The debate is over
If there ever really was a debate about the differences between Islam and Christianity, it should now be ended. Islamic jihadist in Afghanistan have kidnapped 23 South Korean Christians. While the followers of “the religion of peace” have already killed at least one hostage, the South Korean’s were there to volunteer in the hospitals and do humanitarian work. But of course, the Christians are the ones to blame and who should stop their behavior.
14 Comments Post a comment
I’m sure they were also there to share their faith when appropriate. Korean Christian missionaries show a lot of courage in reaching into the darkness of Islam.
Islam routinely murders because its teachings come from the father of lies and murder.
It's fascinating how Christians blame an entire religion when a few of its followers do something bad, yet when a few of their fellows do something wicked in their religion's name they write it off as the actions of misguided or crazy rogues. The ol' double-standard again.
Hi Aaron:
I hope you will consider Skeptic's point carefully. It *is* wrong to condemn all Muslims for the acts of a small subset of Muslims. Very few Muslims support the crime you cite, and those who don't are not guilty of the offense. One could just as validly condemn *us Christians* for the crimes of the Muslim extremists because both Christians and Muslims are part of the larger group "monotheists". But we are not guilty because our specific beliefs oppose that kind of killing–the same is true for the vast majority of Muslims.
On the other hand, maybe most Americans *do* support targeting innocent civilians to achieve one's national goals–look at the nearly universal support for our bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW II. There seems to be quite a lot of hypocrisy contaminating the Christian condemnation of Islam, even radical Islam.
your friend
Keith
It's fascinating how Christians blame an entire religion when a few of its followers do something bad, yet when a few of their fellows do something wicked in their religion's name they write it off as the actions of misguided or crazy rogues.
Actually, it's based on logic, even if you don't agree with it. It's based, not on the evaluation of rogues, but on the central teachings of the primary prophet.
Compare the teachings of Jesus to Mohammed, and you'll find that one is inspiring, while the other is oppressive and murderous. Look at their lifestyles – one died for others, the other killed others in multiple pogroms in his own lifetime. It's not rocket science.
What's "funny" is the anti-religionist's inability to discriminate between faiths, and their constant dumbing down of the discussion by lumping all revealed faiths into the same basket, as if they are all of equal viciousness, deception, and effect.
I mean, I ask you, would you rather live in the US (arguably an evangelical/Christian nation), or in an Islamic nation? Heck, maybe even a "secular" nation like Turkey? It's the difference between hell on earth and freedom.
It *is* wrong to condemn all Muslims for the acts of a small subset of Muslims. Very few Muslims support the crime you cite, and those who don't are not guilty of the offense.
I am not condemning Muslims, but Islam, the ideology. As previously discussed, the reason most or many Muslims are not terrorists or in support of terrorism is NOT because their prophet doesn't teach it, but because their humanity helps them realize the falsity of such atrocities.
And I think that the statement that it's only a minority of rogues "taking over" Islam is not really true. In fact, if you look at a recent Pew Study on Islam, you'll see that in many countries, a significant number of Muslims support Muslim extremism (these numbers don't exactly mean that they support such, but that people THINK they do – however, such perceptions are an indicator of the relative level of threat):
US – 19%
Spain – 41%
Russia – 28%
Great Britain – 12-20%
Pakistan – 35%
Egypt – 22%
Nigerian Muslims – 56%
India – 41%
Want another indicator? When asked if they were sympathetic to the Muslims who were offended by the Mohammed cartoons:
British Muslims – 92%
Spanish Muslims – 94%
French Muslims – 82%
German Muslims – 61%
Or how about this 2005 survey?
- Muslims who believe that "foreign Muslims who incite hatred should be allowed to live in the UK": 38 %
- Who agree that "ordinary Muslims should not do more work with the police to root out extremists from the Muslim community": 8 %
- Find it acceptable "for religious or political groups to use violence for political ends": 4 %
- Support the July 7 attacks and say more such attacks are justified: 5 %
There is some good news there, but still, the level of support or indifference to Islamic terrorism is more than a minority of rogues.
Of course I prefer to live in the West. And that's because it has, at long last, subdued religion and established secular and Enlightenment values. As to discriminating between "revealed" religions: I believe they are on a continuum from bad to worse – Christianity, bad; Islam, worse. Organized monotheism has to be one of the most destructive, violent, and irrational plagues to inflict humanity.
And that's because it has, at long last, subdued religion and established secular and Enlightenment values.
No, France was established on enlightenment values. We were established on a combination of Christian and enlightenment values, with an emphasis on the former, IMO.
Organized monotheism has to be one of the most destructive, violent, and irrational plagues to inflict humanity.
Yes, unless you count atheism and social Darwinism (Nazi eugenics), which have killed over 100 Million, compared to teh 10,000 to 100,000 killed in the Crusades (which, arguably, were in some sense defensible in light of 400 years of Muslim aggression).
And let's not forget that it was Christianity which initiated and carried the abolition of slavery in the west, the ONLY ideolgy that had the strength to do so.
Not to mention the billions of dollars and hours of labor feeding the poor and serving the suffering worldwide accomplished by Christian relief organizations, which, putting aside the Gates Foundation, probably dwarfs secular ones (we've already seen that religious conservatives are more generous to both religious and secular charities). Yeah, except those cases.
BTW, I already posted on the Christian roots of American government.
I have also purchased, but have yet to read The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, a historical compendium of the writings of the founding fathers and their ideas of government.
It would be a double standard if only a daily basis Christians and "Christian nations" attacked, kidnapped and killed Muslims and followers of other faiths and I simply dismissed that.
