Christians kill Muslims - But we won't talk about it

[ThinkForYourself]

I noticed that I often read about Muslims killing Christians, and that "Muslim" is always in the headline. But I virtually never read about Christians killing Muslims. That really doesn't make any sense, so I did some research.

After some research, I finally found an article about Christians killing Muslims

I'll be the last Muslim in CAR

Anti-balaka is a Christian and animist militia. Here is an example of their work:

Central African Republic: Ethnic cleansing and sectarian killings

“Anti-balaka militias are carrying out violent attacks in an effort to ethnically cleanse Muslims in the Central African Republic,” said Joanne Mariner, senior crisis response adviser at Amnesty International."

You can google anti-balaka and violence. Apparently they have been involved in a number of massacres.

The Central African Republic is 80% Christian, 15% Muslim, so it is Christians doing the killing. But notice that "Christian" isn't used in the headline. As a matter of fact, the term "Christian" isn't used anywhere in the article. "Christian" is used in a side note where Christians died.

So when Muslims kill Christians, it is blamed on Muslims, but when Christians kill Muslims, it's blamed on the militia people. And this is by the BBC, who are generally considered to be one of the least biased news organizations in the west.


In regards to the killings in Kenya, I did some research on that too. Please note that I'm not justifying the killing of Christians, it is despicable. But it turns out that the country is largely Christian, and Muslims are discriminated against, and have been killed by Christians.

What we are seeing in Kenya is religious warfare, and both Christians and Muslims have dirtied their hands. I googled "Kenya Religious Conflict" and got over 10 million hits. Both sides claim their killings are revenge killings. And back and forth it goes, like a sick game of ping pong.

So, to those who always post headlines about Muslim crimes, please don't be hypocrites, post the Christian crimes as well. They happen,and are just as heinous.

For me, this is just more proof that there really isn't much difference between Muslims and Christians. And as they are both part of the Abrahamic religious trinity, it's not surprising in the least.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Of course Christians, at times, kill Muslims. Just as there are Jew-on-Muslim violences too, but we don't hear much about that either. Essentially every group, in some degree kills another (aside from maybe Buddhist sects?). Sad, but true.

But yes, the whole Muslim killing Christians things has been WAY overblown in the western media for some years now, no doubt about it.


One qualm though, the anti-balaka militias are not A group. They are a number of different, individual groups, formed for the same purpose in the 90s. And it is not as simple as merely "Christians killing Muslims", it is an issue that involves both Muslim-based Seleka militias (once lead by the current president, but many refused to disband after he was elected) and anti-balaka militias warring against each other. And is an issue that involves far more than just religion at its basis.

To say it is merely "Christians killing Muslims" is just as oversimplified, and wrong, as saying the Seleka are merely "Muslims killing Christians".

 

[Senator Cheese]

A fair enough approach, I guess. These crimes are heinous atrocities and cannot be justified, ever. You have my full support when it comes to criticizing these acts of terror.
However, I wish to point out few arguments that I believe are essential to understanding the perception and portrayal of Muslim terror versus Christian terror in the media, on CF and in the general populace:

1.) I challenge you to provide any article in which the BBC said "Muslims" were targeting a group or were responsible for an attack. I am most certain that the British Broadcasting Corporation would never resort to such "politically incorrect" terminology, and as such you're pulling a strawman argument.

2.) Is this really a religious war? Seleka doesn't seem to mimic a Jihadi group. They just happen to be a bunch of retards that happen to be Muslim? Similar things go for Anti-Balaka - neither group seems to be religiously motivated or seeking to establish a theocratic state, do they? I don't know much about either, so maybe you can clear that up.

3.) Noone is denying that Christian extremism is a problem, and noone is denying that all religions harbor violent fanatics - just as many as secular groups do.
Nonetheless, when comparing the world religions and their contemporary potential of violence, it is apparent that Islamic traditions seem incompatible to coexist peacefully with any of their neighbors. China, Russia, India, Central and North Africa, Southeast Asia, Europe and the US seem to have problems with Muslim minorities or bordering Muslim terror groups.
Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Shintos seem to be exhibiting less problems coexisting peacefully with their neighbors.

