Attacks on Christians increasing.

I have been posting for a few weeks now on many subjects. One of those is the issue of Islamophobia. To me that means the illogical blaming of all of Islam for fanatical Islamist violence and terror attacks. I've had quite a few heated debates with those who see a turban and think "terrorist".

I would be a hypocrite, however, if I didn't bring up the issue of the increasing levels of attacks on Christian communities and organisations across Asia and Africa. These attacks are not limited to just Moslem countries but they are, in the majority, where these attacks are taking place.

I read this article in El País this morning:

Acoso a los cristianos en el mundo islámico · ELPAÍS.com

And this one in The Guardian a week or so back:

The wave of anti-Christian violence | Simon Tisdall | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Now, both of these newspapers are of the liberal left, so can hardly be accused of trading in Islamophobic scare mongering. They tell similar stories and raise similar questions.

My questions would be:

1. Is this simply a reflection of the animosity between the West and the Islamic world, or is there something else going on?
2. Why are non-Islamic countries such as Sri Lanka, India and Tanzania experiencing such attacks?
3. Is aggressive evangelising playing a part in turning locals against Christians?
4. What can be done to improve the situation for indigenous Christian communities in majority non-Christian countries?

No doubt we'll get one or two of the usual suspects bleating about Islam=violence, but I'd be interested and grateful for anyone's thoughts on this issue.

Andalublue said:

I have been posting for a few weeks now on many subjects. One of those is the issue of Islamophobia. To me that means the illogical blaming of all of Islam for fanatical Islamist violence and terror attacks. I've had quite a few heated debates with those who see a turban and think "terrorist".

I would be a hypocrite, however, if I didn't bring up the issue of the increasing levels of attacks on Christian communities and organisations across Asia and Africa. These attacks are not limited to just Moslem countries but they are, in the majority, where these attacks are taking place.

I read this article in El País this morning:

Acoso a los cristianos en el mundo islámico · ELPAÍS.com

And this one in The Guardian a week or so back:

The wave of anti-Christian violence | Simon Tisdall | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Now, both of these newspapers are of the liberal left, so can hardly be accused of trading in Islamophobic scare mongering. They tell similar stories and raise similar questions.

My questions would be:

1. Is this simply a reflection of the animosity between the West and the Islamic world, or is there something else going on?
2. Why are non-Islamic countries such as Sri Lanka, India and Tanzania experiencing such attacks?
3. Is aggressive evangelising playing a part in turning locals against Christians?
4. What can be done to improve the situation for indigenous Christian communities in majority non-Christian countries?

No doubt we'll get one or two of the usual suspects bleating about Islam=violence, but I'd be interested and grateful for anyone's thoughts on this issue.

Click to expand...

The scum responsible for these attacks needs to be delt with.

It depends on the country. In China Christianity is seen as any other religion: a potential threat to government. However, Daoists and Buddhists tend to get a bit more leeway because they are the ancient religions of China. That said, if it gets too mega, the government will crack down, as evidenced by the fact that a Buddhist mega church in Western China got shut down last fall for being too big.

In Southeast Asia, Christianity is seen as an apparatus of Western power, and most of those countries have had the hell bombed out of them by the West. It's also a place with different social values (i.e. Thailand where "lady boys" are seen as a third gender, and not sinners), and a Buddhist stronghold. I would say Buddhism is the primary reason why Southeast Asians have no interest in Christianity.

South Asia, including India and Nepal, is a bit more complicated. There has always been some animosity to Christians there because of the British occupation, but I know from talking to the people I know there that evangelism is becoming more aggressive.

There are a lot of good Christian organizations in that part of the world that have been going there for generations to help with relief; more recently, there has been an increase in missionaries from the U.S. that establish institutions there that will only help people once they convert. So in other words, their good will comes with the condition of your devotion. These institutions also proselytize in communities that have complex social problems and try to pin the blame on their lack of faith; this completely side steps local culture, traditions, and local religion.

I know in the middle east, the latter kind of missionary has increased a lot since the beginning of the war of terror. So while radical Islam is committing direct acts of violence, far-right Christianity is experiencing a modern resurgence of colonial-style missionary work.

