Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Sadras]

I denied nothing about The Church's involvement. If you look back and reread, you'll see that my claim is with respect to how the language used with respect to such incidents downplays the involvement of religion, while the language used to describe incidents involving Islamic nations or groups tends to do precisely the opposite.

Ah sorry I completely misread your position. Well then getting back to your original question - you feel I should change my critique on Islamic History to be a critique on the specific country's History because we refer to the Spanish Inquisition and not the Christian Inquisition? Well I did mention that various governments (as they are part of the Islamic world) acknowledge their atrocities. All those governments were/are influence strongly by Islam so I'm not sure why you feel we should separate this History as somehow a separate to Islamic History. When Muslims persecute themselves en masse that is considered Islamic History, it is the same if they persecute non-Muslims en masse using religion as their vehicle or policy maker.

 

[Ryujin]

Ah sorry I completely misread your position. Well then getting back to your original question - you feel I should change my critique on Islamic History to be a critique on the specific country's History because we refer to the Spanish Inquisition and not the Christian Inquisition? Well I did mention that various governments (as they are part of the Islamic world) acknowledge their atrocities. All those governments were/are influence strongly by Islam so I'm not sure why you feel we should separate this History as somehow a separate to Islamic History. When Muslims persecute themselves en masse that is considered Islamic History, it is the same if they persecute non-Muslims en masse using religion as their vehicle or policy maker.

Yup, you missed it. Still do, apparently, as it's consistency that I want and it's impossible, because you are indicative of the larger issue.

 

[Sadras]

Yup, you missed it. Still do, apparently, as it's consistency that I want and it's impossible, because you are indicative of the larger issue.

Well, from my point of view, you seem to be missing the point. In every instance we were discussing people, who had the same ideology (in this case Islam). Their lack of acknowledgement in their errors is indicative of a larger issue which you seem to miss.

 

[Ryujin]

Well, from my point of you, you seem to be missing the point. In every instance we were discussing people, who had the same ideology (in this case Islam). Their lack of acknowledgement in their errors is indicative of a larger issue which you seem to miss.

How can I be missing a point that I've explicitly stated?

 

[Sadras]

How can I be missing a point that I've explicitly stated?

and

"Islamic history", or "history"? I would say the latter. After all, do we refer to the systemic subjugation of Jews in Europe as "Christian History", or just "history"?

When I'm speaking about the Islamic world, I'm speaking about governments influenced via Islam. You're isolating one instance of the conversation and attempting to acknowledge it as a white-washing of history, when I am speaking of the Islamic world and Islamic history in a much broader sense (and funny enough got called for that if you recall). So when I refer to Islamic History I'm referring across the board to other nations, you are the one isolating the conversation to Turkey alone.

So for you the conversation exists as Spanish Inquisition, Turkish white-washing....etc
For me the conversation is Christian Inquisitions, Islamic white-washing...etc

 

[Ryujin]

and

When I'm speaking about the Islamic world, I'm speaking about governments influenced via Islam. You're isolating one instance of the conversation and attempting to acknowledge it as a white-washing of history, when I am speaking of the Islamic world and Islamic history in a much broader sense (and funny enough got called for that if you recall). So when I refer to Islamic History I'm referring across the board to other nations, you are the one isolating the conversation to Turkey alone.

So for you the conversation exists as Spanish Inquisition, Turkish white-washing....etc
For me the conversation is Christian Inquisitions, Islamic white-washing...etc

I'm not 'trying' to do anything. I'm stating a simple, demonstrable fact that when something involves the West, it's simply history, but when it's the Middle East, for example, it's suddenly 'Muslim History." You did it yourself. It is how the conversation has been framed. It's wrong.

Do you want a more recent example? Were the actions of The United States and other Western nations in Iraq, in 2003 onward, part of 'history' or 'Christian History'? Go back and listen to the words of GWB and other Western leaders, and you would be hard pressed not to call it 'Christian History' by your definitions. That's not how it's referenced, nor should it be. It's just history.

