Attacks on Christians increasing.

[Andalublue]

Here is a blog that is dedicated to this subject.

Christians Under Attack

This is more of an Attack Muslims site than a Defend Christians one. How do requests for Muslim cemeteries in Switzerland attack Christians? Why no mention of attacks on Christians by Hindus in India or the Chinese/N. Korean states?

This is a serious matter, not another excuse for Muslim-bashing.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

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.

Ozzie sang about it. Paranoid Lyrics, Black Sabbath Paranoid Lyrics - LyricsFreak.com

Too many people. Overpopulation is one of the causes. Everybody in the world wants a new car.

Most organized religions are nothing more than business ventures.

It seems that most people must have someone or some group to hate. In the US we had all kinds of people to hate throughout our history. There were the Native Americans, The African slaves, the socialists, the liberals, Hippies, or anyone who does not tow the corporate rope and is out of the status quo loop.

People have been at war with each other ever since they started to worship a giant rock in the desert thousands of years ago.

 

[Arch Enemy]

I agree with you. But that analysis explains the "why" but not the "what do we do about it?".

What do we do about it?

I disagree with PeteEU because I believe that religious respect and nonviolence is not futile.

You have Muslims in America, and much of the modern European world, who leave relatively peacefully with Christians and Jews. The places where the violence is rampant are places where there is little social mobility, where there is a sense of one religion being a new, introductory species that seeks to eat the other, an unfair dialogue between the two, pre-existing violent flash points (social class, economic disparity, tribalism, etc.) and no relatively democratic political system.

 

[mbig]

Here is a blog that is dedicated to this subject.

Christians Under Attack

Now that we're on Page SIX/50+ posts, and most haven't adressed the OP, one has to thank SgtRock for even trying to do so.
The rest, as usual are virtually all goofy "you too-isms" attempting to skirt the issue. Though the OP itself invites some of of these excuses.

Wiki

Tu quoque

Tu quoque (pronounced /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, from Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy.
A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[1]

Illegitimate use
In many cases tu quoque arguments are used in a logically fallacious way, to draw a conclusion which is not supported by the premises of the argument.

You-too version
This form of the argument is as follows:

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
This is an instance of the two wrongs make a right fallacy.
[.....]

In addition to the above Tactic to AVOID the issue presented some also throw in a 500-1000 Year Time juxtaposition to make the Comparison even more fallacious.
And even more Off Topic, since the OP is about a Current situation "Attacks increasing", and The Crusades hardly adresses that as wll as being illegitimate time warp comparison.

And if one looks at the top post of this page-- one has to wonder what this is doing in the 'Middle East' section save for the fact that's an unwitting admission.
Since China/North Korea/Hindus, are Not in the Middle East.

Perhaps 'Religion' or 'Current Events' (Or the "Asia" and "Africa" specifically noted in the OP) would have been better unless one wants to discuss it specifically or even mainly in the Middle East.
-

 

[Andalublue]

I disagree with PeteEU because I believe that religious respect and nonviolence is not futile.

You have Muslims in America, and much of the modern European world, who leave relatively peacefully with Christians and Jews. The places where the violence is rampant are places where there is little social mobility, where there is a sense of one religion being a new, introductory species that seeks to eat the other, an unfair dialogue between the two, pre-existing violent flash points (social class, economic disparity, tribalism, etc.) and no relatively democratic political system.

I agree with Pete in that he puts his finger on the button of why minorities get scapegoated. It is the most unnatural or natural reactions.

I come at this from the position of taking it as read that the vast majority of people of all faiths do indeed co-habit this planet perfectly amicably. Unfortunately there are some countries where they don't and some parts of almost every country where they don't.

I don't take Pete's fatalistic position that it will always be thus but I'm hoping some posters might have some ideas (see mine above) that could start to combat it.

 

[Andalublue]

Now that we're on Page SIX/50+ posts, and most haven't adressed the OP, one has to thank SgtRock for even trying to do so.
The rest, as usual are virtually all goofy "you too-isms" attempting to skirt the issue. Though the OP itself invites some of of these excuses.

Wiki

In addition to the above Tactic to AVOID the issue presented some also throw in a 500-1000 Year Time juxtaposition to make the Comparison even more fallacious.
And even more Off Topic, since the OP is about a Current situation "Attacks increasing", and The Crusades hardly adresses that as wll as being illegitimate time warp comparison.

