|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Islam and violence
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
To add a bit further to my thought, our news media always identifies all acts of terror committed by Muslims as "Islamic terror". But in the U.S. (at least), the news identifies equivalent terrorism by Christians as "anti-abortion violence" or "hate crimes" which are often prosecuted criminally. So again, I think this leads to some of the perception differences we have here.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
And to add a bit more to my own thought:
You know, it perhaps wouldn't be a problem if people asked such things once. But it just happens over and over and there's no sign of listening to the answers. It doesn't matter how may times Muslim leaders renounce violence, after each new event they're told off for not renouncing violence.
People don't generally ask about the Crusades because of a genuine interest in the Crusades, either. It's brought up for the sake of point-scoring. Forgive my scepticism, but if people really, truly wanted to learn what Islam had to say about violence, wouldn't they bloody well and go and engage in some study instead of just asking the nearest passing Muslim about it immediately after a terrorist attack?
[ 14. January 2015, 04:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Per the survey quoted by BBC news only 7% of British Muslims admire Al-Qaeda. I would imagine though that no survey would bother asking Christians in the UK if they supported violence against abortion clinics as i am pretty sure the yes's would be close to 0%. 7% is still a small minority view. The percentages that think that death is deserved for leaving Islam though is far more worrying. Does anyone seriously want to maintain that this isn't because of Islamic teaching? I think it is specifically due to Islamic teaching but at the same time many Muslims who would pay lip service to believing this might in reality would be better than wanting to see this carried out in reality when the rubber meets the road because they are better than the teaching they are claiming to follow.
[ 14. January 2015, 06:22: Message edited by: Green Mario ]
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
No. Of course it's related to Islamic teaching.
Does anyone want to seriously maintain it's relevant to anything other than recorded deaths of Muslim apostates?
If we were having a discussion about freedom of religion, it would be highly pertinent. I'm struggling to see its relevance here (just as I'm struggling to see the relevance of LGBT rights in Aceh) unless the aim is a general sort of "Quick! Let's find every possible example of Muslims not living up to our standards!" that isn't interested in whether it has relevance to the problem of terrorism.
It makes about as much sense as using a survey of Americans, finding sizable support for the death penalty, to demonstrate that Americans are inherently violent and are coming to kill you. Although it's possible that someone is running exactly that argument on a message board based somewhere in Western Asia right now.
[ 14. January 2015, 06:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Message got a bit mangled but hopefully enough of the words are in the right order that it makes some sense.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
I think there is a correlation between Americans who support the death penalty and American's who are happy for the US to use violence to achieve it's foreign policy ends, I would be amazed if there is no correlation. Having said that there is massive difference to applying the death penalty to someone who has committed murder rather than someone who thinks in the wrong way about God.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
I said it before, but I'll say it again. That survey you keep quoting is seven years old and I would regard the information in that as out of date by now and not suitable to base an up to date hypothesis on. Young people can and do hold firm, sometimes unexamined views, the 16-24 year olds who answered the survey questions at that time will now be 23-31 and may think differently. For that matter, they may not, but I personally would not rely on a snapshot of how things were seven years ago as applicable to the present day.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Having said that there is massive difference to applying the death penalty to someone who has committed murder rather than someone who thinks in the wrong way about God.
Translation: I think one of these things is a really bad crime and I don't think the other one is a crime.
Fine. I don't think people should be put to death for changing their religion either. But I think it's a punishable offence under the law of some countries, possibly by death.
I don't think the death penalty should be applied for murder by the way, but it is.
I certainly don't think the death penalty should be applied for homosexuality. But it is. Christian countries like Russia and Uganda are cracking down on homosexuality lately.
Today I read someone saying online they thought the death penalty should be brought back for pedophilia. I don't agree.
Basically, all this means is that (1) some people think the death penalty is appropriate for the very worst crimes, and (2) people have different ideas about what the worst crimes are.
The first point isn't surprising. What's surprising is how difficult it is for people to grasp the second point.
Our whole notion of plurality inexplicably breaks down when it comes to people having a completely different set of priorities and values to our own.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I perhaps had better complete the point I was trying to make by talking about the difference between what people actually think and what people do.
