Double Standard?

[Raichu Mistress]

I have another observation about online debates, and I just wanted to see what y'all thought.

In lots of religious debates, people bring up the crusades and Salem witch trials and all the bad stuff Christian groups do to bring down Christianity's character, but whenever a debate about muslims come up, everyone's so quick to defend the average Muslim, saying that they are normal while Al-Quada doesn't speak for all of Islam.

What I wanna know is, if Al-Quaida doesn't speak for Islam (and I don't believe it does) why do the Crusades etc, speak for all of Christianity? (especially us protestants because Catholics are the ones who did that, but it doesn't speak for all of Catholicism either)

Now, in theory, since Al-Quada actually did all this stuff to US, we should be angry at them? (but really shouldn't hate them, it's just a more logical thing to do, but not right) instead of all the stuff corrupt Christians did thousands of years before we were born?

Now I don't believe everyday muslims are evil, but neither are everyday Christians. I just find that extremely odd. Thoughts?

 

[evkl]

The key is that I think a great majority of the Christians (there were no Protestants during the Crusades, mind you, although there were Eastern Orthodox sects) at the time either supported or were ignorant to the crusades. In today's world, being ignorant to anything major is incomprehensible, but those that knew supported it (mainly.) And as evidence, how many people participated in Crusades? How many in 9-11?

 

[Roses Ablaze]

Evkl: But you've still got the fact that the crusades took place a long time ago (well, I suppose that could be a matter of opinion, actually...I don't know enough about the issue to form an opinion myself, but I've heard some people say that the Crusades are still going on in a different form).

Raichu Mistress: I think most liberals are thinking along the lines that Christians in the govornment are imposing their views on other people, which they don't really appreciate. When people feel that they are being oppressed, they tend to resent the group they feel is oppressing them. May I remind you that a full 37% of the people on here voted that they are gay or bisexual in the poll, and that the government currently seems to be taking efforts to restrict same-sex couples from rights, while at the same time is not allowing protection against descrimination based on sexual orientation? May I remind you of all the guilt trips and flat-out contempt and hatred that most GLBs are subjected to on a daily basis (don't tell me it doesn't happen, because it does; my friends and I have personal experience and we live in your typical suburban neighborhood)?

May I also remind you that only 26% of the people on these messageboards voted "Christian" as their religion and that the conservatives are not hiding the fact that many of their ideas and policies have religious agendas?

You yourself seem to resent atheists and agnostics for seeing Christians as bad people, so wouldn't you be a little less than favorable towards them if you felt that they were the ones controlling your government?

Somehow, I doubt that there'd be as much religion-bashing if things weren't running the way they are now (I certainly wouldn't be as alienated from my religion).

 

[Fig]

The crucial difference between the two is simple.

Osama Bin Laden formed Al Qaeda.
Urban II called for the Crusades.

Osama Bin Laden was a private citizen.
Urban II was the Pope.

A private citizen does not speak for his faith.
The Pope speaks for the Catholic Faith.

So there you have it. The difference between blaming muslims for Al Qaeda and blaming Catholics for the Crusade is the difference between blaming America for a murder sponsored by Bill Gates as private businesman and blaming America for a murder ordered by Georges Bush as president.

(The same goes for the Inquisition).

---------

That said, it's true that the Crusades are nearly a millenium in the past. The Inquisition OTOH hasn't even been dead for two centuries. Either way, both put nearly a millenium of Church-sponsored bloodbath on the Catholic shoulders.

---------

Protestantism only get to dodge this bullet because of the weakness or even lack of central activity : THEY (and their specialty : the witch trials, cf Salem for the most well known case) mostly fall under the same domain as Jihadism, ie the work of over-fervent individual without a central religious authority commanding it.

 

[evkl]

"A long time ago" is never an excuse for shit. Two generations of "a long time ago" (The Holocaust) is enough for most people. Four generations ago, millions of Armenians were wiped out by the Turks. One group goes after another rather constantly throughout history.

 

[Fig]

"A long time ago" is a perfectly good reason not to hold present-day catholicism (especially since Vatican II) to blame for the sins of the past.

Though it MUST be said that "how much things have changed" is at least as much of a factor as "how long it has been."