And if one looks at the top post of this page-- one has to wonder what this is doing in the 'Middle East' section save for the fact that's an unwitting admission.
Since China/North Korea/Hindus, are Not in the Middle East.

Perhaps 'Religion' or 'Current Events' (Or the "Asia" and "Africa" specifically noted in the OP) would have been better unless one wants to discuss it specifically or even mainly in the Middle East.
-

Well, mbig, having noted the fact that SgtRock has posted a semi-relevant link (I hardly think you can class it as addressing the question), where is your contribution? What can we do about promoting tolerance between religions? How can we protect those Christian communities under threat?

You're probably quite right that this should not be in the ME section. I placed it there so that those with whom I often debate, and at whom my original comments were directed, would see it and hopefully engage with it. I shall have a word with the mod and see if we can't move it to Religion or General Politics. Good idea.

I agree with you that you-too arguments get us nowhere. An avoidance of reductionism would help us too. Some genuine, lateral thinking and practical steps that the international community could take is what I'm hoping to elicit.

 

[Laila]

Here is a blog that is dedicated to this subject.

Christians Under Attack

LOL

I love this link What to do if a Muslim asks you to marry :rofl

 

[Laila]

A recent wave of violent attacks on Christian worshippers and churches in countries across the Muslim world is intensifying concern that continuing military conflict, cultural friction and economic imbalances embroiling Islam and the west are fuelling a parallel rise in religious intolerance at grassroots level.

The fact that an increase of tensions is occurring in countries where Islam and Christianity has co existed previously suggests it is a recent phenomenon.

Could be due to the rise of conservatism in the Islamic world or perhaps Christians are an easy scapegoat as a minority.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

The fact that an increase of tensions is occurring in countries where Islam and Christianity has co existed previously suggests it is a recent phenomenon.

Could be due to the rise of conservatism in the Islamic world or perhaps Christians are an easy scapegoat as a minority.

I think that they have co-existed, but not without a long history of problems.

When one group claims to have the entire truth, they are always going to be uneasy rivals with others who make similar claims.

The thing is...in order for the Christians to be right, someone has to be wrong. The same with the Islamics and the Jews. It's hard for tolerance to be established in that framework, given that everyone thinks that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[Andalublue]

The fact that an increase of tensions is occurring in countries where Islam and Christianity has co existed previously suggests it is a recent phenomenon.

Could be due to the rise of conservatism in the Islamic world or perhaps Christians are an easy scapegoat as a minority.

Were it the case that such conflicts are ONLY taking place in countries where it is Christianity and Islam that are coming together, that may be an explanation. That is not the case.

Hindus and Christians clash over burnt churches in India - Telegraph

State repression of religious freedom is widespread. For example...

People's Republic of China: Religious repression in China - Amnesty International

In this whole discussion I think it's important to distinguish between religious repression and religious conflict. The former is one-way traffic, as in the Chinese case. The latter may involve issues of reciprocity and retribution which may or may not be driven by real or perceived aggression. This, I think, is the case in the Indian example I linked to. It also seems fairly clear that this is partly the case in the recent Nigerian massacres which had a tit-for-tat basis. However, this last case, many are arguing, is unrelated to religious issues. It's about land and tribalism. It just so happens that the two sides worship differently.

So, given that it is a wider problem than simple Islam-Christianity clashing, what can be done to address it?

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Were it the case that such conflicts are ONLY taking place in countries where it is Christianity and Islam that are coming together, that may be an explanation. That is not the case.

Hindus and Christians clash over burnt churches in India - Telegraph

State repression of religious freedom is widespread. For example...

People's Republic of China: Religious repression in China - Amnesty International

In this whole discussion I think it's important to distinguish between religious repression and religious conflict. The former is one-way traffic, as in the Chinese case. The latter may involve issues of reciprocity and retribution which may or may not be driven by real or perceived aggression. This, I think, is the case in the Indian example I linked to. It also seems fairly clear that this is partly the case in the recent Nigerian massacres which had a tit-for-tat basis. However, this last case, many are arguing, is unrelated to religious issues. It's about land and tribalism. It just so happens that the two sides worship differently.

So, given that it is a wider problem than simple Islam-Christianity clashing, what can be done to address it?

The ignorant must be educated. Which brings up another question. Educated where?

