Islamic jihad: the genocide in the Sudan

jazzns, most adherents to most religions don't follow it's tenets. The question is not what most people in a religion do, but what it's teachers and leaders teach and what is considered true.Most Christians don't do a great many things that are part and parcel of Christianity, but that doesn't change what Christianity is.

well, there's a massive difference in numbers and influence.Stand up with a Bible in hand and preach in Egypt or Saudi Arabia and you're not just going to maybe, but probably not, run across someone yelling God hates Christians, but are likely unless GOd protects you, to be killed right there on the spot or imprisoned.

Got you mixed up there.....but you could have quoted a comment the first time around. Sorry.Anyway, it would be great if more liberal and moderate forms of Islam would sweep over much of the Muslim world. The moderates and non-radicals are persecuted as well often.

this always gets me. ok rand lets say we had a fundi theocracy for instance just like say how some of the islamic states are, would your goverment who is hard-line enough to want one religion, would you logicically allow other religions to be taught?in my mind if i was both goverment and religious leader i wouldn't, based on the fact that my control stems more from religious belief than being the leader of the goverment since the laws stem from the religion
all of this isn't about the religion itself, its about using the religion to enforce political control over peoplei mean really this just makes marx ring more true, religion is the opate of the massesEdited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

Pointing out the genocide in Sudan is not propaganda. Pointing out the genocide in Sudan followed by comments about how the religion of Islam is violent is verging on propaganda. When the equivalence of Islam and rape, murder of innocents, kidnap etc is implied it becomes propaganda, especially with comments about how Islam teaches that Muslims should kill Jews. Indeed - I have also condemned the actions of the Islamic extremists, but that is not propaganda. Propaganda is saying that Islam is in itself an extreme religion which teaches murder and violence. Yes, it would be silly. I'm not saying it is not motivated by theology. I am saying that the theology is twisted and perverted beyond what it should be in order to justify the political aims of evil men over the centuries. Likewise with any theocracy be it Buddhist or Christian. As such we should be decrying not the religion of Islam but the intertwining of religion and politics.To reiterate - extremist Islamists are bad. They consider this badness justified by God. It is not - it is justified by their twisted and corrupted man-made religion. The God made part of the religion is not much more violent than the Jewish faith. The extremists are worse because they then try and spread this corrupt and evil parody of Islam, calling it Islam, and encouraging people to kill and rape in its name. It drives a wedge between the West and the East, which also drives a wedge between Western Muslims and everybody else. This causes further tension, which the extremist Islamists try and capitalise on, further increasing the gulf. Liberal Islam is a lot stronger than you might imagine. The Queen of Jordan is a very liberal Muslim, for example.

So if we went back a few centuries we would be justified in talking about the danger to the World posed by Christianity? About its racism and and its slavery and its world domination? They were Christians. Should we look to the genocide committed? Should we look to Hitler and say, he was a Christian?If you are prepared to swing both ways on it - then we'd be closer to agreement. The Christians weren't following God's orders when they did these things, with the exception of people like Hitler, they were following what their culture and their leaders told them was 'Christian' and 'Godly'. If that included casual slaughter of peasants or the conquest of a 'Godless' nation (with a smattering of wanton murder and rape) then so be it.So yes - if you are prepared to not special plead for Christianity, then I'm on your side on the points you raise in this message.

No, and the reason is those actions were not religiously motivated as the jihad is. Now, if you wanted to discuss Roman Catholicism which is a subset of Christianity arguably and did engage in persecutions, that would be acceptable, but it illustrates a good point.RC forbad extensive reading of the Bible in the common language.Why?Well, we can't know for sure, but we do know that as people did read the Bible, they more and more felt that using violence to persecute people was wrong, and so at the root of Christianity, we see a peculiarly non-violent approach to religion, and so that root eventually weeded out the heresy brought on by Roman Catholicism's insistence on persecution.I just don't think you can say the same thing about Mohammed and the founding of Islam.

I think the problem Modulous is that you fail to recognize Islam inherently intertwined politics with religion from it's outset. It may be and there are some forms of Islam that eschew that intertwining, but they are the minority theologically in most of the Muslim world.

Rev, I thought you guys already insist that with Bush and the GOP in control, that the fundies do rule our government.OK, where is the persecution? How many Muslims, liberals, commies and what-not were strung up or beheaded today?Should be thousands, right?Where are they?

My statement of agreement was in the VERY post you responded to. Should I just assume that you don't read anything I write and respond accordingly?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

The Crusades weren't religously motivated? You know the Babel story was used (and is still used) to justify racism? The Qur'an is complete - everything that came after it has not been sanctioned by God, but by men. The Qur'an is as peaceful (sometimes less sometimes more) as the Old Testament. It would be useful if you could provide support to your statements so that we can explore them together.

I've never heard this. Can you document it?

That was an aberration brought on by Catholic mixing of Christianity with the Roman Empire. It came on much later and ended, and so was not part of original or current Christianity. Good point. The Old Testament wasn't that peaceful, was it? Keep in mind that one reason Rabbinic Judaism emerged and is peaceful is that the Jews were enslaved so they could not obey the Law, and so had to reason theologically to what extent God wanted them to obey the Law if they had no Temple.Now, if we were to apply historical logic here, one might conclude that the destruction of Mecca could somehow assist in changing the theology of Islam, as did the occupation of Jerusalem did with the Jews, but somehow I don't think that is what you are getting at.

already said I was sorry, got you confused with another poster....and am glad you agreed there is a substantial difference.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

did i ever say the american goverment was a theocracy?
please post evidence of this i would say we have little because our goverment can be controlled by the people its not a theocracy
did you even understand what i wrote or are you just trying to distort my point