Religion of Peace: Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t (Video Interview)

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Agathon
Oh for God's sake. In world history they are about as violent

The point he's making though is that this is a red-herring. Even if Christian history were far more bloody and violent than any other religions, it doesn't mean we don't have to discuss and deal with Islamic Jihad and try and find ways of stopping the appeal of radical Islam on young, impressionable, previously-moderate Muslims. Yes, Judeo-Christianity has caused lots of violence in the past, and could even be argued to now. Which is why I oppose Israeli and US military actions. However that doesn't lessen the danger from Islamic terrorism. The only way to avoid both is an open discussion, where the phrase "Christianity was worse, look at the crusades" isn't used to stifle discussion.

Right now, there aren't Jews or Christians using terrorism in anywhere near the same magnitude as Islamic terrorism. Yes, there are military actions that also need to be discussed and questioned, but that's not the only thing that needs to be discussed.

I think the point he's getting at is that right now, Christianity is a religion of peace and Islam isn't.

[Dracon II]

I may be wrong on this one... but the violence of the Crusades was legitimized by a Papal edict... whereas Jihadists are drawing inspiration directly from Islamic scripture (albeit by applying their own particular interpretation... I believe that Islamic scripture expressly forbids suicide, which makes the terrorists chief technique theologically problematic).

[Dracon II]

But I imagine that any scripture can permit enough interpretive elasticity for it to be bent to serve particular agendas and causes.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Drogue

The point he's making though is that this is a red-herring. Even if Christian history were far more bloody and violent than any other religions, it doesn't mean we don't have to discuss and deal with Islamic Jihad and try and find ways of stopping the appeal of radical Islam on young, impressionable, previously-moderate Muslims.

But the current wave of Muslim violence, while conducted partly under the umbrella of religion is primarily a political phenomenon. Suicide attacks, which are portrayed as evidence of the fanatical nature of Islam, are in fact a fairly recent phenomenon, and not evidence of something intrinsic to Islam.

Islamism is primarily a political movement, and is most popular where there are few political options for dissenters. It's similar in some ways to the role the Catholic Church played in Latin American revolutionary ideology. Political dissent under the guise of religion is easier to sustain against tyrannical regimes that are loath to openly attack popular religion, but quite happy to crack down on dissenting political movements.

The easiest way of dealing with radical Islam would be to let them win in Iraq. Hardly anyone in those countries wants to live the puritanical and austere lifestyle that the Islamists want to foist on them (except possibly the Afghans, who don't seem to give a ****), and the rulers would either have to moderate quite quickly, or face insurrection. Whatever happens, the oil flow would be undisturbed as those people need to eat, and there isn't a lot of food where they live. In the end, they will have to sort out their own mess, and no-one else can do it for them.

But this will never happen, since it is anathema to the West to have oil bearing Middle Eastern nations with independent policy. All this talk about making Iraq a democracy hides the fact that it must be a democracy that is an ally of the west. But it's unlikely that an Islamic democracy would be an ally of the West. They would probably find it more profitable to ally with the Chinese (who make everything) or the Russians (who are closer).

It's the same old game of power, interests and influence. Let's stop pretending that this is really a war of ideas. It's not. Our rulers attempt to hide this fact because they know that the real reasons are unacceptable to the general public (and these reasons are primarily to keep white people in the dominant position).

[Robert]

If you discuss the question if christianity and islam are peacefull or not, there are two seperated subjects:

1. Is the holy book of christianity/islam and their founder peaceful (ie. is the religion peaceful in it's core)

2. Are the christians / muslims peaceful

In answer to issue 2: both muslims and christians have been very very eager to use the sword. I don't think there's any debate over that. Nobody can state, in general, that either christians or muslims, are peaceful. (again, in general)

In answer to issue 1: I think there's a huge difference between the nature of the Bible and Jesus and the Koran and Muhammed.

Jesus is peaceful, no doubt about that.
Muhammed is a warmonger, no doubt about that.
Jesus advocated to turn the other cheek, Muhammed converted people to Islam by the sword.

