Posted on 11/13/2002 3:35:07 AM PST by kattracks
Excuse me? Did we miss the whole conquest of Christian North Africa and Asia Minor thing? Or Sudan and Nigeria? Guess all the violence of Central and SW asia doesn't matter...aka not mentioned above.
Islamic persecution of non Muslims in
Indonesia
Lebanon
Turkey
Syria
Egypt
Sudan
Pakistan
Eritera
Somalia
Afghanistan
Islamic minority unrest...racial instability
America
Britian
France
Italy
Germany
Canada
Australia
South Africa
That's a rough list anyways.
Muslim invaders to India slaughters thousands of Buddhist monks because they were infidels. These monks did not fight. They were responsible for the demise of Buddhism in India. It flourished elsewthere in S.E. Asia and E. Asia but in India, it was gone.
The Acts of the Apostles
004:031 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were
assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy
Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
004:032 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and
of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things
which he possessed was his own; but they had all things
common.
004:033 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them
all.
004:034 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as
were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the
prices of the things that were sold,
004:035 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was
made unto every man according as he had need.
004:036 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which
is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and
of the country of Cyprus,
004:037 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at
the apostles' feet.
005:001 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold
a possession,
005:002 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to
it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles'
feet.
005:003 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to
lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of
the land?
005:004 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was
sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived
this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but
unto God.
005:005 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the
ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these
things.
005:006 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out,
and buried him.
005:007 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his
wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
005:008 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land
for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
005:009 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed
together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of
them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall
carry thee out.
005:010 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the
ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and,
carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
005:011 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as
heard these things.
005:012 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders
wrought among the people...
If by "Marxist" you imply an advocacy that the government confiscate and control all property, I would again challenge you to provide us with specific verses.Technically speaking, Peter is not acting as a government official in these passages, but there is a strong implication that Peter used either his own strength of will, or maybe The Holy Ghost Itself, to shame and humiliate Ananias and his wife unto their deaths, simply because their oblation failed to satisfy him.
Keep in mind that this is the same Peter who betrayed Jesus thrice as often as did Judas; furthermore, Judas was warned in only very general terms that he would betray his master, while Peter was warned in the most explicit of terms.
I know of no passage in the Christian books of the New Testament in which Jesus causes the mortal death of a living man [although he certainly goes to great lengths to warn of the possibility of immortal death, which is to say, the withholding of immortal life]. The mistake that is made by almost all people who call themselves Jews and Christians is in assuming that the men whose lives are depicted in the Bible are good and decent men. King David was a wicked, evil, iniquitous man. Simon-Peter was a wicked, evil, iniquitous man. Saul-Paul of Tarsus was a wicked, evil, iniquitous man.
The Old Testament is a history of the evil, wickedness, and iniquity of the Hebrew people. The post-Christian chapters of the New Testament are a history of the evil, wickedness, and iniquity of men who called themselves Christians.
Compare The Communist Manifesto and The Critique of the Gotha Program:
004:032 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and
of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things
which he possessed was his own; but they had all things
common.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents
of land to public purposes.
4. Confiscation of the property...
5. Centralisation of credit...
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by
the State...
004:034 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as
were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the
prices of the things that were sold...
10. Free education for all children in public schools.
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs - Critique of the Gotha Program
004:035 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was
made unto every man according as he had need.
1. Abolition of property...
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
4. Confiscation of the property...
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs - Critique of the Gotha Program
A crusade is in the end just another species of war. Plenty of polytheists, nontheists and atheists (the Mongols, the Huns, the Romans, the Incas, the Aztecs, Stalin, modern Sri Lankan Sinhalese Buddhists, etc.), have engaged in wars of conquest to spread or preserve their own rule. I can't see any reason why that would be morally any less abhorrent than going to war for God.
That you suppose that "monotheism" is disproportionately responsible for war strikes me as odd. To see that, conduct the following thought experiment: would the wars that you fault monotheism for not have happened if all men had to fight over was treasure and things of this world? I suspect they would have. And perhaps monotheistic lands where peace was relatively common for many centuries would themselves have been more violent without it. Wars happened before there was monotheism, and happen now where it is absent.
