War and Christianity

Sheesh… I don’t even know why I am responding to crap like this but here goes.


Your premise is a false one to start off with. This is a war on TERROR in case you missed the memo, not a war on Muslims or any other religion.


Try reading the Old Testament and come back and tell me that there is no reason God condones war.


And your point is?

Again, I fail to see a point here. Non-Christians support President Bush too. Point is irrelevant.

They also spoke out in favor of WWI & WWII does that mean they were “religious” wars too? NO. Again, point irrelevant.

Um… ok… and your point is? I am trying hard to find one here.

Is the “RIGHT” thing to do a religious thing only? NOT!!! Non-religious people do the “RIGHT” thing lots of times too. Again, irrelevant.

Sure, does that mean that EVERY decision he makes is a “RELIGIOUS” decision and in the name of the Christian God? NO.

False premise, false argument, false assumption. No need to comment further.

Don't mean to just single you out Aaron, but this brings up a good point -- North Americans tend to just lump "muslim" into "muslim." It's actually a faith far older than Christianity and at one point had about as many factions and interpretations of the doctrinations and texts. However, it's been around so long that the many factions formed into but a few... only one of which is the extremist version painted by the general American media.

Many muslim activist groups are trying to reach out to the mainstream to educate people about the muslim faith. The extremist view that the average North American person is bombarded with every day is a very small faction not supported by the muslim community at large. Using that extremist faction though to pain the whole picture is demonizing arab and muslim peoples which has so far resulted in lots of animosity and hate crimes.

However, the same also applies (though under a much less extreme lens) to Christianity in a way. Not every Christian out there is a right-wing nut job. The extreme intolerance of some Christians is (hopefully) just a small fraction of Christianity as a whole.

So I have to agree with many in this thread that religion isn't the reason for war, but is the justification.

Nowhere in any religion does it specifically condone certain conditions to go to war. Not in the Christian bible nor in the muslim Quar'an. It's only human interpretations and twisting of semantics that allow leaders to pull justifications for their actions from the holy texts of their faith.

Such manipulations are by far some of the most cruel lies and do much injustice to religion... and is probably a major factor in the growing religious disparity in society and a need for secularism. Politics has poisened the well of faith and spirituality. The greed of some men seems to know no bounds.

Great post, Icon. One point of clarification, though. On what are you basing the "Islam is older than Christianity" argument? Islam was formed circa the Sixth century A.D. However, what Christianity, Islam -- and indeed Judaism -- have in common is an ancient ancestral tie to Abraham. Christianity broke from Judaism when Jesus of Nazareth was declared as the Messiah. Traditional Judaism rejects that claim. Islam, on the other hand, doesn't have as close a relationship to the ancient teachings of Judaism as does Christianity.

One last point. Older is not necessarily better. That can be a non-sequitor argument if there is no other verifiable point on which to base the assertion.

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/Islam/Islam.html

That's right Paolo and Mohammad, the writer of the Koran (the Muslim Bible) lived 600-700 years after Christ's death. The "MUSLIM" religion was not in existance when Christ lived or before and as Paolo pointed out Christianity acceprs Judaism beliefs that were founded before Christ as a part of their religion which goes back thousands of years.

Big difference Aaron as shown below.



Hiro… have you actually read the Koran? I will answer that for everyone here… NO. The Koran clearly says to kill ALL Christians and Jews. The only debate among Muslims is the timing. Shiites, about 15% of Muslims and the most radical sect, believe that time is now, Sunnis, about 80% of Muslims, believe in it too but that the time for that has not arrived yet.

The Koran supports this and being that the Koran cannot be questioned they ALL believe this. If they even question it then the penalty is death.

In contrast, Christians do NOT believe that God is telling them to blow Muslims up and Christians do NOT claim killing Muslims is "the right thing to do”. The Bible does NOT say to kill Muslims however the Koran DOES say to kill Christians and Jews and if they die doing so their reward is their version of heaven.

Try reading what the Koran says about not only Christians and Jews but all people not Muslim and tell me that you do not come away very disturbed.

Agreed. However religion certainly contributes to violence in many instances and has throughout human history. Religion typically gives one (in thier own mind) a feeling or superiority and also a focus for both love and hatred, depending upon the doctrine being taught.

