RSS/XML |
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
I pointed out in “Islam and the Vatican” that interreligious dialogs between Christians and Muslims have been recognized by many of their participants for many years as being pointless. All the ground has been plowed. One of the greatest challenges prospectively facing Pope Benedict XVI is what the Vatican’s policies will be regarding relations with the Muslim world.
AlphaPatriot reports that Muslim clerics have already started advising the pope:
Pakistani clerics have a message for the new pope:
Islamic leaders in Pakistan are urging the new head of the Catholic Church to combat “grudges” against Muslims in the Western world.
A Pakistani religious leader says he’s praying that Pope Benedict the 16th “will play a vital role to promote religious tolerance, reconciliation, religious freedom, human dignity and peace in the world.”
And a cleric in the city of Karachi says the pope should “try to restrain the forces that have grudges against Muslims.”
“Promote religious tolerance.” “Religious freedom. “Human dignity”. Very nice.
Meanwhile in Pakistan, a mob of 400 people tracked down a man, chasing him through fields and up a tree. Someone in the angry lynch mob got the man out of the tree - by shooting him dead.
And what was his crime? Rape? Murder? No, it was blasphemy — they thought that he had burned a copy of the Koran.
Religious tolerance for thee, but not for me. I’ll start listening to Muslims giving me advice about religious toleraance when Christians can openly, publicly worship in in Saudi Arabia.
Comments policy
An online news and commentary magazine concentrating on foreign policy, military affairs and religious matters.
Editor:
Donald Sensing
Columnists:
John Krenson
Daniel Jackson
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Dec | ||||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
17 queries. 0.353 seconds
April 23rd, 2005 at 2:03 pm
TO: Donald Sensing
RE: What Was It…
…some Wag said, “Woe to thee, oh scribes and pharisees. Hipocrites!”
Regards,
Chuck(le)
April 24th, 2005 at 2:07 am
Quoted:
“WHAT CAN CHRISTIANS who want to remember Rwanda learn from this genocide? Most scholarly analyses ignore the religious dimensions of the tragedy, portraying the Hutu extermination campaign as an indictment of European colonialism or a metaphor for the dilemmas of post-cold-war foreign policy. But there are important exceptions. For instance, Timothy Longman’s contribution to In God’s Name: Genocide and Religion in The Twentieth Century documents the active involvement of church personnel and institutions in the genocide: ‘Numerous priests, pastors, nuns, brothers, catechists, and Catholic and Protestant lay leaders supported, participated in, or helped to organize the killings,’ Longman writes. And he remarks that more people may have been killed in church buildings than anywhere else.”
More here.
April 24th, 2005 at 11:35 am
TO: Dean Esmay
RE: Religiousness and Genocide
I do believe that more people have been slaughtered by atheists than by the ‘religious’ in the Twentieth Century.
Let me mention a few of the leaders:
Hitler, vis-a-vis the Jews
Stalin, vis-a-vis the Ukrainians
Mao, vis-a-vis the intelligencia (The Great Leap Forward)
Pol Pot, vis-a-vis the intelligencia (The Killing Fields)
Millions upon millions dead.
So, don’t pat yourself on the back too quickly, compadre.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
April 24th, 2005 at 11:46 am
P.S. I suspect that the primary reason the ‘religious’ are so far behind the atheists, in terms of body counts, is that the ‘religious’ have, at least, SOMETHING of a moral code that is recognized inside of their ranks which seems to act as an inhibitor against slaughtering their own.
The atheists do not suffer from this sort of restriction. And therefore can slaughter at will….literally.
April 24th, 2005 at 11:54 am
When Christians do the same evil as athiests, all the more aborhent. We are to be the light of the world not the darkness. The examination of the Rwandan genocide and the participation and complicity of Rwandan Christians is imperative if the Christian movement into the Third World is to be sustained with any degree of integrity. This cannot continue to be brushed under the rug especially with the argument that athiest genocide is worse and on a grander scale. For shame.
April 24th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
To: Dean Esmay
Re: Christians and genocide
That the genocide happened in Rwanda between men and women who bear the name “Christian” is a sorry fact. To blame it in any way on Christianity, however, is simplistic, ignoring other factors. The conflict between Hutu and Tutsi was a tribal hatred that seethed for decades, the same kind of tribalism that is the ongoing plague of many African nations. While it appears 9/11 happened BECAUSE OF one radical brand of Islam, the genocide in Rwanda happened DESPITE pretensions of Christian faith. Between “because of” and “despite” is a huge gulf. Tribal hatred, not Christianity, killed Rwandans.
April 24th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
To Chuck:
One of my standard themes I stress to my world history classes is that “More blood has been spilled in the name of ‘god(s)’ than for any other reason.” Recently I have added a correlary to that by adding the disclaimer, “until the 20th century.” AS you pointed out most of the worst atrocities commited during what Conquest referred to as “the ravaged century” were comitted by those who had no professes religion, and in fact were quite hostile to it. (Muslim extremists are the noted exception of course, but their death toll makes them look like rank amateurs compared to Stalin, Mao et.al)
I have come to my own conclusion that the far left is much more dangerous to peiple s liberties and freedoms than the religious right, because they believe in no afterlife and have no “next world” to look forward to, so they attempt to build the tempratl paridise on earth” and will stomp on anyone to do so. (Once again, Islamasim being the notable exception.
