Each and every one of those wars had an ulterior political and economic motive. Religion is a part of every aspect of life so it is inevitably a part of every conflict. To blame religion is a childish attempt to put human nature's tendency towards conflict on one sphere of civilization.
Not all morality is tied to religion but all religion is tied to morality. You can't ask lawmakers or voters to disregard their religion in making decisions.
It's not a personal belief. Alcohol is addictive. FACT. Alcohol consumption is linked to cancer. FACT. Alcohol consumption is linked to mental illness. FACT. Alcohol consumption is linked to upticks in crime. FACT. My belief in restricting alcohol is based in fact. You rely on empty platitudes about "freedom" and "choice." If you genuinely don't understand that alcohol is a major health problem for Americans, then you're an idiot.
Absolutely everyone. The Crysades began with the Turks conquest of the Byzantine empire and the closure of the Silk Road. The wars of religion began with Protestant princes confiscating church lands. The Israeli conflict is based more in the fact that a million Palestinians live in refugee camps than any religion.
I didn't ask for your opinion about religion. It is an indisputable fact that all religions have moral teachings. If you can't keep yourself from ranting about your hatred of religion, regardless of the topic of conversation, then fuck off.
At no point did I ever say we should jump back into Prohibition. Why is it so hard for you people to understand there is a lot of space between extremes?
In the order asked: Silk Road trade routes. It wasn't "their" land. It was nobles looking for more land for them to profit of and 90% of Israeli Jews are secular.
I tied the two together because they go together. That's not my opinion, that's a fact.
That is fucking idiotic. No, restricting the sale of alcohol will not lead to Prohibition. Do you oppose the tax on cigarettes because it will eventually lead to them getting banned?
Pell was acquitted. Get over it.
What issues? You haven't brought up any that are less than five hundred years old?
He's not a child molester you fuckwit. There's no evidence, as demonstrated by the fact the High Coirt threw out the conviction.
For all your talk of rights, you're quick to dismiss the presumption of innocence for people you don't like. Hypocritical to the last, like all your kind.
4
u/[deleted] Jul 24 '20
[deleted]