Even in the US, one cannot be openly gay or transgender in many parts of the country without fearing for one’s life. Matt Shepard died less than 20 years ago. Until recently it was illegal for gays to marry, and still is quite legal to discriminate against them in most of the country. It is legal (and strongly advocated by our Christian Vice-President-Elect) in much of the country to electrocute children for being gay.
Christianity. Bombs abortion clinics, lynches gay and black people, legalizes discrimination, electrocutes children, radicalizes children in religious training camps. But it’s actually a minority religion that a small number of mostly non-white citizens follow which is the huge danger to our country?
Right, and people that use Islamic doctrine to justify their own forms of oppression and injustice will look at your kind of rhetoric, see the error of their ways and seek to reform their ideology into something better… or they may just get the clue and stick to the same ways knowing that they can always point a finger somewhere and say “they did it too” as justification.
Why if you find it right to call out instances of intolerance and injustice grounded on Christian beliefs do you seem to take umbrage when the same is done regarding Islam?
I don’t. At all. If you want to get me started I could go on all day about the horrible atrocities committed in the name of Islam.
I simply don’t presume that the average Muslim is an infidel-killing terrorist just like I don’t assume that the average Christian is a Planned Parenthood bombing Klansman. There are good people that believe any number of idiotic things simply out of a sense of community.
Look at the simpletons who voted for Trump. Do you think they actually listened to what Trump said during the campaign, assessed it logically and concluded “that guy really makes a lot of sense”? No, they voted how their family, church, and small town voted, because they are part of that community. The majority of Trump voters don’t want to “bomb the shit out of” Muslims just because they’re Muslim. They just want their community (of uneducated rural white people) to stop being ignored in favor of what they see as the “other”.
And that’s what this thread is about. Kim Jong-Un didn’t dispassionately weight the pros and cons of various religions and conclude that Islam was the worst. He just felt that, no matter how shitty it has been shown to be, Christianity is “normal” in America and Islam is “foreign”, hence qualitatively worse.
It’s much easier to look at some weird, foreign, strange thing and conclude it is especially horrible. It is very difficult to look at your family, friends, coworkers and neighbors and conclude the same thing, regardless of the obvious similarities.
You have thousands of years of human history to show you the complex interplay between religious texts and actual religious practice. Like all other major religions, Islam exists in the real world. If you want to know its character, you look to how the majority of its followers practice it.
Tell me please: Do you actually personally know any Muslims?
Yes, the line is spoken by the king in the parable. My understanding, however, is that Jesus is praising the king’s actions in the parable–the king punishes the servant who played it safe, while praising and rewarding those who took risks in the service of the master. (An essentially similarly version, the parable of the talents, is in Matthew 25.) Most traditional interpretations of the parable say that the king is or represents Christ and His coming kingdom (see, e.g., here or here).
I’m saying that people act on their base instincts when they perceive themselves to be threatened or under attack. While I don’t know of any Jain terrorists, there have certainly been violent and terrorist acts committed by those espousing other religions typically associated with peace and non-violence: see, e.g., Abhinav Bharat, a Hindu extremist organization linked to the Malagaon blasts in India, or various Buddhist extremist organizations in Burma and Sri Lanka.
If a Jain community finds itself under attack, will it allow itself to be destroyed, or will some members of that community defend themselves, or even counter-attack? I believe the latter; Jainism does not condemn self-defense, and a number of Jains serve in the Indian Army, for example. Jains may be slower to resort to violence than members of some other faiths, precisely because of their beliefs and teachings, but they are not utterly opposed to violence when it becomes necessary.
But you also acknowledged in post 3 that Islam is no worse than any other religion. If you want to discriminate against Islam, then don’t you have to discriminate against anyone who is religious?
Thanks for the info, but to me, that seems a far cry from your post earlier - “the New Testament has Jesus commanding His followers to bring unbelievers for slaughter”
And I read your links, and it seems like the parable represents the COMING kingdom, in which Jesus casts out his enemies or kills them or whatever, and NOT currently wanting his disciples to kill people.
But as I said, I’m not arguing the OP, just wondered what you meant by quoting that chapter of the Bible.
I’ll disagree with that. And I do so for the reason that I think that religion of any flavor is dangerous. Once supernatural woo enters the picture, common sense gets overridden. If you are inclined to hurt other people, all you need is permission from gawd to do it.
Are Muslims a bunch of idiots for believing a bunch of nonsense? Of course they are.
Same as Christians, Jews, Scientologists, Buddhists, Hindus, and all the godawful flavors of modern pagans.
The only reason I’m not in favor of persecuting Muslims is that I realize that religious freedom is the only reason I’m able to live a decent life as an open atheist.
If religious freedom only applied to those not following stupid or oppressive religions, then nobody would get religious freedom.
FWIW, I don’t get why Buddhism is especially associated with peace and non-violence. Well, actually I know - because Buddhism is associated with flaky, dippy California hippies more than anything. But there have been militant Buddhist sects in India, China and Japan for ever - warrior monks, feuding kingdoms, even revolutionary proto-communists.
I worked in Yemen for 9 years. While that certainly doesn’t make me an expert on Islam, it does give me a different perspective than most. The main issue I struggle with is separating the tribal practices and economic level conditions from the religion.
An interesting example is child brides in Yemen. Many cultures marry off young girls for reasons that include culture, economics, and politics, but much of the justification for this practice in the Muslim world derives from the religion. Defenders of the practice cite the Quran and Hadiths directly. https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Contemporary_Pedophilic_Islamic_Marriages.
A religion is generally peaceful in direct proportion to how weak it is. Buddhists in the West have a reputation for peacefulness because in the West they are weak, and therefore act nice. In places where they are strong they are violent and aggressive just like Christianity and Islam.
“You, my followers, must slaughter the unbelievers, now.”
“You, my followers, must slaughter the unbelievers, but you can wait until later to do it.”
Sorry, I’m not seeing a great moral divide between these positions.
The statement is not that Jesus will cast out his enemies; his disciples (followers) must carry out the slaughter themselves. That slaughter is part of the obligation the servants of Christ owe to their master.
Although the parable of the ten minas is very similar to the parable of the talents in Matthew 25, they are not identical, and Luke 14 is darker and more violent. (The whole notion of the slaughter, e.g., does not occur in Matthew.) Luke 14:27 also a theologically messy statement, because there’s no particular reason given that this required slaughter has to wait until Jesus comes again. It WILL and must happen no later than then, but if part of the obligation of disciples is to use their gifts in the service of the Kingdom of God, and it is decreed that the slaughter of unbelievers is a necessary part of the coming kingdom, then why should the slaughter not begin earlier? Why should disciples whose gifts are martial not begin this grim obligation even in the present?
That’s not really a mainstream interpretation, I don’t think, but it is an interpretation I’ve run across a time or two: you get rid of them now in preparation for the coming kingdom, and also so they do not spread their rot. Compare and contrast with, for example, the medieval approach to heresy.
Luke 14:27 is, to me, one of the most difficult verses to reconcile with the dominant themes of the New Testament. It’s in there, though, and somehow must be accounted in the reckoning.