Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christians, well-meaning, I suppose, sadly admit that they know I'm going to hell for my lack of belief. I really don't give a rat butt about their idea as long as there's no action involved- like discrimination against me for not believing and being hell-bound, etc. etc.
I feel the same way about any religious belief that thinks ill of me for not joining in or being converted. Keep yer hands to yerself and think whatever you want.
I suspect that many moderate or non-jihadi Muslims don't speak out because they then end up in the crosshairs themselves. As for Jihadi Wifey (as mentioned), she converted to marry the guy. She didn't have to marry him, she apparently chose to and chose to convert to do so. A lot of religionists do this. Who knows if she actually believed any of it? Likely she had to do the outward stuff, wearing the shmata, obeying the hubster, etc. Does anyone think Katie Holmes really believed in Scientology or maybe she just really wanted to marry Tom Cruise?
But Tom Cruise is just a cute and formerly sexy dude; he didn't kill and maim people in the name of Scientology.
Is Katie Holmes still practicing Scientology ? Huh ??
I totally understand why American's do want this dead body buried in their neck of the woods but I am also sad that this dead body is causing such a commotion too. It's a dead body. Whatever evil that was suspect #1 is no more. That ceased the moment he died.
Why couldn't the funeral director or assistant just drive to Boston, get on a boat and dump the dead body at sea after the uncle did their religious ritual? Why did this terrorist NEED to be BURIED? Why all the hullabaloo over this? Just dump him for fish food.
". . .. The Muslim world works the exact same way. There are fanatics that will try to convert you, but if you ever spent time in a Muslim country or region, you're not going to be overwhelmed with people trying to "convert" you.
However if you are a Christian in many Muslim countries and try to convert Muslims you might be imprisoned or beheaded. How many Christians do that?
However if you are a Christian in many Muslim countries and try to convert Muslims you might be imprisoned or beheaded. How many Christians do that?
GL2
I won't disagree that religious zealots in the U.S. or most other industrialized nations typically aren't as violent as some Muslim zealots in some other less advanced Muslim countries. That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. Last August, Wade Michael Page shot up a Sikh temple killing 6 because the moron couldn't tell the difference between Sikhs and Muslims. The KKK leaves a legacy of killing and other violent acts all in the name of Christ. On a world scale, it was around 80 years ago that Adolph Hitler used Christianity as a motive for trying to remove and entire religion from the face of the Earth in some of the most horrific was possible. He was responsible for starting the deadliest war in human history.
Still, I think most "religious" violence today often coincides with economics and the value placed on human life (which is often much lower in more impoverished countries). For example, there is a ton of Christian violence toward non-believers, especially Muslims in many of the more impoverished nations in Africa. Christian violence isn't quite as prominent in the U.S., but it's certainly alive and well all across the world.
When it comes to imprisonment for one's religious beliefs, that wouldn't happen here because we, thankfully, do a decent job of keeping religion separate from government. Not surprisingly, many who have a deep-rooted fear of Muslims are the same who are upset that we remove "God" from so many government places.
When it comes to violence in general, you may be surprised to learn that murder rates in many Islamic countries (inc. some of the more maligned ones) are far lower than our own. Some examples? Qatar, UAE, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Source: 2012 UNODC stats.
That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. Last August, Wade Michael Page shot up a Sikh temple killing 6 because the moron couldn't tell the difference between Sikhs and Muslims. The KKK leaves a legacy of killing and other violent acts all in the name of Christ. On a world scale, it was around 80 years ago that Adolph Hitler used Christianity as a motive for trying to remove and entire religion from the face of the Earth in some of the most horrific was possible. He was responsible for starting the deadliest war in human history.
History is filled with examples of warmongering in the name of Christ, such as the Spanish Inquisition, WWII, sectarian clashes in N. Ireland, and so on. When comparing these to Muslim perpetrated violence, it boils down to one enormous difference in the two. That is, that the Christian Faith in no part played a role in the killings (by "Christians"). Jesus did not tell Hitler to massacre 6 million Jews (a very basic glimpse of his personal history shows what motivated him, and why he scapegoated the Jews). Forced conversion like what took place in the Inquisition, goes in complete contrast to what the Gospel teaches. In Ireland it is a matter of territory, ethnicity and politics. Christianity has never been about war or persecution, despite what many "Christians" have taken part in. The fact that anyone has used their "religion" to justify these atrocities is both unforgivable and a blasphemy against God.
