• 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
Catz Part Deux said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with that in particular, I just saw no christian connection in the article you posted. I made no comment about christian extremists -- I've no doubt that extremists of any sort are prone to terrible atrocities.

Catz Part Deux said:
Hello, Pot. Meet Kettle.
Click to expand...

care to point to where I was unwilling to accept a fact of history? Your earlier article made no mention that christians were behind the slayings, only witch-doctors. Non-christian tribes kill over accusations of witchcraft as well.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
The article contains factual details about what happened, and then quotes Chomsky. The factual details remain factual. It's not an opinion piece.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I didn't read the article. But in my view it doesn't speak well of the writer if he or she felt the need to seek out Chomsky's opinion about anything besides linguistics.
 
Guy Incognito said:
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.
Click to expand...

The article I responded to wasn't about violence against homosexuals -- so again, don't know where you're coming up with you're point here.
 
other said:
Sack of Rome (846) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They also sacked Pisa in 1004. btw
Click to expand...

You're talking about Arab pirates sacking a city, I'm talking about a serious threat posed by Muslim invaders. As you yourself said earlier in this very thread, sacking a city is nothing, right? At the time, southern Italy and Spain were culturally steeped in Islam. These were not invaders, they were neighbors. And it had absolutely nothing to do with Jerusalem. None of it can be viewed as sufficient provocation for the Crusades. The fact is the Crusades were a war of conquest.

The fact is that there was no threat posed by Islam to Western Europe at the time of the Crusades, nor had there been a threat to Western Europe posed by Muslim invaders since the Battle of Tours, period. I appreciate your wikipedia research, though, keep it up. You might eventually learn something;)
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
You're talking about Arab pirates sacking a city, I'm talking about a serious threat posed by Muslim invaders. There was no such thread posed by Islam at the time of the Crusades, nor had there been a threat to Western Europe posed by Muslim invaders since the Battle of Tours, period. I appreciate your wikipedia research, though, keep it up. You might eventually learn something;)
Click to expand...

Oh, so you just want to dismiss? Because the sack of churches in Rome by muslim invaders wouldn't have been perceived as any threat by the Roman Catholics in Europe, is that what you're saying?

wow. I see there's no point at all in trying to discuss this with you.
 
You changed your post, so I'll respond to your misrepresentations here too...

Guy Incognito said:
As you yourself said earlier in this very thread, sacking a city is nothing, right?
Click to expand...

No, I said it happened often and that it wasn't religiously motivated in the case of the Byzantine cities.

At the time, southern Italy and Spain were culturally steeped in Islam.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and why do you think that was the case? Sicily and Apulia, like spain, had been conquered by muslim invaders. They were all previously christian lands. But of course, because you say so, such incursions were perceived as no threat, of course...:roll:
Why do you think the Pope incited the Normans, the christianized descendants of the hated vikings, to come and take sicily and apulia, which they then held for centuries?

These were not invaders, they were neighbors.
Click to expand...

Oh, they weren't invaders, so the previous christian inhabitants of southern italy and sicily invited muslims to come rule over them? And good neighbors sack each others' cities and no one is alarmed by that?

And you call me an apologist? :lamo

And it had absolutely nothing to do with Jerusalem. None of it can be viewed as sufficient provocation for the Crusades.
Click to expand...

I already stated that they viewed the accounts of attacks on christian pilgrims as a threat and an injustice that needed to be fixed.

Why do you insist on ignoring 90% of the latin/muslim context in the 400 years leading up to the crusades? Again, and you accuse me of "sweepin things under the rug."

The fact is the Crusades were a war of conquest.
Click to expand...

You're actually correct here, but then again, who said otherwise?

The fact is that there was no threat posed by Islam to Western Europe at the time of the Crusades, nor had there been a threat to Western Europe posed by Muslim invaders since the Battle of Tours, period.
Click to expand...

I've already addressed this incorrect assumption.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
And, there's more....

Christian extremism in Africa is a very serious and growing problem. Uganda's laws, encouraged by American fundamentalists, that would make homosexuality punishable by death, are the tip of the iceberg.

AFP: Kenya mob burns 15 women to death over witchcraft

In Africa, at least, there is very little difference between the extremist Islamic and the extremist Christian.
Click to expand...