 

[Andalublue]

The ignorant must be educated. Which brings up another question. Educated where?

That seems to be quite a stock response, "the ignorant must be educated". Of course, but it's not only the uneducated who discriminate by religion. The highly-educated have a nasty habit of being behind much religious repression.

Your third sentence is a bit of a non-sequitur. The question isn't "educated where?", as if most people had the option of a Rhodes scholarship, but educated how? That's the question. How does one introduce ideas of pluralism into systems of education that are either operated by the organised religion of a region or based on nationally-controlled, religiously-biased curricula?

 

[LiberalAvenger]

That seems to be quite a stock response, "the ignorant must be educated". Of course, but it's not only the uneducated who discriminate by religion. The highly-educated have a nasty habit of being behind much religious repression.

Your third sentence is a bit of a non-sequitur. The question isn't "educated where?", as if most people had the option of a Rhodes scholarship, but educated how? That's the question. How does one introduce ideas of pluralism into systems of education that are either operated by the organised religion of a region or based on nationally-controlled, religiously-biased curricula?

The christian hegemony is a good place to start.

It's my belief that all organized religions are run by elitists who are often narcissistic personalities.

Christian Hegemony

 

[Andalublue]

The christian hegemony is a good place to start.

It's my belief that all organized religions are run by elitists who are often narcissistic personalities.

Christian Hegemony

Good place to start what? I don't understand your point. Sorry.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Here is a spam email I just received from some type of christian. They don't like catholics or health care.

"Dear Church of Reality members,

Today I sent out a letter to the editor challenging believers and giving them advice on how to convert Realists / Atheists. And if it works then I'm fine with it. It's a concept I'm calling "The Fruit Test". I'll let the letter speak for itself. If you like it then post it on blogs. Feel free to improve it.


I have a message for my believing friends and it's something that believers should really listen to and think about. As a realist who doesn't believe in God I am often challenged to open my heart and let Jesus in. I am reluctant to do so without any evidence that God exists.

I am told that when one becomes a believer that they have a personal relationship with God and the God transforms you and you become one with the Lord. So from my point of view I should be able to see the difference in the behavior of those who believe as compared to those who don't believe. But I'm not seeing it. Especially in the latest news coming out about the sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church.

So let me be clear and direct about this so you Catholics listen up. If there is an omnipotent God and a person or a religious group has a personal relationship with God then you wouldn't be raping children - period! The Catholic Church would not be covering up for those priests who are raping children. Admittedly, this doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, but it does prove that the Catholic Church does not have a personal relationship with an omnipotent God, because if they did this sort of thing simply would not occur.

As a member of the reality based community I am dedicated to believing in anything that is real. If God is real then I will believe. But how am I to determine if God is actually and truly real and which of the thousands of religions it is true one? Turning to your Bible the standard is "You will know them by their fruits." Clearly the Catholics have failed the "fruit test" because of the pervasive raping of children and the cover up by the Vatican.

As to the rest of religions and independent Christians, Muslims, or other believers, you aren't going to convert Atheists unless you can show us that God actually has transformed your life in a way that is observable to the reality based world. Even if God can't be observed directly, if you claim God has changed your life then those changes should be observable in your life and in your religious group as a whole. And if these changes aren't observable then we in the reality based community aren't going to listen to what you have to say. If you are going to convert Atheists you are going to have to pass your "Fruit Test" to get our attention.

---

In other news, we got screwed by the Ninth Circuit again in the our petirion for reconsideration was denied. I'm going to file a mandamus in the US Supreme Court just for grins but it's not likely going anywhere. But it's not my first Supreme Court filing so doing it isn't that big of a deal. I'll have more details soon when I figure out then next step.

---

I'm looking forward to the health care vote tomorrow. It looks like it's going to pass. I'm also ordered 2 bull horns online and going to carry them in my car for when I go to various protests. Perhaps all Realists should drive around with a bull horn in their car. Something to consider as a religious identity symbol?

Marc Perkel
First One
Church of Reality
"If it's real then it's worth shouting it through a bull horn"

I wish we were protected more from religion.

 

[Arch Enemy]

That seems to be quite a stock response, "the ignorant must be educated". Of course, but it's not only the uneducated who discriminate by religion. The highly-educated have a nasty habit of being behind much religious repression.