 

[Sadras]

I'm not 'trying' to do anything. I'm stating a simple, demonstrable fact that when something involves the West, it's simply history, but when it's the Middle East, for example, it's suddenly 'Muslim History."

It depends on the context. We were speaking about Muslim Refugees. We were speaking about the Islamic World. We were speaking about their ideology. We were speaking about their History in relation to Islam. So yes Islamic history.

You did it yourself. It is how the conversation has been framed.

Again yes, because I'm talking about a people with a particular ideology.

Its wrong.

Is it wrong to address muslim dominated nations collectively as the Islamic World and therefore their collective history as Islamic History? Has the politically correct crowd forbidden that terminology too? Geez they move so fast.

Do you want a more recent example? Were the actions of The United States and other Western nations in Iraq, in 2003 onward, part of 'history' or 'Christian History'? Go back and listen to the words of GWB and other Western leaders, and you would be hard pressed not to call it 'Christian History' by your definitions. That's not how it's referenced, nor should it be. It's just history.

You know full well that was politics and had nothing to do with religion.

The breakup of India was due to Islamists not politics. The policies enforced on the Copts in Egypt is due to Islamic influence within their laws. The persecution of Zoroastrians is because they are not muslims. The persecution of the Armenians in Turkey is because they were predominantly Christian. The kidnapped girls in Nigeria were Christian. And I'm not even touching Saudi or any of the other dozen examples I can choose from.

GWB and the rest of the criminal brigade attacked Iraq and Afghanistan because

(A) They were muslim nations; OR
(B) They were not Christian nations; OR
(C) Other - Big Business, Policy Pushing, Oil...etc

This is what the largest Christian religion on earth had to say about the 'War with Error' (current)
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-and-the-churchs-witness-against-war

and perhaps you missed this too at the time with all the lies the media and politicians were forcing down our throats
(then)

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/12/w...t-mentioning-us-urges-military-restraint.html

 

[Kramodlog]

The only reason I brought up Christian movies within the US, is to reflect that, from my perspective, Christianity does not seem to have the level of influence within US as sometimes people on the net like to insinuate.

Again, I ask you how influencial do you think I said Christians are in the US?

I specifically never mentioned details re the apostacy. My original post only mentions that Islam has a different view to apostacy compared to other faiths.

And that is lumping all Muslims together as views on apostacy varies according to sects, countries and individuals. Don't you agree? If there is one view accross all the Muslim world, what is it?

Europe has come along way having battled sexism, gender preference, strict religiosity, limitation on freedom/speech, communism...etc - so when large masses of immigrants flood into their countries with a different culture, mindset and ideology it is only natural for a people to develop a fear or mistrust against them

There is a lot of falsehood in what you say. You're lumping all Muslim immigrants together as if they all believe the same things and that what they believe is inherently antagonist to "European values". That is is not factual. One reason why some Muslims immigrate to Europe is because they share liberal values. Then their is the number of immigrants. As I pointed out, the number of Muslims is way lower than you think and that people think. So, that large mass is a mirage. http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...ou-are-probably-wrong-about-almost-everything

So people's fears are not justified as their is not grounded in reality. It is just islamophobia and that leads to discrimination of people that do not deserve it.

It is not, in my view, out of nowhere.

Yes, you mentioned apostacy in a conversation that wasn't about apostacy. It came out of nowhere.

No, I'm not an intelligence gathering agency is what I was getting at.

That has been obvious for a while. But you also ignore information when it is given to you. Like how people overestimate the number of Muslims in their country and underestimate the number of Christians. Intelligence is just a clique away. http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...ou-are-probably-wrong-about-almost-everything

According to Shadowcon, it is suspected that muslims posses the ability to easily impregnate their female partners and thereby initiate human multiplication on a level superior to that of Atheists and Christians of Europe. It is this method, according to a top Shadow official that Europe will be subsumed into the Greater Caliphate. It is certainly an evolved approach, much like the evolution of conquering countries through finance as opposed to military might.

