Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm sure every religion has bad sections in their book. And every religious group has done bad stuff.

But most religions I can burn a copy of their holy book and not have a mass riot in other countries happen. Anybody who thinks the rules of their religion applies to everybody has bad software.

True, but again, if you look at the Islamic world's reactions to Koran burning, media coverage implications to the contrary, you won't find the riots to be 1) spontaneous or 2) widespread. Those actions are usually sponsored by anti-American nations or radicalized imams, and are representative of only a minority of the populace as a whole. Sure, there were demonstrations in Iran, but what about the Muslim populations in the Far East? Or Canada? Eastern Europe?

...and just try burning a Bible- or American Flag- in the southern USA. Screw "riots in other countries", you may have to run for cover yourself.

 

[Ryujin]

True, but again, if you look at the Islamic world's reactions to Koran burning, media coverage implications to the contrary, you won't find the riots to be 1) spontaneous or 2) widespread. Those actions are usually sponsored by anti-American nations or radicalized imams, and are representative of only a minority of the populace as a whole. Sure, there were demonstrations in Iran, but what about the Muslim populations in the Far East? Or Canada? Eastern Europe?

...and just try burning a Bible- or American Flag- in the southern USA. Screw "riots in other countries", you may have to run for cover yourself.

As a photographer I've had to make sparsely attended charity events look like the Poll Tax Riots in scope. It's difficult, but can be done. As a result I'm frequently (though not always) skeptical of 'riot' footage.

 

[Kramodlog]

One of the complications we have in our PC world is that we got folks insisting something's bad, and folks insisting that everything's good.

I think this is again due to 24h news. The idea that everything must be balanced means you need two side of a coin. Vaccines cause autism? Two people with different discourses are there to comment. Global warming? Dichotomous talking heads again. Mosque near Ground Zero? Dichotomy. ISIS? Dichotomy. And two views clashing makes for good ratings, so there is a financial incentive for the status quo.

Of course, getting rid of that ethical obligation might lead to an echo chamber where you just hear what you like. Facebook, in other words. Not desirable either. What is the solution then?

What if a religion really is bad software?

What if the problem are religions and not just one religion? What are they if not creation myths and superstition? Why should religious superstitions be considered anymore more acceptable than believing that Friday the 13th means bad luck, souls come from space, Earth is flat, Santa Claus is real and the Moon landind is an hoax?

There is some good in religions? Sure, no contest. But there is lots of bad.

Islam can lead to bad stuff? Sure, but so does any other religion. Why discriminate some irrational beliefs and not others? Can we really mesure how 1.5 billion people as less rational than 1 billion? Why not discriminate against all irrationality?

Remove religions from schools. Education is a public matter, not a private matter. It takes a village to raise a child, not a Bible or a Qor'an. Private schools? Get rid of those schools, religious or not. Kids aren't the property of their parents. They are individuals who aren't fully autonomous and are uninformed. They need to get proper information to be able to make decisions for themselves when they are older. Religious schools only teach creation myths and superstitions. This is not what would-be adults need.

Let kids chose when they are 18. Or maybe 16, I don't know. Before that, no religion on the public dime. No genital mutilation to sign a contract with the Genocidal One. No teaching of Nessi.

But most religions I can burn a copy of their holy book and not have a mass riot in other countries happen.

Today. With the burning happing in civilisations that let secularism grow and express itself while theocracies exist parallel to them. Blasphamy was serious business not too long ago in Western countries. Not all countries have changed this way.

I say this to argue that Islam's problem is not about the content of the Qor'an, but about who, when and where the content is used.

Anybody who thinks the rules of their religion applies to everybody has bad software.

Is it a problem linked to religions or how religions are easy to instrumentalize?

 

[Sadras]

Getting back to some questions you had that I never had time for...

I'm saying that if you believe that making and distributing Christian films are signs of Christian influence in the US, than it should apply to Muslim films too. Shouldn't your logic apply to all?

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.

Yes, I know, but when I say that you're lumping Islam into one homogenous body, it is because you present things as if Islam, thus Muslims, thinks the same about apostacy. If you agree there are many Islams, why talk as if their is one view of apostacy? I'm willing to bet that the standard for apostacy you use is Saudi Arabia. Certainly not Albania, because if Albania was used, apostacy wouldn't be a problem for Islam, right?

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 yet you critic me for critiquing you, right after you say critiquing the Muslim world is your personal mission. Double standards, as you put yourself above critics while critic others.

We have somehow covered this, but just to clarify - I mentioned a number of factors in which I (personal opinion) find Islamophobia justifiable. Critiquing the Muslim world is not my personal mission, however correcting a white-washing of history is. Just like I have challenged or critiqued Christianity, I so do with other religions - we just happened to land on Islam in these last few pages.

But you had to make the debate about something else, cause it is very important for you that we should fear Muslims or that they are bad

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. You further need to appreciate that these are homelands of cultures and heritages - and there is a real sense to defend that. It isn't the salad-societies of South Africa, USA, Canada and Australia.

so out of nowhere comes apostacy.

It is not, in my view, out of nowhere. You must respect freedom of choice/thought. Liberation of the mind. The line Islam takes on apostacy reflects against that. Secret apostastes, I imagine, are very much like closet gays - fearing the shame, judgement and perhaps disownment by their families/communities.

This is why I ask cute women to play with my organ.