There is increasing and intense Christian persecution around the world. In fact in many countries Christianity is illegal. The UN and the world seems to turn a blind eye on this issue as well which is disgusting. In Nigeria there are wars where the Muslims are trying to exterminate the Christians, typically in all countries that have a mixed Muslim and Christian population you see the Muslims waring against the Christians. The Middle East and some communist countries are the worst though in my opinion. In Saudi Arabia no religion is legal except for Islam, deconverting from Islam to anything is punishable by death, and for a Christian to evangelize is also punishable by death. In North Korea Christians are also heavily persecuted by the government. I pray for my brothers and sisters who share my faith but not my freedom. God bless them. I hope the UN or some organization will seriously look at this issue and stop the Christian persecution and violence. However turning a blind eye to most important and pressing issues is what the UN does best.

digsbe said:

There is increasing and intense Christian persecution around the world. In fact in many countries Christianity is illegal. The UN and the world seems to turn a blind eye on this issue as well which is disgusting. In Nigeria there are wars where the Muslims are trying to exterminate the Christians, typically in all countries that have a mixed Muslim and Christian population you see the Muslims waring against the Christians. The Middle East and some communist countries are the worst though in my opinion. In Saudi Arabia no religion is legal except for Islam, deconverting from Islam to anything is punishable by death, and for a Christian to evangelize is also punishable by death. In North Korea Christians are also heavily persecuted by the government. I pray for my brothers and sisters who share my faith but not my freedom. God bless them. I hope the UN or some organization will seriously look at this issue and stop the Christian persecution and violence. However turning a blind eye to most important and pressing issues is what the UN does best.

Click to expand...

I love how you are readily willing to state that Muslims are the actors of violence while Christians are the victims, yet there is no mention of the acts that the Christians have committed.

It is important to note that the religious right will readily accept protection of Christendom from Islam migration, yet when the opposite is true (as in the case of Nigeria, and most of Northern Africa) it is still the Muslims fault for being too rigid and unchanging.

Arch Enemy said:

I love how you are readily willing to state that Muslims are the actors of violence while Christians are the victims, yet there is no mention of the acts that the Christians have committed.

It is important to note that the religious right will readily accept protection of Christendom from Islam migration, yet when the opposite is true (as in the case of Nigeria, and most of Northern Africa) it is still the Muslims fault for being too rigid and unchanging.

Click to expand...

Christians generally have not committed these crimes, and I did talk about communist governments. Typically it is majority done by Muslims, Hindus, and communist governments. I don't see majority Christian countries killing off Muslims or hacking them to death with machetes. All I am saying is that Christians endure intense persecution and the world turns a blind eye because they'd rather not "offend" Islamic fundamentalists and Hindu radicals along with communist governments. This goes happens on a national scale and many countries do this, yet the UN is silent. If Muslims were being brutally slaughtered and tortured in Christian European nations I would assume that then they would stand up. They are pretty silent between the Muslim and Hindu battles in Pakistan/India as well. Yet they have no problem screaming at the Zionist Joo monsters that eat and mangle the innocent and peace loving ethnic Palestinian people.

digsbe said:

Christians generally have not committed these crimes, and I did talk about communist governments. Typically it is majority done by Muslims, Hindus, and communist governments. I don't see majority Christian countries killing off Muslims or hacking them to death with machetes.

Click to expand...

Then clearly you missed the Srebrenica massacre. Also what would you like the UN to do? Edit: before i get accused of 'apologizing for Islam' I do in fact think these attacks are bad.

Red_Dave said:

Then clearly you missed the Srebrenica massacre. Also what would you like the UN to do? Edit: before i get accused of 'apologizing for Islam' I do in fact think these attacks are bad.

Click to expand...

