Christchurch mosque terror attack.

At Each Kilometer

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
4,017
Bulgaria
Official statistics talk about some 2.5 million Romanian citizens established in Western Europe (meaning there are actually more). It's difficult to believe they're majoritary ethnic gypsy.

Also, it's slightly irrelevant, as Gypsies are an European people.
Yes, indeed. They are white / Caucasian race. I merely pointing out the obvious. They are not ethnic Romanians, ergo one should name them properly and use Romani instead. Piling up together different ethnic groups and calling them merely by their nationality or race serves no purpose.
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
You didn't answer the question on America, Australia, sub-Saharian Africa.

If You would have answered (for Yourself), You would have seem the point.
none of the places(america,australia or sub saharan africa) has civilization or religious philosphy as advance as india.(thats the reason why hindus endured 250 years of islamic rule which was every bit extreme as christian rule in non-christian areas)
austrailia in particular.
this is not to say it made no difference,in places like pakistan or bangladesh(which were indeed part of india) there are no more hindus.

you can even check muslim population density in india,most areas which have higher muslim population have had higher islamic rule than rest(like the gangetic plains)
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
Yes, indeed. They are white / Caucasian race. I merely pointing out the obvious. They are not ethnic Romanians, ergo one should name them properly and use Romani instead. Piling up together different ethnic groups and calling them merely by their nationality or race serves no purpose.
That's a bit of a lost cause, my friend: Western Europe is thinking in nationality terms, not in ethnicity terms.

But of course, I agree with You.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
none of the places(america,australia or sub saharan africa) has civilization or religious philosphy as advance as india.
austrailia in particular.
and in places like pakistan or bangladesh(which were indeed part of india) there is are no more hindus.
It's irelevant how advanced or not was the local civilization.

What is relevant is that the "book" is the same, for 1500 years, or 2000 years, it didn't changed.

And Christianism, the "religion of love" has periods and places when/where it was more deadly than Islamism, the "religion of hate". And religious terrorism, religious intolerance can be found in any religion.

Because religion is a human creation . Any religion can be intolerant or tolerant, because it's what people are doing out of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkteia
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
It's irelevant how advanced or not was the local civilization.
Incorrect,advance civilizations can far easily resist change(this is why central asian invaders before muslims converted to indic faiths rather than destroying indic faiths,because their religion wasn't advanced enough)
same goes mongols that conquered vast majority of land,they did not lay waste to areas because of religious,infact they converted to whichever religion was dominant,mostly because the civilization too was more advance than mongols.

What is relevant is that the "book" is the same, for 1500 years, or 2000 years, it didn't changed.
Surely both are violent and intolerant,that is the point i was trying to draw across(you said christanity was more extreme than islam 5-6 centuries before,which is incorrect,as islam as extreme if not more extreme than christanity)

And Christianism, the "religion of love" has periods and places when/where it was more deadly than Islamism, the "religion of hate". And religious terrorism, religious intolerance can be found in any religion.
Religious intolerance is very much limited to abhramic religions,neither pagan religion nor indic ones(like jainism,buddhism,sikhism or hinduism) are intolerant of people based on their faith or god they worship

Because religion is a human creation . Any religion can be intolerant or tolerant, because it's what people are doing out of it.
i agree here,all religions are man made according to me as well,and any one could be intolerant,but this doesn't change the fact that islam and christanity are intolerant,while christians have grown out of their religion,muslims surely haven't
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
Incorrect,advance civilizations can far easily resist change(
Or not.

Sorry, but accordingly to Your sayings, that would mean that places like Pakistan and Bangladesh were inferior civilisations. That ancient Greek and Roman civilization were inferior. That Persian civilization was inferior.

Religious intolerance is very much limited to abhramic religions,neither pagan religion nor indic ones(like jainism,buddhism,sikhism or hinduism) are intolerant of people based on their faith or god they worship
I will not start to look for examples of manifest intolerance and violence in other than Abrahamic religions then post those examples. I suppose You know why ...
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
Or not.

Sorry, but accordingly to Your sayings, that would mean that places like Pakistan and Bangladesh were inferior civilisations. That ancient Greek and Roman civilization were inferior. That Persian civilization was inferior.
Philosophically yes,except romans as they were not really forced per say,constantine converted on his wish.
ancient greeks however seems a odd case for me,maybe their population limitation was the reason they converted quickly,gangetic plains are the most populous region on earth(except yellow river civilization)
gangetic plains were the heart of brahmanic hinduism.
thats why they endured about 500 years of islamic rule even when almost all the holy shrines were destroyed,despite being core of hinduism,one the oldest standing temples in UP is believed to contructed in 18th century(after fall of mughals)
Shri Tilbhandeshwar Mahadev Mandir - Wikipedia

pakistan and bangladesh were basically extention of indic civilization before islamic invasions,they were indeed inferior,both numerically and seems like philosophically as well.



I will not start to look for examples of manifest intolerance and violence in other than Abrahamic religions then post those examples. I suppose You know why ...
i would admit i don't know much about western pagans other than their mythologies,so won't claim anything about them,but i do know about indic and chinese(in general eastern faiths) to say intolerance is simply not a part of any of them.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
but i do know about indic and chinese(in general eastern faiths) to say intolerance is simply not a part of any of them.
And that's the (recurring) problem: it's not about intolerance being (or not) part of religion "x"!

It's about that religion, no matter what is promoting, can be (and it is) used as explanation, pretext for anything . It's why You will find intolerant persons/movements in "more pacifist" religions as tolerant persons/movements in "less pacifist" religions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkteia

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
seems a odd case for me,maybe their population limitation was the reason
It seems odd only because You look at it through the single religious lens and not taking into account other factors. And in real life, there is never only one factor contributing to an event, an evolution, a change.

Ottoman Empire's occupation of Balkans concords with the America's occupation by Spanish/Portuguese. And if the Balkans weren't islamised, unlike America that was Christianised is not because of the specificities of the Qur'an/New The but because of specificities of OT, Spain, Portugal. Political, economical specifities plus specific -meaning different -interpretation of the scriptures.

Cordoba Caliphate can be considered as open, tolerant for the time frame. A "tolerant Islam". It felt because of the fundamentalist Islam. And fundamentalist Christianism.

Small trivia: the Jewish community in Spain, persecuted by the new Spanish power in place, highly intolerant Christian, found refuge in Maghreb and Ottoman Empire.

I have the impression that You take into account only how religion is shaping a society but You do not take into account how the society is shaping religion. It gives a partial vision, thus a wrong one in the end.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: M.S. Islam