I was wondering myself how we got from the Dalai Lama and his courageous, years-long struggle against Communist China and the occupation of Tibet, to the evils of religion.
We got there because Epi_de_Mais insisted on it, in his usual bullheaded blunt fashon.
If you'll excuse a further stroll down Digression Alley:
Seems to me that your point about non- or anti-religious totalitarians depends an awful lot on body count, and the efficiency of piling them up. Have you considered the historical long view? Is there something intrinsically more "evil" in areligious mass murder, or is it more an accident of timing between (a) advancements in fatal technology and (b) increased societal tolerance of anti-religionism?
Turtledovian hypothetical: Would the NSDAP or the Stalinist Soviets have been as "successful", and their leaders as reviled afterward, if they'd had no better means of achieving their goals as, say, Genghis Khan? Or turn it around: Crusaders with Panzer divisions and Zyklon-B. Who's got the big numbers then -- the religious fanatics, or the anti-religious fanatics?
Off Topic » in reply to re: 'Scuse me.
re: 'Scuse me.
The whole thread (40 posts)
- 10 Questions for the Dalai Lama
- Thanks, Lindy
- People are stupid
- Wrong.
- Yes, there are worse ways to live.
- Excellent, Eri (n/t)
- Religions suck. They all either passively or actively discourage learning. (n/t)