The conflict in Central Africa seems to have spiraled out of control and indeed is on the scale of genocide, with both the LRA and the Anti-Balakas comprising Christian fringe groups. I will admit that it's hard to say who struck first (much akin to the Israel-Palestine conflict) - and to be fair, it is completely irrelevant. Attacks against civillians or unarmed individuals are war crimes and never justified.
Nonetheless, this particular conflict seems to be more of a political power struggle than an actual war of religion.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

....
One qualm though, the anti-balaka militias are not A group. They are a number of different, individual groups, formed for the same purpose in the 90s. And it is not as simple as merely "Christians killing Muslims", it is an issue that involves both Muslim-based Seleka militias (once lead by the current president, but many refused to disband after he was elected) and anti-balaka militias warring against each other. And is an issue that involves far more than just religion at its basis.

Regardless of what they are fighting about, they separate by religious affiliation. Muslims sometimes fight against each other (Sunni/Shiite), but I don't recall seeing anyone claim Muslim attacks on Christians are anything but religiously based. So I think my point still stands.

And I do agree that both groups are to blame, and that it is tit-for-tat.

To say it is merely "Christians killing Muslims" is just as oversimplified, and wrong, as saying the Seleka are merely "Muslims killing Christians".

I agree. But on this forum it's nearly always "Muslims kill Christians", so it seems appropriate to use "Christians kill Muslims".

My personal opinion is that Muslims and Christians are different sides of the same coin.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Regardless of what they are fighting about, they separate by religious affiliation. Muslims sometimes fight against each other (Sunni/Shiite), but I don't recall seeing anyone claim Muslim attacks on Christians are anything but religiously based. So I think my point still stands.

They do, largely, separate along religious lines, but it really amounts more to "everyone vs Muslims", sadly. Christian majority and animist/"pagan" groups alike aligning against the Muslim minority. It is a pretty bad situation all around.

It is also partly due the Seleka aggression against other groups during the revolt and after. Despite the president attempting to disband the Seleka militia groups, they continue on. Attacking Christian churches and such, just as the anti-balaka continue to attack Muslim communities.

As well, it falls that way partly due land issues that result from Muslim groups until recently being largely nomadic and the Christian majority of the nation being sedentary. This is changing rapidly and causing aggression in places where Muslims are settling that Christians held prior to the coup.

And I do agree that both groups are to blame, and that it is tit-for-tat.

Definitely a tit-for-tat of issues. Aggression begets aggression.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

1.) I challenge you to provide any article in which the BBC said "Muslims" were targeting a group or were responsible for an attack. I am most certain that the British Broadcasting Corporation would never resort to such "politically incorrect" terminology, and as such you're pulling a strawman argument.

That might be a fair point about the BBC. I'll have to do some more searching on the net. Uggh.

FOX News reports every time a Muslim kills a Christian. They certainly don't report every time a Christian kills a Muslim. And FOX News certainly gives more coverage and airtime to cases of Muslims killing Christians than cases of Christians killing Muslims.

How about saving me the time, and agreeing that there is a bias by many news organizations, especially American news organizations, against Muslims and for Christians? We both know I can find the instances.

2.) Is this really a religious war?
Seleka doesn't seem to mimic a Jihadi group. They just happen to be a bunch of retards that happen to be Muslim? Similar things go for Anti-Balaka - neither group seems to be religiously motivated or seeking to establish a theocratic state, do they? I don't know much about either, so maybe you can clear that up.

It virtually always framed as such on CF whenever Muslims kill Christians. It was the thread you started: "Muslims shoot up Kenyan Univeristy: Deliberately target atheists and Christians." that inspired me to do the research..

One of the articles I linked to talks about ethnic cleansing by Christians against Muslims. The violence in Kenya is certainly religiously based.

3.) Noone is denying that Christian extremism is a problem, and noone is denying that all religions harbor violent fanatics - just as many as secular groups do.
Nonetheless, when comparing the world religions and their contemporary potential of violence, it is apparent that Islamic traditions seem incompatible to coexist peacefully with any of their neighbors. China, Russia, India, Central and North Africa, Southeast Asia, Europe and the US seem to have problems with Muslim minorities or bordering Muslim terror groups.
Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Shintos seem to be exhibiting less problems coexisting peacefully with their neighbors.