When you talk about "applying" the death penalty, none of the people answering that survey were doing any such thing. People have LOTS of opinions about what the law should be, but in and of itself that often means nothing more than that they'll vote for politicians who reflect the same opinions (or claim to reflect the same opinions).
To get to people actually "applying" the death penalty, you have to establish that they would take matters into their own hands and break the law of the land.
I sometimes think there ought to be some serious penalties for speeding drivers. I dream of their car engines cutting out, or catching fire, or just seeing them knocked about the head with a plank. My values - clearly not shared with a lot of the population because they zoom past me every morning - place a high priority on the speed limit as a safety measure.
None of this means I hunt down the drivers who speed past me and wreck their cars.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Well plurality/relativism does break down at some point, otherwise saying something is intrinsically violent is no more or less offensive than saying it is intrinsically beautiful and this whole discussion and most other discussions on SOF are moot. No one takes relativism that far.
What if I think making offensive cartoons of my religious leader is the worse possible crime and deserves the death penalty? (I actually have marginally more sympathy with this view than the death penalty for changing religion)?
You talk about a dislike of murder and a liking for religious freedom as if these are mere personal preferences.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[X-post]
Well if you would feel an obligation, then go ahead. For my part I would feel perfectly justified in saying it really didn't have anything to do with me, and the Crusades were far more about the geopolitical situation rather than any kind of Bible passage, etc etc.
In fact, some of that sounds quite familiar from the last few days on the Ship.
I fail to see why I should be answerable for every person on the planet who decided to call themselves Christian, any more than I'm answerable for every person who's an Australian citizen, or every male, or every gay person, or every lawyer.
Totally reasonable to say that the crusades have nothing to do with you. Totally unreasonable to say that the crusades had nothing to do with religion. There is no historian at all who wouldn't see religious beliefs and statements as part of the mix.
It is increasingly clear that this discussion is veering far from the reality of terrorists who scream God is Great as they fire into a news room. It is possible to have a middle position between Islam is inherently violent and religious belief has nothing to do with it. The extreme positions are as usual dominating the thread. It feels at the moment like a debate with flat earthers.
As for Lil' Buddha look at your posts about the 'Christian West' and the sentence in which you directly compared 'extremist Islam' with 'Christianity'. I was using qualifying words to indicate that the problem of religious belief and violence was related only to a subset. I should not have to explain that.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
What if I think making offensive cartoons of my religious leader is the worse possible crime and deserves the death penalty? (I actually have marginally more sympathy with this view than the death penalty for changing religion)?
If you think it? Then I'll say I think that's horrible.
If you act on it? Then I suspect that in most countries where making the cartoon was lawful, your actions will be unlawful. And roundly condemned.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[X-post]
Well if you would feel an obligation, then go ahead. For my part I would feel perfectly justified in saying it really didn't have anything to do with me, and the Crusades were far more about the geopolitical situation rather than any kind of Bible passage, etc etc.
In fact, some of that sounds quite familiar from the last few days on the Ship.
I fail to see why I should be answerable for every person on the planet who decided to call themselves Christian, any more than I'm answerable for every person who's an Australian citizen, or every male, or every gay person, or every lawyer.
Totally reasonable to say that the crusades have nothing to do with you. Totally unreasonable to say that the crusades had nothing to do with religion. There is no historian at all who wouldn't see religious beliefs and statements as part of the mix.
It is increasingly clear that this discussion is veering far from the reality of terrorists who scream God is Great as they fire into a news room. It is possible to have a middle position between Islam is inherently violent and religious belief has nothing to do with it. The extreme positions are as usual dominating the thread. It feels at the moment like a debate with flat earthers.
You use this "nothing to do with" phrase far more often than the posters you appear to believe think that things have "nothing to do with" each other.
The post of mine that you're quoting doesn't actually say that the Crusades had "nothing to do with" religion. It says that they had nothing to do with me, and far more to do with politics than religion.
I can't speak for other posters, but when I rejected links between Islam and terrorism, I emphasised more than once that I was rejecting causative links. I still do. I don't see how shouting something about Allah is a coherent explanation of the causes of a terrorist act any more than shouting God Bless America is a coherent explanation of an act.
