Panem et Circenses

[Anonymous]

I believe that in Iraq specifically, the Shia/Sunni divide is also regional and in effect, like an “ethnic” issue in Iraq.

The motivations of the groups against each other are not religious—that’s just a marker for ‘my people’ versus ‘your people’. Saddam favored “his people”, and the “other people” want payback.

The religious motivations are, by contrast, very important in the other more important war—the religious versus the secular.

There the Shia were the anti-seculars, and have no compunction murdering doctors and university professors (the economic and secular rational elite were also generally Sunni and Christian).

And of course fundamentalist al-Qaeda et al agree with them on that.

Sunni versus Shia, so far it’s 3-2 Shia. Murderous fundamentalists versus seculars? 10-0.

[Anonymous]

I believe that in Iraq specifically, the Shia/Sunni divide is also regional and in effect, like an “ethnic” issue in Iraq.

The motivations of the groups against each other are not religious—that’s just a marker for ‘my people’ versus ‘your people’. Saddam favored “his people”, and the “other people” want payback.

The religious motivations are, by contrast, very important in the other more important war—the religious versus the secular.

There the Shia were the anti-seculars, and have no compunction murdering doctors and university professors (the economic and secular rational elite were also generally Sunni and Christian).

And of course fundamentalist al-Qaeda et al agree with them on that.

Sunni versus Shia, so far it’s 3-2 Shia. Murderous fundamentalists versus seculars? 10-0.

[Omega Point]

I think I can end your debate pretty easily on whether or not Islam is an inherently violent religion and whether or not Christianity is an inherently peaceful religion.

Just look at the lives of the founders of these religions. Jesus harmed no one and preached to love your neighbor. Mohammed on the other hand, was extremely brutal. He regularly raided caravans, ordered assinations of his foes, married a 9 yr old girl, had a harem of slave women, raised an army and conquered Arabia, and if you ever wonder why the Islamist like to chop off heads, well ol’ Mo was famous for that as well. In fact, he had all the men of an entire Jewish tribe put to death. Swell guy huh? If he were alive today, he would be in the same rank as an Idi Amin and Sadaam Hussein.

Now, this doesn’t mean the followers of Christ have done no evil but the foundations of Christianity and Islam are at opposite extremes. So in fact, it’s pretty easy to see which of these religions is inherently peaceful and which is inherently violent.

[Omega Point]

I think I can end your debate pretty easily on whether or not Islam is an inherently violent religion and whether or not Christianity is an inherently peaceful religion.

Just look at the lives of the founders of these religions. Jesus harmed no one and preached to love your neighbor. Mohammed on the other hand, was extremely brutal. He regularly raided caravans, ordered assinations of his foes, married a 9 yr old girl, had a harem of slave women, raised an army and conquered Arabia, and if you ever wonder why the Islamist like to chop off heads, well ol’ Mo was famous for that as well. In fact, he had all the men of an entire Jewish tribe put to death. Swell guy huh? If he were alive today, he would be in the same rank as an Idi Amin and Sadaam Hussein.

Now, this doesn’t mean the followers of Christ have done no evil but the foundations of Christianity and Islam are at opposite extremes. So in fact, it’s pretty easy to see which of these religions is inherently peaceful and which is inherently violent.

[NotCranky]

Cardiff,

I only brought up the Protestant/ Catholic divide because I felt Allan used the fact that there is sectarian infighting in Iraq, within a major religion, during an invasion/occupation a proxy war and under a puppet government to prove the religion is fundamentally flawed compared to his. I could have gone further back in history to find examples of more continuos conflict between Christian cultures and sects which I don’t believe he would consider should engender the same devaluation of his own religion.

The fact of the matter is the world has been fighting forever yet it appears we use any example of Musliom agression to promote our own relgious superiority/moral authority which in turn is used to justify our own agression which is really undertaken for greedy purposes or to stabilize a region that we are to a large part responsable for destabilizing.

“Isn’t there one camp of Bush critics who consider this area as incapable of civility, and therefore not worthy of losing men in battle?”

