General Question

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

why do so many "Christians" support the war and killing people?

Asked by SquirrelEStuff (9171points) October 22nd, 2007 from iPhone

It has been proven over and over again that the war was based on lies, I feel as if there are just as many Christian extremists as muslin extremists.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

24 Answers

ezraglenn's avatar

just so you know, muslin is an itchy fabric, Muslim is a follower of Islam.

gsiener's avatar

Murder’s okay as long as they’re not Christian…

archer's avatar

this question and gseiner’s response is so old, tired, ignorant, bigoted, and just plain boneheaded, you have to wonder how it continues to re-emerge. it’‘s viral, i guess.

migueltang's avatar

war is inevitable. Even in the Christian bible you find wars. Furthermore, war is a struggle for survival. It is nature’s way of ridding earth of the weak. Wars do not occur primarily among humans. Animals have wars too. A lion earning its leadership and alphamale status for instance. Humans, however, fight for many reasons that are linked to personality, peronal achievements and feelings, and for the survival of state because we are logical biengs fighting to overcome pur instincts, but ultimately we wind up submiting to our nature.

zerodesire's avatar

I think gsiner was kidding and making a point about the ignorance of the world, all at the same time and how…

desberg's avatar

I suppose a corollary question could be asked; why do all Islamic Fascists support terrorism and killing innocent people?

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

do you know that all islamics support terrorism and killing people? Also they are not all Muslim, it is a small group of people that i believe we help create, due to our foreign policy. Unlike a large number of “Christians”, I talk to that say we should be there, killing them, or some say even nuke them.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

and did it ever occur to you that OUR government maybe the facists. I feel right wing radio, uses words like tyranny, facists, socialists, at the same time, it is the things this administration is doing, that you can use those words to describe. @ hossman Ron Paul for preZ

sndfreQ's avatar

thou shalt not kill. ‘nuff said

desberg's avatar

“it is a small group of people” you say? It is true that radical Islamic fundamentalists constitute a relatively small number minority of Muslims but since we’re talking about some 1.3 billion Muslims, even a ‘very small minority’ can involve tens of millions of people who have the potential to cause a great deal of trouble in the world, not only for America, but for moderate Muslim governments as well.
Also, I haven’t heard any “Christian” countries calling for nations such as Israel to be “wiped from the face of the earth” and the annilation of the United States as has bin Laden and Iran; have you?

hossman's avatar

Wow, chris6137, I hadn’t even posted here and you are already directing comments to me. I will avoid the temptation to beat you over the head with this one, but your question is itself biased, perhaps because you are not being exposed to a representative sample of Christianity. Perhaps that is why you are inclined to express the term as “Christians” in quotes, as you yourself doubt the authenticity of the faith of the unique group of individuals to which you refer. I can’t evaluate that, as I haven’t met the people forming the basis of your conclusion.

I would suggest there is probably a greater diversity of belief within Christianity than Islam (as most of Islam requires stricter orthodoxy and homogenous doctrine than most of Christianity) and thus it is inherently inaccurate for you to make the conclusion asserted in your question (as usual, your “question” indicates there is little question in your mind). Your apparent desire to create an equivalency between Christians and the extremism of Islamic fascism and Islamic fundamentalism (Islamic fascism and fundamentalism are not necessarily the same) is offensive to many Christians. As desberg notes, the modern world contains no examples I am aware of where Christianity seeks to exterminate through force the existence of non-Christianity, while much of the Muslim world actively seeks the destruction of non-Islam through jihad. It’s easy for Westerners to conclude Islam is anti-Christian and anti-Semitic, but if you examine the history and practice of Islam, you’ll find you secularists, humanists and intellectuals will be far worse off in an Islamic society than Christians and Jews, who at least qualify as People of the Book.

While the teachings of Christ repeatedly reject the use of force, the teachings of Mohammed repeatedly advocate the use of force. Jihad is the sixth pillar of Islam. While Christ refused to use force, resulting in his own death, Mohammed lead his followers into battle against infidels, and personally killed his opposition or sold them into slavery. In this regard, the use of force, Christianity has far more in common with Buddhism than Islam.

Your predicate statement that the war was based on lies is itself an opinion, not an underlying fact, thus the conclusions based upon that predicate cannot be logically reliable. Your statement that “right wing radio,” presumably Limbaugh, Hannity and their ilk, use words like tyranny, fascism and socialism is interesting, as I hear those terms far more frequently used on “left wing radio,” whether the hard-to-find and apparently unpopular and commercially unsuccessful Air America or the taxpayer-funded NPR.