OK thanks, I wasn't aware that Africa had a "Christian terrorist" problem.

However, I have a few caveats... if they're really engaging in some of the things they're accused of, then they are so far gone from anything like Christianity that they don't deserve the title.

For another thing, it is still a comparison of BB's to Buckshot, in terms of quantity.
 
Islam is far more pushy. First of all we have many world nations that have an Islamic government that pushes Islam on the populace. You also see in these countries a huge violation of freedom of religion. Many of these countries persecute Christians, have laws against proselytizing, kill those who leave Islam, and all sorts of things. To my knowledge no Christian theocracy does this (or if one even exists).
 
Goshin said:
OK thanks, I wasn't aware that Africa had a "Christian terrorist" problem.
Click to expand...

It depends on how you define the term. If, by terrorist, you mean people who are wreaking havoc and killing innocents, then yes, Africa has a Christian "terrorist" problem.

However, I have a few caveats... if they're really engaging in some of the things they're accused of, then they are so far gone from anything like Christianity that they don't deserve the title.
Click to expand...

Most Islamics feel the same way about their terrorists.

For another thing, it is still a comparison of BB's to Buckshot, in terms of quantity.
Click to expand...

I think that Christian extremists are killing about as many people annually as Islamic extremists are. There is just less reporting on it because it's in Africa and other 3rd world countries.
 
digsbe said:
Islam is far more pushy. First of all we have many world nations that have an Islamic government that pushes Islam on the populace. You also see in these countries a huge violation of freedom of religion. Many of these countries persecute Christians, have laws against proselytizing, kill those who leave Islam, and all sorts of things. To my knowledge no Christian theocracy does this (or if one even exists).
Click to expand...

I guess we aren't counting Uganda on this one, right, where homosexuality is now punishable with death.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Does the fact that Chomsky is quoted make the overall story less viable?
Click to expand...

The fact he is calling a war crime carried out during a period of civil war a "terrorist" act is.
 
Gardener said:
The fact he is calling a war crime carried out during a period of civil war a "terrorist" act is.
Click to expand...

What, huh? What should a war crime be called?

Here's the paragraph in question (by you, at least):

In September 1982, Lebanese Phalangist militia groups and members of the South Lebanon Army, in the presence of the Israel Defense Forces, massacred Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.[13][14][15][16][17] The militias were populated predominately by Maronite Christians,[18] and were responding to the assassination of Bachir Gemayel.[13][16] A British photographer present during the incident said that "People who committed the acts of murder that I saw that day were wearing crucifixions and were calling themselves Christians."[16] According to the BBC, the massacre was "a three-day orgy of rape and slaughter that left hundreds, possibly thousands, of innocent civilians dead in what is considered the bloodiest single incident of the Arab-Israeli conflict",[14] and Noam Chomsky has described it as terrorism.[19] On December 16, 1982, it was declared an act of genocide by the United Nations General Assembly.[20]
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that Lebanese Maronites DIDN'T slaughter Palestinian refugees? OR, are you just peevish every time you see a mention of Chomsky (a guy I personally think is a moron).

The UN called it genocide. Do you disagree with that assessment? Need to grind your axe against the UN, as well?
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
What should a war crime be called?
Click to expand...

It should be called a war crime.


Catz Part Deux said:
Are you suggesting that Lebanese Maronites DIDN'T slaughter Palestinian refugees?
Click to expand...

Would I refer to it as a war crime if I didn't think it happened?

Catz Part Deux said:
OR, are you just peevish every time you see a mention of Chomsky (a guy I personally think is a moron).
Click to expand...

I expected you to know his point of view and his usual M.O. when it comes to the way he labels things. He would call ANYTHING terrosm as long as he could use it as a tu toque argument to justify his support for certain groups or his hatred of others.

As far as appeals to authority are concerned, though, I would say that Chomsky isn't.

Catz Part Deux said:
The UN called it genocide. Do you disagree with that assessment? Need to grind your axe against the UN, as well?
Click to expand...

Yes, I disagree that it was genocide. It wasn't sustained over a long period, and did not affect a sizeable enough portion of the population. Was the Damour massacre also called a "genocide"? If not then an agenda is most obviously at work.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I guess we aren't counting Uganda on this one, right, where homosexuality is now punishable with death.
Click to expand...