Islam on the other hand; while the majority of it's members do not partake in violence nor necessarily even condone it, you cannot overlook what their doctrine contains. There are MAJOR differences in their teachings (Qu'ran) and the New/Old Testament when it comes to the value human life.
Still, I think most "religious" violence today often coincides with economics and the value placed on human life (which is often much lower in more impoverished countries). For example, there is a ton of Christian violence toward non-believers, especially Muslims in many of the more impoverished nations in Africa. Christian violence isn't quite as prominent in the U.S., but it's certainly alive and well all across the world.
Maybe some, but the main issue in Africa has been the reverse (Muslim on Christian violence). Christians are facing far more persecution than Muslims in the less developed countries (Africa, Asia, Dearborn, MI). This is what is becoming far too commonplace, I could not even find links to examples of Christian perpetrated violence (and cannot recall hearing about on any real scale):
History is filled with examples of warmongering in the name of Christ, such as the Spanish Inquisition, WWII, sectarian clashes in N. Ireland, and so on. When comparing these to Muslim perpetrated violence, it boils down to one enormous difference in the two. That is, that the Christian Faith in no part played a role in the killings (by "Christians"). Jesus did not tell Hitler to massacre 6 million Jews (a very basic glimpse of his personal history shows what motivated him, and why he scapegoated the Jews). Forced conversion like what took place in the Inquisition, goes in complete contrast to what the Gospel teaches. In Ireland it is a matter of territory, ethnicity and politics. Christianity has never been about war or persecution, despite what many "Christians" have taken part in. The fact that anyone has used their "religion" to justify these atrocities is both unforgivable and a blasphemy against God.
Islam on the other hand; while the majority of it's members do not partake in violence nor necessarily even condone it, you cannot overlook what their doctrine contains. There are MAJOR differences in their teachings (Qu'ran) and the New/Old Testament when it comes to the value human life.
This sums up those differences pretty well:
Maybe some, but the main issue in Africa has been the reverse (Muslim on Christian violence). Christians are facing far more persecution than Muslims in the less developed countries (Africa, Asia, Dearborn, MI). This is what is becoming far too commonplace, I could not even find links to examples of Christian perpetrated violence (and cannot recall hearing about on any real scale):
To be clear, I'm not trying to say that Christianity is any worse than Islam or vice versa. I was confirmed as a Catholic, but I'm agnostic and don't affiliate with any religion. I don't see this an an "Us vs. Them" scenario. You illustrated the point I was trying to make in regards to Hitler. I know full well that Jesus didn't tell Hitler to kill Jewish people. I know he had his own personal motivations to do so. In order to drum up support for his personal vendetta, he had to make it personal for those he was trying to rally. Religion was just one of the many ways he manipulated others to support his cause. Hitler secretly loathed Christianity, but embraced it in his campaign for support. The terrible economic climate in Germany and the desperation of the people living there made it possible for Hitler to drum up the support he received.
I see this as very similar to what went on with Bin Laden did with Al Qaeda. He used religion to drum up huge support among a population that was largely impoverished. People can and do use any religion to manipulate others into doing their will. This has happened all throughout the course of history. It's deplorable. However, it's important for the rest of us to remember that these acts are not representative of the vast majority of people who follow those religions. Most of us in the U.S. would laugh at the notion that the Holocaust was a "Christian" act of violence even though Christianity was one one of the justifications used in order for the atrocities to take place. I don't know if Bin Laden hated Islam like Hitler did Christianity, but like Hitler, he still used it as a motivator for his followers. He had many political issues with the United States (and entire Western World), but he needed to use religion to motivate people to actually fight for him. Powerful people have manipulated religion for their personal gain for as long as religion has existed. It's not unique to any religion and Bin Laden and Hitler are just two of the more recent examples. I don't consider either of them to be representative of any religion.
The problem I have with citing the "doctrine" is that both the Quar'an and Bible contain many verses that are easily perceived as condoning violence by those who choose to see them that way. Here's one from the Bible:
Deuteronomy 17 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
There are literally thousands of other Bible verses that either promote or condone violence in the name of God, or describe in detail God's "wrath." Here are a few.
The problem with both Christianity and Islam is that regardless of the fact that 99.9999999999999% of the followers of those religions are non-violent, the relative ambiguity of each of the holy books leaves room for those who want to be violent to be violent and justify it with their holy book.
