[QUOTE=Malthus]
I’m usually the first to note that culture has as much or more to do with a response than the specifics of religious doctrine - but saying that the specific theology has nothing to do with it way overstates the case, so much so that the point tends to be lost.
[/QUOTE]
When has Christian theology ever been a check on Christian fanaticism. What have Muslim extremists ever done that Christians haven’t done? It’s only ben a little over a decade since the last episode of institutional genocide and mass rape committed by Christians against Muslims.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
So if the Mohammed cartoons had depicted the Prophet and his friends joyfully buggering each other in a grotesque parody of some occasion that Muslims find deeply moving, and the worst response from the Islamic world had been some kooks and nuts posting shit on a website, the two situations would be exactly analogous. But hey, let’s not let inconvenient facts get in the way of a little Christian-bashing. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Read the papers. We actually go out and invade Muslim countries with no provocation. Our Christian leaders can’t even bother to differentiate between which Muslims are which because they’re all terrorists anyway. A large percentage of the Christian populace thinks we’re engaged in a holy war. We have Christian pundits saying we should “kill them all and force them to become Christians.” We have a major Christian candidate singing “bomb bomb Iran.”
We’ve already killed far more civilians than Muslim terrorists ever have. We just don’t have to be so low tech about it.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
When has Christian theology ever been a check on Christian fanaticism. What have Muslim extremists ever done that Christians haven’t done? It’s only ben a little over a decade since the last episode of institutional genocide and mass rape committed by Christians against Muslims.
[/QUOTE]
It is somewhat difficult to prove a negative, such as that a particular atrocity did not occur as a result of any particular doctrine.
No-one doubts that Christians (or indeed Jews or Buddhists) have committed excesses - as indeed have athiests. That isn’t the point.
The issue is this: whether the particular theology (or none) embraced by a group has any effect on their actions, for good or ill. To my mind the answer is obvious - yes indeed, and the only question is how much effect can be attributed to it, as opposed to other factors such as culture or stress.
You may well argue otherwise, but it appears to me to be a losing argument, unlikely to persuade anyone. It simply makes no sense to argue that the content of a person’s beliefs is wholly irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
It is somewhat difficult to prove a negative, such as that a particular atrocity did not occur as a result of any particular doctrine.
No-one doubts that Christians (or indeed Jews or Buddhists) have committed excesses - as indeed have athiests. That isn’t the point.
The issue is this: whether the particular theology (or none) embraced by a group has any effect on their actions, for good or ill. To my mind the answer is obvious - yes indeed, and the only question is how much effect can be attributed to it, as opposed to other factors such as culture or stress.
You may well argue otherwise, but it appears to me to be a losing argument, unlikely to persuade anyone. It simply makes no sense to argue that the content of a person’s beliefs is wholly irrelevant.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve never seen any evidence that the specific theology is relevant, and I think it should be remembered that those would say it does make a difference are the ones with the burden of proof.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I’ve never seen any evidence that the specific theology is relevant, and I think it should be remembered that those would say it does make a difference are the ones with the burden of proof.
[/QUOTE]
What exactly would you accept as “evidence”?
Plenty of fanatics quite cheerfully state that their inspiration for committing fanatic acts is the content of their particular theology. Is that not “evidence”, and if not, why not?
[QUOTE=Malthus]
What exactly would you accept as “evidence”?
Plenty of fanatics quite cheerfully state that their inspiration for committing fanatic acts is the content of their particular theology. Is that not “evidence”, and if not, why not?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but the assertion is that any one theology is more likely to create fanatics than any other religion. Historically, there is no indication that Islamic theology has any more intrinsic ability to create violent fanaticism than Christianity.
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
So your entire argument rests on the word of the person who’s trying to play the victim. Can you link to these web postings? Can you give some evidence that they exist? Why shouldn’t we assume that Kaufmann is lying?
[/QUOTE]
Right, is the best you can came up with is a secondary and clearly biased cite?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Yes, but the assertion is that any one theology is more likely to create fanatics than any other religion. Historically, there is no indication that Islamic theology has any more intrinsic ability to create violent fanaticism than Christianity.
[/QUOTE]
Historically, if you’re going back hundreds or thousands of years, you have a point. But is that relevant? Aren’t we interested in what’s going on today? And can you honestly say Islam isn’t a bigger problem than Christianity in terms of worldwide violence?
