Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
The Crusaders tended not to.
The Islamophobia Network
- Thread starter Formaldehyde
- Start date
Junius
Prince
Ajidica said:
I agree that most Muslims are good people and that it isn't fair to tarnish the whole religion. However we have to stop with this Breivik is a Christian stuff. His views are a mass of contradictions with the only constant a hatred for Islam. In his same manifesto he says he is "100 percent Christian" and that "I'm not going to pretend i'm very religious as that would be a lie" and "religion is a crutch." He isn't a christian in the way most christians mean the word, aside from the obvious mass murder which is of course not exactly Christ-like. He seems more a self-identified christian as a way of romanticizing Old Europe, not as as a faith. Bin-Laden and the others are clearly not getting the point of Islam, but there are good reasons for not putting them and Breivik in the same group.
PeteAtoms
FormulaRandom
Sounds like any other religion to me.
Most Christians might say they understand what "Christian" means, and maybe they do. But they all fall short of that. This guy is just an example of Christians not being Christ-like to an extreme.
No there isn't. Both are extremists and both take what they want from religion and ignore the parts they don't find useful for their own fanatical purposes.
Junius
Prince
That's simply a bias on your part. His contradictions are far different than even what you are getting at though as the quotes i provided show.
Of course they don't live up to it. It's very difficult. That's not what i was getting at though which is why i simply tossed it in as an aside. It's obvious he isn't following christian teachings and it's obvious suicide bombers aren't following Islam properly either. Not the crux of my argument. He is a Christian, yet he insults religion. He likes Catholicism yet he insults the Pope. He describes himself as a Christian-agnostic or a christian-atheist. He says doesn't have a "personal relationship with God or Christ". He essentially views them as unnecessary. Tell me, what branch of Christianity is that exactly?
Yes, those are the ways they are alike. I have stated i don't view Islam as a violent religion many times. Tell me what exactly did he take from the New Testament that made him do this? Besides the reason they can't be lumped together are fairly simple. One is a single lunatic with no support who was universally condemned. The others are much, much greater in number and operate a whole network with actual funding. The have minimal approval in the muslim world to be sure, but it is still far more than Breivik has in the western world. Those are the reasons we can't lump them together.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
You can find many strange things when you look at people with extreme religous beliefs. Bin Laden, for example, was a very strict Wahabist but he spent almost as much time ranting against the Saudi Wahabists as he did ranting against America.
I think you will find a number of people who are 'Christian' who agree with Breiviks ideas, just not his actions. We've seen it on the forum before, the fear mongering about the 'clash of civilizations' between Islam and the West; and this forum is hardly a meeting point for Islamophobes. If you look at Breiviks ideas as "The Christian West must stand up to the threat posed by Islamic expansion and immigration", you will find that idea isn't exactly unpopular. I'm not saying those people would take a gun and murder nearly 80 people at a camp, far from it.
(Sorry for just taking one line out of your post, but I just specificaly wanted to address this.)
I think you will find a number of people who are 'Christian' who agree with Breiviks ideas, just not his actions. We've seen it on the forum before, the fear mongering about the 'clash of civilizations' between Islam and the West; and this forum is hardly a meeting point for Islamophobes. If you look at Breiviks ideas as "The Christian West must stand up to the threat posed by Islamic expansion and immigration", you will find that idea isn't exactly unpopular. I'm not saying those people would take a gun and murder nearly 80 people at a camp, far from it.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
But many of them don't seem to be too concerned that by vilifying a religion, which has over 1 billion members who deplore attacks against civilians, might cause even more similar attacks in the future from another tiny group of fanatics.
Junius
Prince
They (Breivik and the Bin Ladens of the world) certainly have some things in common. Violence being the obvious one. Political goals dressed up in religious terms are another. I'll agree that the islamophobia part of Brevik's worldview is not especially rare. I was referring the murder to further those goals which has been rightfully condemned by all i'm aware of.
Formaldehyde said:
It is certainly wrong to vilify a religion or belief system based on a small minority.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
No disagreement here. It is just that if Breivik had been vaguely Muslim, this would be trumpeted across the world as an evil plot by evil Islamists. Since a vaguely Christian person did it, it is just being brushed aside as a 'lone extremist' that is 'universaly condemned'.
Junius
Prince
Yeah it probably would have been. If the facts were the same it would have been wrong to do so.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
That is really what the topic of this thread is about. There is no doubt that at present there are more Muslim extremists who are actively killing civilians than there are Christians who are doing so. And that Breivik is no more a "true Christian" than they are "true Muslims". But that former fact is often used as an excuse to continue to blame the religion instead of the handful who actually commit the crimes.
I largely blame declaring war on terrorism in the first place. I think it is clear that non state-sponsored terrorism is a police matter, not a military one. By trying to turn it into a war, there was an impetus to find a large group which was ostensibly responsible. And many people who had been looking for an excuse to rationalize their already existing Islamophobia were given one.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
I love how you repeatedly harken back to something that occured centuries ago for your point...
Good work man!
Maybe we can talk about something that has happened since 2000?
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Ummm... you guys love trumpetting the fact that he called himself a Christian/Crusader, so I really don't see your gripe here.
Not to mention, one event does not a movement make...
Many terrorists who happen to be Muslim also use their religion as a crutch (a means to an end) rather than as the exact reason for their attacks, yet this doesn't stop them from being grouped with the other, more religious Muslim terrorists. Just look at Kurdish, Palestinian and Chechen groups, who usually have ethno-nationalist reasons for committing terrorism.
I often see these groups used as evidence that Muslims support terrorism, but they really have as much, if not less, to do with Islam as Breivik does with Christianity. Even for Al Qaeda "Romanticizing Old Arabia" is highly important to their doctrine. In this sense you could even argue that Islam is just a means to an end, as they see it as the only route back to the glory days of The Caliphate.
Heck, if you take out the groups that really have ethnic or nationalist reasoning for being terrorists, you probably eliminate more than half the "Muslim terrorists" that are so often complained about.
Yeah, you do have the Jihadist pouring into these sorts of conflicts zones and making the struggles seem a lot more religiously motivated than they really are. I understand where the misconceptions come from, but they are still largely misconceptions.
Well from what I read about Chechnya, after Arab terrorists became involved it served to radicalize the movement and then you had things like liquor stores being closed down and this radical Islam enforced on the place. I think that's often what happens, people begin to associate radical Islam with the movement and it turns the country more radical as a consequence.
Of course it doesn't mean they're out to make the whole world Muslim or they're doing this just because they hate freedom and misconceptions like that.
Of course it doesn't mean they're out to make the whole world Muslim or they're doing this just because they hate freedom and misconceptions like that.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Kochman, I suggest we take region and political circumstances out of the equation. I'm not sure it's a fair for instance to compare worldwide how Christians, atheists and/or Muslims act. There are too many variables in for instance regional political stability. (Unless you want to make the case that the reason many Christians live in more stable regions is directly linked to their religion, in that case we need to have a completely different argument). And say compare Muslims who've lived in this country for decades in the city I live with atheists who've lived in this country for decades in the city I live with Christians who've lived in this country for decades in the city I live. This makes the environment as homogeneous as possible. Or to be pompous: Ceteris paribus.
What differences do you expect to find?
What differences do you expect to find?
As I've been saying for a very long time - this is why stereotypes of all sorts don't work, because there are so many other factors in someone's character that any one facet of their background is almost irrelevant when determining the overall picture.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Certainly there are confounding factors, but they don't take away the statistical significance of certain events recurring time and again... they simply exacerbate the recurrences.
You find beheading and suicide bombings prevelant in the Islamic world... This is due to it's being directed in the Koran. You don't find beheadings and suicide bombings prevelant in any other religious area. This really isn't even a huge point... it is just saying that the way violence manifests itself in that region or those in conflict with it is based at least partially on the teachings of the Koran, whether they are being twisted or not is quite irrelevant.
Anyhow, I do agree the subject is old and tired... and making me feel older and tired. People are going to believe what they want to believe, especially if they don't honestly consider ugly facts and statistics that make them feel judgmental or uneasy.
You find beheading and suicide bombings prevelant in the Islamic world... This is due to it's being directed in the Koran. You don't find beheadings and suicide bombings prevelant in any other religious area. This really isn't even a huge point... it is just saying that the way violence manifests itself in that region or those in conflict with it is based at least partially on the teachings of the Koran, whether they are being twisted or not is quite irrelevant.
Anyhow, I do agree the subject is old and tired... and making me feel older and tired. People are going to believe what they want to believe, especially if they don't honestly consider ugly facts and statistics that make them feel judgmental or uneasy.
Interesting. I know for the movements in Kurdistan, Palestine, parts of Africa, you also had a lot of radicalization after the fall of the Soviet Union as without money coming in from Moscow and with Socialism seemingly defeated, they needed a new political ideology to unite under. Again, Islam was mostly just a crutch, or a means to an end, though it did of course have long term consequences.