I'm not attacking religion. I've witnessed first hand how great religion and faith can be for the individual and the community. And a lot of atheists believe that without religion there will be no violence which is nonsense. People will find reasons to commit violence whether its in the name of religion, politics, race, etc.
Beyond that, I do believe there are major issues that separate us from many of the Islamic countries of the middle east. For one, our separation of church and state which keeps us safe from having fundamentalists impart their religions beliefs on everyone living in the country. Our stance on women is far better than in most Islamic countries (though the Catholic Church lags way behind much of the industrialized world in that regard). Our stance on general human rights is far better than most of the Islamic nations in the middle east. But I do not believe that one religion (Christian or Islam) is necessarily superior to the other.
As far as violence in Africa, the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) has been terrorizing the central part of the continent (mostly Congo in recent years) for nearly two decades. Joseph Kony, their leader, made headlines quite a bit lat year. The LRA is responsible for thousands of murders and in many ways, functions similarly to Al Qaeda in the Middle East. The fact that they're not in our headlines as much as Islamic terrorist groups is a shame, but not surprising given our presence in the Middle East and our lack of presence in Africa.
To be clear, I'm not trying to say that Christianity is any worse than Islam or vice versa. I was confirmed as a Catholic, but I'm agnostic and don't affiliate with any religion. I don't see this an an "Us vs. Them" scenario. You illustrated the point I was trying to make in regards to Hitler. I know full well that Jesus didn't tell Hitler to kill Jewish people. I know he had his own personal motivations to do so. In order to drum up support for his personal vendetta, he had to make it personal for those he was trying to rally. Religion was just one of the many ways he manipulated others to support his cause. Hitler secretly loathed Christianity, but embraced it in his campaign for support. The terrible economic climate in Germany and the desperation of the people living there made it possible for Hitler to drum up the support he received.
I see this as very similar to what went on with Bin Laden did with Al Qaeda. He used religion to drum up huge support among a population that was largely impoverished. People can and do use any religion to manipulate others into doing their will. This has happened all throughout the course of history. It's deplorable. However, it's important for the rest of us to remember that these acts are not representative of the vast majority of people who follow those religions. Most of us in the U.S. would laugh at the notion that the Holocaust was a "Christian" act of violence even though Christianity was one one of the justifications used in order for the atrocities to take place. I don't know if Bin Laden hated Islam like Hitler did Christianity, but like Hitler, he still used it as a motivator for his followers. He had many political issues with the United States (and entire Western World), but he needed to use religion to motivate people to actually fight for him. Powerful people have manipulated religion for their personal gain for as long as religion has existed. It's not unique to any religion and Bin Laden and Hitler are just two of the more recent examples. I don't consider either of them to be representative of any religion.
The problem I have with citing the "doctrine" is that both the Quar'an and Bible contain many verses that are easily perceived as condoning violence by those who choose to see them that way. Here's one from the Bible:
Deuteronomy 17 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
There are literally thousands of other Bible verses that either promote or condone violence in the name of God, or describe in detail God's "wrath." Here are a few.
The problem with both Christianity and Islam is that regardless of the fact that 99.9999999999999% of the followers of those religions are non-violent, the relative ambiguity of each of the holy books leaves room for those who want to be violent to be violent and justify it with their holy book.
I'm not attacking religion. I've witnessed first hand how great religion and faith can be for the individual and the community. And a lot of atheists believe that without religion there will be no violence which is nonsense. People will find reasons to commit violence whether its in the name of religion, politics, race, etc.
Beyond that, I do believe there are major issues that separate us from many of the Islamic countries of the middle east. For one, our separation of church and state which keeps us safe from having fundamentalists impart their religions beliefs on everyone living in the country. Our stance on women is far better than in most Islamic countries (though the Catholic Church lags way behind much of the industrialized world in that regard). Our stance on general human rights is far better than most of the Islamic nations in the middle east. But I do not believe that one religion (Christian or Islam) is necessarily superior to the other.
As far as violence in Africa, the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) has been terrorizing the central part of the continent (mostly Congo in recent years) for nearly two decades. Joseph Kony, their leader, made headlines quite a bit lat year. The LRA is responsible for thousands of murders and in many ways, functions similarly to Al Qaeda in the Middle East. The fact that they're not in our headlines as much as Islamic terrorist groups is a shame, but not surprising given our presence in the Middle East and our lack of presence in Africa.