Uganda is not a Christian theocracy. Regardless, far more Islamic governed nations punish homosexuality with death.
 
Guy Incognito said:
As is your disinterest in the reliability of your sources.
Click to expand...

Chomsky's opinion stuck in there in no way discredits the factual information that is linked in the article. I'm sorry that you seem to lack an understanding of using sources.
 
digsbe said:
Uganda is not a Christian theocracy. Regardless, far more Islamic governed nations punish homosexuality with death.
Click to expand...

Strawman. No one claimed it was a Christian Theocracy. Are you going to attempt to pretend that American Christians did not influence that law? I hope not, that would be pointedly dishonest.
 
Islam is the new Christianity. But the evangelicals and anti-Islams are pushing back.

Every new religion has to start with a premise of "we're number 1"
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Strawman. No one claimed it was a Christian Theocracy. Are you going to attempt to pretend that American Christians did not influence that law? I hope not, that would be pointedly dishonest.
Click to expand...

I was talking about abusive Christian theocracies, you brought up Uganda. Uganda is a nation of Christians and a 12% Muslim population. They are not a theocracy. I don't know of any American Christians who support putting homosexuals to death or supported/paid in some fashion to help that law pass. Again, there are far more oppressive Islamic theocracies, there are virtually no Christian theocracies. It is common in Islamic theocracies to kill those who convert from Islam under the law. Many put homosexuals to death or jail them. Islam by far is a more pushy religion.
 
German guy said:
I'm not sure the religion of the respective people committing acts of violence and oppression is really an important factor, or even the most important factor, even when these acts are committed in the name of that religion. Maybe demographic and social factors have much more impact, and the respective religion serves as catalyst only?

Now I may be wrong, and rely too much on the idea that reality shapes consciousness more than vice versa, in this case, but there are historical and sociological works that suggest such factors are usually related to trouble.

For example, after Spain's "Reconquista" (the fight to topple Muslim rule in the 15th century), the country started conquering America, violently christianizing and enslaving native American peoples. Both, Reconquista and Conquest, could only happen -- or more or less had to happen -- because at that time, demographics in Spain were of a kind that provided a large excess of young males ready to fight, which, otherwise, would have had a very hard time to find a basis for life if the monarchy had not sent them to pillage. The rulers had a large resource of motivated potential soldiers and colonizers as carrot, and the problems that would have arised had these many young males not be provided with a purpose, as a stick. It was a no-brainer they chose to expand. It was not Christianity that caused them to do it. The prevalence of Christianity just resulted in Spain chosing it as justification, motivator and means to foster identity.
Click to expand...

Two points...

1. The 'Reconquista' was the RECOVERY of Spain from Muslim aggression centuries earlier. It was a centuries-long process that was completed at the end of the 15th century.
2. The 'violent' activities of the Conquistadors was NOT condoned by the Church, either in Spain or in Rome. In fact, Catholic missions repeatedly COMPLAINED about the harsh treatment of the natives; complaints that led to the ending of the encomienda system in the 1540s.
 
German guy said:
: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:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know... truth and facts often come in the way of some people's agendas...

The Crusades was a response to Islamic aggression, specifically the aggression of the Seljuqs in the Roman Empire. The emperor in Constantinople specifically requested help from the pope in Rome.

Inquisition was not as bloody as Protestants make it out to be.

The Manifest Destiny was, in reality, primarily a secular phenomenon...
 
Guy Incognito said:
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.
Click to expand...

One incident in 1204 when the Crusaders were deposited in Constantinople by Venetian merchants does not constitute "regularly sacked"... You are obviously not all that aware of the circumstances behind the First Crusade...
 
Guy Incognito said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, you are giving your perspective of history. You are ignoring the fact that Constantinople was threatened by Seljuq Muslims and the Roman Emperor requested assistance from the Pope against the Muslims.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Which Religion is more "pushy?" Christianity or Islam? When I say "pushy" I mean which religion did more to spread itself by any means necessary and which one had more oppressive governments?

For me, it's Christianity, seeing as how it was spread from Europe around the world and was used as a reason to screw over the indigenous peoples of the world.
Click to expand...

"Did" is past tense. Looking at the present world and the rise in attacks in christians worldwide by muslims would seem to indicate there is very little to debate if we only consider the present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom