Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Umbran]

it's what happens when side enjoys repeating themselves over and over again about how bad the other side is, you'll notice the same drum beat will appear in every political thread on here.

There is certainly a pattern - a period of fairly lively discussion, some of which is constructive and in which some people learn some things, followed by what I might call, for lack of a better phrase, a long partisan tail, in which the people with entrenched positions on the subject continue to butt heads fairly repetitively.

 

[trappedslider]

There is certainly a pattern - a period of fairly lively discussion, some of which is constructive and in which some people learn some things, followed by what I might call, for lack of a better phrase, a long partisan tail, in which the people with entrenched positions on the subject continue to butt heads fairly repetitively.

yup, tangentially related to the original topic would it be okay to do an AMA thread about my Faith in the AMA section?

 

[Ovinomancer]

yup, tangentially related to the original topic would it be okay to do an AMA thread about my Faith in the AMA section?

Mad respect for your insane levels of courage.

 

[Umbran]

yup, tangentially related to the original topic would it be okay to do an AMA thread about my Faith in the AMA section?

That you'd have to ask Morrus about.

 

[Sadras]

So, basically, since you're pretty much putting all event that happened in the Middle-East under Islamic History, you're saying pretty much everything happens because of Islam.

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Benefits had nothing to do with what you said.The majority in power in South Africa was Christian, so Apartheid was a results of Christianity. #apartheidchristianhistory

In terms of consistency, for me, policies that affect one Muslim minority in a country is part of Islamic history - as it strengthens one version of Islam over another.
However I'm not denying that discrimination policies existed within Christian History. In fact the Dutch Reformed Church supported Apartheid, despite the fact that it had Coloured and Black divisions. So I will admit Apartheid forms part of Christian History - whereby it was supported by a the white NG Kerk Christians within South Africa but rejected by the majority of Christianity abroad.

One must also keep in mind, the coloured (mixed race as defined in SA) communities were Christian yet suffered under Apartheid, furthermore the black Christians were also affected by Apartheid as the below quote reflects

"Between 1976 and 1994 the Black Church and its theologians were vocal as representatives of the oppressed black majority in South Africa, emphasising the awareness that they also belong to the Kingdom of God."

So why put the extra label only when it comes to Muslims? Why do you find it important to mention Islam above all other religions or ideology or nation?

We are discussing Islamophobia not the phobia of any other religion/ideology. Your position is that policies put in place that safeguards Islam and negatively affect non-muslims has no bearing on Islam, the spread thereof or for that matter Islamic History. I disagree. We can leave it at that or we could continue.

Nope. The dispute came from you forcing that label on as soon as a Muslim is involved, whether Islam is a motivating actor or not, but not put that label when a Christian is involved. It shows a double standard. It seems to be a will to demonstrate that "Islam is bad, look how it plays a role in all those bad things", whether it did or not.

Again we are talking about Islamophobia which phobia would include the history of that religion or followers of that religion.

For the record, I include the spread of Christianity, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the wars between Catholics vs Protestants...etc under Christian History. We are not discussing Christian-phobia. Would you like us to discuss it?

Why not? You're willing to ignore and excuse islamophobia in Europe.

I can sympathise with any homeland nation when it feels like its people, language, culture, heritage might be threatened or eroded. Safeguards are continuously put in place to protect such things in communities and countries around the world, despite situations like a refugee crisis. We do not call those out those safeguards as irrational, but somehow our fear of a particular group of people is deemed irrational.

 

[Kramodlog]

In terms of consistency, for me, policies that affect one Muslim minority in a country is part of Islamic history - as it strengthens one version of Islam over another.

In terms of consistency you need to try again. You were talking about how Coptic Christians were affected by discriminatory laws in Egypt. A country ruled by a military regime by the way. A military regime that ironically evicted elected Muslim fundamentalists.

We are discussing Islamophobia not the phobia of any other religion/ideology. Your position is that policies put in place that safeguards Islam and negatively affect non-muslims has no bearing on Islam, the spread thereof or for that matter Islamic History. I disagree. We can leave it at that or we could continue.

But you fail to demonstrate that is is done because of Islam. Like Pakistan becoming an independent country. It happened because there was a desire of independence by a population who's religion is incidentally Islam.

For the record, I include the spread of Christianity, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the wars between Catholics vs Protestants...etc under Christian History. We are not discussing Christian-phobia. Would you like us to discuss it?

You're missing the critic that you're putting everything in the Islamic History file as soon as one actor might be Muslim, instead of when Islam is actually a motivator. See Egypt and Pakistan above.

I can sympathise with any homeland nation when it feels like its people, language, culture, heritage might be threatened or eroded.

Al Qaeda says that it feels the US and Israel are threatening culture and heritage in the Middle-East.

Remember, all that is needed is to "feel" threaten to get your sympathy. No need to actually be threatened.

 

[Sadras]

You were talking about how Coptic Christians were affected by discriminatory laws in Egypt. A country ruled by a military regime by the way. A military regime that ironically evicted elected Muslim fundamentalists.

