Holy War

[Futuwwa]

Mike, you still haven't answered the question. I said explicitly in my first reply to you that, yes, note, notice, take heed, remember, yes, some Islamic countries prohibit apostasy from Islam.

Yet, here's the main point which you have yet to answer: In which country are resident Christians actively forced to convert or die, by the state? Answer the question exactly as it stands, don't copy-paste any general oppression rant.

 

[MikeMcK]

Answer the question exactly as it stands, don't copy-paste any general oppression rant.

First of all, the article wasn't any sort of "rant". It was simply an article explaining the findings of a reputable human rights watchdog organization.

Second, don't you think it's just a little hypocritical on your part to demand evidence and then, when I offer you evidence, you say, "don't bother giving evidence"?

If you're not going to try to be reasonable or have an adult conversation, I can't help but wonder why you're here.

And, by the way, I notice that you completely ignored my questions to you.

 

[Futuwwa]

You gave evidence, but for something else than what I was asking. Read my last post, and give evidence for that which I'm asking. For that, exactly that, nothing else. If you insist on giving me apples when I ask for oranges, don't expect to get taken seriously.

 

[MikeMcK]

You gave evidence, but for something else than what I was asking. Read my last post, and give evidence for that which I'm asking. For that, exactly that, nothing else. If you insist on giving me apples when I ask for oranges, don't expect to get taken seriously.

Like I said, I gave evidence. You just don't like the evidence I gave.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Is it acceptable to stop people converting away from Islam to another religion or to none at all? Absolutely not. So, one way or another, every nation that forbids this in its laws is committing a gross violation of fundamental human rights, and its government should be encouraged to change these laws drastically or face sanctions from the international community.

Oh, and I forgot to mention in my first post that I don't think there is anything 'holy' (whatever that empty word means) about struggling for human rights. It is right, it is just and it is loving. Do we actually need another incentive?

peace

 

[Futuwwa]

Like I said, I gave evidence. You just don't like the evidence I gave.

And like I said, it's evidence for apples when I'm asking for oranges.

Please provide evidence for the idea that, should a Christian move to Saudi Arabia, he would instantly be forced to convert to Islam or die.

And for the record Robbie, I don't support the criminalization of apostasy. The reason I'm debating is just, many Christians seem to have strange ideas about persecution.

 

[BibleMadeMeDoIt]

Your quote of Hitler in Mein Kampf is accurate however it denotes no Christian over-tones. Creator is a wide-use term, used by many religions.

Hitler made it clear in one speech in 1933 just who he believed in, some creator named "Providence".

This is probably the first time and this is the first country in which people are being taught to realize that, of all the tasks which we have to face, the noblest and most sacred for mankind is that each racial species must preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it.
And thus it happens that for the first time it is now possible for men to use their God-given faculties of perception and insight in the understanding of those problems which are of more momentous importance for the preservation of human existence than all the victories that may be won on the battlefield or the successes that may be obtained through economic efforts. The greatest revolution which National Socialism has brought about is that it has rent asunder the veil which hid from us the knowledge that all human failures and mistakes are due to the conditions of the time and therefore can be remedied, but that there is one error which cannot be remedied once men have made it, namely the failure to recognize the importance of conserving the blood and the race free from intermixture and thereby the racial aspect and character which are God's gift and God's handiwork. It is not for men to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize the fact that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hitler1.htm

 

[MoonlessNight]

And of course the thread falls into debating over whether Hitler was a Christian, even though it has little to nothing to do with the question originally posed.

Honestly, when I read the first question I was sure that this thread was going to devolve into a factless debate about the Crusades, but I guess I can't predict how threads fall apart any more.

To actually answer the original question:

I will answer that it would be commendable (but not necessarily a moral duty) provided it is conducted in a just fashion. This includes:
a.) Other means of stopping the problem have failed (diplomacy (including the strongarm variety with embargos and such) in particular).
b.) There is an opportunity for sucess. We don't go to war just to make a point at the expense of high tolls on life on both sides.
c.) We don't cause more damage fighting the war than the current situation does.
d.) The war is conducted by a legitmate authority (i.e. thi isn't a paramilitary group)
e.) Just means are used throughout the war (among other things this means no civilian targets (though suspected civilian casualities are acceptable if they are minor and are not the aim of the mission (if we could avoid them we would)), humane treatment of prisoners of war, as well as recognition of rules engagement by not doing things like using medical vehicles to cloak the transport of soldiers.)
Just cause is also required, but I think that the original post satisfies that.

I do not say it is a moral duty for two main reasons:
1.) War is a grave matter which is rarely ever conducted correctly, and is still immensely damaging when it is. Therefore I think that it is not immoral to try to avoid it at all costs.
2.) It could very well be the case that multiple nations fit these criteria (and indeed in the real world there are multiple nations that fit such criteria). In that case the probability of success consideration becomes vital. Defeating one might be possible, but fighting two wars is much more than twice as difficult as fighting one, so chances are that we would not be able to right every wrong. Therefore discretion has to be used, which might even involve not getting into war at all.

 

[Futuwwa]

Good to see someome still trying to be on topic

d.) The war is conducted by a legitmate authority (i.e. thi isn't a paramilitary group)

Why is that? If so, who or what is a "legitimate authority" to declare holy war?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Good to see someome still trying to be on topic



Why is that? If so, who or what is a "legitimate authority" to declare holy war?

What I was thinking of was more along the lines of who is a legitimate authority to declare war in general, which would be someone entrusted with the care of the community. The reason for placing the power there is to avoid blood feuds and other personal vendettas, though of course community leaders are not perfect. We also have the matter that even executions of criminals (in the rare cases today that they are justifiable) are not in the realm of considerations for a priest, so war is something that they certainliy should not be involved with.

A problem that I did realize when I was writing this is that such authority has become synomonous with government appointed officials in these days, and at the same time there is a ever stronger move towards complete seperation of the church and the state. In that case the notion of an authority to declare holy war becomes a bit ridiculous; a priest has no authority to declare war and the government official has no notion of what is holy.

But then again I think I've noted many a time on these boards that I'm not the fondest of the current prevailing systems of govenment.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

What I was thinking of was more along the lines of who is a legitimate authority to declare war in general, which would be someone entrusted with the care of the community.

It would seem to me that anyone with right intentions and just cause automatically has 'legitimate authority'. If, for example, all or some recognised authorities, in particular sovreign nation states, were unwilling or unable to fight injustice? Does it not then become the duty of the citizenry to form such paramilitary groups (assuming, of course, all other conditions for just war have been met)?

peace

 

[MoonlessNight]

I'll be honest: The qualifying factor of just authority is the one that I've switched back and forth on the most. So when I speak on matters regarding it it's usually just whatever passes through my mind at the moment.

It would seem to me that anyone with right intentions and just cause automatically has 'legitimate authority'.

I would say that these three things are independent of each other. Legitimate authority to me implies a position of leadership, it is a sort of "special responsibility" to a group of people. What I mean is that of course we are all obligated to help everyone else out, but at the same time there are groups of people (such as our families) that we have a more focused obligation to, and who we pay more attention to. A legitimate authority both has a special care for those that he leads (and who in this scenario, who he would be sending to war) and is in some sense recognized by those people.

If, for example, all or some recognised authorities, in particular sovreign nation states, were unwilling or unable to fight injustice? Does it not then become the duty of the citizenry to form such paramilitary groups (assuming, of course, all other conditions for just war have been met)?

This however, is somewhat seperable from the preceding question and is really quite interesting to me. In a perfect world such things would not happen, but then again in a perfect world we wouldn't need to fight wars at all. I have a gut reaction against saying that paramilitary groups can act in the same way that nations can, but I'll have to think more about the reasoning behind it before I can say that definitivly.

 

[Futuwwa]

It would seem to me that anyone with right intentions and just cause automatically has 'legitimate authority'. If, for example, all or some recognised authorities, in particular sovreign nation states, were unwilling or unable to fight injustice? Does it not then become the duty of the citizenry to form such paramilitary groups (assuming, of course, all other conditions for just war have been met)?

peace

That's what I was thinking too. The reason why carrying out certain acts (declaring war, administering justice, exercising violent force) are legally reserved to the state is a practical consideration rather than a moral one.

 

[MikeMcK]

And like I said, it's evidence for apples when I'm asking for oranges.

OK. You asked for evidence. I gave you evidence. You don't like the evidence so you're going to move the goalposts in the middle of the game. That's fine.