The problem is, what is the difference between an extremist and a believer?

You can't make it about violence, because the USA, led by a Christian president, with an almost exclusively Christian government, and mostly Christian army, largely influenced by fundamentalist Christians, invading other countries, has probably killed multiples of 10 more people in the last 50 years than all the terrorists killings combined.

Christians want to separate themselves from this violence, and take the moral high ground. I don't think they can. Christian leaders voted to send Christian soldiers to defend their beliefs.

An Iraqi mother whose child died in the initial bombardment of Baghdad felt every bit as much pain, suffering, and "terror", as did the American mother of a child who died in a "terrorist" attack.

The conflict in Central Africa seems to have spiraled out of control and indeed is on the scale of genocide, with both the LRA and the Anti-Balakas comprising Christian fringe groups. I will admit that it's hard to say who struck first (much akin to the Israel-Palestine conflict) - and to be fair, it is completely irrelevant. Attacks against civillians or unarmed individuals are war crimes and never justified.
Nonetheless, this particular conflict seems to be more of a political power struggle than an actual war of religion.

(bolding mine)

Are you seriously suggesting that you can separate Religion from Seeking Power?

Seeking power over others is the cornerstone of nearly all religions, certainly the Abrahamic trinity of religions.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

They do, largely, separate along religious lines, but it really amounts more to "everyone vs Muslims", sadly. Christian majority and animist/"pagan" groups alike aligning against the Muslim minority. It is a pretty bad situation all around.

It is also partly due the Seleka aggression against other groups during the revolt and after. Despite the president attempting to disband the Seleka militia groups, they continue on. Attacking Christian churches and such, just as the anti-balaka continue to attack Muslim communities.

As well, it falls that way partly due land issues that result from Muslim groups until recently being largely nomadic and the Christian majority of the nation being sedentary. This is changing rapidly and causing aggression in places where Muslims are settling that Christians held prior to the coup.

Definitely a tit-for-tat of issues. Aggression begets aggression.

Believe me when I say I don't hold Muslims faultless. They are every bit as much to blame, being discriminated against is no excuse for mass killings.

According to wikipedia, CAR is 80% Christian, and 15% Muslim. I don't think it is very surprising that the 5% of undecided are siding with the majority. Especially when the minority are being ethnically cleansed by a much larger and stronger majority.

If you were unaffiliated, and had to pick a side, which would you choose?

 

[Senator Cheese]

That might be a fair point. I'll have to do some more searching on the net. Uggh.

How about saving me the time, and agreeing that there is a bias by many news organizations, especially American news organizations, against Muslims and for Christians? We both know I can find the instances.

I always perceive the media to be very reluctant to actually call out Islam. Laws in Germany, for example, prohibit the nationality of a delinquent to be named. When thousands of Muslims took to the streets and shouted "Adolf Hitler!" and "Death to the Jews!", it took quite a lot of time for the media to actually point out that the "antisemitic" demonstrations were not organized by Germans, but by immigrants.

I don't know about the US, but in Germany, I have the feeling that the media is actively withholding information in many instances in order to curtail rising islamophobia.

When I lived in the US, Islamophobia and Muslims weren't that much of a topic. After 9/11, I had the feeling there were some anti-Muslim sentiments, but the US doesn't have as much of an integration problem as Europe does. Most Muslim immigrants don't seem to want to be a part of German society, whereas these problems don't exist with other groups.

It virtually always framed as such on CF whenever Muslims kill Christians. It was the thread you started: "Muslims shoot up Kenyan Univeristy: Deliberately target atheists and Christians." that inspired me to do the research..

One of the articles I linked to talks about ethnic cleansing by Christians against Muslims. The violence in Kenya is certainly religiously based.

Sorry, I didn't read the article. I'll go back on that.
And, as you correctly recognized, I did choose a very provocative title.

The problem is, what is the difference between an extremist and a believer?

You can't make it about violence, because the USA, led by a Christian president, with an almost exclusively Christian government, and mostly Christian army, invading other countries, has probably killed multiples of 10 more people in the last 50 years than all the terrorists killings combined.

