I hear this repeated over and over.

Prove it.

Sources: anecdotal evidence,analogies, scientific journals,etc... All are welcome.

This is open to anyone that cares to reply.

Are you making this thread because you don't believe, or haven't seen enough evidence, that religion causes war? Religion has been a large cause of warfare. I'll give a few examples, but this will be a very incomplete list, I hope others can fill it in.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> The crusades. There were 3 of them I believe, not counting the childrens crusade. European christians believed that the Holy Land was no longer safe for christian pilgrims to make their pilgrimages to Jerusalem. So all the nobles of Europe gathered their men and headed for the middle east to fight the Saracens. I don't know how many hundreds of thousands died as a result.

<LI> The Irish fight for independence is more of a nationalist movement than a religious one. But a lot of it is linked to the struggle to unite the protestant North with the rest of the catholic nation. Religion has been a huge reason for bloodshed in that country.

<LI> All* the wars fought by european colonists during the age of exploration and beyond. Particularly the spanish. between the 16th and 18th century, Europeans felt the need to "save" all non christians from their pagan religions. They often went to war (read: slaughtered) people who did not want to convert.

* - though those wars were also fought for large economic reasons as well.

<LI>Russian pograms: though not an act of war, since the russians were killing their own citizens. The Russian government sponsored what is basically hunting trips to go and kill the Jews in Russia. I'm not sure of the dates, but I think it happened between the 17th and 19th centuries mostly. This all because they were jewish.

<LI>Islamic Jihad: The Quran advocates the killing of all muslims. They are waging jihad(holy war) against the western world right now.

<LI>Saddam Hussein had tens of thousands of Shia muslims massacred in his own country because they were just a different sect of Muslim than he was. He is a Sunni Muslim, which makes up 90% of the muslim world.

I know I left out a lot. I may have gotten a few facts wrong, I didnt research anything for this....If I was wrong somewhere please correct me.

</UL>

[This message has been edited by chickenpoop (edited 01-28-2005).]

I am sort of missing the "religious" debate of this thread.

Though the title is "Religion Causes War", it would end up being very little about religion, and mostly about perception of the world's wars and how they were caused.

Just my observation.

Also, I just want to say that "religion" does not cause war.

MAN causes war, but uses religion as a scapegoat for their reasoning.

chickenpoop:

Crusades - I'll give you the Crusades.

Troubles - A Catholic nation means its laws are determined directly by Rome. Ever hear of "Home Rule"? Thus, it's more politics than religion.

Manifest Destiny - the only religious influence that American expansionism had was that the people participating in it were Christians.

Pograms - Semitism is an ethnicity more than a religion.

Jihad - No.

Hussein's Cleansing - Islam is divided into Shi'ite and Sunni because of differences in Muhammed's succession, which ultimately leads to the politics of religion - thus separating it from religion.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Look at 9 fucking 11, and the war for the holy land. You dumb shit.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

chickenpoop:

Manifest Destiny - the only religious influence that American expansionism had was that the people participating in it were Christians.

Pograms - Semitism is an ethnicity more than a religion.

Jihad - No.

Hussein's Cleansing - Islam is divided into Shi'ite and Sunni because of differences in Muhammed's succession, which ultimately leads to the politics of religion - thus separating it from religion.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

what you referenced as Manifest destiny is not what I was talking about. I was talking more about the spaniards conquest of the Americas. Though A lot of the motivation was for economic reasons, there was also a lot of motivation for religious reasons. The spanish felt the need to save all the heathens...yet it often lead to military clashes.

Semitism is an ethnicity, but more so it is a religion. You cannot convert to Judaism and change your ethnicity, but you can convert and change your religion. So I disagree with you on that, I think the pograms are religious.

Jihad- It's right in the name, "Holy war". when they strap bombs on and blow up a bus they are doing it to kill the infidels, please their god and because they are told it is right by their religious leaders.

Iraq- even though it is the politics of religion, it is still because of religion that they fight. If there was no muslim religion, there would be no shia or sunni muslims, and they wouldnt be fighting for those reasons.

one more that I thought of. the whole fiasco in the balkans; bosnia, serbia, kosova, serejevo. That is all fueled by religion. it does have politics in it, but what war doesnt....its mainly religious.

