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

[Senator Cheese]

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.

Well, I would say it's good that you cleared that up. So your basic grievance is that world religions all promote violence to some degree or another, and you therefore believe all should be met with scrutiny, regardless of the degree or scope of the problems?
=> In that case, I do believe that such an attempt is not feasable. After all, Democrats committed barbaric atrocities during the French revolution - and yet this would not warrant "scrutiny" towards advocates of a Democracy.
I believe that scope and degree of violence incited does play a significant role for the derivation of policies.

I also want to make clear that I am by no way attempting to justify atrocities committed in the name of Christianity - it is just that I have yet to see many examples (apart from the witchhunts in Africa) in contemporary times of Christians killing XY because of Christianity.

I also don't want to dehumanize Muslims. In stark contrast - I think it's important to highlight the problems with Islam and to expose political ambitions of the religion in order to create dialogue and critical discourse. The problem I'm seeing is that criticism of this vile ideology is currently being actively surpressed out of fear of offending religious feelings.
Furthermore, governmental observations should treat political gatherings equally.

To me, Muslims are no different from the many Germans who followed Hitler during the third Reich: far from all Germans were violent - far from all were even remotely interested in the expansionist wars or systematic ethnic cleansings. However, a small minority was able to come a long way because a silent majority condoned the actions - in part due to feelings of "revenge" or perceived economic injustice, but just as much due to the idealization of an intrinsically evil ideology that promotes not the equality of man but the segregation of people into humans of different qualities to the extent that life itself could be considered "unworthy".
The way that the world handled Nazism and the way that Germany itself overcame this despicable ideology should be the basis for dealing with totalitarian ideologies in the future: by meeting its adherents with no appeasement and instead looking at political reeducation to show the virtues of a secular, democratic state that protects the rights of minorities from infringement.
To dehumanize Muslims and to hold them responsible for the indoctrination they are subject to is wrong. Islam is being taught by a ruling class - a political-spiritual caste that exerts its influence across the globe by controlling both the teachings and teachers in mosques all over the world. This is exerted both by paragovernmental structures ("terror groups" like Al-Qaeda, but also by more secular approaches like the Gülen movement) and by national governments we are, in part, actively supporting (Saudi Arabia, Iran).

This problem should not be underestimated and it should be counteracted by strict governmental control over the content being preached and by curtailing foreign influence on local mosque centers (see the latest Austrian legislation in this regard).

Secular governments need to take a proactive stance to promote critical thinking in the sense that Mohammad is unmasked as both a pedophile and a criminal, genocidal warlord - and that the political aspect of Islam fails in its execution because it is an inherently fascist model of governance.
=> Now, I'm going to expect you to say "but, what about all the OT 'heroes' that committed horrible crimes" - and yes, you're absolutely right. Those need to be discussed regardless of "religious feeling" aswell. However, on my "priorities list", I see less of a problem with Christian extremists (apart from the attacks on science, which are a problem in every nation - here in Germany, it's the alternative health advocates), and thus the state should and must focus on the Islamic faith first.

tl;dr: Islam is causing problems and we need to address that. Muslims aren't at fault (thus shouldn't be "dehumanized") since they're brought up and indoctrinated in this ideology from birth, much akin to how Germans were brought up in the 1930's. German denazification must be used as a model for deislamization.

 

[TheBear]

There is a difference between bible preaching Christians and Roman Catholics.

What does this have to do with the OP?

 

[Senator Cheese]

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.

Aren't you the one that's celebrating that Al-Qaeda is establishing a caliphate in Syria?
And you're complaining about Muslim stereotyping?

It's a strange world we live in.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Well, I would say it's good that you cleared that up. So your basic grievance is that world religions all promote violence to some degree or another, and you therefore believe all should be met with scrutiny, regardless of the degree or scope of the problems?

Who is going to decide which religion wins the battle of degree or scope? Are we going to go by body count? Then Christians win. Are we going to go by stealing and taking away freedom? Then Judaism wins. Are we going to go by the opinion of the Western public? Then Islam wins.

I believe that scope and degree of violence incited does play a significant role for the derivation of policies.

I agree. Unfortunately apologists such as yourself refuse to admit the scope of Christian atrocities.

I also want to make clear that I am by no way attempting to justify atrocities committed in the name of Christianity - it is just that I have yet to see many examples (apart from the witchhunts in Africa) in contemporary times of Christians killing XY because of Christianity.

GWB had prayer meetings daily regarding the Invasion of Iraq. Wolfowitz included biblical scripture with his briefings. The American government is almost exclusively Christian. But Christianity gets a pass?

Well, that's convenient eh?

Let's also include The Lord's Resistance Army, the IRA, the Orangemen, the Klu Klux Klan, Aryan Nations. There are plenty out there, and the fact that you don't know about any of them, while simultaneously creating thread after thread about the evil of Islam, indicates your, and other Christians, large bias.