They do not have to be Muslim fundamentalists to negatively affect Coptic Christians. Our conversation did not border on degrees of Islamism.

But you fail to demonstrate that is is done because of Islam. Like Pakistan becoming an independent country. It happened because there was a desire of independence by a population who's religion is incidentally Islam.

So India was torn apart because of Muslim Indians wanting their independence from Hindu Indians, but you don't see how this has anything to do with the religion? Ok. So if we remove the religious element between the Indians, do you think the Indians would have separated?

You're missing the critic that you're putting everything in the Islamic History file as soon as one actor might be Muslim, instead of when Islam is actually a motivator. See Egypt and Pakistan above.

Out of interest do you believe that Islamic History ended with the compilation of the Hadith? or even earlier when Mohammed died? Does it not deal with the spread of the religion, even if that includes the tearing apart of another nation?

Al Qaeda says that it feels the US and Israel are threatening culture and heritage in the Middle-East.

Remember, all that is needed is to "feel" threaten to get your sympathy. No need to actually be threatened.

Interesting, are you saying the US and Israel as governments have performed less atrocities than Al-Qaeda?

 

[Kramodlog]

They do not have to be Muslim fundamentalists to negatively affect Coptic Christians. Our conversation did not border on degrees of Islamism.

But the military regime would need to be motivated by Islam and be Islamism. By all accounts it is secular and motivated by power and greed. No?

Now if you say the military in power are Muslims, that is true, but it doesn't mean they are motivated by Islam. Unless you believe Muslism always act in accordance with Islam. Do you?

So India was torn apart because of Muslim Indians wanting their independence from Hindu Indians, but you don't see how this has anything to do with the religion?

What if they never considered themselves to be Indians, but a different people with a different cutlure, language and herirage? You know, that stuff you feel sympathy when people want to defend it. What if they were a minority that was oppressed within colonial India? What if they were a people who were conquered by the Sikh Empire, then the British and just wanted to govern themselves after an history of servitude?

Yes Islam is part of their cultural identity, but the motivator for independence is not Islam, but the desire for self-governance, like it was for the USians under British rule, Slovakians and Czechs in Czechoslovakia, or the Scottish independendists, to name a few examples. Why would in this case it would be different?

Out of interest do you believe that Islamic History ended with the compilation of the Hadith? or even earlier when Mohammed died? Does it not deal with the spread of the religion, even if that includes the tearing apart of another nation?

I'm not even sure why you'd think that.

Interesting, are you saying the US and Israel as governments have performed less atrocities than Al-Qaeda?

I'm saying your low standards for sympathy would mean you should have some sympathy for Al Qaeda. They feel they are defending the Middle-East's culture and heritage after all. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you do not have any sympathy, meaning you do not really apply your standards to everyone equally. Your sympathy just goes according to your positive prejudices.

 

[Sadras]

But the military regime would need to be motivated by Islam and be Islamism.

Earlier you were insisting I don't paint Muslims in a homogeneous group and yet here you are arguing for it.

By all accounts it is secular and motivated by power and greed. No? Now if you say the military in power are Muslims, that is true, but it doesn't mean they are motivated by Islam. Unless you believe Muslism always act in accordance with Islam. Do you?

Are you denying that Islam has affected some of their laws and/or policy making?

What if they never considered themselves to be Indians, but a different people with a different cutlure, language and herirage? You know, that stuff you feel sympathy when people want to defend it. What if they were a minority that was oppressed within colonial India? What if they were a people who were conquered by the Sikh Empire, then the British and just wanted to govern themselves after an history of servitude?

Can you please back that up with some actual evidence.

I'm not even sure why you'd think that.

You have not bothered to define Islamic History from your perspective.

I'm saying your low standards for sympathy would mean you should have some sympathy for Al Qaeda. They feel they are defending the Middle-East's culture and heritage after all. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you do not have any sympathy, meaning you do not really apply your standards to everyone equally. Your sympathy just goes according to your positive prejudices.

LOL! Hey agreed I might have bias and that this (what I posted) was my personal opinion from the very first post. You might want to reread that. As for having sympathy for Al Qaeda - a terrorist organisation. No. Apparently when one makes a statement about sympathy, one needs to stipulate every exception or proviso in case the 'Gotcha' mentality comes calling. Ludicrous.

 

[Kramodlog]

Are you denying that Islam has affected some of their laws and/or policy making?

And because of that you would include the policies of Egypt's secular military regime in Islamic History? By your logic, this means that because some laws were affected by Christianity in South Africa that Apartheid is part of Christian History.

Can you please back that up with some actual evidence.

The Sikh Empire conquered parts of Pakistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Empire

You have not bothered to define Islamic History from your perspective.

Because it is irrelevant. My point is that it isn't Islamic History just because Muslims are involved in an event. Now you seem to believe so. The problem isn't the definition of Islamic History, but that you seem to think that Muslims are always motivated by Islam.

LOL! Hey agreed I might have bias and that this (what I posted) was my personal opinion from the very first post.

So your bias is that you feel that every bad thing done by a Muslim must be linked to Islam by labelling it Islamic History, whether or not Islam was a motivator?