I grant that monotheism's strands' claims of exclusivity and the associated problems are real enough, but only on an other-things-equal basis. And other things are not equal. The monotheistic religions have also codified and hence gone a great distance toward establishing behavior most of us regard as moral (the Golden Rule, etc.) The only reason slavery, a normal condition of humanity since settlement began, is in retreat is because monotheists (Christians in this case) declared it a violation of the dignity of all men that was commanded by God - a sin, in other words. The spread of science has arguably always been most dramatic in monotheistic societies, because of the imperative people feel to understand God's creation.
To declare monotheism some sort of problem we would have to think carefully about both the sins and achievements of man, both when monotheism is present and when it is absent. You have only thought, it seems to me, about one of those combinations. Your conclusion is a normal sort of Type II error.
And I am not claiming that is what you're claiming. I argue that your disproportionate focus on monotheism is out of proportion to its negative effects and ignores its positive ones. Your claim, I suppose, is that monotheism is some kind of negative force for humanity. (Restate the claim if you like.) So presumably its negatives vastly outweigh its positives. So let's try to work through them systematically by drawing on whatever knowledge of history we have.
War is a complex problem. What are the best frameworks for undestanding it? If monotheism is a significant part of the problem I would expect to see constant conflicts among monotheists and between monotheists and non-monotheists in a variety of social and institutional environments. If it is not a sensible person will look for other frameworks by which to understand the problem.
Have there been some wars exclusively or mostly motivated by religion? Maybe. The conflicts between the emergent Muslims and the Byzantine Empire, the wars of the Reformation, and others might be candidates. (Although economic determinists might attribute them to expanding populations, competition over resources, etc. I don't take a position on these specific examples.) How significant is monotheism overall as a cause of war? Pretty modest next to other things: control over natural resources and land, control over slaves, the natural will to power, etc.
So the negatives, in the grand sweep of human history, seem pretty modest. But they are not zero. Thus the conclusion that you seem to jump to, that we ought to adddress what you ominously call "the problem," is still tenable. However, by my reading of history even when monotheism is the problem, it's not the problem. Consider societies like the U.S. and Canada that have many monotheistic beliefs coexisting peacefully. How does this happen? Because the most important contributor to social peace, according to Professor Rummel's invaluable website, is limited government. In a society in which people are free to follow their beliefs and to proselytize -- in which religion, IOW, is treated like any other normal form of action or advocacy -- religious conflict fades as a problem.
In the U.S. Catholics and Protestants were never in the kind of bitter conflict that they were in Europe in centuries past. Why? This is a kind of controlled experiment in your thesis. Two places with substantial monotheism, and clashing monotheisms at that, and yet one was always largely devoid of mass religious conflict and the other took centuries to get there. I suggest it is because institutional features of U.S. governance prevented extensive entanglement between church and state. People fought over religion because they were fighting over whether their truth or the other side's heresy would get access to the king's lucre. In the U.S., that has never been an issue, and so religions get along well here.
That suggests that violence is indifferent to the presence or absence of monotheism. Rather, it is government control that allows war to happen, whether there is monotheism or not. In fact, monotheism can be invoked on war's behalf much more easily when power is strong and concentrated than when it is not. So you focus on the wrong thing. Older research does show that religious fractionalization in a society is associated with conflict, but once one controls for institutional quality this association vanishes. (I can provide citations if you are interested.) And a good case can be made that widespread monotheism in fact assists the promotion of institutional quality on average.
But even that gets us only to neutrality. Monotheism is not bad, but if it is not good either what (other than opening the door to restricting people's religious beliefs) would be harmed by identifying it as a problem? Plenty, as it turns out. Monotheism is a tremendous force for good as well. Robert Barro's and Rachel McLeary's very interesting recent research has shown that it promotes economic growth, which is a tool to give individuals more control over their lives. Interestingly, they also show that state control over religion has a dampening influence on growth, suggesting again that it is big government and not religion manipulated by big government that is the problem. (A sample of their research is here. They have a book coming out soon.) Anecdotally, Christianity was instrumental in promoting the separation of church and state, and Christianity and Islam both emphasize the dignity of all believers before God. While the three great monotheisms require an obligation to the poor and their equality before God, the polytheistic Hindus believed for centuries (and in parts of India still believe) that birth is destiny, that you are what caste you are and nothing can change in this life. In imperial China, with no real theistic beliefs, the people were utterly and completely the property of the emperor (there being no God to answer to), so much so that his agents were in every town, meticulously recording the labor efforts of every resident so that those who failed to serve the emperor could be punished. When there is no God, the king thinks he is God, and that is a problem.