Your third sentence is a bit of a non-sequitur. The question isn't "educated where?", as if most people had the option of a Rhodes scholarship, but educated how? That's the question. How does one introduce ideas of pluralism into systems of education that are either operated by the organised religion of a region or based on nationally-controlled, religiously-biased curricula?

Educating the ignorance, ironically, is the traditional role of the church (or mosque, or temple, or monastery, or synagogue, etc). In the countries where we see an increase of religious violence, or violence that is more aligned with religious association like Pakistan for example, there is a much larger proportion of religious-based education than that of state provided education.

I think the point is quite clear. Education is a good place to start to solve the problem of the psychological disorder known as xenophobia, which is indeed a disorder that stems from an illogical mind-frame that dictates a group is different and should be hated-feared-or killed because of it. In Pakistan there is a rampant problem with madrassas that teach violent Islam popping up even at the epic-center of the state (Islamabad), and even under more dictator-like regimes such as Musharraf.
The state in most of these cases, like Pakistan and Lebanon, are incapable, unwilling, or too stupid to understand that the basic service of educating the population is a pre-requisite on where the people's allegiance is going to fall.
We like to think that we are more than what we have come from, and in a fantastic way it is true, but it is also very misleading. I grew up in a conservative, southern city, with a conservative school board and peers. I was taught in schools that as I went from Elementary school to High School became more and more liberal, and less "southern", in the sense that by the 9th grade almost all of my teachers were non-southerners. While I would like to say "they really didn't teach me anything" the very fact that I lack a true southern accent and that I became more prepared for a liberal education suggests that regardless of how much I've come as a person, I am still a product of my history.

It is essential to draw the conclusion that religious zealots come from an environment, and a history that solicits a violent look at different people. I think to truly wind the hearts of the next generation of Muslims we must start with the institutions THIS generation of Muslims (and Christians and Hindus, et. al) have forgotten, failed to remember, or have ignored.

 

[Andalublue]

Educating the ignorance, ironically, is the traditional role of the church (or mosque, or temple, or monastery, or synagogue, etc). In the countries where we see an increase of religious violence, or violence that is more aligned with religious association like Pakistan for example, there is a much larger proportion of religious-based education than that of state provided education.

I think the point is quite clear. Education is a good place to start to solve the problem of the psychological disorder known as xenophobia, which is indeed a disorder that stems from an illogical mind-frame that dictates a group is different and should be hated-feared-or killed because of it. In Pakistan there is a rampant problem with madrassas that teach violent Islam popping up even at the epic-center of the state (Islamabad), and even under more dictator-like regimes such as Musharraf.
The state in most of these cases, like Pakistan and Lebanon, are incapable, unwilling, or too stupid to understand that the basic service of educating the population is a pre-requisite on where the people's allegiance is going to fall.
We like to think that we are more than what we have come from, and in a fantastic way it is true, but it is also very misleading. I grew up in a conservative, southern city, with a conservative school board and peers. I was taught in schools that as I went from Elementary school to High School became more and more liberal, and less "southern", in the sense that by the 9th grade almost all of my teachers were non-southerners. While I would like to say "they really didn't teach me anything" the very fact that I lack a true southern accent and that I became more prepared for a liberal education suggests that regardless of how much I've come as a person, I am still a product of my history.

It is essential to draw the conclusion that religious zealots come from an environment, and a history that solicits a violent look at different people. I think to truly wind the hearts of the next generation of Muslims we must start with the institutions THIS generation of Muslims (and Christians and Hindus, et. al) have forgotten, failed to remember, or have ignored.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. Sincerely.

I can't agree with a few of your assumptions, however. I don't think that the traditional role of the Church, Mosque or Temple has ever been about eliminating ignorance. I has been about educating the population into the faith, not challenging its assumptions or presenting an impartial picture. It was always about socialisation into the establishment orthodoxy.

Of course, we see that continue in orthodox religious societies everywhere. In Pakistan and the ME, for sure, but also in the West. Isn't that what the whole Intelligent Design movement is about? Teaching science from an orthodox Christian perspective?

I don't want to draw too many parallels between different orthodox or fundamentalist approaches to education, but all do reinforce the need for non-faith-based educational systems. Keep dogma (all of it, not just the most extreme) away from kids until they have the academic and rational tools with which to come to their own decisions.

 

[bub]

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.

