Summarize please. Unless it actually makes a point about how Robespierre's esoteric new form of Deism was highly influential and culturally pervasive in the French mindsets--as opposed to just being a quote filled with its doctrine--I'm not gonna bother reading it.
Once again, you lie about the historical record to suit your story. Arslan didn't want war and, at the time in the very least, did not want Anatolia.
Your "coerced" treaty was based upon an Eastern Roman offensive that turned into a debacle with the capture of Manuel. Arslan could've asked for whatever he wanted. Instead, he gave them quite favorable terms
I stopped right there as it was apparent that you were going to continue rationalizing the fact that they invaded without provocation.
You have a very odd penchant for redirection when you're backed into a corner. It's as if you actually think you're convincing because you offer a background story to the fact that they did these things, but it doesn't really explain it away. It just obfuscates.
Those figures inlcude the French Revolutionary Wars that were fought between France and a whole bunch of scared monarchs. If those are included, then it is only fair to include the death tolls of the various religious wars into the equation. Do you really want to do that?
The Crusades were not religious wars. Everyone likes to label them as such since the soldiers felt they were protecting the main Christian continent. More aptly however, the conflicts were territory disputes; the Seljuk Turks moved in, and then other nations responded. You can argue that many individual soldiers fought with their faith in mind--as that was the key recruitment factor--but you can't argue that-that's why the wars were fought by the European governments. If that were the case, why didn't Europe just begin its own invasion of the Muslim territories prior to the incidents?
Actually, I'm right. The Revolution did take a spiritual turn with the establishment of such religious groups as the Cult of Reason and Robespierre's Cult of the Supreme Being. Sorry. You're wrong again.
The Cult of Reason referred back to the French people as arbiters of the philosophy. i.e. The mob was a higher power unto itself. This is antithetical to faith-based philosophies.
And Robespierre's Supreme Being doctrine was enforced from a political standpoint. It wasn't a virally influential movement that the entire era was centered around; more like a symptom of a larger movement. Even if I were to entertain the idea that the mobs of France turned religious, it wasn't a cult or spiritual philosophy that motivated the mobs to start slaughtering and raping the upper class, raid public establishments--slaughtering some more people in the process--and execute the royal family. And it sure as hell wasn't religion that motivated Napoleon.
It seems what you're trying to do is conflate a "religious" label to whatever extreme doctrine or philosophy that might happen to surface, but you're not applying very stringent parameters to actually define it adequately--which make sense because keeping your use of the term more abstract allows you to make more nebulous claims.
Yet, again, here you are trying to point to Vatican influence as the determining factor in free Christian agents deciding to throw Jews into a synagogue and set it on fire.
Uh, no. I don't believe the Vatican ever authorized that. But are you claiming that this is, and was, a common occurrence among individual Christians? Have we seen a great deal of Christian burnings of Synagogues with people inside them over the years?
Here's a big one for you: The second iteration of the Ku Klux Klan. Sanctioned and allowed to hold membership drives in protestant churches nationwide.
Unlike the original Klan of the Reconstruction South, this one focused mainly on ant-Catholic and Jewish sentiments and reached estimated membership of six million with some of the most powerful Klan branches being in "Redneck Southern Backwaters" like Indiana.
I know we like to focus on the racial when regarding the Klan, but any full study of this second group necessitates a focus on the overtly religious Protestantism of the organization. Period.
Just to be clear: are you saying it was a Protestant movement or that it was a movement with Protestants in it? Because the initial formation of the Klan
and the second--as you say--was racially motivated. The question you have to ask here is: if race wasn't an issue, would they really have bothered doing the recruitment in the first place? In which case, it seems more like the Klan artificially conjoined the two principles all on their own.
As much as I used to rag on Protestants for the Klan, I can't really say they were at fault for its conception.