Probably. I think there is a “camp” for everything.

Now you can apologize for calling my participation here yesterday a rant….Just kidding :).

I respect Allan very much. In the end I found many things that weren’t on the table initially that surprised me about him ,in a good way. I also still don’t agree with him too much on the main points of the discussion. I think he is taking the “spread by the sword thing too far”. There are similiar issues of interpretation of the bible where violent references are concerned. Christendom has found tremendous support for violence from within it’s doctrines and from the holy men, authorities and politicians who are apparently closer to God.
I have no doubt that at times violent passages or religion derived righteousness are used to motivate men to battle including Al Qaida and the U.S marines. That doesn’t mean on a daily basis the majority of Muslims throughout the world are chomping at the bit to spread Islam by the sword, at least not anymore than we are. It is very much fear based and irresponsible and destructive , to propagandize this way.

Like you, I am learning about Islam and the Middle East and how our national agenda and Christian heritage plays into it.

[NotCranky]

Cardiff,

I only brought up the Protestant/ Catholic divide because I felt Allan used the fact that there is sectarian infighting in Iraq, within a major religion, during an invasion/occupation a proxy war and under a puppet government to prove the religion is fundamentally flawed compared to his. I could have gone further back in history to find examples of more continuos conflict between Christian cultures and sects which I don’t believe he would consider should engender the same devaluation of his own religion.

The fact of the matter is the world has been fighting forever yet it appears we use any example of Musliom agression to promote our own relgious superiority/moral authority which in turn is used to justify our own agression which is really undertaken for greedy purposes or to stabilize a region that we are to a large part responsable for destabilizing.

“Isn’t there one camp of Bush critics who consider this area as incapable of civility, and therefore not worthy of losing men in battle?”

Probably. I think there is a “camp” for everything.

Now you can apologize for calling my participation here yesterday a rant….Just kidding :).

I respect Allan very much. In the end I found many things that weren’t on the table initially that surprised me about him ,in a good way. I also still don’t agree with him too much on the main points of the discussion. I think he is taking the “spread by the sword thing too far”. There are similiar issues of interpretation of the bible where violent references are concerned. Christendom has found tremendous support for violence from within it’s doctrines and from the holy men, authorities and politicians who are apparently closer to God.
I have no doubt that at times violent passages or religion derived righteousness are used to motivate men to battle including Al Qaida and the U.S marines. That doesn’t mean on a daily basis the majority of Muslims throughout the world are chomping at the bit to spread Islam by the sword, at least not anymore than we are. It is very much fear based and irresponsible and destructive , to propagandize this way.

Like you, I am learning about Islam and the Middle East and how our national agenda and Christian heritage plays into it.

[speedingpullet]

A fascinating read on the differences between rival sects in Islam (and the simliarities between it, Christianity and Judaism) – “No God but God” by Reza Aslan.

Amazon linky:

Being relatively clueless about most religions myself, I found it very interesting.

[speedingpullet]

A fascinating read on the differences between rival sects in Islam (and the simliarities between it, Christianity and Judaism) – “No God but God” by Reza Aslan.

Amazon linky:

Being relatively clueless about most religions myself, I found it very interesting.

[Ash Housewares]

I think I can end your debate…

That’s a pretty appropriate introduction for someone with the name Omega Point.

[Ash Housewares]

I think I can end your debate…

That’s a pretty appropriate introduction for someone with the name Omega Point.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rustico: Thanks again for the kind words.

I would like to raise one point that I did not in earlier posts regarding the Christian versus Islam debate, and that is the issue of modernity.

If you look at world history solely from the Renaissance forward, and you were to graph the progress of the Western (or so-called “Christian”) world on one line and the Middle East and Near East (comprised of Turkey, down through the Levant, across the Saudi peninsula and into/including Afghanistan)on another line, you see an interesting (albeit simple) graph emerge. The Middle Eastern world has remained stagnant economically, socially and politically and the Western world (especially America, England and Central Europe) have made tremendous strides in terms of economic, social, scientific, political and religious progress.