April 24th, 2005 at 5:50 pm
TO: Bob Diethrich
RE: Learning, You Are…
“Recently I have added a correlary to that by adding the disclaimer, “until the 20th century.”” — Bob Diethrich
Good for you.
RE: The Muslims
Give them their chance and they’ll make all the others look like Sunday school teachers. [Note: My concern is that they’re going to get their chance. And soon….]
In the meantime, keep up the good work….
…we’re all excited.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Dean…you catching this?
April 24th, 2005 at 7:19 pm
Rev. Sensing’s last line here is wonderful: “I’ll start listening to Muslims giving me advice about religious toleraance when Christians can openly, publicly worship in Saudi Arabia.”
On the one hand, CAIR and others want us never even to hint a Muslim might deserve less than complete trust or respect. On the other hand, we aren’t to notice when one celebrated the election of a new pope by gloating Italy will soon be forced to pay the special tax on non-Muslims.
April 24th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
‘’We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common, we call them ‘religious’; otherwise, they are likely to be called ‘mad,’ ‘psychotic’ or ‘delusional.’
Sam Harris
April 24th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
Bob Deithrich: frankly I doubt even your revised statement. Once you correct for other factors like tribal, racial, and cultural differences that parallel religious differences, the number of purely religions wars shinks dramatically. Then take into account the fact that in many cases wars and mass murders were only allegedly about religion, but were really wars of conquest or political machinations, and I think it’s hard to find many people that were actually killed in the name of gods.
For example, Jews were often killed for their money; religion was just the excuse. The Thirty-Years War was allegedly between catholics and protestants, but there were plenty of catholics killed by catholics and plenty of protestants killed by protestants. Religion was primarily a means of revealing trouble-makers in conquered territories. Anyone who wouldn’t convert to your religion was a future problem. Off with his head.
This is not to say that religious enthusiasm didn’t have any bad effects, just that it was only one factor, and singling it out is not reasonable.
April 24th, 2005 at 11:46 pm
There are many causes of death. Not wearing your seat belt in a car can have deadly consequences. Society singles out that risk factor, requires the installation of belts and legislates their use and the death rate goes down. Perfectly reasonable.
The point. No rule against singling out problems and working on just one. It seems useful.
April 25th, 2005 at 1:44 am
BD: More blood has been spilled in the name of ‘god(s)’ than for any other reason.
I think “in the name of” is the key phrase. People have fought over land and ethnic and cultural reasons for millenia. In every war they fight, they invoke their respective gods, hoping that they will be favored with a victory. But are they, for the most part, fighting over religion? I doubt it - they are fighting over land. Gods have no need for earthly things. Men who are about to go to war want reassurance before they risk their lives. Invoking the names of their gods is just another way of psyching themselves up. Unlike alcohol or drugs, this doesn’t impair their physical reflexes.
April 25th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
Women are suppressed (when not killed) all over the world as a direct result of irrational religious beliefs-dress, education, birth control, civil rights. Christian Fundamentalist=Suppression light, Islam=Suppression heavy.
What doesn’t kill you will stunt your growth.
“It’s the beliefs…”
April 25th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
Religious tolerance watch
Link: One Hand Clapping � Blog Archive � Religious tolerance watch. Religious tolerance for thee, but not for me. I’ll start listening to Muslims giving me advice about religious toleraance when Christians can openly, publicly worship in in Saudi…
April 25th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
Whatever Charles……
Anyway, the useful point is didsbury’s. Because you call yourself one thing or another does not mean that you follow
its doctrine. Cultural Christians are a perfect example “We’ve been Catholics for years” is old but acurate.
I think it is indeed rare when someone practicing a religion actually trys to follow its doctine. In the case of Isalm
where ever it goes death and destruction follow.
April 25th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
TO: Charles Croninger
RE: Yeah…Right….
“Christian Fundamentalist=Suppression light….” — Charles Croninger
Show me. Show me where if some woman is being suppressed she can’t go to another denomination and have the freedom you insinuate they don’t have.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
April 25th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
P.S. On the other hand, I can agree with your observation about Islam = Suppression Heavy.
My sister married a Muslim. By their lights I should murder her.
Now THERE is a telling indicator.
April 26th, 2005 at 5:05 am
“Religion of Peace?” Splinter… Eye… Beam… You Know The Drill.
Reverend Sensing (always worth reading-no, seriously, always) recently took Muslims to task for abhorrent behavior-in this case, a group of Muslims who lynched a guy beca…
April 26th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
TO: Dean Esmay
RE: Again?
What’s up, compadre? Think that just because you don’t adhere to the belief system that came up with the ’splinter…eye…beam…’ concept you can get away with innuendo?
Not reading replies to your comments here, perhaps?
Athiests have shed more blood than christians have in the recently departed century. Possibly, as a result of being more ‘efficient’, they have shed more than any single religious group in all of planet Earth history. But then it’s a more ‘target rich environment’ these days.
But do keep trying…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)