Christians want to separate themselves from this violence, and take the moral high ground. I don't think they can. Christian leaders voted to send Christian soldiers to defend their beliefs.

No matter how hard we try to spin it, the US and their allies did not invade Iraq for "Christian reasons". The goal was never to establish a Christian state, or to force Christianity on the inhabitants, or to please the Christian God by fulfilling some biblical prophecy or the likes.

The American people were duped into being told that Saddam had WMDs, and therefore the US invaded. Trying to make this an issue of religion is simply false.

An Iraqi mother whose child died in the initial bombardment of Baghdad felt every bit as much pain, suffering, and "terror", as did the American mother of a child who died in a "terrorist" attack.

Yes.

Are you seriously suggesting that you can separate Religion from Seeking Power?

Seeking power over others is the cornerstone of nearly all religions, certainly the Abrahamic religions.

You are implying that the Christian/Hindu/Buddhist faith is just as capable of generating violence as the Islamic faith is.
My position, on the other hand, is that Islam is a political ideology that promotes violence on a grander scale and therefore should be subject to much scrutiny.

As such, it is not only possible but imperative to separate religion from other, non-religion based power struggles, in order to discuss the differing positions we both hold.
After all, if the conflict at hand is not driven by religious devotion but by political calculation, then the underlying political/religious ideology would be irrelevant.


Off-Topic:
Before I became a Christian, I always viewed religion to be a shackle of humanity and a shackle to an individuals' personality. Why waste my life due to some moral standards set by some fictional character? Why run to church every sunday to please a God that doesn't seem to give a rat's cheese about how I feel? Why submit to a legal framework that defines my daily life and creates taboos?
Religion always gave me that vibe of mental incarceration - with all the religious individuals in my life (mostly Muslims, on a side note, but that's irrelevant) telling me about their rules and how they are behaving due to X or Y passage of scripture.
As such, I can see where you get that feeling from. I can understand it, because I felt the same way. It's hard for me to explain, but for me, faith has turned out to be something that feels liberating. It's good to know that a God loves me and accepts me with all my shortcomings. As such, I don't think you can blanket religions to be power-oriented - some degrees of faith are empowering, not overpowering.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Believe me when I say I don't hold Muslims faultless. They are every bit as much to blame, being discriminated against is no excuse for mass killings.

According to wikipedia, CAR is 80% Christian, and 15% Muslim. I don't think it is very surprising that the 5% of undecided are siding with the majority. Especially when the minority are being ethnically cleansed by a much larger and stronger majority.

If you were unaffiliated, and had to pick a side, which would you choose?

No doubt. Though...I wouldn't say they are unaffiliated exactly. They may not be either other religion, but they were not exactly happy with the Muslim coup. So they sided both with the larger group and the group that, at least for now, is siding with them - keep in mind, these militia were around before the current president took over in a pretty ugly coup, and the minority animist/pagan/whatever group where already sided with the Christian majority even then. Mutual enemies make friends, or something like that.

The whole thing is pretty nuts though. Really sad to see.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

The think SC is bringing up is that there is a difference between people who happen to be christian who are killing people for, say land, money or whatever...and people who are killing other people because they are not christian or refuse to become christian...just change the words to "muslim" and the same thing applies. the question is.. if we use this argument with Christians, how many muslim terrorists officially disqualify themselves from being jihadingt terrorists because they are doing it for secular reasons, but happen to be muslim?

 

[seashale76]

Perhaps it's simply down to statistics.

 

[Senator Cheese]

The think SC is bringing up is that there is a difference between people who happen to be christian who are killing people for, say land, money or whatever...and people who are killing other people because they are not christian or refuse to become christian...just change the words to "muslim" and the same thing applies. the question is.. if we use this argument with Christians, how many muslim terrorists officially disqualify themselves from being jihadingt terrorists because they are doing it for secular reasons, but happen to be muslim?

