Convert Facing Death Sentence

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Hassan' date='Jun 25 2009, 10:31 PM' post='1901680']
You're right, and I should not have. Thank you for correcting me



I'm sure many are sincere.






I've never advocated unqualified tolerance of all actions. I suppose I respect his willingness to fight for what he believes in, but I see no need to respect the content of that belief (I don't think you were suggesting I should though) or say that we should somehow tolerate any means by which he wishes to go about implementing that belief.

[color="#2E8B57"]See I don't think we are as far apart as you think we are , and no I was not suggesting anyone respect the content of his belief. I respect that he is prepared to fight for what he believes, I understand he is fighting a war he cannot win and and enemy he cannot beat, and yet he intends to win. So he uses the weapons of the weak. Historically speaking (not theologically I think that would be like saying Christian theology, without a unified magestiarial body Muslim theology is muddied by lots of opposing opinions.) I see no tradition in Islam of a privliged protected status for civilians in war, so I don't see why he would not strike in such a manner. I do not suggest we should tolerate his behavior, but we should expect no apology, the man is doing what he believes to be right. It isn't, but he believes it so. [/color]


I guess I don't think you have any right to infringe on the lives of others based on you're beliefs. I just think it's irresponsible of you. I guess one reason I can't bring myself to be religious is that I can't bear the thought of interrupting the rights and happiness of others based on a conviction that I cannot justify. If you had some clear proof that you're faith were right and that the proliferation of heresy was endangering the souls of others I would feel differently. But I have seen no evidence and therefore consider it really abhorant. Not you, please don't mistake me. It's nothing personal.

I [color="#2E8B57"]understand this position. I simply do not agree with it. What you are talking about is Faith. Faith, sure and certian hope. I am[i] sure [/i]my faith is right, I have fleeting doubts in moments of weakness, but they are fleeting and rare. I expect men of faith to act on their faith. I do not condemn Osama for fighting what he believes to be evil, he does what he believes to be right. Is he my enemy, yes. Am I prepared to fight him, yes. If we were to meet would I be prepared to kill him in battle, yes. That doesn't mean I do not respect him, as a person, as a man? No.

I had faith before I saw, but I have seen the sick healed with the touch of a priest, I have actually truely witnessed it, in a hospital while the doctors prepared the ICU for an infectious patient. I have know someone who had here cancer cured by that same priest. She came from England with terminal Cancer, he laid his hands a upon her, prayed, blessed her and anointed her with holy Chrism and she was cured. 20 years now, no cancer. But I believed before this, I have all the evidence I need. Heresy, the teaching of what is false, destroys souls. On the other thread I defend the Churchs teaching that it is not illict to burn heretics. Tht does not mean I am running around saying "burn them!" "Burn them ALL!". The Church has always taught that teaching heresy destroys souls, how could it be wrong to defend them?[/color]

Edited June 26, 2009 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1901800' date='Jun 26 2009, 01:06 AM']This is quite true. I don't claim my inner torments to be fully rational or free of hypocrisies, it was simply my disposition. I don't think there is enough evidence supporting the truth of any of the religions to justify my depriving another of some liberty or freedom in their pursuit of a happy, meaningful life. It simply would be an unbearable pang of conscience for me.[/quote]

Liberty is a tricky thing, one has liberty to do what is right. More than that and it gets much much more complicated.

Without God there are no rights, and liberty becomes license. In naturethere are only 3 rights, submit to the strong, run from the strong, fight the strong. Anything else you think of as a right must be given by some other higher power, and what those rights are is directly dependant on who that higher power is.

[Marie-Therese]

Well, isn't this an interesting argument.

Hassan, I think that many of your points are valid...however, raising the issue of murders committed in the name of Christianity hundreds of years ago is a bit of a specious argument. Were there sins committed in the name of Christ? Yeppers. No one denies this. However, to make this argument applicable to the point at hand, you'd have to point out to me the rampant bloodshed currently effected by hoardes of insurgent Christian extremists. I think we can both safely say you'd have a hard time providing that kind of evidence. People perceive Islam as lacking in peace because...well, it is. This DOES NOT mean there are no peaceful Muslims (because there are plenty) or that Muslims are bad (they aren't, I know many). What it DOES mean is that in the world at present, extremist groups who commit murder for religious justification are self-identified Muslims. Plain and simple. Government acts of execution for "apostasy" or religion are either in theocratic governmental structures which are, again, Muslim, or in atheistic Communist-style regimes, the latter of which doesn't much apply to our discussion at hand.

