A Look At The Islamic State

[T.Lex]

Oh come on now Lex, you can't blame an entire religion for the acts of a few bad apples...right?

I do not, but clearly some here do.

How many heretics has Westboro Baptist killed?

None (that we know of). But I didn't accuse them of executing heretics. I said their beliefs are closer to what the church (Christianity) taught for hundreds of years. You found that ridiculous, but I'm still not sure why you think that.

Things get really confusing when you start talking about political power grabs being performed under the guise of religion. Would you acknowledge that technically the Catholic church itself never executed anyone, but through its influence on secular government had, in effect, the ability to execute through excommunication?

I actually disagree, as far as I understand the question. The Catholic Church absolutely executed people. It also exerted pressure on secular rulers to execute people. Most of the Protestant faiths that achieved any sort of power did the same (or similar). Again, the Salem witch trials are perhaps the most widely known example of Protestants acting in that way.

King Ferdinand of Spain defiantly rejected Papal control, and basically told Pope Sixtus IV to pound sand when he requested the King to ensure due process, and to appeal heretical cases to Rome, the Spanish Inquisition was a political tool to eliminate political enemies.

My reading on that is several years old, so my memory may be faulty, but the Church at least stood silent and certainly did not intervene on behalf of any "good" Catholics at risk. Instead, the leaders made the political choice to allow the executions.

I believe the last Rome-sponsored execution was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

He was not killed by the Church of Rome...he was killed by the Spanish government. It was a political killing.

He was killed by the government at the request of the Church. His "crime" was deism. The church wanted him burned at the stake, but the lay executioners decided to hang him.

That it might have been politics, in league with the church, is exactly my point about Daesh.

 

[T.Lex]

Ya-
I'd also be careful in lumping Catholics in with all other Christians.
There's a bunch out there that believe that Catholics have parted from the Bible for so long now that they are not true practicing Christians. More like the dictators politics of a small country.

FYI - I'm not bashing anyone's religion, just stating the opinions of Christians around the world.

Potayto, potahto;
Catholic, Calvinist;
Sunni, Shi'a....



Look, Catholics haven't always been as conciliatory as the modern church. Heck, I'm pretty sure the Baltimore Catechism taught that non-Catholics were heretics, and that was basically 1 generation ago.

 

[PistolBob]

I believe the last Rome-sponsored execution was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
He was killed by the government at the request of the Church. His "crime" was deism. The church wanted him burned at the stake, but the lay executioners decided to hang him.
That it might have been politics, in league with the church, is exactly my point about Daesh.

The Church didn't want him burned at the stake. The local Spanish Inquisition clergy did. There is a big difference.

 

[Dead Duck]

Potayto, potahto;
Catholic, Calvinist;
Sunni, Shi'a....

Hey - I Love Those Guys -
Sad that ISIS would probably burn you alive for reading a comic strip.

 

[T.Lex]

The Church didn't want him burned at the stake. The local Spanish Inquisition clergy did. There is a big difference.

(For clarity, we're talking about Ripoll, right?)

I consider myself knowledgeable about the structure of the Catholic Church, although perhaps back then it was different? These "local clergy" were still ordained by the Bishop and subject to his authority, no?

 

[PistolBob]

(For clarity, we're talking about Ripoll, right?)

I consider myself knowledgeable about the structure of the Catholic Church, although perhaps back then it was different? These "local clergy" were still ordained by the Bishop and subject to his authority, no?

Those local clergy were doing their own thing...they wanted the guy burned alive, not Rome. Just like ISIS doesn't speak for all of islam...or do they?

 

[T.Lex]

Those local clergy were doing their own thing...they wanted the guy burned alive, not Rome. Just like ISIS doesn't speak for all of islam...or do they?

haha

Now I've lost track.

Are we saying the same thing?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Isn't it a little late for that question, since you already offered your opinion?

Let's say pre-Reformation (~1500) there was but a single Christian congregation - Catholic. (Really, we could talk about the Great Schism, too, but let's keep it simple for now). That is a shared heritage that cannot be denied. But, I sense that you will say that is "Catholic" and not "Christian." (Apologies for putting words in your mouth.)

Post-Reformation, Protestantism had some issues, too. Pretty sure the Salem witch trials were a Protestant affair.

If you want to talk about current church teaching, again I say that those ideas are very modern and quite the departure from historical church teachings.

Let's avoid the theology and practices of the various sects of Christianity and Islam and go straight to what they teach:

1. Christianity: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." "If a man forces you to walk one mile with him, walk two miles."