Which terrorists are you referring to?
Because last I checked, the Islamic State is trying to establish... an Islamic State. Same goes for Boko Haram. Al Qaida. Hamas. Jabbat al Nusra. The Charlie Hebdo attacks were religiously motivated. Same goes for the Van Gogh fatwa and most other fatwas against Western journalists. And before you claim this is the fault of the West, you should read up on Jemaah Islamiah and the Islamic International Brigade.


EDIT: Listen, I'm not trying to incite hatred for Muslims in general, but we really do need to ask ourselves whether or not we should be "tolerant" and "culturally enriched" by a political ideology that seems to be messing up the entire planet as we speak. Any Muslim that denounces violence is a fine person, just like the Nazis or fascists who didn't think killing Jews or waging war was a swell idea. They both follow a detrimental ideology, but so long as they are not infringing on others, they're perfectly okay.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
No matter how hard we try to spin it, the US and their allies did not invade Iraq for "Christian reasons". The goal was never to establish a Christian state, or to force Christianity on the inhabitants, or to please the Christian God by fulfilling some biblical prophecy or the likes.

So because Christians aren't explicitly using the bible as justification, it makes their killings acceptable, or somehow less grievious?

Come on, that's ridiculous.

...
You are implying that the Christian/Hindu/Buddhist faith is just as capable of generating violence as the Islamic faith is.
My position, on the other hand, is that Islam is a political ideology that promotes violence on a grander scale and therefore should be subject to much scrutiny.

I've pointed out that Christians have killed far more people than Islamic terrorists in the last 50 years, so I say Christians should be subject to much scrutiny.

In reality, I'm not saying that. I'm saying both should be subject to the same scrutiny because they both kill far too much. Personally I think it is hypocritical to argue otherwise.

...
As such, it is not only possible but imperative to separate religion from other, non-religion based power struggles, in order to discuss the differing positions we both hold.

That would be nice, but in the case of America and Islam, both sides are interested in getting power, and both sides largely controlled by their religious beliefs. That one side is using religion more explicitly to gather it's soldiers is inconsequential.

IMO, if the roles were reversed, Muslims would be doing what Christians are doing, and Christians would be doing what Muslims are doing.

...
Off-Topic:
Before I became a Christian, I always viewed religion to be a shackle of humanity and a shackle to an individuals' personality. Why waste my life due to some moral standards set by some fictional character? Why run to church every sunday to please a God that doesn't seem to give a rat's cheese about how I feel? Why submit to a legal framework that defines my daily life and creates taboos?
Religion always gave me that vibe of mental incarceration - with all the religious individuals in my life (mostly Muslims, on a side note, but that's irrelevant) telling me about their rules and how they are behaving due to X or Y passage of scripture.
As such, I can see where you get that feeling from. I can understand it, because I felt the same way. It's hard for me to explain, but for me, faith has turned out to be something that feels liberating. It's good to know that a God loves me and accepts me with all my shortcomings. As such, I don't think you can blanket religions to be power-oriented - some degrees of faith are empowering, not overpowering.

Thanks for that. I used to be Christian, but lost my faith after deciding to read the entire bible for myself, and not let someone else tell me what to think.

I'm sincerely glad you found inner peace.

I still think it's glaringly obvious that religion is about seeking power. As they say, "The Proof is in the Pudding", and the one of the pudding's flavours is Christian and Muslim Gods are seemingly obsessed with what we do with our genitalia.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Which terrorists are you referring to?
Because last I checked, the Islamic State is trying to establish... an Islamic State. Same goes for Boko Haram. Al Qaida. Hamas. Jabbat al Nusra. The Charlie Hebdo attacks were religiously motivated. Same goes for the Van Gogh fatwa and most other fatwas against Western journalists. And before you claim this is the fault of the West, you should read up on Jemaah Islamiah and the Islamic International Brigade.

And there are a lot of Americans who want the USA to be a Christian nation that follows Christian doctrine.

Personally I laugh at this. The USA is essentially a Christian nation. You can't be POTUS if you're not Christian. Your government is almost entirely Christian. Your money says "In God We Trust". Your pledge of allegiance has "One Nation Under God". There seems to be a Christian church on nearly every corner.