I have missed that, regardless one or two instances does not equal all the crimes committed against Christians. And I won't accuse you apologizing for Islam. When I was younger my babysitter was an Iranian Muslim elderly woman and was one of the nicest people I knew. I know all Muslims are not that way, but the fundamentalists are and in some nations these things go on with no one to stop it. And I would like the UN to dispatch peace keeping troops and take hard sanctions against countries that allow this or turn a blind eye to it. In nations like Indonesia and Malaysia this stuff is illegal, but it happens frequently and the police sit by and do nothing.

digsbe said:

I have missed that, regardless one or two instances does not equal all the crimes committed against Christians. And I won't accuse you apologizing for Islam. When I was younger my babysitter was an Iranian Muslim elderly woman and was one of the nicest people I knew. I know all Muslims are not that way, but the fundamentalists are and in some nations these things go on with no one to stop it. And I would like the UN to dispatch peace keeping troops and take hard sanctions against countries that allow this or turn a blind eye to it. In nations like Indonesia and Malaysia this stuff is illegal, but it happens frequently and the police sit by and do nothing.

Click to expand...

It was hardly a unique example. Its was pretty typical during the Bosnian war, and Kosovo war, (as were massacres between different denominations of Christians in Bosnian war and the Croatian war of independance). This is afterall the purported reason that we bombed the **** out of these countries. (and allied ourselves with the Al-Qaeda affiliated Kosovo Liberation Army)

As for your comments about the UN i largely agree but why do i not see you criticizing your government for its lack of participation in these peacekeeping missions? in which the amount of troops sent by the U.S is lower then many small European countries.(I love the way people fail to realize these troops have to come from somewhere) Why do you not criticize it for failing to back the International Criminal Court, which could put away those responsible for these massacres? Why do you not criticize it for violating the sanctions you criticize the UN for not imposing enough of? (as in the Iran-contra scandal) Why do you not criticize it for supporting the regime with the worst religious rights record in the world, Saudi-Arabia's with American troops?

Its easy enough to criticize the UN for being ineffective but ultimately it cant be effective unless its members make it so.

Red_Dave said:

It was hardly a unique example. Its was pretty typical during the Bosnian war, and Kosovo war, (as were massacres between different denominations of Christians in Bosnian war and the Croatian war of independance). This is afterall the purported reason that we bombed the **** out of these countries. (and allied ourselves with the Al-Qaeda affiliated Kosovo Liberation Army)

As for your comments about the UN i largely agree but why do i not see you criticizing your government for its lack of participation in these peacekeeping missions? in which the amount of troops sent by the U.S is lower then many small European countries.(I love the way people fail to realize these troops have to come from somewhere) Why do you not criticize it for failing to back the International Criminal Court, which could put away those responsible for these massacres? Why do you not criticize it for violating the sanctions you criticize the UN for not imposing enough of? (as in the Iran-contra scandal) Why do you not criticize it for supporting the regime with the worst religious rights record in the world, Saudi-Arabia's with American troops?

Its easy enough to criticize the UN for being ineffective but ultimately it cant be effective unless its members make it so.

Click to expand...

I do think America should send troops to these regions, but I speculate that the world would say we are imperialist thugs or something along those lines. I am not for the US giving up sovereignty to the UN because the UN does not have US interests in mind. They are anti-American and pro socialist/Arab. However, the UN does have the authority to go in and stop the persecution, yet they don't. I would like to see America go in and help, but the world would lie about the US and be against it for whatever reason. And I do think America should not support Saudi Arabia, they are the worlds harshest theocracy and they fund terrorism. Sadly America needs them for oil because we won't drill our own, so we sell out our morals and send money to the sheiks. America needs to stop these things, and the UN needs to take a stand instead of turning a blind eye.

digsbe said:

I do think America should send troops to these regions, but I speculate that the world would say we are imperialist thugs or something along those lines. I am not for the US giving up sovereignty to the UN because the UN does not have US interests in mind. They are anti-American and pro socialist/Arab. However, the UN does have the authority to go in and stop the persecution, yet they don't. I would like to see America go in and help, but the world would lie about the US and be against it for whatever reason. And I do think America should not support Saudi Arabia, they are the worlds harshest theocracy and they fund terrorism. Sadly America needs them for oil because we won't drill our own, so we sell out our morals and send money to the sheiks. America needs to stop these things, and the UN needs to take a stand instead of turning a blind eye.