I say this not to offer some scathing indictment of Islam and the Middle/Near East, but to ask the question: What factor or factors contribute(d) to the progress on one hand and the stagnation on the other?

CardiffBaseball made an admittedly ham handed reference to Islam and the issue of genital mutiliation, but his point was valid. I also agree with the idea that this made his blood boil. It should.

Rustico, you said that the West has been propangandized when it came to the subject of Islam and Mid East. I agree, but to the extent that we have been told to turn a blind eye to the depredations of a culture that espouses a chauvinistic, misogynistic, and xenophobic world view.

Martyrs for Islam claim a heavenly reward of 72 virgins. Is it just me, or does that strike anyone else here as remarkably childish and infantile? You are part of a religious and social culture that is so sexually repressed and backward that any hope you have of true and unfettered sexual fulfillment has to come with your martyrdom in the cause of Islam and for Allah? Huh?

I mention the Renaissance for another reason. The Roman Catholic Church has been castigated for its transgressions in the period leading to the Protestant Schism (and in point of fact, this was the reason behind the Schism) and justifiably so. As Rustico pointed out, Catholicism was a faith that converted at sword point as well. However, and this is key: Catholicism and Christianity have moved forward and by tremendous leaps and bounds since that time. Islam, arguably, has not. Has not to the point that Osama bin Laden and his ilk wish fervently for a return to this medieval type faith and a world ruled by a unified Islamic caliphate subject to and bound by Islamic law (Shar’ia).

If my choice is between modern Catholicism (which still has a ways to go in modernizing) or modern Islam (which has not modernized in any sense), I think I’ll stay Catholic.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rustico: Thanks again for the kind words.

I would like to raise one point that I did not in earlier posts regarding the Christian versus Islam debate, and that is the issue of modernity.

If you look at world history solely from the Renaissance forward, and you were to graph the progress of the Western (or so-called “Christian”) world on one line and the Middle East and Near East (comprised of Turkey, down through the Levant, across the Saudi peninsula and into/including Afghanistan)on another line, you see an interesting (albeit simple) graph emerge. The Middle Eastern world has remained stagnant economically, socially and politically and the Western world (especially America, England and Central Europe) have made tremendous strides in terms of economic, social, scientific, political and religious progress.

I say this not to offer some scathing indictment of Islam and the Middle/Near East, but to ask the question: What factor or factors contribute(d) to the progress on one hand and the stagnation on the other?

CardiffBaseball made an admittedly ham handed reference to Islam and the issue of genital mutiliation, but his point was valid. I also agree with the idea that this made his blood boil. It should.

Rustico, you said that the West has been propangandized when it came to the subject of Islam and Mid East. I agree, but to the extent that we have been told to turn a blind eye to the depredations of a culture that espouses a chauvinistic, misogynistic, and xenophobic world view.

Martyrs for Islam claim a heavenly reward of 72 virgins. Is it just me, or does that strike anyone else here as remarkably childish and infantile? You are part of a religious and social culture that is so sexually repressed and backward that any hope you have of true and unfettered sexual fulfillment has to come with your martyrdom in the cause of Islam and for Allah? Huh?

I mention the Renaissance for another reason. The Roman Catholic Church has been castigated for its transgressions in the period leading to the Protestant Schism (and in point of fact, this was the reason behind the Schism) and justifiably so. As Rustico pointed out, Catholicism was a faith that converted at sword point as well. However, and this is key: Catholicism and Christianity have moved forward and by tremendous leaps and bounds since that time. Islam, arguably, has not. Has not to the point that Osama bin Laden and his ilk wish fervently for a return to this medieval type faith and a world ruled by a unified Islamic caliphate subject to and bound by Islamic law (Shar’ia).

If my choice is between modern Catholicism (which still has a ways to go in modernizing) or modern Islam (which has not modernized in any sense), I think I’ll stay Catholic.