Regarding the Bible, the lessons of the New Testament are clear: be peaceful, be the lesser man, turn the other cheek, listen to the governament, obey, be humble. Don't use the sword to fight for the (religious) truth.

The Quran has many parts that can at least easily be interpretated as a call for violence against Jews, non-muslims, etc. Certainly against the background of Muhammeds warlike nature.

Conclusions: christians are, in general, not better or worse then muslims. Christianity, the core of the religion (Jesus, The Bible), is more peaceful then Islam.
Denying that is more an act of policital correctness then observing the facts.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Dracon II
But I imagine that any scripture can permit enough interpretive elasticity for it to be bent to serve particular agendas and causes.

A human being can use any scripture in a total different meaning then the clear intention of the author.
If Jesus says that you have to turn the other cheek, then there's a clear message of christianity.

If Pete teaches to listen to the governament and to not be known as a murderer or a thief, then that's a clear message.

But there are always people who are even capable to found a religion of war based on Donald Duck. You can't blame Donald Duck on that (eventhough he's pretty aggressive towards his neighbour) but only the person who bends those words.

I think that the Quran gives a much better ground for aggressive interpretation then the Bible.
Not to mention that the Catholic Crusaders hardly ever read the Bible. After christians began to read the Bible, the violence ceased to exist.

OBL and Ahmedinidiad do defenitely very well know their Quran. It may still be a matter of interpretation, but against the (factual) background of a warmongering prophet (Muhammed) a violent interpretation is much more valid then a violent interpretation of Jesus, who (according to the Bible) never used violence, and told Pete to not fight for him, and told his disciples to turn the other cheek.

there's always a matter of interpretation, but the post-modern idea that everything can validly be interpretated from anything is just not true imho.
It can be done, but it's not valid.

[Traianvs]

He contradicts himself by saying islam isn't a religion of peace. What he also said in the interview was that it was important to stress the fact that there are plenty of muslims who don't have this notion of anti-western/christian feelings. That there are plenty of moderate muslims.
The title of his book is misleading, because once again it increases the dichotomy between christianity and islam by saying the latter is morally inferior (because it's less peaceful).

He does make some valid points of course, but then why didn't he use the term islamic fundamentalism or jihadism in the title of his book?

For example: you could say that judaism isn't a religion of peace because it oppresses an entire people inside its borders, and it rose to power in part thanks to terrorists like the Irgun etc more than half a century ago. You could say christianity isn't a religion of peace because it spread christianity through means of violence all over the world (like in the many colonies). Of course these are examples of a near and distant past, but it does show that religion is merely a means to control others.

This Spencer claims that the qur'an is stuffed with references to waging war on non-muslims. So what, it's all a matter of interpretation. Other religious groups interpret their holy scriptures according to what they want to achieve. Moderate muslims don't interpret it to actually wage war just like moderate christians don't interpret God in the bible as a vengeful and dominant god like fundamentalist christians do.
Thus it's just foolish to call this or that religion a peaceful or warmongering type. It's only a sociological construction that can be used for your own gains.

He does make a good point by saying it doesn't matter what we do, jihadist islamists will always hate the west. Of course, they need an enemy so they can gain control over their own people. Al Qaeda doesn't want to destroy America, it wants to create followers with the same beliefs, so that it can gain control over the Arabs!

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by CyberShy


I think that the Quran gives a much better ground for aggressive interpretation then the Bible.
Not to mention that the Catholic Crusaders hardly ever read the Bible. After christians began to read the Bible, the violence ceased to exist.

That's an interesting notion: after christians began to read the Bible, the violence ceased to exist...
I believe you could fill a whole library with books contradicting that position

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Agathon


The easiest way of dealing with radical Islam would be to let them win in Iraq. Hardly anyone in those countries wants to live the puritanical and austere lifestyle that the Islamists want to foist on them (except possibly the Afghans, who don't seem to give a ****), and the rulers would either have to moderate quite quickly, or face insurrection. Whatever happens, the oil flow would be undisturbed as those people need to eat, and there isn't a lot of food where they live. In the end, they will have to sort out their own mess, and no-one else can do it for them.