Click to expand...

What aspect of U.S sovereignty does the UN threaten? Unless the U.S is going to commit gross violations of human rights on its own soil (unlikely) then all that is threatened by the U.N is its actions overseas. Again what authority does the U.N have without troops to enforce it? Generally the U.S gets accused of being imperialist when it acts unilaterally, with ulterior motives or against democratic governments. When the U.S has been acting genuinely for the greater good the world has been willing to support it. As in the Gulf War (over 50% of the forces involved where not American), the Safe Haven system in Iraqi Kurdistan, and , to a lesser degree Afghanistan.

Red_Dave said:

What aspect of U.S sovereignty does the UN threaten? Unless the U.S is going to commit gross violations of human rights on its own soil (unlikely) then all that is threatened by the U.N is its actions overseas. Again what authority does the U.N have without troops to enforce it? Generally the U.S gets accused of being imperialist when it acts unilaterally, with ulterior motives or against democratic governments. When the U.S has been acting genuinely for the greater good the world has been willing to support it. As in the Gulf War (over 50% of the forces involved where not American), the Safe Haven system in Iraqi Kurdistan, and , to a lesser degree Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

Things like the Kyoto protocol and international law undermine US sovereignty. Essentially they are governing the US and telling America what it can and can't do regardless of the circumstances. I do like some aspects of the UN, but I do think it's biased and wants power over other nations. I see your point regarding US imperialism and I agree to some extent, but do you think the world would be behind America if they were to send peacekeeping troops to these nations to enforce human rights and end persecution?

digsbe said:

Christians generally have not committed these crimes, and I did talk about communist governments. Typically it is majority done by Muslims, Hindus, and communist governments. I don't see majority Christian countries killing off Muslims or hacking them to death with machetes. All I am saying is that Christians endure intense persecution and the world turns a blind eye because they'd rather not "offend" Islamic fundamentalists and Hindu radicals along with communist governments. This goes happens on a national scale and many countries do this, yet the UN is silent. If Muslims were being brutally slaughtered and tortured in Christian European nations I would assume that then they would stand up. They are pretty silent between the Muslim and Hindu battles in Pakistan/India as well. Yet they have no problem screaming at the Zionist Joo monsters that eat and mangle the innocent and peace loving ethnic Palestinian people.

Click to expand...

Well.

You must have been sick the day that you were supposed to learn about the Lord's Resistance Army, aka the Lord's Army and the Uganda Democratic People's Christian Army.
Lord's Resistance Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christians have a long history of violence. It did not suddenly end. I recommend seriously attempting to be objective in your rendering of history.

LOL
The 'Lord's Resistance Army' is about IT.
Pointing to exceptions is hardly debate.
Which is why there won't be any factual rebuttal to this.

How does that compare to Rampant Islamist Violence?

me

The problem is Muslim Nations at War with others OR Which are persecuting their Minorities.

Here's a PARTIAL list, by no means complete, But well large enough to be Damning Nonetheless!

Pick up a newspaper lately? Last 10 years?
Notice any problems (War or internal persecution)

Mauritania, Western Sahara/Morocco;
Algerian Civil War (200,000 Dead);
Nigeria;

Sudan/Two genocides by the NIF/National Islamic Front, 2 Million+ Dead, (and still supported by the Arab League);

Ethiopia/Eritrea (not just a famine);
Egypt/Copts;
Israel/Palestine;
Hamas-v-Fatah;
Lebanon,

Violence/Cleansing of/against the Kurds by Turks and Iraq,
and in turn Kurdish terror groups. Yes another 'internal' war.

Saudi Apartheid of all other religions, even Shia Muslims
Iraq/Iran ------ Sunni v Shia

Christians in General virtually purged from the Middle East in the last 50 years.

Russia/Chechnya,
The Balkans,
Armenia/Azerbijan

Afghanistan (we just interrupted that war)
India/Pakistan/Kashmir (and a few pakistani terror groups/terrorizing Christians)

Thailand Muslim insurgency killing More than the I-P conflict. (under-reported)

Indonesia (East Timor!, Ambon, Bali, Sulawesi, the Moluccas)
(Including Jemaah Islamiyah,and Laskar Jihad)

Philippines Moro group
Chinese Uighur separatists.


