The two faces of Islam.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is no hatred of the Irish, and i'm pretty sure the Irish do not hate the British.

So you are telling me that the IRA doesn't hate the British?

The English and Irish had been fighting long before there was such a thing as a "protestant".

Most of it started after Cromwell decided he and his Protestant New Model Army had to destroy the Catholic Popish Irish.

And Velo... I didn't hear many condemnations of atrocities done by Christians to EACH OTHER in the 30 years war. Bishops and Priests delighted in the masscres that were done. After all it was done for God's pleasure.

[Velociryx]

You just don't wanna give up, do you? 'k....I'm still waiting for that link....you know, the one where catholics are seen dancing in the streets celebrating after the latest catholic massacre.

Is it proving elusive?

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's common historical knowledge that Bishops and Priests applauded atrocities committed in the 30 Years War and even participated in some of them.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Northern Ireland is NOT about land: at least, not like Israel/Palestine is. Yes, the Catholics would like all the Protestants to emigrate to the British mainland, and the Protestants would like all the Catholics to emigrate to Eire, but that's as far as it goes. The Plantation of Ulster happened centuries ago and was a gradual process: they're not fighting over land rights like the Israelis and Palestinians are. They don't have major disputes about who owns each plot of land.

It's a clash of cultures: primarily, a clash of religions. The Protestants don't want to be ruled by Papists: they view the Pope as the AntiChrist and regularly burn effigies of him. This hatred is the sole reason why Ireland was partitioned: the British wanted to grant independence to all of Ireland, but the Protestants of Ulster threatened a genocidal war, the ethnic cleansing of Ulster's Catholic population.

The fundamentalists among the Protestants work hard to keep that hatred alive: they define their identity by it. Hence the Orange Order, and the interminable celebrations of battles and marches.

Of course, they are the majority (60%). So, under the rules of democracy, their will prevails and Ulster remains British. But the reason the minority Catholic population don't accept it (as other religious minorities do elsewhere) is because of the sectarian tension. Religion is the badge that each side identifies with: if Catholics and Protestants dare to marry, both get murdered. The school system is apartheid, with Protestant and Catholic schools and near-total segregation.

For centuries, Protestants and Catholics have killed each other in the name of God. Historically, it's mostly been Protestants killing Catholics, trying to exterminate the evil of "Papism" (e.g. by killing ALL Catholic priests). Now that the Catholics hold most of Ireland, the IRA want to drive the Protestants into the sea. Both sides bear huge grudges against each other, this is all about vengeance for battles and atrocities hundreds of years old.

Otherwise, they are the same people. The Ulstermen came from Scotland, and the Scots came from Ireland. There is no racial difference and no cultural difference of any significance: except religion.

Protestants dislike the Pope because he used to weild political power in Europe. Why should I be subject to the Pope? He lives in the Vatican, not England. Religion had very little to do with the Anglican church being founded. It was because Henry VIII wanted a divorce which the Pope would not grant.

Why did the Orange order originate? I think its because they wanted to have a powerful lobby to persuade people to their cause. Why isn't the srugle over who controls the land? If the protestants left, the conflict would be over. If the protestants would have long ago gone along with the UK freeing all of Ireland, than there would have been no conflict. Protestants and catholics do not hate each other because they are catholic and protestant. They get along just fine here in the States.

Why are protestants so militant in Ireland? They aren't here. No American protestants tear pictures of the Pope up on stage. No American protestants object to their children being sent to school with catholics. No American protestants are murdered for marrying a catholic in a catholic church and practically converting to catholicism. No American protestants do any of the crap that is occuring in NI. Nor does it occur in the rest of Europe. Why? Because religion isn't the cause.

[dunk]

The English and Irish had been fighting long before there was such a thing as a "protestant".

Most of it started after Cromwell decided he and his Protestant New Model Army had to destroy the Catholic Popish Irish.

Bull. Ireland was subjugated by the English king in the middle ages. Again, it was a rallying cry, not a cause.

[Velociryx]

And we Christians even had an inquisition! As I said, I'm not denying that there hasn't been bloodshed, but the mindset is fundamentally different here.

You DO NOT see Protestants dancing in the streets when Catholics are bombed, or vice versa. What you do see (in general) is the leadership calling for peace and condemning those perpetrating the acts of violence. I'm not sure I "get" your extreme reluctance to cede that point.

Have you any evidence that shows wild protestant parties, celebrating a successfully bombed catholic dominated cafe in the name of god?

-=Vel=-

[dunk]

Vel...

The IRA and the protestant groups simply don't have the recruiting power that the Muslim groups have. The Muslim conflict is newwr. Perhaps in 100 years, people in the Middle East will tire of this conflict as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You DO NOT see Protestants dancing in the streets when Catholics are bombed, or vice versa.