If we were talking about people who had dedicated their lives to religious philosophy courses, there might be something persuasive, but when we're talking about a pot-smoking bloke who didn't keep himself pure for marriage and who had no difficulty killing a Muslim policeman who got in his way, you need more to persuade me of his religious zealotry than a few catchwords and the target of his disaffection.
[ 14. January 2015, 08:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's perfectly possible, by the way, that there IS some evidence of religious devotion out there. But you're not bringing it to the table. Allah Akbar is a perfectly standard, ordinary thing said by Muslims everywhere. Allah isn't even a specifically Muslim name for God.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's perfectly possible, by the way, that there IS some evidence of religious devotion out there. But you're not bringing it to the table. Allah Akbar is a perfectly standard, ordinary thing said by Muslims everywhere. Allah isn't even a specifically Muslim name for God.
There doesn't need to be any evidence at all of religious devotion (though reports indicate specific radicalisation in prison and links to a cleric). Hypocrites and even criminals can have religious beliefs too and they can act upon them.
You really are throwing everything at this. So you think they could have been saying a specifically Muslim phrase as a commonplace like we'd say 'hello'? Or they could have been Christians saying it Allahu Akbar as they discharged their firearms into the bodies of journalists and Jews?
You dismiss religious belief as in any way causative, I'm simply saying that it is part of the explanation and part of the cause, mainly because the terrorists invariably say it is. We need to understand that and counter it.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
Orfeo are you really saying that there is no inherent humanity or inhumanity in acts other than that defined by the law of the land or personal opinion.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
So you think they could have been saying a specifically Muslim phrase as a commonplace like we'd say 'hello'? Or they could have been Christians saying it Allahu Akbar as they discharged their firearms into the bodies of journalists and Jews?
They discharged their firearms into plenty of people. Just not women, apparently.
No, what I am saying is that placing great significance on a Muslim phrase as some kind of explanation of their discharge of firearms doesn't make a lot of sense, given the 99.97% of Muslims who use the exact same phrase every day without discharging firearms at anybody.
All it tells you is that they're Muslim. Wow. Great detective work. Same as shouting God Bless America while on a murderous rampage would tell you that perpetrator was an American. In terms of clues, it's ridiculously tiny.
Because it does nothing to distinguish them from millions of completely innocent people. It does precisely nothing to tell you why they became the kind of Muslim who thinks that discharging a firearm is a good time to say Allah Akbar.
Saying that these men were Muslim is merely stating an obvious starting point, barely more helpful in identifying them than stating they're male, and less useful than stating that they were French.
You can study the Koran all you like, but it's never going to tell you very much about these brothers' upbringing, social class, who they interacted with, what they said to people or wrote, when they first got the idea of travelling (to Yemen I think?), how they got in touch with people.
All it's going to tell you is that they read the exact same text as millions of other people who are utterly revolted by the idea of shouting Allah Akbar while committing mass murder.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
You dismiss religious belief as in any way causative, I'm simply saying that it is part of the explanation and part of the cause, mainly because the terrorists invariably say it is. We need to understand that and counter it.
I would like to know what, in practical terms, you would suggest that should involve (both the understanding and the countering), with special emphasis on what it should involve for a Christian leader.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Orfeo are you really saying that there is no inherent humanity or inhumanity in acts other than that defined by the law of the land or personal opinion.
Nope, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it's completely impossible to get the world to conform to my personal opinion and will. What I'm saying is that what I think is unenforceable.
Well, unless you want to start enforcing punishments by inflicting them yourself, as a vigilante or terrorist.
I don't want to do that. I don't think I'm very good at it. So rather than spend all my time screaming at the world that it's not behaving the way it's supposed to, at times I step back and think "I think you're wrong, but I don't have the power to stop you thinking something different".
This is basically what rule of law means. We don't get a power of veto over laws that we disagree with, allowing us to ignore them. We certainly don't get to ignore a law we don't agree with when we travel to a different country - one of the more notable examples in our local region is that several Australians have got into trouble in Thailand for insulting the royal family in some way. I don't think it's right that a quip about the king can land you in jail for several years, but a Thai court isn't going to think much of me saying "well, I don't think that's a good rule".
