It takes a serious amount of denial of reality to claim that Islam is somehow comparable today to any other believe system.

Remember, only in Islamic dominated countries do things like female genital mutilation, enslavement of women (and non-Muslims), stonings for “adultery”, cutting off of hands for theft, and other barbaric actions occur on a regular SANCTIONED basis.

Islam is not compatible with freedom, democracy, and civilization. Pretending so is ludicrous.

I’m not sure if your criticizing or supporting my point. When I say that Christianity has a long history of persecution, torture, and execution, you respond with “Not really…” and then go on to list examples that support my statement precisely. The fact that much of the persecution carried out by Christians was against other Christians is immaterial, although I was impressed with how simply you dismissed it by simply grouping it all under a heading of “civil war” (which is patently absurd). I have to admit, however, it’s quite novel to hear anyone defend the witch trials and executions.

I was raised Christian and was formally educated as a Christian, so I think I can speak with some authority on how Christians use the threat of eternal damnation to induce obedience. If you wish to deny that, be my guest, but I believe it’s a fact so obvious and widely accepted as to not need further support.

Nothing you said diminishes my point which is quite simple: It’s more than a little disingenuous for someone from the West to point to Islam as a singularly intolerant religion in view of our own history with Christianity. I stand by that view.

” Christianity has a long history of persecuting, torturing, and executing those who dissent.”

Not really. Christianity has a long history with torture, persecution, and execution, but more often than not it is on the receiving end. There have been periods where it has been fashionable for a State Religion calling itself Christianity to persecute, torture, and execute, but the same is true for any State Religion (including the State Atheism of the USSR, China, Cuba, etc).

More often than not, when a “Christian” is involved in persecution it is against other Christians (and sometimes Jews).

The longest period of such persecution happened just after the Reformation turned the “State Religion” of the Holy Roman Empire on it’s head. This period lasted two to three hundred years (I’d say from about the founding of the Spanish Inquisition until the re-establishment of the British monarchy following the English Civil War, the American Revolution at the latest), and can be seen as much as a European civil war as it can a “religious persecution”. (As for “witches”, well, I can’t look fondly on “little old biddies” under “persecution”, for it is true that Satanism was alive and well during the Middle Ages: True Satanism, the worship of evil done through evil acts. Ladies, in the technical sense, who wished to remain young would bathe in blood of peasant’s infants, and we are told of a consort of a French king who went to rather criminal lengths to keep his favor. I’m with the peasants, Burn ‘em!). The product of all this fighting in Europe was our beloved First Amendment, with it’s guarantee of freedoms of speech and press (and because this was the ancestor it is religious dissent we should indeed be fighting for!) and freedom from the establishment of a State (Federal) Religion (although a few states did have an established religion, with Mass. being the last to dis-establish).

Now, what of the “Crusades” that great evil of Christianity that has become a Godard’s Law of it’s own in discussions of religion? If we look at the last Crusade, much indeed seems to be wrong, and we do find that greatest evil of Christianity: Christians attacking other Christians, as the Crusaders ignored their orders to reclaim Jerusalem and sacked Constantinople. But what of the history before this? Where did the Crusades start?

In the wars between Christianity and Islam, Islam was always the aggressor. Now, I am going to assume that a good many of us readers of this blog are against wars of imperialism and conquest
and “spreading democracy”, but I am also more than willing to bet that a good number of us would be more than happy to take up arms against an invading force (or a corrupt ruling force). And this is how things developed: Mohammed gave the world of Allah that Islam must conquer the world through force, so good Muslims conquered the Persian Empire, conquered most of Northern Africa, and started making their merry, bloodthirsty way into Spain. It is possible that pious and God-fearing Christians laid down before the Muslim invaders and offered their heads, but a good many others can be forgiven if they would be damned before somebody came into their home with some swords and told them how to worship. They beat the Muslims back to the southernmost portion of Spain, and that was that for awhile.

A few centuries passed, and Byzantium weakened, and the Muslims were able to get their hands on the crown jewel of Judeo-Christianity: Jerusalem. Now, again, let’s say that some invaders conquered France, and were shelling London, and we were asked for help, what should we do? (Compare the private crusades that started before the First Crusade with those Americans who went to Canada specifically to fight in in RAF… Canada at one point apparently being the place to go to get CAUGHT by a draft.) Now, as to whether or not Rome should have established it’s own Kingdom of Jerusalem instead of giving the territory back to Byzantium- that is a debate still ongoing and heated between Greek and Roman churches (I side with the Greeks on this one). It is unfortunate the Crusades also conjure up all that fundamentalist millenial terror associated with our recent war, but it is hardly a good point on “holy” war.

“According to Islam, if you’re not Muslim, then you are NOTHING and whatever happens to you is of no concern.

And Christianity teaches that everyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ as their lord and savior is going to burn in hell for all eternity. Thinking of us as merely NOTHING would actually be an improvement.”

Well, no, according to Islam if you’re not Muslim you’re going to hell and because you are going to hell you are nothing.

To be technical, Christianity teaches that salvation is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, with the guarantee that all who own Him for Lord will indeed be saved. It also teaches that all mankind will be damned to perdition without this salvation, but the belief that everyone who has not heard of Jesus is going to hell is merely a belief of a small but vocal number of evangelical Christians. The majority of
Christian teachers throughout the ages are quite agnostic on the state of the souls of non-Christians, for God saves whom He will save. There is a very odd loop-hole in the idea that Christ descended into hell to offer salvation to the dead, as well.

“I have no particular affection for any religion. While I don’t blame it for all the world’s conflicts, religion certainly plays a major part in defining who the teams are. If you keep poking a hornets nest with a stick and suddenly they all come after you, it’s not particularly useful or accurate to make the assertion that ‘everybody better start recognizing’ that hornets are all a bunch of mean assholes who hate everyone.”

