• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which Religion is more "pushy?" Christianity or Islam?

Which Religion is more "pushy?" Christianity or Islam?


  • Total voters
    65
Draco:

The claims made in the wikipedia piece are substantiated by links to reliable sources. Is that the best you can do?

What is an objective question?
 
Funny, a small percentage of American Muslims actually commit horrible violent attrocities in the name of their religion. Additionally, a small percentage of American Christians actually commit horrible violent attrocities in the name of their religion.

However strangely, either religion in 3rd world countries or areas where the society is extremely backwards when compared to modern western civilization, we see far more violence cropping up from the religions. Very similar to 500 or 900 years ago when the society of the western world was different then it is today with regards to violence as an answer.

Obviously then the answer is the religion by itself is at fault, and not the notion of combining religion with an environment where people can use it to push for violent ends.
 
Don't really know about Hinduism or Buddhism. Doesn't Buddhism hardly provide scripture at all, but is based much more on active practize, like meditation, matras and other rituals Christians might call "mystic"?

Buddhism and Hinduism both have extensive scripture, actually. In Buddhism the scripture is called sutras or suttas depending on if they are written is Sanskrit or Pali respectively, and they read very much like the equivalent of the Bible, essentially dialogues between the Buddha and his disciples. Similarly, Hinduism has the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita.
 

Where in this story does it say these are christians?

It mentions a pastor, but his family was victimized by the violence, not perpetrating it. The article even points out that the mobs were followers of "witch-doctors" who kill albinos for good luck. Belief in "witchcraft" or evil spirits and such is a remnant that survives from much older African religions/traditions, and is also common in other cultures, from new guinea to the philippines.
 
What is it that C. S. Lewis calls this? Chronological chauvinism, I think?

No, it isn't chauvenism, but merely seeking the avoidance of a form of sophistry predicated upon the building of fallacious moral equivalencies.

When people indulge in their tu toque arguments comparing Christianity to Islam in order to defend the latter, they invariably utilize any of a number of fallacies. They either compare acts that are not equal in terms of moral repugnance, or they compare actions that are not equally prevalent , or they compare acts that do not arise within the same time frame.

If you wish to compare Christianity to Islam within the framework of what their adherents do in the name of their religion, you need to establish what they do, how many do it, what they believe, how many believe it, the connection between the beliefs and the actions and the time they did it.

We are all living in the same world. Using the cop out that some people did something centuries ago in order to defend actions in the here and now is just that -- a cop out.
 
:2razz:

*parties big time*

I would have never imagined we'd come so far that anybody would justify and play apologist for the Crusades, Inquisition and Manifest Destiny. Wow ... just wow.

:shock:

firstly, i wouldn't say i am an apologist for the Inquisition; I simply point out the historical accuracy that it wasn't the bloodbath that people imagine it as. Sure there were bloody individual scenes, but I wouldn't put it as significantly worse than (say) lynching in America in the late 19th - early 20th century or current anti-Christian violence in Egypt.

as far as the Crusades; yeah; Muslim forces had spent the past couple of centuries conquering Christian territory; and the Christians' decided to go win some of it back. Charles Martel didn't have to fight at Poitiers because the Islamic raiding force had gotten lost on the Hajj; they (having taken Spain) were thinking of invading France. Christian forces had to invade the Holy Land because it had been conquered from the Christian Byzantine empire. I'm not going to say I'm an apologist for them, or certainly for the bloodbaths that were involved in some of the individual campaigns; but to pull them out and pretend like they were some kind of Especially Evil Event In The History Of Warfare? :roll: please.

thirdly, i don't see how pointing out that Manifest Destiny was an Americanist ideal more than a Christian one in any way turns one into an apologist for it. that's like saying that pointing out that a Ford F-150 is a six-cylinder makes you pro-4-cylinder.
 

Correction: The Roman Catholics in the west didn't care a whit for the Byzantine Christians; the crusaders regularly sacked Byzantine cities on the way to the holy land. Any assistance given by the Latins to the Greeks was just a flimsy pretext for a war of conquest.
 

...and what was the muslim pretext for the initial war of conquest against the byzantines?

That the latin Christians had no special love for the Byzantines is beside the point anyway -- they did care that Jerusalem had been taken by muslims; it had been a major pilgrimage site for christians (both latin and eastern orthodox) for many centuries. Oh, and the latin christians also attacked other latin christian cities en route to the holy land (ie. Zemun, Hungary), such tactics were common in warfare during the period -- big armies had to eat... they weren't religiously motivated.
 
Last edited:

i've read a couple of accounts of those sackings; from what i've seen (which admittedly isn't authoritative) they seemed spawned by stupidity rather than anti-Byzantine sentiment ("they're wearing rags on their heads! they must be mohammeden!")
 
...and what was the muslim pretext for the initial war of conquest against the byzantines?

The Muslim conquest of the Holy Land had occurred over than 400 years before the first crusade. It was in no way a provocation to the Latin powers.

.
That the latin Christians had no special love for the Byzantines is beside the point anyway -- they did care that Jerusalem had been taken by muslims;

Yes, Jerusalem, a city no Latin had any rightful claim to, had been taken four hundred years ago. Think that one over.


.
it had been a major pilgrimage site for christians (both latin and eastern orthodox) for many centuries.

It is also a major pilgrimage site for many Muslims, so that's a wash.

. Oh, and the latin christians also attacked other latin christian cities en route to the holy land (ie. Zemun, Hungary), such tactics were common in warfare during the period -- big armies had to eat... they weren't religiously motivated.

