Religion of peace and all that...
Remember the Broadway musical The Book of Mormon? I doubt the Mormons liked the play's content, but they responded to it positively. In some venues, they even took out ads in the playbill.
Do you think it would be possible for Trey Parker and Matt Stone to make a similar production about the Qu'ran? Even in the US, it would be a security nightmare. Venue owners, audiences, and production staff would all fear attacks.
It is more complex than that. There is no on one side "good religions" and on the other side "bad religions". It is rather a combination of social and economics factors (education, poverty, exposure to other cultures, frustration, feeling of injustice (real or imagined), corruption, etc)
The debate does not really interest me, but since you mentioned Mormon particularly, you are probably familiar with the following story : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre
Let me give a more obvious example of religion's role in encouraging/discouraging violence: Jainism. The core contributor to Jainism, Mahavira, said, "All breathing, existing, living, sentient creatures should not be slain, nor treated with violence, nor abused, nor tormented, nor driven away." It is really hard to be violent as a Jain. Jains protest by fasting. In fact, Gandhi got many of his ideas about nonviolent resistance from the Jains.
Also, you didn't answer my question. Do you honestly think there is any religion besides Islam that would raise such security concerns if mocked in a Broadway musical? I agree that culture and other factors matter, but the doctrines of religions are quite different. Some of those doctrines call for violence more than others. The sooner we admit that, the sooner we can try to fix the problem.
In 2015, I can't think of any other. But I don't think there is something fundamentally and radically different with Islam as its core. In some country, you could not mock the official religion or the (despotic) head of state either.
I used to believe that some religions were exempt of violence, but since I learned about "Buddhism fundamentalism" I am much more circumspect.
Any religion that fundamentally doesn't tolerate the existence of other religions and calls its followers to slaughter those who don't convert is "bad religion". Islam is a "bad religion".
There is a fundamental difference between the violent excesses of an ideology, an ideology than almost inevitably leads to violent excesses and an ideology the prescribes violence. The Islam is all the way at the extreme end of that spectrum.
Well, if that's what Islam calls its followers to do, it's a good job most of those followers don't pay any attention. Even Iran permits Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians to worship within its borders: they are subject to discrimination and harassment, but not forced to convert to Islam under pain of death.
Also note that there are special allowances made for people of the Book, so Jews and Christians are not quite as bad off as others, theologically speaking.
But the comment I was replying to made a blanket statement that Islam calls for the slaughter and forced conversion of those of other religions, when the facts simply don't bear that out. Yes, some Muslim individuals and groups do hold to such an extreme interpretation of Islam; and media reports do suggest that most religiously inspired killings are committed by Muslims. But most Muslims don't hold such a stance, and most Muslim countries do allow at least some measure of religious toleration -- even a theocracy like Iran.
The most notable exception, of course, is the West's ally Saudi Arabia.
One of the questions was about support for the death penalty for apostasy. The report doesn't come with a global average, but you can go to the annex, add some census data and do the math yourself. You'll end up with a number of ~40%.
The idea that all muslims are out to kill infidels is of course ridiculous hyperbole. Nevertheless, I consider the number I just quoted worryingly high.
You don't seem to know much about Islam. Let me leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
You can argue that it is discrimination, but if you consider the status of Islam and Judaism during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, you would think Christianity is a "bad religion". It is certainly true that in several areas, Islam has been hijacked by violent fundamentalists, but it does not make Islam, by nature, incompatible with other faiths.
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
"Jesus will come again, and at that time will (among other things) abolish jizya, will "perish all religions except Islam""
Which I would translate to simple words as: slaughter those who are different, unless they pay you. If they do, whoever is accepted as Jesus can slaughter them later anyway. In modern world that's protection racket.
PS, While it sounds harsh, that's how I understand it. If that's not the right idea, please do explain it better.
Simple test - any other religion with the same rule wouldn't be able to coexist peacefully. It's just luck that we have only one.
Does that make Christianity a good or bad religion ? Or Christianity now is good while it was bad before ?
I understand what you are saying, but I think I am interpreting events differently.
One last point, if you have a look on the last few hundreds years in Europe, you will find, and I probably miss a few religious wars : - catholics vs Cathars and various heretical movement - catholics vs protestants - christians vs jews
And as the ideology changed: - monarchists vs republicans - marxists vs fascists etc ad nauseam.
I do think the "Us vs Them" mentality is a constant of the human experience, and with or without religion of any sort, we will find new ways to be divided (see hooligans, is there something more stupid that dying for your team ?). And I believe that the debate around Islam is just another epiphenomena that will be replaced by something else in 50 or 100 years.
Christianity is a bad religion. See the genocide of Bosnian muslims by Serb christians during the Bosnian genocide. (1995 approx)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_in_the_Bosnian...
Christianity is a bad religion. See the murder of muslims by Christians in Central African Republic. (2014, ongoing) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/central-african...
I'm interested in how you're going to contort this to say that these genocides of non-Christians by Christians is somehow different to the massacres you've mentioned.
Yes, it is.
But I don't think it actually calls for killing people practising other religions. (In the new testament, that is) Does it?
Luke 19:27: But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
As well as Matthew 10:34: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
I'm not sure why you want to split the old testament off from the new testament. When we see condemnation of homosexuals by some Christians the Christians are usually making reference to old testament quotes. (Substitute "homosexuals" for children (because some christian sects promote beating children) or women (ditto) to see other appalling behaviour defended by Christians making reference to the old testament.
