Political Forum - View Single Post

concheet · #**142** (**permalink**) 02-23-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mack

How can you establish whether Islam is a violent religion unless you compare it to other religions? It's called establishing a control. Otherwise you can't determine that it is really Islam causing violence instead of it just being human nature to cause violence and then claim it's in the name of religion.

At one point in history just about every war in Western Civilization was carried out in the name of Christianity. Does this mean Christianity is a violent religion? I believe the answer is no, and we know this because Western Civ is relatively peaceful right now. Islam happens to be concentrated in a poor and unstable region right now, kind of like how the entire Christian world was 500 years ago. So by comparing Christianity as it was 500 years ago to Islam today, you could come to the conclusion that in both cases religion was not at the root of all the violence. Perhaps a combination of poverty and instability can cause violence to be carried out in the name of any religion.

Islam 'itself' does not 'cause' violence. The adherents cause the violence. The believers.

It is true that there was a lot of violence in Christianity, which is odd in its own way because the one area where Christianity really differs from Judaism is in relation to the 'peaceful' nature of Christ, which is easily ascertained from the Sermon on the Mount, which is, in fact, virtually all that is known of his teachings. While Jesus preached the turning of the cheek, Judaism preached 'justice.' There is little support in Christianity to call for violence, while there is plenty in Islam.

I don't know that you can really say that Islam is where Christianity was 500 years ago for the simple reason that BOTH Christianity AND Islam have 500 years of history under their belts. Not all religions will necessarily follow a single course. To me that argument is essentially a theoretical and philosophical 'excuse'. It is a fine theory but doesn't prevent a single mosque or church bombing. You have perhaps defined the problem but not solved it in any way.

It is like saying that a particular axe murderer is a schizophrenic. So what now? Do you just let him get away with axe murdering or do you lock the guy up? I say the argument has no useful purpose other than to excuse the adherents of Islam's violent behaviors as backward. For the rest of us, that is just not good enough.