Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sadras

Legend
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.

I see you completely ignored the fact that we are having two different conversations.

In any event, in the instance of the West our religious authorities are generally different to our politicians. Many times (as they have in the past and even present) these two groups have colluded. In the instance of the war on Iraq and Afghan, as I have shown you, the largest sect of the Christian religion did not agree with GWB and Co's actions despite GWB invoking his deity during press conferences.
When it comes to Egypt's Governing Law, the religion of Islam plays a strong role. https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=39960. Which means that experts in the religion were most probably consulted in the formulation of the law.

That is very different to having a politician (a complete layman) invoking his deity publicly without the backing of major Christian authorities. I'm not saying that some Christian denominations did not jump onto GWB's violent campaign of greed, but that it is very different having religious dogma influence law. Furthermore the tearing apart of India was on religious reasons. The Armenian persecution was done by the Ottoman Empire which was not a secular state.

USA is a secular state. UK is a secular state - no matter what god the president or prime minister invoke publicly. The majority of the muslim nations are not secular, therefore religion plays a large role.

And again I reiterate
You are talking about the Spanish Inquisition, Egyptian Policy...
I'm discussing Christian Inquisitions, Islamic Policy...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ryujin

Legend
No, we're having the same conversation. As I said, no American President in recent memory has been elected without referencing God. The British Monach, currently Queen Elizabeth II, is the Supreme Governor of the
Church of England.

If we're actually having two different conversations, as you say, then the difference is that I'm calling for consistency in language, rather than canting speech to suit a debating position.
 

Sadras

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

The difference is that in some Western countries Christians actually have power and influence over politics and the media, and are pushing their agenda. The US is the perfect example. Just look at the influence of Christians in the same sex unions or abortion debate. It isn't irrational to fear Christian influence in that context.

As an overall percentage I'm not sure. I'm sure there is a Christian Lobby attempting to push their agenda, but I'm presuming its Big Business that usually calls the shots.
 

Sadras

Legend
No, we're having the same conversation. As I said, no American President in recent memory has been elected without referencing God. The British Monach, currently Queen Elizabeth II, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

The days of the Pharaoh are very much behind us and even then the clergy and Pharaohs didn't always agree. To insinuate that somehow GWB or Queen Elizabeth have the same religious standing within Christianity as the Pope is ludicrous and that IS what you are insinuating if you are attempting to reflect that the war on Afghan and Iraq were mandated by religious reasons, because that IS what you have to prove in order for it to be considered a Christian war - whereas as I only have to prove that Islam influenced the actual laws of the lands which lead to the persecution/discrimination of non-Muslims to prove its part of Islam's history since I'm speaking of the Islamic world.
 

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel
My initial quote (BELOW) references the religion
And as I stated many many times, there isn't really one Islamic religion, as it is interpreted and applied in various ways by different sects. That pesky point you keep ignoring.

To make a comparison, Catholics do not have the same interpretation of the Bible, or exactly the same Bible, as Evangelicals. Both are Christians even if they do not have the exact same religion. Why is Islam different and homogenous according to you?

Are you saying at its RAW Islam is not inherently antagonistic to European Values?
First point: there isn't any raw Islam. It varies like Christianity, as stated above. Second point: European values vary. Abortions laws in Ireland are very restrictive, something some conservative Musims would approve of and more liberal ones would condemn. Same sex unions aren't allowed or recognized in every European country, which would please some conservative Muslims and displease more liberal ones. France has some very restrictive hate speech laws, which might please some Muslims, anger others and make a US citizen go mad. Muslims are just like Europeans, they have various opinions. Even some native Europeans oppose freedom of speech, separation of church and state, same sex unions...

But even if we say you're right, that Islam goes against European values, Christian values aren't that different from Islam and European values still happened.

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.
Well, you keep saying there is one Muslim ideology, which isn't the case, values aren't necessarely antagonistic and they are a minority, not a mass. Since you're wrong on all counts it would mean people's fears aren't justified.

Yes this is not in dispute.
And yet just above you constest it by saying Muslims enter European countries in masses. You're holding to contradictory positions.

But at what point do the number of immigrants become too much?
What if its never? What if migrants were simple people and not a bad addition to a country?

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'
The actual numbers about Muslims immigrants are easily accessable and yet people's perception are still distorted. That means people aren't informed and their fear isn't base in rationality.

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.
Better ignore info that doesn't fit the narrative. Got it.

You're confused by me saying Muslims shouldn't be feared? That explains a lot.

What? They don't need to have the same policies for them to create limitations for refugees.
Your comment about "entire European Governments" was about governments fearing the influence of Islam. Which isn't the case. At least the "entire" part.

Yeah, its not the same, different road.
Very similar one. It is about politics being dominated by fears not backed by facts and letting those fears lead to discrimination. It probably won't end in extermination camp this time around, but discrimination is growing.

Also true, however discrimination does not invalidate their fear.
Facts invalidate their fear. Facts like there is no one Islamic ideology, Muslims are a minority, they do not have a lot influence on politics and the media...
 

Ryujin

Legend
The days of the Pharaoh are very much behind us and even then the clergy and Pharaoh's didn't always agree. To insinuate that somehow GWB or Queen Elizabeth have the same religious standing within Christianity as the Pope is ludicrous and that IS what you are insinuating if you are attempting to reflect that the war on Afghan and Iraq were mandated by religious reasons, because that IS what you have to prove in order for it to be considered a Christian war - whereas as I only have to prove that Islam influenced the actual laws of the lands which lead to the persecution/discrimination of non-Muslims to prove its part of Islam's history since I'm speaking of the Islamic world.

So prove the reverse; that the 'Islamic' attacks are actually purely for religious reasons.

*EDIT* Further to that I will state that American laws and British laws, as two examples, were founded upon Christian principles. That does not mean that actions by those governments make them Christian actions.
 

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel
As an overall percentage I'm not sure. I'm sure there is a Christian Lobby attempting to push their agenda, but I'm presuming its Big Business that usually calls the shots.

As you'll notice if you go read my quote again, I didn't say it was the only or major source of influence. Just that it had some, like you just said. Sigh.
 

Sadras

Legend
So prove the reverse; that the 'Islamic' attacks are actually purely for religious reasons.

Instead of playing your 'purely' game, how about this, how about you give me the proper collective noun which you're ok with when I'm referring specifically to the history of Muslim nations, because if I google History of Islam, which is ok with the rest of the educated world, I get this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam which reflects in general on every muslim country and its laws.

So I have to ask, do you really have a problem with me shortening the phrase from History of Islam to Islamic History? Or do you have a problem when I speak of the white-washing of Islamic History? Is it better to say the white-washing of the History within Muslim countries? Do you want more words?

EDIT: Which is funny because initially you wanted less words: From the white-washing of Islamic History to the white-washing of History. I'm guessing the term 'Islamic' must have been offensive to you in that sentence.
 
Last edited:

Ryujin

Legend
As I said, the word "history" works just fine for me. I'm sorry that you don't see the inequity in reporting. I'm out.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
EDIT: Which is funny because initially you wanted less words: From the white-washing of Islamic History to the white-washing of History. I'm guessing the term 'Islamic' must have been offensive to you in that sentence.

Well, duh. He's been pretty obvious about that from the start.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top