The Gaming Den

sabs wrote:Tzor, did you not study any of the European Religious Wars? I had family enprisoned, executed, and burned at the stake. Because they were Hugenots, instead of Catholics.

The Huguenots (French pronunciation: [yɡno]; English: /ˈhjuːɡənɒt/, /huːɡəˈnoʊ/) were members of the Protestant Reformed Church of France (or French Calvinists) from the sixteenth to the seventeenth centuries.

They were Chrisitans, Catholics were Chrisitans, same God, same imaginary sky fairy. The only difference was in a big endiian / little endian war on how they worshiped that same sky fairy.

sabs wrote:The FUCKING Inquisition. Never heard of it? Medeival, Spanish, Roman flavors.

Yes, and again, this was reserved for Chrisitans. Spain is a interesting problem because the wonderful King and Queen banned all non Christians from the kingdom. Jews and Moslems then converted to remain in the kingdom. At that point they were subject to the inquisition for acts against the faith.

sabs wrote:The French Religious Wars saw anywhere from 2 million to 4 million people killed because they were either Catholics or Protestants. (There's a reason France is so adamantly Secular these days)

Actually the reason was that the church sided with the King during the French Revolution. That was why they were torn down and replaced with the worship of "Reason."

And again inter-denominational wars (often combined with political motives) is not the same as killing anyone because they believed in a "different sky fairy." One could point to Islam and note the warfare between the various theological braches within it. Even though they also don't have a healthy attitude towards Christians and Jews that is a completely different problem compared to Shiite Sunni conflicts.

tzor wrote:

sabs wrote:The FUCKING Inquisition. Never heard of it? Medeival, Spanish, Roman flavors.

Yes, and again, this was reserved for Chrisitans. Spain is a interesting problem because the wonderful King and Queen banned all non Christians from the kingdom. Jews and Moslems then converted to remain in the kingdom. At that point they were subject to the inquisition for acts against the faith.

Tzor, do you ever get tired of being wrong or are you intentionally trolling? Non-christians where persecuted all the time for blasphemy by the inquisition.

He's not wrong about the Roman inquisition. The Roman inquisition was concerned primarily with investigating corruption in the church. If you weren't a priest or higher, you weren't affected by the Roman inquisition.

The Spanish inquisition was bad, but the Spaniards spent most of the renaissance being conquered by foreign forces and were still kind of pissed about it. I'm not saying they didn't over-react because they clearly did, but I am saying I can kind of understand the mindset.

I don't know what you mean by the Medeivel [sic] inquisition. That topic wasn't covered in western civ, and my academic adviser told me to not take any more history despite the fact I would have liked to.

You're wrong about the Roman inquisition.
The Roman inquisition tried some 62,000 people and executed some 1450.
The Medieval Inquisition is the inquisition that ran from the 1100's all the way to the 1400's.

The Cathars, the Waldensians in particular.
Joan of Arc was executed by one of the Medieval Inquisitions.

And Tzor, quoting Wikipedia about the Huguenots to a Huguenot is pretty fucking irritating. And I'm sorry if believing in the same Sky Fairy but with slightly different rules doesn't rate for you. Killed for your Religious beliefs is still killed for your Religious beliefs.

sabs wrote:And Tzor, quoting Wikipedia about the Huguenots to a Huguenot is pretty fucking irritating. And I'm sorry if believing in the same Sky Fairy but with slightly different rules doesn't rate for you. Killed for your Religious beliefs is still killed for your Religious beliefs.

In Tzor-ania, the fact that both sides have religious beliefs is the important point.

I thought someone is trying to argue that the Inquisition executed NON CHRISTIANS. Now someone is trying to argue Joan (eventually cannonized as a saint) is not Christian? By the way, saying "Inquisition" is like saying "Court" - And not just the Supreme Court, but any old court. Each inquisition is separate from each other, just as the courts of England had very little in common with the courts of Spain. Inquisition was a church court. Were some horrid? Well a lot of things were horrid and so were a lot of court systems of the day. Church and State were equally brutal.

The Church Courts could only decide on matters of Christians; they looked at crimes of heresy against those who were Christians. If you wanted Christian opression against non Christians, you need to look at Crusades, not Inquisitions.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. People who try to gloss over history in order to half ass make a point just look foolish.

tzor wrote:The devil, as they say, is in the details. People who try to gloss over history in order to half ass make a point just look foolish.

You certainly do Tzor, you certainly do.

Juton wrote:

tzor wrote:

sabs wrote:The FUCKING Inquisition. Never heard of it? Medeival, Spanish, Roman flavors.

Yes, and again, this was reserved for Chrisitans. Spain is a interesting problem because the wonderful King and Queen banned all non Christians from the kingdom. Jews and Moslems then converted to remain in the kingdom. At that point they were subject to the inquisition for acts against the faith.

Tzor, do you ever get tired of being wrong or are you intentionally trolling? Non-christians where persecuted all the time for blasphemy by the inquisition.

Uh, Tzor is actually 100% accurate here. He said:

1) Spain banned all non-Christians in the kingdom (true).

2) Many Jews and Muslims did decide to convert to stay. (also true)

3) Jews and Muslims who converted (who were now technically Christians) were still persecuted anyway. (true too)

Also... There's a very real grain of truth in what tzor is saying. When religious persecution happens, there's often a very real political motive behind it too. Jews and Muslims in Spain, as Count pointed out, were simply not popular (due to Spain being invaded by foreign powers) and had lots of money.

So to get their money, Spaniards accused these former Jews and Muslims of "still practicing their old faith", manufacture some evidence, then send them off to be killed.

Similarly, the St Bartholomew Day's massacre (which sabs is raging about, because that's when the Hugeunots were basically kicked out of France) was just as politically motivated as religiously motivated. There was a civil war going on at the time, if sabs hadn't noticed, and people can fight civil wars over silly things.

Moreover, the assertion that France is adamantly secular because of the Massacre is patently insane. Europe - including France - was devoutly religious right up to the First World War. That's seriously an over 300 year gap between the Massacre and the start of European secularism. All the massacre achieved was to insure Catholic dominance of France - which in many ways was a blatantly political motive.

It was only after the loss of ten million sons in the trenches did Europe stop to think whether or not blindly subscribing to ideologies (which includes religion) is a good idea. This was only further confirmed when World War 2 left Europe a complete and utter shambles because the German people bought into a fucked up ideology - along with large numbers of non-Germans who comprised a very considerable percentage of the SS.

In short, again, it's nice to think that religion makes people bastards. But the truth is, more often than people are simply bastards who don't need religion to start hacking off the limbs of their neighbors. Just look at Rwanda - which is basically the Saint Bartholomew Massacre on the same scale, but having a tribal context as opposed to a religious one.

I was born in France. We didn't get kicked out. We got killed, we got persecuted, but kicked out is an exageration. Heck, we're still there.. although these days we're a depressingly small percentage of the population (.3%)

And Tzor does not have a point. What he said was that you didn't get killed in Europe for believing in the wrong Sky Fairy approx 400 years ago. Because to him, if you believe in the same Sky Fairy, but in slightly different ways that get you killed anyways, that doesn't count.

And I never said France is adamantly secular about the Massacre. You did. I'm referring to over 500 years of Religious wars that killed several million people. Yes the Massacre sucked, but it was not the end all be all thing that happened. There's a long history in France of Religious strife.

sabs wrote:I was born in France. We didn't get kicked out. We got killed, we got persecuted, but kicked out is an exageration. Heck, we're still there.. although these days we're a depressingly small percentage of the population (.3%)

Uh, yes you did get kicked out. In the sense they made living in France so intolerable that most Huguenots decided to leave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots# ... tainebleau

"After this, Huguenots (with estimates ranging from 200,000 to 1,000,000[3]) fled to surrounding Protestant countries: England, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark and Prussia — whose Calvinist Great Elector Frederick William welcomed them to help rebuild his war-ravaged and underpopulated country. Following this exodus, Huguenots remained in large numbers in only one region in France: the rugged Cévennes region in the south, from which a group known as the Camisards revolted against the French crown in the early 18th century.

Many Huguenots were killed in France. Some stayed and survived. But very many Huguenots simply decided to leave.

That's why any reading of the age of piracy/discovery will make frequent mention of Huguenots.

And Tzor does not have a point. What he said was that you didn't get killed in Europe for believing in the wrong Sky Fairy approx 400 years ago. Because to him, if you believe in the same Sky Fairy, but in slightly different ways that get you killed anyways, that doesn't count.

