
A. In the year 2000, “religious” people (the 33 percent of the population who attend their houses of worship at least once per week) were 25 percentage points more likely to give charitably than “secularists” (the 27 percent who attend less than a few times per year, or have no religion). They were also 23 percentage points more likely to volunteer. When considering the average dollar amounts of money donated and time volunteered, the gap between the groups increases even further: religious people gave nearly four times more dollars per year, on average, than secularists ($2,210 versus $642). They also volunteered more than twice as often (12 times per year, versus 5.8 times).

Very little of this gap is due to personal differences between religious and secular people with respect to income, age, family, or anything else. For instance, imagine two people who are identical in income, education, age, race, and marital status. The one difference between them is that, while one goes to church every week, the other never does. Knowing this, we can predict that the churchgoer will be 21 percentage points more likely to make a charitable gift of money during the year than the nonchurchgoer, and will also be 26 points more likely to volunteer.

Q. But aren’t they just giving to religious charities and houses of worship?
A. These enormous differences are not a simple artifact of religious people giving to their churches. Religious people are more charitable with secular causes, too. For example, in 2000, religious people were 10 percentage points more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities, and 21 points more likely to volunteer. The value of the average religious household’s gifts to nonreligious charities was 14 percent higher than that of the average secular household, even after correcting for income differences.

Religious people were also far more likely than secularists to give in informal, nonreligious ways. For example, in 2000, people belonging to religious congregations gave 46 percent more money to family and friends than people who did not belong. In 2002, religious people were far more likely to donate blood than secularists, to give food or money to a homeless person, and even to return change mistakenly given them by a cashier. http://www.american.com/archive/2008...tion-of-givers

Those studies have shown that just on a person to person basis, religious people tend to be more charitable than non-religious people. The actual number of religious organizations set up to help the needy is mind boggling, so I'm having trouble tracking down aggregate numbers on how much they give collectively.

[The Atheist]

The Christian faith is actually with a few exceptions fairly benign and mostly occupies itself setting up hospitals, feeding and sheltering the poor.

I find that quite amusing in the face of armed forces in the western world being overwhelmingly staffed by christians, allegedly led by a bloke who didn't think killing other humans was a good thing.

How many politicians - like Blair & Bush - do you need to see claiming guidance from their sky-daddy to realise that they are not so dissimilar from a man in a cave promising virgins as a reward for self-sacrifice?

[mortalterror]

I find that quite amusing in the face of armed forces in the western world being overwhelmingly staffed by christians, allegedly led by a bloke who didn't think killing other humans was a good thing.

Maybe the majority of the armed forces are Christian because the majority of the population is Christian.

How many politicians - like Blair & Bush - do you need to see claiming guidance from their sky-daddy to realise that they are not so dissimilar from a man in a cave promising virgins as a reward for self-sacrifice?

I do see a difference between a Democracy or a Republic who's head of state happens to hold religious beliefs and a Theocracy where the head of state is the head of a religion. Considering that every U.S. president has held Christian beliefs, I am not concerned with this development in regards to George W. Bush or Obama, and I do not consider their manner of leadership to be akin to that of either the Ayatolla Khomeini or Taliban era Afghanistan. I feel that their economic policies, social policies, and international policies are more important factors in how they lead than their religious beliefs. I don't know that much about Blair, but my impression was that he was rather popular during his term, liberal, intelligent, well spoken, and socially progressive; sort of the opposite of Bush. If you are trying to make a case that their motivation in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was the result of religious conviction, I would suggest that the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and 7/7 had more to do with it.

[The Atheist]

Maybe the majority of the armed forces are Christian because the majority of the population is Christian.

My point is that in spite of Augustine's* "just war", the words of Jesus himself are explicit that violence is not ok. On that basis, I would expect to see exactly zero people in any armed forces who professed to live by the WWJD principle.

I do see a difference between a Democracy or a Republic who's head of state happens to hold religious beliefs and a Theocracy where the head of state is the head of a religion.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

Given the invasion of Iraq is known to have taken place on spurious grounds and evidence, the fact that both US and UK leaders sought their god's approval makes it no different to the suicide bombers & pilots of the two terrorist attacks.

What do you think Bush & Blair would have done if their god had screamed out "No!"?

[mal4mac]

If you take the whole of history, then every civilization and institution has some marks against it. But I was largely thinking of current events, ...

OK here's something right up to date from the Richard Dawkins twitter feed:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamna...om-of-thought/

It's not quite the crusades, but still an example of Christian oppression. Banned from wearing a t shirt at the fresher's fair! We're a long way from the 1960s! They'll all be forced to wear ties next...

Have you read Jesus & Mo. Laugh out loud funny:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/archives/