I’m bringing this up because christians usually consider their religion superior to paganism and all polytheistic religions. Well, christians consider themselves superior in general.

What do you think ?

[“you will find that scholars from the Renaissance based their science on ideas before Christianity.”]

“”No, they built on the work of scientists and thinkers of the Middle Ages (who themselves had already built upon the Classical tradition), men such as Duns Scotus, Roger Bacon, and William of Ockham (who all belonged to Franciscan orders), Nicole Oresme (a bishop), Robert Grosseteste (a bishop), and Thomas Bradwardine (who was briefly Archbishop of Canterbury).”"

Why does this sentence begin with the word “No”?? You disagree with yourself a line later. Also, the Arabs saved those ideas from the Christians and were lately returned to the West. And may I say that I only know Roger Bacon of these people

[“Certainly the wars (started on religious grounds)”]

“”No, for the most part in the time we are talking about, the big ones weren’t, instead being traditional wars of territory. The age of religious war in Europe arrived after the Renaissance.”"

….It may be cliche-d, but do the Crusades ring a bell? Or do they dont count cause they were outside Europe?

and just an add-on:
“”For example, Robert Grosseteste is considered by historians of science as the founder of the English intellectual tradition, and made major contributions to the development of the scientific method.”"
You copied that from wikipedia and failed to mention that the “historians of science” were one man.I do not doubt the man’s contribution to science, but you are trying to appear more impressive using the plural.I sense some insecurity.

First I think it’s fair to state that Monotheistic religions can act as an enabler of oppressive regimes such as Fascism. The question for me would be as to whether Nazi Germany is the best source material. I’ve personally never thought of the Nazi party coming to power because of Christianity – I’ve only ever seen it as an economically destitute society siding with a charismatic sociopath who claimed he could solve all their problems (and, for the most part, delivered). That’s not to say that Christianity couldn’t have assisted with his rise to power, and is an interesting theory, just that I’d never thought of it like that.

In many ways current and recent events in the US may be better source material. An incapable and incompetent leader not only getting elected, but reelected after proving to the world the ineffectiveness of his administrations policies, decidedly due to the fact that conservative voters sided with a man marketing himself as a devout Christian and using more religious references than any other single President before him. That is not to say that the WHOLE of Christianity sided with Bush, but if you’ve witnessed sermons of Tom Haggard, interviews with blowhards like Bill Donohue, movies like Jesus Camp or books such as Righteous by Lauren Sandler, there is at the very least a small portion of Christianity which has become politically motivated to support and “maintain” the word of God, which they feel they can do through Dubya. Without the support of this denomination, Bush quite likely could not have won either of his last two elections.

Now when Bush was elected into power it was not an oppressive regime. The events of 9/11 changed that to an extent, but the general consensus (at the time) was that they were justifiable reactions in response to that event. But by the second election it should have been clear that his administration was not on the right path. In the end one could argue it was more Kerry losing than Bush winning, but the same Christian voters who supported the first time around supported him the second time around. The problem is that they’re not supporting him because of his administration’s policies or the acts they’ve carried out; they support him because he is the “most” Christian candidate. And it got him elected. Did he plan that? Perhaps not. But that’s not what’s being debated here. His religion got him into office because the vast majority of US citizens are of the same religion, with at least some of those voters casting their ballots solely on that fact.

The religious indoctrination within the US has brought the focus of the 2008 elections onto the religious beliefs of the varying political candidates moreso than what they intend to do for the country. CNN even hosted a sort of “Faith in Politics” segment with Obama, Hillary and Edwards around 2 months back where each proclaimed how their faith has helped them over the course of their lives and how they will use it to bring change to their country. Obama offered reasonable and insightful solutions in addressing issues such as healthcare and education but had to cocoon his policies within the guise that they are religiously conceived or oriented. His ideas had nothing to do with religious denomination or faith-inspired solutions, but his simple, rational solutions are not good enough by themselves. It is undeniable that an atheist would not have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected today, regardless of their policies or political positions, intelligence or experience, Republican or Democrat. If you were to run on a platform with policies, opinions and charisma identical to that of the next President of the United States but with a worldview other than that of Christianity, you would lose.

I’m running off on a tangent here, and may address this further after some thought, but the underlying point Db0 was trying to make does have merit.

You wrote: “…you also seem to forget Constantine that in 324 declared Christianity as the official religion…”
Wrong. Constatine de-criminalized Christianity but Sol Invictus remained the ‘official’ religion. Theodosius made it the official religion.

Rife with errors and contradictions. You argue in the post that religious thinking leads to fascism and then claim in comments that religious thinking does not lead to fascism.

After your initially hyperbole, it’s nice of you to finally concede that. Of course it completely undermines your claims.

It may completely undermine the strawman you set up to fight, but not the main article in any respect.

That’s so incredibly stupid I’ve realized the pointlessness of this. One word buddy: Byzantines.

Good this think that you’ve got such solid facts like “Incredibly stupid”. What makes you think I do not know about Byzantium in the first place?
In any case, I really hope you find it hopeless because I’m tired of trying to explain the same thing over and over.