I'm pretty sure the Protestants danced in the streets when Gustavus Adolphus' troops utterly destroyed and massacred some of his hated enemies. Since when did the leadership on EITHER side of the 30 Years War or the Inquisition call for peace? That's a bald faced lie.

[Velociryx]

So because you're "pretty sure" it happened, it MUST be true, eh? I gotcha.

On the other hand, there are pictures circulating the 'net showing the followers of Islam out celebrating the latest dead infidels, but you don't have any such photographic evidence, do you? So of course, given Christianity's 2000+ year history, the obvious answer is to keep going further back in time till you can come up with something that might be comparable.

But you can't keep it in current events, can you? Cos if you do that, if you stick to the topic at hand (ie - the differences between Christianity and Islam TODAY), the evidence to support your position simply isn't there.

Call it a lie if you want, and in the meantime, I'll wait around to see if you can find some pics.....

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

So because you're "pretty sure" it happened, it MUST be true, eh? I gotcha.

So you've just called all history false. Way to go numbskull.

But you can't keep it in current events, can you?

No, because you've only limited it to a small timescale to benefit your argument, even though timescale isn't relevant to the discussion. To argue whether one religion is more violent than the other you have to look at the histories of BOTH. By limiting the timescale to current, you are being dishonest and decieitful and you know it.

And furthermore, it is 1380 in the Muslim Calender. By my calculations they have, oh, 500 years to get all secularized.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The most telling thing to me is this:

If a splinter Christian group bombed a cafe full of people in the name of the Christian God, the Pope, and every other prominent leader of the Christian world would come out *strongly* against such actions, declare a day of mourning, offer to help those suffering, etc., etc. Christians the world over would be expressing their outrange and offering assistance.

When a bomber in the ME goes into a cafe in Israel and blows up a cafe filled with innocent people in the name of Allah, we get as a response:

Dancing in the streets and celebrations.

Fundamental difference, wouldn't you say?

-=Vel=-

What about the killing of abortion doctors and the strong approal they get from the extreme fundamentalists in the US? o they donce dance on the street- maybe white people are ust more broing...

[November Adam]

I wonder....

Should a religion be based on what it's followers have done, or on what the religion states should be done?

[Imran Siddiqui]

maybe white people are ust more broing..

IIRC, there is a abortion doctor killer running around in North Carolina being suppored by the people there from escaping from the law.

GOOD example though!

[dunk]

Originally posted by Velociryx
So because you're "pretty sure" it happened, it MUST be true, eh? I gotcha.

On the other hand, there are pictures circulating the 'net showing the followers of Islam out celebrating the latest dead infidels, but you don't have any such photographic evidence, do you? So of course, given Christianity's 2000+ year history, the obvious answer is to keep going further back in time till you can come up with something that might be comparable.

But you can't keep it in current events, can you? Cos if you do that, if you stick to the topic at hand (ie - the differences between Christianity and Islam TODAY), the evidence to support your position simply isn't there.

Call it a lie if you want, and in the meantime, I'll wait around to see if you can find some pics.....

-=Vel=-

I've been reading your argument with Imran about this "who's more violent" issue and finally come to an opinion.

You can't compare the relative violence of Christian nations and Muslim nations without 1) taking into account their relative position in the world stage and 2) History.

1) Muslim nations simply don't have the all around wealth that western christian countries have today. Here in the US, nearly everyone can easily provide for themselves and family plus have plenty left over to buy $250,000 homes. The only people in Muslim countries who can buy expensive things are the extremely rich. The middle class is much smaller than here in the west. This type of situation easily breeds violence. In essence, there are more people with "nothing to lose". A promise of heaven is a strong motivator for people who are poor and uneducated.

2) Religion is never the cause for a conflict (this is my argument in this thread). It only makes it worse. At the risk of blaspheming Islam... I beleive the people who spread Islam through the sword were ambitious individuals who ended up in a position of power in the lands they conquering in Allah's name. Religion was a rallying cry to draw the masses (soldiers) to their cause. "Smite the infidel. And when they are smoten, we shall take their riches!" "Yay!" Religion becomes an easy excuse for things like wars and other attrocities throughout history.

Islam is perhaps more violent today, but christianity could easily do the same at any time.

[Velociryx]

I've not been arguing at all. I began with one, simple statement.

When a servant of Allah bombs a cafe filled with innocent civilians, we have seen (more than once) that the response is dancing in the streets and celebration at the act.

There ARE no current examples of this is Christiandom (no Christian bomb squads blowing up cafes which lead to street celebrations), but if there were, I put forth the notion that a Christian splinter group doing such heinous things would be strongly condemned by every major christian religious leader there is.

That condemnation is notably absent from the Islamic leadership, and is, by its absence, tacit approval of their tactics.

It's not about history in the least. It is a comment on the state of affairs as they are RIGHT NOW, to underscore the fundamental differences between the two religions.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

-=Vel=-