ABC: A Liberty University student was arrested in possession of IEDs, which he intended to use to attack innocent civilians, in collaboration with two others, including a soldier. I was all set to write a blog entry about how shameful it is for people to be protesting a funeral, but then this group of extremists went and did something even more shameful in response. Remember: if we don’t fight them in Lynchburg, we’ll be fighting them at home. Unless you, y’know, live in Lynchburg. (Via Wonkette)
Comments are closed.
I would urge the Christian community not only in Lynchburg but throughout America to secure its churches, community centers, and other facilities against a possible violent backlash as a result of this incident.
And I hope that people will keep in mind that the acts of these three Christians in no way represent the views of Christians throughout the United States and, indeed, the world. Many will be quick to say that these individuals are simply acting upon what they’ve been taught by the Bible (“I come not to bring peace, but the sword”), but it’s important to understand that the message of Jesus was peace, no matter how his words have been misunderstood.
“Many will be quick to say that these individuals are simply acting upon what they’ve been taught by the Bible (”I come not to bring peace, but the sword”), but it’s important to understand that the message of Jesus was peace, no matter how his words have been misunderstood.”
If I interpret the above portion of our allegorical give-and-take correctly, you seem to be saying that message of Mohammed (Islam) was peace, no matter how his words have been misunderstood. But if all the major schools of Islam, including the vast majority of its preeminent scholars, insist that jihad against the infidel is every Muslims’ duty and sharia is the only code a good Muslim can live by, then who are you, some white-bread guy from Virginia, to tell them Islam means peace? It seems a little presumptuous.
I’ve read these comments over and over and don’t understand why Islam came into this at all in the third one. Although, the third one DOES seem to betray an anxiety about race and regionalizm that’s interesting. How about we call it a draw and get some latte?
“I would urge the Christian community not only in Lynchburg but throughout America to secure its churches, community centers, and other facilities against a possible violent backlash as a result of this incident.”
Er, from who?
I’m with you.
Lets try this again, shall we?
Point being, Waldo seemed to say “Regardless of the actions of these people, Jesus taught peace” and you came back and said “but look at these other people.” Waldo wasn’t necessarily making a point about Islam, but even if he was, your argument doesn’t make sense.
And believe me, I’m not trying to defend Islam, but when the mere impression of a comparison to Christianity comes up, well, thou dost protest too much, methinks.
People do idiotic, truly reprehensible things in the name of every religion. People do idiotic things in the name of just about anything that people think is important. This is because people will make a decision, then find justification, not the other way around. If you think the problem is one particular religion, you’re destined to be fighting holy wars ’til the end of time. Perhaps the thing to do would be to take interest in what’s drawing people to these extremist stances in the first place.
I have to point out that the overwhelming majority of Christians appear to believe that, in fact, “killing your fellow man can be justified.” We are fighting two wars right now that have earned protest from few Christian groups other than Quakers and, in fact, enormous support from far-right Christians who see this as a holy war against Islam.
Christianity, as it’s generally practiced and broadly understood, can fully justify killing enormous numbers of people.
Maybe I’m just being a bit slow, but isn’t that what I wrote?
My point was simply that no matter how clear any religion is about it (and some aren’t so clear), some, possibly large number of assholes are going to find a way to twist “love thy neighbor” into justification to torture and kill him and his family. Conversely, a lot of people will be totally exemplary citizens. In my experience, choice of major religion doesn’t seem to be a very good indicator of just about anything other than geographical location.
Specifically, though, I’m looking at Christians who support war. These aren’t extremists, but just regular folks.
I’m really disappointed with you people. How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate? Probably.
If you’ll go back to the beginning, Waldo posted: “Remember: if we don’t fight them in Lynchburg, we’ll be fighting them at home. Unless you, y’know, live in Lynchburg.”
Now, to me anyway, that was a TIC post about how Christians can be just as violent as Muslims. He was riffing on the oft-heard Bushie justification for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So I decided to play along with a preposterous post about how Christians should guard against a backlash from the idiotic Falwell bomb guy. (One often if sees alerts from CAIR and their ilk warning Muslims to guard against a “backlash” from whatever atrocity Muslims elsewhere happened to commit that day.)
When Waldo then posted about the inherent peacefulness of Christianity, I assumed he was joining me in this allegory (figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another) which HE started.
I specifically included the word “allegorical” so that those of you disposed to believe it’s really all America’s fault and Islam is a Religion of Peace would understand I was engaging in an extended metaphor…to no avail apparently.