[NotCranky]

Allan,Just a reminder. I am not supporting Islam over Christianity because for my purposes religion would be better kept a non-state issue. Now, that topic gets some individuals really angry, so for the sake of civil debate I have avoided it. I think since you seem to give Catholicism some credit for the advancement of western civilization in the last 1/2 millenia the topic may be necessary again. I think the Catholic church unfortunately carries political weight in the world and that maybe it is good for some individuals but I would like to see where it has actually contributed to the advancement of western civilization or for peace, by efforts free of motive for fortification of its power.It is better by virtue of having been rendered less powerful and less oppressive. I thought is was the marginalization of religion in favor of other forms of creativity free of dogma that gave the Renaissance and western civilization wings. Now, if you want to argue that the near and middle east might benefit by having more freedom from religion that is a different topic. However I don’t think the U.S would be treating the region any better at this time if it were entirely secular and it continued to possess and threaten to politicize resources that satisfy our interest as Iraq and Iran have done. Again my issue is that we are using Islam as an excuse to vilify an enemy that we have to a large part created and to justify our nefarious foriegn policy towards .It is not which religion is better. It is about wether or not we are justified,or behaving in a christian manner if you wish, in man handling the governments ,seas, oil and economies and in killing innocent people while doing so. I will respond to your post later. It looks like there is a little possibility to philosophize a bit.

THANKS to all the book link posters. Honestly they won’t all get read by your’s truly but I “surfed” each and everyone out and that in itself was relevant and edifying.

[NotCranky]

Allan,Just a reminder. I am not supporting Islam over Christianity because for my purposes religion would be better kept a non-state issue. Now, that topic gets some individuals really angry, so for the sake of civil debate I have avoided it. I think since you seem to give Catholicism some credit for the advancement of western civilization in the last 1/2 millenia the topic may be necessary again. I think the Catholic church unfortunately carries political weight in the world and that maybe it is good for some individuals but I would like to see where it has actually contributed to the advancement of western civilization or for peace, by efforts free of motive for fortification of its power.It is better by virtue of having been rendered less powerful and less oppressive. I thought is was the marginalization of religion in favor of other forms of creativity free of dogma that gave the Renaissance and western civilization wings. Now, if you want to argue that the near and middle east might benefit by having more freedom from religion that is a different topic. However I don’t think the U.S would be treating the region any better at this time if it were entirely secular and it continued to possess and threaten to politicize resources that satisfy our interest as Iraq and Iran have done. Again my issue is that we are using Islam as an excuse to vilify an enemy that we have to a large part created and to justify our nefarious foriegn policy towards .It is not which religion is better. It is about wether or not we are justified,or behaving in a christian manner if you wish, in man handling the governments ,seas, oil and economies and in killing innocent people while doing so. I will respond to your post later. It looks like there is a little possibility to philosophize a bit.

THANKS to all the book link posters. Honestly they won’t all get read by your’s truly but I “surfed” each and everyone out and that in itself was relevant and edifying.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rustico: I did not mean to infer that you were supporting Islam over Christianity, nor was I holding up the Catholic Church as some paragon of virtue. Nope. I was making the point, however, that whatever the various misdeeds of the Catholic Church (and Christianity for that matter) in the period immediately before and following the Renaissance, far more progress has been made in the Western world than in the Middle and Near East.

The Church’s suppression of knowledge and persecution of folks like Galileo, stands in counterpoint to support of thinkers like Aquinas and artists like Da Vinci. What is inarguable is that, however misguided, the Church and the various state institutions advanced Western civilization at a rapid clip. Yes, it was mainly about the accretion of power, influence and real estate and there were some really nasty instances of bad behavior in there (Cortes, the Spanish Inquisition, pretty much everything having to do with settling The New World, etc), but all of history is replete with similar tales and regardless of geography and culture.

My main point is that we have moved forward and there is NO comparison between the Europe of the Middle Ages and the Europe of today. Individual freedoms, decentralized state and political power, the rule of law have all advanced to a point where the modern states of Germany, Italy, France and England are completely unrecognizable from their older counterparts.

I would also point out that there were more wars (of greater destructiveness) during than Age of Reason than nearly any other point in European history (save WWI/WWII obviously).

[Author]

Posts