Short of making Ray Comfort your president, there's not much more you can do.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

The think SC is bringing up is that there is a difference between people who happen to be christian who are killing people for, say land, money or whatever...and people who are killing other people because they are not christian or refuse to become christian...just change the words to "muslim" and the same thing applies. the question is.. if we use this argument with Christians, how many muslim terrorists officially disqualify themselves from being jihadingt terrorists because they are doing it for secular reasons, but happen to be muslim?

(bolding mine)

Interesting point.

If I imagine I was Iraqi, and my children had been killed in the initial bombing of Baghdad, and I wanted to seek revenge, joining Isis or some other Islamic based terror organization would be the way to go. Not because of my religious beliefs, but because they could best provide me with the means of seeking revenge.

And there must be a lot of Muslims who have had family members killed by the USA and other Western countries over the years. Certainly millions.

 

[Senator Cheese]

Okay, we need to clear up our positions beforehand:

A) We both agree that killing innocents is wrong and horrible.
B) My position: Islam promotes violence and killing and contains a huge political dimension and should therefore be met with the same scrutiny as other totalitarian political ideologies like Nazism.
C) Your position: All world religions promote violence equally, therefore scrutiny towards Islam is not warranted (more than scrutiny than, e.g., Christianity).

Scrutiny can be more closely defined once we reach a consensus. I'm thinking of justifying religious profiling, promoting awareness and establishing programs that aid individuals in leaving the ideology - similar to the programs established in Germany to help people get out of Nazi groups.

So because Christians aren't explicitly using the bible as justification, it makes their killings acceptable, or somehow less grievious?

Come on, that's ridiculous.

Nope. Of course not.
I'm just saying that if a Christian kills someone because he wants their oil/cash/power/brownies, then that has little to do with the ideology/religion of Christianity.

I've pointed out that Christians have killed far more people than Islamic terrorists in the last 50 years, so I say Christians should be subject to much scrutiny.

Blacks commit more crimes than Whites do.
Then again, they don't do it screaming "Black power" or "Kill them white boys", which makes their skin color seem irrelevant.
The same doesn't hold up for Muslims that decapitate children because they don't worship the same pedophile scumbag.

In reality, I'm not saying that. I'm saying both should be subject to the same scrutiny because they both kill far too much. Personally I think it is hypocritical to argue otherwise.

I think it's hypocritical to appease and defend ideologies that are totalitarian in nature.
Government funds go towards the construction of places of "worship" for an ideology bent on wrecking the constitutional foundation of our respective democracies. I'd rather have my tax dollars going towards the Church of Scientology than towards Islamic apologeticism.

Islam is an ideology that promotes violence, which can be observed when looking at how many people are becoming violent because of Islam.
Just like Nazism, steps must be taken to counteract this ideology.

That would be nice, but in the case of America and Islam, both sides are interested in getting power, and both sides largely controlled by their religious beliefs. That one side is using religion more explicitly to gather it's soldiers is inconsequential.

IMO, if the roles were reversed, Muslims would be doing what Christians are doing, and Christians would be doing what Muslims are doing.

If Palestinian Muslims (for example) were interested in getting power, they wouldn't risk their legitimate position of argumentation by killing random Jews and firing rockets indiscriminately into civillian areas, nor by stating that their goal is the fulfillment of an eschatological end times scenario in which they are aided in finding the last of Jews and killing them in a brutal and barbaric fashion.

Sorry, but where the secular world has advanced to shared decision making, Islam continues to preach a totalitarian system.

Thanks for that. I used to be Christian, but lost my faith after deciding to read the entire bible for myself, and not let someone else tell me what to think.

I'm sincerely glad you found inner peace.

I still think it's glaringly obvious that religion is about seeking power. As they say, "The Proof is in the Pudding", and the one of the pudding's flavours is Christian and Muslim Gods are seemingly obsessed with what we do with our genitalia.

I don't believe it's necessary to take the Bible without a grain of salt. Nonetheless, I find the idea that (as I already said) I'm [at worse] following a philosophy of compassion and humility and [at best] following the Son of God to be a very comforting position to be in.

It makes some things harder, such as reconciling military interventions with Jesus' pacifist approaches - or reconciling a deep concern towards the spread and barbarity of Islam while still viewing Muslims to be the victims of their own ideology and worthy of love.

