Double standards

Remove all ads!

How was that ad hypocritical? What I saw was four passages in scripture used to defend the point that homosexuality is an extremely bad sin. Okay, maybe the add was selling bumperstickers might be a little too commercial, but if that's how that lobby group funds their campaigns, that's their way.

The point I wanted to raise, was simply whether the protesters were guilty of hatemongering against the Mormons...

 

I don't think they were hatemongering. What I feel is that if similar behaviour were demonstrated against another group (say Muslims or Jews) there's be a HUGE outcry and the unfounded accusations of hatemongering would fly. As it is, though, when it's against a Christian group it's A-OK and free speech all the way, baby. Total double standard.

 

LKD - As a Christian myself, I would like to point out that Christians are often their own worst enemies; intolerance, bigotry, rigidity, and the desire to often act as the supreme judge of others and their behaviors, have more-or-less opened them to a great deal of scorn and disdain among those who feel that humanity is better served from the opposite direction; with tolerance, acceptance, intellectual honesty and understanding. The evidence for this can be viewed right here on this thread.

Also, I can't agree with your latter statement as well. Take a look at the scorn with which "some" Muslims have been sujected to recently in the media: Aren't many of us scornful of how Sunni and Shiites are killing each other in Iraq? Aren't we scronful of the Irianian leadership for its bigotry and intolerance towards Jewish people? How about its hate-mongering towards gays and women? To me, the disdain for non-Christian groups appears even harsher than it does for the same bigotry and hate-mongering that many Christian TV evangelists are preaching from their palactial and extravagant pulpits on cable TV.

The scorn of which you complain is what happens when any religious group, whether Christian, Muslim or otherwise, tries to tear down the "wall of seperation" between Church and State and attempts to make its religious dogma into political policy for everyone else - ultimately, it fails.

 

The Muslim religion will grow up eventually but it leaves such a mess in the proces.

 

Thank God.

 

I think way too many Christians forget what God called us to do, and all too frequently act like they are following the Quran. The Bible tells us to spread the Word to all corners of the Earth and to act as witnesses. Witnesses don't try to provoke, persuade, or coerce, but just to testify to observed facts. It is the lawyers' jobs to persuade, the police's job to coerce, and the idiot's job to provoke. Muslims actually have some excuse for such behaviour, as their holy work does command them to spread Islam by any means necessary, even by the sword if needed. Christians doing this have MAJORLY missed the point, to the point that I wouldn't even be sure they are actually Christians (though I'll leave that between them and God).

Drew, it's good to see you've learned the importance of context.

 

Muslim isn't a race, so I hope not

More seriously, do you not see your original assumption (if you heckled Muslims, there'd be violence) as somewhat bigoted? Not in David Duke territory, but nonetheless...

 

I'm going off what often happens in Muslim countries -- publish an article about a beauty contest with a tongue in cheek joke about how Muhammed liked pretty women, Muslims riot in the street and threaten your life. One of my Muslim students has a son who is presently in jail for swarming a cop, and EVERY Muslim in the school is 100% behind her, saying that her son was justified.

Another example, though, is Canada's umbrella Jewish group (the name escapes me). They don't do violence, but ANYTHING that they don't like that is published gets hauled up in front of the Human Rights commission of the provine in question. Now, I can get behind this one a lot more given the history of oppression against Jews (and I am BIG supportter of Israel) but even so, sometimes they go to court over petty things that by my reading are not discrimanatory at all.

I correct my "racist" word to "discriminatory."

 

I've always known, thank you very much.

 

While some of the complaints stem from misunderstood doctine from the Christians, some of this also stems from secular demands that intellectual honesty be canned in favour of tolerance and acceptance. "Don't ask, don't tell" is as close as Christianity can come to tolerance and acceptance. If they make it the Christian's business to know that they are gay, then they risk the Christian's judgement and disapproval. While tolerance can be achieved (basically we agree that your behavious should not be criminalized and we don't condone violence against you becasue of it), acceptance would be intellectually dishonest. How can I tell someone that's gay that I accept their choice when I clearly believe that it is morally wrong? Sure it's no skin off my nose that they're going to Hell, but it's also rude for me to throw it in their face. It's a different story, though, when it comes to society and it's laws. I am within my rights to criticise what I believe is a poor attempt to accommodate them through civil law.

The actions they take that we scorn are more offensive to western sensibilities. The horrors of Christianity's past would receive no less scorn if today's media attention was available and today's standards applied.

I don't think ANY religion--even my own--has the right to force it's dogma into law, but I defend my belief that we should have the right to lobby for our doctrine to influence the law. There is a big difference between forcing and influencing. Forcing is basically writing the law, or shoving it down the throats of the people. Influencing is opening the doctrine to be added to the law in hopes of benefitting society. To look objectively at the principles of a faith and borrow from it to make the state a better place for the citizens. Christianity and Secularism both claim to serve the same end, so this should be possible. If I did not believe that my religion could contribute to society in such a manner, then why would I accept such restrictive commandments and open myself to derision for defending it?