Hey, you can prove me wrong by getting rid of your Muslim mocking sig picture, and put in an equivalent Christian mocking sig picture. I'll bet an equivalent Christian mocking sig picture gets banned in less than 24 hours.

To me, Muslims are no different from the many Germans who followed Hitler during the third Reich: far from all Germans were violent - far from all were even remotely interested in the expansionist wars or systematic ethnic cleansings. However, a small minority was able to come a long way because a silent majority condoned the actions - in part due to feelings of "revenge" or perceived economic injustice, but just as much due to the idealization of an intrinsically evil ideology that promotes not the equality of man but the segregation of people into humans of different qualities to the extent that life itself could be considered "unworthy".

You do realize that the people you are trying to compare Muslims to were Christian, right? That Hitler and Germans were Christians? That you are saying Muslims behave like Christians? Yeah, you broke my irony meter. Please, take a look in the mirror, and realize that it's a Muslim looking back you.

The difference between you and I is that I understand that Muslims and Christians are both human, that both are driven by very similar holy books, that both are driven by the same desires, and that fundamentalists of both will and have committed atrocities to achieve their goals. You, like your Muslim counterparts, are blinded by religion.

 

[Senator Cheese]

Who is going to decide the degree or scope? Are we going to go by body count? Then Christians win. Are we going to go by stealing and taking away freedom? Then Judaism wins. Are we going to go by the opinion of the American public? Then Islam wins.

We are analyzing the intentions or driving force behind terrorism.

For the secular world, that driving intention is geostrategic power, access to resources or - in short - economic prosperity. As such, a strategy to reduce wars between secular groups is to provide economic incentives for peace. This has been applied, successfully - both by economic/technological cooperation and by organization of economic sanctions for transgressions in international law.

For fundamentalists, the driving force is the ideology behind the gun. In the case of Islam, it is the Quoran and the teachings of the Hadiths, that not only legitimize but actively promote violence. As such, a strategy to curtail this terror is to structurally and systematically dismantle the ideology.

If Christians are burning witches, then thart part of Christianity must be addressed, delegitimized and debunked. Those who condone these acts because they believe that witchburning is within the scope of "gawdz will" must be met with the full disrespect of the international community, must be mocked, shamed, discussed with - political reeducation can take so many forms.

I agree. Unfortunately apologists such as yourself refuse to admit the scope of Christian atrocities.

GWB had prayer meetings daily regarding the Invasion of Iraq. Wolfowitz included biblical scripture with his briefings. The American government is almost exclusively Christian. But Christianity gets a pass?

Well, that's convenient eh?

Do you honestly believe that the US invaded Iraq due to Christian beliefs?

The driving force behind the invasion of Iraq was (most likely) geostrategic power, perhaps even directly economic (if there's anything to the petroldollar conspiracy theory). I don't believe eschatology or any other Christian beliefs were the primary motivation.

If it were, you would be correct.

Let's also include The Lord's Resistance Army, the IRA, the Orangemen, the Klu Klux Klan, Aryan Nations. There are plenty out there, and the fact that you don't know about any of them, while simultaneously creating thread after thread about the evil of Islam, indicates your, and other Christians, extreme bias.

I don't know all of the above groups. Particularly, I am unfamiliar with the Orangemen and the Aryan Nations - latter, I only know as a Neonazi group so I'm guessing you're referring to a different group.

You also describe Christians. Well done.

The difference between you and I is that I understand that Muslims and Christians are both human, that both are driven by very similar holy books, that both are driven by very similar desires, and that fundamentalists of both will and have committed atrocities to achieve their goals.

Both are driven by similar desires (to please whomever they consider their Lord), both are human and both have fundamendalists hell-bent on seeing the world burn. By induction, you might even strike up parallels between the holy books of both groups - but empirically, Islam promotes violence in unprecedented forms unmatched by any other world religion. Why? Perhaps due to the political nature, its totalitarian reglementation of everyday life or because of its violent founders. I think it's the political nature, but really I can't put a finger on it.

 

[Senator Cheese]

You do realize that the people you are trying to compare Muslims to were Christian, right? That Hitler and Germans were Christians? That you are saying Muslims behave like Christians? Yeah, you broke my irony meter. Please, take a look in the mirror, and realize that it's a Muslim looking back you.

<OFF TOPIC> For the record, Hitler was no Christian during his reign.
Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Speer, Hitler stated in private, "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[228] Speer also stated that when he was discussing with Hitler events which might have occurred had Islam absorbed Europe:

Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire."
&#8212; Albert Speer[228]
Similarly, Hitler was transcribed as saying:

'Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers [...] then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world.[230]</OFFTOPIC>

Regardless, the faith of regime members is irrelevant to the discussion because it was not the driving force of their atrocities. The ideology behind the expansionist wars and ethnic cleansing was Nazism - a subsummation of eugenic beliefs and an obsession with the thought of a superhuman "Aryan" race. That, and rampant antisemitism because Jews are always a great target for all typse of shenanigans.

You keep citing Christians who happen to coincidentally commit criminal acts as evidence for shortcomings in Christianity. That's like saying black skin color produces violence because there are African Americans who commit crimes.

We are not talking about a death tally - we are analyzing what the root cause of violence is and then comparing both ideological bases.
In other words: feel free to refer to Christian abortion clinic bombers and witchhunts - but steer clear from the Iraqi invasion or the Nazi regime.

You, like your Muslim counterparts, are blinded by religion.

I doubt it. In fact, I am having a difficult time reconciling my religion with my political views. Jesus teaches to turn the other cheek, to love your neighbor and to be peaceful. I on the other hand believe that in these times, preemptive strikes against terrorist facilities are a necessary means to reduce evil.
Hypocritical? Definetely. Like I said, this is no easy topic for me.
Either way, as stated, Muslims aren't per se evil people - but it is important to highlight the fact that Islam is a detrimental ideology and a danger to world peace and democracy.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

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.

Are yoy saying that due to the politico-religious nature of Islam, that has been since the beginning, that there is no real difference between people who are muslims that are taking over territory and muslims who are taking over territory because some obscure hadith/koranic verse told them to?

Christianity wasn't born into a political-religious idea, that was a blasphemy that Constantine was first to pervert and exploit. We are still feeling the repercussions of that today as folks like Think continue to lament about past Christian crimes committed with political leaders fusing their politics[ some which are polar opposite of christian principles] with the church.


I am saying IS might be starting a Islamic state, not because they actually care about Islam, but because they want absolute control over people. You seem to suggest that "pure Islam' does not make such a separation of spirituality and politics.

 

[Senator Cheese]

Are yoy saying that due to the politico-religious nature of Islam, that has been since the beginning, that there is no real difference between people who are muslims that are taking over territory and muslims who are taking over territory because some obscure hadith/koranic verse told them to?

No - I am saying there's a difference between a Muslim going "hey, you have shiny Gold, let be grab that!" and a Muslim going "hey, you're a homosexual and my God says I should kill homosexuals so get ready for a can of whooooopaaaasss".
In one instance, the motivation/incentive is monetary - as such, combatting this violence means providing economic relief.
In the other instance, the motivation/incentive is ideological - as such, combatting this violence means reeducation and debunking the ideology.

Christianity wasn't born into a political-religious idea, that was a blasphemy that Constantine was first to pervert and exploit. We are still feeling the repercussions of that today as folks like Think continue to lament about past Christian crimes committed with political leaders fusing their politics[ some which are polar opposite of christian principles] with the church.

Agreed.

I am saying IS might be starting a Islamic state, not because they actually care about Islam, but because they want absolute control over people. You seem to suggest that "pure Islam' does not make such a separation of spirituality and politics.

I actually do believe that IS cares about Islam. Total control over people is one thing - but IS would have, strategically, been better off if they presented themselves to be a viable, democratic alternative to Assad. They'd have international support and economic prosperity in little time. However, they chose their own ideological principles over the rational approach, which is why they're being bombed to bits and pieces for decapitating whomever they considered kafirs.
=> Which, in turn, shows that ISIS is ideology-driven, not driven by a rational strategy for power.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

<OFF TOPIC> For the record, Hitler was no Christian during his reign.
Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geez, a religious view of Hitler shows Hitler's religion trying to disown him?

Who'da thunk eh?

Hitler was Catholic, he never renounced his religion, etc. The evidence points to Hitler being a Christian, the apologetics play word games trying to show he wasn't.

According to Speer, Hitler stated in private, "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[228] Speer also stated that when he was discussing with Hitler events which might have occurred had Islam absorbed Europe:

Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire."
— Albert Speer[228]
Similarly, Hitler was transcribed as saying:

'Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers [...] then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world.[230]</OFFTOPIC>

Thanks for including this.

Regardless, the faith of regime members is irrelevant to the discussion because it was not the driving force of their atrocities. The ideology behind the expansionist wars and ethnic cleansing was Nazism - a subsummation of eugenic beliefs and an obsession with the thought of a superhuman "Aryan" race. That, and rampant antisemitism because Jews are always a great target for all typse of shenanigans.

You keep citing Christians who happen to coincidentally commit criminal acts as evidence for shortcomings in Christianity. That's like saying black skin color produces violence because there are African Americans who commit crimes.

Dude, you're the one who made the long explanation of how Muslims are like Nazis and Germans in Nazi German. Who started off the whole explanation with: "this is how I feel about Muslims."

Nazis and Germans in Nazi German were Christians. They had it stamped on their belt buckles: "In God We Trust".

Those are your feelings. You stated them. You stated that Muslims are behaving like Christians. LOL, I'm not going to let you weasel out of it.

We are not talking about a death tally - we are analyzing what the root cause of violence is and then comparing both ideological bases.
In other words: feel free to refer to Christian abortion clinic bombers and witchhunts - but steer clear from the Iraqi invasion or the Nazi regime.