Why do you suppose it was that slavery was combated first and foremost by Christians? Because it was a sin. Those crazy people who fought slavery in Britain and the U.S. got their inspiration from "ancient texts" and yet did in fact seem to "KNOW" quite a bit more than "the rest of you," or at least your 17th-century equivalents.
I once read a book by an English professor named Regina Schwartz called The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism. She talked a lot like you did with her equating of religion pretty much exclusively with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials and some unknown number (but she was confident it was very many indeed) of religious wars. She also tried to reason backwards from texts and beliefs to actions much as you have, with your claim that the belief in one God could "culminate in ranging degrees of violence based on their intolerance of 'infidels.'" And like you she offered no data and seemed to ignore quite a bit of historical evidence. Read a little more about the scholarly investigations of the impact of monotheism and religion on human welfare. It's not all positive, but most of it is.
Religion is fine, as long as fundamentalists don't try to give the rest of the world an ultimatum of "adhere or die."
Well my goodness, who is saying that?
MUSLIM ON-GOING CONFLICTS IN THE WORLD
COMPILED BY MICHAELSAVAGE.COM
AFGHANISTAN: The war in Afghanistan is ongoing. Since Soviet troops withdrew, various Afghan groups have tried to eliminate their rivals. Although the Taliban strengthened their position in 1998 they have not achieved their final objective. Afghanistan harbours Osama bin Ladin, a wealthy Saudi Arabia dissident responsible for terrorist acts around the world. On 11 September 2001 members from bin Ladin's el Qaeda group highjacked 4 passenger jets in the USA, crashing one into the Pentagon and 2 into the World Trade Center, killing more than 2,000 citizens. The USA and its allies declared war on terrorism and counter-attacked, removing the Taliban from power. The war on terrorism and the el Qaeda continues.
ALGERIA: Armed Islamic groups formed and since 1992 have carried out attacks on key economic points, security forces, officials and foreigners. In 1995 Algeria's first multiparty presidential elections were held and the incumbent president Liamine Zeroual won 60% of the votes in a poll with a 75% turnout. The first multiparty legislative elections were held in June 1997 which were won by the National Democratic Rally, which holds the majority of seats along with the FLN. Although the armed wing of the FIS declared a ceasefire in October 1997, an extremist splinter group, the Islamic Armed Group (GIA), continued attacks. There is also evidence that many attacks are carried out by militias backed by the Algerian security forces. After years of civil strife, Amnesty International estimates that around 80,000 people have died
The Caucasus and Russia: The Central Asian republics have a long history of conflicts. Fighting breaks out regularly between warlords and religious groups calling for the establishment of Islamic states outside the Russian Federation. Russia is trying to hold on to the federation because the Caucasus is a vital supply route for the oil riches of the Caspian and Black Sea. With the break-up of the Soviet Union various groups fought for control in the republics. Conflicts from one republic spills over to the other and they continually blame each other for attacks. Chechnya, still part of Russia, was flung in an almost full-scale war in 1994-96 and, after a disastrous campaign, Russia was forced to re-evaluate its involvement in the area. In August 1999 Russia stepped up security in the Caucasus region as rebels from within Dagestan - a small republic where more than 100 languages are spoken - went on the attack in support of Chechnyan Muslim groups who claim independence from Russia. In September 1999 Russia launched a ground invasion into the area to cut rebels off from Central Asian supply routes. By January 2000 Russia was once again involved in a full scale conflict in Chechnya. The Caucasus issue is complicated by the more than 50 different ethnic groups each insisting to proclaim their religious convictions on the area. The situation holds serious danger for neighbouring countries, Kazakhstan, Georgia and Russia itself.