Many people do violence purely in the name of religion without any need for further justification. Most religions teach religious intolerance and blind faith, which is certainly a large factor in how willing a particular person is to do violent deeds in the name of thier god(s)/goddess(es).

Hmm, I've always been told that it means you adgknowledge that there is a higher power, but don't believe in any specific religion?

I'm an athiest, btw.

Christianity does not support this. People have used the name of God and Christianity to go to war, the crusades come to mind, but that does NOT mean that was how God intended. The ones who did that were wrong and to use God’s name in such a way was horrible.


That is not true. I will agree that some people actually believe what you say but they are not following the teachings in the Bible. This is NOT a Christian view supported by anything and is just as wrong as a non-Christian claiming superiority for his/her views.


As stated above, this view is not supported in any way in the Christian Bible and people who believe this are NOT following the teachings of Christ.


This is true of some religions. Muslims for example cannot question anything whatsoever in the Koran. Christianity on the other hand is different. It is not only ok to question and explore the Bible for yourself, it is encouraged.

I know that it is the secular view that Christians are “intolerant” but this view could not be further from the teachings of Christ. It has been my experience that in fact it is many of the non-Christians who are “intolerant” of Christians.

That is simply not true Icon. The Koran very much supports war as well as the killing of all infidels (non-Muslims). It specifically points out and supports killing Christians and Jews.

Yeah, that's a fair application of the term. It's derivation is Greek, and loosely translated it means, "without knowing/knowledge." It is defined as: "The philosophical belief that knowledge of God is impossible because of the inherent, insuperable limitations of the human mind."

http://www.sff.net/people/gunn/dd/a.htm

Billy - I have to admit, I'm not well-versed in the Koran. Would you be able to cite some references in support of your claim? I am not challenging your assertion; I would just like to see some examples.

It seems that the interpretation of the Quar'an is as varied as the interpretation of the Bible, but here is an interesting article that I found:

The Meaning of Jihad
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 26, 2002

During the months following the 9-11 attacks – while the smoldering rubble left behind by the jihad warriors was still being sifted for human remains – the American public was reminded daily, by a multitude of purported experts, not only about Islam’s status as a “religion of peace,” but more particularly about the supposedly amiable nature of true jihad as well.

Churches and religious organizations were among the most passionate in promoting the idea of peaceful jihad. Just days after 9-11, the Presbyterian News Service issued a press release explaining that for most Muslims, “jihad refers primarily to the inner struggle of being a person of virtue and submission to Allah in all aspects of life. This is sometimes described as ‘jihad of the heart.’ ” Along these lines, the Reverend Stephen Van Kuiken of Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati asserted, “The term jihad is often distorted to mean ‘holy war,’ but it has a deeper meaning. . . . the struggle with our own selves. Literally, it means, ‘exertion’ or ‘to struggle.’ It means spiritual warfare, to battle with one’s own demons in order to give ourselves over to God, in order to place ourselves in ‘the arms of the wind.’ ”

Similarly, the United Church of Christ in Vancouver, Washington produced a publication stating that jihad means “to strive or to exert oneself,” and that equating it with “holy war” is to “distort its spiritual significance and connotation.” Jihad’s intent, the piece continued, is to establish “equilibrium within the inner being of man as well as in the human society in which that person functions.” In its essence, jihad is “a reflection of Divine Justice and a necessary condition for peace in the human domain.”

The National Council of Churches weighed in by explaining that “jihad means struggle or exertion in the way of God. The ‘greater jihad’ is the struggle against temptation and evil within oneself. The ‘lesser jihad’ is working against injustice or oppression in society.”

Religious scholar and professor Dr. John Kaltner, who authored the 1999 book Ishmael Instructs Isaac: An Introduction to the Qur'an for Bible Readers, said he was troubled by “the manner in which many non-Muslims understand the term jihad.” The word, he said, “comes from an Arabic root whose primary sense refers to the act of putting forth effort to achieve some objective, [such as] the effort each person must exert in order to live his or her life as a good Muslim and avoid the temptation to sin.” The only circumstances under which jihad permits open warfare, he said, is “when it is a defensive response to an attack.” This definition was echoed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ depiction of jihad as “the struggle against evil inclinations within oneself [and] the quality of life in society” – a struggle that may be taken to the battlefield solely for purposes of self-defense.

