Ferdinand, educated by the Jesuits , was a staunch Catholic who wanted to impose religious uniformity on his lands. This made him highly unpopular in Protestant (primarily Hussite ) Bohemia. The Bohemian nobility rejected Ferdinand, who had been elected Bohemian Crown Prince in 1617. Ferdinand's representatives were thrown out of a window in Prague and seriously injured, triggering the Thirty Years' War in 1618. This so-called Defenestration of Prague provoked open revolt in Bohemia, which had powerful foreign allies. Ferdinand was upset by the calculated insult, but his intolerant policies in his own lands had left him in a weak position. The Habsburg cause in the next few years would seem to suffer unrecoverable reverses. The Protestant cause seemed to wax toward a quick overall victory.
The answer is neither. They are not exceptions, nor do they speak to a violence inherent in Christianity. Because my point is not that Christianity is evil. It isn’t. But neither is it inherently peaceful and loving. And neither is Islam. Nor Judaism nor Hinduism nor Buddhism. No religion is inherently peaceful or violent, nor is it inherently anything other than what its followers make it out to be. People are violent, and people can dress their violence up in any number of justifying causes that seek to relieve people of their personal responsibility because the cause or religion, be it Communism or Catholicism or Islam, is simply bigger than themselves. It’s very convenient for both the perpetrator of violence and his accuser, and yet totally useless: Something can be done with a person who has transgressed, but what can you do with an amorphous concept?
Rights-based grievances likewise contribute to intractability. A dispute begins when one person or group makes a claim or demand on another who rejects it. One way to resolve disputes is to rely on some independent standard of perceived legitimacy or fairness. However, if both groups advance their claim as a "right," moderate positions become less likely and it becomes difficult to compromise or reach consensus. Rights talk can foreclose "further communication with those whose points of view differ from our own." This is in part because people treat rights-based arguments as "trump cards" that neutralize all other positions. A tendency towards absolute formulations in rights talk promotes unrealistic expectations and increases the likelihood of conflict. It also ignores social costs and the rights of others, and inhibits dialogue that might lead to the discovery of common ground or compromise. For example, abortion is typically framed as pitting two interests against each other in an all-or-nothing contest. This sort of absolute, win-lose framing is typically not conducive to problem solving .