I don’t know what more I can say. Jonathan Stewart would not be proud of many of you.
JS, I think your restatement of your belief, in the negative, that Islam is somehow a religion more inclined to violence than any other religion betrays that in fact you were not joking.
If you believe this you simply are not a good student of history.
@ Jon S.:
When one takes a look at many of the armed conflicts occurring in the world today, one picks up on a pattern. See if you can follow along.
In Chechnya: Muslims v. Russians.
In Kashmir: Muslims v. Buddhists
In “Palestine:” Muslims v. Jews and other Muslims
In Darfur: Muslims v. Animists & Christians
In S. Thailand: Muslims v. Buddhists
In Bali: Muslims v. Backpacking students
In Afghanistan: Muslims v. Americans & Other Muslims
In Iraq: Muslims v. Americans & Other Muslims
In France: Muslims v. Peugots & Citrones
Now I couldn’t copy this. I actually had to type it, so I’m sure you’ll believe me when I tell you I could go on.
I don’t know what your version of history teaches, but the foregoing is pretty convincing right now.
So does it go something like this:
-Vandals (primitive Christians) fighting and slaughtering what they saw as corrupt Roman Christians.
-The conflicts between the eastern and western churches,
The battles between Coptic and other sectarian Christians in North Africa,
-The Crusades, all four of them
-The Reformation, Counter Reformation, and the resulting century and half of some of the bloodiest conflict this planet has ever seen, some estimates are as high as a third of Europe’s population being butchered.
-Oh and don’t forget the Inquisition, and the good Spanish Christian missionaries and the good work they did for the Native Americans in their gold mines.
-Or the good Christians and the slave trade.
-Ummm, how about European Christian colonialism and the millions killed, does that count? It should, pretty much set the stage for the shit storm we have to now deal with in Africa and the Middle East . . . actually one of my favorite points I like to make to smug anti-American, Europeans.
-Or the American Civil War, Christians fighting Christians, each side professing boldly, “god is on our side”, does that count?
-Oh, my favorite, Christian justifications for slavery and segregation (Curse of Ham):
Genesis 9:25-27: “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, ‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave’. ”
It was thought that Canaan settled in Africa
“[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.” Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America
“The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” Rev. R. Furman, D.D., a Baptist pastor from South Carolina.
Any room for the genocide perpetuated on the Native Americans? A relative of mine, General Philip Sheridan, said, “the only good Indian is a dead Indian”. He went about to prove it, too!
-And don’t forget the two world wars, have any wars killed more people, pretty much Christian on Christian violence, not to mention the Christian on Jew genocide, both Protestants and Catholics got in on that action. Or more generally all the genocides Christian’s put upon Jews in the last 2,000 years.
-Or the Phalangists massacre of Palestinian refugees at Sabra and Shatila.
-Ummm, or there is Rwanda, 90% Christian.
-Or how bout the Protestant on Catholic war in North Ireland?
-Or maybe, how bout the 18,000-25,000 Christian on Christian murders that happen right here in good ol’ US of A every year?
I mean how fucking myopic are you? I am sorry, but your reactionary dogmatic view of the world is getting really tiresome. Open yourself up to some information.
Now I couldn’t copy this, I actually had to type it, so I don’t know what THAT means, but believe me when I tell you, I could have gone on and on and on and on.
I consider myself a Christian, so I am not condemning Christianity; war and bloodshed is a fully human phenomenon, and it is a historic fact that one religion is not any more innately violent that another. For every instance of muslim violence you quote me I could quote you an instance of Christian violence.
But I am not sure what that proves, you seem to think it does prove something.
Further more I do see a pattern in todays conflict, . . . ummm, maybe just maybe the fact that the nastiest conflicts in the last 50 years have all been in former third world colonies . . . I mean, I might be crazy but maybe that has something do with it . . . I mean it must just be a coincidence, right, because we know from you that their religion is the controlling factor for their inhumanity and violence.
You’ve left out all of the conflicts that don’t involve Muslims and, in fact, misrepresented some of those that do. You’re saying that Muslims are at fault in our invasion of Iraq? I thought it was Saddam Hussein having WMDs? (I have a hard time keeping up.)
