I constantly hear conservatives complaining that Muslims in general condone terrorist attacks because they don’t routinely publicly condemn them(which, as an aside, is just nottrue)
One of my answers has always been, why should they feel the need to? Muslims I have known have no more connection with terrorists than American Protestant Christians have with the Lord’s Resistance Army. I don’t think peaceful Christians should feel any need to apologize for them, or the IRA, or pedophile priests, or Breivik for that matter.
Now you have O’Reilly conveniently slicing Breivik away from the rest of Christianity by claiming he is not a Christian, yet I could not imagine him saying terrorists claiming to be Muslims are not true Muslims.
Conservatives always want to tackon the adjective “Muslim” in front of a terrorist when it is a Muslim, but refuse to do the same with Breivik, a Christian.
So are you Christian? Do you feel the need to apologize for and/or condemn Breivik’s actions? Do you apply the same logic to Muslims? If there is a difference, why?
I am agnostic by choice but raised Christian but I certainly see no reason why Christians should apologize for anything.
It is not the religion itself that provokes the violence. It is certain people who co-opt the religion and pervert it that should apologize. This is no different for Christians than it is for Muslims (or Jews or whatever).
When you see some Evangelical Christians spewing their bile and hatred that is your problem. While I personally do not care for organized religion of any sort those people have profoundly perverted their religion and turned it to something it was not meant to be.
A crappy analogy perhaps but a vehicle can be used to carry someone to the hospital and save them or it can be used to run people over. It is not the vehicle, it is the person driving it that matters.
How is using Christianity (or Islam for that matter) to call for violence perverting it? “Go forth and kill the unbeliever/outsider/less powerful” has been official doctrine and practice more often than not for it. Christianity is a major religion in the first place because of its propensity toward extreme bloodthirstiness and ruthlessness; if anything the people trying to use it to promote peace and compassion are the ones trying to pervert it.
If one person claiming to represent a religion does something bad, the rest of that religion shouldn’t be under any obligation to apologize for what he did. It doesn’t make sense.
All the religions of the world, except possibly for Catholicism, are highly fragmented and do not take their orders from one central leader. Thus, the different sects operate independently.
Apologize and condemn aren’t remotely the same thing. Christians shouldn’t have to do either, although the latter might be nice, in a touchy-feely do-nothing way.
of course not. if anything, those journalists who insist on positing a link between this attack and islam ought to write apologies of their own.
der trihs, while i claim no authority in biblical matters i would ask to see a quote from the canonical bible that resembles “go forth and kill the unbeliever/outsider/less powerful.” christianity (not unique in this regard) was able to spread because it offered empowerment to the less powerful, e.g. “the meek will inherit the earth,” and as for killing outsiders, well that not only conflicts directly with the teachings of jesus (see cecil’s article on the good samaritan), but it’s a pretty lousy way to win new converts, wouldn’t you say? don’t fall victim to the same prejudices that those who campaign against islam as a religion of hatred have. a sweeping generalization about “official doctrine” (as if such a thing for ‘christianity’ even exists) requires some pretty serious proof if you don’t want to appear completely ignorant, and to say that people using it to promote peace are perverting it is not only baseless but incredibly offensive even to a non-religious person like me. ‘enlightened’ age my left foot
Did i say anything about the Bible? While I’m sure the Bible has some such quote I’m not going to bother searching because it’s besides the point; I said Christianity, not “Bible”.
“Convert or we kill you” works quite well, and that’s how Christianity spread itself, on a tide of blood and destruction across the world. Conversion by the sword, killing those who resisted, systematically destroying all other teachings. Book burnings and bloodshed are the founding principles of the Christian empire.
Will the Christian fundamentalists here in the U.S. take their responsibility for this useless war and their influence on Breivik’s ideology? Somehow, I doubt it, because they are hypocrites and routinely shirk their responsibilities as fomenters of hate with religous authority as their cloak.
On the contrary; they are either denying that this “counts” as killings by a Christian, or trying o express support for Breivik without actually saying so. Lots of fake-conciliatory nonsense about how while they deplore his actions, under the situation it’s understandable how he’d been pushed into doing something extreme, blahblahblah. Just like the abortion killings; crocodile tears while they make it clear they hope it happens again. It’s the very sort of “Second Amendment Solution” the Right’s been threatening, after all.
No question Christianity has had a violent past and certainly the Old Testament is filled with retribution style crud.
However, I was taught in Sunday School about the turn the other cheek schtick and love thy neighbor bit and so on.
For Christianity, at least, the New Testament trumps the Old Testament. The New Testament was about that hippie Jesus and his message of love.
What I am saying though is there is enough in the Bible for any loony to latch on to. I think Evangelical folks in the US are patently bad people who espouse terrible things in the name of the Bible. Conversely I have been to my mom’s church and they are the epitome of an idealistic do-gooder church. They are not in to proselytizing. They are into community and a better world for people. If you want to learn about their religion great. If not no biggie…they are still happy to help.
I think it is obvious people can co-opt most anything to suit their purpose. An honest reading of modern Christianity would have it all about the “love thy neighbor” schtick and not, “kill the unbelievers”.
All that said I am not fond of organized religion. I think it is more a force for evil than good overall in this world. But that is due more to power hungry humans using this powerful tool for their selfish ends. Nevertheless my mom who is a good person (and not just saying that cuz she is my ma) has no reason to apologize for the killings in Norway.
Because the government has grown stronger and the Church weaker, to the point that if they told you to kill your neighbor for being in the wrong sect they and you would just end up in prison. So these days they softpedal the aggression, at least close to home. Doesn’t keep them from thinking that bombing Muslims and sending missionaries is a great idea, though.
“Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” 1 Samuel 15:3(NSRV)
“Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!” Psalms 137:9(NSRV)
“Do not think I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34(NSRV)
It is the evil people seeking power or money who do this shit.
It is not intrinsic to the religion.
Answer me this:
When right-wing pundits excoriate Muslims as mad killers because they are Muslim do you agree? Do Muslims as a group or individuals need to apologize when someone who claims their beliefs kills others?
Yes, it is. A religion that is built on the idea that it is the only true path to salvation and that anyone who isn’t a believer will go to hell forever positively demands literally limitless aggression, tyranny and brutality. It’s about people doing what their religion clearly demands that they do.
Not really since they tend not to care if the person in quesition is actually a Muslim or actually a killer. Quite often it’s just a code for “brown people” or “poor people”. As for the actual violent Muslims, they are “mad killers”; but so are their Christian opposites. Each side is in the position of Nazis accusing Stalinists of brutality. Islam is evil, Christianity is evil, and there isn’t a great deal to choose from between the two. In my eyes what we have here is a bunch of evil and crazy people calling each other evil and crazy.
That depends if they are some of the ones pushing the particular variant of Islam the attack was committed for; Islam isn’t at all unified. But I don’t actually care that much if the Christians or Muslims who push violence apologize because I don’t believe they are really sorry.