 

[Barb]

May I also remind you that only 26% of the people on these messageboards voted "Christian" as their religion and that the conservatives are not hiding the fact that many of their ideas and policies have religious agendas?

May I gently remind you that not all Christians have political leanings? Many Christians are politically neutral. To suggest that *one* group of Christians (say, for example, the fundamentalists) speak for all one billion people who claim to be Christian on this Earth is overgeneralizing.

 

[Roses Ablaze]

Well, my point is that most of the people on this messageboard *aren't* Christian, not that all Christians are against atheists.

 

[Checkmate]

The crucial difference between the two is simple.

Not really.

Osama Bin Laden formed Al Qaeda.
Urban II called for the Crusades.

True.

Osama Bin Laden was a private citizen.
Urban II was the Pope.

True.

A private citizen does not speak for his faith.

True.

The Pope speaks for the Catholic Faith.

False.

Urban II was a citizen like anyone else. There is only one difference. He had power. And I do not influence. I mean power. He was head of the driving force of the world. The Church.

The Church during the middle ages was not a democracy. What the Pope said went. Anyone who disobeyed him could have been considered a heretic. And you know what they did to heretics.

The Catholic faith at the time (and I think still does) had a policy called the supremacy of the Pope. The Pope was hardly considered a man. His words were considered equal to or greater than the Bible. In that culture, saying that you disagreed with the Pope would be like saying that you disagreed with God himself. And keep in mind the church is the law. And without the first amendment I would be curious where you got your facts that most people supported the crusades or were ignorant.

That said, it's true that the Crusades are nearly a millenium in the past. The Inquisition OTOH hasn't even been dead for two centuries. Either way, both put nearly a millenium of Church-sponsored bloodbath on the Catholic shoulders.

That's nice. And Islam has done no less. The only difference is that we live in a society largely dominated by the west. European history is mostly what we know unless we have taken college courses specifically toward other countries. Face it, Damian. You know as well as I do that world history refers to the Roman Empire, Europe, and the United States.

I have a question for you. Who first invented the movable type printing press?

Gutenberg? Nope. He was 400 years behind the chinese. But who knows that? Also, who knows what the muslim dominated countries have done during the millenial bloodbath? How much better were they? Did Muhammed himself not lead a charge to overtake Mecca?

I agree with Raichu Mistress. In fact, I'm a little ticked that you ripped that comment out from under me. That counter just clicked with me a week or two ago.

---------

Protestantism only get to dodge this bullet because of the weakness or even lack of central activity : THEY (and their specialty : the witch trials, cf Salem for the most well known case) mostly fall under the same domain as Jihadism, ie the work of over-fervent individual without a central religious authority commanding it.[/QUOTE]

 

[Barb]

The Catholic faith at the time (and I think still does) had a policy called the supremacy of the Pope. The Pope was hardly considered a man. His words were considered equal to or greater than the Bible.

I believe that this is the dogma of infallibility. Webster's defines "infallible" (3rd definition): incapable of error in setting forth doctrine on faith and morals; said esp. of the Pope speaking ex cathedra (i.e., in his official capacity).

 

[Fig]

Checkmate, wether or not the Pope was supreme of what, he DID speak for the Catholic faith at the time. The issue is not wetehr he SHOULD Have been, it's wether or not his words were binding for the Catholic faith at the time.

They were.

OSama's actions and words are not binding for the muslims. There's the difference, and why it's not "double standard".

-------------------

As for Guttenberg and China, I'm majoring in Asian Studies (minor in history). So I was already somewhat aware .

Re : Islam, yes, they've done atrocities. But the atrocities were rarely the result of a deliberate policy being applied by people of the religion, on the orders of a religious hierarchy. That's the difference between the Catholic Faith (of back then) and the Muslims. The Catholic acted because the supreme leadership of the Catholic faith said "we do this". The musulmans, beyond the first few of Muhamad's heir, rarely had any sort of unified religious leadership.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

For the most part, any religious warfare brought on by Muslims has been AGAINST Muslims. It goes back to the fractioning of the religion following the whole controversy over who would be the new leader. In fact, until the 1800s, the Muslim nation(s) were the most tolerable in the world. There are STILL sizeable Christian populations living in Middle Eastern countries that experience less religious hatred than Muslims in the US. Really, the only notable Muslim-led insurgency prior to the 1800s that I can think of was in southern Spain. But that's a centuries-old conflict that will probably never be resolved. And it's even debatable as to who's to blame.