Seems to me what you’ve discovered is that the developing world tends currently to be Muslim, whereas the developed world tends currently to be Christian, and you’re blaming the conflicts in those regions on religion, rather than the other, far more serious pressures that are endemic to these regions due to scarcity of resources. For instance, you don’t mention Darfur. All of the participants in that conflict are Muslim, but the slaughter there is really about Rizeigat tribesman vs. Fur, Massaleit and Zaghawa tribesman. With a half million people dead, and 2.5M refugees, this appears to be the largest, most deadly conflict in the world right now. But it’s got nothing to do with Islam. The bloody civil war in Côte d’Ivoire only uneasily rests at the moment, but it’s gone on since 2002 with religion having very little to do with it, with an enormous percentage of the nation displaced, living in refugee camps to escape the violence.
Looking at your list, you could just as easily blame skin color. Dark people are just plain violent. Or a better theory would probably be that developing regions of the world tend to cluster around the equator, where people tend to have darker skin colors.
There’s no doubt that religion is responsible for a lot of conflict in this world. And there can also be no doubt that the dominant religions will be responsible for the bulk of that religiously-rooted violence. As Christianity has been responsible for enormous amounts of violence, so too is Islam. Fundamentalism is a hugely dangerous thing. But there’s enough blame to lay at the feet of religion — Islam, Christianity, Judiasm, and certainly others — that there’s no need to go blaming religion for conflicts rooted in more fundamental matters.
To all reading, and to Judge.
I apologize for my nastiness, typing can be faster than thinking.
Sorry again, strong words might not be needed when we are all trying to figure this crazy place (i.e., world) out.
Wow. Waldo not only preempts my rebuttal, but does it with much more clarity and precision.
Well done.
I’ll try to respond to what you wrote, Jon, but it’s a little lengthy and I might to break it up some.
First I note that you came with a laundry list of your own to match the one I posted. A couple things: All mine are current – as in happening now. You start with the Vandals and work your way forward, but practically everything you mention happened in the past. In many cases, the distant past.
I also see you didn’t fail to mention the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Well. The Crusades were a belated European (Christian) reaction to unprovoked aggression from Muslims. As for the Inquisition – a byword for Christian brutality – it killed less people in 150 years than jihad does in a typical year.
You seem to say that Muslim violence is certainly no worse than that perpetrated in the name of Christ, but, in any event, it’s all out fault anyway because of colonialism!?! How utterly predictable. Ya know, Massachusetts and Virginia were colonies too, and exploited a helluva lot more effectively than most places in Africa and the Mid-East, and we turned out OK.
Why is it so hard to accept that Islam poses unique problems for the West due to its uncompromising, aggressive nature? There is simply no equivalent in any other major religion to raving on endlessly about jihad. Is it the fact that most of Islam’s adherents are dark-skinned and thus your white, liberal guilt complex kicks in and prevents any blame from being directed at Muslims for their failure to join modernity?
This is the bit that I think you’re especially fuzzy on, J.S. Why do Jews attack Muslims in the Middle East? Unprovoked aggression. Why do Muslims attack Jews there? Unprovoked aggression. Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? Unprovoked aggression. Why are Iraqis fighting back against the U.S.? Unprovoked aggression. Why did Catholics attack Protestants in Ireland? Unprovoked aggression. Why did Protestants attack Catholics there? Unprovoked aggression.
Everybody thinks that, when they’re attacked, it was unprovoked. Nobody’s ever willing to say “well, shit, I guess we had that coming to us.” Everybody wants an eye for an eye (or, more often, two eyes for their own eye) which, as Ghandi famously pointed out, leaves the whole world blind.
The Inquisition killed . . . what, are you kidding it was also ethnic cleansing of Jews and Muslims, and honestly have you read about what the those very same Inquisitors did to the Native Americans!?
As far as Virginia or the states being a colonies, completely different, Europeans displaced the native population and set up self rule. Get it, they always governed themselves, that’s why the VA has the oldest legislative body in the country!
As far as your point about the violence and slavery (you forgot slavery) being in the past, well that bloody past is the foundation of modern Christianity.
And please lets not forget the blatant sectarian Christan driven violence of N. Ireland, or Lebanon, or the Serbia (genocide even)
Anyway, those historic wars were wars about the vary nature of Christianity! It was about dogma, it was about interpretations of the Bible, even what books were supposed to be included in the Bible. We practice the Christianity of the survivors of those wars.
Even more our New England ancestors were actually refuges from those very same wars . . . that’s why freedom of religion was such a big deal to the “Founding Fathers”. In many ways the very geniuses for our county was a result of those inter-Christian wars . . . and it certainly set the stage for modern Europe and its 20Th century problems. How do you separate your past from your present? You cant, not to mention that the worst Christan atrocity, the Holocaust was just 60 years ago! A blink of an eye in history.
