http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

My favorite movie...

bbauska

Just because someone lives in a supposed "Christian" country, does not mean they are a Christian.

Similarly: when some one throws a hand grenade into a church in Kenya most muslims would tell you that the man who threw the grenade could not be a Muslim either...
Not really.
The fellow who shot up the Sikh temple in Minnesota, (thought they were Muslims) was conducting his own war on the religion... His act was entirely motivated by his fear and loathing of the Muslim religion.... (Sure, he was both crazy and ignorant...but he was motivated by fear and loathing.)
The fellow who threw the grenade into the church in Kenya was motivated to both get revenge for the Kenyan military involvement against the Shabab (so not religious) and hopeful that there would be a mushrooming effect with violence between Muslims and Catholics motivated by a circle of revenge and counter revenge...
Fact is the second act is motivated in large part by a political aim, whilst the first was simply delusion fed by whatever media the man consumed that fed his revulsion of Muslims. (Sikhs being the accidental victims of his ignorance.)

danivon wrote:I saw today that a production of 'Jesus Christ Superstar' was closed down in the Russian city of Rostov after the Church complained that it was 'profanity', and protested against

I read that it was parishioners but that the Church itself took no position and did not request the banning. Further, the article I read said the anti-blasphemy law hasn't been passed yet. I forget where I saw the article. I think I linked to it from Volokh Conspiracy.

RickyP,

To quote the Bard concerning your last post, it is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

I do not refute that he attacked a religion. That is clear. I think it is because he is crazy. Until you have evidence of the Sikh attack being perpetrated by a Christian, I expect your retraction and apology. (I won't hold my breath... I am not that foolish)

Was the grenade thrower a Muslim?

I think we are getting lost in the weeds. We'll never know whether the Sikhs were attacked because they looked like Muslim, or because they were not white. As far as I understand, we only know that the killer is a white supremacist. There are crazy people the world over who do crazy things for crazy reasons.

However, when you look at the big picture, I still submit that religious violence is primarily perpetrated by Muslims (forgetting about India since I don't know much about it), and is a product of culture (and not necessarily the religion per se, although I'm open to that interpretation). Sure we will find isolated incidents involving other religions.

By the way, Ricky's characterization of Al-Shabaab as "so not religioius" is disputed by the first several lines of Wikipedia:

Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen (HSM) (Arabic: حركة الشباب المجاهدين‎; Ḥarakat ash-Shabāb al-Mujāhidīn, Somali: Xarakada Mujaahidiinta Alshabaab, "Mujahideen Youth Movement" or "Movement of Striving Youth"), more commonly known as al-Shabaab (Arabic: الشباب‎, "The Youth" or "The Boys"), is the Somalia-based cell of the militant Islamist group al-Qaeda, formally recognized in 2012.[3] As of 2012, the outfit controls large swathes of the southern parts of the country,[4] where it is said to have imposed its own strict form of Sharia law.[5] Al-Shabaab's troop strength as of May 2011 was estimated at 14,426 militants.[6] In February 2012, Al-Shabaab leaders quarreled with Al-Qaeda over the union,[7] and quickly lost ground.[8]

The group is an off-shoot of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), which splintered into several smaller factions after its defeat in 2006 by the Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and the TFG's Ethiopian military allies.[9] Al-Shabaab describes itself as waging jihad against "enemies of Islam",

Ricky:

The fellow who threw the grenade into the church in Kenya was motivated to both get revenge for the Kenyan military involvement against the Shabab (so not religious) and hopeful that there would be a mushrooming effect with violence between Muslims and Catholics motivated by a circle of revenge and counter revenge...

What is your source for this info?

bbauska

I do not refute that he attacked a religion. That is clear. I think it is because he is crazy

But the terrorists who are Muslim are all indisputedly sane?

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... milwaukee/

It is fair to call Page a Christian terrorist since the evidence indicates that he thought he was defending the purity of white Christian society against the evils of multiculturalism that allow non-white non-Christians an equal role in America society. Like the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, and the Norwegian militant, Anders Breivik, Page thought he was killing to save white Christian society.

Though there is no evidence that Page was a pious Christian, that is true of many religious terrorists. If the hard-talking, swaggering al Qaeda militants can be called Muslim terrorists, certainly Page can be called a Christian terrorist

bbauaska

Was the grenade thrower a Muslim?