He's being very specific about the Inquisition - which was used to oppress fellow Christians - and not religious intolerance in general.

It may seem a minor difference, but it's an important one from a historical context.

You're the one who keeps confusing his position.

And I never said France is adamantly secular about the Massacre. You did. I'm referring to over 500 years of Religious wars that killed several million people. Yes the Massacre sucked, but it was not the end all be all thing that happened. There's a long history in France of Religious strife.

No, you're claiming that the SBD Massacre was a major reason why France is secular today. I'm saying that's BS. France became secular because of the trauma of WW1. That they were killing off Protestants before has very little to do with France's present-day secularism.

The light of reason/science killing off religion sounds nice and all, but the truth is the trauma of having millions of sons die pointlessly is what contributed to Europe's general malaise towards anything spiritual. That's also why America remains religious despite having a very similar lifestyle/society as Europe. They never suffered the trauma of millions of dead sons in the trenches.

You do understand you're the one that brought up the BSD I didn't?
You're claiming that 500+ years of war and persecution only comes down to 1 singular event?

And some Huguenots fled, but many of us did not. I grew up in a Huguenot family that had been there the entire time. Yes, we went underground for centuries.

Other countries suffered the Trauma of WWI and yet very few are as aggressively secular as France.

The primary battlefield of the First World War in the West was France, and they suffered the most casualties out of the Western allies.

And no, again, lots of Huguenots left. Possibly the majority. And lots of others were in fact bribed back into being Catholics.

So your family does not an entire demographic make.

Finally...

The French Religious Wars saw anywhere from 2 million to 4 million people killed because they were either Catholics or Protestants. (There's a reason France is so adamantly Secular these days)

That's your words. Again, the idea that French secularism was born out of the religious wars (of which SBDM was the pivotal point) is nuts. Moreover, if you're whining about me equating the Religious Wars with SBDM, then you're being absolutely hypocritical for calling tzor out for pointing out that the Inquisition was meant to target fellow Christians, and not non-Christians.

France's secularism is a product of more recent events. Nothing more, nothing less.

If the French really felt any guilt about their previous actions, they'd get on their knees and beg Africa for forgiveness. Because if you start bringing up old grievances then Europe has a LOT of shit to make up for to the rest of the world.

Zinegata wrote:The primary battlefield of the First World War in the West was France, and they suffered the most casualties out of the Western allies.

Your own caveat shows why you are wrong. Most of the fighting was on the Eastern European Front. Russia lost almost twice as many total people as France did, and Serbia lost three and a half times as large a percentage of their population. Those were both members of the Allies.

The French lost a lot of people and it was really tragic and shit, but there is more to the world than Western Europe. Fuck, there's more to Europe than Western Europe. There is also Eastern and Northern Europe. Those are real places.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:Your own caveat shows why you are wrong. Most of the fighting was on the Eastern European Front. Russia lost almost twice as many total people as France did, and Serbia lost three and a half times as large a percentage of their population. Those were both members of the Allies.

Uh, right, the Russia that turned communist and atheist after the First World War? .

Moreover, you are still wrong: Much of the battles in the Eastern Front (during WW1) was actually fought in the area that is now Poland. Materially, they didn't suffer so much as the French - who are still turning up bodies and unexploded shells in their fields to this day.

The real problem for the Russians were their huge human losses - triggering the aforementioned communist revolution. But the Russians also had a population that was twice the size of France - meaning both countries actually suffered equally population-wise. The main difference is that in 1917, Russia collapsed into civil war (leading to the commies). France merely endured a period of mutinies that was soon quelled, partly because French generals were willing to shell their own mutinying men as an example to others (something that couldn't be done in the Eastern Front, as the battlefield was too wide to herd off mutiniers into a target practice range).

So far from proving that "Russia suffered worse but they turned out fine", what Russia shows is "They suffered as much as France and ended up erecting an overtly anti-spiritual regime".

Last thing about Serbia- proportionately they suffered worse out of all the Allied powers. But in their case they didn't fall into social malaise. They instead turned increasingly radicalized and militant. "Us against the world" and all that. Hence them being at the center of just about every Balkan clusterfuck in the 20th Century.

They're not really much different from Israel.

The French lost a lot of people and it was really tragic and shit, but there is more to the world than Western Europe. Fuck, there's more to Europe than Western Europe. There is also Eastern and Northern Europe. Those are real places.