Neither do we, as individuals, get to create laws that other people have to comply with. As countries, our ability to create laws that people from other countries have to comply with is limited to when they're IN our country.
Basically, whether I think there is inherent humanity or inhumanity in acts is a completely separate question from whether I can expect other people to reach the same conclusions on those questions as I do. After years of watching how the world plays out - from internet discussions to travel to just spending time watching intelligent television on SBS - I've moved from "everybody thinks that" to "surely you can't really think that" to "it's perfectly possible that you might think differently".
There are very, very few things indeed that one can confidently say are close to universal, across all cultures and societies, never mind the individual members of those societies. You can just about get away with saying that people believe that 'murder' is wrong, so long as you remember that 'murder' just means unlawful killing and there is a very wide variety of views about what makes killing lawful. Over in the USA there are millions of people who think it's perfectly alright for 12 strangers to sit down in a room and discuss whether a person is bad enough to justify carefully planning their death. I think that's horrible. Is the law of the USA going to change because I think that's horrible? No. Heck, entire governments - governments that are allies - have been telling the USA they think that's horrible for decades.
Does reaching a definitive position on whether the death penalty is humane or inhumane have any effect on the existence of the death penalty in the USA? Only if the US Supreme Court reaches it. And that's rule of law in a nutshell.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
All it's going to tell you is that they read the exact same text as millions of other people who are utterly revolted by the idea of shouting Allah Akbar while committing mass murder.
Although there are millions who have read the text and they're fine with shouting Allah Akbar while someone is being executed, according to the law of the land, because they converted from Islam-is that right.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PS Having a job where you are reasonably often instructed to write something that you think is stupid, to implement a policy or process that you think is stupid, and where occasionally your attempts to persuade people fall on deaf ears and you end up writing something that you personally believe is stupid, and then those words end up becoming part of the law of the land... all of that really makes you think about these issues a lot.
Thankfully the things I'm dealing with aren't on the level of "is this humane". They're usually more on the level of "is this efficient" or "is this practical" or "is this going to lead to arguments and court cases". Same basic philosophical questions though.
I've helped enact into a law a series of provisions that, in my opinion (and my opinion never changed on this), are completely useless and are a waste of ink/pixels. We're only talking a page or two of stuff, but it still means that I know there's a law in this country that shouldn't be there. Doesn't matter. It's there. Other people wanted it there. People are applying it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
All it's going to tell you is that they read the exact same text as millions of other people who are utterly revolted by the idea of shouting Allah Akbar while committing mass murder.
Although there are millions who have read the text and they're fine with shouting Allah Akbar while someone is being executed, according to the law of the land, because they converted from Islam-is that right.
You'd have to do a poll in the countries where that IS the law of the land to find out whether or not the people in that country think that SHOULD be the law of the land.
I imagine people who turn up to the executions and watch them and shout are probably fine with it, yes. They think that killing in that situation is acceptable. In a circumstance that I don't think it is acceptable.
Just as some people in the USA think killing is acceptable, in a circumstance that I don't think it is acceptable. Happens to be a different circumstance.
It's just not possible to conclude that because someone thinks killing is acceptable in one circumstance, such as apostasy, that they'll also think that killing is acceptable in another circumstance, such as publication of a satirical magazine.
Nor is it possible to conclude that because a great big bunch of a billion people have a particular idea in common, they'll have a second idea in common, even if the second idea is supposedly extrapolated from the first.
Look at the Nicene Creed. It wouldn't even exist if it weren't for theological wrangling in the early church, it wasn't accepted by everybody, and we ended up with 2 different versions of it because the Orthodox didn't accept the Roman Catholic alteration to it. This is presented to us as a foundational document of our faith, which we recite, and yet the truth is that various other Christians who read the same Bible didn't reach the same conclusion and don't recite the same creed.
PS Of course, Christianity didn't physically kill its apostates much as far as I know. It just told them they would suffer punishment for all eternity. Much kinder in a dialogue between people who all believe in the eternity of the soul, don't you think?