Whereas Christians have to answer for the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials (although that, necessarily, has nothing to do with Islam), the Inquisition, and how many religious uprisings in Europe?

Neither religion is perfect, but Muslim-based violence is usually from the extremes, whereas Christian-based is largely governmental or faith-based. And most Muslim violence today could, technically, be traced back to Christians. But that's more of a semantics issue and really has no place in a serious debate, so I don't know WHY I mentioned it. I'm sure it'll come back to bite me, though. It always does. Now...to find that damned book.

 

[Checkmate]

In fact, until the 1800s, the Muslim nation(s) were the most tolerable in the world.

In fact, that is incorrect.

I am going to point out a few verses from the Koran (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/HolKora.html) which would indicate otherwise:

8:12 When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

2:193 And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

2:216 Fighting is enjoined on you, and h is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.

This last verse was (as best as I can discern) not talking to soldiers exclusively. The previous verse was speaking of how to spend money.

Certainly if the Pope can be considered to speak for the Catholic faith, the Koran can be considered to speak for the Muslim faith.

Now I realize the Bible has many war verses. But every single verse referring to a divinely ordained physical war was in reference to a specific event. For instance, God might say to Joshua "Go and destroy City-state A and leave nothing, not man, woman, child nor cattle alive." And then a few verses later it would say "Joshua destroyed City-state A and left nothing, not man, woman, child, nor cattle alive." Later God may give a different command.

The Koran, near as I can figure, does not tend to give contextual limitations to it's war verses (which are also far more frequent than biblical ones).

Really, the only notable Muslim-led insurgency prior to the 1800s that I can think of was in southern Spain. But that's a centuries-old conflict that will probably never be resolved. And it's even debatable as to who's to blame.

Islam was started by insurgency led by Mohammed. He used soldiers from Medina to raid caravans to take slaves and money in the name of Allah.

Whereas Christians have to answer for the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials (although that, necessarily, has nothing to do with Islam), the Inquisition, and how many religious uprisings in Europe?

Remember, according to Damian we are talking about only events such as the Crusades and Inquisition which were backed by those representing the Catholic faith. This excludes the salem witch trials and most uprisings.

And according to me, we are not talking about events sanctioned by people but events sanctioned by the respective holy books. This, unless someone can formidably argue otherwise, also excludes the Crusades and Inquisition.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

I HATE it when people quote the Koran. How about the verse in the Bible that says "turn the other cheek"? Or "let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone." Now, OBVIOUSLY Christians don't follow these, so why would the Islamic community follow every single verse in the Koran? Just because it's there doesn't mean people will follow it.

You can pick random passages from ANY religious text and make it into what you want. Hell, I can pick random passages from ANY book and contort it to what I want. I can make Harry Potter look like the Devil's guidebook to sin. Doesn't mean it is.

The FACTS are that the CHRISTIANS started the Crusades. The CHRISTIANS invaded Muslim land. The MUSLIMS defended themselves. The CHRISTIANS and JEWS within Muslim territory were STILL treated with respect, even DURING the Crusades. Whereas the Christians randomly killed any non-Christians throughout European history. The fact is that there are STILL large Christian populations in the Middle East that go unscathed.

The Koran, near as I can figure, does not tend to give contextual limitations to it's war verses (which are also far more frequent than biblical ones).

Now, did you read the passages in context? Or on their own?

Islam was started by insurgency led by Mohammed. He used soldiers from Medina to raid caravans to take slaves and money in the name of Allah.

Ummm...no. Mohammed was a man who formed a religion after receiving divine wisdom (as often happens in the Judaic religions). He then shared his newfound wisdom with others, and a religion was formed. He was then forced OUT of where he was stationed by those who did not like what he taught, and he was forced to fight back (beginning the LONG history of Muslims being forced to fight against oppression). There were no slaves taken. He was not some marauding bandit, he was a religious man OVER 40, who merely sought to find a place for his people where they would NOT be persecuted. Think Moses. In the right light, he looks like the terror of Egypt. Jesus looks like the terror of Rome. It's perception.