This thread is so dumb I want to close it. But, it's getting decent enough responses that I'm not.

Religion doesn't cause wars. Wars are blamed on religion so the soldiers wont feel so bad killing people.

Now go kill yourself.

Cheers,

Lost

Let's see...

The Conquistadores fought for Spain, so it was religious only by proxy...

I'm not too familiar with the history behind the Pograms, so I'll ask: why is the fact that you cannot change your ethnicity indication that the Pograms were religiously influenced? What's the connection?

Concerning the jihad...

One of the most controversial aspects of Islam is jihad, all too often translated as "holy war." In fact, jihad is somewhat different. Today the word jihad evokes images of terrorists, suicide bombers, and Usama bin Laden. The real meaning of the term jihad is struggle in the path of God. It can mean struggle in the physical sense, which can include building mosques or leaving home to work for the spread of Islam or to avoid religious persecution, as well as armed struggle. It can also mean struggle against the human passions and instincts that can prevent people from acting in accordance with the commandments of the faith. Muslim tradition teaches that Allah rewards both types of struggle.

Historically, Muslim nations waged war to spread Muslim rule, as well as for more clearly political and economic reasons. Mulsim scholars teach that only defensive wars are truly jihad. Muslim leaders have, however, often used the concept of "holy war" to justify their actions, usually with mixed results. Because Muslim resistance to the Christian Crusades was considered a war to defend Islam, it was rightly called jihad. In World War I, a leader of Muslims in Turkey called for jihad against the Allied forces. His call was not widely heeded by world Islam. In fact, some Muslims joined the Allies against Turkey. In Algeriab, Egypt, Indonesia, and other Muslim societies, post-World War II struggles for national independence were often thought of as jihad, but only within the borders of those countries. Some Arab Muslims have called the struggle against the modern nation of Israel jihad, while others consider it a political struggle for land, water, and Arab self-determination. Sadam Hussein's attempt to justify Iraq's invasion of Kuwait as a "holy war" was almost completely ignored. More recently Usama bin Laden has called for a global jihad against both western and Muslim governments. The vast majority of Muslims believe that attacking non-combatants, especially women and children, violates the Islamic law of war. Most Muslim scholars conclude that this use of the Qur'an to justify the attacks of September 11, 2001, is simplistic, inaccurate, and self-serving.

Source: Hopfe, Lewis M., and Mark R. Woodward. Religions Of The World. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2004.

Concerning Iraq... like the Conquistadores, it is religious only by its backdrop.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant: Let's see...

The Conquistadores fought for Spain, so it was religious only by proxy...

I'm not too familiar with the history behind the Pograms, so I'll ask: why is the fact that you cannot change your ethnicity indication that the Pograms were religiously influenced? What's the connection?

The Pograms were done to wipe out a particular religious group. plain and simple. The russians were out to kill jews. Judaism is a religion, Hebrew is an ethnicity.





Concerning the jihad...

One of the most controversial aspects of Islam is jihad, all too often translated as "holy war." In fact, jihad is somewhat different. Today the word jihad evokes images of terrorists, suicide bombers, and Usama bin Laden. The real meaning of the term jihad is struggle in the path of God. It can mean struggle in the physical sense, which can include building mosques or leaving home to work for the spread of Islam or to avoid religious persecution, as well as armed struggle. It can also mean struggle against the human passions and instincts that can prevent people from acting in accordance with the commandments of the faith. Muslim tradition teaches that Allah rewards both types of struggle.



I think you're reading way too into this....Yes, there are other interpretations for jihad, other than what has been in the headlines over the past few years. But When they are strapping bombs onto themselves and blowing themselves up in a crowded place, that falls within the definition of jihad. Though there are still other definitions of it. if you look up jihad in the dictionary you will likely find at least 3 definitions for it. The point is, mujahadeen and others who carry out jihad are motivated by religion to do what they do. No matter how you twist it, many, not all, muslims are waging a holy war against the west.

Historically, Muslim nations waged war to spread Muslim rule, as well as for more clearly political and economic reasons. Mulsim scholars teach that only defensive wars are truly jihad. Muslim leaders have, however, often used the concept of "holy war" to justify their actions, usually with mixed results. Because Muslim resistance to the Christian Crusades was considered a war to defend Islam, it was rightly called jihad. In World War I, a leader of Muslims in Turkey called for jihad against the Allied forces. His call was not widely heeded by world Islam. In fact, some Muslims joined the Allies against Turkey. In Algeriab, Egypt, Indonesia, and other Muslim societies, post-World War II struggles for national independence were often thought of as jihad, but only within the borders of those countries. Some Arab Muslims have called the struggle against the modern nation of Israel jihad, while others consider it a political struggle for land, water, and Arab self-determination. Sadam Hussein's attempt to justify Iraq's invasion of Kuwait as a "holy war" was almost completely ignored. More recently Usama bin Laden has called for a global jihad against both western and Muslim governments. The vast majority of Muslims believe that attacking non-combatants, especially women and children, violates the Islamic law of war. Most Muslim scholars conclude that this use of the Qur'an to justify the attacks of September 11, 2001, is simplistic, inaccurate, and self-serving.

Source: Hopfe, Lewis M., and Mark R. Woodward. Religions Of The World. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2004.

It would be just as easy to find an essay/article interpreting most of the same information to the contrary of what was said above. It is not a great or definitive argument that what is going now is not jihad and is not a holy war.

Concerning Iraq... like the Conquistadores, it is religious only by its backdrop

it's just as religious as it is politcal.

Religion is not the cause/problem and it never has been. People are the cause/problem(s).

As far as the Christian religion goes, its waring followers never wared because of it. They warred/war over how to worship. It's all about control.

The religion is man's excuse for war, but control is what the war is really about.

quote:Originally posted by WolfinSheepsClothing:



Prove it.



You fucking kidding me? I'll use one example that can be found in 6th grade history text books around the globe: The Crusades.

Thanks for reading everything posted before you.

PROOF

RELIGON dictates a belief systyem.

Beliefs start a contraversy.

contraversy starts wars.

TADA not that fucking hard.



oh, and war is about imposing ones beliefs and morals on another. converting. lissions did it and still do it although not through fighting.

I give props to people who say its about control. But what are you controling? how people govern? how people worship? what people believe?

You cant impose the morals of one on the morals of another. I would kick anyones ass who came in my way of me and what I believe in. Thats what wars are about. Morals. if someones morals/ beliefes dont mach up then people feel they need to show them "the way" but peoples "ways" are all diffrent and a lot of them work.

Who says democracys great? not me. I love socialism. I have never seen socialism imposed on anyone, why not? because it works canada for the most part is netural in wars. They are socialist. and it works. how did they get their freedom? they chose it. they didnt fight a war over it. they signed a bill, sent it to the king in england. What was the bill for? it was to free them from having to get englands permission to do things.

I LOVE CANADA.



[This message has been edited by bushy (edited 01-29-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Let's see...

The Conquistadores fought for Spain, so it was religious only by proxy...

...

Concerning the jihad...



I'd have disagree with you on the Crusades and on the Jihad.

1. The main justification for the Crusades was that very same 'backdrop' of religion. Without the Catholic Church, which had at the time power rivaling that of kings, encouraging these Imperialist ventures, their general support among the population would have undoubtedly been much lower. Lower support would mean less of these ventures.

Now you may argue that religion didn't "cause" war, but it being the backbone of support of the imperialist actions, is hardly a stretch from the theme of the argument.

2. As for Jihad, your article argues that this interpretation is self-serving.

The problem I see with this is, that I see absolutely no reason for Usama Bin Laden to wage "Jihad" in search of power, when he is effectively a billionaire. He belongs to one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia, even the Middle East as a whole. There would be virtually nothing he could not get with the amount of wealth he has, and the amount of wealth he stood to gain, had he kept entirely to his legitimate business.

In my opinion, Bin Laden does honestly believe he is within the bounds of Islam. Whether or not he is, is a non-issue, since if he isn't, he would be effectively creating a new religion.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

Now go kill yourself.