[ 14. January 2015, 10:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
You dismiss religious belief as in any way causative, I'm simply saying that it is part of the explanation and part of the cause, mainly because the terrorists invariably say it is. We need to understand that and counter it.
I would like to know what, in practical terms, you would suggest that should involve (both the understanding and the countering), with special emphasis on what it should involve for a Christian leader.
Islamist terrorism isn't very much to do with the Christian leaders but dialogue with Muslims is pretty important. Let's face it, we're unlikely to be conducting an interfaith dialogue with Islamist terrorists but you can break down notions of 'them' and 'us' which religious belief can erect.
The closest I ever came to interfaith dialogue of the more extreme kind was a bus journey to Peshawar chatting to two Mojahedin returning to the front having been shot in action. They were carrying their kalashnikovs and were very well-educated Pathans.. They were fighting to repulse the Soviet invasion and believed they were fulfilling the religious duty of jihad. I was far too nervous of their guns to explain to them that they were just conning themselves and it was all geopolitical.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PPS Deuteronomy 13:6-10. Thank you, Wikipedia article on apostasy.
Yes, yes, Old Testament, suddenly not part of the Christian tradition, etc etc.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PPPS (and then I'm really going to shut up for the night).
If we're going to have an apostasy discussion, we should be really clear that the Quran, unlike Deuteronomy, does not specify a punishment for apostasy.
Rather, the punishment is set out in the Hadith.
Helpfully explained in the more specific and more detailed Wikipedia article solely for Islam.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
Orfeo I understand the difference between rule of law and anarchy but c'mon mate that's not what was being discussed and you know it. Neither were we discussing whether or not we as individuals should be trying to change the laws of other lands.
quote:
Orfeo
Today I read someone saying online they thought the death penalty should be brought back for pedophilia. I don't agree.
Basically, all this means is that (1) some people think the death penalty is appropriate for the very worst crimes, and (2) people have different ideas about what the worst crimes are.
The first point isn't surprising. What's surprising is how difficult it is for people to grasp the second point.
The point you seem to miss is that what people define as the very worst crime/s and how they believe these should be punished tells you a lot about their value system, their attitudes towards human life, their propensity towards violence and their respect for/understanding of or definition of human rights. It is also a cause for concern when there is societal discord about what constitutes the worst crime-debates can be had about the length of sentencing or even capital punishment but when there is a huge difference, e.g. blaspheming should not be punishable at all versus it is the worst crime and should be punishable by death.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Much writing in the OT about wars and violence.
Although Judaism has no 'founder' a fair bit of violence during time of Moses and after.
Islam does have a founder - Mohammed - and he describes violence and using violence against those who don't believe.
Founder of Christianity (although he'd probably dispute it) - Jesus - far from advocating violence promoted peace.
Food for thought?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
sprang to my mind this morning (I seem to remember someone asking for a NT verse that could be taken to advocate violence).
[ 14. January 2015, 10:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
PPS Deuteronomy 13:6-10. Thank you, Wikipedia article on apostasy.
Yes, yes, Old Testament, suddenly not part of the Christian tradition, etc etc.
FFS which is it Orfeo-why does it matter what some old book does or doesn't say when millions of people don't act on it, what matters is what happens in practice or are you now using what the Koran says to shore up your argument.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Islamist terrorism isn't very much to do with the Christian leaders
Inasmuch as it is, at least in part, against what is perceived as Christian, and it's likely to affect our own religious freedoms, I think it is quote:
dialogue with Muslims is pretty important. Let's face it, we're unlikely to be conducting an interfaith dialogue with Islamist terrorists but you can break down notions of 'them' and 'us' which religious belief can erect.
Who are the "them" and the "us" here in your eyes, please? quote:
The closest I ever came to interfaith dialogue of the more extreme kind was a bus journey to Peshawar chatting to two Mojahedin returning to the front having been shot in action. They were carrying their kalashnikovs and were very well-educated Pathans.. They were fighting to repulse the Soviet invasion and believed they were fulfilling the religious duty of jihad. I was far too nervous of their guns to explain to them that they were just conning themselves and it was all geopolitical.
