Pranams. Many remarks here, let me try to address all of them.
Thanks for this. But I don't need to be told that Islam is not a religion of peace. I figured that out a long time ago. I'm glad the speaker did not make the mistake of claiming that the true religion of peace is Christianity, as that would have been blatantly delusional. I agree with his point that people like Osama Bin Laden are not necessarily bad Muslims, and that extremism and fundamentalism per se are not necessarily bad - it's the values about which one is fundamental or extreme that make the difference.
The point I think you might be missing is that how a religion is practiced evolves/devolves over time, in many cases straying frequently from its original scriptural roots. Islam, as defined in the Koran, is a violent, xenophobic, misogynistic religion. However, many people who call themselves "Muslim" don't necessarily follow these values. In particular, the growth of an educated, "moderate" Muslim community in Westernized countries is ample evidence of this. These people would rather have their comfortable lifestyle rather than burn it all up out of religious animosity. I would argue that they are not "true Muslims," but in the end, they still call themselves Muslims and are referred to by the dominant culture as such.
I'm afraid I can't agree with this. Christianity at its root is every bit as xenophobic and violent as Islam. While Christians started out as a persecuted minority (unlike Muslims who started out as a violent rebellion), the reality is that Christianity quickly became violent and oppressive once the Roman Empire became a Christian theocracy. Under Christianity, the population of pagans and druids within Europe quickly disappeared, and at least some of this was the direct result of military conflicts. The same pattern was seen in the United States during the 18th-19th centuries which witnessed frank genocide of the Native American populations. That Christianity has acquired a "moderate" image today compared to Islam has nothing to do with its doctrine. It has everything to do with the fact that Christendom, compared to other religious communities, enjoys a dominant share of the world's lands, resources, and wealth, thanks in no small part to its prior history of ongoing military conquest. In contrast, Muslim countries have been the victims of Western Imperialism as recently as several decades ago, continue to depend on foreign powers to supply them with technology, and are no longer able to expand through military conquest. If Christian society had evolved as Islamic society had, I would have no doubt that it would be Christianity that is associted with most incidents of international terrorism.Originally Posted by param
In that case, we should observe that wherever Christianity makes inroads into a non-Christian culture, we must necessarily observe increased gang violence attributed to Christian minorities. But we do not invariably observe that.Originally Posted by shuddasattva
On the other hand, there is another perfectly legitimate explanation that does not require that we falsely invoke Christian doctrine as a cause. Latino gangs recruit almost exclusively from socioeconomically-disadvantaged sections of society. These people turn to crime as a quick and easy way of acquiring wealth. They use their ties within the Latino community and within the churches to recruit more people into their gangs - these existing social networks provide an easy way to communicate with others in the fold, and have nothing to do with religiously-inspired violence. As you yourself have noted, these people murder Catholic priests who speak out against their activities. That hardly seems consistent with violence inspired by Christian belief.
regards,
Bookmarks