Talk:Sectarian violence

message: I know the Mormons claim that a lot of violence occured against them, but other than the Misouri-Mormon Wars, which may have actually been started by the Mormons themselves, does anyone have any other evidence of violence against the Mormons?  And even the Missouri-Mormon Wars were not particullary about religion, they were about land-rights and the Mormon habit of throwing out the US Constitiution where ever they went.  
The Mormons left Ohio (Please check the Wiki Links about Mormons to confirm) becasue of Joseph Smith's illegal Kirkland Anti-Banking Society, not religious violence.  The Mormons left for Utah becasue of orders from Brigham Young, who apeared to be making a political power grab while the actual leadership was away.  At the time, the city of Navou was larger than Chicago and the Mormons had a standing army (the Navou Legion) larger than the Militia of Illinois, Missouri and Ohio combined. There was no violence against them.
The Utah War (US vs. Utah) was becasue of the Republican party insisting that the "Twin Relics of Barbarism: Slavery & Polygamy" be ended in the territories, the Mormons held slaves in Utah and they did not want Utah to become a slave state.  The Democrates agreed because the Mormons declared Utah as an independent country.  But again, not about religion.
I guess the example is listed becasue everyone just asumes that the claims made by the Mormons are true.  They are not.  The example should be removed.
Because, Assumes, Appeared...Just 3 examples of this dude being an idiot that can't even spell.  Would you trust the fact checking skills of some fool that can't even spell BECAUSE?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.134.59 (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the Mormon Example a Good One?

message: I believe this should be entirely subsumed under religious violence as it is empirically impossible to consistently differentiate between cults, sects and religions. In fact, the negative connotations associated with the words "cult" and "sect" tend to reinforce the dominance of monopolistic religious traditions and orthodoxy in the face of religious heterodoxies and new religions.
To whit: the conflict between, for example, Aum Shinrikyo and the Japanese gov't is far easier to analyse as part of a wider type of religious violence than as a type of sectarian or cultist buddhist violence.
what sort of rubbish article is this ? bin it I say.
* I couldn't disagree more. Sectarianism is very different from religion, being more akin to ethnic violence. Religions are just a symbol for the dehumanising that occurs. Guinnog 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this proposed merger.--Nicholas 16:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree, sectarian violience should not be merged with sectarian.  TheDapperDan 01:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should there even be a page on Sectarian violence?

message: *Sectarianism is a term that describes a tendency to adhere to a sect - violence is one of the modalities of such adherence. Ergo: Sectarian violence is nothing but a modality of Sectarianism. Thus there is the possibility for other modalities, such as Sectarian pacifism, Sectarian extremism, Sectarian agriculture. It would be quite ludicrous to create a seperate entry for each of these modalities. If one would wish, some frequently occurring modalities (such as Sectarian violence) could be mentioned under the lemma of Sectarianism.
Sectarianism is much wider than violence.  No merger is necessary, but if there is one it should go the other way. --Henrygb 16:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger with Sectarianism