-Username17

Yes, there's a lot more to the world. But we're talking about France, not the rest of the world.

And really, much of France's present lack of spirituality can be traced back to the First World War.

Not the light of science. Not the march of progress. But the fact that several million of her sons died in the trenches. That's why Existensialism became so popular in France post 1918, and yet no similar movement gained similar traction in the US. To quote Tuchman, "all the big words of a generation were blotted out".

Only Scandanavia has no real recent trauma to account for their secularism. But frankly, I'd say that they've been content with their little corner of the world ever since the Russians beat up the Swedes and the Germans took away Schlewig-Holstein from the Danes.

I was addressing your specific claim of France having been the biggest battlefield of World War I, which it was not.

Zinegata wrote:And really, much of France's present lack of spirituality can be traced back to the First World War.

How can France's secular movement of the early 19th century possibly be traced to a very poor result from World War I in the early 20th century. You have a serious before/after problem here.

You might as well be claiming that French people are largely non-religious because the leaders of the Catholic Church supported and were supported by the Nazi occupation government in Vichy. It's true, it's just once again this is something that happened after the Church had already been stripped of their power by an angry revolutionary government over a hundred years before either event.

Remember, the Dreyfusards had already won when World War I happened. Alfred Dreyfus was reinstated in the army by 1906. The anti-Dreyfusards only got the country handed back to them when Hitler fucking conquered the place and literally handed it back to them.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:I was addressing your specific claim of France having been the biggest battlefield of World War I, which it was not.

No, as you noted - I put a qualifier. Biggest battlefield in the West. Point stands. Your implied point refuted.

How can France's secular movement of the early 19th century possibly be traced to a very poor result from World War I in the early 20th century. You have a serious before/after problem here.

Not what I said. Existentialism started in the 19th Century, but it gained most of its traction post-1918, and certainly much more post 1945. No similar mass movement towards Existensialism ever appeared in the US - because again the US never really suffered this sort of war trauma.

Remember, the Dreyfusards had already won when World War I happened. Alfred Dreyfus was reinstated in the army by 1906.

The issue of the Dreyfus Affair wasn't really religion or anti-semitism though. It's more of a miscarriage of justice and holding the French military into account.

The military refused to acquit Dreyfus not because he was a Jew (though anti-semitism definitely played a role), but because acquitting him would embarass the French military. They sent an innocent man to jail, covered up new evidence that would acquit him, and persisted with the conviction until it was plain for all to see that the French military was full of liars.

Moreover, anti-semitism was not unusual in European militaries at the time. Only Italy allowed Jews to become high-ranking officers (General or up. Dreyfus himself never even made full Colonel). Everywhere else, there were strict restrictions on what rank a Jew can reach. Mind-numbingly intolerant I know, but that's 1914 Europe for you.

Zinegata wrote:Not what I said. Existentialism started in the 19th Century, but it gained most of its traction post-1918, and certainly much more post 1945.

That has a lot to do with the biggest names in Existentialism having been French and having been alive during World War II. That has fuck all to do with France's secular sentiment, which is much older.

So tell me: how did the results of World War I and World War II convince the Third Republic to declare a binding separation of Church and State in 1905?

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:That has a lot to do with the biggest names in Existentialism having been French and having been alive during World War II. That has fuck all to do with France's secular sentiment, which is much older.

Uh-huh. France only declared the seperation of Church and State in 1905. As opposed to the United States, who already had that clause from the start of its existence.

And yet, again, French secularism is much more pronounced than America's.

Clearly, just writing it down in your constitution doesn't actually mean you'll practice it.

-----

Finally, thanks for pointing out that most of the leading French Existentialists were alive during World War 2. You know why?

Guys like Sarte... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre

Were in their teens when WW1 broke out. Hence the guys writing about Existentialism during the Second World War were already alive to witness the first, and had probably lost fathers, older brothers, or even peers to the war. Some may have been survivors of the trenches themselves. Universal conscription made sure that the war touched pretty much everyone of that age.

The experience of the First World War in many ways shaped the thinkers of 1940-45. Tolkein for instance was a survivor of the trenches, but started writing the LoTR only around WW2.

In short, the old men of the Second World War were the soldiers of the first. Our favorite whipping boy Hitler himself was a soldier of the First World War, and many of his ramblings often harken back to his experiences as a corporal serving in the trenches. The ideology of Nazism in many ways the product of the senseless killing in the trenches.