LOL

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Elyse Bauer, (202) 296-5101 ext. 136 or Michael Goldfarb, (212) 514-8040 ext. 12

NEW REPORT ON SAUDI GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS IN U.S.

WASHINGTON, DC, January 28, 2005- Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom released today a new report exposing the dissemination of hate propaganda in America by the government of Saudi Arabia.

The 89-page report, “Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques,” is based on a year-long study of over two hundred original documents, all disseminated, published or otherwise generated by the government of Saudi Arabia and collected from more than a dozen mosques in the United States.

The propagation of hate ideology by Saudi Arabia is known to be worldwide, but its occurrence within the United States has received scant attention until now. Within worldwide Sunni Islam, followers of Saudi Arabia’s extremist Wahhabi ideology are a distinct minority, as is evident by the millions of Muslims who have chosen to make America their home and are upstanding, law-abiding citizens and neighbors.

The report concludes that the Saudi government propaganda examined reflects a “totalitarian ideology of hatred that can incite to violence,” and the fact that it is “being mainstreamed within our borders through the efforts of a foreign government, namely Saudi Arabia, demands our urgent attention.” The report finds: “Not only does the government of Saudi Arabia not have a right – under the First Amendment or any other legal document – to spread hate ideology within U.S. borders, it is committing a human rights violation by doing so.”

Such publications that “advocate an ideology of hatred have no place in a nation founded on religious freedom and toleration,” write James Woolsey, chairman of the board of Freedom House, in the foreword to the report.

Among the key findings of the report:

· Various Saudi government publications gathered for this study, most of which are in Arabic, assert that it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and warn against imitating, befriending, or helping them in any way, or taking part in their festivities and celebrations;

· The documents promote contempt for the United States because it is ruled by legislated civil law rather than by totalitarian Wahhabi-style Islamic law. They condemn democracy as un-Islamic;

· The documents stress that when Muslims are in the lands of the unbelievers, they must behave as if on a mission behind enemy lines. Either they are there to acquire new knowledge and make money to be later employed in the jihad against the infidels, or they are there to proselytize the infidels until at least some convert to Islam. Any other reason for lingering among the unbelievers in their lands is illegitimate, and unless a Muslim leaves as quickly as possible, he or she is not a true Muslim and so too must be condemned. For example, a document in the collection for the “Immigrant Muslim” bears the words “Greetings from the Cultural Attache in Washington, D.C.” of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia, and is published by the government of Saudi Arabia. In an authoritative religious voice, it gives detailed instructions on how to “hate” the Christian and Jew: Never greet them first. Never congratulate the infidel on his holiday. Never imitate the infidel. Do not become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Do not wear a graduation gown because this imitates the infidel;

· One insidious aspect of the Saudi propaganda examined is its aim to replace traditional and moderate interpretations of Islam with extremist Wahhabism, the officially-established religion of Saudi Arabia. In these documents, other Muslims, especially those who advocate tolerance, are condemned as infidels. The opening fatwa in one Saudi embassy-distributed book, published by the Saudi Air Force, responds to a question about a Muslim preacher in a European mosque who taught that it is not right to condemn Jews and Christians as infidels. The Saudi state cleric’s reply rebukes the Muslim cleric: “He who casts doubts about their infidelity leaves no doubt about his.” Since, under Saudi law, “apostates” from Islam can be sentenced to death, this is an implied death threat against the tolerant Muslim imam, as well as an incitement to vigilante violence;

· Sufi and Shiite Muslims are viciously condemned;

· For a Muslim who fails to uphold the Saudi Wahhabi sect’s sexual mores (i.e. through homosexual activity or heterosexual activity outside of marriage), the edicts published by the Saudi government’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs, and found in American mosques advise, “it would be lawful for Muslims to spill his blood and to take his money;”

· Regarding those who convert out of Islam, the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs explicitly asserts, they “should be killed;”

· Saudi textbooks and other publications in the collection, propagate a Nazi-like hatred for Jews, treat the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion as historical fact, and avow that the Muslim’s duty is to eliminate the state of Israel;

· Regarding women, the Saudi publications instruct that they should be veiled, segregated from men and barred from certain employment and roles;

The report states: “While the government of Saudi Arabia claims to be ‘updating’ or reforming its textbooks and study materials within the Kingdom, its publications propagating an ideology of hatred remain plentiful in some prominent American mosques and Islamic centers, and continue to be a principal resource available to students of Islam within the United States.”