The difference between the two religions, it seems to me, is that Christianity has A) a new testament, which changed the message of the old fire-and-brimstone God into one who tells people to love their neighbors and turn the other cheek, and B) gone through a reformation and enlightenment that Islam has yet to go through.
Of course, you’ll find fanatics in every religion. Pockets of nutbars exist all over the world. But the problem within Islam seems of a wholly different order of magnitude. The ‘fanatics’ aren’t dispersed in little pockets of a few hundred or even a few thousand - they number in the millions. The people calling for the deaths of infidels aren’t wacko preachers from offshoot sects - they are major religious figures of nationwide or even worldwide influence.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
The difference between the two religions, it seems to me, is that Christianity has A) a new testament, which changed the message of the old fire-and-brimstone God into one who tells people to love their neighbors and turn the other cheek,…
[/QUOTE]
Whilst i’m generally of the opinion that “Christians did bad stuff centuries ago!” as an argument is brought out somewhat too often, I think it’s reasonable to point out that there have been considerable amounts of Christian-led badness in the world since the NT. I don’t really think you can cite the existence of the NT as a considerable difference when for the rather larger period of its existence a good few Christians were… not very nice people.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Historically, if you’re going back hundreds or thousands of years, you have a point. But is that relevant?
[/quote]
Of course it’s relevant and uyou don’t have to go back hundreds of years. You obnly have to go back to the 1990’s to find Christians committing institutionalized genocide aginst Muslims.
I think the US is a bigger problem than Islam.
This is a canard. For one thing, the Golden Rule is in Leviticus, and the “fire and brimstone” is in the NT, not the Hebrew Bible (Hell is a Christian invention, not a Jewish one). For another thing, Christians have never turned the other cheek and for a third thing, nothing in Christian theology has ever prevented Christians from persecuting or slaughtering other people if they feel like it. Again, I am not talking about ancient history here, I’m talking about two Chrsitian genocide campaigns within living memory.
Jesus (pun or not) how these kinds of threads get derailed. Same old arguments, too.
You oldtimers here should be ashamed!
The bottom line is the comparison between a piece of art that was exhibited in a Christian (Catholic?) museum that was offensive to the prescribers of said religion, versus the opinion that Muslims reacted the same or worse when their religion was “attacked” by yet another “artwork” that wasn’t even displayed in a mosque of theirs.
Without having to remind anyone to try to read through the previous posts for clarity, is anyone REALLY prepared to make a comparison between these two incidents?
Really?
I mean, other than intolerance, is there really a comparison in the level of vitriol and threats? Really?
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I think Diogenes is right…when you have religion tied up with political power, it dose tend to breed fanaticism, regardless of the religion, and that fanaticism can lead to bad behavior. However, that’s not really relevant to the OP. The OP is specifically talking about violence use as censorship of offensive images. In this particular case, Sam Stone is on the money, IMO, when he says that the reaction can in no way be compared to the reaction to the Danish cartoons.
[/QUOTE]
But I wasn’t responding to the OP. I was responding to the poster who asked if Christians ever used terror tactics in modern history.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
In my opinion, no. It was a law enforcement issue, not a military one. Afghanistan didn’t attack us.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s not sidetrack this thread into that debate. You don’t need to bring that issue into the discussion in order to prove that Christians have used terror tactics. Besides, that wasn’t a Christian vs Muslim thing anyway (at least not on the Christian’s part).
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Let’s not sidetrack this thread into that debate. You don’t need to bring that issue into the discussion in order to prove that Christians have used terror tactics. Besides, that wasn’t a Christian vs Muslim thing anyway (at least not on the Christian’s part).
[/QUOTE]
Let’s just stick to Iraq, the threatened invasion of Iran and the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia then.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
My objection is to any contention that the theology has anything to do with it.
[/QUOTE]
To do with what? Accosting others, threatening violence, or actually carrying it out?
Which religion does that nowadays?
Not Christianity.
And I am not trying to open up the obvious can of Christian worms, either.
But this is the 21st century, and there is literally no comparison in the OP’s premise to compare the varying degrees of outrage and actions thereof between what the OP states and what occurred when some funny European drew a bomb on Holy Muhammed’s head.