Kudos for the extreme example, but somewhere along the spectrum this is where the rubber hits the road for all of us.
The guy taken hostage in the printing works (who, bear it in mind, by that time was well aware of the Charlie Hebdo attacks two days previously) apparently dressed the wounds of one of the attackers (whilst also facilitating the concealment and intelligence-sharing of a second employee of which the attackers were unaware). That gives me pause for thought.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
Oh and I didn't meant to make it sound like i thought Deuteronomy was the Koran, I was referring to the earlier post about the Koran made by orfeo.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Jesus was talking about the inevitability of persecution not commanding Christians to wield the sword.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
Quick response to Eutychus because I'm just going out the door. I'm a bit confused by the question because it is obvious. Let me just say that as a Christian I believe we are all equally-loved by God. - no Jew, Greek etc.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
He may very well have been, but how do we KNOW that for sure?
It's all based on interpretation. How do we know what Christ 'intrinsically' meant when he said this?
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Jesus was talking about the inevitability of persecution not commanding Christians to wield the sword.
Of course, the usual rules of hermeneutical engagement apply, but ultimately it comes down to interpretation.
I might agree with your interpretation, someone else might take a different view.
How do we decide which one of us is right?
Howbeit, whatever we understand that verse to mean, I think we'd all agree that it couldn't be taken as a proof-text justification for running around murdering people who don't agree with us.
Adherents of Islam have to speak for themselves, but I don't see any evidence for a consensus in the Islamic world that condones or justifies acts of violence and terror.
I don't believe that the Imams and others who are condemning these attacks are doing so simply to avoid a backlash or to draw attention away from themselves whilst they're secretly condoning them ...
No, far from it.
That doesn't obviate the fact that there are clearly extremist and fanatical preachers and punters calling for violence against the infidel etc etc.
Both things are true at one and the same time - there are Muslims who deplore the violence and condemn it, others who deplore it but - for whatever reason - believe that there is some justification or rationale for it ... and loads of nuanced views between those poles.
How could it not be with any religion with so many adherents?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Jesus was talking about the inevitability of persecution not commanding Christians to wield the sword.
Which is how you interpret that verse. It happens to be an interpretation I share, and I believe would be shared by the majority of Christians. Yet, a different interpretation could easily be used to justify an armed response to perceived attacks on the Christian faith.
We don't all share the same interpretation of the Bible. In some cases the differences between interpretation are trivial, in others they can be substantial. It wasn't that long ago that Scripture was used to support slavery, to support the execution of heretics, and it has been used to support religious wars. I happen to believe all the interpretations that support such things are wrong, probably most of us here would agree with me on that point.
One of the things that happens very often is that society (or large parts of society) have a whole raft of things that are assumed to be obvious. When we read the Bible it's easy to see things that support what you already know to be "obviously true". At one time European societies saw it as "obviously true that Africans are inferior", and that coloured their reading of Scripture to see in it support for enslaving millions of Africans. Without that "well, it's obvious" filter we read the commentaries that expounded those interpretations with complete bafflement, unable to follow the logic of the argument.
The same goes for all sacred texts, in all religions, as far as I'm aware. It's clear that many Muslims (although, still a small minority) read the Koran and Haddith and see support for terrorist activities. I'm speculating again, but perhaps they come with a "well, it's obvious" filter that says military action is an appropriate response to threats to what you hold most valuable - and, that's not unlikely since the rest of the world generally adopts the same approach, launching military invasions to secure oil supplies etc.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell wrote:
It's clear that many Muslims (although, still a small minority) read the Koran and Haddith and see support for terrorist activities. I'm speculating again, but perhaps they come with a "well, it's obvious" filter that says military action is an appropriate response to threats to what you hold most valuable - and, that's not unlikely since the rest of the world generally adopts the same approach, launching military invasions to secure oil supplies etc.
Well, violence has been the lingua franca in the Arab world for some time. The old regimes, which have now imploded, used plenty of it against their own people, and the West came in with its invasions, bombings, drone-strikes and so on.
In fact, you could say that the Arab world is in meltdown, amidst a storm of violence.