Is the past of Christianity any different? The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, numerous wars over control of the doctrine, corruption, abuse, scandal. Islam is singled out because we see these things now. The extremely small minority within their numbers is extremely dangerous--and that scares the **** out of many people...

Exactly. We are commanded to testify--even to those that don't want to hear it.

I'm not convinced that persuesion is restricted to lawyers. I believe that a person's example can improve another's views of a faith. Coerced conversion is a lie. You don't change a mind or a heart by force. It's the matter of idiots that shows the difference in treatment that Chandos brought up. Christians have Fred Phelps and his congregation. He runs a hate mongering website and organizes protests of funerals to harrass the loved ones of anyone that offends their group. Islam has idiots that strap explosives to theor body and detonate them in corwds of innocent civillians. The debate is annoyance versus fear...

 

I consider persuasion in this context to be the slippery "you've already considered the facts, but let me put it this way" kind. Your life actions are witnessing, they are presenting more facts to be considered, not trying to cast old facts in a new light to get a more favorable judgement.

 

Also, let's put this into perspective. Didn't Muhammed live around 1500 years ago? And hasn't Islam been an organized religion for nearly as long? How much time do they need to "grow up"? It's not like Islam as a world religon only came around in the last 100 years or so.

 

Well, from a purely mathematical point of view, Christianity has a 500 year lead on Islam. How tolerant was Christianity 500 years ago?

 

Good counterpoint Proteus. However, I think the we should not be so quick to simply ignore all that has happened in the last 500 years. I think the world, as a whole, has greater access to information and is a bit more enlightened than the people of 500 years ago. For example, I would like to think that if Jesus had been born 1500 years ago, as opposed to 2000 years ago, the Christians would not be conducting Crusades today.

 

The point is incomplete. Islam--as implemented by the state--was much more tolerant than Christianity (as implemented by the state) was 500 years ago.

You cannot simply look at a timeline, note that Christianity has 500 years on Islam, and assume that the differences between modern day Christianity and modern day Islam are the result of the 500 year gap. They might--might also have something to do with the march to modernity. The march to modernity, you all recall, involved Christians using newfangled inventions like the machinegun to civilize fuzzy wuzzies around the world.

Which probably has some bearing on the present day configuration of the world.

Wishful thinking. Look at the rhetoric of practically every American war and you'll find they sound a lot like holy wars. Look at the rhetoric of Manifest Destiny. God wants us to overtake this continent and exterminate and/or Christianize the dirt worshipping heathens.

 

Almost literally.

Another aspect is that to get to our current comfortable moderation the West needed to exhaust itself in unspeakable carnage since the anti-heretic crusades in the high middle ages. I always think it is a little frivolous to call for Islam's 'reformation', pronto! Good Lord, the Reformation led to a lot of blood being spilled here in Europe. Islam being 500 years back tells us something of the price that might be involved in them getting forward into moderation. I wonder whether they are aware of the price they ask the Islamic world to pay when calling for the Transformation of the Middle East. Think of the violent reaction of that kook in the story behind the link.

I don't believe in the march of modernity as I don't believe in the end of history.

 

Well, I was thinking of the utter bastards who wrote, circa the Mexican-American War, that "The Mexican race now see, in the fate of the aboriginies of the north, their own inevitable destiny" and "Providence has so ordained it...The Mexicans are aboriginal Indians, and they must share the destiny of their race," but yeah, that stuff is still alive and kicking.

I believe in neither of those things. I suppose I didn't make that clear.

 

I think the comparison between Christianity and Islam based just on their respective timelines is bad. All you have to do to see this is compare their beginnings. Islam quickly rose to the role of a national religion, doing so with lots of blood and persecution, and has wavered between lots of blood and persecution to little-moderate blood and persecution since then, with the rise of the little-no blood and persecution really only coming up recently. Christianity started out as an absolutely no blood or persecution religion (to the point that Christians were executed rather than fight back) and took hundreds of years to become a national religion (and quickly began to rise in the blood and persecution area).

Hmm, maybe it's true what they say: Power corrupts. Turn all the Muslim nations into secular nations that allow the practice of Islam, but don't enforce it (or maybe even actively persecute it, Christianity did great under that) and Islam may 'mature' very quickly.

P.S.: No, I don't really belive that, but it's a fun theory. I do believe that power had corrupted much of the Church, however.

 

I think your vision of Christianity is colored by your red glasses.

 

One thing that seems to be forgotten in the judgement on Islam is the simple fact that the majority of us are outsiders, and the ones I remember in previous threads who identified themselves with the Muslim faith have not been seen here.

As for the political condemnations of Christianity, one very key verse in scripture has been ignored by the past leaders, leading the whole faith to condemnation. Simply put, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Politicians who take the name of God to justify things that otherwise are unjustifiable only silence one segment of the dissenters. As a result, they condemn innocent Christians to scorn and ridicule from so called intellectuals who insist that because of reason they are better than everyone else.