You might argue that "they really aren't Muslims because this isn't what peaceful Islam does." OK. Point taken. No more than someone who, hundreds of years ago, hoisted a banner with a cross on it and smote off heads was really Christian. Tim McVeigh? Not Christian. Don't care what he might have said otherwise. Did he repent? Hope so, for the sake of his immortal soul.

I see many debaters hanging their arguments on "logic" but failing to acknowledge how logic cannot disregard the fact that in our world, currently there is a single religious institution which is responsible for acts of terror. Hindus and Muslims might fight over Kashmir, but that is a land battle, not a moral one. Jews and Palestinians? Again...over land, not over religion. Although the Palestinian (read Muslim) position does involve wiping Jews off the face of the planet, the Israeli platform simply asks for their land to be left alone and for their right to exist to be affirmed. Jews and Muslims don't bomb each other because of a secret Zionist plot to convert the Muslims to Judaism.

People all over the world have divergent positions about religion. Proselytizing happens. People want other people to know Truth, and not everyone agrees about what Truth is. OK. This is because we are human and dissent is a part of the punishment of the Fall. I believe we must respect other peoples' rights to their own opinions, but I don't think anyone has the right to make people like others' opinions.

And, unfortunately, this leads me to the only opinion I can rationally form: that Islam, in its current form, is a religion which fosters aggression. I feel sorry that good Muslims are stereotyped...but I don't see a lot of people apologizing to me for stereotyping me because I'm white, Christian, and speak with a Southern accent. I'm not stupid, bigoted or biologically inbred; however, there are people in my demographic who are. Stereotypes exist in part because there is truth to them.

The world is a harsh place. We should spend more time praying and less time worrying if someone got their feelings hurt.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' post='1902274' date='Jun 26 2009, 03:27 PM']Well, isn't this an interesting argument.

Hassan, I think that many of your points are valid...however, raising the issue of murders committed in the name of Christianity hundreds of years ago is a bit of a specious argument. Were there sins committed in the name of Christ? Yeppers. No one denies this. However, to make this argument applicable to the point at hand, you'd have to point out to me the rampant bloodshed currently effected by hoardes of insurgent Christian extremists. I think we can both safely say you'd have a hard time providing that kind of evidence. People perceive Islam as lacking in peace because...well, it is. This DOES NOT mean there are no peaceful Muslims (because there are plenty) or that Muslims are bad (they aren't, I know many). What it DOES mean is that in the world at present, extremist groups who commit murder for religious justification are self-identified Muslims. Plain and simple. Government acts of execution for "apostasy" or religion are either in theocratic governmental structures which are, again, Muslim, or in atheistic Communist-style regimes, the latter of which doesn't much apply to our discussion at hand.

You might argue that "they really aren't Muslims because this isn't what peaceful Islam does." OK. Point taken. No more than someone who, hundreds of years ago, hoisted a banner with a cross on it and smote off heads was really Christian. Tim McVeigh? Not Christian. Don't care what he might have said otherwise. Did he repent? Hope so, for the sake of his immortal soul.

I see many debaters hanging their arguments on "logic" but failing to acknowledge how logic cannot disregard the fact that in our world, currently there is a single religious institution which is responsible for acts of terror. Hindus and Muslims might fight over Kashmir, but that is a land battle, not a moral one. Jews and Palestinians? Again...over land, not over religion. Although the Palestinian (read Muslim) position does involve wiping Jews off the face of the planet, the Israeli platform simply asks for their land to be left alone and for their right to exist to be affirmed. Jews and Muslims don't bomb each other because of a secret Zionist plot to convert the Muslims to Judaism.

People all over the world have divergent positions about religion. Proselytizing happens. People want other people to know Truth, and not everyone agrees about what Truth is. OK. This is because we are human and dissent is a part of the punishment of the Fall. I believe we must respect other peoples' rights to their own opinions, but I don't think anyone has the right to make people like others' opinions.