Yeah, well ShadowCon is not well informed. Muslims do not make more babies than Europeans. Those silly facts that are just a clique away. Better ignore them. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-eurabia-myth-deserves-a-debunking/article20387697/

Well it is a fact less Greeks and Italians are emigrating to Africa & the Middle East as opposed to the Middle Easterners and Africans emigrating to Greece and Italy.

That doesn't means Muslims should be feared.

Entire European Governments does not necessarily equal the EU. In my mind it is synonymous with entire European Countries, which certainly does not equal the EU.

I never mentioned the EU. But you are the one who said "entire European Governments". All I pointed out is that using "entire" wasn't accurate as they do not all have the same policies.

Why? Do you personally not believe that culture, heritage and a certain way/style of life is worth defending?

Not against imaginary threats. Europe already went down that ugly road with Judaism.

Prevention is better than a cure. Human nature.

And that leads to discrimination. Human nature.

 

[Ryujin]

It was politics and had nothing to do with religion? Why apply that distinction here, when religion was frequently referenced, when you make the distinction with respect to 'Muslim nations'? What President of the United States has ever been elected without referencing God? So if God is referenced in American politics it's just politics, but if he's referenced in the Middle East it's 'Islamic politics'? You have power hungry men cravenly using people's beliefs to manipulate their actions, in both cases, but it's only called out on the 'other side'?

It's just 'politics.' It's just 'history.' Specific labels are unnecessary.

 

[Sadras]

And that is lumping all Muslims together as views on apostacy varies according to sects, countries and individuals. Don't you agree? If there is one view accross all the Muslim world, what is it?

My initial quote (BELOW) references the religion not the people - you are welcome to discuss how the religious texts impacts on its followers but that is a different discussion altogether. However you might be inclined to research the various religions with regards to apostacy and we can continue this conversation further.

(snip)....but I don't believe Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, Shintuism or Buddhism speak about apostacy in the same manner that Islam does.

There is a lot of falsehood in what you say. You're lumping all Muslim immigrants together as if they all believe the same things and that what they believe is inherently antagonist to "European values". That is is not factual. One reason why some Muslims immigrate to Europe is because they share liberal values.

Are you saying at its RAW Islam is not inherently antagonistic to European Values? I also said it is natural for people to feel threatened when a people of a different ideology begin to enter their countries en masse. I don't see what the issue with my sentence is.

Then their is the number of immigrants. As I pointed out, the number of Muslims is way lower than you think and that people think. So, that large mass is a mirage.

Yes this is not in dispute.

So people's fears are not justified as their is not grounded in reality. It is just islamophobia and that leads to discrimination of people that do not deserve it.

But at what point do the number of immigrants become too much? At what point do you consider their phobia to be rational for the indigenous society/culture?

That has been obvious for a while.

You're so mean to the princess.

But you also ignore information when it is given to you. Like how people overestimate the number of Muslims in their country and underestimate the number of Christians.

Your information regarding the perception of people is not being contested. However actual numbers are broadcasted as to how many refugees are actually entering the countries. So that information is privy to all those 'irrational people'

Intelligence is just a clique away.

If only the CIA or FBI had you working with them pre 9-11.

Yeah, well ShadowCon is not well informed. Muslims do not make more babies than Europeans. Those silly facts that are just a clique away. Better ignore them.

Well ShadowCon could certainly use your expertise, however you might want to do a little more research as there are conflicting articles out there including that of wiki so lets just put this one on the backburner given the experts on both sides.

That doesn't means Muslims should be feared.

I never mentioned the EU. But you are the one who said "entire European Governments". All I pointed out is that using "entire" wasn't accurate as they do not all have the same policies.

What? They don't need to have the same policies for them to create limitations for refugees.

Not against imaginary threats.

Okay.

Europe already went down that ugly road with Judaism.

Yeah, its not the same, different road.

And that leads to discrimination. Human nature.

Also true, however discrimination does not invalidate their fear.