Dear SOG.... I must have been under a mistaken impression that we disagreed on most things :) never mind.

Interesting bit of personal disclosure there about believing in God and the 10 commandments. If only we could spend some serious time discussing this. The position you express seems to fit into the following verses (please have a peek)

Romans 1:19 It follows on from a rather wrathful verse but the principle of our being aware of the Creator stands true.

I hope and pray that you could read on and follow Pauls argument all the way to at least Rom 8:1-4

Sadly, much of humanity has yet to discover the reality of "life in the Spirit" as mean't by Paul in those latter verses. That life is without doubt.. "utopian" even though it might not be a social Utopia in this world. (surrounded by carnality)

For MIKK..I have a better saying :) "A rebuke goes deeper into a wise man than a hundred blows into a fool" Prov 17:10

But SOG... this quite surprised me:

"It is not Christians you should be gunning for, it is the whites of this world." Surely you would concede that had certain battles gone the 'other' way...we (whites) would be speaking Arabic and praising Muhammad 5 times a day ? (Tours 732 Vienna 1684 i.e. 9/11-1684 )

The skin color did not give us victory, it was technology, numbers and skill. But whites are not a monolithic entity. We are many races.
You might find this of value though for background reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism

Hi Ludwig, I'm actually trying to compare and contrast the idea of secular/progressive/socialist/communist "Utopia" with the real world.

Ludvig Utopia is a Aborigine community in NT but it doesnt sound much like what Bro ALGore is talking about.

I do so admire your one-eyed view of history, Boaz.

The virtue of looking through the narrow lens of your chosen religion, is that you miss - entirely and comprehensively - any subtleties, any light and shade, any gradations of intention or meaning.

This means that you can pontificate with absolute certainty that if it isn't black, then it damn well has to be white.

>>Surely you would concede that had certain battles gone the 'other' way...we (whites) would be speaking Arabic and praising Muhammad 5 times a day ?<<

Not necessarily.

One of the bitterest and messiest struggles of the nineteenth century was the Crimean war. We all know about Florence Nightingale, of course, and the Charge of the Light Brigade. But do you know who was fighting on which side?

Orlando Figes, in his book "Crimea: The Last Crusade" points out that:

"Anglican England and Roman Catholic France were aligned with Islam’s sultan-caliph against the tsars who saw themselves as the world’s last truly Christian emperors."

England and France, defending Islam? Goodness me.

"Above all, the western Christian powers were determined to avoid any reversal of the Muslim conquest of Istanbul: 'The Russians shall not have Constantinople' chorused an English music-hall song."

It all might be a little too nuanced for you Boaz.

"In the spring of 1854, as the Crimean fighting began in earnest, an Anglican cleric declared that Russian Orthodoxy was as 'impure, demoralising, and intolerant as popery itself'. What could be more natural, then, than to team up with Islam and popery to cleanse that terrible impurity? A French newspaper, meanwhile, gave warning that the Russians represented a special menace to all Catholics because 'they hope to convert us to their heresy'”.

I know, I know. It's all a little complicated, isn't it.

But tell me Boaz, what would have happened, in your yes-or-no, is-or-is not, fish-or-fowl view of history, if the Alliance had failed to hold Sevastopol, and those religious fanatics of the Russian Orthodox Church had prevailed?

HI Pericles :)

"It all might be a little too nuanced for you Boaz."

Not at all P, the Crimean was was as much about maintaining a delicate power balance where the posturing of France and England would have been pure and simple self interest based on a relative evaluation of cost/benefit/security calculation and just because the Brits and Franks supported the Sultan at 'that' time, does not mean they would have continued to do so. They would have been alert to where that involvement would lead them and how they might extrapolate themselves and reposition themselves for a better outcome later.

The Battles of Vienna and Tours were more pivotal I'm afraid. It's a matter of historical record, opinion and fact. (need sources? ur good at scrounging info :)

Agreed, Boaz.

>>the Crimean was was as much about maintaining a delicate power balance... and just because the Brits and Franks supported the Sultan at 'that' time, does not mean they would have continued to do so.<<

As indeed, they did not.

That wasn't the question I asked, though, was it?

I asked:

"what would have happened, in your yes-or-no, is-or-is not, fish-or-fowl view of history, if the Alliance had failed to hold Sevastopol, and those religious fanatics of the Russian Orthodox Church had prevailed?"

A different outcome would have been just as "pivotal", regardless of the motives of the participants, would it not.

For a comprehensive critical analysis of the Crimean War I recommend:

"Flashman at the Charge" by George MacDonald Fraser.