How about this:

Bush:God told me to invade Iraq:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-6262644.html

President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians.


The President made the assertion during his first meeting with Palestinian leaders in June 2003, according to a BBC series which will be broadcast this month.

Of course you probably won't like that this was said in private. But we know you accept that as evidence because of your quote trying to prove Hitler's lack of religion in this very post: "According to Speer, Hitler stated in private...".

By the way, that's why I said "thanks for including this.", what a gift.

So, please quit pretending that beliefs don't drive actions. Christian's actions are driven by their Christian beliefs. Thread after thread on this forum confirms that. Christians are constantly talking about doing the Christian thing.

So the fact that Bush doesn't come out and say he is invading Iraq because God told him to...oh wait...he DID say that! ... doesn't mean that Christianity didn't play a big roll in it. He had daily prayer meetings on it. His advisor included scripture with his briefings. Obviously GWB couldn't come out and tell the media it was "a Holy War."

Pretending that Christianity wasn't a huge part of the invasion of Iraq, and other actions by the USA, is completely dishonest in my opinion.

I doubt it. In fact, I am having a difficult time reconciling my religion with my political views. Jesus teaches to turn the other cheek, to love your neighbor and to be peaceful. I on the other hand believe that in these times, preemptive strikes against terrorist facilities are a necessary means to reduce evil.
Hypocritical? Definetely. Like I said, this is no easy topic for me.
Either way, as stated, Muslims aren't per se evil people - but it is important to highlight the fact that Islam is a detrimental ideology and a danger to world peace and democracy.

And if you aren't white, Christianity is "a detrimental ideology and a danger to world peace and democracy."

Go look at all the puppet governments the largely Christian USA has put in place to the detriment of the people.

Go look at the Catholic Church's policy on condoms in Africa, and the millions of people who are dying of AIDs.

Go talk to the citizens of Iraq.

Go talk to the blacks in South Africa.

Go talk to the blacks in the USA.

Go talk to the First Nations people of North America.

 

[Vylo]

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.

Kenya attack: 147 dead in Garissa University assault - BBC News

Who are Somalia's al-Shabab? - BBC News

 

[SuperCloud]

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.

So, let me get this right. The US Congress and President Obama and the vast majority of American Democrats are influenced by Christian fundamentalism? And the evidence for this is the wide spread support for gay marriage? And of course, the lack of appeal "separation between church and state."

I helped kill Muslim Iraqis in the 1st Gulf War. So, I will agree with you that the USA is one of the world's greatest killing machines. It is arguably the most war mongering nation since ancient pagan Rome.

However, we kill and assassinate for secularism. For what any scholar would call secular ideology. Not religion. Democracy and capitalism is what US crusader wars are for.

The United States does not war to spread Christian theocracy.

But I should be surprised that as an atheist or agnostic you'll refuse to be accountable for the US secular wars or the atheist Cambodian killing fields or atheist Chinese brutality in Tibet?

I'm a big sympathizer of Muslims. Particularly Arab Muslims. But here's the deal. Islam currently has been into it with Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and not just Christians. The current leader of Egypt El Sisi--I think is how you spell or say his name--recognizes this and is one of the great leaders of our time. He endears me more to Egypt and Muslim Egypt than Obama does to the USA.

The differences between Christianity and Islam on certain doctrinal issues are greater in gap than any differences between Democrats and Republicans. There really is no significant gap in difference between President Obama and American atheists or American agnostics. Or you can please tell me how Obama is pushing the doctrinal beliefs of Christianity on to all Americans?

Christians have been cruel people. You only need look what they did throughout the Americas. And plenty of them were absolutely wicked people. You'll find plenty of wicked Christians today that get patted on the back by other Christians too.

Actually, humans are prone to fighting over just about anything and putting themselves in cliques. May just be part of being the species. Look at the violence at soccer games in some countries.

But I will acknowledge you have plenty of Christians that make hateful remarks about Muslims on the internet. I'm personally a big admirer of Muslims, even Muslim women. I don't even dislike those young Muslim women from the UK that were medical students or doctors that traveled overseas to join the Islamic State (ISIS). I'm hazarding a guess they'd view me as a "cool liberal" . I have no desire for homosexuals to be hurt or killed. So, they'd view my proposition of homosexuality and heterosexuality being addictions as merely meek and tolerant.

I blame the USA--that includes the atheists and agnostics--for what evolved into ISIS more than I do Islam or Muslims. But hopefully Muslims like El Sisi will fix what the USA helped create.

 

[Oafman]

I realise that Sisi speaks out against Islamism. But he also stages military coups to overthrow elected governments, executes his political opponents and locks up journalists.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

So, let me get this right. The US Congress and President Obama and the vast majority of American Democrats are influenced by Christian fundamentalism? And the evidence for this is the wide spread support for gay marriage? And of course, the lack of appeal "separation between church and state."