I don't think these things are 'caused' by Islam, in fact, the old regimes were secularist, and to begin with (after Nasser) termed themselves 'pan-Arab secular socialists', a term which seems ironic now. They still imprisoned and tortured any opposition, whether left-wing or Islamist.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Spawn, to recap, you said quote:
we're unlikely to be conducting an interfaith dialogue with Islamist terrorists but you can break down notions of 'them' and 'us' which religious belief can erect
So I asked quote:
Who are the "them" and the "us" here in your eyes, please?
to which you reply quote:
I'm a bit confused by the question because it is obvious. Let me just say that as a Christian I believe we are all equally-loved by God. - no Jew, Greek etc.
We are all equally loved by God, fine and dandy. But the answer to my question here is no more obvious to me as a result.
For instance, right before that you said quote:
Islamist terrorism isn't very much to do with the Christian leaders
which seems to create a big "us" and "them" distinction right there.
On the face of it, this is a distinction between "us Christians" (who, say you, don't need to introspect on Islamist terrorism) and "them Muslims" (whose responsibility it is to do so and who, perhaps, you might think are to some extent guilty by association).
And ultimately, unless you are a universalist, presumably you believe there is a division between Christian "us" (the "sheep") and everyone else (the "goats")?
Or possibly do you mean a distinction between "us" (people between whom there can be reasonable dialogue) and "them" (those with whom there cannot be)?*
Which "us and them" distinction do you think can usefully be broken down, and how?
I hope you can see why I felt clarification was called for and look forward to your answer.
==
*and to whom I once heard a civilian US military strategist say, in a top-level conference and in all seriousness, "the only response is to kill them all".
[ 14. January 2015, 11:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
I suspect that people find the community that makes them feel good about who they are. I had an acquaintance a few years back who was a very committed member of a spiritualist church. She was also schizophrenic - at least, that's my conclusion from the facts that several other family members have been diagnosed as such, and this woman was also hearing voices / experiencing paranoid delusions regularly. In that church, hearing voices was considered a great spiritual gift, which meant that everywhere else she was a mentally ill woman living on benefits, whereas in her church community she was practically a celebrity. She avoided getting diagnosed and was of the view that other people simply misunderstood her gifts. And honestly, who wouldn't want to believe that take on things? People adore religious groups that tell them what they want to hear.
So that's kind of what I think is happening here. If you're an angry young man with issues with aggression, and you come across a small subgroup within your religion that really values people like you, and validates your rages, and tells you that you can be a holy warrior of God and have meaning in this life and reward in the next, what's not to love about that? Many majority Muslim countries have a lot of angry young men, because they have comparatively young populations - if most of your population is under 25 there'll be a different group psychology. Combine that with societies that are very segregated along gender lines, and you get angry young men who get to hang out with other angry young men a lot.
But all of this is due to demographics rather than specifically Muslim beliefs.
I don't think that the western equivalent to Islamist extremist groups is Christian extremist groups. I think it's probably something more like skinhead gangs or football hooligans. A British racist skinhead gang who go around beating up immigrants on their estate, or intimidating people outside the local mosque (and I've seen far more of the latter than I've had any experience with violence by Islamists), will probably tell you that they're doing so in defense of the UK and out of love of their country.
But if people come to me over and over again and say "Liopleurodon, you're British. Why haven't you specifically spoken out against every incident like this that happens? Oh, you SAY that you oppose racism, but maybe there's a bit of you that supports it really? Isn't there something violent about being British? That's why these guys said they were beating people up, and if you look back, Britain has a long history of spreading its empire by the sword, so I think there might be something in this whole Britain-is-violent thing. What about the repuation of British football hooligans abroad? What do you think of them? And hang on... weren't you brought up just a few minutes' walk away from where Stephen Lawrence was murdered? By people of the same ethnicity as you? Have you publically condemned those people?" ...
then yeah, that's gonna get pretty tiresome.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Some very helpful insights there, Liopleurodon (at least for me) - thank you.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Eutychus wrote:
and to whom I once heard a civilian US military strategist say, in a top-level conference and in all seriousness, "the only response is to kill them all".