And, unfortunately, this leads me to the only opinion I can rationally form: that Islam, in its current form, is a religion which fosters aggression. I feel sorry that good Muslims are stereotyped...but I don't see a lot of people apologizing to me for stereotyping me because I'm white, Christian, and speak with a Southern accent. I'm not stupid, bigoted or biologically inbred; however, there are people in my demographic who are. Stereotypes exist in part because there is truth to them.

The world is a harsh place. We should spend more time praying and less time worrying if someone got their feelings hurt.[/quote]


Wow... where to begin.

[quote]However, to make this argument applicable to the point at hand, you'd have to point out to me the rampant bloodshed currently effected by hoardes of insurgent Christian extremists.[/quote]

More is the pity, but what does that have to do with anything? I am almost speechless. what if there were scads of Chirstian rebels fighting secular governments, would that some how change the Nature of Chirstianity?


[quote]You might argue that "they really aren't Muslims because this isn't what peaceful Islam does." OK. Point taken. No more than someone who, hundreds of years ago, hoisted a banner with a cross on it and smote off heads was really Christian. Tim McVeigh? Not Christian. Don't care what he might have said otherwise. Did he repent? Hope so, for the sake of his immortal soul.[/quote]

I can't explain the sheer anger over this paragraph. Not only did you lump Saint Pius V, Saint Louis, Saint James , St. Francis and numerous other Holy men and wemon in with Timothy Mcviegh, you then judged them as not Christian. Even Mcviegh, who I have many disagreements with, should not be treated in such a manner. How arrogant and horrifying that you would judge the sincerity of someones faith based on a single act which YOU precieve as unchristian. You do not know why McViegh did what he did, what his internal motives were. Even if it was a sin. Lots of sinners are sincere Christians and I am willing to bet that you are one of them. I know I am.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' post='1902274' date='Jun 26 2009, 03:27 PM']Well, isn't this an interesting argument.

Hassan, I think that many of your points are valid...however, raising the issue of murders committed in the name of Christianity hundreds of years ago is a bit of a specious argument. Were there sins committed in the name of Christ? Yeppers. No one denies this. However, to make this argument applicable to the point at hand, you'd have to point out to me the rampant bloodshed currently effected by hoardes of insurgent Christian extremists. I think we can both safely say you'd have a hard time providing that kind of evidence. People perceive Islam as lacking in peace because...well, it is. This DOES NOT mean there are no peaceful Muslims (because there are plenty) or that Muslims are bad (they aren't, I know many). What it DOES mean is that in the world at present, extremist groups who commit murder for religious justification are self-identified Muslims. Plain and simple. Government acts of execution for "apostasy" or religion are either in theocratic governmental structures which are, again, Muslim, or in atheistic Communist-style regimes, the latter of which doesn't much apply to our discussion at hand.

You might argue that "they really aren't Muslims because this isn't what peaceful Islam does." OK. Point taken. No more than someone who, hundreds of years ago, hoisted a banner with a cross on it and smote off heads was really Christian. Tim McVeigh? Not Christian. Don't care what he might have said otherwise. Did he repent? Hope so, for the sake of his immortal soul.

I see many debaters hanging their arguments on "logic" but failing to acknowledge how logic cannot disregard the fact that in our world, currently there is a single religious institution which is responsible for acts of terror. Hindus and Muslims might fight over Kashmir, but that is a land battle, not a moral one. Jews and Palestinians? Again...over land, not over religion. Although the Palestinian (read Muslim) position does involve wiping Jews off the face of the planet, the Israeli platform simply asks for their land to be left alone and for their right to exist to be affirmed. Jews and Muslims don't bomb each other because of a secret Zionist plot to convert the Muslims to Judaism.

People all over the world have divergent positions about religion. Proselytizing happens. People want other people to know Truth, and not everyone agrees about what Truth is. OK. This is because we are human and dissent is a part of the punishment of the Fall. I believe we must respect other peoples' rights to their own opinions, but I don't think anyone has the right to make people like others' opinions.