OR....Even Causing extraordinary violence As immigrants/minorities themselves:
Problems with almost Every EU/Scandinavian country with new Muslim immigrants.
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Netherlands.
UK
France
Italy
Germany

There is not only violence and persecution along the 'Lonnnng Islamic Front Line', there is persecution and Fundamentalism galore from Mauritinia to Mindinao... and right into Finsbury Park/London.

Click to expand...

The "Lord's Resistance Army" isn't even Christian either.

It is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the "spokesperson" of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the Holy Spirit, which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations.[3] The group adheres to a syncretistic[4] blend of Christianity, Mysticism,[5] traditional religion,[6] and witchcraft,[7]

Click to expand...

This coming from the Wikipedia source you posted. Christianity also does not have a violent history. The Crusades were not Christian, rather that is the history of the Roman Empire, not Christianity. The Roman Empire even persecuted Christians who were not members of the state church. Any Christian militant group is nothing compared to those that discriminate and oppress us.

Andalublue said:

My questions would be:
[*]Why are non-Islamic countries such as Sri Lanka, India and Tanzania experiencing such attacks?

Click to expand...

Even non-Islamic countries can still have major population of Islamic people. IE: The US isnt a Christian country but we have a large group of Christians as part of our population.

No doubt we'll get one or two of the usual suspects bleating about Islam=violence

Click to expand...

Considering that's a dumb statement, I'm sure we'll see it.

digsbe said:

The "Lord's Resistance Army" isn't even Christian either.

This coming from the Wikipedia source you posted. Christianity also does not have a violent history. The Crusades were not Christian, rather that is the history of the Roman Empire, not Christianity. The Roman Empire even persecuted Christians who were not members of the state church. Any Christian militant group is nothing compared to those that discriminate and oppress us.

Click to expand...

Look, if you're going to try and re-write history, at least be honest about it, mkay?

Christendom has as bloody a history as anyone else. The Crusades were NOT Roman, and Christian persecution by Rome happened on a very limited scale.

Stop whitewashing.

Hoplite said:

Even non-Islamic countries can still have major population of Islamic people. IE: The US isnt a Christian country but we have a large group of Christians as part of our population.

Considering that's a dumb statement, I'm sure we'll see it.


Look, if you're going to try and re-write history, at least be honest about it, mkay?

Christendom has as bloody a history as anyone else. The Crusades were NOT Roman, and Christian persecution by Rome happened on a very limited scale.

Stop whitewashing.

Click to expand...

I am not trying to rewrite history, I am trying to present accurate history. The Crusades was Roman imperialism, it was not justified by the Bible and was supported by the Roman state church. It was a Roman ordeal, not a Christian one. God didn't come down and say to do that, in fact when the Roman church was established many pagan priests just swapped roles and became Christian priests. It was a state thing, not a Christian thing. What I was talking about was that the Roman church persecuted Christians that did not assimilate into it. Although pre Roman church they did heavily persecute Christians.

digsbe said:

I am not trying to rewrite history, I am trying to present accurate history. The Crusades was Roman imperialism, it was not justified by the Bible and was supported by the Roman state church. It was a Roman ordeal, not a Christian one. God didn't come down and say to do that, in fact when the Roman church was established many pagan priests just swapped roles and became Christian priests. It was a state thing, not a Christian thing. What I was talking about was that the Roman church persecuted Christians that did not assimilate into it. Although pre Roman church they did heavily persecute Christians.

Click to expand...

:rofl

Revisionism at its best.

OK then, how about this... There was never a violent act committed in the name of Islam because Allah didn't come out down and say to do it.

