Many of you are basing your arguments on comparison of different religions when ALL RELIGIONS are the foundation of the problem.
The true purpose of any religion should be to bring spiritual enlightenment to the devout.
But the problem with all religions is that people hijack those religions and use them to enforce their own twisted beliefs.
Any religion which does not allow its followers to questions its principles is simply a tool used by the privileged to control those too stupid or afraid to question.
But their twisted beliefs come from the religion. Say what you like about Islamic terrorists, they certainly know their scripture. And where religion is concerned, not questioning is kind of the point. That’s why they call it dogma.
I’d say that says more about the way our news media talks about Islam than it says about Islam (or “Modern Islam,” in the parlance of the OP).
If it turned out that there was a movement towards religiously inspired violence among 0.0001% of Christians, would it really call for the pope clarifying that Christianity does not endorse such behavior? Or wouldn’t that be obvious to the other 99.999% of Christendom and the world in general?
From the Pew Survey
But in South Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, medians of more than half back both severe criminal punishments and the death penalty for Muslims who renounce their faith.(emphasis added)
I don’t see anyone on this board condemning North Korean death camps on a daily basis, either. What’s with that?
Oh yeah: it isn’t controversial. Everyone hates honor killings, death camps, etc.
What is controversial is people like you who want to believe that the actions of a terrorist group make everyone who looks like the members of the group somehow responsible. If we were having this debate 70 years ago, you’d probably be demanding why interned Japanese-Americans haven’t apologized enough for Pearl Harbor.
Except for the likeness of Mohammed, all the others exist outside of Islam and in many ways are cultural, not religious. So you’re pretty much striking out while trying to make your point.
ISIS is connected to other modern anti-establishment Islamist movements (loosely grouped as Jihadi) and in general participates in a strong local tradition of disaffected assholes appealing to a ‘purer’ Islam over the nominal authority’s ‘corrupted’ Islam that arguably dates back to the Khwarij.
The LRA is more of an isolated, ‘new’ movement. Their local context that has not been especially Christian for long, and during that time the region has not had much political or religious stability. I guess I would loosely characterize it as: the LRA are ostensibly seeking a Christian solution to a mostly non-Christian problem, whereas ISIS and most other Jihadi groups are ostensibly seeking an Islamic solution to a mostly Islamic problem.
They are both violent movements that claim religious justification, but the resonances they have (and the reasons why they have them), the historical foundations they have, and the religio-social factors driving their rebellion are all different enough that I don’t think comparing them is useful.
I don’t disagree with you, but the bias is on Stringbean and others like them. Simply because one claims a Christian basis and one claims an Islamic bases generates a wildly different reaction.
Christianity isn’t expected to demand real change and real reform because of the LRA, but Muslims worldwide are expected to repeatedly condemn ISIL. And even when they do it doesn’t matter because people like Stringbean don’t bother listening to them and just keep asking why they let a minority hijack their religion.
But since the LRA calls itself Christian it gets people likeRush Limbaugh going on the radio to say things like:
Rush is so not embarrassed about that you can even read the entire shows transcript on his site. Where to this day it’s still labeled as Obama invades Uganda, targets Christians.
But Stringbean has never been upset about Rush. Instead they’re focused on not being able to draw pictures of Mohammad because that’s apparently a huge problem in their life. Is the OP upset with the restrictive dress codes in Orthodox Judaism? No, they are entirely focused on Islam. Is the OP concerned when American politicians quote the bible as the basis for laws or try to have the Ten Commandments installed in public buildings? Nope, again, just Islam needs to worry about theocracy.
Then your problem is with religion and I don’t see a reason you’d even remotely want to appear as supportive of a bigot like the OP.
Also, I don’t think you quite grasp how groups of people (religious or not) work if you expect generic Christian A to lead a reform of the WBC or even have a way to “demand real reform and change” within the WBC.
All I know is somewhere out there, some nice Himba lady is wondering why our oppressive modesty laws force women, and only women, to wear restrictive and uncomfortable tops at all times.