And, unfortunately, this leads me to the only opinion I can rationally form: that Islam, in its current form, is a religion which fosters aggression. I feel sorry that good Muslims are stereotyped...but I don't see a lot of people apologizing to me for stereotyping me because I'm white, Christian, and speak with a Southern accent. I'm not stupid, bigoted or biologically inbred; however, there are people in my demographic who are. Stereotypes exist in part because there is truth to them.

The world is a harsh place. We should spend more time praying and less time worrying if someone got their feelings hurt.[/quote]


I don't have the energy to respond now (I just got off the highway from driving home). I wanted to say that I will. This is one of several times (thinking back to the Iran thread) that you have given a very thoughtful and interesting response to a post of mine and I don't think I have responded to you always (not intentional, often I forget exactly which threads I have posted on). I can't pm so I have to say this here. Even if at times I disagree with your posts or I simply forget to respond to them I always enjoy reading them and I'm sorry we havn't had much time to go back and forth on ideas, I hope we will here and in the future.

[Marie-Therese]

Hassan...thank you, and likewise. I enjoy the rational, thoughtful interchange of ideas without emotional insults. You can respectfully disagree with an idea without disparaging someone's character. I know that your posts are always backed with personal experience and thought. I appreciate your comment.


Don John...let me address your comments.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1902307' date='Jun 26 2009, 04:43 PM']More is the pity, but what does that have to do with anything? I am almost speechless. what if there were scads of Chirstian rebels fighting secular governments, would that some how change the Nature of Chirstianity?[/quote]

You are misapplying my argument. Finding a singular situation where my argument might not apply doesn't nullify my point. My point is that in order to compare the situation with Islam currently with the Christian Crusades, or the Inquisition, for that matter, is comparing apples and oranges. To make that argument you would have to say that there were Christian groups committing acts of terror similar to those perpetrated by Muslim extremists. Obviously there aren't. If a Christian group were fighting secular governments who were oppressing them, that is self-defense, which has nothing to do with this discussion.


[quote]I can't explain the sheer anger over this paragraph. Not only did you lump Saint Pius V, Saint Louis, Saint James , St. Francis and numerous other Holy men and wemon in with Timothy Mcviegh, you then judged them as not Christian. Even Mcviegh, who I have many disagreements with, should not be treated in such a manner. How arrogant and horrifying that you would judge the sincerity of someones faith based on a single act which YOU precieve as unchristian. You do not know why McViegh did what he did, what his internal motives were. Even if it was a sin. Lots of sinners are sincere Christians and I am willing to bet that you are one of them. I know I am.[/quote]

Um...I am a little bit astounded at your response to this. You are reading with a highly overcharged sense of sensitivity and a bristling need to argue. No one has said anything about the Crusades specifically being un-Christian. I think that the legitimate cause of the defense of the Holy Land was a just cause. I in no way have disparaged or questioned the Christian character of any of the holy personages you listed. However, if you make the argument that people who commit heinous acts of murder are somehow to be judged differently because their intent was sincere is appalling. I am sure that Osama bin Laden is sincere...does that make it impossible to judge his actions as evil just because I am not privy to his internal motivation? That is a laughable argument. There were evil acts committed during the Crusades by those claiming to do it for God. I don't care what their motivation is...if they committed evil (which, by the way, does NOT have anything to do with the legitimate actions of Holy men during that time, some of which were forced to kill to defend the Holy Land...different story) then it doesn't matter what their motivation is...it is still murder.

By your rationale, a young Catholic girl who becomes pregnant, but is poor, decides to get an abortion because she feels she can't properly care for the child. Are her motives good? They might possibly be considered good motives. Are her actions, therefore, unable to be judged as murder and evil because her intention was good? The answer is, without equivocation, NO. A sincere Christian who commits an evil act HAS STILL COMMITTED AN EVIL ACT. Pretty simple. To say that I have in some way disparaged Tim McVeigh is a joke. What do you mean, "a single act which YOU precieve [sic] as unchristian"???? I don't perceive anything. There is fact. There is right and wrong. I don't care what his faith or motivation was. THE MAN BLEW UP A BUILDING FULL OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. That, sir, is evil, plain and simple. If he tried to claim a Christian motive for his actions, then he has no idea what Christianity is.

