But do they disagree with the doctrine, or not know what the doctrine is?

I sometimes get the impression that one reason religious affiliation is much higher in the US than the rest of the developed world, is that a church acts as a useful social club. If so, some US Christians might be less interested in the precise doctrines of their church.

Not sure how much consistency you can expect from a survey anyway. Lots of people hover around borders... they might think they're an agnostic at Question 1 but have decided they're an atheist at Question 20.

had a chat with the Pew guys yesterday. A lot of questioners wanted to hammer on "bad methodology" it seems, but the Pew guy did a good job of explaining what they did, and how that led to the conclusions published.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/06/20/DI2008062002010.html?nav=ft_lol

Most detractors there wondered how 92% believe in God and 1 in 5 atheists believe in God, etc. (Wonder if Concord NH questioner is DU, given his huge chip-on-shoulder, anti-religion bent..)

To Mr. Mutt, I would think it's more that many don't know the doctrine to begin with. Outside of a seminary, how many folks do you know of can give a precise doctrinal difference between the various US denominations ? What makes Episcopalians different from Lutherans from Presbyterians from Baptists from Methodists ? Toss in Catholics and you might get some 'mary worshiping heathens' commentary, but very few could answer. (Or give socio-political answers, like rich/well-to-do are Episcopal, etc)

There are plenty of books out there for theology/apologetics (Kreft's a popular author, well written, very accessible and explains many of the why we believe what we believe, from a slightly Catholic perspective, very applicable).

Part of me respects those that cling-strongly to their doctrine, yet I'm one of those mealy-mouthed folks who pick-choose doctrines (so to speak) by focusing on the core, and not worrying about the rest. The core's usually not up for argument to be categorized under the christian label.

Epidemic disease. I've seen estimates of anywhere from 50% to 90% deaths from various diseases (primarily smallpox and measles) the Europeans brought with them. It's fairly well established that the mound building culture of the upper Mississippi basin was wiped out by disease before they actually were contacted by the Europeans.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}

One of the few movies I give a perfect 10/10, and by far my favourite Hitchcock. Great visual storytelling sequences with the wine bottles in the cellar and stealing the key. Bigger-than-life but not quite cartoonish villains with tons of subtle menace to them. And I love all the dialogue between Grant & Bergman throughout the movie.

thinking you were talking about this Notorious.

(as it turns out, it won't be out for some time, but i had never payed attention to the release date)
---
_{I don't think anyone's ever really died from smoking. --ni}

I don't know about the conquest of the Incas, but I've read a fair bit about the conquest of the Aztecs, and in that case, steel armor, steel blades and horses were more important than guns. The Aztecs had obsidian swords, which while deadly to foes in cloth/leather armor, were useless against steal. They wore cloth armor, which was useless against a steel saber. This tends to get ignored, because all those things existed in Europe for centuries before the conquest, and were well known by all of Asia. They aren't as sexy as gunpowder.

But also important, perhaps even more important, are the cultural differences and the style of warfare. The Spanish were conquest oriented, and were the result of a couple of millenia of European military experience. The Aztecs, on the other hand, were used to a more ritualistic style of warfare. They didn't conquer territory so much as go out, grab a bunch of slaves for ritualistic sacrifice and extort promises for tribute. They didn't really have the concept of destroying enemy forces the way Europeans did.

It's also underappreciated how damn lucky Cortez was. On at least two occasions, he was a hair's breath from having the entire thing destroyed. It is easy to envision an alternate history where Cortez marches in and is never heard from again. There were a number of advantages that he had that had little to do with European advantage. The Aztecs had the misfortune of being saddled with a weak leader and they were at the head of a precarious empire when Cortez showed up. It is often missed that Cortez initially had a lot of Mayan help as they, and other Indian city-states were very interested in throwing of the Aztec yoke and did not realize the danger.

All the Aztecs really needed to kick Spanish tail six ways to Sunday was the will to unite and make an overwhelming attack.

(This is not to ignore the issue of germs, which is a whole 'nother influence. But it is arguable as to whether the issue was the numbers of overall population who died or that the plagues killed off much of the Aztec royal family, leaving an inexperienced fool with little talent for leadership on the throne.)

Again, I don't know as much about the Incas, but I suspect the situation is similar. I suspect that people are so busy looking at global, overall causes that they are ignoring the idea that the conquest might not have been inevitable. (Which is hard to give up, because the idea that the conquest is inevitable feeds Western notions of superiority.)
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}

That the importance of the canon was reduced somewhat because it's an evolution of the gun. I doubt that the first canons would have had much more power than guns and much less accuracy. Eventually as the engineering improved, things would have got better, but that would explain why the first use of the canon's not recorded.