Mar. 14th, 2006

rfmcdonald: (Default)
It always amuses me somewhat when propagandists claim that, unlike aggressive conquering Christianity, Islam is a religion defined by its love for peace. Why is Egypt, in the 6th century CE populated mainly by Coptic-speaking Christians, now mostly Arab by language and Muslim by religion? It's the same reason that Mexico is now mainly Spanish-speaking and Christian, that is, the successful assimilation of a conquered population to the cultural norms of the conqueror. Islam, in its first two centuries of existence, was not a religion of peace. If anything, it was a religion marked by a highly successful spree of conquests, conquering territories as far removed as Christian Spain and Zoroastrian Persia.

Do these conquests set Islam apart from the other major world religions as a world of conquerors? No. There is, for instance, Mexico. What all these violent aggressive conquests by the rep-resentatives of missionary religions do demonstrate is that there are no major world religions devoted entirely to peace, and no major world religions devoted entirely to war. There are only changing motives.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
I've just come from an annoying Livejournal debate with someone who thinks, in relation to Northern Ireland, that reality should be forced to match up with his theory of the way things should be. The remarkable consistency of revanchist nationalisms is impressive, no?

Anyway, this has prompted me to put a poll up on the subject of Northern Ireland's future.

[Poll #690955]

Try to remember that "will" is not the same thing as "should."
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 12:41 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios