Sounds interesting.
Anyway, that would be my speculation. Immigrants tend to focus on education. Christians are a statistically huge group extending across a variety of social situations.
1 Like
Not all, or even the dominant immigrant group in the USA.
Who? Maybe you should direct it at those people instead of whataboutisms.
Glad you found 1 when there used to millions.
Explain how Christianity drove nazis to put Jews in gas chambers. The Nazis were not a Christian based group. More whataboutism and deflection of clear persecution of Jews and Christians in the Middle East by Muslims. But I’ll wait for you to dig into some historical event to defend it.
Well, that didn’t take long. More whataboutism. Are you truly incapable of a argument without it? Here is my defense of those events. I don’t. I acknowledge they’re wrong and I don’t need to drag Islam into it.
I wasn’t even talking about Islam vs Christianity, it was about Islam’s influence on Iran. But you went there because your argument was weak. There was absolutely no reason to bring up what about Christianity besides the fact you had nothing to stand on in the conversation of Islamic influence in Iran.
1 Like
Nazis weren’t Christian but the people who voted them in were.
The Zoroastrians did plenty of repressing back in the day. Meaning the Axial age. Because they could.
The truth about whataboutism is that everybody does it.
Christian groups varied from support, neutral and opposed the nazi movement. Many strongly opposed nazis trying to use Christianity as propaganda. This isn’t saying a whole lot. The Nazis weren’t killing Jews for Christianity.
The Christians didn’t cause it, but they didn’t effectively fight it either.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer came closest to rising to the occasion. The response of others was wholly inadequate. Too much peace and love. It got in the way of killing Nazis.
There wasn’t a lot of opposition from any German because most of them were just pissed about the Treaty of Versailles and their economic situation. It’s not hard to imagine why people would have supported them at one point.
At best the Nazi’s tolerated Christianity and saw uses for propaganda. Although Nazi propaganda wasn’t as successful as people think. Most people who supported them were just pissed about the Treaty of Versailles and not so much into all the other stuff. Hence why they had to force conscription at the end, turns out Germans weren’t lining up to die for the Reich. Many historians believe the Nazis sought to get rid of Christianity since people who were indoctrinated with ideas like turn the other cheek weren’t the easiest bunch to get to slaughter groups of people.
That was a Nazi talking point. Just saying. Also, they totally had Versailles coming. If anything, they got off too easy.
I accept no excuses for burning Jews and starting World War II.
The simple truth was they had a democracy and couldn’t figure out what to do with it. So first they voted stupid, and when that didn’t work they voted evil.
Wasn’t an excuse, but the reality. Some might argued Japan started WW2, and they were also pissed about the Treaty of Versailles. In turns out, treaties that work aren’t about being fair as they were about keeping peace. If anyone had shit coming, it was the Japanese who got off wayyyyy to easy even with the 2 nukes. What did the Nazi’s do, the Japanese didn’t?
@finley re Poland and all that, you’re arbitrarily saying X is Catholic and Y secular. If you go by establishment/disestablishment, that’s one thing, but it doesn’t necessarily translate to social norms, and btw Poland is officially secular.
And you definitely do not need to go back 100 years to find Christianity (including Catholicism) a social norm in secular Christian (including Catholic) countries!
Even if you exclude all the minor heretical movements, you’re still about five centuries late for the Great Schism.
Why would he need to, when it was already understood?
This again? 
Ymmv.
Well no, he’s right that “Persia” under one name or another was a notable power in ancient times. But as I’ve pointed out before, he’s wrong that Iran was not Islamic during the Pahlavi dynasty.
And there still are, to this day, though there are very, very few left in Iraq, and fewer than 9000 left in Iran.
I never claimed this. I said before, it’s a constant cycle with Islam of radicals wrecking other Muslims.
And he defied that by keeping women company, speaking directly to women like he spoke to men. Both made the religious leaders pissed because it wasn’t seen as acceptable for a Jewish man at the time. Scripture says men and women were both created in the image of god, nothing suggests women were inferior. Such ideas were radical since people did think women were inferior at the time.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
1 Like
Technically you didn’t.
I was reading
as an implied statement that the Pahlavi dynasty was secular, rather than just having a pro-secular tendency while the vast majority of the population remained religious including (as far as anyone could tell) the Shah.
I implied the radicals took control as always with Islam, the next sentence says that. If that was unclear, now you know what I meant.
You have indeed clarified the matter.
1 Like
That’s a very large group, with meant people having something of a manual labor mentality, whereas most of a group like “Muslims” are coming here for different reasons. It would be interesting to compare them to other more similar groups, but I don’t doubt they have an education ethos in general.
That’s not true
And there’s also the OT.
It probably takes a certain chutzpah to survive as a distinct group in alien cultures for two millennia.
1 Like