I appreciate your obvious vigor in desiring to defend the faith. That is a good thing. However, we must remember what it is we are defending. Our faith worships the Prince of Peace. We must remember always what is good and what is evil. Remember the old adage, more evil has been committed in the name of God than for any other reason.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' post='1902585' date='Jun 27 2009, 12:26 AM']Don John...let me address your comments.



You are misapplying my argument. Finding a singular situation where my argument might not apply doesn't nullify my point. My point is that in order to compare the situation with Islam currently with the Christian Crusades, or the Inquisition, for that matter, is comparing apples and oranges. To make that argument you would have to say that there were Christian groups committing acts of terror similar to those perpetrated by Muslim extremists. Obviously there aren't. If a Christian group were fighting secular governments who were oppressing them, that is self-defense, which has nothing to do with this discussion.[/quote]

[color="#2E8B57"]
No I am not misapplying your argument. Even if their were lots of Christian terrorist, it would not change the nature of Christianity. The actions of members of a religion are not necessarily indicative of its teachings. That said, I do not disagree with you about Islam, I believe it is and always has been a violent religion and was intended to be Such by Mohammed. I just find your reasoning a dangerous line of argument if applied in general. [/color]


[quote]Um...I am a little bit astounded at your response to this. You are reading with a highly overcharged sense of sensitivity and a bristling need to argue. No one has said anything about the Crusades specifically being un-Christian. I think that the legitimate cause of the defense of the Holy Land was a just cause. I in no way have disparaged or questioned the Christian character of any of the holy personages you listed.[/quote]



You said [quote]" No more than someone who, hundreds of years ago, hoisted a banner with a cross on it and smote off heads was really Christian."[/quote]

[color="#2E8B57"]How would you interpret that if not a direct shot at the military orders ( particularly the knights of Malta) and the Crusaders in general. If you did not intend it that way, that is fine, but the imagery calls exactly that to mind.[/color]
[quote]However, if you make the argument that people who commit heinous acts of murder are somehow to be judged differently because their intent was sincere is appalling. I am sure that Osama bin Laden is sincere...does that make it impossible to judge his actions as evil just because I am not privy to his internal motivation? That is a laughable argument.[/quote]


[color="#2E8B57"]Yes intention matters, it isn't laughable it is the basic understanding of morality. You may Judge Osama’s actions as evil without knowing anything about his motives, but judging him evil is something completely different. Actions can be objectively right or wrong, good or evil but intention directly impacts the moral standing of the person doing the act.[/color]

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]There were evil acts committed during the Crusades by those claiming to do it for God. I don't care what their motivation is...if they committed evil (which, by the way, does NOT have anything to do with the legitimate actions of Holy men during that time, some of which were forced to kill to defend the Holy Land...different story) then it doesn't matter what their motivation is...it is still murder.[/quote]
[color="#2E8B57"]They may or may not have been murder, but by definition murder must be intentional. One cannot murder without the willful intention of killing another person. That does not mean that the actions were morally correct, or were indeed not evil acts. Just that one cannot say things like they were not Christian, which is what you said. One might be a Christian, and be a bad Christian.[/color]

By your rationale, a young Catholic girl who becomes pregnant, but is poor, decides to get an abortion because she feels she can't properly care for the child. Are her motives good? [color="#2E8B57"]No and there is no comparison, she intends to kill the child an innocent, her reasons for intending to kill an innocent do not matter as that is her intention and intentionally killing the innocent is an intrinsically evil act. That is not the same thing as what McVeigh did, but I'll get to that later.[/color]

[quote]They might possibly be considered good motives. Are her actions, therefore, unable to be judged as murder and evil because her intention was good? The answer is, without equivocation, NO.[/quote]

We have no disagreement on that, but it would be improper to say that she was not a Christian.

[quote]A sincere Christian who commits an evil act HAS STILL COMMITTED AN EVIL ACT.[/quote]

[color="#2E8B57"]Yes and they are still a Christian[/color].

[quote]Pretty simple[/quote] [color="#2E8B57"]You would think yet here you ae defending saying sinners are not Christians.[/color]

[quote]To say that I have in some way disparaged Tim McVeigh is a joke. What do you mean, "a single act which YOU precieve [sic] as unchristian"???? I don't perceive anything. There is fact. There is right and wrong. I don't care what his faith or motivation was. THE MAN BLEW UP A BUILDING FULL OF INNOCENT PEOPLE.[/quote]

[color="#2E8B57"]Really? As I remember he blew up a Federal building which had several paramilitary and police units in it, members of Federal organizations which had murdered American citizens, including women and children, just 2 years before. I would say his intention is pretty important here.

