I also wonder if any religious video of any faith that calls for beating one's wife,inequality between men and women, death for non believers and homosexuals, antisemitism or female genital mutilation will also be counted as extremist video.
https://www.youtube.com/results?
search_query=CHRISTIAN+PASTOR+death+homosexuality
Of course, like you, I would quite like to see all Christian videos banned, but I'm afraid it might set a precedent.
I agree that abusers will use any name for their own means, but generalization of a group because of false persons who claim that group is never helpful.
Of course there are the false teachers who use Christianity for their own power (i.e. televangelist types), but there are also people who actually believe the great teachings like forgiveness and love one another. They are the ones who will pick you up when someone else has beaten you into the mud.
the radicalization of young christians into violent murder machines is a massive problem.
certtainly we must pursue this blatant false equivalency at all costs. because all religion is obviously the same in every way.
Most Muslims don't do any of those things, either.
Meanwhile, some Christians do blow up abortion clinics, shoot up gay nightclubs, mosques and Sikh temples, and put Bible verses on their gunsights when shooting Muslims in the desert. And then you have Christian groups like the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda who do decapitate children, rape and pillage "for Jesus," and practice many of the same violent tactics as any Muslim extremist group.
>certtainly we must pursue this blatant false equivalency at all costs. because all religion is obviously the same in every way.
You are right about there being a false equivalency, but it's not where you seem to think it is.
most soviets never hurt anyone. most nazis never hurt anyone.
> some Christians do ...
with what structural support? how often do they quote verses and present a religious arguments that millions are sympathetic to?
> it's not where you seem to think it is
your dialectic of equivalency that you engage in legitimizes religiosity and by proxy religious violence, and delegitimizes secularism as well as non-religiosity and atheism.
Millions of Americans are sympathetic to the idea of a war with Islam being necessary to usher in Armageddon, and of current US policy being a way to bring this about. George W. Bush even called the War on Terror a "new Crusade," explicitly evoking the mythology of war between Christianity and Islam, a mythology which exists in both religions, although in a context in which each religion believes it will win.
The philosophies of modern, Apocalyptic conservative Christianity and radical Islam are more alike than different.
>your dialectic of equivalency that you engage in legitimizes religiosity and by proxy religious violence, and delegitimizes secularism as well as non-religiosity and atheism
How does it legitimize religiosity and violence to point out that both Christianity and Islam have a violent fringe?
perhaps ironically for your argument, he's also the guy who started the 'religion of peace' comedy (iirc anyways).
> How does it legitimize religiosity and violence to point out that both Christianity and Islam have a violent fringe
it's not about 'have a violent fringe'. your words convey 'there are no functional differences'. islam has a 'violent fringe' in the way the revolutionary proletariats or nazi brownshirts had a 'violent fringe'. the violence is rationalized through ideological structures.
when your dialectic is unable to articulate or recognize the extant ideological structures that rationalize, justify and endorse violence, the discussion must then pursue things outside of religion if it pretends to explain anything.
this supports the postmodernist and terrorist sympathizer claims that every dead westerner brought it upon themselves for being evil westerners.
this dialetic is further endorsed and mirrored by islamists (and other religionists) who fold this into a dialectic where religion is good by definitional fiat.
their religion doesn't influence violence because religion is good by definition. any suggestion otherwise becomes a category error.
but hey. maybe you're right. perhaps western civilization is functionally the same as isis, and we shouldn't judge misunderstood islamists.
their violence has no religious basis (religion is good!), it's just them defending themselves from our evil ways by decapitating children while screaming (purely coincidentally, no correlation) 'allahu akhbar'.
Well, no, Islam has a 'violent fringe' in the way Germans had a violent fringe. Are you claiming that every Muslim is the equivalent of a Nazi brownshirt, when not even every Nazi was a brownshirt, and not every German was a Nazi? It seems like you're making my point more than refuting it.
>when your dialectic is unable to articulate or recognize the extant ideological structures that rationalize, justify and endorse violence, the discussion must then pursue things outside of religion if it pretends to explain anything.
I do recognize them, I'm just refusing to recognize that they only exist in Islam.
I'm attempting to draw an equivalency between radical Islam and radical Christianity, and trying to point out that while similar claims about the violent ideals and tactics can be made about both, particularly when taking a literal interpretation of the canon of each religion, neither represents the mainstream view of that religion.
You're kind of proving my point, here. The problem with radical Islam isn't Islam, it's the politics of the radicals and the states that support them.