Some accounts of Saddam's life show him receiving plaudits from CIA officers for slaughtering thousands of Iraqui communists; and also being exhorted to attack Iran harder, I suppose Iran being seen as the great Satan.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I don't think it's a secret that many of those pulling the strings at the top of terrorist organisations (as opposed to the foot soldiers) are students of military strategy in exactly the same way as the people who end up as officers in Western armies - sometimes training at exactly the same civilian institutions under the same (Western) lecturers and reading exactly the same books.
[ 14. January 2015, 11:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
Okay, Eutychus, I just mean that we shouldn't regard each other as enemies because of our differences. And also that the more we get to know each other the more we realise both how different we are and how much we have in common. I obviously don't mean that there are no differences of view. As to questions of ultimate judgement that is beyond my pay grade. I'm not God, nor am I very confident that I know his mind.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Orfeo I understand the difference between rule of law and anarchy but c'mon mate that's not what was being discussed and you know it.
I was replying to a post of yours that referred to the law of the land. Why would I "know" that wasn't the relevant topic?
And why do you think I was talking about anarchy? I wasn't. I never mentioned the word. I was talking about values. I was talking about pretty much the same thing as Alan was after me, about the fact that it's far too easy for us to regard a whole bunch of things as 'obvious' and just be mystified when someone else doesn't share those 'obvious' things.
And your response actually reflects that exact point: your "huge concern" that other people don't share your same values as to which crimes are the worst. Well, sorry, but welcome to the planet. It's actually always been like this. You'll find a lot of isn't actually European Judeo-Christian and never was. You're just aware of it now, which is what you get for living in the 21st century where the connections are far stronger than they were before and we're exposed more to people who aren't in our 'club'.
Frankly, I spent a hell of a lot of time on that post, so for you to basically suggest that I was knowingly avoiding the topic at hand is not nice to hear.
[ 14. January 2015, 13:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The point you seem to miss is that what people define as the very worst crime/s and how they believe these should be punished tells you a lot about their value system, their attitudes towards human life, their propensity towards violence and their respect for/understanding of or definition of human rights.
Are the Chinese inherently a very violent race? There are 55 capital offences in China.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Jesus was talking about the inevitability of persecution not commanding Christians to wield the sword.
sorry - I missed this before my last post - but it's interesting that Christians have few qualms about interpreting the words of Jesus but don't think that muslims can do the same with words from the Qur'an.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Okay, Eutychus, I just mean that we shouldn't regard each other as enemies because of our differences. And also that the more we get to know each other the more we realise both how different we are and how much we have in common.
Thanks for the clarification. Does that apply right across the board - to the terrorists too?
(Seeing as how I'm a prison chaplain, meeting terrorists, or at least potential terrorists, is not as unlikely as you might think...)
Is there anyone I should regard as my enemy? Should I regard anyone or any ideology I might believe to be "inherently violent" as my enemy?
Or is regarding any individual (including individuals espousing potentially violent ideologies) as "inherently violent" the first step towards regarding them as our enemy? And thus an inherently wrong move?
(These are not rhetorical questions, by the way).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Working with aspects of body psychotherapy, I can tell you from direct experience that the emotions we feel when we meet someone are often a direct reflection not of something from ourselves, but something from them. Technically this is called counter-trabnsference, and is far more universal than most people realise. If you then accept those negative emotions as your own and run with them, you only reinforce them in the other person. If you can TOTALLY release them so you are only feelin your own feelings (not by numbing them but by radically lettig them go through a very deep process of release) then you give the other person a hugely powerful opportunity to not be bound by thise emotions. This is Love in action. It's not easy. And it applies to everyone.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
I may have missed in this ond unresolved thread any mention of Islamic Wahabism or Salifist motives that contribute to the terrorism. These two strands would seem t be at the core of the trouble, Wahabi or Salifi
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I may have missed in this ond unresolved thread any mention of Islamic Wahabism or Salifist motives that contribute to the terrorism. These two strands would seem t be at the core of the trouble, Wahabi or Salifi
I agree. Actually, Spawn did raise them over on the other thread. But it's difficult to make sense of the whole question of violence within Islam without considering that. IMHO, natch.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
