In the most recent Jihad Watch vcast, Robert Spencer, author of many books critical of Islam, reacts to the recent “Islam is Peace” campaign in Britain. Rather than focusing it’s message on “Islamophobia,” Spencer argues, moderate Islamists should:
- Focus their indignation on the violent Muslims who have perpetrated over 9,000 violent acts in the name of Islam since 9/11 (the main cause of “Islamophobia”)
- Renounce efforts to replace national constitutions with sharia law in non-Muslim countries
- Teach Muslims about peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims as equals on a permanent basis
- Teach against violent jihad and Islamic supremacism
- Actively work with Western Law enforcement to identify and apprehend Jihadists in Western society
Spencer argues that if Muslims did THAT, no PR campaigns would be needed to rid the world of Islamophobia. Note that Fitzgerald has commented on the need to expand Spencer’s commentary.
If xianity is the religion of peace, how do you explain the numerous wars fought in its name over the centuries (eg, the Thirty Years war, the conquest of the new world)?
Quite easily. The general principle is this: while people committed crimes in the NAME of Christianity, they did so, not according to the teachings of Christ or the apostles, but according to political and personal power struggles and greed.
When we say Christianity is a religion of peace, we are talking about the teachings of the New Testament, not the faulty implementation of some across history. And when we compare the TEACHINGS of Christ and the apostles against the TEACHINGS of Mohammed, we see that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, but of war and conquest in the name of God. Quite simply, Jesus and Paul both clearly taught that our enemies are not people, but spiritual forces, and our battle is not with people, but with ideas and spiritual powers that keep people captive, and that the progress of the Kingdom of God is one in the hearts of men, not in political power, supression, or control.
Now, Christianity does have principles for government that we can employ, but these have little to do with establishing Christianity, and all to do with establishing the common good and social health and freedom.
Also, the myriad and significant good deeds done by the followers of Christ are often marginalized by critics who are looking to find fault.
1. The Crusades: Not a religious war, but rather, a political war to take back lands violently conquered by Islam over the previous 400 years. Though Christianity and Christian Europe were involved, no one was “spreading Christianity” in the Crusades. Abuses always happen in war, but those were human abuses, not Christian.
2. The Inquisitions: Also political, and abuses were mostly due to the zeal of the King of Spain – the Pope actually objected to what was going on.
3. Catholic Corruption: We all know that the Catholic church was corrupted, that political and ecclesiastic power were mixed, and that the Popes were often corrupt. In fact, they often tortured and killed true Christians like Hus and other reformers. So when we say “Christians” did these things, we can’t take the corrupt unChristian Catholic errors and account those to Christianity – not when genuine Christianity was being punished by those Catholics.
4. World Colonization and Conquest: Again, we’ve got Catholicism (in Spain), but also Protestanism (England) which in these colonizing countries were mixed with political power. While many claimed to visit other countries in the name of God, few were actually there to preach the gospel, but rather, were there for monetary gain. Except in the case of the U.S., where just about every settlement of the eastern seaboard was created by those with deep faith in Christ and a desire to preach the gospel, and create a nation where the gospel would be free from government interference. And they did.
5. Thirty years war: Ostensibly a war between “Protestants and Catholics,” this again was a political war between Spain and France, not one over salvation or the gospel. It has little to do with the teachings and work of Christianity. In fact, as per Wikipedia:
Yes, yes, I knew you’d take this tack: I just wanted to see if you would. xians always excuse the excesses and brutalities of organized religion on the follies of man rather than the inherent authoritarianism and intolerance of theistic belief-systems. When I survey the history of organized religion I see some teachings of peace and non-violence wedded to violence and conquest in the name of their particular sect. The principles of peace and non-violence and tolerance are eternal and transcendent, and exist independently of religion. The problem is when you wed them to religious belief or a belief in a god or gods or a set of supposedly holy scriptures. Then the trouble starts. Who needs it?
btw: Here's one of the benefits of organized monotheism and its attitudes toward gay people. It reminds me of the old days of xianity, before Enlightenment values and the rise of the secular state.