So, more proof the Crusaders were assholes. But to draw from this that the Crusades "weren't religiously motivated" is absurd.
 
Last edited:
To find adequate atrocities that can be laid at Christendom's feet, the critics have to go back 500-900 years.

Not even hardly. The bloodiest war in the history of man (WWII) was caused by someone who believed he was doing God's work, and he acquired help from a nation of Christians to do it.


I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

- Adolf Hitler

To do justice to God and our own conscience, we have turned once more to the German Volk.

- Adolf Hitler

May divine providence bless us with enough courage and enough determination to perceive within ourselves this holy German space.

- Adolf Hitler


I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work.

- Adolf Hitler

I am a Christian. And while I don't believe that Hitler was the same kind of a Christian that I am, or that most people are, or ever have been, similarly, Islamists are not the same kind of Muslims that most are. It's disappointing that the actions of extremist nutjobs get pinned on the whole religion. So here I am doing it to Christianity, in order to make a point about those that so ignorantly do it to Islam.
 
Last edited:
So here I am doing it to Christianity, in order to make a point about those that so ignorantly do it to Islam.

Well said! It's interesting how these people will hate on Islam all day long for the acts of a small minority of violent criminals, but when examples of Christians behaving violently in the name of God get brought up, these same people bend over backwards to rationalize it and excuse it. It's an amazing disconnect.
 
Last edited:

I guess it doesn't dawn on you to attampt to look at the issue from their perspective. Think that one over. Notice I wrote "they did care that Jerusalem had been taken by muslims." The direct provocation was stirred up by accounts of muslim attacks on christian pilgrims, they decided then that the city needed to be back in christian hands.

So, more proof the Crusaders were assholes. But to draw from this that the Crusades "weren't religiously motivated" is absurd.

Your claim that I said the Crusades "weren't religiously motivated" is absurd. I said the sack of the byzantine cities wasn't religiously motivated.
 
Last edited:

Yeah, a few Muslim bandits really justified the Crusades :roll: The fact is, there had been so serious Muslim threat to Western Europe since the Battle of Tours in 732.

Why, oh why, would anyone be an apologist for the Crusades? You realize that's what you're doing, right? Think that over.

The Crusades were a series of wars of aggression that were directly motivated by the Christian religion. You want to defend that?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, a few Muslim bandits really justified the Crusades :roll:

Why, oh why, would anyone be an apologist for the Crusades? You realize that's what you're doing, right? Think that over.

If you're unwilling to learn the actual history that's not my problem. Gaff it off and cry that I'm an apologist, I could care less. Also, read more carefully, this is the second time (in only 2 posts) you've completely misunderstood what I wrote.
 

I would tend to say that any religion can be misused, and the way that the religion is practiced is more a reflection of the people involved than the religion itself. I would say that this is the case regarding ANY religion, not just Christianity or Islam.

I personally find the Christianists more of an annoyance, because I am directly impacted by their influence over policy and politics in the Soouth. However, I would say that my opinion might be very different if I lived in Dearborne, Michigan.
 
Last edited:

First of al, belief in witchcraft has a Christian tradition going back to the very beginning of the faith, and a strong current of it still persists. Ever heard of the Salem witch trials? And what about that witch-hunting African pastor that Sarah Palin was paling around with?

Besides that, you are being entirely disingenuous if you are trying to assert that the homophobic violence in Uganda is the result of African shamanistic religions. Uganda is something like 90% Christian, and if you take a minute to research the politics of the situation you will see that it is right-wing mainstream Protestants that are behind the anti-gay movement.
 
If you're unwilling to learn the actual history that's not my problem. Gaff it off and cry that I'm an apologist, I could care less. Also, read more carefully, this is the second time (in only 2 posts) you've completely misunderstood what I wrote.

I've already shared the actual history of the Crusades with you, and you choose to sweep it under the rug and claim that the Crusades were "not religiously motivated" despite all the evidence being to the contrary. Sorry, but you have been soundly defeated in this argument. Have a good one.
 
Well unless it's an article about linguistics, it kinda does, yeah...

The article contains factual details about what happened, and then quotes Chomsky. The factual details remain factual. It's not an opinion piece.
 


The fact is, there had been so serious Muslim threat to Western Europe since the Battle of Tours in 732.

Sack of Rome (846) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They also sacked Pisa in 1004. btw

:lamo:lamo:lamo

And again, why do you always insist on misrepresenting what I have actually said? Perhaps you're real adept and defeating imaginary arguments you make up and attribute to other people -- but I wouldn't pat myself on the back for that if I were you.
 
Last edited:

If you were familiar with the subject, you'd realize that there is a strong connection between Christianity and witch-hunting in Africa at present.

Children are targets of Nigerian witch hunt | World news | The Observer


http://www.monstersandcritics.com/s...on-Saving-Africa-s-Witch-Children-HBO2-May-26

And, this isn't limited to Africa:

Woman suspected of witchcraft burned alive - CNN.com (Papua New Guinea is 96% Christian)

As unity unravels, a battle for Haitian souls is stirring - Haiti: The Earthquake Aftermath - BradentonHerald.com - Haiti


The harm being done by Christian extremists is every bit as serious as the harm being done by Islamic extremists. Those who don't realize this probably aren't paying attention.

If you're unwilling to learn the actual history that's not my problem.

Hello, Pot. Meet Kettle.
 
Last edited:
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…