Muslim Brotherhood Sets St. George Church Ablaze

[KnightofChrist]

Horrifying moment Egyptian protestors pushed an armoured police van 50ft off a bridge before officers were stoned by mob

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2392992/Egypt-protests-Horrifying-moment-Egyptian-protestors-push-armoured-police-van-50ft-Cairo-bridge-officers-stoned-mob.html#ixzz2c3MUlfaq
 

[Apotheoun]

Your position confuses me. Can't you at least admit that your sports team did something wrong? It's simple. Just say, "I don't approve of the slaughter of innocent people". You brought up the Nazis. If the Nazis taught us anything, it's that our ideals can be twisted to make us do/allow horrible acts. Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting evil.

There was nothing evil in the 1923 suppression of the Nazis. Hitler, even at that early date, and made his intentions known.

 

Thus, as a said before, defending the innocent from harm is not evil; instead, it is a work of mercy. Just as self-defense is not evil. So I do not accept your proposition. When a father or a mother protects his or her children from harm, they are doing a good work. In fact, for a parent to allow his children to be harmed is a sin. 

[Era Might]

It wasn't long ago that America was in its own oppressive strife, where people were lynched, denied rights, and before that enslaved. It took a LOT of bloodshed and social upheaval for America to pass through its more extreme strife (including a civil war). This is just how the world works. I understand the strategic foreign policy question of what to do about Egypt, but from an historical perspective, the Copts need to make their own history. We cannot right every wrong in history. Turning this into a crusade to protect Christians projects a view of the world that is not based on reality. This is about the future of the modern democratic model in world affairs. Maybe it will succeed, maybe not, but whether it does or not has nothing to do with some ideological fantasy of infidels and saints.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

The litany of peace from the Coptic liturgy:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7NWxPc_v74

 

I pray that God watches over His people in this troubled time. May He also bless the holy Coptic Orthodox Church and all her members.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

From the same article:

 

Witnesses said many of those killed were hit by snipers on surrounding rooftops. Heavily-armed police and troops reportedly opened fire with machine guns on thousands of demonstrators, including women and children.

 

I'm not supporting the brotherhood. I was one of the few at my Liberal university who was pessimistic about the new government brought about by the Arab Spring in Egypt. However, I don't think it's a good idea to just ignore the bad from one side just because we like its ideology more. Can't we agree that this whole thing is pretty crummy?

[Apotheoun]

We cannot right every wrong in history. Turning this into a crusade to protect Christians projects a view of the world that is not based on reality. This is about whether the future of the modern democratic model in world affairs. Maybe it will succeed, maybe not, but whether it does or not has nothing to do with some ideological fantasy of infidels and saints.

It may be about "democracy" whatever that is, but just as the civil rights movement was about stopping the persecution and unjust discrimination against people in this country because of a benign characteristic (i.e., darker skin pigmentation) so too we must work to protect those being harmed in the present situation. We are not talking about an abstract ideology; instead, we are witnessing the annihilation of a whole people because of their religious faith. Is Egypt a better country because it has Coptic Christians in it? Yes, in fact they have been in the country for 2,000 years, and should not have to fear for their safety.

[Era Might]

It may be about "democracy" whatever that is, but just as the civil rights movement was about stopping the persecution and unjust discrimination against people in this country because of a benign characteristic (i.e., darker skin pigmentation) so too we must work to protect those being harmed in the present situation. We are not talking about an abstract ideology; instead, we are witnessing the annihilation of a whole people because of their religious faith. Is Egypt a better country because it has Coptic Christians in it? Yes, in fact they have been in the country for 2,000 years, and should not have to fear for their safety.

 

The civil rights movement was a movement of self-liberation, not international liberation. Same with the general anti-colonial independence movements of the 20th century. And the civil rights movement was not at all a single-thinking movement. There were blacks who thought they needed to establish their own independent state, that they could NOT continue in America. Others believed in progressive integration. Others were somewhere in between.

 

If Copts want to be a part of Egypt, that is their historical task to figure out how and why. The fact that they are Christians doesn't give me any special insight into their country.

[KnightofChrist]

From the same article:

 

I'm not supporting the brotherhood. I was one of the few at my Liberal university who was pessimistic about the new government brought about by the Arab Spring in Egypt. However, I don't think it's a good idea to just ignore the bad from one side just because we like its ideology more. Can't we agree that this whole thing is pretty crummy?

 

I know I read it before I posted it. I like to read news from all types of view points from all parts of the world. I'm not ignoring the fact that both sides in a war always do things that are unjust. I also find it pretty crummy that the first coup was fine, the American media ignored the bloodshed then, before, during, and after. But now that they don't support this coup they only report one side of the story, making out as if the Muslim Brotherhood were completely innocent and did not provoke the Egyptian military.

Edited August 15, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Apotheoun]

The civil rights movement was a movement of self-liberation, not international liberation. Same with the general anti-colonial independence movements of the 20th century. And the civil rights movement was not at all a single-thinking movement. There were blacks who thought they needed to establish their own independent state, that they could NOT continue in America. Others believed in progressive integration. Others were somewhere in between.

 

If Copts want to be a part of Egypt, that is their historical task to figure out how and why. The fact that they are Christians doesn't give me any special insight into their country.

That is so false. If you do not think that it was an international movement then I do not know what world you were living it.** It was just as international as the movement to get rid of Apartheid in South Africa. That said, do the Copts work to defend themselves? Yes, and many die because of their efforts. Do not accuse the Copts of being passive. So I guess you blame the Jews for their own losses to the Nazis?

 

**Postscript: I forgot that you were not even alive at the time. I was a small boy, so I remember some aspects of what happened as it was happening. 

Edited August 15, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Era Might]

That is so false. If you do not think that it was an international movement then I do not know what world you were living it. It was just as international as the movement to get rid of Apartheid in South Africa. Do the Copts work to defend themselves? Yes, and many die because of their efforts. Do not accuse the Copts of being passive. So I guess you blame the Jews for their own losses to the Nazis? 

 

Of course there were international actors in the movement, but the movement was not an international project to liberate American blacks. It was their own movement to liberate themselves. WWII, on the other hand, WAS an international project to liberate people (although that was not its primary purpose, primarily it was a defensive war). WWII was not about creating Jewish integration into Germany, it was about liberating them, that was it.

 

Your facile comparison to Nazi Germany is too absurd to go into here.

[Apotheoun]

Just to be clear, I openly admit that I am a Christian, and that fact unites me to the Copts in Egypt, because I share with them a common faith and sacramental life. That bond, for me, is stronger even than the natural family bond I have with my parents and siblings. So I do care what happens to the Christians in Egypt, and I do worry when I see them suffering. Is it the duty of the governing authorities in Egypt to protect them from attacks by the Muslim Brotherhood? Yes, I believe it is. They have a right to expect just treatment, but that is true of everyone, no matter where they live. Unjust treatment is - by its very nature - a sin.

[Era Might]

Just to be clear, I openly admit that I am a Christian, and that fact unites me to the Copts in Egypt, because I share with them a common faith and sacramental life. That bond, for me, is stronger even than the natural family bond I have with my parents and siblings. So I do care what happens to the Christians in Egypt, and I do worry when I see them suffering. Is it the duty of the governing authorities in Egypt to protect them from attacks by the Muslim Brotherhood? Yes, I believe it is. They have a right to expect just treatment, but that is true of everyone, no matter where they live. Unjust treatment is - by its very nature - a sin.

 

Things happen to Christians all around the world. If politics was based on personal attachments, there would be no end to international interference.

[Apotheoun]

Of course there were international actors in the movement, but the movement was not an international project to liberate American blacks. It was their own movement to liberate themselves. WWII, on the other hand, WAS an international project to liberate people (although that was not its primary purpose, primarily it was a defensive war). WWII was not about creating Jewish integration into Germany, it was about liberating them, that was it.

 

Your facile comparison to Nazi Germany is too absurd to go into here.

There is nothing absurd in pointing out the inconsistencies in your position. Are we supposed to defend the innocent or not? I believe that we are to do all that we reasonably can in order to protect those in danger from further harm. Should people have done more to protect the Jews in Nazi Germany? Yes. The murder of 6 million innocent people is a terrible crime, a crime against God and man. I just do not like seeing the same type of thing happening in Egypt and other Middles Eastern countries. Christians are being persecuted in that part of the world, and people should not be afraid to speak the truth. Sadly, many are hiding behind political correctness, and that is - as I see it - a form of cowardice. The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization that wants to force the Copts to convert to Islam, or at the very least pay the jizya and accept a second class status in society, and I do not believe that that is just. People should be speaking out about that oppressive reality, and many are not. In fact, many people seem afraid to say anything about it at all.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Apotheoun

[CatholicsAreKewl]

There was nothing evil in the 1923 suppression of the Nazis. Hitler, even at that early date, and made his intentions known.

 

Thus, as a said before, defending the innocent from harm is not evil; instead, it is a work of mercy. Just as self-defense is not evil. So I do not accept your proposition. When a father or a mother protects his or her children from harm, they are doing a good work. In fact, for a parent to allow his children to be harmed is a sin. 

 

Perhaps my disagreement with you is due to a misunderstanding of your position. Let me explain myself better. When we side with an armed group, it becomes easy to fall into the whole "ends justify the means" idea. It's also easy to justify the bad they do by explaining the bad stuff the other side has done in the past/continues to do. This isn't a good way of thinking about things. I'm particularly peeved by this because I've been guilty of it myself.

 

EXAMPLE:

 

The Lebanese Forces have been wildly misrepresented in the history of the Lebanese civil war by sympathizers of the Palestinian cause. I used to support this group because I believed that it's intentions during the Lebanese Civil War were good (for the most part). Whenever anyone brought up the Sabra and Shatila massacre, I'd mention that these events were a response to other massacres that people weren't well aware of. I soon realized later that, regardless of how true my claim was, I was essentially excusing one bad action by bringing up others. We can get so caught up in supporting a certain group or cause that we try to justify evils that we normally wouldn't otherwise.

Edited August 15, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[KnightofChrist]

Of course there were international actors in the movement, but the movement was not an international project to liberate American blacks. It was their own movement to liberate themselves. WWII, on the other hand, WAS an international project to liberate people (although that was not its primary purpose, primarily it was a defensive war). WWII was not about creating Jewish integration into Germany, it was about liberating them, that was it.

 

Your facile comparison to Nazi Germany is too absurd to go into here.

 

I don't believe comparing the Muslim Brotherhood to Nazi's is really all that absurd. The MB has connections, roots and similar ideology to that of Nazi Germany and were heavily influenced by them.