My main point is that there are clear contrasts in Islam vs. Christianity as far how they handle infidels/non-believers and their approach to human life (despite how individual "men" and even "churches" from all faiths may have behaved over time). While the Old Testament contains many acts of violence, they need to be taken into historical context and the New Covenant spells out very clearly that violence is not a Christian's path to salvation. I cannot speak for Judaism, but I would be shocked if any Rabbi anywhere in the world is calling for Pagans to be stoned to death. The link I attached explains the differences between the two religions much better than I can, as I am not an overly religious myself and am certainly not a Bible scholar. With that said, I took a quick peak at the Skeptics Bible site. The way it portrayed the few passages I looked at are not how I interpret them at all. They are clearly from the perspective of its namesake, a "skeptic". Unlike one seeking to truly have a full understanding of the scripture, one who is out to find whatever fault he can will be sure to find it whether it exists or not. Likewise, it is not difficult to twist scripture to serve a selfish purpose (and can be very dangerous as has been proven in the past).
Thanks to our more advanced and relatively sheltered society, I think many Westerners/Judeo-Christians are hugely naïve about Islam and some elements of its ideology. We must realize that the overwhelming majority of them are non-violent and make sure that they don't have to fear for their safety while living in this country. We also cannot stick our heads in the sand, and ignore the fact that the fastest growing religion in the world considers us all to be "infidels". Unlike the Christian Bible which simply states that non-believers will not go to heaven, the Qu'ran actively calls for a "Holy War" against those who don't convert. More and more young men (like the baby-faced marathon bomber) are being sucked into this fanaticism. Whatever the underlying reason may be (poverty, disenfranchisement, the need for 72 virgins, or whatever), their doctrine does teach this.
On the Lord's Resistance Army, I'm not sure I would really call them a "Christian" terrorist group (more so a cult). Don't they also contain some Muslim and traditional beliefs along with the whole "10 Commandments" thing? They are pretty much political rebels rather than religious fanatics. Christians and people of all faiths have been murdered by them, they have not exclusively gone after Muslims or anyone else.
Last edited by massnative71; 05-21-2013 at 10:31 PM..
I think where we disagree is in the interpretation of the doctrine which is a debate that could go on forever. I think there's enough ambiguity in both the Qur'an an the Bible to allow for violent fanaticism. You interpret the Bible quotes differently than the skeptic does, just as many Islam skeptics would interpret the Qur'an's verses differently than the majority of faithful, practicing Muslims. There's plenty of violence referenced and even promoted in both holy books. As long as there's room for interpretation, people will continue to do so in each religion. You can point out that the New Testament is less violent (which it is), but that won't stop a fanatic from focusing on the violence of the Old Testament if it supports their ideals. Many Christians do this.
Fanaticism is the operative word. Most of us will read a holy book and twist the words to suit our needs. For most of us, the emphasis is on the good. Those prone to violent or hateful acts twist the words to suit their needs. Think about how many interpretations of the Bible there are in Christianity right here in the U.S. The wackos at the Westboro Baptist Church believe they're doing God's will just as much as the average Catholic or Protestant (though it's another case where the leaders, the Phelps family, have motives beyond God). Most of us would beg to differ. My point is that there's more than enough ambiguity intertwined with violent references in either book for the verses to be interpreted as promoting violence to non-believers.
I agree that the LRA is more "cult" than religious faction. However, that's how most Muslims feel about Al Qaeda. Most practicing Christians will do everything they can to distance themselves from groups like the LRA or Westboro Baptist Church. They consider them abominations of Christianity. It works the same way in Islam. Al Qaeda is considered by most Muslims to be a stain on Islam. Al Qaeda claims to be representative of Islam (just as the LRA claims to be Christian), but they commit atrocities against Muslims on a regular basis (bombing markets, murdering women, children, etc.). They also solicit help from any non-muslim (especially in Europe) who sides with their cause. Like the LRA, the religious "affiliation" is loose, at best.
I'm more concerned with Islamophobia in the U.S. than I am with people being naive about Islam. You don't need to read past other posts in this very thread to see a deep rooted fear and hatred for the religion and its followers. It's everywhere. I think that type of hatred and fear can lead to alienation and unfair persecution of followers of Islam which fanatic, radical Islam groups will use as ammunition for recruiting and growing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