This statement doesn't make sense in terms of our discussion. You might want to read some previous posts and familiarize yourself with the conversation.

I helped kill Muslim Iraqis in the 1st Gulf War. So, I will agree with you that the USA is one of the world's greatest killing machines. It is arguably the most war mongering nation since ancient pagan Rome.

However, we kill and assassinate for secularism. For what any scholar would call secular ideology. Not religion. Democracy and capitalism is what US crusader wars are for.

The United States does not war to spread Christian theocracy.

I argue that religion guides beliefs, and beliefs guide actions.

During the invasion of Iraq, the president was Christian and held daily prayer meetings, his adviser included biblical scripture with his briefings, the government is almost exclusively Christian, the soldiers were largely Christian.

I think it's a pretty poor argument to claim Muslims fight in the name of religion, but Christians don't. Besides, apparently GWB admitted that God told him to invade Iraq. (Check previous post for link to bbc dot com)

But I should be surprised that as an atheist or agnostic you'll refuse to be accountable for the US secular wars or the atheist Cambodian killing fields or atheist Chinese brutality in Tibet?

Off topic. I'm against secular killing as well. I worked with a woman shortly after she escaped Cambodia during Pol Pot's tenure. The stories she could tell. Uggh.

I'm a big sympathizer of Muslims. Particularly Arab Muslims. But here's the deal. Islam currently has been into it with Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and not just Christians. The current leader of Egypt El Sisi--I think is how you spell or say his name--recognizes this and is one of the great leaders of our time. He endears me more to Egypt and Muslim Egypt than Obama does to the USA.

Already discussed.

The differences between Christianity and Islam on certain doctrinal issues are greater in gap than any differences between Democrats and Republicans. There really is no significant gap in difference between President Obama and American atheists or American agnostics. Or you can please tell me how Obama is pushing the doctrinal beliefs of Christianity on to all Americans?

I'm sure there are some major doctrinal gaps. But Muslims and Christians are both Abrahamic religions, and it shows. Especially when you get into a discussion with them about the existence of their God, or the veracity of the bible/qu'ran. You can't tell the difference.

Christians have been cruel people. You only need look what they did throughout the Americas. And plenty of them were absolutely wicked people. You'll find plenty of wicked Christians today that get patted on the back by other Christians too.

Actually, humans are prone to fighting over just about anything and putting themselves in cliques. May just be part of being the species. Look at the violence at soccer games in some countries.

But I will acknowledge you have plenty of Christians that make hateful remarks about Muslims on the internet. I'm personally a big admirer of Muslims, even Muslim women. I don't even dislike those young Muslim women from the UK that were medical students or doctors that traveled overseas to join the Islamic State (ISIS). I'm hazarding a guess they'd view me as a "cool liberal" . I have no desire for homosexuals to be hurt or killed. So, they'd view my proposition of homosexuality and heterosexuality being addictions as merely meek and tolerant.

I blame the USA--that includes the atheists and agnostics--for what evolved into ISIS more than I do Islam or Muslims. But hopefully Muslims like El Sisi will fix what the USA helped create.

The reason I created this thread was because I saw thread after thread pointing out negatives about Muslims, and reading post after post by Christians saying how bad Muslims are, and sometimes much worse.

I decided to do a bit of research and see if there was some hypocrisy going on. There was. Hopefully by point it out, people will turn down the anti-Muslim rhetoric on this forum.

Just so you know, I'm against all violence and killing, be it Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Secular, or anything else.

 

[Senator Cheese]

Geez, a religious view of Hitler shows Hitler's religion trying to disown him?

Who'da thunk eh?

Hitler was Catholic, he never renounced his religion, etc. The evidence points to Hitler being a Christian, the apologetics play word games trying to show he wasn't.

I find it funny that you're trying to lecture me on the history of my own country. Hitler was about as much a practicing Christian as you are. He had absolute disdain for what he considered a "too pacifist" approach of Christianity while he adored Islam for its very militant code of conduct.

(Really, it doesn't matter for the sake of this argument, but the religious views of Hitler most certainly didn't encompass him identifying as Christian or praying to Jesus. He only attended mass as a young boy and later went out to slam the Church at any opportunity, which isn't to say the Church didn't collaborate.)

Dude, you're the one who made the long explanation of how Muslims are like Nazis and Germans in Nazi German. Who started off the whole explanation with: "this is how I feel about Muslims."

Nazis and Germans in Nazi German were Christians. They had it stamped on their belt buckles: "In God We Trust".

Those are your feelings. You stated them. You stated that Muslims are behaving like Christians. LOL, I'm not going to let you weasel out of it.

Yeah, I said that Muslims are slaves to their ideology and therefore I hold no personal grudges. Much like Nazis were a slave to their own ideology, and only a tiny minority actively supported violence and was fueled by the belief that antisemitism and eugenics were the way to go.

