All Religions Are Not Created Equal

Human Events ^ | January 9, 2005 | Robert Spencer

[quidnunc]

Are all religions equal in their capacity to inspire fanaticism and violence? In the wake of the Koran flushing scandal, Tom Regan of the Christian Science Monitor blog wrote a piece to that effect. Even though that scandal has faded from the headlines, the attitudes Regan expressed remain — and interfere with our ability to resist the global jihad. Taking issue with the assertion by Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe that “Christians, Jews, and Buddhists don’t lash out in homicidal rage when their religion is insulted” and “don’t call for holy war and riot in the streets,” Regan wrote that Jacoby had made “an interesting point. There’s only one problem with it — it’s wrong.”

-snip-

The question here is not whether or not Jews or Christians commit violence. Of course they do. Human nature is everywhere the same. The question Regan is obfuscating is whether or not Islam as an ideology exhorts people to violence. Manifestly it does, and violence committed by members of other religious traditions does nothing to mitigate that fact: Islam is unique among world religions in having a developed doctrine mandating violence against unbelievers. This has spawned in our day a global network of Muslims dedicated to jihad. Are Jews targeting non-Jews, or Christians non-Christians, on a global basis? Of course not. Until the Muslim and non-Muslim world are ready to acknowledge the role of Islam in inspiring people to violence, that violence will continue.

-snip-

Our need to answer this question is not just Judeo-Christian boosterism, a chant of “Yea, team! The West is Best!” The nature of jihad violence has serious consequences for the Bush policy of attempting to destabilize terrorism by establishing democracies across the Middle East. It shows how difficult it will be to export the live-and-let-live attitude necessary to make for a society that enacts the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. Thomas Jefferson said: “If my neighbor believes in one god, or twenty, is of no concern to me, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” But is that exportable as a political credo to societies in which the legal tradition includes death for blasphemy and apostasy?

-snip-

[cvq3842]

The question people are afraid to ask . . .

[PetroniusMaximus]

Genesis 16:11-13

And the Angel of the LORD said to her:
"Behold, you are with child,
And you shall bear a son.
You shall call his name Ishmael,
Because the LORD has heard your affliction.

He shall be a wild man;
His hand shall be against every man,
And every man's hand against him.

[Bushbacker]

The Lord also advocated violence to conquer the Promised Land, which was possessed by a group of unbelievers. The Crusades were
a violent solution to the Muslim
control of the Holy Land.

But Western religion has developed beyond this and Islam hasn't---but it is false to claim that Islam is the only religion that advocates violence toward unbelievers.

[rawcatslyentist]

"Thomas Jefferson said: “If my neighbor believes in one god, or twenty, is of no concern to me, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”"

What if your neighbor's god REQUIRES him to break your leg??????

T.J. didn't see that one coming, cause he was a sane rational HUMAN BEING.
Obviously the ones who's god requires them to maim and kill are NOT!

He's Got A Plan

Seven Dead Monkeys Page O Tunes

[quidnunc]

Bushbacker wrote: But Western religion has developed beyond this and Islam hasn't---but it is false to claim that Islam is the only religion that advocates violence toward unbelievers.

Oh so?

What other major religion has a doctrine of which advocates violence against unbelievers for no other reason than that they are unbelievers?

[PetroniusMaximus]

***The Crusades were
a violent solution to the Muslim
control of the Holy Land. ***

The Crusades, in their agressive form, have no support in the New Testament and represent an aberration of Christianity.

I know this does not exactly address your point, but there in no basis for violence in any form in the New Testament.

Strictly speaking, Christianity has not "developed beyond" violence. Whenever Christians have enganged in violence they have fallen from the ideals of the New Testament and are in disobedience to the Lord they claim to follow.

[Lost Dutchman]

The Crusades were defensive counter attacks against Islam taking the Holy Lands and other lands in Asia Minor controlled by the Byzantine empire. The majority of people in the Holy Lands and Egypt were Christians i.e. Ariana, Armenian and Coptic decades after they were taken over by the Islamic armies of the Seljuk Turks. If not for the Byzantine Empire and the Crusades Christianity may very well have gone the way of the Zorastians.

[BikerNYC]

Whenever Christians have engaged in violence they have fallen from the ideals of the New Testament and are in disobedience to the Lord they claim to follow.

Do you really intend the meaning of this sentence to be as expansive as it sounds?

[PetroniusMaximus]

*** Do you really intend the meaning of this sentence to be as expansive as it sounds?***

Can you think of a single example of sanctioned violence in the NT?

[BikerNYC]

I'm looking at it from the other side. Did the Christians who fought in WWII and committed acts of violence fall "from the ideals of the New Testament and [were they] in disobedience to the Lord they claim[ed] to follow"?

[papertyger]

...violence committed by members of other religious traditions does nothing to mitigate that fact: Islam is unique among world religions in having a developed doctrine mandating violence against unbelievers.

What part of this statement do you take exception with?

[DeweyCA]

The concept of a "just war" has been accepted in most of Catholic and Protestant branches of Christianity. Also while the OT Jews wanted to live in peace with their non-believing neighbors, there were times when God told them to completely destroy their neighbors because their sins had become so gross that they would bring down the spiritual sensitivities of Jews.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***I'm looking at it from the other side. Did the Christians who fought in WWII and committed acts of violence fall "from the ideals of the New Testament and [were they] in disobedience to the Lord they claim[ed] to follow"?***

Honestly, I'm a little unsure of the ethics of self defense, or defense of the helpless. That's why I prefaced my remarks with "The Crusades, in their aggressive form..."

Those solider were not there as "Christian" but as representatives of the secular US Government. As such they fell into the category of those invested with the power of civil government as described by Paul in Rom 13...

"For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.

For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."


I think we can agree that violence is utterly prohibited in the promotion of the Christian faith.

Good questions, by the way.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***there were times when God told them to completely destroy their neighbors because their sins had become so gross that they would bring down the spiritual sensitivities of Jews.***


John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

[OB1kNOb]

"...He shall be a wild man;
His hand shall be against every man,
And every man's hand against him...."

AMEN.

[ShadowAce]

Can you think of a single example of sanctioned violence in the NT?

Yes. But only one, and it is not meant to be used as an excuse for others to commit violence.

[william clark]

Yeah, you don't get a lot of bombings by Zen extremists.

[jwalsh07]

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. [St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64, 7, corp. art]

To be sure, St Thomas also states that the intentional killing of the innocent or undue violence is a grave sin but violence in protection of ones self or another to the point of killing is does not prevent salvation.

I agree with St Thomas.