It's not a double standard when you are comparing a group of Christian missionaries doing humanitarian work to a group of Islamic terrorist committing murder. They speak for themselves. The statistic that seeker cited and are in other places illustrate the point. A huge percentage of Muslims believe that suicide bombing is justifiable. The list could go on and on.
There are instances of people claiming to be Christians doing violent, horrible things, but it is isolated. The same can be said for Buddhism and Hinduism, even atheism today.
Our moral philosophies do play a role in how we behave, it's time we stop treating Muslims with soft bigotry of low expectations. I expect them, and everyone else, to be able to behave civilized. If they can't do that and the majority of the people who share their religion are not willing to vocally call out those who behave in reprehensible ways, that's not the fault of South Korean Christians, American Christians or Indian Buddhist. It's their own fault, not mine.
Keith, this is not a debate on pacifism, so I'm not sure how we can put the comments about WWII into perspective. The nuclear bombing of Japan was a horrible act that killed thousands of people, but it was the only reason thousands more didn't die in a war that did not seem to have an end. The point should be made that we didn't attack Japan. They attacked us and brought us into a war that we were trying to avoid getting involved in. But again, that really has nothing to do with Islamic terrorists compared to Christian missionaries – who weren't trying to bomb anywhere and weren't even from the US.
What I object to is tarring all Muslims with the same brush. If, like seeker, you want to demonize them, fine, just don't expect me to agree. From my standpoint, it's just more religious prejudice.
Are there moderate Muslims? Of course there is and I specifically said "Islamic jihadist" in the post.
My point is that the moral equivocation between the two religions should end based on the evidence. Take the term "moderate Muslim" that basically means a Muslim that doesn't want to destroy the west and wipe Israel off the map, while killing as many innocents as possible. A moderate Christian means someone who isn't a liberal or a conservative.
My objection is the coverage of this story. It has gotten slim to none in the Western press and when they do acknowledge it they follow it up with a piece about how it must be the South Korean Christians fault that the Muslim terrorists did this to them. You cannot morally equate the behavior of humanitarian missionaries to murdering jihadists – that is my point and illustrates the absurdity of the idea – "all monotheists are the same and the religions are interchangeable."
What I object to is tarring all Muslims with the same brush. If, like seeker, you want to demonize them, fine, just don't expect me to agree.
I have never done that, you just think I have. What I DO is tar the founder, and his teachings, because they are horrific. I have repeatedly said that Muslims are just like everyone else – looking for a meaningful and structured way to live. But what I have also said is that the further they get into Islam, the more like Mohammed they become, which is murderous and hateful.
Hi Seeker:
You wrote:
"I am not condemning Muslims, but Islam, the ideology. As previously discussed, the reason most or many Muslims are not terrorists or in support of terrorism is NOT because their prophet doesn't teach it, but because their humanity helps them realize the falsity of such atrocities.
But how do you define the ideology? Apparently the moderate Muslims interpret the Q'uran and their tradition differently from the way the radicals do, which is to say that when they call themselves Muslims they are claiming something different from what the radicals are. Both moderate and radical Islam claim to be reading what God really meant in the Q'uran, so how are those of us who don't believe God wrote the Q'uran at all in a position to say which group is reading the Q'uran properly?
And I think that the statement that it's only a minority of rogues "taking over" Islam is not really true. In fact, if you look at a recent Pew Study on Islam, you'll see that in many countries, a significant number of Muslims support Muslim extremism (these numbers don't exactly mean that they support such, but that people THINK they do – however, such perceptions are an indicator of the relative level of threat):
US – 19%
Spain – 41%
Russia – 28%
Great Britain – 12-20%
Pakistan – 35%
Egypt – 22%
Nigerian Muslims – 56%
India – 41%
Except for Nigeria, radical Islam is a minority position. How is it not a religion of a minority of rogues?
Want another indicator? When asked if they were sympathetic to the Muslims who were offended by the Mohammed cartoons:
British Muslims – 92%
Spanish Muslims – 94%
French Muslims – 82%
German Muslims – 61%
Sympathetic? That could easily mean they understand the offense. I understand that!
The other stats you cited showed very tiny minorities sympathetic to radical Islamic positions. And I am not so sure most Christians would answer NO to the question "Find it acceptable "for religious or political groups to use violence for political ends": 4 % what with their support for US military violence.
your friend
Keith
Hi Aaron:
Keith, this is not a debate on pacifism, so I'm not sure how we can put the comments about WWII into perspective. The nuclear bombing of Japan was a horrible act that killed thousands of people, but it was the only reason thousands more didn't die in a war that did not seem to have an end. The point should be made that we didn't attack Japan. They attacked us and brought us into a war that we were trying to avoid getting involved in. But again, that really has nothing to do with Islamic terrorists compared to Christian missionaries – who weren't trying to bomb anywhere and weren't even from the US.
We can debate the highly debatable reasoning we used to drop the big ones on Japan some other time. My point in bringing WW II up doesn't depend on pacifism being teh appropriate Christian position. Yuo repeated the claim that a flaw of Islam is that they are willing to kill innocent people to accomplish their political aims. But we displayed precisely that same willingness when we targeted Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and Tokyo with fire bombs, and Dresden Germany as well). Our argument was our political goals were important enough to justify deliberately killing innocent people. Our purpose was to devastate them emotionally; in other words we chose to apply terrorism to them, terrorism that our government believed to be justified. The point is this: it is hypocritical to claim that "their" evil tactics while supporting our own use of exactly the same tactics.
your friend
keith