While I support your right to hold the opinions you do, chris, might I point out you are looking in the wrong direction for fascism? In America, you have the freedom to call our government fascist. You have the freedom to personally insult religious and government leaders. Citizens of Islamic countries do not have that right. If you feel subject to fascism here, I suggest a vacation in Saudi Arabia might give you a taste of real oppression. First, the term “fascist” is misused. To use it accurately, the greatest threat in the world today to the subversion of individual rights to the state is no longer Communism, but rather fundamentalist Islam. What you must understand is that in orthodox Islam, there is absolutely no distinction between the religious and political world, and all individual rights are subject to “the will of Allah” as expressed through the religious leadership. Flutherians have expressed great concern over the “separation of church and state.” That concept is debated here, it is practically nonexistent in the Islamic world. My perception and personal belief is there is no greater threat to freedom than Islam as it is practiced by a majority of the Islamic world.

As to Ron Paul? Some of his asserted positions, as you have noted previously chris, are concurrent with my own beliefs, but I believe that to be largely coincidental, the arrival at the same conclusions by vastly different paths. Mr. Paul, however, seems to have an amazingly delusional grasp of history, an erratic and downright false (not the same as wrong) grasp of the Constitution, a poor grasp of basic economics, and an occasionally infirm grasp of his own mental lucidity. I believe he would be a very dangerous person to be President.

desberg's avatar

Great response Hossman.
desberg

archer's avatar

“and did it ever occur to you that OUR government maybe [sic] the facists?”

no, thoughts as irrational as such are those of unfortunate persons suffering paranoid delusion. for your sake i’m hoping the question was just rhetorical and or facetious.

desberg's avatar

Another great response.

hossman's avatar

@sndfreq: Never link to a source without actually reading it to determine if it supports your position. Did you read that whole article? From the context of your post, I’m assuming you are suggesting the Crusades are an example of Christian use of force. Serious historians have rejected that facile, simplistic interpretation years ago. First, the Crusades could be viewed as self-defense. The lands occupied by Muslims during the Crusades had been previously occupied by Christians, Jews, Samaritans, Druze, and a myriad of other religious groups before they were forcibly taken by Islam. Please note your own article repeatedly refers to the Crusades as Christian self-defense. Perhaps you should have at least read the second sentence of the article: “The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred “Holy Land” from Muslim rule and were originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia.” The Muslims had captured these lands and killed or enslaved the Christian, Jewish and other inhabitants. Self-defense is a spiritually, legally and morally justified exception to the use of force in almost all cultures.

Second, even this “self-defense” rationale was a red herring in many instances. It was the justification given the peasants who served as cannon fodder for the nobility. The true reasons for the Crusades were the usual reasons for war: money and power. Christianity/Islam was just the excuse on both sides. The Crusades may have involved Christians and Muslims, but the reasons they were fought were not because of Christianity and Islam. Please note the following excerpts from your own article: “Rivalries among both Christian and Muslim powers led also to alliances between religious factions against their opponents, such as the Christian alliance with the Sultanate of Rum during the Fifth Crusade.” Also: “Because of internal conflicts among Christian kingdoms and political powers, some of the crusade expeditions (such as the Fourth Crusade) were diverted from their original aim and resulted in the sack of a Christian city, Constantinople, and the partition of the Byzantine Empire between Venice and the Crusaders. The Sixth Crusade was the first crusade to set sail without the official blessing of the Church, establishing the precedent that rulers other than the Pope could initiate a crusade.” “The Byzantine emperor Heraclius imbued the subsequent struggle between the Empires with religious overtones, aiming to recapture both Jerusalem and the True Cross (he was successful on both counts).” “However, the damage was already done, and the violence of the Seljuk Turks became part of the concern that spread the passion for the Crusades.” “The papacy of Pope Gregory VII had struggled with reservations about the doctrinal validity of a holy war and the shedding of blood for the Lord and had, with difficulty, resolved the question in favour of justified violence. More importantly to the Pope, the Christians who made pilgrimages to the Holy Land were being persecuted. Actions against Arians and other heretics offered historical precedents in a society where violence against nonbelievers—and indeed against other Christians—was acceptable and common. Saint Augustine of Hippo, Gregory’s intellectual model, had justified the use of force in the service of Christ in The City of God, and a Christian “just war” might enhance the wider standing of an aggressively ambitious leader of Europe, as Gregory saw himself. The northerners would be cemented to Rome, and their troublesome knights could see the only kind of action that suited them. Previous attempts by the church to stem such violence, such as the concept of the “Peace of God”, were not as successful as hoped.”

