Intersectionality and bizarre alliances / narratives

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Hinduism has always been open to reform.  Right from Buddha, Mahaveera, Basavanna, Adi Shankaracharya have shown a mirror ro the age old practices that were no longer relevant. It is because of majority Hindus in India, that India chose to be a democratic nation, many articles in the 1935 GoI Act of British India  which was later morphed into our constitution in 1950  has laws that redifne practices related to Hinduism. India is secular (however bad form of it is in place) because the majority are Hindus. Not because Democracy had anything to do with Hindu reform.  The Hindu marriage and Family act was peacefully accepted by Hindus while Muslims have their own personall laws. Hindu temples under gpvernment control is not because of BJP, but a practice of British India and Moghul rule (jizya etc) which was later continued by Congress government. All articles of Indian constitution prevail Minoritarianism where the majority have no rights like right to education, to preach religion etc. 

 

The caste system is in practice is not written in any scripture. It became more of a social practice when rich zamindars of non-brahminical UCs exploited the so-called indigenous people - SC/STs  (which is another hogwash). under the British Raj. With the RajDharma earlier, there were checks and balances to not let the system go uncontrolled. We always had endogamy mainly to protect sampradays, properties and profession. Communities which thrived on certain professions (artisans, manufacturers, traders etc) didn't want outsiders to gain knowedge and thrive. But the exploitation of working class was mainly after British India. After 1947, a lot of such discrimination is outlawed and there is no hue and cry from Hindus. The fact that it is still effective in India is because of a class issue, not a religious issue. 

 

Even in India, commies and maoists are responsible for 1000s of deaths . Them being atheists have not stopped then participate in genocide. Jyoti Basu led in the forefront of  Marichjhapi massacre of tribals in WB. Kerala commies kill RSS/BJP men at will. Leftist rule in the wold over have killed more men than any religious rule. 

 

As an atheist myself, I used to think that a belief in religion has driven most violence in history. But I have changed my mind. Here is my current bottom line:

 

First, it is near-impossible to quantify and compare violent acts committed to control people throughout history and tabulate whether each was committed in the name of religion or something else. Committed by theists or atheists. For theism or atheism. For every example in one direction, there is one in the other.

 

The common thread among all of these acts of violence is an undying, unquestioning belief that "my way is the only way and is superior to every other way." That everyone else must follow that "way" or die. 

 

This "my way" can be anything from my nationality, my political dogma, my theism. my atheism etc. And often, if not always,these acts of violence are perptetrated by megalomaniacal sociopaths with an unwavering commitment to their belief system (including atheism).

 

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by BacktoCricaddict

[Muloghonto]

32 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

As an atheist myself, I used to think that a belief in religion has driven most violence in history. But I have changed my mind. Here is my current bottom line:

 

First, it is near-impossible to quantify and compare violent acts committed to control people throughout history and tabulate whether each was committed in the name of religion or something else. Committed by theists or atheists. For theism or atheism. For every example in one direction, there is one in the other.

 

The common thread among all of these acts of violence is an undying, unquestioning belief that "my way is the only way and is superior to every other way." That everyone else must follow that "way" or die. 

 

This "my way" can be anything from my nationality, my political dogma, my theism. my atheism etc. And often, if not always,these acts of violence are perptetrated by megalomaniacal sociopaths with an unwavering commitment to their belief system (including atheism).

 

 

 

The only exception to this, are the two religions of abraham, where they are on OFFICIAL RECORD to wage war & commit genocide & forced evictions in the name of religion by their own recordings. 

That is why i said, as my basic factual premise in the thread, that while i am not particularly religious myself, i only object to two religions in history of mankind - islam & christianity. 

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

As an atheist myself, I used to think that a belief in religion has driven most violence in history. But I have changed my mind. Here is my current bottom line:

 

First, it is near-impossible to quantify and compare violent acts committed to control people throughout history and tabulate whether each was committed in the name of religion or something else. Committed by theists or atheists. For theism or atheism. For every example in one direction, there is one in the other.

 

The common thread among all of these acts of violence is an undying, unquestioning belief that "my way is the only way and is superior to every other way." That everyone else must follow that "way" or die. 

 

This "my way" can be anything from my nationality, my political dogma, my theism. my atheism etc. And often, if not always,these acts of violence are perptetrated by megalomaniacal sociopaths with an unwavering commitment to their belief system (including atheism).

 

 

This argument is about claiming all religions are same and is the cause of human misery like genocide. Just because we had people last ke Genchis Khan, Taimur, Khilji, Alexander, Crusades , etc , you can’t say a generalized statement like that. We can always cite atheists like Stalin, Mao, etc. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

This argument is about claiming all religions are same and is the cause of human misery like genocide. Just because we had people last ke Genchis Khan, Taimur, Khilji, Alexander, Crusades , etc , you can’t say a generalized statement like that. We can always cite atheists like Stalin, Mao, etc. 

Exactly what I am saying. Please read my post completely Anna before reflexively answering.

[coffee_rules]

39 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Exactly what I am saying. Please read my post completely Anna before reflexively answering.

Sorry, Didn’t read the first para , was trying to counter the second para. If data can be analyzed with nuance, abrahamic religions have had the concept of a holy war and plundered places in  he name of religion and ethnicity much more than those related sanatan dharma. Except for maybe Kalinga , most wars were fought among armies during day time , no sectarian violence perpetuated in the region, with people killed for following their way of life. You don’t hear Pandyas killing Kannadigas under Chalukyas to make everyone speak in Tamizh  or follow Shaivism. It is unheard of. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

16 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Sorry, Didn’t read the first para , was trying to counter the second para. If data can be analyzed with nuance, abrahamic religions have had the concept of a holy war and plundered places in  he name of religion and ethnicity much more than those related sanatan dharma. Except for maybe Kalinga , most wars were fought among armies during day time , no sectarian violence perpetuated in the region, with people killed for following their way of life. You don’t hear Pandyas killing Kannadigas under Chalukyas to make everyone speak in Tamizh  or follow Shaivism. It is unheard of. 

 

My take is that plundering is plundering, be it for religion/ethnicity/glory/increased footprint etc.

 

In other words, I judge the "glorious" conquests of "our" kings just as harshly as I judge the plunders conducted by Islamic rulers or the crusaders or Genghis Khan or Putin or GOTUS. Whatever the purpose may have been, it was led by an urge to increase the influence of one's ideology.

 

The conquests by Tamizh invaders on Sri Lanka have been perceived as wars on Buddhism. One can argue that the Chola conquests were a means to spread Shaivism, and this argument is bolstered by the persecution of Vaishnavas by Cholas like Kulottunga. Didn't something like this lead to the exile of Ramanujacharya to Melkote where the Hoysalas welcomed him?  How about the Jangama massacre by CDRW that targeted Lingayat priests in the name of tax-treason? 

 

One can argue degrees/reasons all day, but an unchanging fact is that control by violent means has been a human reality forever and may never change.

Edited November 29, 2023 by BacktoCricaddict

[coffee_rules]

14 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

My take is that plundering is plundering, be it for religion/ethnicity/glory/increased footprint etc.

 

In other words, I judge the "glorious" conquests of "our" kings just as harshly as I judge the plunders conducted by Islamic rulers or the crusaders or Genghis Khan or Putin or GOTUS. Whatever the purpose may have been, it was led by an urge to increase the influence of one's ideology.

 

The conquests of Tamizh invaders on Sri Lanka have been perceived as wars on Buddhism. One can argue that the Chola conquests were a means to spread Shaivism, and this argument is bolstered by the persecution of Vaishnavas by Cholas like Kulottunga. Didn't something like this lead to the exile of Ramanujacharya to Melkote where the Hoysalas welcomed him?  How about the Jangama massacre by CDRW that targeted Lingayat priests in the name of tax-treason? 

 

One can argue degrees/reasons all day, but an unchanging fact is that control by violent means has been a human reality forever and may never change.

 

No, history remembers differently. Looting s not looting. You are like the argument the left liberal buddhijeevees make. So what if Islamist invaders looted? Even Shivaji did loot as well!  There is a big difference in the two lootings. You don’t rape women , desecrate temples, force conversions of common people while looting. One will remember Chozah conquests in SEA  much differently than say Taimur or Khilji. 

Edited November 29, 2023 by coffee_rules

[Muloghonto]

28 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

My take is that plundering is plundering, be it for religion/ethnicity/glory/increased footprint etc.

 

In other words, I judge the "glorious" conquests of "our" kings just as harshly as I judge the plunders conducted by Islamic rulers or the crusaders or Genghis Khan or Putin or GOTUS. Whatever the purpose may have been, it was led by an urge to increase the influence of one's ideology.

 

The conquests by Tamizh invaders on Sri Lanka have been perceived as wars on Buddhism. One can argue that the Chola conquests were a means to spread Shaivism, and this argument is bolstered by the persecution of Vaishnavas by Cholas like Kulottunga. Didn't something like this lead to the exile of Ramanujacharya to Melkote where the Hoysalas welcomed him?  How about the Jangama massacre by CDRW that targeted Lingayat priests in the name of tax-treason? 

 

One can argue degrees/reasons all day, but an unchanging fact is that control by violent means has been a human reality forever and may never change.

 

There is a vast difference between plunder for personal gain and plunder to war against religion. When the premise is lets compare religions, then yes, religions that have religiously sanctioned wars score lower than religions that do not. No one said that if you are non religious, your wars of conquest cost less blood or if you are a particular religion, you kill less people during conquering. I said that religions that allow & sanction genocidal wars on the basis of religion are worse than religions that do not.

Not one chola inscription or copper-plate tablet exists that claims that Cholas invaded Sri lanka due to religion. We can literally produce such books for muzzies & nailed god followers.

 

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

 

There is a vast difference between plunder for personal gain and plunder to war against religion. When the premise is lets compare religions, then yes, religions that have religiously sanctioned wars score lower than religions that do not. No one said that if you are non religious, your wars of conquest cost less blood or if you are a particular religion, you kill less people during conquering. I said that religions that allow & sanction genocidal wars on the basis of religion are worse than religions that do not.

Not one chola inscription or copper-plate tablet exists that claims that Cholas invaded Sri lanka due to religion. We can literally produce such books for muzzies & nailed god followers.

 

Exactly, we don’t know about Somnath or Nalanda from the literature of the vanquished. They are from boastful accounts in Persian or Turkic literature by aastaan (Royal Courts) poets . Iconoclasm was evident in Islamic , Christian or even early Jewish conquests when they defeat pagan tribes in the region. Most mosques in Spain are Churches now and Most Churches in Turkey or any Islamic country are mosques. 
 

CDRW  didn’t kill Veerashaivas or Jangamas  but those  who he presumed as seditious to his throne. Wodeyars were not kattar vaishnavites, they come from Vijayanagar empire were equally respectful of Shavites.Early Wodeyars worshipped Shiva. 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Exactly, we don’t know about Somnath or Nalanda from the literature of the vanquished. They are from boastful accounts in Persian or Turkic literature by aastaan (Royal Courts) poets . Iconoclasm was evident in Islamic , Christian or even early Jewish conquests when they defeat pagan tribes in the region. Most mosques in Spain are Churches now and Most Churches in Turkey or any Islamic country are mosques. 
 

CDRW  didn’t kill Veerashaivas or Jangamas  but those  who he presumed as seditious to his throne. Wodeyars were not kattar vaishnavites, they come from Vijayanagar empire were equally respectful of Shavites.Early Wodeyars worshipped Shiva. 

 

Honestly, if it wern't for retarded leftists and commies spreading their propaganda of 'all religions are exactly the same in outcome', this wouldnt even be a point of contention. 
I have a minor degree in history, those here who've crossed swords with me here know that i can bury practically anyone here in history, yet, except for a 40 year period in Sassanian Iran, i have NEVER EVER EVER seen ANY evidence of religious warfare & religion sponsored genocides, mass evictions & forced conversions by ANY non abrahamic religion. Ever. 
This doesn't mean that religion made people assholes and prior to these religions there was no mass murder or genocide. Just that it wasnt done religiously/in name of religion,thus those religions can't be held accountable for genocide, mass murder or such. 

For example, the two most barbaric, brutal and savage empires in history of mankind are the Romans & Assyrians. Both of them LITERALLY followed the doctrine of 'rebel once and we will kill every man in your city and take some women as sex slaves, rebel twice, we will kill & enslave everyone and salt your fields so it is wasteland for another 100 years'. Assyrians LITERALLY caused the first ever jewish holocaust. Julius Caesar genocided 25% of Gaul ( France & Belgium) population - a higher figure than most genocides in history. 
Yet not ONE assyrian king or ONE roman consul/emperor (before christianity) has EVER been recorded ( and both of them have crap tons of literature left over) to say or do 'these infidel savages need Jupiter or Ashur, we must convert them or kill them'. NOT ONCE. Guess when the Romans started to use religion as a justification for their genocides ? When christianity came into the picture. 

 

Leftoids wanna ignore history and facts so they can propagate their nonsensical ideology to further their hatred of the normal. 

 

[ravishingravi]

15 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Honestly, if it wern't for retarded leftists and commies spreading their propaganda of 'all religions are exactly the same in outcome', this wouldnt even be a point of contention. 
I have a minor degree in history, those here who've crossed swords with me here know that i can bury practically anyone here in history, yet, except for a 40 year period in Sassanian Iran, i have NEVER EVER EVER seen ANY evidence of religious warfare & religion sponsored genocides, mass evictions & forced conversions by ANY non abrahamic religion. Ever. 
This doesn't mean that religion made people assholes and prior to these religions there was no mass murder or genocide. Just that it wasnt done religiously/in name of religion,thus those religions can't be held accountable for genocide, mass murder or such. 

For example, the two most barbaric, brutal and savage empires in history of mankind are the Romans & Assyrians. Both of them LITERALLY followed the doctrine of 'rebel once and we will kill every man in your city and take some women as sex slaves, rebel twice, we will kill & enslave everyone and salt your fields so it is wasteland for another 100 years'. Assyrians LITERALLY caused the first ever jewish holocaust. Julius Caesar genocided 25% of Gaul ( France & Belgium) population - a higher figure than most genocides in history. 
Yet not ONE assyrian king or ONE roman consul/emperor (before christianity) has EVER been recorded ( and both of them have crap tons of literature left over) to say or do 'these infidel savages need Jupiter or Ashur, we must convert them or kill them'. NOT ONCE. Guess when the Romans started to use religion as a justification for their genocides ? When christianity came into the picture. 

 

Leftoids wanna ignore history and facts so they can propagate their nonsensical ideology to further their hatred of the normal. 

 

 

Assyrians are interesting. You could almost directly connect the sheer delight in carnage by Hamas to their early text of brutalization and murder. They did enjoy it quite a bit. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

21 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Honestly, if it wern't for retarded leftists and commies spreading their propaganda of 'all religions are exactly the same in outcome', this wouldnt even be a point of contention. 
I have a minor degree in history, those here who've crossed swords with me here know that i can bury practically anyone here in history, yet, except for a 40 year period in Sassanian Iran, i have NEVER EVER EVER seen ANY evidence of religious warfare & religion sponsored genocides, mass evictions & forced conversions by ANY non abrahamic religion. Ever. 
This doesn't mean that religion made people assholes and prior to these religions there was no mass murder or genocide. Just that it wasnt done religiously/in name of religion,thus those religions can't be held accountable for genocide, mass murder or such. 

For example, the two most barbaric, brutal and savage empires in history of mankind are the Romans & Assyrians. Both of them LITERALLY followed the doctrine of 'rebel once and we will kill every man in your city and take some women as sex slaves, rebel twice, we will kill & enslave everyone and salt your fields so it is wasteland for another 100 years'. Assyrians LITERALLY caused the first ever jewish holocaust. Julius Caesar genocided 25% of Gaul ( France & Belgium) population - a higher figure than most genocides in history. 
Yet not ONE assyrian king or ONE roman consul/emperor (before christianity) has EVER been recorded ( and both of them have crap tons of literature left over) to say or do 'these infidel savages need Jupiter or Ashur, we must convert them or kill them'. NOT ONCE. Guess when the Romans started to use religion as a justification for their genocides ? When christianity came into the picture. 

 

Leftoids wanna ignore history and facts so they can propagate their nonsensical ideology to further their hatred of the normal. 

 

 

The fact that savagery can exist outside the confines of religion lends credence to my hypothesis that violence is violence - no matter the vehicle it rides. Even if one concedes that the Chozhas did not pillage to spread Shaivism per se, taking together that they persecuted other sects within their own kingdoms and committed savagery on other kingdoms for non-religious purposes, their cruelty rises to the same level as those committed to spread religion.