Either way, I can understand your criticism of Christianity and am nonetheless glad to see that you're getting along well without it. In the end, I think it all boils down to what's in your heart.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Okay, we need to clear up our positions beforehand:

A) We both agree that killing innocents is wrong and horrible.
B) My position: Islam promotes violence and killing and contains a huge political dimension and should therefore be met with the same scrutiny as other totalitarian political ideologies like Nazism.
C) Your position: All world religions promote violence equally, therefore scrutiny towards Islam is not warranted (more than scrutiny than, e.g., Christianity).
...

C) is definitely off the mark.

My position is that world religions which promote violence and killing should be met with same scrutiny you feel Islam should be met with, ie the same scrutiny as other totalitarian political ideologies like Nazism.

The religions promoting violence and killing demonstrably include the Abrahamic trinity of religions.

My position is that it is wrong to justify "your side" their atrocities, while continuously attempting to demonize and dehumanize the "other side". People thinking like this is what led to the holocaust, and clearly, there is a lot of thinking like this.

 

[willows]

Christian militia in Central African Republic have carried out ethnic cleansing of the Muslim population during the country's ongoing civil war, but there is no proof there was genocidal intent, a United Nations commission of inquiry has determined.

The final report of the inquiry, which was submitted to the U.N. Security Council on Dec. 19, said up to 6,000 people had been killed though it "considers that such estimates fail to capture the full magnitude of the killings that occurred."

The mostly Christian or animist "anti-balaka" militia took up arms in 2013 in response to months of looting and killing by mostly Muslim Seleka rebels who had toppled President Francois Bozize and seized power in March the same year.

reuters.com/article/2015/01/08/us-centralafrica-inquiry-idUSKBN0KH2BM20150108

 

[TheBear]

Here in the 21st century, when we look at the scope, expanse and sheer numbers of people killed based on religious beliefs, there is no equivocation, not even close. To deny/ignore that, is to succumb to PC. (Remember, boys and girls, in the PC world, right and wrong are subservient to correct and incorrect.)

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Of course Christians, at times, kill Muslims. Just as there are Jew-on-Muslim violences too, but we don't hear much about that either. Essentially every group, in some degree kills another (aside from maybe Buddhist sects?). Sad, but true.

But yes, the whole Muslim killing Christians things has been WAY overblown in the western media for some years now, no doubt about it.


One qualm though, the anti-balaka militias are not A group. They are a number of different, individual groups, formed for the same purpose in the 90s. And it is not as simple as merely "Christians killing Muslims", it is an issue that involves both Muslim-based Seleka militias (once lead by the current president, but many refused to disband after he was elected) and anti-balaka militias warring against each other. And is an issue that involves far more than just religion at its basis.

To say it is merely "Christians killing Muslims" is just as oversimplified, and wrong, as saying the Seleka are merely "Muslims killing Christians".

Sadly, not so many people bother to grant the Muslims worldwide the same courtesy (of digging deeper into the reasons for the aggression of those Muslims who commit crimes). The facts for mainstream media and the general public often tend to begin and end at the religion of a Muslim.

"As the attackers themselves make as clear as they can, it's not religious fanaticism but rather political grievance that motivates these attacks. Religious conviction may make them more willing to fight (as it does for many in the west), but the motive is anger over what is being done by the US and its allies to Muslims. Those who claim otherwise are essentially saying: gosh, these Muslims sure do have this strange, primitive, inscrutable religion whereby they seem to get angry when they're invaded, occupied, bombed, killed, and have dictators externally imposed on them. It's vital to understand this causal relationship simply in order to prevent patent, tribalistic, self-glorifying falsehoods from taking hold."

The same motive for anti-US 'terrorism' is cited over and over | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | The Guardian

Btw, Buddhists are killing Muslims in Burma as well as Sri Lanka to a lesser degree. The Muslims of CAR were angry at the French because they see the French disarming the Muslim militias but seem to be letting the Christian ones largely roam armed. It's why the Muslims don't want the French "peacekeepers" there anymore. The UN said that there is an ethnic cleansing of the Muslims in CAR.