You've assumed he was, haven;t you?
Could it be he's as much as Muslim as Page was a Christian? (See second paragraph quoted above....)
If there are people like Page and Brevik who in their delusions can distort the Christian religion to fit their delusions - can it not be true that the same is true of those terrorists claiming Islamic faith?
When there are people seeking power and wealth who can use the Islamic religion to whip up the ignorant into acts that serve their purpose do you blame the religion or the actors who corrupt the religion with their claims?

ray

What is your source for this info?

I'll repeat the link from my first reference of the event.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2 ... or-Kismayo

ray

However, when you look at the big picture, I still submit that religious violence is primarily perpetrated by Muslims (forgetting about India since I don't know much about it), and is a product of culture (and not necessarily the religion per se, although I'm open to that interpretation).

Maybe you could define what you mean by big picture. Because when I've refered to the historical record of "religious violence" through the years I've recounted all kinds of violence enacted on behalf of religions of many stripes. Thats the big picture.
Its clear that what teaches a society tolerance is the acceptance and development of a democratic society that respects individual rights and liberties. Religion has never been particularly good at this particular thing....
It just so happens that right now, most of the societies left where democracy and its attendant institutions and liberties are not yet developed, or are threatened by groups oppossed to democracy for their own ends, are dominated by people of the Muslim faith. (But not all, The former Soviets and North KOrea have other means to suppress the growth of democracy.) So, as I've recounted, and you haven't realy addressed other than the snarky comment about having to wait 100 years ... the dominant religion is being used to continue to suppress the development of democracy, and/or to foment hate and violence against convenient icons . (The Great Satan etc.)
But this has nothing to do with Islam any more than either the Catholic or Protestant faiths had to do with the Troubles in Northern Ireland. If there was something inherently incompatible between the two religions, they could never co-exist. And yet they do almost everywhere.
If there was something inherently violent about Islam, no matter where people of the Islamic faith setlled violence would ultimately follow.
Which can be demonstrated as false just by looking at western nations where Musims have settled or where locals have converted... The point of difference in all of this, is that intolerance, of any kind, is a tool used by people who seek to wield power and influence and sometimes violence to further their interests...

ray

is a product of culture (and not necessarily the religion

Maybe you could parse the difference between their culture and their religion. And while your at it seperate the jewish religion from the jewish culture.
I don't think its possible to actually seperate either of them cleanly..

And I'll repeat, the culture of "democracy" and democratic institutions builds a tolerant society. When you have a solid democracy with a history of ever broadening inclusiveness, violence between religious groups becomes the work of isolated mad men. Until it does, religion can be made a tool of political actors, including the rulers OR an opposition .

ray

I think we are getting lost in the weeds.

You mean the issue is more complex then you first considered it?
It is easier and more comfortable to simply target the religion or a people for any violence?
I don't think you really do, when you actually consider the complexities and the nuance. But when you insist on concluding simplistically that somehow Muslims are different, without considering how democracy affects the way all religions are practised - then you actual add to the perpetuation of intolerance.
Can we not accept that Muslims are fully capable of practicing their religion as peacefully as the next religion's adherents and that there must be, as a necessary catalyst, political and/or socio economic reasons for religious violence to erupt?
And if so, we must stop blaming "The Muslim World" as if it is the religion.... and not those other things..

Ricky:

Because when I've refered to the historical record of "religious violence" through the years I've recounted all kinds of violence enacted on behalf of religions of many stripes. Thats the big picture.

You haven't made a persuasive case to me (or others commenting on these pages). You've primarily used examples from the 15th thru 1st half of 20th century. I don't see that as a meaninful comparison relative to the (tens of) thousands of terrorist attacks motivated by Islam in the last 25 years.

Ricky:

It just so happens that right now, most of the societies left where democracy and its attendant institutions and liberties are not yet developed, or are threatened by groups oppossed to democracy for their own ends, are dominated by people of the Muslim faith.

"It just so happens" suggest that this is random. In fact, I think there are deep correlations here. Much of non-Muslim Asia and South America have transitioned to democracy even though they have colonial histories too.

Ricky:

So, as I've recounted, and you haven't realy addressed other than the snarky comment about having to wait 100 years ... the dominant religion is being used to continue to suppress the development of democracy, and/or to foment hate and violence against convenient icons .

Yes, as a matter of hisotry and sociology and comparative politics, you make a good point. My point is that I live now and my people suffer terrorism on a weekly basis. My kids have security guards at their camp. There are policemen present when I go to synagogue. My friend was murdered by an Islamic terrorist. No doubt his widow is interested in your truly intelligent analysis.

Ricky:

But this has nothing to do with Islam any more than either the Catholic or Protestant faiths had to do with the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

"nothing to do with Islam". Is that really your view?

