Quote:
Originally Posted by eleanoraquitaine
I said muslims were causing most of the world's conflicts for religious reasons and I offered a referenced list with a map.
|
A map that didn't address your claim.
You said they "cause most of the world's conflicts for religious reasons".
Fair enough; I provided a list of the world's conflicts and analyzed them.
You provided a list of every country where there were four Islamic extremists pushing their agenda. Unless you want to show me the shooting war going on in the United States, Canada, Australia and all the other countries highlighted on your map that do not have ongoing conflicts on their soil.
Quote:
|
You offer no proof of your insane assertions about Christianity whatsoever, so no, you did not demonstrate any point at all. I see the vast majority, if not all, of the conflicts on your list of "Christian conflicts" CLEARLY have NOTHING to do with Christianity aside from possibly having some Christian victims.
|
Like I said, then define what you mean by "cause" and "conflict." I simply took the broadest meaning possible -- and even then only managed to tie Muslims to 21 of the world's 38 ongoing conflicts. Having done that, I applied the same methodology to Christians.
I'm happy to analyze the list by any criteria you name. But I need to know what that criteria is. What constitutes a "conflict"? Does "started for a religious reason" mean that religion must be the primary animating cause of the war? And how do you determine who started it? Is the minority that chooses to rebel at fault, or is the central government that had marginalized them for decades?
I'll agree that when it comes to starting wars for religious reasons, these days it's more likely to be a Muslim than not. But that's hardly the same thing as blaming Muslims for the world's conflicts. Most wars don't have religion as the main cause.
And I'm not attacking Christianity; simply noting the double-standard fallacy of the original poster's criticism of Islam.