Sounds terribly naive to me. The majority of Afghans probably didn't want that kind of stone age rule either, but it was put on them by the use of force. In a similiar way it could be forced on Iraq. At least you see even more bloodshed than now when fundies and non-fundies, and the various other factions fight it out (as they already do).

How is this in any way a nice option or "the easiest way to deal with radical Islam", esp. when the radical forces might win this one? Saddam was a oppressor too, and he managed to rule for quite a long time by the use of extreme brutality, so why wouldn't radical Jihadis be able to do that?

[Robert]

I believe you could fill a whole library with books contradicting that position

Well, maybe I should have stated: "slowly started to cease to exist", since it's indeed still there.
I do dare to state nevertheless that the people who use violence in the name of Jesus hardly have any knowledge of the Bible and the words of Jesus.

My wife has interviewed catholics and protestants terrorists in Northern Ireland (few years ago, she's a journalist) and both admitted that they didn't really knew the Bible, but used their faith as a tool for their hate against the others.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Traianvs
He contradicts himself by saying islam isn't a religion of peace. What he also said in the interview was that it was important to stress the fact that there are plenty of muslims who don't have this notion of anti-western/christian feelings. That there are plenty of moderate muslims.
The title of his book is misleading, because once again it increases the dichotomy between christianity and islam by saying the latter is morally inferior (because it's less peaceful).

He does make some valid points of course, but then why didn't he use the term islamic fundamentalism or jihadism in the title of his book?

Noticed that too, speaking about Islam not being a religion of peace (while Christianity is) may sell better esp. in the west. What kind of a title would that be if the book is named "Why a certain branch/interpretation/political arm of Islam isn't peaceful".

Easy black and white stuff is much easier to understand

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by BeBro


Sounds terribly naive to me. The majority of Afghans probably didn't want that kind of stone age rule either, but it was put on them by the use of force. In a similiar way it could be forced on Iraq. At least you see even more bloodshed than now when fundies and non-fundies, and the various other factions fight it out (as they already do).

How is this in any way a nice option or "the easiest way to deal with radical Islam", esp. when the radical forces might win this one? Saddam was a oppressor too, and he managed to rule for quite a long time by the use of extreme brutality, so why wouldn't radical Jihadis be able to do that?

Same goes for Iran.
The revolution in iran was made by iranian intellectuals and islamists side by side, but when it succeeded the islamist powers began to replace the former regime by an islamist state against the goals of the intellectuals and persecuted the same intellectuals that helped to get rid of the shah.
I would say that there are lotsa of people who don´t want an islamist iran, but by use of force even against peaceful demonstrations (that repeatedly were attempted over the pst years) and persecution of non islamist parties as well as a state system that gives religious leaders a lot of power in the state the islamist powers silence almost all opposition in the state.

[Datajack Franit]

Originally posted by Dracon II
I may be wrong on this one... but the violence of the Crusades was legitimized by a Papal edict...).

Christians willing to liberate Christianity's holy city from the infidels? Mystifying!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

why are religions violent? Simply because there is a market of gullible people who would rather do harm because some idiot in charge tells them to,( instead of using their own brains as an alternative), which than creates the conditions for abuse of religion for more worldly purposes...

but other ideas are used in the same way like nationalism, communism, neocon(ism) or just pure greed (which is usually the ultimate cause, but these days it has to be nicely packaged for the masses to swallow) etc... when there is a ruling party that subscribes to in idea + goals that can only be achieved through war/terror etc = abuse of the idea to incite war/terror

now Islam vs Christianity... whatever is in the theoretical core, it is the practical application of the masses that makes the difference, and in different times they used different means, and if anything give me an example where an islamic country invaded a christian one lately (Israel is Jewish)... while Christian/secular ones played power games with them for last 100 years.

Not that the islamic ones had the tech wouldn't do the same, they certainly would, but in the end religion is just a facade, the real causes are more down to earth power grabing interests whtether you are OBL or GWB... it is only that George has a much better army at his disposal, and the very fact that Osama can even put up a fight is quite remarkable feat.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Catholics willing to take land for themselves using a high-minded excuse? Mystifying!

Fixed.