The research, translation and principle analysis of the materials for the report were carried out by both Muslims and non-Muslims who wish to remain anonymous for reasons of security. Some 90 percent of the publications are in Arabic; two independent translators reviewed each Arabic document. This project was undertaken after many Muslims requested the Center’s help in exposing Saudi extremism in the hope of freeing their communities from ideological strangulation.

-- end --



http://freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2005/bn-2005-01-28.htm

if anyone bothered reading that ^ crap would you please paraphrase the good parts...if any.

First thing that came to my mind was Hitler and the Jews...

Normal people were killed just because they followed a religion. It started a war. That's fucked up.

Had they all been atheists, that war would never have happened.

No.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Thanks for reading everything posted before you.

I was just thinking the exact same thing.

People who post, that have obviously not read the posts before theirs, seemingly wish to hear no other opinion, save their own.

I said, "Man causes war, not religion." and I think three people have already repeated what I said, as if they were the first to think it (proving they didn't read it).

I definitely don't need credit or anything, but it is a little irritating to see the same thing posted numerous time, with no real "thought" or "consideration" to how the conversation has evolved since the start of the thread.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

quote:Originally posted by bushy:

RELIGON dictates a belief systyem.

No, MAN dictates belief systems.

Those belief systems somehow always seem to include the development of religion (of some sort).

Religion dictates nothing.

quote:Now you may argue that religion didn't "cause" war, but it being the backbone of support of the imperialist actions, is hardly a stretch from the theme of the argument.

I will have to go ahead and disagree with this statement.

Men were imperialist's before they were religious.

Man is a Kingdom of war.

Imperialist - The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. AND The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

Religion is an institution, in and of itself.

Simply because those following the Catholic religion tended to be imperialist by nature, does not mean that Catholicism, in and of itself, is imperialistic.

I believe it means that the men who participated in the religion were attracted to it because of their already-existent imperialistic nature. (a lot of them saw the potential to dominate the world through the guilt and condemnation associated with the Catholic religion. As usual, good intentions are annihilated by the sin of the flesh [greed, pride, etc.])

It should never have been the concern of the Catholic church as a whole to extend their resident nation's political authority.

If they had been truly following the Bible, they would have recognized that the one and only requirement of {Christians} on earth [outside of acceptance of God as creator] is to love our brothers (so, this would include missionary work, since to "love your brother" is to look out for him, thus trying to save them from Hell by spreading the gospel)...everything else in the Bible was intended only to help us live more fulfilling spiritual lives.

This is why the forefather's of America put in the quip about "separation of church and state." They saw the result's of the Catholic perversion of government, and the corrupt nature of their desire to control.

It was intended to keep ANY church from having complete political control over the country's government, and by extension, its people.

It was also meant to keep the government from establishing any one religion as the "only" religion.

This is exactly why I do not agree that the "religion" of Catholicism has anything to do with Christianity. But that's another debate.

Anyway, I am sure I don't have to encourage you to do so, but please know that I am receptive to your thoughts on this.

quote:Originally posted by Cash Stealer:

First thing that came to my mind was Hitler and the Jews...

Normal people were killed just because they followed a religion. It started a war. That's fucked up.

Had they all been atheists, that war would never have happened.

Other wars would have happened.

Men will never be exempt from the desire to dominate by force.

It's our nature.

This forum is a perfect metaphor for this "theory" (I'' just put that little disclaimer in there, since I am pretty sure most will disagree with me, and therefore the statement cannot truly be passed off as fact.)

War is not dependant upon religion. War is dependent upon MAN.

War cannot perpetuate itself, being an inanimate "object", and neither can religion.

Both are MAN created, and depend on MAN to begin, develop, and complete.

quote:Originally posted by Cash Stealer:

First thing that came to my mind was Hitler and the Jews...