EYGPT: Fundamentalist Muslim rebels seek to topple the secular Egyptian government. At least 1,200 people have perished since the beginning of the rebellion. The conflict was primarily waged as an urban guerrilla/terrorist war. The opposition Muslim Brotherhood took part in elections in 2000, indicating that they felt armed force would not work.
INDONESIA: The struggle on the Indonesia islands is complicated by leaders of pro- and anti-independence movements, and by religious conflicts. More than 500 churches have been burned down or damaged by Muslims over the past six years. Both the Christians and Muslims blame each other for the violence and attempts at reconciliation made little progress. After a bloody struggle East Timor gained independence in 1999. The hostilities on other islands continue to claim dozens of lives, to such an extent that the break-up of Indonesia seem imminent.
INDIA/PAKISTAN: Muslim separatists in the Indian section declared a holy war against the mostly-Hindu India and started attacks in 1989, mainly from Pakistan-occupied section of Kashmir, and from Pakistan and Afghanistan. The conflict continues, with Pakistan also crushing rebellions with brute force in their section.
IRAQ: Supports Islamic terrorist acts around the world. Differing culture and religious groups within Iraq continues to clash with Shiite Muslims.
ISRAEL: Within its own borders, Israel continues to battle various Muslim organizations that seek independence for a Palestine state, areas made up of the Gaza strip, West.Bank, and part of Jerusalem. There is heavy international pressure on Israel to recognise a Palestinian state. The area of what today is Palestine was settled by Semitic tribes at a very early date. It was then called Canaan, and controlled by Canaanite tribes for more than 1,000 years. In about 1500 BC Hebrew, or Jewish, tribes began to enter the area. They later came into conflict with a people of Greek origin known as the Philistines. It is from them that the term Palestine is derived.
IRAN: After the Iranian Revolution in 1979 toppled the government of the Shah, the Mujahadeen Khalq soon began a bloody guerrilla war against the new Islamic government. The Mujahadeen are currently based in Iraq and conduct cross-border raids into Iran, as well as conducting urban guerrilla operations in the cities and conducting political assassinations. Iran occasionally launches raids against Khalq bases in Iraq.
KOSOVO: The ethnic Albanian KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) in this Serbian province fought a guerilla war against Serbia to claim the region. Beginning in February 1999, Albanians were forced out of the province, prompting NATO to attack Serbia. By July 1999 Serb troops were forced out of Kosovo, only to open an avenue for Albanian Kosovars to attack Serb Kosovars. The Albanian Muslims have since burned down dozens of centuries-old Christian churches. In an effort to establish a Greater Albania, Albanian Muslim rebels also launched attacks in Macedonia.
NIGERIA: There are violent religious clashes in the city of Kaduna in northern Nigeria beginning February 21 2004 and have continued. Kaduna is the second largest city in the north. The clashes followed a march by tens of thousands of Christians to protest the proposal to introduce Muslim sharia law as the criminal code throughout Kaduna state. Reports speak of rival armed gangs of Christians and Muslims roving the streets. Churches and mosques have been put to the torch. Corpses were seen lying in the streets and people's bodies hanging out of cars and buses, apparently killed while attempting to flee the violence. Local human rights workers said that more than 400 had been killed as a result of the clashes.
SUDAN: The largest country in Africa, has been plagued by a succession of unstable civilian and military governments since it gained independence in 1956 from an Anglo-Egyptian condominium. The long-running conflict continues between the Arab Muslim northerners of Sudan, (the base of the government), and the African Christians of the south. In the mid-90s Sudan was home to Osama bin Ladin, the international terrorist responsible for the World Trade Center attack. It is estimated that more than 1,2 million people have been killed in the Sudan war, brining devastation to the Sudanese economy.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: At war with terrorism.
PHILIPPINES: The Phillipines armed forces, with assistance of US troops, are fighting Moslem rebels - they have been linked to Osama bin Laden's el Qaeda terrorist group - on the southern islands of the country. Muslim rebel groups seek autonomy/independence from the mostly Christian Philippines. One rebel group, the Abu Sayaf Group, is believed linked to Osama bin-Laden's Al-Qaida. This connection, plus their tactic of kidnapping and beheading Americans, led the United States to send Special Forces to aid the Philippine Army.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.