The two faces of Islam.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is no hatred of the Irish, and i'm pretty sure the Irish do not hate the British.

So you are telling me that the IRA doesn't hate the British?

The English and Irish had been fighting long before there was such a thing as a "protestant".

Most of it started after Cromwell decided he and his Protestant New Model Army had to destroy the Catholic Popish Irish.

And Velo... I didn't hear many condemnations of atrocities done by Christians to EACH OTHER in the 30 years war. Bishops and Priests delighted in the masscres that were done. After all it was done for God's pleasure.

[Velociryx]

You just don't wanna give up, do you? 'k....I'm still waiting for that link....you know, the one where catholics are seen dancing in the streets celebrating after the latest catholic massacre.

Is it proving elusive?

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's common historical knowledge that Bishops and Priests applauded atrocities committed in the 30 Years War and even participated in some of them.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Northern Ireland is NOT about land: at least, not like Israel/Palestine is. Yes, the Catholics would like all the Protestants to emigrate to the British mainland, and the Protestants would like all the Catholics to emigrate to Eire, but that's as far as it goes. The Plantation of Ulster happened centuries ago and was a gradual process: they're not fighting over land rights like the Israelis and Palestinians are. They don't have major disputes about who owns each plot of land.

It's a clash of cultures: primarily, a clash of religions. The Protestants don't want to be ruled by Papists: they view the Pope as the AntiChrist and regularly burn effigies of him. This hatred is the sole reason why Ireland was partitioned: the British wanted to grant independence to all of Ireland, but the Protestants of Ulster threatened a genocidal war, the ethnic cleansing of Ulster's Catholic population.

The fundamentalists among the Protestants work hard to keep that hatred alive: they define their identity by it. Hence the Orange Order, and the interminable celebrations of battles and marches.

Of course, they are the majority (60%). So, under the rules of democracy, their will prevails and Ulster remains British. But the reason the minority Catholic population don't accept it (as other religious minorities do elsewhere) is because of the sectarian tension. Religion is the badge that each side identifies with: if Catholics and Protestants dare to marry, both get murdered. The school system is apartheid, with Protestant and Catholic schools and near-total segregation.

For centuries, Protestants and Catholics have killed each other in the name of God. Historically, it's mostly been Protestants killing Catholics, trying to exterminate the evil of "Papism" (e.g. by killing ALL Catholic priests). Now that the Catholics hold most of Ireland, the IRA want to drive the Protestants into the sea. Both sides bear huge grudges against each other, this is all about vengeance for battles and atrocities hundreds of years old.

Otherwise, they are the same people. The Ulstermen came from Scotland, and the Scots came from Ireland. There is no racial difference and no cultural difference of any significance: except religion.

Protestants dislike the Pope because he used to weild political power in Europe. Why should I be subject to the Pope? He lives in the Vatican, not England. Religion had very little to do with the Anglican church being founded. It was because Henry VIII wanted a divorce which the Pope would not grant.

Why did the Orange order originate? I think its because they wanted to have a powerful lobby to persuade people to their cause. Why isn't the srugle over who controls the land? If the protestants left, the conflict would be over. If the protestants would have long ago gone along with the UK freeing all of Ireland, than there would have been no conflict. Protestants and catholics do not hate each other because they are catholic and protestant. They get along just fine here in the States.

Why are protestants so militant in Ireland? They aren't here. No American protestants tear pictures of the Pope up on stage. No American protestants object to their children being sent to school with catholics. No American protestants are murdered for marrying a catholic in a catholic church and practically converting to catholicism. No American protestants do any of the crap that is occuring in NI. Nor does it occur in the rest of Europe. Why? Because religion isn't the cause.

[dunk]

The English and Irish had been fighting long before there was such a thing as a "protestant".

Most of it started after Cromwell decided he and his Protestant New Model Army had to destroy the Catholic Popish Irish.

Bull. Ireland was subjugated by the English king in the middle ages. Again, it was a rallying cry, not a cause.

[Velociryx]

And we Christians even had an inquisition! As I said, I'm not denying that there hasn't been bloodshed, but the mindset is fundamentally different here.

You DO NOT see Protestants dancing in the streets when Catholics are bombed, or vice versa. What you do see (in general) is the leadership calling for peace and condemning those perpetrating the acts of violence. I'm not sure I "get" your extreme reluctance to cede that point.

Have you any evidence that shows wild protestant parties, celebrating a successfully bombed catholic dominated cafe in the name of god?

-=Vel=-

[dunk]

Vel...

The IRA and the protestant groups simply don't have the recruiting power that the Muslim groups have. The Muslim conflict is newwr. Perhaps in 100 years, people in the Middle East will tire of this conflict as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You DO NOT see Protestants dancing in the streets when Catholics are bombed, or vice versa.

I'm pretty sure the Protestants danced in the streets when Gustavus Adolphus' troops utterly destroyed and massacred some of his hated enemies. Since when did the leadership on EITHER side of the 30 Years War or the Inquisition call for peace? That's a bald faced lie.

[Velociryx]

So because you're "pretty sure" it happened, it MUST be true, eh? I gotcha.

On the other hand, there are pictures circulating the 'net showing the followers of Islam out celebrating the latest dead infidels, but you don't have any such photographic evidence, do you? So of course, given Christianity's 2000+ year history, the obvious answer is to keep going further back in time till you can come up with something that might be comparable.

But you can't keep it in current events, can you? Cos if you do that, if you stick to the topic at hand (ie - the differences between Christianity and Islam TODAY), the evidence to support your position simply isn't there.

Call it a lie if you want, and in the meantime, I'll wait around to see if you can find some pics.....

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

So because you're "pretty sure" it happened, it MUST be true, eh? I gotcha.

So you've just called all history false. Way to go numbskull.

But you can't keep it in current events, can you?

No, because you've only limited it to a small timescale to benefit your argument, even though timescale isn't relevant to the discussion. To argue whether one religion is more violent than the other you have to look at the histories of BOTH. By limiting the timescale to current, you are being dishonest and decieitful and you know it.

And furthermore, it is 1380 in the Muslim Calender. By my calculations they have, oh, 500 years to get all secularized.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The most telling thing to me is this:

If a splinter Christian group bombed a cafe full of people in the name of the Christian God, the Pope, and every other prominent leader of the Christian world would come out *strongly* against such actions, declare a day of mourning, offer to help those suffering, etc., etc. Christians the world over would be expressing their outrange and offering assistance.

When a bomber in the ME goes into a cafe in Israel and blows up a cafe filled with innocent people in the name of Allah, we get as a response:

Dancing in the streets and celebrations.

Fundamental difference, wouldn't you say?

-=Vel=-

What about the killing of abortion doctors and the strong approal they get from the extreme fundamentalists in the US? o they donce dance on the street- maybe white people are ust more broing...

[November Adam]

I wonder....

Should a religion be based on what it's followers have done, or on what the religion states should be done?

[Imran Siddiqui]

maybe white people are ust more broing..

IIRC, there is a abortion doctor killer running around in North Carolina being suppored by the people there from escaping from the law.

GOOD example though!

[dunk]

Originally posted by Velociryx
So because you're "pretty sure" it happened, it MUST be true, eh? I gotcha.

On the other hand, there are pictures circulating the 'net showing the followers of Islam out celebrating the latest dead infidels, but you don't have any such photographic evidence, do you? So of course, given Christianity's 2000+ year history, the obvious answer is to keep going further back in time till you can come up with something that might be comparable.

But you can't keep it in current events, can you? Cos if you do that, if you stick to the topic at hand (ie - the differences between Christianity and Islam TODAY), the evidence to support your position simply isn't there.

Call it a lie if you want, and in the meantime, I'll wait around to see if you can find some pics.....

-=Vel=-

I've been reading your argument with Imran about this "who's more violent" issue and finally come to an opinion.

You can't compare the relative violence of Christian nations and Muslim nations without 1) taking into account their relative position in the world stage and 2) History.

1) Muslim nations simply don't have the all around wealth that western christian countries have today. Here in the US, nearly everyone can easily provide for themselves and family plus have plenty left over to buy $250,000 homes. The only people in Muslim countries who can buy expensive things are the extremely rich. The middle class is much smaller than here in the west. This type of situation easily breeds violence. In essence, there are more people with "nothing to lose". A promise of heaven is a strong motivator for people who are poor and uneducated.

2) Religion is never the cause for a conflict (this is my argument in this thread). It only makes it worse. At the risk of blaspheming Islam... I beleive the people who spread Islam through the sword were ambitious individuals who ended up in a position of power in the lands they conquering in Allah's name. Religion was a rallying cry to draw the masses (soldiers) to their cause. "Smite the infidel. And when they are smoten, we shall take their riches!" "Yay!" Religion becomes an easy excuse for things like wars and other attrocities throughout history.

