Sept 11-

[Ozrat]

Dammit, why doesn't this place have an "Ignore" button!?

*Ozrat scratches furiously away on his monitor to remove the above message with little to no success*

EDIT: Oh sure, you changed your previous post so now mine doesn't make any sense because you made yours a bit more reasonable.

 

[John Uskglass]

Fine, fine, I see your point. I think that the Koran still encourages violence and is against the seperation of Mosque and state, but I think that you have a point, and that the point is somewhat moot sense it has reverted to Godwin's Law.
Ozrat, the feeling is mutual.....

 

[OnTheBounce]

CC, I think you're overlooking a very important point about Christianity, and that's the Council of Nicea. You have pointed out that the vision of a violent Christ, one that doesn't turn the other cheek, but rather comes with a sword in hand is not found outside of the Gnostic Gospels. You have also pointed out that it's the early phases of the religion that you're getting at in your argument that Islam is inherently violent. Look to the Council of Nicea.

I point out the Council of Nicea since it wasn't held until 325 CE, and it wasn't until that point that Christian doctrine and canon became uniform. Until that point you can't really point to any one sect of Christianity and say, "That's what Christianity was all about," simply because until that point what is sometimes painted as a monolithic movement was in all reality a hodge-podge of minor sects (mystery cults) that had as many positions on subjects as there were practitioners. So if you want to look at "inherent natures" it would behoove you to include the original body of literature surrounding Christianity in its entirety, and not the redacted version that we've been presented with today.

You should also check into the history surrounding the Battle of Adrianople (378 CE) which has far more significance in this debate that the standard treatment of "dawning of a the age of cavalry" that military historians give it. Rome suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of what are usually characterized as "barbarians", but in fact these Ostrogoths were member of the Arian Heresy, and their refusal to accept the divinity of Christ (among other things) is among the many causes of their clash with Rome. Note that this battle takes place roughly 350 years before formation of Islam, and already we have Christians grappling at sword point with heretics and other unbelievers, so Islam was definitely not the catalyst that turned Christianity violent.

Cheers,

OTB

 

[John Uskglass]

You know, I had not thought of that as much as I should, and you are right. The Council of Nicea did present a rather violent form of Christianity, and the wars with the Arians (you forgot to mention Justinians fights with the Vandals, also Arians) certainly had something to do with religion.


But still, OTB, can you think of an instance before the Sassanian war where Christanity had become "militirized"? Before this, the feuds between the Arians, the Niceans, the Monophysites and the Manicheans......most of the disputes had a tendancy to be humming an Arian song. There was no notion that Justinian, Constantine or Theodosius pushed about constant war with the infidel until all lands where under Christian rule, like Umar. Not even the Arians belived in that!

Also, there was something I did not mention, which I should before OTB gets me........there was a Syriac Christian Orothodox group called the Ghassanids. During the war with the Sassanians, they proved to be invaluable against the Sassanians. So what do the Christians do? Spread terror among the Christians and the Jews around Mecca and Medina about how you will go to hell if you do not join in the war with the Zoastrains........sound familiar?

 

[Loxley]

Well, yeah. I do not think you can compare the two. "Europeans", in a few situations annihalated civilizations, but these are comparitivly small, simple civilizations, and the conversions where never complete.

So the chrushing of the viking Culture in norway was just "okay" then?
And this was done by christians with swords.

 

[John Uskglass]

Whaaaaattttt? The Viking influnce on Scandanavia is so FREKING OBVIOUS as to the very IDEA that it was DESTROYED is ABSURD! Even in Salt Lake the Viking Influnce is EVERYWHERE! Some VERY OBVIOUS elements of it even survived thru the great days of the Swedish Empire!
While there is nothing left but a pivling minority of real Egyptians!

 

[Gus]

So the chrushing of the viking Culture in norway was just "okay" then?

The chrushing of the viking culture and the introduction of Christianity is the worst event in Norwegian history. Damn you Olav!
For ruining Norway, you shall burn in HELL!

 

[Ozrat]

"Europeans", in a few situations annihalated civilizations, but these are comparitivly small, simple civilizations, and the conversions where never complete.

A few situations!? Excuse me, but I can't recall a single case of Islamic cultures being responsible for Colonialism, spreading of diseases, raping the natural resources of other regions or actually benefiting their neighboors more than themselves on a larger scale than fundametally Christian cultures.

 

[John Uskglass]

The Ottomans did worse then killing- http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries . At least Mexican culture has a very strong Indian influnce in all respects, and there are still Indians in Mexico.

 

[Ozrat]

Well I certainly hope that there are still Native Americans alive! If they weren't, that would mean that a mainly Christian culture commited a complete genocide to hundreds of unique tribes all over the Western Hemisphere. Then again, they did come pretty close...

If you want to see some examples, just read the books about Christopher Columbus and the other "discovers" of the American continents. The suffering that the natives had gone through is unspeakable. Too bad that the general treatment of Native Americans anywhere hasn't been acceptable until perhaps recent decades.

Canadian fact: Until the late twentieth century, Aboriginals were not allowed to perform cultural events such as dances, except for performances for when the Queen of England was visiting.

So you think this is better than the Viking culture somehow?

 

[John Uskglass]

A) Quite alot of them died of natual causes. If Columbus had just gone over, said hello, given one of them a disease, then you would still have 25/26 Native Americans dead within the century, maybe complete depopulation without the begginings of the Mestizo.
True, there where some utterly awful conditions, but you think that having your children's culture eradicated is any better?

 

[Ozrat]

n[/b]patedCraprunner]A) Quite alot of them died of natual causes. If Columbus had just gone over, said hello, given one of them a disease, then you would still have 25/26 Native Americans dead within the century, maybe complete depopulation without the begginings of the Mestizo.

I'm sorry, but you obviously have no idea about the history of these events. Every first year anthropology student will learn about this at college. The daily journal entries of some of these explorers are quite vivid in their descriptions of mass tourturings, all in the name of "helping" them become a better culture. I'd be happy to give references if you'd like.

[blank]

Where's B) ?

The "culture" in Mexico that you refer to, or anywhere else in the Americas, is nowhere close to being what it was prior to the 1500's. These "children's culture" doesn't exist in the majority of the Western Hemisphere either.

 

[John Uskglass]

Yes, the mines where thousands of people died of diseases, the towns wiped out, the greedy Spaniard behind every turn....I know, and what I said was mostly wrong....but at the very least ALOT died of diseases. That is the primary reason they started bringing over Africans to, right?

Mexico is quite close to the pre-Spanish culture, at least when compared to most of the Mid-East. Much of the clothes remain the same, racially a big chunk is still Mestizo or Indian (who remembers the Native American Mexican rebels a while ago?), and at all levels there is a pre-Spanish Mexican influnce that can be seen, from the local dialects of Spanish, to the clothes, to the customes.........and not only that, but most Mexicans do not belive that thier ancestors where a bunch of Infidels who got what they deserved, and move thier capital from Mexico City to another city founded by Mexicans just to get away from the stigma like the Turks.

 

[Brother None]

Yes, the mines where thousands of people died of diseases, the towns wiped out, the greedy Spaniard behind every turn....I know, and what I said was mostly wrong....but at the very least ALOT died of diseases. That is the primary reason they started bringing over Africans to, right?

Are you claiming the colonialists DIDN'T spread those diseases on purpose? We know they did, it was their most effective way of waging war on, note, sofisticated and developed cultures (albeit not thousands of years old, but still) and all in the name of God.

What you don't seem to grasp is that the muslims spread their empire so fast and violently was because they could, NOT because their religion told them to. It's greed and hunger for power that makes people do this, not devotion to their god. It's exactly the same as the crusades and the colonial age, those were caused by greed, not devotion.

Or would you argue the current troubles in Israel are the fault of inherent flaws in judaism and islam, rather than the will of seperate people to live in their own independant countries?

Would you argue the Sikhs are fighting for their own country because their religion, the most peace-loving major monotheistic religion there is, told them to?

Mexico is quite close to the pre-Spanish culture, at least when compared to most of the Mid-East. Much of the clothes remain the same, racially a big chunk is still Mestizo or Indian (who remembers the Native American Mexican rebels a while ago?), and at all levels there is a pre-Spanish Mexican influnce that can be seen, from the local dialects of Spanish, to the clothes, to the customes.........and not only that, but most Mexicans do not belive that thier ancestors where a bunch of Infidels who got what they deserved, and move thier capital from Mexico City to another city founded by Mexicans just to get away from the stigma like the Turks.

Mexico Mexico. What about almost all of South America? What about the USA and Canada?

 

[welsh]

I want to respond to Kharn's point, and actually why he might be wrong.

Overall this argument is getting a bit silly. I mean it looks like "Who's resume of evil deeds is more despicable." I think we can all agree that neither side of this has a monopoly on badness.

Yesterday I propped open the Columbia History of the World (Everything about everything in 1000 pages- or such) and read up on the early Christians. Not the nicest folk. Lots of battling sects, lots of contention between different sects.

The major difference I see here is that the Christians came upon the scene when Rome was in decline. In fact the Romans seemed to think that persecution of the Christians led to such problems as dead emperors and military defeats. In fact the Romans had been in decline for some time. Unable to contain the spread of Christians and unwilling to tempt the fate, the Romans ended up accepting Christianity as the faith of the realm. This compounded problems already existing within the Roman system- too much empire, too little bureaucratic technology, too much internal fighting.

But what if the Christians had come around when Roman was growing? Would things have been different?

Well based on what we said above, probably yes. The Christians did take on crusades, in part to spread ideology and in part to spread power. These are mecantilistic societies, they profit by plunder.

Did the fact that they were christians matter or muslims matter? Kharn, you make the point that it was their ability to do so that matters, not their religion.

I generally agree, but will turn it around a bit. I also agree that the quest of power and ability to take that quest probably matter more than religion. However, I think we can also add that religion provided the ideology that made conquest more possible. It unified people around a banner of faith, defining one social group vs. another social group, and gave one power for belonging to the right group.

Not everyone would be motivated by power. But more people would be motivated not to get killed or to be part of the group that is in power. The Islamic drive to convert by the sword- a lot of people when offered the sword would be willing to convert over.

Add that goes to the population group being converted. The LDS folks like to argue about how they are converting people from all over the world. But if you look, they convert a lot of people in some pretty crappy countries. IF you're supernatural faith hasn't worked crap for you, wouldn't you convert? I mean why not switch one failed supernatural system for another?

Ok so back to Islam vs. Christianity. The Arab world is divided by lots of paganistic faiths, some christians, jews and divided sects of both as well as other faiths. Mohammad's gets some of his religious education for jewish and christian traders and he is impressed with the social unity of both jewish and christian faiths, something he doesn't see in his own. He creates an ideology that advocates submission to the law. It's a harsh idea but its a harsh land.

Using that ideology he able to raise an army and begins to conquer the Arabic lands. He dies, others take over, spreading the faith. But its the loyality to the idea- the devotion and dedication to an ideology, that puts the muscle behind the sword, just as it does for the early and later christians.

Is Islam worse than Christianity? Based on historical records its hard to say which is worse because different ideologies had different opportunities to spread. One thing, both ideologies have a long political history.

Both have at their core notions of devotion to a single idea, both have a divine mission to convert the unbeliever, and both have a notion that only through "the way" of that faith is a person saved. This creates an arrogance in the right to convert, a sense of moral superiority, and a divine mission. Thus the notion of ideological empowerment.

Add that to the desire by some folks for power, economic richness and conquest, and both religions become ideologies of conquest.

Again, back to the question - is Islam worse than Christianity. In Islam you have two major notions- the law, and submission to God with a desire for 'justice'. In Christianity, you have the notion of brotherly love, sacrifice, forgiveness of sins through God and creation of community. Both ideas can be used by their followers as a means of conquest.

 

[John Uskglass]

Jesus welsh, I wish you would stop saying you do not know much about the region...you are right on target about Islam, though I would argue that the House of War is a fundemental aspect.

 

[welsh]

I also think we need to think carefully.

Most Muslims would say that there is no real islamic state in the middle east while at the same time, many are bitter about the poor state of the middle east vs a vis the rest of the world. To them, islam might be the answer to the economic stagnation and repressive autocratic leadership they suffer.