>this supports the postmodernist and terrorist sympathizer claims that every dead westerner brought it upon themselves for being evil westerners
But, that's not a claim I'm actually making, so no it kind of doesn't. It seems like we're typing past one another.
I would just request a fair hearing on the point of what a literalist Christian is by definition:
"Die to save your enemies" (Christ's teaching and action) is the direct opposite of "kill your enemies at all costs" (terrorism).
Just from the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7), a literalist Christian would have to do the following:
- Be glad when people insult you and falsely accuse you (5:11-12)
- Always be a good example for your community (5:14-16)
- Have a righteousness greater then the religious leaders (5:20)
- Not be angry or insult others (5:22)
- Make peace with others before coming to God (5:23)
- Settle with people quickly and find a solution to disagreements before it becomes a legal battle (5:25)
- Not look at a woman lustfully (or a man in the general sense) (5:28)
- Control yourself (5:29-30)
- Never seek divorce (5:31-32)
- Every single communication must be truthful (5:37)
- Don't fight back or resist those who attack you (5:39)
- If someone steals or sues you, give them double what they seek (5:40)
- If someone forces you to work, do twice as much as they demand (5:41)
- Always give whoever asks and always lend to others who ask (5:42)
- Love your enemies and pray good for them and be perfect in that love for them (5:44-48)
- Never do good just to look good (6:1)
- Do good in secret as much as possible (6:3-4)
- Pray in secret to God not to be seen by people (6:5-6)
- Don't pray like an idiot (6:7)
- Pray for God's honor (6:9)
- Pray for God's will be done (6:10)
- Pray for daily needs (6:11)
- Pray for forgiveness as you forgive others (6:12)
- Pray for avoidance of temptation (6:13)
- Expect to receive forgiveness equally to the way you forgive others (6:14-15)
- Only fast in secret (6:18)
- Do not have treasures on earth, but instead have treasures in heaven (6:19-21)
- Do not chase after money, but chase after God (6:24)
- Do not worry about food, clothing, and daily needs. Expect God to take care of you (6:25-32)
- Instead seek God's kingdom and his righteousness in your life and let him take away your worry (6:33-34)
- Do not judge others or you will be judged in the same way by God (7:1)
- Don't accuse your brother when you have your own problems. (7:3-4)
- Solve your own problems first, then you can try to help your brother. (7:5)
- Don't go around like your crap don't stink (being a jerk judging everyone else) or you will find enemies who will rip you a new one. (7:6)
- Ask and work to obtain your needs (7:7-11)
- Treat others exactly the way you would like them to treat you (7:12)
- Don't follow popular opinion because it leads to death (7:13-14)
- Watch out for false teachers who claim to be lambs but are really wolves (7:15)
- Judge a person's character according to the evidence of their life not by the name they claim (7:16-20)
- If you only claim Jesus and don't obey him, you do not know him (7:21-23)
- If you listen to Jesus and obey his teaching, you are wise (7:24-25)
- If you listen to Jesus but don't obey him, you are acting stupidly and will destroy yourself (7:26-27)
- Jesus teaching is amazing and completely different then the religious leaders (7:28-29)
I think in my best objective reasoning, that if every human lived like this, the world would be an awesome place to live.
Refer to Galations 5:22-23 (ESV): "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law"
(Before continuing, I would confess I fail to live up to these often and I recognize my own stupidity, arrogance, and selfishness. Despite that, as instructed, I seek forgiveness for my failings; and I strive to live up to these values, as I intend to love God and love others like this.)
Having said that, any hateful person can claim any name and use it to attack others. When that person is clearly acting in the exact opposite of the teachings of that group, should those teachings be blamed?
This is not a "No True Scottsman" claim:
I am not saying people who do evil are not Christians. On the contrary, a Christian might do evil things, but when they do so, they are acting in error - in direct contradiction to their teachings. The fault is not with the teachings, but with the failure of the individual to "practice what they preach".
As a tech analogy:
A diode with a flaw in it may act like a capacitor. Though it was intended to be a diode, it is no longer acting like one and it is now acting in direct contradiction to it's definition. The individual diode is in a failure state, but the failure state of an individual diode (or even some percentage of the group) does not apply to the definition of what a diode should be.
The definition of the diode is good and the goal would be that all diodes actually fulfill their definition.
So the argument should not be against "all Christian videos", but the argument should be that "all Christians should actually do what Christ said".
Concerning Islam, I think it would be great for any Islam teacher (and everyone) to preach love, forgiveness, and sacrificing yourself to save your enemies.
...Eh?