And according to me, we are not talking about events sanctioned by people but events sanctioned by the respective holy books. This, unless someone can formidably argue otherwise, also excludes the Crusades and Inquisition.

...Seriously. I can draw a closer comparison to the Bible telling the Pope to do the Crusades than I can the Koran telling bin Laden to blow up a building. There is NOTHING IN THE KORAN THAT SAYS VIOLENCE IS OK. MURDER IS FORBIDDEN ACCORDING TO THE KORAN. As are ADULTERY, and THEFT.

NONE of the three Holy books say "kill the infidels". And if we're not talking crusades, inquisition, the modern terrorist attacks, or any of the random mass killings by Christians throughout history...SHOW ME HOW THE MUSLIMS ARE THESE BIG, BAD KILLERS. Give me HISTORICAL FACTS.

Bin Laden is as much a speaker for Islam as Jerry Falwell is a speaker for Christianity. BOTH get lots of attention. BOTH have millions of followers. BOTH preach intolerance. And I've yet to meet a person from either religion that supports these guys.

 

[Fig]

Checkmate, he said the Muslim NATIONS were among the most tolerants in the world.

Which is, plain and simple, FACT. Christians and Jews enjoyed far more freedom and tolerance in the Ottoman Empire than Muslims and Jews in the Spanish Empire, or England, or anywhere until Secularism began making headway in the west. It's no random occurence that Jews fleeing from persecution until the 19th century *consistently* fled to Muslim nations (Granada, for a start).

Try arguing doctrinal points about Muslim and Christian religions all you want, Checky, the fact is, Christian nations, until they veered and became SECULAR nations, were far less tolerant than their Muslim counterparts.

 

[Checkmate]

GrnMarvel,

I don't see your problem with me quoting the Koran. I also do not see you using the site

I gave you

to point out how I misquoted the Koran.
I would like to point out that the verses you noted in the Bible were peace verses. And I take great offense in your over-generalization that no Christian obeys them. If I stoned every adulteress/er I met I would easily eliminate 40% of my school's population (yes I realize the verse has a broader meaning than capital punishment but the principal is still the same).
But the point is not what Christians or Muslims do. So the Christians started the crusades, so all 55 Muslim countries in the world are dictatorships. Who cares? I don't give a care about the actions of someone who claims to be Muslim or Christian. I care about the foundation of the actual religion. Jesus vs. Muhammed. Allah vs. God (yes I realize, Allah is arabic for God). Koran vs. Bible.

This is what I care about. It's not what the proselytes say, it's what the faith itself says.

 

[Barb]

NOTHING IN THE KORAN THAT SAYS VIOLENCE IS OK. MURDER IS FORBIDDEN ACCORDING TO THE KORAN. As are ADULTERY, and THEFT.

I'm basing my response to this on Kenneth L. Woodward's article entitled "The Bible and the Qu'ran" which appeared in the Feb. 11, 2002, issue of Newsweek magazine:

"Islam implies 'peace,' as Muslims repeatedly insist. Yet the peace promised by Allah to individuals and societies is possibly only to those who follow the straight path as outlined in the Qur'an. When Muslims run into opposition, especially of the armed variety, the Qur'an counsels bellicose response."

The article drew attention to a particular portion of the Qur'an that apparently was misinterpreted by Osama bin Laden. He had attempted to justify a holy war against the 'infidels' by bombing U.S. embassies in Africa and later the Sept. 11 attacks in New York. But he knew that he was on shaky religious ground. Bin Laden asserted that it was his theological license to "kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they are found." And this reasoning was based on a lie: that Islam itself was under attack by the U.S. Bin Laden went on to state that "crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims."

The fact that Americans defended Muslims against the likes of Saddam Hussein and Slobodovan Milosevic was ignored because, for bin Laden's bloody-minded purpose, it had to be.

There are many interpretations of jihad, which means, literally, 'effort.' Often the word is used to describe the personal struggle simply to be a better Muslim. However, the holy war that bin Laden claims to be fighting is a defensive jihad, one of the most dangerous forms. Muslims take it to mean that, if justified, it supersedes all others and may ultimately challenge all authority.