2. Islam: (paraphrasing) "If anyone will not submit to Allah, kill him."

You can find daily examples of Christians who don't/can't live up to the principles set out by Christ and the early Christian church, but Muslims who cut off the heads of infidels are just doing what their Holy Book says to do. You decide if there is a moral equivalency between those who may not follow all the precepts of their religion, but don't kill those who disagree with them, and those who torture and kill those who disagree - and ARE following the precepts of their religion.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

The New American ^ Another rebel division joins Al Kada

 

[jamil]

Let's avoid the theology and practices of the various sects of Christianity and Islam and go straight to what they teach:

1. Christianity: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." "If a man forces you to walk one mile with him, walk two miles."

2. Islam: (paraphrasing) "If anyone will not submit to Allah, kill him."

You can find daily examples of Christians who don't/can't live up to the principles set out by Christ and the early Christian church, but Muslims who cut off the heads of infidels are just doing what their Holy Book says to do. You decide if there is a moral equivalency between those who may not follow all the precepts of their religion, but don't kill those who disagree with them, and those who torture and kill those who disagree - and ARE following the precepts of their religion.

Not necessarily. I think there's an option to pay tax.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Hold on. I wouldn't blame Christianity for the attrocities done in its name. I blame the leaders and the people who did those things. And I think that may be point, that "belief" is a particularly useful thing for unscrupulous power-hungry people to exploit to gain more power. For those exploiting Islam it's the same thing. And I think it's a fair point.

Let's avoid the theology and practices of the various sects of Christianity and Islam and go straight to what they teach:

1. Christianity: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." "If a man forces you to walk one mile with him, walk two miles."

2. Islam: (paraphrasing) "If anyone will not submit to Allah, kill him."

You can find daily examples of Christians who don't/can't live up to the principles set out by Christ and the early Christian church, but Muslims who cut off the heads of infidels are just doing what their Holy Book says to do. You decide if there is a moral equivalency between those who may not follow all the precepts of their religion, but don't kill those who disagree with them, and those who torture and kill those who disagree - and ARE following the precepts of their religion.

Not necessarily. I think there's an option to pay tax.

The unscrupulous will use any system, institution, or belief that holds influence with people in order to exert political leverage. There is no question about it. This brings me back to my standard position on the matter. The only objective way to evaluate a religion in on the contents of its book(s) and the teaching and example of its founder. For the specific question at hand, I will ask the same questions within two different frames of context: Did Christ kill anyone for not believing or complying with His teaching? Did he command any/all of his followers to do so? Did Mohammed kill anyone for not believing or complying with his teaching? Did he command any/all of his followers to do so?

As I understand it, the Jizya option rests largely on the convenience of the conquering Moslems, much in the same way that in combat you are generally not required to accept surrenders.

 

[mrjarrell]

Now the Afghani forces have to fight on two fronts. The Taliban on one and IS on the other. Maybe the Taliban will get pissed enough and declare full scale war on IS and they can kill off each other.

https://news.vice.com/article/35-is...as-afghan-fight-against-militants-intensifies

 

[IndyDave1776]

Now the Afghani forces have to fight on two fronts. The Taliban on one and IS on the other. Maybe the Taliban will get pissed enough and declare full scale war on IS and they can kill off each other.

https://news.vice.com/article/35-is...as-afghan-fight-against-militants-intensifies

Fun thought, but I doubt it. Sworn enemies will unite against a common foe, which in this case would be the more or less democratic government of Afghanistan.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Hold on. I wouldn't blame Christianity for the attrocities done in its name. I blame the leaders and the people who did those things. And I think that may be point, that "belief" is a particularly useful thing for unscrupulous power-hungry people to exploit to gain more power. For those exploiting Islam it's the same thing. And I think it's a fair point.

The problem with your theory is that Christianity doesn't preach causing harm to your neighbor, the unbeliever; Islam calls for the infidel to be killed, converted, or subjugated. Christians most often fail to live up to the ideals of their religion; Muslims have to ignore some of the precepts of their religion in order to live in peace with their neighbors.

 

[jamil]

The problem with your theory is that Christianity doesn't preach causing harm to your neighbor, the unbeliever; Islam calls for the infidel to be killed, converted, or subjugated. Christians most often fail to live up to the ideals of their religion; Muslims have to ignore some of the precepts of their religion in order to live in peace with their neighbors.

Had to look back at the context to see to what I was responding. I think I was agreeing with T.lex's point:

The point is, we should be careful to paint Islam with too broad a brush, lest we paint Christianity into the same corner.

