You're right. There's nothing academic about adding 1 + 1 and coming up with 2.
Guy studies religion, particularly nationalized religion, and from what he sees of the effects of nationalized religion, pens the idea of separation of church and state. Clearly he came to the conclusion that nationalized religion is a bad thing, and he was right. He understood that forcing someone to believe like you do is simply wrong, regardless whether or not you think you're doing it for the right reasons. He just never touched on something that is rather obvious to anyone with a modern understanding of history; Christianity has been used as an excuse to wage war countless times; OF COURSE war is going to break out if you give it national identity and power. For being a religion of "peace," its history is perhaps the bloodiest of any religion. Even Islam can't lay claim to that! How bad of a system of belief do you have to have where you claim to be a religion of peace yet the religion condemned in modern times for being the most aggressive actually has far fewer counts of atrocities committed in its name than your own??
You can pish-tush that away with claims of misinterpretation all you'd like, of course, and I'm sure you were about to until you got to this point, but that's bullshit because the claim is made that Christianity is the "universal belief," and of course, that the bible is infallible. Neither of these are true, clearly, given how many schisms, divisions, and interpretations of the bible there are; they can't all be right because they are all in contradiction to some extent. I am sure you probably think your interpretations are more valid than these war-mongering brothers in belief in your religion's past were, but really, are they? Or is that just your opinion, unsubstantiated and subject to someone else telling you you are wrong and laying out a vast network of points to show why, points that neither of you will ever reach reconciliation on, thus proving what exactly happens when you have two people who BELIEVE in unsubstantiated claims but coming away with different opinions on what the claims mean?
Oh yes, Mr. Williams had it right, but he just didn't really know why. He thought it was because it was coming from forcing other people to believe. He's right, of course, but more the underlying problem is that even WITHOUT nationalization, religions are going to induce conflict, even if not always physical.
Guy studies religion, particularly nationalized religion, and from what he sees of the effects of nationalized religion, pens the idea of separation of church and state. Clearly he came to the conclusion that nationalized religion is a bad thing, and he was right. He understood that forcing someone to believe like you do is simply wrong, regardless whether or not you think you're doing it for the right reasons. He just never touched on something that is rather obvious to anyone with a modern understanding of history; Christianity has been used as an excuse to wage war countless times; OF COURSE war is going to break out if you give it national identity and power. For being a religion of "peace," its history is perhaps the bloodiest of any religion. Even Islam can't lay claim to that! How bad of a system of belief do you have to have where you claim to be a religion of peace yet the religion condemned in modern times for being the most aggressive actually has far fewer counts of atrocities committed in its name than your own??
You can pish-tush that away with claims of misinterpretation all you'd like, of course, and I'm sure you were about to until you got to this point, but that's bullshit because the claim is made that Christianity is the "universal belief," and of course, that the bible is infallible. Neither of these are true, clearly, given how many schisms, divisions, and interpretations of the bible there are; they can't all be right because they are all in contradiction to some extent. I am sure you probably think your interpretations are more valid than these war-mongering brothers in belief in your religion's past were, but really, are they? Or is that just your opinion, unsubstantiated and subject to someone else telling you you are wrong and laying out a vast network of points to show why, points that neither of you will ever reach reconciliation on, thus proving what exactly happens when you have two people who BELIEVE in unsubstantiated claims but coming away with different opinions on what the claims mean?
Oh yes, Mr. Williams had it right, but he just didn't really know why. He thought it was because it was coming from forcing other people to believe. He's right, of course, but more the underlying problem is that even WITHOUT nationalization, religions are going to induce conflict, even if not always physical.