This was not always true. Many muslims looked to a variety of secular ideas after independence, often socialist democracy. Yet when many of these movements sought to overturn autocratic- pro-west countries those countries recieved aid from either the US or from former colonial powers. The case of Iran is especially useful.

Having failied to achieve change through socialist or democratic means, these folks turned to islam. Unemployed, frustrated youth are often especially vulnerable to raising a banner of revolution. Islam, the ideology for legitimation for these autocratic leaders, can be utilized by other social forces as an ideology of resistance.

In that sense, Iran again plays an interesting harbinger. But we can also look elsewhere. The travelling warrior you seeks to defend Islam from the west has been seen in Afghanistan, in Bosnia and now in Iraq.

But again, we need to be careful. There are also revolutionary groups that use a form of Christianity to support violent resistance. One can find these in a variety of areas of Africa. But one can also find traces of this in the rise in fundamentalism among young people in the US. Many argue that a more moral nation can be built using the doctrines from the Bible as a guide. We can find a variety of groups- from Catholic and Jewish groups to the white supremist groups using the Bible as a source of legimitation.

It is interesting to do a historical comparison. During Rome's last years there was an increasingly active turn away from rationalism towards the supernatural as a source for answers to the current problems. Failing to think carefully about underlying causes of what's really at fault, led to the undermining of that once powerful empire.

In that sense we can see the turn towards fundamentalism in both the Islamic and Western world as troublesome. Rather than find the answers for the decay and problems of those societies in the economies, political systems and social relations, increasing numbers are looking to alternative sources for quick answers.

But there are no quick answers, there are only real answers to real problems. We need to think carefully about those problems, not within the framework of superstitions but without our own god-given rationality.

 

[Gunslinger]

But again, we need to be careful. There are also revolutionary groups that use a form of Christianity to support violent resistance. One can find these in a variety of areas of Africa. But one can also find traces of this in the rise in fundamentalism among young people in the US. Many argue that a more moral nation can be built using the doctrines from the Bible as a guide. We can find a variety of groups- from Catholic and Jewish groups to the white supremist groups using the Bible as a source of legimitation.

That's a good point, welsh. However, Catholic interpretation, or at least the viewpoints that I was taught in theology class, stress toleration rather than violence. In Chapter 10 of Mark's gospel, John tells Jesus that there was another exorcist driving out demons in his name and that they tried to stop him. However, Jesus rebukes him and says (and I'm paraphrasing here): "One who performs a mighty deed in my name cannot be against me." Jesus' comment alludes to the feeling that a religion that teaches morality should be respected. The violent Zealots of Jesus' day, who wanted a warrior Messiah to free them from foreign rule, never truly did gain momentum (one of the apostles, Simon, was a Zealot yet he did not practice his ideology). And remember, when Peter drew his sword and severed the ear of a soldier trying to seize Jesus, Jesus said: "Those who kill by the sword, die by the sword."

But that's just the thinking of the educated. I've had ten years of basic Bible education and I've just started interpretation. And there are Catholics who truly try to justify violent acts, as you've said, welsh. I think it's a common misconception of some fundamentalists that the Jews killed Christ but that's simply not true. In actuality, most of the early Christians were Jewish converts. And it would be a paradox to think that we (Christans) had to avenge Christ when he voluntarily choose to die in order to grant new life. This stems from the early animosity that the Jews had shown to early Christians (recalling the numerous martyrs who died in Christ's name) and the attempted outlawing of Christianity after the destruction of the Temple. However, Jesus did teach that those who would follow him would also share in his suffering so its a moot point to stir up bad blood in the past.

This is just the thinking of an educated Catholic.

 

[welsh]

Always good to hear from the educated Catholics, gunslinger.

You're right that we find those teachings in the new testament and the gospels. What I was alluding to was more a historical application of religion than the doctrine itself. I think that Catholicism has generally been a fairly moderate force of late. While church leaders have taked a strong stand on issues of abortion, the community has often taken a more liberal position on that topic, as well as gay rights. New York and Massachusetts are not only generally democratic strongholds but also largely Catholic as well.

We need to consider to that the catholic church, being a global faith, also takes a different role depending on what country you go to. IN some countries, as in Singapore, the church was actively in support of social welfare and betterment of the poor. IN others, the Philippines, the church benefitted from ties with the economic and political elite (under Marcos) until he felt Marcos had gotten out of control after the assassination of Aquino.