That right there is discrimination.

So, Al Qaeda is now an organisation that is trying to colonize Europe?

No, I'm not an intelligence gathering agency is what I was getting at. Although that statement does sound bad.

Not looking good for the organized colonization of Europe by Muslims.

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.

So, your basing your statement on what you feel, fear in this instance, but not facts?

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 would mean all European governments, as the word "entire" would lead us to believe

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.

But that doesn't mean it is a rational policy.

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

"Might". So, it doesn't mean it is happening or will. It is the fear of a possibility, of a slippery slope. Not something that is rational or factual. It is base on islamophobia.

Prevention is better than a cure. Human nature.

I would disagree, based on my example to which you responded. The reasons for the persecution of Jews, in Medieval Europe, were also based in religion and yet we do not refer to that as Christian. That's basic inequity of reporting. It's not done because that's essentially the majority of us and we don't want to recognize, nor apologize for, the actions of our fore-bearers. Such a simple admission. So hard to make.

For starters the inquisitions are collectively called the Christian Inquisitions and at the time it was supported by many of the higher Church hierarchy. We will have to disagree on this issue.

 

[Ryujin]

For starters the inquisitions are collectively called the Christian Inquisitions and at the time it was supported by many of the higher Church hierarchy. We will have to disagree on this issue.

The most commonly used expression is "The Spanish Inquisition", rather than "Christian Inquisition", but then again nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Sadras]

The most commonly used expression is "The Spanish Inquisition", rather than "Christian Inquisition", but then again nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Yes there were other Inquisitions though, the Spanish one is just the most famous. And you cannot deny that the Roman Catholic church did not have influence within the Spanish Inquisition. Therefore it falls within the History of Christianity.

 

[Sadras]

A religion professor once pointed out to me that every world religion over 800 years old goes through a period of zealotry and militaristic expansion, sometimes by people hijacking the faith, sometimes backed by holy writ.

I'm not disputing, but I'm curious, where did the professor get this magical number of 800?

NOBODY gets to take the high ground.

I'm not sure why this was addressed to me.

 

[Ryujin]

Yes there were other Inquisitions though, the Spanish one is just the most famous. And you cannot deny that the Roman Catholic church did not have influence within the Spanish Inquisition. Therefore it falls within the History of Christianity.

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.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not disputing, but I'm curious, where did the professor get this magical number of 800?

As he stated, from his research, and I think he was making a few points with that observation.

First, it takes a while for a religion to gain enough legitimacy and/or political pull to accumulate sufficient adherents, landholdings and gear to commit atrocities of a historically observable scale* without getting eradicated in response.

Second, it takes a certain amount of time for the founders and first few generations to die out, leading to an opportunity for others to put their own spin on the faith's doctrines.

Taking the first two points into account, the third point is that, with the passing of time, certain adherents of the faith clamoring for the use of force to "right the wrongs" done to prior generations of the faith have the physical and political resources to do so.

Fourth, and most germaine, that the term "religion of peace" is an almost meaningless phrase after a certain point because no long-lasting faith tradition has managed to remain free of humans making a literal bloody mess in the religion's name.

I'm not sure why this was addressed to me.

Because it was part of our ongoing discussion about whether Islam's claim of being a "religion of peace", and you referred to this as "propaganda".

As I point out, nobody's faith is blameless. And, while YOU may not have intended this, in the broader context of people calling out Islam as not being a "religion of peace" have often conveniently ignored their own faiths' violent histories. If that was not your intent, apologies. But it happens so routinely in reports of such commentary that I felt I had to make the point.





* small-scale slaughters might dissapear into mortality data covering war, brigandry, disease, etc., without being reliably attributable to the sect in question.

 

[Sadras]

Fourth, and most germaine, that the term "religion of peace" is an almost meaningless phrase after a certain point because no long-lasting faith tradition has managed to remain free of humans making a literal bloody mess in the religion's name.

I like this.

Because it was part of our ongoing discussion about whether Islam's claim of being a "religion of peace", and you referred to this as "propaganda". As I point out, nobody's faith is blameless. And, while YOU may not have intended this, in the broader context of people calling out Islam as not being a "religion of peace" have often conveniently ignored their own faiths' violent histories. If that was not your intent, apologies. But it happens so routinely in reports of such commentary that I felt I had to make the point.

Cool. My critique of Christianity's history begins way before the 800 year mark. It actually deals with how just a few centuries after they received the Word they decide to become the oppressors (like the Romans were to them) - especially against the pagans of Greece and Rome. So just after the dawn of this peaceful religion, in its supposed honeymoon stage, as you said above, humans were 'making a literal bloody mess in the religion's name.' The foundations of this religion (very much like those of Islam) are built with the blood of the unbelievers. Not at all something to boast about. The difference is a large portion of the Christian world has apologised and acknowledged mistakes it has made in the past. What has the Islamic world* done?

As Umbran said we have to give them more time - which goes to my point that they still fall in that dangerous period in their religion's timeline if we have to compare it to Christianity's history during the same timeline. Hence a reason for Islamophobia.

With regards to critique on Christianity I haven't even touched the Iconoclast periods, the formation of the Bible...etc all still below the 800 year mark.

*Again when I mean the Islamic world - I mean the nations under the influence of Islam since they don't have a Pope or Patriarchs (like the Christian Orthodox Church) or any other official figurehead for their religion, that I know of.