Hey, no problem!

Didn't the Myers essay come out weeks ago? So why the coverage now?

I wrote on the history of April Fool's Day (and many pagans hypocritical stance toward the day) -- here:
http://greattininess.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/mor...

Apuleius, if you've convinced yourself that WWII in Japan had nothing to do with religion, then there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise -- though maybe you should read a book like "Zen At War."

Really, the reason you're impossible to convince of anything is that your categories of investigation are ever-shifty. I ask for a group of people who have lived in harmony -- you say Japan -- I say that that's obviously not true -- you say "Well, that doesn't have to do with religion!"

That's not the point. Neither is the fact that the Japanese regime was anti-Christian for political reasons which, sure, is true. First off, that doesn't change anything, because the same sort of argument can be made for any sort of takeover, just like that of the "New World." (They did it for the territory! Or whatever.) Secondly, it's not like they tortured the Christians and then let anybody go their own way after that -- nope, they imposed state Buddhism.

And let's not forget that "modern phenomenon" still occurred in history -- just more recently. You're pulling this conversation in circles and, as always, it's gotten to the point where I have to decide whether to keep wasting my time with you or to stop here -- in which case you'll post something offensive and misguided, and I'll have to live with having let you get "the last word." And I hate that place.

thehouseofvines, I agree with you that it's not "an immutable law of nature that when one culture takes over another it must necessarily eradicate any trace of the other. " In fact, I might go so far as to say that it's really exactly the opposite of that, that invading cultures never eradicate the last trace of those whom they've invaded. That's not what I was getting at in my argument with Apuleius.

And while I appreciate that Hellenistic Egypt can be seen as a relatively peaceful place internally, I'd point out that they were still "waging campaigns" -- that's code for killing people -- over a treasury. That's not harmony, not on the edges where one government met up with another government.

(Insert anarchist rant about governments.)

Wait, we're talking about the same Japan that was involved in World War II? The same Korea that's split down the middle with a giant fence? The India that was partitioned because of tension between Muslims and Hindus? Come on, man. You seem to live in a world where centuries are pretty short.

And speaking of Japan, I seem to recall Christianity being outlawed by the Tokugawa Buddhist regime and Christians being forced to apostatize on pain of torture and death. Something about folks being hung upside down in pits until they bled to death. Does that answer your extirpation question?

I'll do so as soon as you find me any group of people, anywhere, who have lived "in harmony side-by-side" with other people "for centuries."

Assuming that you won't be able to, since none exists, I'll take that as proof that your warrants are in error. Further, I'll take it as proof that while, yes, Christians have done terribly bloodthirsty things, in as much as any community is capable of making amends (which you seem to assume), Christians must also be theoretically capable of making amends. There is no "long gone" here, unless there's "long gone" everywhere.

Jason, let me just say that I too was struck by how level-headed this response is, and that I hope your coverage of this topic becomes food for thought for a lot of pagans (including myself!).

I especially appreciate this line: "That root is the anti-pluralistic and exclusionary theologies favored by SOME strains of the dominant monotheisms."

Emphasis on the SOME. On my own blog I've started a series where I am attempting to highlight the pro-pluralism, inclusive stands of SOME Christian groups -- this definitely adds a LOT to that conversation. Thanks.

Yet notice that Jason's post is in direct contradistinction to the point of view you've just (badly) caricatured. After all, the scholars are in fact blaming themselves.

See here's the thing. All pedophile priests are in the wrong, necessarily by virtue of being pedophiles. Christians are *not* all in the wrong necessarily by virtue of being Christians.

Across the board condemnation of pedophiles is perfectly "thoughtful and measured" -- they're *pedophiles.* "Thoughtful and measured" regarding Christianity requires taking into account as many Christian points of view as there are Christians, and that's what Jason has left room for.