Variations of the church's role in politics is a great topic and worthy of consideration. The problem is selectivity. People utilize the church teachings in a variety of ways to legitimize their acts to others. Sometimes that legitimization changes what would be thought of as a socially criminally or un-just act, to a perfectly justified act.

If you look at your early church, one finds a practice of using violence to develop a coherent ideology. The first few hundred years of the church finds it struggling to address some core ideas (is Jesus divine as God, or is he the Son of God, or is he a man?) types questions. These questions are often settled through rather political settlements, something that Protestantism has often used to criticize catholicism (and appropriately so). Yet under these settlements were disputes among different christian sects and interpretation. The core values came to dominate through repression of other sects as heretics. The goal being ideological coherence and domination. One finds this practice increasingly institutionalized with the purging of heretical movements (the inquisition comes to mind).

THis is why I mentioned, in an early post, to look at the history of Catholicism as an example of the problem when church and state mix (and remember, I'm also a Catholic!)

That said, my point was more historical but also trying to explore a contemporary phenonema- the militancy of Islam, the fundamentalism of Christianity.

I think many folks find lives frustrating either because of limited opportunity, a desire for change or desirous of a feeling of empowerment. Religion offers that mechanism of change.

I therefore think the rise in fundamentalism, be it either Christian or Muslim, derives from similar sociological conditions built around frustration. This seems truer in the Islamic world than in the Christian, but that's not to say the Christian couldn't get that way.

We need to be careful. Christianity and Islam have both proved themselves successful at being turned into ideologies of conquest. Those that would advocate political change have often used faith as a means of legitimation. One finds that in the most extreme forms, from the Ku KLux Klan to the Jewish Defense League, and to a much lesser degree in the Knights of Columbus.

The problem that I am pointing out to is that religion is basically faith in a supernatural idea. Historically one finds that states and economies, and thus the societies that survive due to both, tend to weaken and fall when their population turns from trying to rationally address their real problems towards finding answers in irrational systems of faith.

I think this is probably why Confucius was much more interested in dealing with real problems than metaphysical ones.

 

[John Uskglass]

Many muslims looked to a variety of secular ideas after independence

In several situations, but most of the time you are set up with forward thinking, if autocratic, socialist westerners. Now, with most autocratic regiems there is of course a virtual plethora of dissidency, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Nazis, however, with many of these ideals clashing against everything the Arab world stood for, and the fact that the one readily availible place for real political discussion outside of government eyes was the floors of the Mosque, it was a natural conclusion.

Bosnia

Bosnia has Muslim pluralisim, meaining that while Muslims make up more then either the Orthodox Catholics, the Catholics or the Serbian Orthodox, if you take two or all three of them together Christians are in a clear majority. True, there where some Muslim extremists, but they did not constitute a minority of the majority- they constituted the minority of a minority.

therefore think the rise in fundamentalism, be it either Christian or Muslim, derives from similar sociological conditions built around frustration.

The two are incomparable. Jimmy Falwell has not set up anti-secular Theological schools all across Orthodox Ethiopia, Niger or some such poor Christian nation, while the Wahhabis can do whatever they want whever they want. Perhaps we will see a "Handmadien's Tale" trend in the future politics of these nations, but not anytime soon.

some core ideas

Someone does not know very much early Christian theology.
I fail to see how important the debate on Christ's making or divinity, or the seperation of the two are key to the religion. I think they stood for key elements of the religion, but the stuff they debated where meaningless, with the possible exception of Manicheanism (spelling?).

THis is why I mentioned, in an early post, to look at the history of Catholicism as an example of the problem when church and state mix (and remember, I'm also a Catholic!)

I would say Catholicisim is the succes story. Look at Orthodoxy and see what happens with the fusing of church and state. It is funny, though, that in the West, where there was often a key seperation of Church and State (with the exception of Otto II, a Greek German Emporer who wanted to combine the two uberpowers into a Greek Theocracy, and Barbarossa with the whole St. Charlamagne mess), they became the violent killing in the name of God is righteos, while with the State and Church fused, you get a religion where warriors are expected to live like monks to repent for thier sins.