I suggest you reread the entire article. The Crusades were the result of political forces. The corrupt and politically ambitious Pope Gregory and other leaders who happened to be Christians, not because they were Christians, wrongly attempted to use religion to justify the Crusades. Much of the Church, including the “Peace of God” and “Truce of God” movements in the Church at that time, was opposed to the Crusades. There are numerous historical instances of religous harmony and personal friendships between Christian and Islamic soldiers. Christianity, as an example, could hardly be the driving force behind the Hussite and Swedish Crusades, which invaded lands that were already Christian. Your article continually states various Crusades were commercially, financially or politically motivated, yet you apparently only wish to look at the religious propaganda used to arouse the passion of the peasantry. The Crusades do nothing to contradict the premise of my post, that force is explicitly sanctioned in Islam, jihad being the “sixth pillar” of Islam, while force is explicilty condemned by Christianity. The Crusades are an aberration created by corrupt Christians who were operating contrary to Christianity. I doubt most of those involved in the Crusades at the time seriously thought they were fighting a religious war. Considering the Crusades sacked Constantinople (the center of the Eastern Christian Empire) and at various times allied themselves with Islamic groups, suggest religion was not the driving force behind the Crusades. Those that believe the Crusades were historically a “holy war” either have an anti-Christian, anti-Islam or anti-religion agenda, or are engaging in incredibly shallow historical analysis that goes no further than propaganda that was barely believed by 11th century illiterate peasants.

sndfreQ's avatar

Thanks for proving my point exactly hossman. The circumstances you described in the examples where Christianity is misused and twisted to the advantage of a few are EXACTLY why agnostics have the view of SOME Christians and their actions.

I’d like to hear you explain why history isn’t repeating itself RIGHT NOW in terms of the current self defense situation in Iraq. Of course since I am agnostic you must educate me and continue to broaden my myopic perceptions.

One more thing: I think that Extremists as a term is in itself propagandizing as it is a term given to those with the most opposite of viewpoints. As a spiritual person I believe that most doctrines are flawed when they justify killing ANY human life.

Two of my favorite quotes:
Can’t we all just get along? &
WWJD?

archer's avatar

“As a spiritual person I believe that most doctrines are flawed when they justify killing ANY human life.”

this is almost incomprehensibly absurd and naïve. your family would be raped and murdered while you stood by thinking yourself spiritually superior, and,, in the macro, your nation would suffer the same fate.

sndfreQ's avatar

@archer thanks for insinuating that i value any religion above another-clearly you missed the point at agnosticism and further prove my point and others that the christian right in this country is divisive and self-serving, and succeeding at perpetuating the hate-mongering attitudes that the rest of the world perceives…sad

hossman's avatar

@sndfreq: Did you read the whole article or didn’t you? Do you wish me to begin listing the historical atrocities that have been committed in the name of secularism, atheism and agnosticism? Do you really think those who are not part of a particular faith have not committed their own crimes? Let’s see. . . does the name Stalin ring a bell?

I’d love to explain a lot of things to you, but there seems to be an undercurrent of arrogance in your two most recent posts above suggest you have no room in your worldview for any opinions other than those you have already formulated. Your response to archer not only is mildly insulting, but fails to respond to his point, instead of WWJD, what would you do if required to defend yourself?

Seems to me the bigot here is you. The fact you think there is any cohesive group that could be labeled “the christian right” and your use of ther terms “divisive” and “hate-mongering” suggests a big streak of intolerance on your part. Perhaps you should examine the beam in your eye before looking further. I didn’t prove any “point” you think you asserted. You completely failed to address any of the points I set forth.

Since you are the one labelling our current presence in Iraq as self-defense (I was discussing the Crusades, not today) then I suggest you are the appropriate person to explain it, not I.

Even better, why don’t you illuminate me (since I literally am very myopic) and tell us just what we should do to get along with modern Islamic fascism and terrorism? What do you think would satisfy them, since their expressed goal is conquering the world for Allah?

Seems to me you are clearly far more self-righteous than you think . . . sad.

hossman's avatar

@sndfreq: I agree the use of the term “extremism” can be used as a pejorative. It is also a useful label to distinguish between the extreme Islamicists who are seeking to kill and destroy, and those Muslims who seek true peace rather than jihad.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Spam)
fredTOG's avatar

@hossman :Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand. The four billion people who are not Christians look at the Christian story in exactly the same way that you look at the Muslim story In other words, there are four billion people who stand outside of the Christian bubble, and they can see reality clearly. The fact is, the Christian story is completely imaginary.How do the four billion non-Christians know, with complete certainty, that the Christian story is imaginary? Because the Christian story is just like the Muslim story. There is the magical insemination, the magical star, the magical dreams, the magical miracles, the magical resurrection, the magical ascension and so on. People outside the Christian faith look at the Christian story and note these facts The miracles are supposed to “prove” that Jesus is God, but, predictably, these miracles left behind no tangible evidence for us to examine and scientifically verify today. They all involved faith healings and magic tricks Jesus is resurrected, but, predictably, he does not appear to anyone today Jesus ascended into heaven and answers our prayers, but, predictably, when we pray to him nothing happens. We can statistically analyse prayer and find that prayers are never answered The book where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John make their attestations does exist, but, predictably, it is chock full of problems and contradictions In other words, the Christian story is a fairly tale. the question I would ask you to consider right now is simple: Why is it that human beings can detect fairy tales with complete certainty when those fairy tales come from other faiths, but they cannot detect the fairy tales that underpin their own faith? Why do they believe their chosen fairy tale with unrelenting passion and reject the others as nonsense?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther