(October 13, 2010 at 2:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote: BTW, the French Revolution went after the church with a vengeance, too. The reason of course was the the church was a full partner in the suppression of the people and deserved to lose every head they lost.

Would that be the very revolution that ushered in the "Reign of Terror" in France? They were far worse than the Monarchy they overthrew.
The revolutionary fanatic, Robespierre, was overthrown and beheaded for his cruelty, a fitting end for that arrogant blood thirsty tyrant. Napoleon soon after seized power in France and restored religious freedom.

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

Don't you mean that Napoleon made a deal with the church? That would be more accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat_of_1801

Quote:The main terms of the Concordat of 1801 between France and Pope Pius VII included:

* A declaration that "Catholicism was the religion of the great majority of the French" but not the official state religion, thus maintaining religious freedom, in particular with respect to Protestants
* The Papacy had the right to depose bishops, but this made little difference, because the French government still nominated them.
* The State would pay clerical salaries and the clergy swore an oath of allegiance to the State.
* The Church gave up all its claims to Church lands that were confiscated after 1790.
* The Sabbath was reestablished as a "festival", effective Easter Sunday, 18 April 1802. The rest of the French Republican Calendar, which had been abolished, was not replaced by the traditional Gregorian Calendar until 1 January 1806.

Try not to believe too much English propaganda about Napoleon. He was quite a guy.

(October 13, 2010 at 7:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Don't you mean that Napoleon made a deal with the church? That would be more accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat_of_1801

Quote:The main terms of the Concordat of 1801 between France and Pope Pius VII included:

* A declaration that "Catholicism was the religion of the great majority of the French" but not the official state religion, thus maintaining religious freedom, in particular with respect to Protestants
* The Papacy had the right to depose bishops, but this made little difference, because the French government still nominated them.
* The State would pay clerical salaries and the clergy swore an oath of allegiance to the State.
* The Church gave up all its claims to Church lands that were confiscated after 1790.
* The Sabbath was reestablished as a "festival", effective Easter Sunday, 18 April 1802. The rest of the French Republican Calendar, which had been abolished, was not replaced by the traditional Gregorian Calendar until 1 January 1806.

Try not to believe too much English propaganda about Napoleon. He was quite a guy.

Quote:Don't you mean that Napoleon made a deal with the church? That would be more accurate.

...and?

Quote:Try not to believe too much English propaganda about Napoleon. He was quite a guy.

I agree. Napoleon is one of the historical figures I admire.

If memory serves this is the second thing we have agreed on.

Serious breach there.

(October 13, 2010 at 8:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: If memory serves this is the second thing we have agreed on.

Serious breach there.

We can't tell anybody. People will talk.

(October 13, 2010 at 6:17 pm)solja247 Wrote: Yes, it is the hotel's choice. And it's discriminatory. Not to mention presumptuous. It's also a subtle way to promote a particular religion. All of which are reasons that cause me to object.

Quote:How is it?

How is it?

It's discriminatory because Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. are denied their book while one is provided for Christians.

It's presumptuous because it assumes that anyone using that hotel room is a Christian.

And it promotes a particular religion because, by providing a Bible, the hotel is sponsoring Christianity over any other religion.

You don't see this?

(October 13, 2010 at 11:17 am)Gilligan Wrote: If it wasn't because of atheism, why did Wurmbrand undergo "Christianity is Stupid" brainwashing for seventeen hours a day for weeks as in the YouTube video above? Not only was he imprisoned, but tortured as well. I know Stalin wasn't the leader of Romania, but that country was under the same system.

You are creating a false dichotomy of Christianity vs Atheism. It isn't true that all Christians are anti-atheist, and it isn't true that all atheists are anti-Christian. Just because someone undergoes anti-Christian brainwashing does not mean the brainwashing was done by atheists, or in the name of atheism.

What you can say is that the people doing it were anti-Christian, but this doesn't say anything about what they stand *for*. You can be anti-Christian and be a Jew, a Hindu, a Muslim, etc, or you can be a non-religious believer.

Stalin's communism was all about control, and when you have the presence of a religion, that religion exhibits a certain amount of control over its followers. I have never seen any speech by Stalin, or private diary entry by Stalin, that makes the connection between Stalin's actions, and his lack of belief in a God. All the evidence I have seen points to Stalin doing what he did because he wanted power, not because he saw it as some movement to promote atheism.

So the YouTube videos in post #41 were strictly for political reasons ?

I've noticed that xtians are always whining about being persecuted. Maybe if you'd all STFU no one would bother you?

Just a thought. Not everyone is interested in your bullshit but other countries do not have western tolerance as part of their make-up. Another thing you'd like to change.