I think that most of these "religious" conflicts are mislabelled. Religion is used as a pretext, but there are deeper roots. It's like the ethnic conflicts, there are usually many causes that have nothing to do with race. Saying that a conflict is due to "religion" or "race" is refusing to understand the deep causes of the conflict.

For example, the "religious" conflict in Israel/Palestine is a struggle for independence and a struggle to control land and water sources. The "religious" conflict in Chechnya is also an independentist conflict where people also fight to control the oleoducs. Even in Belgium, the conflict is not ethnical at all, it's about Flanders gaining more autonomy so that they don't have to pay for poorer Wallonia.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Looking at the problem from a cosmic or big picture perspective I would say that it is a battle of good vs evil. Everyone has a little of both in them, good and evil.

Negative, positive electricity (Humans run on electricity. They were created through electricity).

The ying and the yang. Man/woman. Hot, cold.

You can't have one with out the other.

 

[bub]

Looking at the problem from a cosmic or big picture perspective I would say that it is a battle of good vs evil. Everyone has a little of both in them, good and evil.

Negative, positive electricity (Humans run on electricity. They were created through electricity).

The ying and the yang. Man/woman. Hot, cold.

You can't have one with out the other.

That's a bad idea, there isn't a "good side" and a "bad side". Everyone has got its own interests, its own goals, and tries to reach them in a rational way.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

That's a bad idea, there isn't a "good side" and a "bad side". Everyone has got its own interests, its own goals, and tries to reach them in a rational way.

You ever meet a crackhead or a mean drunk?

 

[bub]

You ever meet a crackhead or a mean drunk?

we're talking about politics, when I say "everyone" it's "every state" or "every group of people"

When Germany invaded Poland, it was rational;
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it was rational;
When OBL bombed the twin towers, it was rational.

 

[GI Joe]

Please lets not argue this anymore. I have conceded that you are right. The Crusades are apart of Christian history in a broad sense (not all Christianity has history in the Catholic church). The Crusades were bloody, people died because the Pope declared it in the name of Christ. It wasn't Biblical and God was not behind it, but whatever. Now, let's please return to the original topic of Christian's being attacked and persecuted worldwide. I sincerely apologize for my ignorance :3oops:



They did ban them at one point in time. Bible possession once banned by the Catholic Church!

It wasnt only Catholics involved in the crusades. It included most of Christianity including Byzantium (Eastern Orthodox). It was certainly a part of Christian history and Christian responsibility just like what goes on in Islam is part of its history and responsibility.


That said this was no case where big bad Christianity was attacking peacful muslims as often portrayed. The crusades were a response to the Islamic conquests of Christian lands. At the time they were both brutal barbarians but that was 1000 years ago and while Christianity has had a reformation Islam has not. To try as some do to equivocate Christianity today as being just as barabrous as Islam today because of what occured in Christianity 1000years ago is ludacris.

 

[phildozer9121]

That said this was no case where big bad Christianity was attacking peacful muslims as often portrayed. The crusades were a response to the Islamic conquests of Christian lands. At the time they were both brutal barbarians but that was 1000 years ago and while Christianity has had a reformation Islam has not. To try as some do to equivocate Christianity today as being just as barabrous as Islam today because of what occured in Christianity 1000years ago is ludacris.

Actually, The Turks were relatively peaceful conquestors. They regaurded people of scripture (christians/jews) as "dhimmi" or, protected people. The Turks allowed the christians on anatolia and throughout the middle east to practice and worship in relative peace. The conquest of anatolia, which caused the byzantine empire to request assitance against the seljuk Turks. The Crusades in my mind weren't two barbaric states butting heads, but rather a desperate nation using the guise of religion to reclaim lost territory

 

[rogerredy]

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.

Compare the world/UN/media reaction to the falsified al-durrah killing, made to look like it was by israel, or the Salah Shehadeh bombing by the IDF where 14 of the terrorist's family members were killed - to the 2 suicide bombings in Moscow last week. Or the media furor over the al ghraib nonsense... :doh

Were you aware that this non-event in iraq was on the cover of the NY times for a higher number of consecutive days than World war 2? You don't think there's an agenda at work?

The level of hot air and screaming when israel - or a christian - kills a muslim dwarfs that of incidents when a christian or jew is killed.

This is why I completely tune out many media outlets or stories lately, I'm just not interested in the BS crap they are selling.