Again, you're dancing around a simple hypothesis:
This house believes that Islam is an ideology that condones and incites violence in a manner that is greater than that of other World Religions.

Tell me how I'm trying to "weasel out of that" again?

How about this:

Bush:God told me to invade Iraq:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-6262644.html

President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians.


The President made the assertion during his first meeting with Palestinian leaders in June 2003, according to a BBC series which will be broadcast this month.

Of course you probably won't like that this was said in private. But we know you accept that as evidence because of your quote trying to prove Hitler's lack of religion in this very post: "According to Speer, Hitler stated in private...".

By the way, that's why I said "thanks for including this.", what a gift.

I never made the claim that Hitler went to war because of Islam. I am not denying that Hitler deeply admired the militant ideology because it was very compatible with the warrior creed he was trying to establish.

The fact that GWB had personal beliefs that compelled him to take action against Iraq is a shaky assertation. Not to mention the fact that Dubya didn't personally decide that the US was going to war, but that this decision was mapped out in all planes of your government - from nongovernmental think tanks all the way to your very own parliament.

Again, you may cite witchhunting and abortion clinic bombers as examples of Christian fundamentalism - but to imply that the United States spent billions of dollars to invade Iraq in order to spread Christianity or because of supposed Christian eschatological beliefs is simply ludicrous. It's like saying "well look, black skin color causes crime because there are blacks who commit crime". There is no correlation, there is no causation. There's simply nothing that would be feasable to back up your hypothesis.

So, please quit pretending that beliefs don't drive actions. Christian's actions are driven by their Christian beliefs. Thread after thread on this forum confirms that. Christians are constantly talking about doing the Christian thing.

So the fact that Bush doesn't come out and say he is invading Iraq because God told him to...oh wait...he DID say that! ... doesn't mean that Christianity didn't play a big roll in it. He had daily prayer meetings on it. His advisor included scripture with his briefings. Obviously GWB couldn't come out and tell the media it was "a Holy War."

Pretending that Christianity wasn't a huge part of the invasion of Iraq, and other actions by the USA, is completely dishonest in my opinion.

It's completely fabricated to assume that Christian beliefs led the US to invade Iraq. Sorry, but that hypothesis is completely ridiculous.

And if you aren't white, Christianity is "a detrimental ideology and a danger to world peace and democracy."

Go look at all the puppet governments the largely Christian USA has put in place to the detriment of the people.

Go look at the Catholic Church's policy on condoms in Africa, and the millions of people who are dying of AIDs.

Go talk to the citizens of Iraq.

Go talk to the blacks in South Africa.

Go talk to the blacks in the USA.

Go talk to the First Nations people of North America.

Except your point about the Catholic Church, I fail to see how any of your supposed examples relate to Christianity.

Again, you're pretending that Christianity as an ideology is as hateful as Islam by attributing any wrongdoing to this religion. Where suicide bombers say they are bombing away schoolchildren for Islam, you are coming up with Apartheid in South Africa because.. "dem Christianz"?

If you decapitate Yezhidis because they are religious minorities and because you believe your religion tells you that this is your holy duty, then yes, that has something to do with Islam.

If you oppress South African blacks because you enjoy being filthy rich, then no that has nothing to do with Christianity. (Unless, of course, your Christian religion tells you that being filthy rich is your holy duty)

Your basis of argumentation revolves around the implication that all actions of Christians can somehow be attributed to Christianity. That'd be like me saying that "being white is bad because look at how many white people kill each other". Or "brown hair is bad because look Hitler".
Hitler didn't kill anyone because he had brown hair.
Christians didn't oppress Blacks in South Africa because they were Christians.
IS decapitated Yezhidids because they are Islamic fundamentalists.
Abortion clinic bombers bombed clinics because they are Christian fundamentalists.

And now, finally, we can compare ideologies by comparing the scale of violence directly attributable. And here, we will see that every world religion and every political ideology produces a basic level of violence, whereas some ideologies (fascism, Islam, totalitarianism) produce excess amounts of violence.

 

[Senator Cheese]

So, let me get this right. The US Congress and President Obama and the vast majority of American Democrats are influenced by Christian fundamentalism? And the evidence for this is the wide spread support for gay marriage? And of course, the lack of appeal "separation between church and state."

I helped kill Muslim Iraqis in the 1st Gulf War. So, I will agree with you that the USA is one of the world's greatest killing machines. It is arguably the most war mongering nation since ancient pagan Rome.

However, we kill and assassinate for secularism. For what any scholar would call secular ideology. Not religion. Democracy and capitalism is what US crusader wars are for.

The United States does not war to spread Christian theocracy.

But I should be surprised that as an atheist or agnostic you'll refuse to be accountable for the US secular wars or the atheist Cambodian killing fields or atheist Chinese brutality in Tibet?

I'm a big sympathizer of Muslims. Particularly Arab Muslims. But here's the deal. Islam currently has been into it with Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and not just Christians. The current leader of Egypt El Sisi--I think is how you spell or say his name--recognizes this and is one of the great leaders of our time. He endears me more to Egypt and Muslim Egypt than Obama does to the USA.