 

I am just not able to fathom how they can be absolved when one considers they indiscriminately plundered and pillaged Anuradhapura and (perhaps) even SE Asia just because it was not for religious purposes. Their acts were just as heinous as recent genocides perpetrated by communists and others for non-religious purposes and just as heinous as the ones committed in the name of religion. Did they just destroy an entire city after making sure the women and children were protected? I have a hard time believing that. I think we are more forgiving because they are "ours" and somehow their "conquests" are glorious while others' are condemnable.

 

Violence rides many vehicles. Religion is one. And I hope that all these vehicles are taken off the road at some point, but am not optimistic. 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by BacktoCricaddict

[Lannister]

On 11/27/2023 at 11:53 AM, Muloghonto said:

On 11/27/2023 at 11:53 AM, Muloghonto said:

Secularism means religion doesn't weild direct influence in the government

 

Once again, trying to redefine words to promote a Hindu agenda. Democracy and religions are incompatible. If governance is influenced by religion, events similar to what transpired with Gowri Lankesh involving Hindu fundamentalists will become widespread in our society.
 

[Lannister]

On 11/27/2023 at 11:53 AM, Muloghonto said:

Ergo, secularism, which rose in Europe as a response to fascist Abrahamic religions ( christianity in this case) isnt required for the non abrahamic religions.

Which is why atheist secularists like you have it in your interest to brand ALL religions as equally bad, to provide a false necessity and false value for your secular ideology.

Hinduism, much like the Abrahamic religions, is also a religion with elements of violence. Keep your religious beliefs within the confines of your homes. Steer clear of our democratic establishments.

[Muloghonto]

54 minutes ago, Lannister said:

Once again, trying to redefine words to promote a Hindu agenda. Democracy and religions are incompatible. If governance is influenced by religion, events similar to what transpired with Gowri Lankesh involving Hindu fundamentalists will become widespread in our society.
 

Mate, i have LITERALLY given you example of a yankee govt institute that promotes ALL religion and its participation in politics. Your position that governments shouldnt try to control religions or manage them, is objectively false when it comes to secular democracies, as examples of India and USA prove. 

 

37 minutes ago, Lannister said:

Hinduism, much like the Abrahamic religions, is also a religion with elements of violence. Keep your religious beliefs within the confines of your homes. Steer clear of our democratic establishments.

 

As i said, secularism isnt necessary when not dealing with abrahamic religions, as world history shows. Its invented specifically to manage abrahamic religions, which is why non abrahamic religions didnt require secularism and have existed in multi-religious societies harmoniously. Your eurocentric view is predictable, given your eurocentric ideological beliefs. But they run counter to facts.

 

 

I am still waiting for you to substantiate your claim /show rationale behind how caste system can be worse than slavery.

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

The fact that savagery can exist outside the confines of religion lends credence to my hypothesis that violence is violence - no matter the vehicle it rides. Even if one concedes that the Chozhas did not pillage to spread Shaivism per se, taking together that they persecuted other sects within their own kingdoms and committed savagery on other kingdoms for non-religious purposes, their cruelty rises to the same level as those committed to spread religion.

That is irrelevant to the point that is being debated here. The point that is being debated here, is that religions that directly condone and promote mass murder, forced conversion and expulsions are worse than religions that do not. 

 

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

I am just not able to fathom how they can be absolved when one considers they indiscriminately plundered and pillaged Anuradhapura and (perhaps) even SE Asia just because it was not for religious purposes.

Put it this way. When we see the ravaging of Anuradhapura, we can blame Rajendra Chola. When we see the ravages of Dilli and Somnath by Timur, we can blame Timur AND Islam. 

 

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Their acts were just as heinous as recent genocides perpetrated by communists and others for non-religious purposes and just as heinous as the ones committed in the name of religion. Did they just destroy an entire city after making sure the women and children were protected? I have a hard time believing that. I think we are more forgiving because they are "ours" and somehow their "conquests" are glorious while others' are condemnable.

 

Violence rides many vehicles. Religion is one. And I hope that all these vehicles are taken off the road at some point, but am not optimistic. 

 

 

SOME religions. Infact, just TWO religions in recorded history ( Three if you count a 30-40 year period of Zoroastrian history under the House of Sassan, where they reacted to Byzantine christian expulsions of Zoroastrians by mass murdering all christians in Iranshahr-the Iranian empire under House of Sassan) that have been used as vehicles of genocide, mass expulsion and mass scale forced conversions.Ergo, those religions are far far worse than any other religion. 