Actually, I would blame all the world’s and religions’ problems on politics. That’s it, plain and simple. We cannot live and let live, if I live a certain way then you have to, too. It’s no fair if I have to give up soda and candy and potato chips and smoking, everyone has to give them up! I give 20% of my paycheck to the poor, so everyone has to! I listen to the Pope without question, you have to, too! I cannot drink alcohol nor see a woman outside of the traditional burka, damn you Westerners! Politics: making others behave as you think they should. To phrase it in a religio-moral manner: There are those who do not do to others what they would not want done to themselves, there are those who do unto others as they would have done unto themselves, and then there are those who do as they’ve been done by.

“When you think about it, the U.S. has managed to do something that has never been done in the history of the planet: unite the Arab world against a common enemy. Shouldn’t we get some kind of Noble prize for that? Israel could, of course, be a co-recipient.”

First, I should say that the Arab world has ALWAYS been united against the West and only divided amongst themselves. We just gave them better weapons and training.

Second, if Israel had her way, there wouldn’t BE an Arab world anymore. Seriously, have you seen what this country can do in six days?

I hope you read comments #17, and 21 in addition to the first. My point is there are things really worth FIGHTING (fists, guns, etc) for. And the right to be as offensive to any group as possible is #1 on that list.

You and I agree on this issue, my fight isn’t with you. My fight is with the people who would say you are not man enough to take my insults to your religion, and you shouldn’t have to hear them. Or worse yet, if you do hear them the offender should be put in jail or worse for it.

And the point I was trying to make is I’m ready to take those people on. That is an idea that has been given too much play. That is quite literally an idea that people need to be bloodied over.

You say that Obama isn’t a Marxist.

I’m curious, how would you describe him?

He’s a Republican.

“And Christianity teaches that everyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ as their lord and savior is going to burn in hell for all eternity. Thinking of us as merely NOTHING would actually be an improvement.”

This is not what scripture teaches. Scripture simply says that if you do not accept Jesus as your savior then you are judged by your works and cast into the lake of fire. It says the EFFECTS of the fire are eternal. SO… you are judged based on your works and are punished accordingly. This could be an instant for some people, and longer for others. Not that you will continue to burn for enternity.

That being said, that is one of the reasons I like the first amendment, so much. It establishes a freedom to practice ones own beliefs without the government interfering (“free practice thereof”). But, the religious tolerance, our country was founded on, is not, so, obvious in our modern society. At least, we seem to be tolerant enough not to kill, beat, or maim those who would not believe as we do. From what I understand of Islam, it is not free from those inclinations.

Still, no one can establish a “national” religion, according to that, same, amendment. On the other hand no one should be able to make it illegal to criticize any religions, either. The reactions, of Islam, to the pictures of Mohammad, in the past, being one example of their typical reaction to any “blasphemy” of their religion. This new directive being an extension of the same.

And, Chris, you can criticize my religion any way you want. I will not judge ur condemn you or feel that you must be murdered, as the Koran calls for?! It is your right to practice any beliefs (or non-beliefs) you want, according to our Constitution! The law and religion should be kept separate as it was established in the Constitution. Or, are we to forget it and just start putting people in jail for verbal expressions of intolerance or disbelief of one of many of the established religions in our country? God forbid!

http://www.slate.com/id/2212662/

“I have no particular affection for any religion”.

That gets you nothing from Christians today. Try that in an Islamic country and see what you get.

Take a look around and see what France, the UK, and most of the rest of Europe are getting from tolerating Islam.

I’ll give you a hint. It’s pretty difficult to tolerate an intolerant, violent, colonizing, “religion”.

#28 scott in phx az

Dave,

Did I miss something? I didn’t say anything about Christians did I?

No. You said “the only religion that gets bent out of shape (to the point of killing the critics) over criticism of it is Islam”. I was simply pointing out that, historically, that’s not true. Christianity has a long history of persecuting, torturing, and executing those who dissent.

According to Islam, if you’re not Muslim, then you are NOTHING and whatever happens to you is of no concern.

And Christianity teaches that everyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ as their lord and savior is going to burn in hell for all eternity. Thinking of us as merely NOTHING would actually be an improvement.

I have no particular affection for any religion. While I don’t blame it for all the world’s conflicts, religion certainly plays a major part in defining who the teams are. If you keep poking a hornets nest with a stick and suddenly they all come after you, it’s not particularly useful or accurate to make the assertion that “everybody better start recognizing” that hornets are all a bunch of mean assholes who hate everyone.

When you think about it, the U.S. has managed to do something that has never been done in the history of the planet: unite the Arab world against a common enemy. Shouldn’t we get some kind of Noble prize for that? Israel could, of course, be a co-recipient.

Likewise, while there are many valid criticisms of Islam, I can’t shake the feeling that a good number of its most vociferous critics in the US and Europe are more concerned about the primacy of their own religion than they are freedom of speech or human rights or what have you.

Did I miss something? I didn’t say anything about Christians did I?

So what was your point?

I will elaborate by saying – Islam isn’t just anti-Christian, it is anti-everything else. According to Islam, if you’re not Muslim, then you are NOTHING and whatever happens to you is of no concern.

And that is what everybody better start recognizing.

You say that Obama isn’t a Marxist.

I’m curious, how would you describe him?

That said, I don’t think the conservative track record on free speech is particularly stellar. Frankly, conservatives only seem interested in defending the rights of fellow (white, generally christian and male) conservatives to make disparaging remarks about various racial, religious, and sexual minorities. And, you know, I agree with them–folks should have the right to say those things. But I think their selective outrage is pretty telling, as is their demonization of groups like the ACLU which take a far more consistent stance.