Please provide evidence for the idea that, should a Christian move to Saudi Arabia, he would instantly be forced to convert to Islam or die.

Once again, I notice that you're completely ignoring the persecution of Saudi Arabian Christians.

Why are you so interested in Christians who move to Saudi Arabia, but you couldn't care less about Saudi Arabian nationals who are being persecuted for their faith?

 

[christalee4]

the fact that they stood up (and so many of them paid with their lives) shows that the Holocaust was not done with the "blessing of the church".

Now, perhaps you just mean the Roman Catholic church.

That may be, but don't blame us for what somebody else did.

I will have to step in here and vouch for the fact that anti-Semitism in Europe was largely fueled by Christian faith, not only just during the Holocaust, but also previously, in England, in Europe, in Eastern Europe and Russia, over hundreds of years. The premise behind anti-Semitism were the beliefs that 1) Jews were God-killers, 2) that Jews were responsible for killing Christian children for their rituals, and 3) that Jews were responsible for all usury, banking problems, and that they enjoyed a larger than average control of world monetary wealth. The anti-Semitism has been persistent and strong, varying in degrees from local resentment and hatred expressed to outright mass murder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism

http://www.amazon.com/Frontline-Longest-Hatred-Revealing-History-Anti-Semitism/dp/B0002BO0DU

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090015/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/olympics/zcc039.htm

http://www.remember.org/History.root.classical.html


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n26_v112/ai_17497869

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/asus_12/3311_12.asp

Although anti-semitism in America has been fairly minimal, compared to the model in European countries, such as France and Germany, the strangely dual love-hate relationship that evangelicals have with Jews in America has ominous possibilities for what Europeans have experienced for hundreds of years; the idea that Jews are indeed "special" in Christianity, but since that they don't accept Jesus, and that many are perceived to be part of the liberal, secular conspiracy , that most Jews will go down in the fires of apolcalypse. The more conservative of the right wing Christians believe that Jews are not God's chosen, are from the devil, and deserve annihilation, if not from man, but certainly from God Himself.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/royal_race.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=870

Extremist fundamentalism, whether it derives from Islam, Christianity, or any other religion, is guilty of promoting hatred, the oppression and even destruction of other religions and people.

 

[Futuwwa]

Why are you so interested in Christians who move to Saudi Arabia, but you couldn't care less about Saudi Arabian nationals who are being persecuted for their faith?

Well, you claimed that every Muslim country in the world forcibly converts every Christian they get their hands on, so... how about backing that up? There is a difference between prohibiting apostasy from Islam (which a few Islamic countries do) and forcibly converting those who already are Christians.

 

[MikeMcK]

Well, you claimed that every Muslim country in the world forcibly converts every Christian they get their hands on, so... how about backing that up?

Actually, I never said "every Muslim country". I said many Muslim countries.

There is a difference between prohibiting apostasy from Islam (which a few Islamic countries do) and forcibly converting those who already are Christians.

Oh, I see. So then the Saudi Christians who are being killed aren't being persecuted for being Christians, they're just being punished for their apostasy.

Islam must be a religion of peace, after all.

 

[Futuwwa]

Oh, I see. So then the Saudi Christians who are being killed aren't being persecuted for being Christians, they're just being punished for their apostasy.

Exactly. It's not Christianity per se which the state objects to, but the apostasy from Islam. It's a wholly different approach, though I suppose it matters little to you. But the difference is real. In Iran, apostasy from Islam is forbidden too. But, those who already are Christians have the same civil rights as everyone else, including a quota of parliamentary representation.

Islam must be a religion of peace, after all.

No. Have I ever said so? Does it look like that? Heck, right now I'm discussing the topic of holy war with some of the guys here.

 

[MikeMcK]

Exactly. It's not Christianity per se which the state objects to, but the apostasy from Islam. It's a wholly different approach, though I suppose it matters little to you.

Honestly? No, it doesn't. Both boil down to the fact that they're being killed for their Christian faith.

No. Have I ever said so? Does it look like that? Heck, right now I'm discussing the topic of holy war with some of the guys here.

No, of course Islam isn't a religion of peace. It's a violent and barbaric religion that teaches it's followers to kill those they consider infidels, even if that means walking into a crowded marketplace and blowing up scores of innocent women and children.

 

[Futuwwa]

Tut tut, do you want to be friends or enemies with us?