If he intended to kill the innocents in that building then he is a murderer, if he intended to strike at the legitimate military target and the deaths of the other were merely accidental ( meaning unintended not necessarily unforeseen ) then he indeed was no different than a military bomber pilot who bombs a target inside a city. Once again intention matters.[/color]

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]That, sir, is evil, plain and simple.[/quote]
[color="#2E8B57"]No, it is debatable and is dependent of the nature of the strike.[/color]

[quote]If he tried to claim a Christian motive for his actions, then he has no idea what Christianity is.[/quote]
[color="#2E8B57"]That may be, but the same could be for lots of sins and we do not say the people that commit them are not Christian. [/color][quote]I appreciate your obvious vigor in desiring to defend the faith. That is a good thing. However, we must remember what it is we are defending. Our faith worships the Prince of Peace.[/quote]
[color="#2E8B57"]And our Faith worships’ The Father, a Warrior God, who slew all of Pharaohs army, after hardening Pharaohs heart, simply to show His Glory. A God that ordered the Israelites to kill every living thing in some towns when He brought them to the promised land.
It is also important to remember that the Peace we seek to bring is NOT Mans peace, which is the Evil Peace, but God's Peace, The Peace or Christ. These are not the same thing, and might indeed be mutually exclusive. [/color]

[quote]We must remember always what is good and what is evil.[/quote]

[color="#2E8B57"]We agree there.[/color]
[quote]Remember the old adage, more evil has been committed in the name of God than for any other reason.[/quote]
[color="#2E8B57"]I remember it, but it is a silly adage, it is certainly not the case.[/color]

[Hassan]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' post='1902274' date='Jun 26 2009, 03:27 PM']Well, isn't this an interesting argument.

Hassan, I think that many of your points are valid...however, raising the issue of murders committed in the name of Christianity hundreds of years ago is a bit of a specious argument. Were there sins committed in the name of Christ? Yeppers. No one denies this. However, to make this argument applicable to the point at hand, you'd have to point out to me the rampant bloodshed currently effected by hoardes of insurgent Christian extremists.[/quote]


The Balkans

[quote]I think we can both safely say you'd have a hard time providing that kind of evidence. People perceive Islam as lacking in peace because...well, it is. This DOES NOT mean there are no peaceful Muslims (because there are plenty) or that Muslims are bad (they aren't, I know many). What it DOES mean is that in the world at present, extremist groups who commit murder for religious justification are self-identified Muslims. Plain and simple. Government acts of execution for "apostasy" or religion are either in theocratic governmental structures which are, again, Muslim, or in atheistic Communist-style regimes, the latter of which doesn't much apply to our discussion at hand.

You might argue that "they really aren't Muslims because this isn't what peaceful Islam does." OK. Point taken. No more than someone who, hundreds of years ago, hoisted a banner with a cross on it and smote off heads was really Christian. Tim McVeigh? Not Christian. Don't care what he might have said otherwise. Did he repent? Hope so, for the sake of his immortal soul.[/quote]


He was a self identified Christian. I would not deny him his Christianity any more than Osama Bin Ladin his Islam. Both have deviated from the traditional teachings of their faith on numerous positions. I view religion generally from the position of the social sciences. I can conduct a historical analysis and examine the conformity or discrepancy between the historic teachings of their faiths and the mens individual actions, but deciding who is or is not a "true" Christian or a "true" Muslim goes outside my capacity. I think it's safe to say that gang raping Bosnian women is not a tenant of Christianity. However when the soldiers committing the actions identify themselves as Serbian Orthodox Christians, and the soldiers assaulting Sarajevo have an Icon of the Virgin Mary tied on the Hilt of their Rifle I would classify them as Christians. I don't think it's fair to excommunicate Christian murders and divorce them from their faith for breaking from its traditional teachings but keeping individuals who identify themselves as Muslim tied to their Islamic identity when they also break from the traditional teachings of their religion.