Moreover, a compelling case can be made that when Christianity resorted to this kind of barbarism, it was for exactly the same reasons.

I'm not discounting that "real" Islam is pretty radical. There are 2.2 Billion Christians in the world currently, and they're not burning people at the stake, or crucifying, beheading, or otherwise murdering non-believers. Some of the most barbaric and dangerous places in the world today are majority Muslim. So the people who say that Islam is peaceful have to reconcile with those facts. Because at least some of Islam is indeed not peaceful.

However, given that there are 1.6 Billion Muslims and not all of them are crucifying, beheading, or otherwise murdering non-believers, not all of them are radical either. I think most just want to live their lives through their faith much like Christians do. The ones who are radical seem to be living as if it's still 1400 years ago, back when "Christians" also were crucifying, beheading, or otherwise murdering "heretics".

And I do think that the leaders of those religions exploited people's belief to gain power. Charging heresy is a strong tool to keep people in line. The threat of barbaric punishment was an effective deterrent to reformation for a long time.

 

[IndyDave1776]

However, given that there are 1.6 Billion Muslims and not all of them are crucifying, beheading, or otherwise murdering non-believers, not all of them are radical either. I think most just want to live their lives through their faith much like Christians do.

You must also account for the influence of the availability or unavailability of non-believers in addressing this subject. The reason why I do not shoot kangaroos in my back yard has nothing to do with my inclination toward peacefully coexisting with kangaroos.

 

[jamil]

You must also account for the influence of the availability or unavailability of non-believers in addressing this subject. The reason why I do not shoot kangaroos in my back yard has nothing to do with my inclination toward peacefully coexisting with kangaroos.

So you're saying the 1.6 billion Muslims who aren't crucifying, beheading, or otherwise murdering non-believers is because they ran out of subjects?

Hey, I'm not saying that Muslims don't have a much higher rate of violence against non-believers than Christians. There's no comparison at all. You guys got Westboro Baptist Church. They're obnoxious. But they've not been all that violent. To my knowledge they've managed to exist without beheading or crucifying anyone. Nevertheless it's not difficult for me to admit that not all 1.6 billion Muslims are all that into killing people who disagree with them. And I'm not all that sure that if beheading or crucifying non-believers were legal in the US, WBC wouldn't begin a new outreach program.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So you're saying the 1.6 billion Muslims who aren't crucifying, beheading, or otherwise murdering non-believers is because they ran out of subjects?

Hey, I'm not saying that Muslims don't have a much higher rate of violence against non-believers than Christians. There's no comparison at all. You guys got Westboro Baptist Church. They're obnoxious. But they've not been all that violent. To my knowledge they've managed to exist without beheading or crucifying anyone. Nevertheless it's not difficult for me to admit that not all 1.6 billion Muslims are all that into killing people who disagree with them. And I'm not all that sure that if beheading or crucifying non-believers were legal in the US, WBC wouldn't begin a new outreach program.

I am not saying that all 1.6B would kill a non-believer if they had one available, I am just saying that this introduced a variable which is not easy to control for the purposes of evaluation, and as I think about it, the local political atmosphere must be taken into consideration as well. Your mention of Westboro led me to wonder what they would do in an environment in which there was less regard for human life and they were the A+ believers. I believe you might be on to something there!

The bottom line is that the subject is wide open to speculation and we really can't know what many of those 1.6B would do afforded the opportunity. Those in areas in which the political system would not prevent them from killing but have no one to kill may or may not. Those who are in areas where others are actively persecuted, sometimes up to the point of denial of food and water may or may not be willing participants or conversely may be decent if they did not have the local leaders demanding their participation. We simply lack the resources (i.e., your choice of being able to transplant them into a situation with these variables controlled or else divine omniscience) to tell.

Westboro...if one of Phelps's granddaughters at the tender age of somewhere between 10 and 12 told a reporter that she supposed that it is possible that someone not part of their church could be saved, but she hoped not, one could only imagine what Freddy is teaching. It is not such a far stretch from hoping that everyone not part of their group is going to Hell to actively sending them there.

 

[printcraft]

Social media is the devil........

ISIS members have been encouraged to scour social media profiles for US military families, and then “show up [at their homes] and slaughter them”

 

[T.Lex]

Social media is the devil........

ISIS members have been encouraged to scour social media profiles for US military families, and then “show up [at their homes] and slaughter them”

Isn't that what the US military does (in part) to identify targets?