The differences between Christianity and Islam on certain doctrinal issues are greater in gap than any differences between Democrats and Republicans. There really is no significant gap in difference between President Obama and American atheists or American agnostics. Or you can please tell me how Obama is pushing the doctrinal beliefs of Christianity on to all Americans?

Christians have been cruel people. You only need look what they did throughout the Americas. And plenty of them were absolutely wicked people. You'll find plenty of wicked Christians today that get patted on the back by other Christians too.

Actually, humans are prone to fighting over just about anything and putting themselves in cliques. May just be part of being the species. Look at the violence at soccer games in some countries.

But I will acknowledge you have plenty of Christians that make hateful remarks about Muslims on the internet. I'm personally a big admirer of Muslims, even Muslim women. I don't even dislike those young Muslim women from the UK that were medical students or doctors that traveled overseas to join the Islamic State (ISIS). I'm hazarding a guess they'd view me as a "cool liberal" . I have no desire for homosexuals to be hurt or killed. So, they'd view my proposition of homosexuality and heterosexuality being addictions as merely meek and tolerant.

I blame the USA--that includes the atheists and agnostics--for what evolved into ISIS more than I do Islam or Muslims. But hopefully Muslims like El Sisi will fix what the USA helped create.

1.) Full agrement on the first part of your post.
2.) Would you agree that there are ideologies more prone to incite violence, and ideologies that are less prone to do so? How would you fit Islam into a scale of "pacifist" to "militant"? Where would you add in "fascism", "Christianity", "Buddhism", "Hinduism", "Judaism"?
3.) Err, you're kidding about the "cool liberal" view, right?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I find it funny that you're trying to lecture me on the history of my own country.

Yeah, the Canadian educational system is one of the best in the world. I'm one of the lucky beneficiaries.

Although admittedly it has gone downhill the last few years, really since the Conservatives got elected.

Again, you may cite witchhunting and abortion clinic bombers as examples of Christian fundamentalism - but to imply that the United States spent billions of dollars to invade Iraq in order to spread Christianity or because of supposed Christian eschatological beliefs is simply ludicrous.

And yet you make that claim regarding all the attacks by people of the Islamic faith.

Except your point about the Catholic Church, I fail to see how any of your supposed examples relate to Christianity.

ROFL! You're not Catholic, so it's OK to blame them. You're ideas are priceless.

Again, you're pretending that Christianity as an ideology is as hateful as Islam

Well, Christian ideology is based on the bible, and Islamic ideology is based on the Qu'ran.

I say the beliefs of Muslims and Christians are very similar, you say they are very different. Let's start by comparing what should happen to non-believers. I'll go first:

Kill them all, men, women and children:
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)

If even one person is a non-believer, kill and destroy the entire town:
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-15)

If anyone in your family is a non-believer, kill them:
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)

Kill the non-believer:
Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 )

Kill all the non-believers:
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." ([/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Luke 19:27) [/FONT]

====================================

I got lot's more, but I think I've made my point. Your turn.

 

[classicalhero]

Thinkforyourself is a rather ironic name when you do so little thinking and repeating the mantra over and over again.

About Hitler. Hitler's Persecution of the Christian Churches
His actions speak louder than words and the fact that one crime him and the NAZI's were charged with for in crimes against humanity was his persecution of the Christian Church. Word for Word/The Case Against the Nazis - How Hitler's Forces Planned To Destroy German Christianity - NYTimes.com

The first installment, published last week on the Web site of the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion (www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion), includes a 108-page outline prepared by O.S.S. investigators to aid Nuremberg prosecutors. The outline, ''The Persecution of the Christian Churches,'' summarizes the Nazi plan to subvert and destroy German Christianity, which it calls ''an integral part of the National Socialist scheme of world conquest.''
Verbatim excerpts from the outline would require extensive explanations. Instead, the outline is summarized below. JOE SHARKEY
In the 1920's, as they battled for power, the Nazis realized that the churches in overwhelmingly Christian Germany needed to be neutralized before they would get anywhere. Two-thirds of German Christians were Protestants, belonging to one of 28 regional factions of the German Evangelical Church. Most of the rest were Roman Catholics. On one level, the Nazis saw an advantage. In tumultuous post-World War I Germany, the Christian churches ''had long been associated with conservative ways of thought, which meant that they tended to agree with the National Socialists in their authoritarianism, their attacks on Socialism and Communism, and in their campaign against the Versailles treaty'' that had ended World War I with a bitterly resentful Germany.
But there was a dilemma for Hitler. While conservatives, the Christian churches ''could not be reconciled with the principle of racism, with a foreign policy of unlimited aggressive warfare, or with a domestic policy involving the complete subservience of Church to State.'' Given that these were the fundamental underpinnings of the Nazi regime, ''conflict was inevitable,'' the summary states. It came, as Nazi power surged in the late 1920's toward national domination in the early 30's.
According to Baldur von Schirach, the Nazi leader of the German youth corps that would later be known as the Hitler Youth, ''the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement'' from the beginning, though ''considerations of expedience made it impossible'' for the movement to adopt this radical stance officially until it had consolidated power, the outline says.
Attracted by the strategic value inherent in the churches' ''historic mission of conservative social discipline,'' the Nazis simply lied and made deals with the churches while planning a ''slow and cautious policy of gradual encroachment'' to eliminate Christianity.
The prosecution investigators describe this as a criminal conspiracy. ''This general plan had been established even before the rise of the Nazis to power,'' the outline says. ''It apparently came out of discussions among an inner circle'' comprised of Hitler himself, other top Nazi leaders including the propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, and a collection of party enforcers and veteran beer-hall agitators.

Of course you must know more than the people who were charged with the prosecuting case against those on trail and the man hours put into the case.

But since you are n atheist, you should look very hard at your beliefs, since atheism is by far the biggest killer of them all. The last century was the bloodiest century of them all and the rise of atheism was a massive contributor to it. By their fruits, Jesus said, do you know what they believe. I men you had to look at one of the worst case scenarios to even get a glimpse into what you want to believe to be true. But just because someone says they are Christian, doesn't make it so, since they need to bring forth fruits of repentance.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Thinkforyourself is a rather ironic name when you do so little thinking and repeating the mantra over and over again.

Well, some people are slow on the uptake.

And there are some people on this forum who definitely need to learn a few things, so I might as well use a good teaching strategy, right?
Strategies for Using Repetition as a Powerful Teaching Tool

Brain research indicates that repetition is of vital importance in the learning process.


I'm glad you joined the discussion.

About Hitler...

You can make a case for Hitler either way, to deny that is silly.

There is no question that Christianity played a role in the Holocaust: Christians were the ones who committed the atrocities.

But since you are n atheist, you should look very hard at your beliefs, since atheism is by far the biggest killer of them all. The last century was the bloodiest century of them all and the rise of atheism was a massive contributor to it.

Talk is cheap. Have any proof?

Now here is a Christian group (with proof ) Note that these guys are really Christians. The Holy Spirit spoke to the founder.

Lord's Resistance Army

The Lord&#8217;s Resistance Army began life in the early 1980&#8217;s as the Holy Spirit Movement, led by a woman called Alice Lakwena who claimed the Holy Spirit had ordered her to overthrow the Ugandan government

The rebels often masquerade as military soldiers, or pounce as villagers gather together for occasions such as church services. They launch vicious attacks, killing the weak and the old with machetes, swords or stones, and cutting off people&#8217;s ears, lips and noses to serve as a warning to others. The rebels capture those who can be useful to them, including children strong enough to carry weapons. The captives are tied together and marched to camps where they are violently indoctrinated and turned into soldiers, porters, cooks, or sex slaves. Captives are often forced to kill or rape family members, making it impossible for them to think about returning home. Those who do resist or try to escape are tortured and killed.

By their fruits, Jesus said, do you know what they believe. I men you had to look at one of the worst case scenarios to even get a glimpse into what you want to believe to be true. But just because someone says they are Christian, doesn't make it so, since they need to bring forth fruits of repentance.

Interesting point.

So, do you apply the same reasoning to Islam?

When you saw the headline: Muslims kill 147 in Kenya, did you think "Those weren't real Muslims"?

If you think there is a difference between Muslims and Christians (I'm arguing they are essentially the same), why not join in the ideology debate? I started out giving Christian ideology regarding non-believers in post #36.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I realise that Sisi speaks out against Islamism.

That's a good thing.

But he also stages military coups to overthrow elected governments, executes his political opponents and locks up journalists.

That's not a good thing.

 

[SuperCloud]

1.) Full agrement on the first part of your post.
2.) Would you agree that there are ideologies more prone to incite violence, and ideologies that are less prone to do so? How would you fit Islam into a scale of "pacifist" to "militant"? Where would you add in "fascism", "Christianity", "Buddhism", "Hinduism", "Judaism"?
3.) Err, you're kidding about the "cool liberal" view, right?

I think beliefs matter.

And I think there are certain concepts in the Islamic religion that will always create jihadists. Kind if like there are certain concepts in Christianity I believe will always create pacifists. Christianity is not a pacifist religion but because of certain New Testament passages a minority will always claim Jesus taught total pacifism.

I don't think Islam creates crazed murderers but because of their different concept of martyrdom than Christianity, and the concept of lesser jihad (militant jihad) as opposed to greater jihad (internal battle in the individual), I think a minority in Islam are always bound to go on violent jihads.

The Islamic and Hindu East intrigues me though. At least the Arab Islamic East. And Hindu India too. They have exotic and mysterious aspects to them to me. India especially I'd like to visit. Hindu Bali too.