The axiom that jihad resorts to violence only to ward off aggressors suggests, of course, that it is rooted in a desire to maintain a state of justice or peace that is being threatened by external forces; in short, that it stems from an impulse to protect what is good, rather than from hateful bigotry or the ambition to overrun others. In this view, evil rests not in the violence of jihadists, but in whoever allegedly caused them to become violent. Proceeding from that premise, the executive director of the Alliance of Baptists asserted that the environment leading to the 9-11 attacks was created by American foreign policy – most notably its support for Israeli “violence.”

Similarly, the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church’s College of Bishops attributed the attacks to American “foreign policies around the world.” The organization Catholics for a Peaceful End to Terrorism likewise saw the attacks as responses to US policies rather than as manifestations of Islamic aggression, and thus cautioned against military action that would only “[sow] the seeds of more hatred and deeper resentment.” The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) stated, “The people who planned these suicide attacks were able to draw volunteers from a growing number of people around the world who harbor deep resentment and anger toward the US. It is important that we in the US try to hear and understand the sources of this anger.” Implicit in each of the foregoing statements is the idea that some form of American aggression triggered the jihadists’ impulse to defend themselves, rather than vice versa.

The views of these religious organizations were echoed widely throughout academia as well. Harvard dean Michael Shinagel, for instance, publicly stated that jihad – far from having militant connotations – denotes instead one’s personal quest “to promote justice and understanding in ourselves and in our society.” As Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes points out, Shinagel’s benign depiction of jihad “reflect the consensus of Islamic specialists” at universities all over this country. Pipes’ careful study of the public statements of these professors shows that they view jihad largely as a “struggle without arms” – to do God’s will, to improve one’s own character, to resist worldly temptations, and to work for social justice.

Obviously many organizations – among them al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Islamic Salvation Front, the Group Islamic Army, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusade[rs] – haven’t yet been enlightened by the likes of American religious and academic experts, who presumably could set them straight about jihad’s “true, peaceful nature” that rejects violence except where absolutely necessary. How many slaughtered innocents might still be alive today, if only such warriors had understood jihad to mean what our priests, ministers, and professors claim it means?

Self-deception and wishful thinking will not save us. The bromides of American intellectuals wishing to sanitize jihad’s grotesque, barbarous reality will not save the life of a single potential victim. For sadly, their platitudes have nothing remotely to do with reality. As Dr. Pipes explains, “the way the [militant] jihadists understand the term is in keeping with its usage through fourteen centuries of Islamic history” – during which it has meant the compulsory effort to forcibly expand Muslim territory and influence. “The goal is boldly offensive,” says Pipes, “and its ultimate intent is nothing less than to achieve Muslim dominion over the entire world.” Indeed the scholar Bat Ye’or explains that historically jihad has meant “war, dispossession, slavery, and death” for its victims. This is a far cry from the purported, noble struggle to “give oneself over to God.”

If we wish to understand the true nature of jihad, we can learn a great deal from listening to the manner in which its actual practitioners and mouthpieces use the word, rather than the smiley-faced version that our religious leaders and college professors paint for us. For instance, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reports that during a November 8, 2002 sermon in a Baghdad mosque, an Iraqi cleric made the following remarks, which were broadcast by Iraqi TV: “We challenge [President Bush and the Americans] with our words, before challenging [them] with our weapons. . . . We are patient . . . and we will fight them with all kinds of weapons. Jihad, Jihad, Jihad, Jihad. . . . Jihad for the cause of Allah . . . . Jihad has become an obligation of every individual Muslim.” He then exhorted all Muslims to “welcome death, welcome martyrdom for the cause for Allah.”

“Oh Allah,” the same cleric continued, “let the infidels fight each other, and dry their blood in their veins. Send Your soldiers against them . . . . destroy their fleet and their weapons; fight their soldiers . . . make them prey to the Muslims; Allah avenge Muslims’ blood from them. . . . Oh Allah, for Thee we fight, we kill and are killed.” This hardly sounds like a “struggle without arms.”

According to MEMRI, a recent issue of the online magazine Al-Ansar, which has ties to al-Qaeda, wrote that “the importance of the human effort to annihilate the infidels . . . is what Allah sought to teach the Muslims. . . . Jihad is the way of torturing [the infidels] at our hands. . . with killing.” Presumably the publishers of such rhetoric have not been fortunate enough to hear, as we Americans have, that jihad is in fact a peaceful pursuit. Equally unfortunate is the imam of the Great Mosque at King Saud University in Al-Riyadh, who lauds jihad as “the industry of death” taught by the prophet Muhammad.

MEMRI reports many additional Middle Eastern rantings about a jihad that looks nothing like the one in our apologists’ fairy tales. The Saudi ambassador to London, for example, praises jihadists who become suicide bombers – on the grounds that “in the Koran . . . it is written that anyone who dies for the sake of Allah is a martyr.” “The day of jihad,” he says, “is the day of blood.” A columnist for the Saudi government-controlled daily Al-Jazirah applauds suicide bombers for their “willingness to [wage] jihad.” The foremost Egyptian cleric of Al* Azhar University recently exhorted Palestinians to intensify their suicide attacks against Israeli women and children, characterizing such acts as the highest form of jihad operations.

In a similar spirit, Egypt’s new mufti, Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Al* Tayyeb, asserts that the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict “lies in a proliferation of [martyrdom] attacks that strike horror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah.” The chairman of the Arab Psychiatrists Association says, “When the martyr dies a martyr’s death, he attains the height of bliss.” “The message to Israel,” he adds, “is that we will not cease . . . . As long as there is even a single Palestinian left, the war will not end. . . . This is not a conflict over land alone. . . . Either we will exist or we will not exist. Either the Israelis or the Palestinians - there is no third option. . . . There is no middle ground. Coexistence is total nonsense.”

This is the jihad from which Western intellectuals wish to shield us with their cheerful tales of people struggling “to promote justice and understanding.” This is the authentic, hideous face of jihad recognized throughout the Islamic world – and preached passionately by many of its most eminent religious leaders. Because such clerics embrace and endorse the concept of militant jihad, it is not surprising that ever-greater numbers of young Arabs are volunteering to become “holy warriors” – that is, suicide bombers. According to MEMRI, the Israeli Arab weekly Kul Al *Arab recently reported that in Alexandria, enrollment had begun for “volunteers for martyrdom [operations]” against Israel. Almost immediately, said the report, “two thousand students from the University of Alexandria signed up to die a martyr’s death.”

And so it goes, as aspiring jihadists line up for an opportunity to murder and thereby glorify God – not only making a mockery of our politically correct definitions of jihad, but more importantly, preventing us from truly understanding the enemy we face.

Billy,

All points in my post stated "religions" and not "Christianity". However, you may want to look back through the history of christianity. It has indeed invoked and taught violence in many instances throughout it's histroy. Do the Crusades ring a bell? How about the Inquisition? Even the Nazi's used Christianity to thier own ends. The Dark Ages were filled with religious mayhem. Hell..even the old testament had more than it's share of violence.

This is so ignorant that it is scary.

There is a point stating that christianity, in the past, has been used to validate torture and death, aswell as many other kind of horror, like war. It seems true aswell that US government uses it to enforce the vision that God is on US side, and those with US are on God's side aka Freedom side etc..

I would like to see aswell the detailed info about the Coran, specially where it talks about killing jews and christians, u know, that's a big thing to say without providing evidence.

Also, i don't want to transform this into a War on Iraq thread, but... do american people still believe that there was weapons of mass destruction on Iraq ?

Thank u for ur time.

The War with Japan wasn't Justified by making people think we didn't see them comming either. Many Americans didn't agree with going in a kicking Hitlers ass, but we knew it had to be done, so; we made an excuse.

This truly hurts my brain.

How did we make an excuse to go to war with Japan?

They attacked us and declared war. In return, we declared war against Japan.

Billy, you obviously havnt read the Quran.

The only single point that could possibly infer what you are stating, is the definition of a jihad, which, despite popularist appeal does not condone invasion. It is a defensive war against an invading nation.

You are claiming that all practicianers of the Islam faith must 'kill all christians and jews', despite the very fact that the islamic faith uses Jesus as a prophet, and the old testament is considered valid. If this were true, I would imagine that an all-out war would have been raging since the religion's inception.

Rather, we have twisted individuals who have done heavy interpretation using their faith as justifications for their actions. It happens with every religion, Cristianity has the inqusitions and crusades which were justified by the interpretations of a 'saint'.

It is plainly obvious that these wars are not being fought over religion, but is being guised as it for popular support. The real issues at heart are the same as always, greed, alienation, etc.

-Adam

Paolo,
You will note that I did not single out christians. I mentioned religious people.
Belonging to any group... the very formation of any group of people is an act of self-segregation. Union makes division. It is the same with all large organized groups. Political parties, sports teams, heck, computer geeks can have giant flamewars about their favorite text editor for crying out loud.
I try to live my life by myself and avoid belonging to large groups of people. They always have this groupthink going on, to which you must also subscribe in order to belong in a group, and will actively discriminate those who do not follow it.
I shall not partake in that sort of mindless behavior.
I am not affiliated with any religion, party, sports team. I do not have a favorite car or color.
This isnt something I force myself to do. It is the natural outcome of being logical.
There is no reason why any given color ought to be better than any other color.

You forgot your ISM. You can't wage war against an emotion. And this isn't a war against terrorism or else we'd be invading Northern Ireland. This is a war against radical Islam being waged by a mostly Christian nation, whose leader claims to be doing god's work. If you don't think this is at least partly a religious war (in justification if not cause) then you're naive.

Thou art most wise, Sir Egg!

Blake, please tell me that I read that incorrectly. Are you really saying that we had to conjure up an excuse to take Hitler down? Are you implying that we shouldn't have attacked Japan? Should we have maybe attacked...ohh say...Peru instead. It would have made about as much sense as the president's logic for this war. Just look at this sentence: US attacked under the direction of Saudi born Afghan resident Bin Laden, in response the president of the US has decided to declare war on Iraq. Ohh yeah it is all coming together for me now.

Plaga, excellent summation of the problem. Many of the citizens of the US have been tricked into believing that we have some devine providence, some holy mission, to rid the world of all who disagree with the US way. Yet while we try to force one culture out of the Burkha we say breasts are evil and should be covered. Out of one side of the governments jowls they speak of freedom of religion while the otherside outlaws same sex marriage due to the fact they wish to retain the religious sanctity of marriage. They force other countries to submit to UN voting inspections yet they refuse to submit to the same inspections when our systems fail. The US government is egotistical and full with double standard.


Speaking of Japan anyone remember the Belushi flick where the Japanese were trying to attack Hollywood? I can't seem to remember the name of it...very funny flick though.

1941 (great post)

Rose - I was getting all gooey-eyed about the "true" nature of Jihad until I read this part of your posted op-ed article:

Self-deception and wishful thinking will not save us. The bromides of American intellectuals wishing to sanitize jihad’s grotesque, barbarous reality will not save the life of a single potential victim. For sadly, their platitudes have nothing remotely to do with reality. As Dr. Pipes explains, “the way the [militant] jihadists understand the term is in keeping with its usage through fourteen centuries of Islamic history” – during which it has meant the compulsory effort to forcibly expand Muslim territory and influence. “The goal is boldly offensive,” says Pipes, “and its ultimate intent is nothing less than to achieve Muslim dominion over the entire world.” Indeed the scholar Bat Ye’or explains that historically jihad has meant “war, dispossession, slavery, and death” for its victims. This is a far cry from the purported, noble struggle to “give oneself over to God.”

I was, um, blown away by this statement. It's a very good point, because the "actual" meaning of a term and the "common" vernacular with which it's applied may vary, wildly. Thanks for posting this. The older I get, the more I realize I didn't know that I didn't know...

Touche', you are absolutely correct. My apologies for reading more into your post than you had intended. IRT your observations on group behavior, my absolute favorite course in college was Social Psychology. I'd highly recommend that everyone Google the term "fundamental attribution error" and become familiar with it...