Yes, yes, I knew you'd take this tack: I just wanted to see if you would.
Well, I think this is the logical and meaningful defense of xianity, or any belief system.
The principles of peace and non-violence and tolerance are eternal and transcendent, and exist independently of religion.
First of all, in a world where real evil exists, non-violence is not a complete ideology – as Aaron mentioned in quoting George Orwwell on pacifism (Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist), and as I have mentioned in Christian Pacifism, Christian War, you need an ideology that also describes how justice and just war are to be employed. The biblical principles of justice, judgment, law and grace, are really what make for peace.
And, due to the fallen nature of man, peace and non-violence are not possible without faith in God. Atheism and humanism on their own routinely fail to produce peace because they fail to address man's fallenness and inability to persist in doing what is good and right on a society-wide scale. Sure, some individuals may have the gumption to be good without God, but this doesn't really scale up because such are the exceptions, not the rule.
In fact, I would argue that, around the world throughout history, it is Protestant Christianity that has led nations to be free, peaceful, and prosperous. Look at the nations that have experienced Protestant revival, then compare them to those that have not. It's night and day.
the inherent authoritarianism and intolerance of theistic belief-systems.
I'd say that these are human foibles that arise from the fact that truth is objective, and those who realize such often try to impose it on others rather than model it and lobby for it's acceptance. Again, human nature is the problem, because any belief system, even one of supposed tolerance, can be authoritarian. It is inherent in all belief systems, and no one lives without a belief system.
Again, if you want to rightly evaluate a belief system, you need to start with the foundational teachings, and then you can perhaps logically trace how they might lead to violence or oppression. But evaluating from the tail end is useless because it is ignorant of the causal relationship, and may assume one where another exists, which is what I think you are doing when you mention the above atrocities.
The problem is when you wed them to religious belief or a belief in a god or gods or a set of supposedly holy scriptures. Then the trouble starts. Who needs it?
Because God is objectively real, and so are death and our guilt, all men need faith in God, and the way that these truths are captured is in the written word. We don't need war, but we need an answer to man's search for meaning, forgiveness, transformation, victory over death, and justice which we don't always see in this world.
It is needed, and the bad stuff? It's man's fault, not God's.
As you say, everything is man’s fault. As such, I don’t trust organized religion which was invented and prosecuted by men. It may be that some of your founder’s teachings are good, but the history of your religion is anything but. Unless God intervenes in human affairs, I see no reason to trust corrupt institutions and religions and books which are the handiwork of mankind. And, as yet, there is no evidence that God has, or will, intervene – or that He actually exists. All we have is the say-so of other men.
And, I also feel that religion makes men even worse, in that it gives them divine permission to follow their own agendas. Thus the evil history of monotheism. Better to treat it with the skepticism and cynicism it deserves.
Of course, as a gay man I have felt the evil discrimination and persecution emanating from monotheistic religionists (like you). Frankly, I want nothing to do with it. I can access what good it contains without the unavoidable nonsense which comes with it.
I see and understand your point, and it does make some sense. But I disagree with your conclusion because I find that some of your logic is faulty to me, and when you throw out spiritual community (the good part of 'organized religion'), you miss out on the spiritual life. While all human organizations are prone to human abuses, there are benefits and reasons to be in spiritual community with other imperfect people like ourselves. As long as the community practices grace AND truth (not just grace, a.k.a. undiscerning 'tolerance', and not just brutal judgmental truth), then you can have something good in 'organized religion.'
Community can be found elsewhere.
I think that spiritual community is something more than just community. It focuses on spiritual growth and encouragement. I’m sure you could find humanistic substitutes that focus on personal growth and encouragement. And they might provide much of what spiritual community provides. But I think they would be a copy of what God really intends – for us to participate in His plan for humanity – the coming of Jesus’ Kingdom, and the preaching of the gospel throughout the world to bring men into the coming Kingdom (which is already here in the hearts of those who believe).
But I think they would be a copy of what God really intends…, etc.
This is all irrelevant to someone who doesn’t share your views. It’s all supposition and assertion.
Understood.