Further more you can not escape the legacy of colonialism; you can rudely brush it off as liberal white guilt or whatever pre-conceived notion you have, but the legacy is real: or this guy thinks so (you know the Pope)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/pope-admits-crimes-of-christian-colonization/2007/05/24/1179601579676.html
It is absurd to look at the maps of this and the last century’s bloody, bloody civil wars and say that religion is the control. The conflicts stretch from South America to South Asia, these wars are about resources, food, water, gold, corruption, exploitation.
And not to mention that the early Arab revolutionaries were all communist or secularists (ie: the Bathists), large portions of the PLO were Christians. Islamic fundamentalism didn’t really start to become a force until the late 60s and late 70s.
Simply, fundamentalism is a symptom not a cause. Your causation theory has already been tested. Your team has had 7 years, because they miss-diagnosed the problem, they have made the problem worse.
You certainly raise some excellent points, particularly wrt Christianty’s blood-soaked history. But, again, it is largely History. Through time and reforms and reconciliations all but a tiny fraction of religious-inspired violence on Christianity’s behalf has ended (or is at least dormant.)
Here’s my belief and my fear about Islam: What if all the study of the Koran in the 14 or so centuries since Mohammed started Islam has led us to this point. We in the West talk breezily about Islam’s need to reform, but what if they’ve thought it over and this IS the reform? Killing infidels, jihad, and the whole 9 yards. There’s certainly ample textual support for this view in the Koran.
And another point. There was a recent poll taken of British Muslims. I forget the exact numbers but it was something like 15% had sympathy for the 7/7 bombers and 50% would prefer to live under Sharia. The poll was trumpeted as demonstrating how well Muslims are assimilating over there. Excuse me? Fully half the people support stoning adulterers to death but they’re hailed as “moderates” because they can’t be bothered to blow up a bus to get their way!
Islam is inherently irreconcilible with democracy. It’s brutal to women and prone to violence. Just don’t tell a Muslim that. He’ll probably threaten to kill you.
J.S.
Put the emphasis on dormant, While Christendom was butchering itself, Islam was relatively calm, relatively that is (We can thank Islamic culture for many astronomical discoveries, mathematical discoveries, the concept of Hospitals, our alphabet, the fact that we know Aristotle and Plato existed, so on and so on.
Now certain regions of the Islamic world are prone to violence, BUT all for differing reasons (Israel vs Palestinians is an ethnic conflict, natives fighting the new kids immigrants, Darfur, again ethnic groups fighting over dwindling food and water, Somalia, a chaotic failed state, so on and so on)
You can not generalize these conflicts. Again the problem with the Global War on Terror/Clash of Civilizations world view, and why it is bound to fail
Don’t confuse culture with religion, religion is like a virus, it infects culture, but takes on that cultures form.
Look at the different contemporary manifestations of Christianity . . . some of them as oppressive as Wahhabism. AND Wahhabism is not typical of Islam as a whole, it is a relatively new manifestation, via the late 19th century.
Also, what you discover when you poll large groups of people you find a lot of crazy ignorance: Like, that a majority of Americans don’t believe in evolution, or a large percent believe that the world is only 7,000 years old, or that the “Rapture” is about to happen, and that we must have WWWIII in the middle east to make it happen.
Like this group:
http://www.c4israel.org/
This just in: France, hardly a hotbed of neocon warmongers, has just decided to pay their Muslim immigrants to go home.
“Under the scheme, Paris will provide each family with a nest egg of €6,000 ($8,000) for when they go back to their country of origin.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,484716,00.html
Perhaps for a change we ought to follow France’s lead.
How much for you to keep your ridiculousness to yourself?
Judge you can only say crap like this because you don’t actually know any Muslims . . . you cant possibly if you say the things you say. But, maybe you do . . . I don’t really care.
I do not want to labor this, but in college a roommate of mine was Pakistani, many a night I received a cheap dinner at his cousins restaurant in Baltimore, many a night I had a great time hanging out with Pakistanis . . . probably would have had to skip dinner a lot more if I did not know them.
There was also my friend’s family who had the Azerbaijani exchange student. And my best friend’s, dear friend from college who lost his brother in Iraq (a lieutenant in the Army), who was then told by some stupid college kids, “go back home you fucking rag-head terrorist.”
Real nice Judge, There is really no point in saying anything else to you. You reveal how little you actually know about the world and the people in it.