Islam is perhaps more violent today, but christianity could easily do the same at any time.

[Velociryx]

I've not been arguing at all. I began with one, simple statement.

When a servant of Allah bombs a cafe filled with innocent civilians, we have seen (more than once) that the response is dancing in the streets and celebration at the act.

There ARE no current examples of this is Christiandom (no Christian bomb squads blowing up cafes which lead to street celebrations), but if there were, I put forth the notion that a Christian splinter group doing such heinous things would be strongly condemned by every major christian religious leader there is.

That condemnation is notably absent from the Islamic leadership, and is, by its absence, tacit approval of their tactics.

It's not about history in the least. It is a comment on the state of affairs as they are RIGHT NOW, to underscore the fundamental differences between the two religions.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

There ARE no current examples

If you dial back to 1300, and the Pope heard that some splinter Christian group during the Crusades lined up Muslims and Jews and masscred them, the Pope would condemn them?

You are being naive.

It is a comment on the state of affairs as they are RIGHT NOW, to underscore the fundamental differences between the two religions.

YOU CAN'T COMMENT ON THE STATE OF AFFAIRS RIGHT NOW TO UNDERSCORE THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES. This is a logical fallacy. Because one group is violent at the present and the other group is relatively peaceful then that explains the differences in both groups each of which are over 1000 years old? That's ridiculous. If that were the case, then I'd have to say that Britain civilization is fundamentally less violent than Chinese civilization because right now Britain is less violent .

[Velociryx]

I'm not sure where you live, Imran, but I'm living in the present. The differences I see in the present may have their roots in the past, but they have there RELEVANCE in the here and now.

It's absurd to talk about what your great, great, grandpappy did in terms of current events.

Current events are...well, current. Sorta by their nature and design.

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

And, Vel, since no Muslim cleric anywhere is condeming Islamic terrorism, how can there be a good, peaceful Islam which Bush says exists, and a different "fundamentalist" Islam we should oppose?

A recent caller on a talk radio show identified himself as a Mulsim and apologized to America for 9/11. He said the reason other Muslims cannot speak out is fear. He said they fear they will be targeted, or their families "back home" will be targeted, for violence. So there may be some, many or even a majority who oppose violence; but the religion as a whole appears to be ruled even internally by violence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Vel, you still don't get it.

You make a statement like Islam is fundamentally more violent than Christianity. Then you only base it on the present and current events. That is simply moronic.

[Velociryx]

My initial statement was that there was a fundamental difference between these two current events:

1) Muslims dancing in the streets after a cafe bombing

2) No such Christian equivelent present on the world stage today

You don't see the fundamental difference there?

None at all, right?

No difference.

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

My initial statement was that there was a fundamental difference between these two current events

And then you expanded it to say there was a fundamental difference between the two RELIGIONS. And you can't deny it, you just said it a few posts up.

[GePap]

Ned:

unless you know every single Muslim cleric in the world, your statement about them loses all validity, specially since I doubt you are particularly looking for Clerics that might prove you wrong.

Vel:

There is no more violence in the poor Muslim world today than there is in the poor nonMuslim world. Colombia is as racked by violence as any part in the Middle East. Just 20 years ago, so was most of Cnetral America. And all the Muslim extremists around can't match the amount of bloodshed shed in central Africe. The single greatest act of human depravity vs. Humans was carried out in 1994 in Rwanda, one Million killed. There are preachers and bishops, christians, accused of aving sermons urging their congregations to join in the mass murder: men with as much, perhaps more blood on their hands than Osama bin Laden. All the killing in Rwanda was done by Christians. As I said, Crhistian clergy urged them on. Is Christianity to blame? Now, Idoubt there was much dancing as the people were being massacred- it takes a lot to kill one million out of 8 million people in a state in just three months, plus soon afterwards 1.5 million fled fearing retribution when Tutsis took back over.

The violence in the Muslim world can't be expalined by reading the Koran as this threat implies. Suffi Mystics and clerics in central asia have read it and for them it allows for a deeply spiritual, mystical faith. Are the, people who study the Koran deeply, wrong, simply because there are other people who also read the Koran deeply disagree? Oh, and no one has yet mentioned the Shiaa, Sunni split. I guess Muslims do disagree about the meanings of Islam. The violence can better be explained by politics than by scriptural quoting.

[Velociryx]

If I said "religions" then that was my bad, BUT....if you go back and re-read my posts, you will see that I have remained on the same topic despite all attempts to derail me....focused squarely ON the events (and lack thereof) described in the post above. Bombings leading to celebrations on the one hand (islam) in today's world, and nothing of that sort from christianity.