Ricky:

Maybe you could parse the difference between their culture and their religion. And while your at it seperate the jewish religion from the jewish culture.
I don't think its possible to actually seperate either of them cleanly..

And I'll repeat, the culture of "democracy" and democratic institutions builds a tolerant society. When you have a solid democracy with a history of ever broadening inclusiveness, violence between religious groups becomes the work of isolated mad men. Until it does, religion can be made a tool of political actors, including the rulers OR an opposition .

Don't you see, that's my point. I'm not talking about Islam as a religion. I'm talking about Islamic Culture and Society. I didn't choose the forum topic lightly. I'm contrasting Islamic culture with Judeo-Christian-Greek democratic culture.

Ricky:

You mean the issue is more complex then you first considered it?

By weeds, I mean the question of whether Wade Michael Page is a white supremicist or a white-Christian supremicist. Your going back and forth with Brad on that point won't resolve what I see as the central issue.

It is easier and more comfortable to simply target the religion or a people for any violence?
I don't think you really do, when you actually consider the complexities and the nuance. But when you insist on concluding simplistically that somehow Muslims are different, without considering how democracy affects the way all religions are practised - then you actual add to the perpetuation of intolerance.

Clearly you are making another ainference (anus - inference). I've been very clear that I'm talking about Islamic society and culture. The Koran has much violence, but no more than the Hebrew Bible. Judaism has evolved, and Islam has too, although to a lesser extent as far as I can tell.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

It is fair to call Page a Christian terrorist since the evidence indicates that he thought he was defending the purity of white Christian society against the evils of multiculturalism that allow non-white non-Christians an equal role in America society. Like the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, and the Norwegian militant, Anders Breivik, Page thought he was killing to save white Christian society.

bbauaska

Was the grenade thrower a Muslim?

You've assumed he was, haven;t you?
Could it be he's as much as Muslim as Page was a Christian? (See second paragraph quoted above....)
If there are people like Page and Brevik who in their delusions can distort the Christian religion to fit their delusions - can it not be true that the same is true of those terrorists claiming Islamic faith?
When there are people seeking power and wealth who can use the Islamic religion to whip up the ignorant into acts that serve their purpose do you blame the religion or the actors who corrupt the religion with their claims?

You have yet to provide any evidence except a blog. Therefore he is not a Christian. This is what we agree on

Page is crazy
Page is not a Christian
Grenade thrower is crazy
I don't know if the grenadier was Muslim. That is why I asked. Do you know if the guy was Muslim?

Thank you for reminding me that you cannot believe everything you read on the internet. Blogs are NOT evidence.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/07/20127182456433169.html

Never mind. I found it on Al Jazeera. The Al-Shabaab group is tied to Islam.

I will stay out of the weeds, still haven't heard RickyP's retraction.

Thanks for the link. It certainly shows that Ricky plays fast and loose with the facts. Ricky's description of what happened suggests that it was just one guy who was responsible:

The fellow who threw the grenade

Al Jazeera's description:

Regional police chief Philip Ndolo said a total of seven attackers hurled grenades inside the Catholic Church and the African Inland Church before opening fire with guns.

Oh, you noticed the difference also? Sounds like a spontaneous demonstration to me [/sarcasm]

Also what you call "fast and loose with the facts", I call deceitfulness.

It must be that you are wiser and more tolerant, RJ.

I suspect we are about the same in wisdom and tolerance ... my sense is that I see more gray than you, for better or worse.

Bbauska and Ray, I supported my original claims with a link to the source. The Christian Science Monitor. If the event, tuurns out now to be two events .... as reported in Al Jazzera that doesn't mean I distorted what the CS Monitor reported....

Be that as it may, this is a group called Al Shabab. Is it your contention that Al Shabab represent the Muslims of the world or that their actions are representative of the Islamic faith?


http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2 ... h-Al-Qaeda

ray

"It just so happens" suggest that this is random. In fact, I think there are deep correlations here. Much of non-Muslim Asia and South America have transitioned to democracy even though they have colonial histories too.

Theres a correlation between the countries that have established truly democratic institutions and societies and the presence of terrorism in societies where democracy has not yet developed or where weak democracis are threatened.
You want to claim that has more to do with Islam than the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of despots and monarchies by the Colonial powers...
The Ottomans did use Islam as a tool in controlling their populace. Is that Islams "fault"? Ay more than it was Catholicism's "fault" that the South American elites used the Catholic Church to help control their populace? Now, you may not have noticed all the terrorism ocurring in Central America and South America through the 70's 80's and 90's, except when nuns and priests were gunned down by the militias.... But there was far more violence in those nations in those years, than in many Middle Eastern nations.