The Crusades was Roman imperialism? Are you that ignorant of history? It was the Byzantine Emperor who called for help from the Pope. And the first people to fight in the Crusades weren't Roman Christians. They were Franks who followed a similar Germanic Christian tradition.

digsbe said:

I am not trying to rewrite history, I am trying to present accurate history. The Crusades was Roman imperialism, it was not justified by the Bible and was supported by the Roman state church. It was a Roman ordeal, not a Christian one. God didn't come down and say to do that, in fact when the Roman church was established many pagan priests just swapped roles and became Christian priests. It was a state thing, not a Christian thing. What I was talking about was that the Roman church persecuted Christians that did not assimilate into it. Although pre Roman church they did heavily persecute Christians.

Click to expand...

The Roman Church AKA the Roman Catholic Church, the only "christian" game in town (discounting the Orthodox), until some guy named Martin Luther came around some 1200 years after the Council of Nicaea.

Stop trying to white wash and make it sound like it was the product of the long dead "pagan" Roman empire. It was done in the name of Christianity.

Edit: and I love the "pagan priests switched sides" snow job too, yeah that was only 750 years before the 1st crusade occurred.

digsbe said:

I am not trying to rewrite history, I am trying to present accurate history. The Crusades was Roman imperialism...

Click to expand...

No. The Crusades were not Roman imperialism.

For online sources of information on The Crusades, one can go to: Medieval Sourcebook: The Crusades

digsbe said:

Things like the Kyoto protocol and international law undermine US sovereignty. Essentially they are governing the US and telling America what it can and can't do regardless of the circumstances. I do like some aspects of the UN, but I do think it's biased and wants power over other nations. I see your point regarding US imperialism and I agree to some extent, but do you think the world would be behind America if they were to send peacekeeping troops to these nations to enforce human rights and end persecution?

Click to expand...

And herein lies the problem. If you,re going to be intervene in other countries you have to have, to the greatest extent possible, some universally recognized principles determining when you can and cannot intervene, hence the need for international law/agreements. What powers like the U.S do is simply play this by ear which leads a huge potential for claiming to act in the name of freedom and democracy when clearly it isnt. As when overthrowing Jacob Arbenz for example.

As regards your second point, again no one really complained about the presence of U.S forces under the Safe Haven system in Iraqi Kurdistan (except Saddam), No one complains about the presence of U.S troops in Darfur (aside from their small number).

digsbe said:

I am not trying to rewrite history, I am trying to present accurate history. The Crusades was Roman imperialism, it was not justified by the Bible and was supported by the Roman state church. It was a Roman ordeal, not a Christian one. God didn't come down and say to do that, in fact when the Roman church was established many pagan priests just swapped roles and became Christian priests. It was a state thing, not a Christian thing. What I was talking about was that the Roman church persecuted Christians that did not assimilate into it. Although pre Roman church they did heavily persecute Christians.

Click to expand...

You are very, very wrong.

By the time of the Crusades, Europe was very much Christian and under the influence of the Pope.

Arch Enemy said:

You are very, very wrong.

By the time of the Crusades, Europe was very much Christian and under the influence of the Pope.

Click to expand...

Like I said, it was under the state church. That was not a reflection of Christianity and it was the decision of man, not God. To say that the Crusades is a sample of Christian history is the same as saying that atheism has a history steeped in violence because of the death at the hands of atheist regimes like Soviet Russia and China. In fact, that would make atheism the bloodiest ideology. Regardless, this thread is about the here and now, not about what the Roman Empire did in the name of God 1,000 years ago.

digsbe said:

Like I said, it was under the state church. That was not a reflection of Christianity and it was the decision of man, not God. To say that the Crusades is a sample of Christian history is the same as saying that atheism has a history steeped in violence because of the death at the hands of atheist regimes like Soviet Russia and China. In fact, that would make atheism the bloodiest ideology. Regardless, this thread is about the here and now, not about what the Roman Empire did in the name of God 1,000 years ago.

Click to expand...

Except that at the time neither the state nor the Roman empire existed

Digsbe, you're making a mistake both historically ('Rome'/crusades) and tactically even bringing in History.

Christianity Hasn't, in the main, been anything like TODAY'S Islam (The String TOPIC "Increasing") in 500 years.

See my last. As usual untouched. Preferring instead to pick on your openings.
-

EDIT: See: http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/54964-wanted-muslim-reformation-16.html#post1058621271