Zinegata wrote:Uh-huh. France only declared the seperation of Church and State in 1905. As opposed to the United States, who already had that clause from the start of its existence.

No. Learn to history.

The French declared separation of church and state in 1905 as part of the third republic. The original declaration of separation of church and state is in the revolutionary documents in 1789. It's just that their government got overthrown a bunch of times in between. That's why in 1905 they had the third republic. In addition to having had two empires and two kingdoms in the interim. The United States is still on their second republic. That is why the United States has had a declaration of the separation of church and state since 1791, and the current French declaration of separation of church and state has only been in force since 1958 because they are in their fifth republic now.

The point is that French Republicans demanded and received secularism before either world war. Democracy and secularism are intimately connected there, and have been since the 18th century.

-Username17

Zinegata wrote:And why is ID okay in a science class? Simple. It's part of the history of science.

ID is not a scientific theory widely accepted then disproved. Its a made up theory designed to engender false controversy so that it can be taught in S public schools. It therefore does not belong in a history of science class but in an sociology or history of religion class.

Even assuming it was in science class it would be there to be called flat out wrong, hardly the result someone who believes in ID wants. Don't try push mythology into science class, it just makes it look more wrong by comparison.

FrankTrollman wrote:No. Learn to history.

The French declared separation of church and state in 1905 as part of the third republic.

No, learn to link an article that doesn't present such a shitty case on the origins of French secularism.

Here's the article again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3325285.stm

Your article refers to the Third Republic as the start of modern French secularism (after the Concordat), but offers no proof aside from it being written in the constitution. I shot it down. Hard.

Again, the point is, you can write any damn thing you want in your constitution, but it doesn't mean you'll actually follow it. Unless you want to claim that America is more secular than France by virtue having the seperation of Church and State in its constitution (including the Confederate constitution) without ever being repealed. Which we all know isn't true.

----

The evidence the article cites before modern French secularism is also pretty shoddy at best. French Enlightenment thinkers were anti-religion? Sure, but that's not even the policy of their government at the time, "Divine Right of Kings" and all that.

How about Napoleon? Well, yes, he beat up the Catholic church, but he didn't actually seperate the church from the state. He made the church his own personal bitch - which again is a far cry from modern secularism - and this "Concordat" lasted until 1905. Thus, you cannot claim that French secularism originated from 1789 because the revolutionaries wrote it down. In fact, Napoleon threw that idea out the window and kept church and state as one until the Third Republic abolished it.

So, again, when you drill it down, while the "official" seperation of church and state in the modern era started with the Third Republic in 1905, in practice it happened in the aftermath of WW1. In fact, let's look at the timeline the article provided:

1789: French Revolution
1789 & 1809: France marches on Rome
1905: Law on separation of church and state
1937: Schools instructed to keep religious signs out
1989: School ban on religious signs ruled illegal
1994: Ministers say schools can ban "ostentatious" signs
2004: MPs vote in support of ban on religious symbols in schools

I bolded 1937 for a simple reason: That's the first time the article cites a concrete step to actually seperate church from state aside from writing it down on a piece of paper.

And again, 1937 is after WW1.

Moreover, this ban was apparently not even controversial. To quote the article:

This was not controversial - but then the state was confronted with a weak opponent in an overwhelmingly secular society.

By the way - That overwhelmingly secular society that voted for banning religious signs in schools? These were people who were attending school back in 1914, went to war against Germany, and saw one in three classmates fail to return.

In short, there is plenty of evidence to show that French secularism was born as the result of the traumatic experience of the First World War - which highlighted the dangers of ideologies (like extreme nationalism or religious intolerance). The Second World War put a further nail into this coffin.

By contrast, there's very little evidence to show that the "light of science" makes people more likely to become secular. Teaching people how a light bulb works does not really make one question one's own beliefs.

But losing a son can make an even ardent pro-Empire believer like Kipling (who wrote "The White Man's Burden") to write a post-war poem that states "If any question why we died, tell them because our fathers lied."

Draco_Argentum wrote:Don't try push mythology into science class, it just makes it look more wrong by comparison.

Why not? The whole point of putting it into a science class is to show that it's wrong, and that our knowledge has evolved over the centuries so that we know better.

Again, you tell people about the Steady State Theory and Indivisible Atoms because it shows that science evolves. It's not a body of knowledge set in stone. It's one that we keep growing and updating as we observe new phenomenon.

Zinegata wrote:I bolded 1937 for a simple reason:

Because you are a simpleton?

That's the only thing I can figure. The "Dechristianization of France" is a 12 year period between 1789 and 1801. You grabbing random pro-secular events from the 3rd or 4th or 5th republic doesn't make it the first. And if it's not the first, it can't have been the start. For fuck's sake, the church had its authority to collect taxes revoked in 1789.

I double dog dare you to come up with some harebrained reason why revoking the church's ability to collect taxes as part of a deliberate and explicit campaign to remove church affiliation from the state apparatus of the nation of France was somehow inspired by heavy losses in a war a hundred and twenty five years later against a country that was created over eighty years later.

Seriously. Before and After. World War I is after the French Revolution. By a long long time. French Republicans have always been against the establishment of the catholic church. Always. That has not changed. The French Republicans have been on the ascendancy sometimes and on the decline sometimes. But every single time the anti-republicans take power it has been really shitty, and now pretty much everyone in France is pro-republic. But pointing to world wars as some sort of magic turning point is ludicrous. Churches were turned into private organizations in 1795. The existence of counter revolutionary governments in the interim which attempted to desecularize the country does not mean that secularism started after they were defeated.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:Because you are a simpleton?

Hint to all people who want to debate Frank Trollman: When he starts calling you names, you know that he's gonna start lying.

You grabbing random pro-secular events from the 3rd or 4th or 5th republic doesn't make it the first.

I'm not grabbing random pro-secular events.

Your article did.

So again, why are you whining about your own shitty sources and claiming that I brought them up?

Again, you said:

FrankTrollman wrote:That has a lot to do with the biggest names in Existentialism having been French and having been alive during World War II. That has fuck all to do with France's secular sentiment, which is much older.

And that article includes a timeline:

SECULAR TRADITION
1789: French Revolution
1789 & 1809: France marches on Rome
1905: Law on separation of church and state
1937: Schools instructed to keep religious signs out
1989: School ban on religious signs ruled illegal
1994: Ministers say schools can ban "ostentatious" signs
2004: MPs vote in support of ban on religious symbols in schools

So really, you're faulting me for quoting Frank Trollman's ONLY cited source in this ENTIRE tangent.

This is a new low, even for you.

--------

I double dog dare you to come up with some harebrained reason why revoking the church's ability to collect taxes as part of a deliberate and explicit campaign to remove church affiliation from the state apparatus of the nation of France was somehow inspired by heavy losses in a war a hundred and twenty five years later against a country that was created over eighty years later.

No, I will instead show how this is a massive misdirection ploy on your part.

You are speaking based on the assumption that France became secular in 1789 because of the "Dechristianization of France".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristia ... _of_France

However, the fact is this was just an attempt by the French Revolutionaries to remove all religion. The attempted failed. Becuase in 1801...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat_of_1801

We had the Concordat of 1801. Which is...

"It was an agreement between Napoleon Bonaparte and Pope Pius VII that solidified the Roman Catholic Church as the majority church of France and brought back most of its civil status."

That's right folks. The revolutionaries of 1789? Almost everything they did was thrown out by Napoleon in 1801, in favor of making the church his own personal bitch so that he could win the support of the French Catholics.

How long did the Concardat last? 1905, or the start of modern French secularism.

Again: France was not secular in 1789. The revolutionaries tried to make it so. They failed because Napoleon turned back the clock in 1801. This is historical fact.

Which BTW is also mentioned in the ONLY article Frank Trollman linked.

----

And you are an absolute fucking moron for implying that I am saying the First World War led to the events of 1789.

No, cancel that. You are an absolute fucking liar for attempting to put up such a shoddy smokescreen.

You're not even wroth debating anymore. It's too fucking easy.

So the secularists in 1905 and 1937 also failed because Vichy took over in 1940?

You're not making any fucking sense. You can either claim that only secularism that is contiguously the law of the land counts, in which case you get to count from 1958; or you get to claim that the secular tradition started when the French Republicanists first put it into practice, in which case it goes back to the 18th century.

Your world war I theory is completely a-historical and has no basis in anything.

-Username17