48Highlander said:
Look at Christianity in the early days. Someone in a villiage gets sick? Find a suspicious looking woman and burn her to death. She must have been a witch. They feard science the same way Islamic extremists fear western culture, and any sort of thought that went against the teachings of the bible was considered ground for torture or death.
So how can any Christian really judge Islam for the things being done in it`s name now? The religion itself isn't the problem. Like with any other religion, it's the sadistic bastards who misinterpret it and use it as a device for controlling others that are the problem. And the social/political situation that exists in some Islamic countries makes it almost impossible for anyone to change that. One thing that`s easy to notice is that the ammount of religious control practiced within a given country is usualy tied to it`s economic situation. A country in poverty creates more people looking to God for a solution, as well as creating more opportunities to misuse religious beleifs in order to take advantage of others. A prosperous country creates the opposite. Extremists, those who seek to control others through the use of religion, will always exist, in every country and every religion. Just look at Pat Roberts. But when people are have food, water, are educated, entertained and comfortable, they generaly tend to ignore people like that.
1. The Salem Witch trials had nothing to do with the "Church" as I would like to be associated with, these so called trials were really nothing more then a way to get back at your enemies. Catholicism is one of the most man centered religions of all time, Islam aside. Thus we had our reformation and have since separated. However this separation was so bloody and prolonged that it effects are still being felt today just take a gander about Belfast etc.. The inherent fault of Catholicism is that they have elevated the Pope as an intercessor with Jesus. Islam did the same thing with Mohammed. What this means is that both fallible men, nothing more then men, are being raised up beyond the general populace by other men. Not by Jesus, hence why they cannot be disciples/prophets/leaders. This man centred view is the reason for so much strife because it involves men making the decisions, not God.
2. During the Inquisition it is true that any thought that went against the
Catholic interpretation of the Bible was grounds for torture or death. However, the bible says very little with regards to pure science and many ideas that instigated torture/death went against what
the Pope thought was right and the views of his many advisors. It must be noted that in the Protestant countries, namely Holland and what was to become Belgium, great pride was taken in being secure cities/burgs/provinces etc.. against the Papist Inquisition.
3. Followers of Islam do not fear Western culture, they hate us because we are Christian, Jew, Hindu, Monks from the moon etc. The Qu'ran explicitly states that it is their job "to convert all those unconverted on pain of death" I am sure we all appreciate history here, right? well, harkening back to the good ol' days of 1453 when Constantinople fell to the Islamic armies of Mmet who later re-christened himself "the Conqueror" I am sure we all remember what happened next. Within the century the Moors were already in Spain. There are a few very good reasons why it is called "Militant Islam".
4. The point of the crusades was a valid one, although not in the quoted text, but nevertheless valid. Once again the prospect of militant christianity came up. The original crusade was comissioned by the Pope and had no biblical pretext aside from the mystic ideals of reclaiming Jerusalem. However, the Templars and Hospitallers were given all the land they took, this of course being the price of the Popes religious allowance. As you can see, they had a slight vested interest. Protestantism preaches that "we go out and preach unto the world", nowhere does it state that we use force to convert those of other religions(as in Islam) nowhere does it state that there are rewards for dieing in an
aggressive war(as in Islam) and nowhere does it state that we initiate violence of any means except in self defence. The Quakers believe that we are to be totally pacifistic.
5. Ok, this is my last point, I promise. Any more and I will start to feel as if I am Martin Luther himself. speaking of which who do you think "Martin Luther King" was named after, and what did he advocate?!? on a more serious note, Islam is corrupted because of its means of transference. Sharia law, the Qu'ran (a.k.a. Koran) all are based on precepts in Sharia's case or are completely interpretable. There are no strict guidelines to set forth the texts. This allows for unbelievable leeway on the part of the reader.
Thus said, I am not advocating the war in Iraq, although I do agree with it. I am not advocating genocide, certainly don't agree with that. And by no means am I saying what they are doing is right even if it is in accord with their teachings. Part of Canada is the "right to freedom of religion" and no religion can be banned. However certain religions should be controlled to within reasonable limits (ie.. don't indoctrinate children to become suicide bombers) and these limits must be very reasonable.