THAT is the gist of the discussion here.

 

[Muloghonto]

7 hours ago, ravishingravi said:

 

Assyrians are interesting. You could almost directly connect the sheer delight in carnage by Hamas to their early text of brutalization and murder. They did enjoy it quite a bit. 

Assyrians were less gleeful of their mass murdering ways  but far more systematic in their approach than they are depicted. Most of the brutality of the Assyrian monarchs comes from the Bible, but what the bible tries to hide (you will have to look very carefully to find it) is that the idiot jews sent missionaries to the Assyrian court,where they were well recived but promptly started to pontificate to the Assyrians how Ashur is a false god, he is a demon, the real god is Yahweh, jews are chosen people etc etc.

Imagine for a second - nearly 3000 years ago, a bunch of retards from a small tribal society with similar levels of socio-economic & architectural competence as the Taliban, goes into the court of the Roman emperor and starts dissing them. What fate would await such morons and their peoples ? assyrians as such, made it a POINT to utterly eviscerate Judea, as those retard israelites didnt just show defiance to the Assyrians by refusing to submit ( the actual purpose of those missionaries, in assyrian drishtikon, was to offer submission as vassals) but ended up insulting their gods. in their court.  That made it personal to the Assyrian royalty and the jews paid the price for that.

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by Muloghonto

[BacktoCricaddict]

24 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Assyrians were less gleeful of their mass murdering ways  but far more systematic in their approach than they are depicted. Most of the brutality of the Assyrian monarchs comes from the Bible, but what the bible tries to hide (you will have to look very carefully to find it) is that the idiot jews sent missionaries to the Assyrian court,where they were well recived but promptly started to pontificate to the Assyrians how Ashur is a false god, he is a demon, the real god is Yahweh, jews are chosen people etc etc.

Imagine for a second - nearly 3000 years ago, a bunch of retards from a small tribal society with similar levels of socio-economic & architectural competence as the Taliban, goes into the court of the Roman emperor and starts dissing them. What fate would await such morons and their peoples ? assyrians as such, made it a POINT to utterly eviscerate Judea, as those retard israelites didnt just show defiance to the Assyrians by refusing to submit ( the actual purpose of those missionaries, in assyrian drishtikon, was to offer submission as vassals) but ended up insulting their gods. in their court.  That made it personal to the Assyrian royalty and the jews paid the price for that.

 

 

 

So, does that qualify as a religious assault - a genocide against the Jewish people - by the Assyrian believers of Ashur?

[BacktoCricaddict]

35 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

That is irrelevant to the point that is being debated here. The point that is being debated here, is that religions that directly condone and promote mass murder, forced conversion and expulsions are worse than religions that do not. 

 

Put it this way. When we see the ravaging of Anuradhapura, we can blame Rajendra Chola. When we see the ravages of Dilli and Somnath by Timur, we can blame Timur AND Islam. 

 

SOME religions. Infact, just TWO religions in recorded history ( Three if you count a 30-40 year period of Zoroastrian history under the House of Sassan, where they reacted to Byzantine christian expulsions of Zoroastrians by mass murdering all christians in Iranshahr-the Iranian empire under House of Sassan) that have been used as vehicles of genocide, mass expulsion and mass scale forced conversions.Ergo, those religions are far far worse than any other religion. 

THAT is the gist of the discussion here.

 

True, I entered the thread to throw in my 0.02 opinion as an atheist. The thread was meandering anyway - there were religion vs religion arguments and religion vs atheism arguments. And my post was germane to the latter point.  Overall, you make interesting points regarding blaming a psychopath/sociopath king (RRC) vs blaming an entire population. More to ponder ...

 

 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

So, does that qualify as a religious assault - a genocide against the Jewish people - by the Assyrian believers of Ashur?

i think it would, if this angle was decisively agreed upon as reality. Though given the specificity of this ( Assyrians for eg, didnt go after any other religion in their vast domain, not even the much more prestigious Baal-Marduk religion of Babylonia) i am more inclined to see it similar to how Islam is the kabab-me-haddi in virtually all religious conflicts in the world today and 'play stupid games, get stupid prizes' scenario.