I know you love a good debate, but surely, SURELY you can see that THIS is precisely where I have kept the focus of all my posts.

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bombings leading to celebrations on the one hand (islam) in today's world, and nothing of that sort from christianity.

That statement itself indicates that you are seperating this into a religious issue. Are you say ALL Muslims celebrate after violent acts against civilians and ALL Christians do not? That is saying one religion is fundamentally violent and the other isn't.

GePap brings up the interesting example of Rwanda, where Christians massacred millions and priests led them on. They may not have danced, but Christians urged it on.

You can't blame one religion for something and then say you are not blaming the religion. That's just silly.

[Ned]

GePap, Obviously I am basing what I say only on news reports. If there are clerics speaking out against violence, the news media is not reporting this.

I would welcome a link to a story that will prove me wrong.

[Velociryx]

Imran....has anyone ever told you that you nitpick, rather than debate? Well...you do.

Read my words closely.

Today, in the world, you will find examples of muslims dancing in the streets celebrating after cafes filled with innocent people get blown into tiny little bits by a muslim splinter group.

You do not find christians doing such things when one of their splinter groups blow people in cafes into tiny little bits.

This represents a very different mindset.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran....has anyone ever told you that you nitpick, rather than debate? Well...you do.

Debate is about nitpicking. It is about taking the words of the opponents and turning them around. Especially when someone says something totally illogical.

Today, in the world, you will find examples of muslims dancing in the streets celebrating after cafes filled with innocent people get blown into tiny little bits by a muslim splinter group.

You do not find christians doing such things when one of their splinter groups blow people in cafes into tiny little bits.

This represents a very different mindset.

So you are saying the religions create a different mindset? Admit it, that is what you are saying. You are saying Islam creates people that dance after terrorist acts.

Your whole analysis is flawed. You take the Middle East and apply what they do to all of Islam which is much, much greater than the Mid East. You seem to think that no one else has ever celebrated after terrorist acts. Columbian Marxist rebels celebrate after they kill a high up person in the government. They may not dance, but that is because they aren't inclined to.

You are attributing one small group and attributing that to the whole, a classic logical fallacy.

If you had stated that poor countries have a different mindset than rich countries and are inherantly more receptive to violence against the supposed oppressors, then I'd agree... but you want to put it on one religion and then say you aren't.

[GePap]

Vel:

To say that bombings lead to celebrations in 'Islam' makes no sense.

Lets take your example: someone blows up a caffee in Israel and Palestinians dance, or there is an attack in the US like 9/11 and many people dance. Now your assumption is that because, undeniably, people do dance (celebrate the violence) then Islam must allow this, and hence it is different from Christianity. Thre are myriad problems with such a statement:

First, we must, like you, assume islam as a dependent variable, true for all those involved. Now, how many people dance? For the attacks on the US there was celebrations in a few area like Palestine. BUt was the celebration widespread, to muslim in al countries? NO. In all muslim states, only a minority celebrated, in Iran there were mass protest for the US. If it is Islam that is the variable, then this result makes no sense. Should not all 1 billion muslim have been dancing?
NOw, at the same time, you are faulty by expecting all those dancing to be Muslims. A small minority of palestinians are Chirstians, and of course, there are many slightly relegious folk, the type that don't pray or fast when they have to. You can't prove that none of the Palestinians dancing where Chirstians or socialists. And if any of them were there in the crowd, the your dependent variable, Islam, is wrong, since we have elements that have nothing to do with it behaving as all the other elements did.

Perhaps Vel you need to start looking for another dependent variable.

[Velociryx]

*sigh*

Having debated all through Highschool and college, I can tell you that your nitpickicking assumption is incorrect. Debate is much more than that.

Do not try to read more into my statement than is there. I am saying all I mean to say by those simple statements.

There's a very different mindset at work.

That's all. No conclusions, no judgements. Just an observation. A somewhat scary observation.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

GePap: The fact is that it wasn't the Amish who were out dancing in the streets after the cafe was bombed in the name of Allah.

It wasn't the French.

It wasn't limited to members of the PLO, the PTA, the KGB, or any other group.

It was a group of folks who practiced Islam, who felt like partying after hearing that some innocent folks got blown to smithereens.

Their leadership did not condemn either the bombing itself or the party atmosphere that followed.

What does that sugesst to you?

-=Vel=-