Normal people were killed just because they followed a religion. It started a war. That's fucked up.

Had they all been atheists, that war would never have happened.

Not even close buddy....The first concentration camp wasn't found by the allies until 1944. The west didn't really have any idea about what was going on with the camps. The war started because Germany began invading the countries surrounding it, starting with poland. England stepped in to stop the nazis, and ended up barely keeping themselves from being overrun. in 1941 the japs attacked the US bringing us into the war. Also, gave the allies enough military power to break out of england and invade france. Though the Americans and brits already had troops in Africa and Italy working their way west.

anyways....i went off on a tangent...but the fact is, the nazis genocide of the jews had nothing to do with the start of WWII.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I will have to go ahead and disagree with this statement.

Men were imperialist's before they were religious.



I'm not saying that they weren't imperialistic before. I'm saying that religion was what supported those endeavor, as seen in the Crusades.

Not that religion is what caused them to become imperialistic, but what supported them being so when they wanted to.

quote:

Simply because those following the Catholic religion tended to be imperialist by nature, does not mean that Catholicism, in and of itself, is imperialistic.

Catholic dogma states that the Pope is the closest thing on earth to god, and as such, they believe him to be infallible. So, if the Pope agreed with those imperialistic endeavors, (note, "agreed" is hardly what they did, more like provoked, supported, etc.), then that means the Catholic religion is itself supporting the imperialistic endeavors, because it proclaims the Pope to the highest authority of the religion itself, and that everything he does is infallible.

The Pope and the church were simply using their position of power to promote an imperialistic approach to expansion.

I maintain that imperialism has nothing to do with religion, and specifically, Catholicism.

Men feel the need to perpetuate themselves, no matter what they do. It is reasonable to conclude that this innate sense of domination would intrude upon the man-made institution of religion, to include Catholicism.

Again, I point out that Catholicism, in and of itself, was/is not imperialistic.

Its prideful and greedy constituents WERE, however, and used Catholicism as a justification for expansion.

I don't see how that makes Catholicism imperialistic.

I see that as man being imperialistic, and using a religion to justify their actions.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The Pope and the church were simply using their position of power to promote an imperialistic approach to expansion.

That possition of power was granted to them by religion. A religion that gave the Pope infallibility!

quote:

I maintain that imperialism has nothing to do with religion, and specifically, Catholicism.

It has to do with religion, in that that imperialistic causes are all too commonly justified by religion. In the case of the Crusades, more than justified, but actually supported by it.

quote:

Again, I point out that Catholicism, in and of itself, was/is not imperialistic.

Its prideful and greedy constituents WERE, however, and used Catholicism as a justification for expansion.

I don't see how that makes Catholicism imperialistic.

By saying this, you're excluding its dogma, and thus are not taking it "in an of itself".

Catholicism is made up of many different things, one of them is the Catholic dogma. That dogma states that the Pope is infallible, and the highest representation of god on earth. If the Pope supports imperialism, so does Catholicism; I mean Catholicism is what gives the Pope that position in the first place!

So if the Pope is imperalistic, then so is Catholicism, according to their own dogma.

quote:

I see that as man being imperialistic, and using a religion to justify their actions.

And in this specific case, the religion supports them. In other words, this is not a case of 'man acting outside the boundries of his religion', because in this case, every single action taken by the Pope is withing the boundries of the religion.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-30-2005).]

Has everybody forgotten about the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland?

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

This thread is so dumb I want to close it. But, it's getting decent enough responses that I'm not.

Religion doesn't cause wars. Wars are blamed on religion so the soldiers wont feel so bad killing people.

Now go kill yourself.

Cheers,

Lost



Firstly, I would like to thank you for your kind words.

I would also like to point out that, it’s apparent that this topic IS of interest to others as well, hell even Jeb Bush posted appropriately in this thread!



How often have we all heard “religion causes war”? I was merely asking why people do/don’t believe this, and there are some decent posts in this thread.



That is all.

quote:Originally posted by unchewed_meat:

Has everybody forgotten about the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland?

No. I mentioned it. It was in one of the first replies to this thread. Way to read other posts before you ask a stupid question.

Well, fuck me.