In Latin America, death squads appeared first in Brazil where a group called Esquadrão da Morte (literally "Death Squad") emerged in the 1960s; then death squads apperead in Argentina, and Chile in the 1970s; and later in Central America in the 1980s. Argentina used extrajudicial killings as way of crushing the liberal and communist opposition to the military junta during the 'Dirty war' of the 1970s. Alianza Anticomunista Argentina, a far-right death squad mainly active during the "Dirty War". The Chilean military regime of 1973–1990 also committed such killings. See Operation Condor for examples.
During the Salvadoran civil war, death squads achieved notoriety when a sniper assassinated Archbishop Óscar Romero during Mass in March 1980. In December 1980, three American nuns, Ita Ford, Dorothy Kazel, and Maura Clarke, and a lay worker, Jean Donovan, were raped and murdered by a military unit later found to have been acting on specific orders. Death squads were instrumental in killing hundreds of peasants and activists, including such notable priests as Rutilio Grande. Because the death squads involved were found to have been soldiers of the Salvadoran military, which was receiving U.S. funding and training from American advisors during the Carter administration, these events prompted outrage in the U.S. and led to a temporary cutoff in military aid from the Reagan administration[citation needed], although Death Squad activity stretched well into the Reagan years (1981–1989) as well.
Honduras also had death squads active through the 1980s, the most notorious of which was Battalion 316. Hundreds of people, teachers, politicians, and union bosses were assassinated by government-backed forces. Battalion 316 received substantial support and training from the United States Central Intelligence Agency.[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_squad#South_America

Violence a plenty in South America. Is that cultural or religious? Or political? I'll say political. With the US playing a hand in propping up the major perpetrators of the violence - for political reasons. But there's no doubt that the elites that were finally forced to accept democracy used the Catholic Church for hundreds of years, much the same as the Ottomans and their tyrannical successors used Islam. But those SA democracies are very recent. Some less than a decade. So give the Middle East a break...

Here's a site that lists all the current conflicts ongoing in the world:
http://www.warsintheworld.com/?page=static1258254223

Only a handful are in countries that are fully democratic. Some include "Islamists groups" I'm sure it will surprise you to know that most are politically or ethnically oriented.
The Basque terroists in Spain for instance...
If cultural identity is a large part of "resistance movements" then sure some will use their Islamic culture as part of their identity. But your myopic view of violence in the world doesn't really provide you with the Big Picture.
Include all the racial, and political violence and that which uses Muslim identity as a mask and rationale is only a part, and not the major part.
Its just that its the part where the US is involved and you hear about it, because it affects Americans. Like the 70's and 80's where the South American death squads didn't get much coverage in the US. Maybe because the American involvement there wasn't something to be proud of... being oppossed to democratic movements....
And yes, most of South America is adopting and growing democratic institutions... and the violence is abating...
Now, the greatest area of daily terrorism today by incident and number is probably Mexico. And that cause? Not Islam.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:I saw today that a production of 'Jesus Christ Superstar' was closed down in the Russian city of Rostov after the Church complained that it was 'profanity', and protested against

I read that it was parishioners but that the Church itself took no position and did not request the banning. Further, the article I read said the anti-blasphemy law hasn't been passed yet. I forget where I saw the article. I think I linked to it from Volokh Conspiracy.

Certainly the lasw hasn't passed yet (but chances are it will), but the musical was still stopped. Does it matter much whether it was the official ROC or just members of it that got that done?

Indeed the Sikh protesters against Bezhti in the UK were being told to calm down by priests, but it did no real good. Whether or not such moves are backed by the official church/temple or by priests/imams, the issue is whether blasphemy is reacted to with more than just a shrug, right?

Ray Jay wrote:However, when you look at the big picture, I still submit that religious violence is primarily perpetrated by Muslims (forgetting about India since I don't know much about it), and is a product of culture (and not necessarily the religion per se, although I'm open to that interpretation). Sure we will find isolated incidents involving other religions.

You want to forget about India because you know little of it? How about getting yourself some education on the subject of inter-religious conflict in one of the world's most populous nations?

Perhaps, the culture aspects you are looking at in Islamic societies will show themselves there - even in areas where Islam is not even a minority.

Ricky is being obtuse, and you guys are scoring easy points there. But disproving his dumb assertions is not the same thing as proving your own position.