You're comparing two different extremes. American Muslims are probably the most moderate of all Muslims and African Christians are a particularly extreme non-reformed version of Christianity. You could do that with anything to prove a point. And the general political landscape of the land makes a difference too. Africa is sort of split into half Christian half Islam.
But if you look at the way a supposedly Christian majority country (the US) and an Islamic majority country (say Saudi Arabia or Indonesia) operate it's much more true to reality. Saudi Arabia imprisons apostates or critics of Islam and proponents of women's rights, kills homosexuals, etc. And why? Because their holy books command them to without much room for alternate interpretation.
Islam is inherently structured to be resistant to reform.
Much more true to reality? The experience of American Muslims of their own religion is real. The experience of African Christians of their own religion is also real. Who are you to play arbiter of what is the True™ interpretation of someone else's religion?
You did the same thing by using American Muslims and African Christians. Except you used exaggerated examples. Of course there are exceptions. My point is that you should use examples that reflect more of the reality, what is more the core of the religion. The core of Christianity is Jesus and he didn't go around beheading homosexuals, apostates, and mutilating and raping women. Who was it that condoned those things? I forgot his name... der..
__________________
Last edited by Patient_Leech on Aug 10th, 2017 at 05:49 PM
Just saw a video from two days ago in Iran. A man taking public lashings for drinking alcohol. Jesus turned water into wine. Which religion has the better moral compass here?
The funny thing is the war crimes of African Christians and African Muslims are just new manifestation of the same brutal tribal violence that has plagued the continent for god knows how long.
It's not uniquely African but an aspect of primitive tribal behavior. For another example... the cannibal tribes in Papua New Guinea also believe deeply in witchcraft, and it is those accused of witchcraft that are typically killed and eaten.
The idea that you need a Holy Book to encourage this kind of irrational violence in a tribal environment is laughable. Shamanism is and has been an inherent aspect of tribal life since long before the dawn of civilization. Africans are generally not very far removed from this way of life, and the vast majority of the "religious" violence in Africa happens strictly along tribal lines.
^ lol, and that is supposed to prove some vague point of yours how? Does it prove that Islam is a religion of peace? No. And if it does, it also proves that Christianity is a religion of peace.
Of course throughout history our ancestors didn't need holy books to encourage irrational violence. I'm not arguing (and I don't think anyone is) that violence only comes from religious conflict and is only waged for religious reasons. Of course that's not the case.
But what's more tribal, irrational, and divisive than two groups of people disagreeing on which worldview will send themselves or their loved ones to hell? Why do you think there's such harsh punishments in Christianity and Islam for apostates? Because they may lead their loved ones astray and send them to hell. That's going to conjure up some pretty harsh violence because what is a little suffering in this life if it saves your loved ones from eternal damnation?
No, it does indeed prove it. A particular religion is only as peaceful as its adherents. Point of fact: Western religions are more peaceful than their African counterparts. This is because 1. pluralism/secularism tames religion, and 2. cultural/tribal conflict is the root of religious conflict. If religions had fixed, i.e. "real" identities that could be compared and contrasted, and graded on a scale of which is better or worse than the other, then there would not be 33,000 denominations of Christianity.
A lot of this is correct, but here is the thing: I would wager that most people who do not feel Islam is a religion of peace do not feel that Islam is the *only* religion with abhorrent passages in their holy books and it's not the only religion to cause people to get violent.
I also would think most people do not think you need a holy book to have irrational violence.
What bothers some people is when people try to pretend like religion has nothing to do with some of these terror attacks. Despite countless ones screaming allahu akbar before going on their murder sprees. What bothers me is they try to blame this on anything other than religion.(I am not saying you personally do this).
The usual things people blame are politics, poverty, etc. Those things are definitely factors, however IMO the way these people *react* to these problems stems from Islam. Islam is why they think blowing themselves up in public places is the best way to achieve your goals. It's how they justify decapitating children and flying planes into buildings.
I am not saying all Muslims are like that, the majority of them are not. However, on 9/11 we had thousands of people killed and 6,000 more injured. It took 19 people, just 19, to wipe out thousands of lives in a matter of hours. I truly feel we do a disservice to all those lost on that day(and to all victims of Islamic terrorism) when we pretend Islam wasn't a major factor in all this.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
It's this backwards belief that religion shapes society as opposed to the other way around that leads people to conclude that if we 'get rid of Islam' terrorism would go away. It wouldn't, if people are prepared to blow up innocents and themselves with them they'll find justification.
__________________
Last edited by Beniboybling on Aug 11th, 2017 at 07:08 PM
Right. Religion merely provides a powerful language for people to justify the things they want to do anyway. "You know you have made God in your own image when He hates all the same people you do." If you remove the justification of religion, people will simply substitute another one.
Of course. I just think that people will latch onto the reasons that are convenient for their own ideological narrative. If you are someone who is against religion, then you will emphasize the religious element of violence wherever you find it.
Case in point being Africa. When people bring up the bloodshed and witchhunts etc in Africa they generally do so with the undertone of "see what religion does to people?" But in this case, a lot of this shit was already happening before Christianity or Islam ever made their way into Africa. Once they did, these religions largely mapped onto the African tribal cultures that already existed.
I'm not saying that this is the only way in which people selectively emphasize the causes they find useful to their narrative. The flip side is liberals who will look at the war on terror and the causes of Islamic terror as being purely a result of western imperialism and foreign policy as well as poverty and a lack of education/opportunity. The pretty much ignore any possible religious or cultural causes for the extremism.
Both of these approaches are equally short sighted IMO, and I believe they are designed more for the purposes of pursuing a particular agenda than they are for actually trying to understand why any of this stuff happens.
So I take it on a case by case basis. When a Christian murders an abortion doctor, I certainly don't ignore the religious motivations behind that. Aside from whatever mental instability that person might suffer from, of course. And the same goes for groups like ISIS. I believe that they are really motivated by both a political and religious Utopian vision of bringing forth the new caliphate.
But my main point is people tend to get sloppy and fall into the trap of using the same tool kit to explain every single situation. So you might lump honor killings, female genital mutilation, etc under the umbrella of "Islam" but to my eye these are practices that occur mostly in certain cultures, some of which are Islamic and some of which aren't. So I get the idea that these sorts of barbaric practices are much more something associated with "that part of the world" than strictly with Islam or any other religion.
Look there can be many factors that lead for people to behave this savagely. It isn't always a religion, but sometimes it is. Islam is one of those times.
We just can't ignore it, we can't say it's not Islam. It goes beyond mere savagery. They have rape rules. You can rape a married woman if she is your captive. That goes beyond the savage instinct inherent in all human beings.
This is honestly why I made my other thread about why this religion is so special. If Christians were committing various terror attacks across Europe and quoting scripture or screaming about God as they do it, people would not shy away from the religious aspect. What did Islam do to earn such special treatment?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Aug 11th, 2017 at 11:41 PM
KMC Community Forums
Aug 10th, 2017 06:04 AM
Attachment: 