[quote]I see many debaters hanging their arguments on "logic" but failing to acknowledge how logic cannot disregard the fact that in our world, currently there is a single religious institution which is responsible for acts of terror. Hindus and Muslims might fight over Kashmir, but that is a land battle, not a moral one. Jews and Palestinians? Again...over land, not over religion. Although the Palestinian (read Muslim) position does involve wiping Jews off the face of the planet, the Israeli platform simply asks for their land to be left alone and for their right to exist to be affirmed. Jews and Muslims don't bomb each other because of a secret Zionist plot to convert the Muslims to Judaism.[/quote]


Actually many Jews in Israel, particularly the Settlements do see the conflict in religious terms and plenty of Palestinians see the conflict in secular terms.

[quote]People all over the world have divergent positions about religion. Proselytizing happens. People want other people to know Truth, and not everyone agrees about what Truth is. OK. This is because we are human and dissent is a part of the punishment of the Fall. I believe we must respect other peoples' rights to their own opinions, but I don't think anyone has the right to make people like others' opinions.[/quote]

I agree

[quote]And, unfortunately, this leads me to the only opinion I can rationally form: that Islam, in its current form, is a religion which fosters aggression.[/quote]

I think the data contradicts you. There are still plenty of religions where Islam is a benign or peaceful force. I would agree that over the past several decades there has been a tribalized Arabization of Islamic culture where previously Islam was a unique local variant. Just declaring Islam an aggressive religion doesn't help us understand the problem imo. Why are the local, peaceful east Asian forms of Islam giving way to a violent bastardized Hanbalism? What is attracting individuals away from ideology A too ideology B. You mention Palestine. Why have Palestinians (speaking in very broad brush strokes) abandoned the revolutionary Marxism of the 70's for the radical Islam of Hamas?

[quote]I feel sorry that good Muslims are stereotyped...but I don't see a lot of people apologizing to me for stereotyping me because I'm white, Christian, and speak with a Southern accent. I'm not stupid, bigoted or biologically inbred; however, there are people in my demographic who are. Stereotypes exist in part because there is truth to them.

The world is a harsh place. We should spend more time praying and less time worrying if someone got their feelings hurt.[/quote]

I don't think hurt feelings are what's at stake.

[PeteWaldo]

With the Roman Catholic Church having been guilty of the same, and still holding doctrine that advances killing heretics, and with no shortage of those even in this forum that are in favor of burning heretics today, as in the heretic burning thread exposes:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95169"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95169[/url]
Seems for a Roman Catholic to accuse Islam for simply doing the same is perhaps somewhat akin to the pot calling the kettle black.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='PeteWaldo' post='1903544' date='Jun 28 2009, 10:08 AM']With the Roman Catholic Church having been guilty of the same, and still holding doctrine that advances killing heretics, and with no shortage of those even in this forum that are in favor of burning heretics today, as in the heretic burning thread exposes:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95169"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95169[/url]
Seems for a Roman Catholic to accuse Islam for simply doing the same is perhaps somewhat akin to the pot calling the kettle black.[/quote]

If you actually read what I have posted, you would see that I do not advocate the execution of heretics in today's social conditions.

[PeteWaldo]

Mine was a general response to the subject of this thread. That's why I didn't quote you or anybody else.

Edited June 28, 2009 by PeteWaldo

[Marie-Therese]

Hassan and Don John, you are both correct. In no way do I have the ability to judge the hearts or faith of anyone. I cannot say that a person was not Christian, I can only say that their actions are not so. I stand chastened. Begging pardon. I should have said that McVeigh's actions were not Christian. I will be more careful in future to make my intentions clearer.



[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1902644' date='Jun 27 2009, 03:07 AM']Really? As I remember he blew up a Federal building which had several paramilitary and police units in it, members of Federal organizations which had murdered American citizens, including women and children, just 2 years before. I would say his intention is pretty important here.