"To those against whom war is made, permission is given to fight," states the 22nd chapter of the Qur'an, especially "those who have been expelled from their homes...for no cause except that they say, "Our Lord is Allah." Thus, in Muslim theology, defensive holy war was justified against the Crusaders from Europe and conquerors who imposed the Inquisition. Recently, Afghans could wage war against atheistic Soviets with religious backing. Muslim scholars will not speak out against Palestinians fighting Israeli-occupying troops.

The problem is that bin Laden was never persecuted for his faith. His goals are personal and political: to overthrow the Muslim rulers of his country. Thus his jihad against the U.S. is not a holy war, it's a blatant fraud.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

don't see your problem with me quoting the Koran.

1. I have a problem with you quoting any religious text when discussing the history of a civilization that just HAPPENED to be Muslim.
2. I merely wondered if you had looked at them in context, or had just found passages that fit what you wanted to say, without looking at the full context. I found plenty of Bible verses that, if taken as is, look REALLY bad.

I would like to point out that the verses you noted in the Bible were peace verses. And I take great offense in your over-generalization that no Christian obeys them.

Really? I have yet to meet a Christian that follows them. Of course, I HAVE grown up around Southern Baptists...where if you're not gossiping, you're not doing the Lord's work.

If I stoned every adulteress/er I met I would easily eliminate 40% of my school's population (yes I realize the verse has a broader meaning than capital punishment but the principal is still the same).

So...you're saying that you're free of sin?

so all 55 Muslim countries in the world are dictatorships.

There are 55?

But you seem to forget the war the US JUST FOUGHT. And the one BEFORE that. It has resulted in TWO democratic Muslim countries. And that STILL has nothing to do with my old point about how, up to the 1800s, the Muslim country/countries were the most tolerant. And the type of government has NEVER had anything to do with how the people were treated. We just make it seem like it does.

This is what I care about. It's not what the proselytes say, it's what the faith itself says.

Well NOW you say that. You could have saved us BOTH a lot of grief if you had said that to begin with, instead of backtracking and not actually debating the point I brought up about religious tolerance, pre-1800s.

But you see...the Koran, and ALL OF ISLAM is BASED around the Koran...which sets both the New AND Old Testament as its FOREBEARS. BOTH are heartily accepted. In Islam, there is NO Jesus VS Muhammed. BOTH are looked upon as prophets and saviors. BOTH are seen as high religious figures. Only in Christianity do you start to see this "kill all the people who believe a little bit more than us." Whenever the Koran says ANYTHING about non-believers, or infidels, it refers to everyone who ISN'T Muslim, Christian, or Jewish.

I leave you with a thought or two, because it's the religion that speaks for itself:

*To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, [A Psalm] of David.* The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: [there is] none that doeth good.

Psalms 53:1

And Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and his servant Moses.

Exodus 14:31

Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the Lord], shall be put to death.

Leviticus 24:11-16

And, finally...something for the kids:

For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

Matthew 15:4

 

[Dagoth Ur]

But you see...the Koran, and ALL OF ISLAM is BASED around the Koran...which sets both the New AND Old Testament as its FOREBEARS. BOTH are heartily accepted. In Islam, there is NO Jesus VS Muhammed. BOTH are looked upon as prophets and saviors. BOTH are seen as high religious figures. Only in Christianity do you start to see this "kill all the people who believe a little bit more than us." Whenever the Koran says ANYTHING about non-believers, or infidels, it refers to everyone who ISN'T Muslim, Christian, or Jewish.

In other words, Islam declares war on Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, atheists, etc., while Christianity declares war on anybody not Christian.
Osama Bin Laden wants America destroyed. Jerry Falwell wants gays killed. Fred Phelps cheers on the killing of (gay) soldiers, the use of bombs, and destruction of America.
After a certain point, is ceases to matter which is actually worse. They all suck. Religion will be the end of humanity.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Hey now, there ARE religions that don't advocate the killing of those in other religions. Buddhism comes to mind. And of course, all the religions that result in the followers committing mass suicide. And Raelians.