It's a bit odd that I got downvotes for countering someone saying that Christians don't kill members of other religions by giving two examples - one still happening today - of exactly that; exactly Christians murdering people from a different religion purely because they were members of another religion.
Christianity has, since the 5th century, had the concept of "Just war". So, even if it's not in the Bible (but it is, there's lots of it in the old testament) it's bene part of the faith for 1500 years.
I'm regarding the old testament differently, because I see it as a collection of crazy old stories. I don't believe it's possible to follow the word of the old testament these days without being insane. Or without getting locked up as soon as you start trying to stone prostitutes.
Anyway, my point was - does the text itself (in nt) tell you to fight anyone of different faith. The fragments you quoted say Jesus was going to do that. He didn't tell others to follow the same.
GP claimed that Islam was a bad religion and pointed to a small number of Islamic extremists to prove their point.
That point is trivially countered by showing the genocides perpetrated by Christians against people from other religions -- and there is at least one genocide perpetrated by Christians that is still ongoing.
You're "only asking questions"[1] but you're ignoring inconvenient answers and refining questions in weird ways.
For example: You don't get to define which bits of the bible are relevant. The christians using the bible as a justification for murder do.
[1] "I'm only asking questions" is a troll technique. You probably want to stop that.
But not all religious doctrine is equally toxic.
It is rather a combination of social and economics factors (education, poverty, exposure to other cultures, frustration, feeling of injustice (real or imagined), corruption, etc)
But ideology is part of the package. Totalitarianism has to be opposed, whether its doctrine is based on religion (eg Salafism) or secular concepts (eg Nazism).
Look at all the atrocities committed throughout history in the name of christianity: The imperial conquests of Africa and America were conducted in the name of spreading christianity and with the blessing of the church. American fundamentalists regularly murder abortion doctors in the name of religion. Breivik is a "christian warrior" defending christianity.
Second of all, Mormons?
"On Sept. 11, 1857, a group of California-bound pioneers camping in southern Utah were murdered by a Mormon militia and its Indian allies. The massacre lasted less than five minutes, but when it was over, 120 men, women and children had been clubbed, stabbed or shot at point-blank range. Their corpses, stripped of clothes and jewelry, were left to be picked apart by wolves and buzzards."
The truth is this: Humans are really not creatures of love. Murder is as natural to us as anything else, and history proves it. Killing is easy. It doesn't take much. If there's any lesson to be learned from genocides like the Rwanda massacres, civil wars like the breakup of Yugoslavia or the Nazi era, it is that a large proportion of humanity will readily become mass murderers for almost no reason at all. It really doesn't take that much.
Read about King Leopolds campaign in Congo. There's no need for islam to make people into murderers. People are murderers already. Religion is simply another excuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#King_Leopold.2...
Disgusting. Other religions are perfectly capable of inspiring similar acts.
Sure, killing is part of human nature. Just some religions motivate more to do it than others.
That has no bearing whatsoever on how we should handle totalitarian ideologies.
Should we not be focusing on the current problems at hand? The inquisition was one of the darkest most disgusting things I've ever read about, I'm no proponent of Catholicism. But I don't see the value of pointing to something behind you when there is a ten ton elephant charging at you from the front.
If you look at the islamic doctrine and also the islamic history you will see that already Muhammad had critics of him and his religion be killed. That's mainstream islamic knowledge and doctrine and in the islamic world people wouldn't even be ashamed to admit that as it is normal ("divine") law for them. In the non-muslim world of course muslims don't go advertising about those part of their religion because they know that those parts aren't accepted and seen as something normal/positive. It's then easier to say "but your religion was bad too" - but that's just a "And you are lynching negroes" kind of argument. We don't need those kind of arguments we need a discussion for example why somebody who led his critics be killed should be seen as a role model.
Has that become a regular thing? Please update Wikipedia; it gives the impression that this sort of thing is still rare.
Anyone that would suggest that the propensity of Islamic fundamentalists towards violence is particularly unusual amongst religious adherents has a remarkably inadequate grasp of history.
(Incidentally, he had a pistol and killed a few of the mob members before going down.)
For instance, communism takes a very dim view of mocking communism. This is extremely well known, and pretty accurately describes the various communist communities' attitudes, even today. Mocking communist ideals or characters will get you at least ostracised from most of those communities. Hell, linking to other's jokes about them is dangerous at best.
By contrast, free market capitalists, their "enemy", are pretty well known for being extremely tolerant of humorous take-downs of their ideology, and engage in it themselves on a regular basis inside their communities. Of course, most leftists then criticize this as indicating they don't believe in the free market after all, which isn't true.
Islam is a political and a moral system. It's attitude towards mocking is defined in writing. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Asma%27_bint_Marwan and you will get a basic idea of how it works.
Christianity is relatively tolerant of criticism. Given how this religion has had it's canonical texts written by Greek philosophers, it's quite easy to understand why this is so. You will find lots of books written by saints, priests, monks, ... that criticize the church and even the faith itself. This is done mostly in self-reflection with the intent to improve matters and not absolutely not meant for wider dissemination (on occasion the wide dissemination of such texts has been fought with violation), but it certainly exists. These books have, on occasion, resulted in large shifts in attitudes within Christianity.