If he intended to kill the innocents in that building then he is a murderer, if he intended to strike at the legitimate military target and the deaths of the other were merely accidental ( meaning unintended not necessarily unforeseen ) then he indeed was no different than a military bomber pilot who bombs a target inside a city. Once again intention matters.[/quote]


Don John, I am sorry, but I cannot say anything more than this is WRONG. The Magisterium, through its statements in the CCC, have made stipulations for just war (i.e. defense of the helpless or the overthrow of a dictatorial regime) and for the defense of one's self and one's family. However, individual paramilitary actions against self-selected targets with no regard for collateral damage is wrong. This violates the simple conditions of of the Fifth Commandments (Thou shalt not kill) and of Romans 12:19 which says, "for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." For a person to take this sort of action, as a Christian, is a sin against God because it denies belief in God's promises and places a person's desires above those of the Lord. We cannot presume to know how God will deal with those who defy Him. This sort of attack chooses our vengeance over the Lord's.

The Crusades, which were just conflicts, is a different story. However, as I stated before, this does not mean that within a just conflict that there cannot be unjust and evil actions. This does not in any way change whether a person is Christian, but it does mean that their actions are outside the desires of God and places their immortal souls in danger.

This situation with McVeigh does in fact differ with a bomber pilot who, under orders, attacks a position within a city. Care is taken in precise strikes to eliminate or minimize collateral damage. McVeigh could make no such claim. To say he chose "legitimate military targets" would suggest he was a part of a currently active military unit under orders, which he was not. He attacked at a time of day when the building could presumably be full of innocent people, and with the knowledge that there was a day care center within the building. Argue whatever you please about his desire to take out select government targets...his actions remain reckless, evil, and outside God's specific commandments.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1903368' date='Jun 28 2009, 01:20 AM']The Balkans[/quote]

This I will not argue, except to say that the conflict there is a complex mix of both religious AND ethnic tension. The atrocities there come from both sides, even though the Muslims are in the minority. You will be hard pressed to find a more vigorous defendant of the weak than I am, regardless of ethnic or religious persuasion. IMHO, persons found guilty of these atrocities should be punished to the fullest extent allowable, including the death penalty, if applicable in the jurisdiction responsible for these prosecutions.




[quote]He was a self identified Christian. I would not deny him his Christianity any more than Osama Bin Ladin his Islam. Both have deviated from the traditional teachings of their faith on numerous positions. I view religion generally from the position of the social sciences. I can conduct a historical analysis and examine the conformity or discrepancy between the historic teachings of their faiths and the mens individual actions, but deciding who is or is not a "true" Christian or a "true" Muslim goes outside my capacity. I think it's safe to say that gang raping Bosnian women is not a tenant of Christianity. However when the soldiers committing the actions identify themselves as Serbian Orthodox Christians, and the soldiers assaulting Sarajevo have an Icon of the Virgin Mary tied on the Hilt of their Rifle I would classify them as Christians.[/quote]

You are absolutely correct.


[quote]There are still plenty of religions where Islam is a benign or peaceful force. I would agree that over the past several decades there has been a tribalized Arabization of Islamic culture where previously Islam was a unique local variant. Just declaring Islam an aggressive religion doesn't help us understand the problem imo. Why are the local, peaceful east Asian forms of Islam giving way to a violent bastardized Hanbalism? What is attracting individuals away from ideology A too ideology B. You mention Palestine. Why have Palestinians (speaking in very broad brush strokes) abandoned the revolutionary Marxism of the 70's for the radical Islam of Hamas?[/quote]

I think this is a very valid argument. Bastardization of the fundamental tenets of a religious ideology are what has very much resulted in the problems we have today. What, indeed, has caused these shifts in ideology from an essential peaceful faith to one with a militaristic, radical extremist focus? I think this is an interesting sociological questions that is probably too deep to develop fully here. I'd like to do more historical reading on this. So much of it is related to local cultural impact and to political oppression. I think that poverty exacerbated by power-hungry local politicians glutting themselves on the wealth of foreign aid is a definite factor.


[quote]I don't think hurt feelings are what's at stake.[/quote]

Well, in a large context you're correct, but examine the rampant politically correct attitudes of most of Westernized civilizations at present, and I think that the PC mentality does more damage to the essential freedoms of people than almost anything else. I am a conservative who is not in favor of many of the concepts behind such items as the Patriot Bill. This is how religious freedoms begin to be constrained, and may be how some of these other religiously-tinged conflicts find their origins.

Hassan, pleasure having a good conversation with you.