Quite silly. This blogger needs to be exposed to both sides of the argument. When you are exposed to only "born-again" information, then you wind up with this distorted view that Muslims are the aggressors against peaceful , tollerant Christians. Truth is, Christians are just as guilty of persecuting Muslims in land where they dominate over them. Muslims, respond to in kind.
I rely mostly on secular sources (e.g. western mainstream media, English-language Middle Eastern media, human rights reports), and from those sources it is clear to me that whatever Muslims experience in Christian/secular countries is not even close to the scale of anti-Christian violence in much of the Islamic world. (Except for, perhaps, in Angola now.) In all honesty, I don't trust most "born-again" sources (by that, I assume you mean right-wing evangelical?), which tend to draw equivalence between opposition to Christianist, theocratic politics (e.g. banning same-sex marriage, young-earth creationist "science" in schools) in the western world and the repulsive repression of Christian religion in other parts of the world. I don't think those things should be compared or treated as the same, as the comparison both de-legitimizes secularism in politics and destroys the credibility of reports about real anti-Christian persecution.And the constant violence against Christians is because of the treatment of Muslims in Christian countries, you say? As if graffiti on a western mosque has ever been given as the justification for obliterating churches and Christian-owned property. I guess Angola is "responding in kind" to the severe suppression of Christian practice in much of the Islamic world, even though the reports that quote Angolan officials on the subject don't indicate that that is the motive. (Yeah, the comic seems to imply that the banning of Islam in Angola is an act of reciprocation, but I meant it as a joke against the Islamists who will surely be outraged by exactly what they are doing to non-Islamic religions and "heretical" Islamic sects.)
graffiti ? well, the persecution is far worse than that. Lets start with the worst case of Judeo-Christian persecution - invasion , confiscation of palestinian lands...and forcing them into a virtual cage... all this was done in the name of jesus/god. I have documented this persecution on my website: http://examinethetruth.com/jihad/apostasy.html#3 As for your sources... you dont have the right one. You resource: Muslims. They are the best source when it comes to this topic. :-)
So first you criticize me for supposedly using Christian sources, then you claim that Muslims are the best sources? Laughable.As for Palestine:First of all, Zionism has never been a solely religious movement, and even now it is not solely religious. And even for those who support it, it's not necessarily about the Palestinians being Muslims, so I don't see how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is any more anti-Muslim than the overlooked and far worse Indonesian-West Papuan conflict is anti-Christian. (Oh, you don't know about West Papua? Of course not--the victims aren't Muslims.)Second, Palestine isn't a Christian land with a Christian majority, so I don't know how it's even relevant. Your initial polemic against the comic was essentially that "Christians persecute Muslims in Christian lands just as much as Muslims persecute Christians in Muslim land". Considering that the conflict in Israel is primarily ethnic and, on the religious aspect of it, Jewish vs. Muslim, with different Christians taking different sides, you haven't shown that the depiction of anti-Christian violence in the comic is terribly skewed.Also, considering that Christians in the Islamic world tend to be just about as anti-Zionist (and I don't mean that as a slur--I'm definitely no Zionist, and anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitic in most cases) as Muslims, I don't see how it makes sense that Islamist anti-Christian violence is "responding in kind". It would make just as much sense to "respond in kind" to Muslims because of the way Indonesia has raped West Papua up the ass since the 1960s, sometimes with religious justification, but otherwise for secular reasons (like with Palestine).Anyway, I'm sick of you already. I'm not going to delete your comments or anything, but I find it suspect that you consider Muslims a reliable, unbiased source of information while dismissing reports of anti-Christian persecution because they're supposedly from Christians. The double-standard is pretty much conversation-stopping.
"I find it suspect that you consider Muslims a reliable, unbiased source of information while dismissing reports of anti-Christian persecution because they're supposedly from Christians. The double-standard is pretty much conversation-stopping."Ah, it seems you don't have much experience discussing with a muslim. Their most used arguments are just variations of "christians do it too so they deserve whatever it's happening to them". However, if you take the trouble to ask for detailed explanations and try to get to the bottom of it, the "do it too" part turns out to be "did it too centuries ago". Apparently, islam has a problem with history and the passage of time, so events that took place centuries ago are addressed like they took place this morning. And if you know something about European history then it turns out that the "did it too" part is much more often than not "replied in kind to invading muslim forces who came into their countries killing and pillaging in the name of allah" than "woke up one day and decided to persecute muslims because they were religiously intolerant".On the other hand, although they consider any war fought by people of nations where the majority of the people are christians (unlike muslims, i find it hard to call western nations "christian nations" when they've been ruled by secular governments for quite some time) as being religiously motivated, whenever a muslim army attacked a non-muslim nation it's always described as "self-defence". Seven centuries of attacks on Constantinople? Self defence. The sack of Rome in 846? Self defence. Invasions of Spain and France in the 8th century? Self defence (obviously). And if the contemporaneous accounts claim otherwise, well, they're christian historians, so they can't be trusted. The explanation given for the self defence is always the same: peaceful muslim armies went to foreign lands and people spontaneously converted to islam, which angered the local rulers and clerics who then attacked the innocent muslims. Luckily for them, they just happened to bring armies along so they used their right of defensive jihad.I'm not trying to say that christian nations never went to war for religious reasons. Obviously no war is 100% religious (or 100% anything for that matter) but it's kinda hard to describe, for example, the Crusades without mentioning religion. The only valuable resource in the Holy Land is heritage, the sacred sites (America had precious metals, so during the european colonization the need to convert natives fell far behind the need to rob them). However, holy wars ended up making Western civilizations unique in the sense that religion is a private matter. Through history most human societies didn't (and some still don't) separate religion and government, and doubting a nation's religion was an insult against the nation itself (on the other hand, followers of Eastern religions, paganists and animists never really had the habit of fighting one another on the account of incompatible religious beliefs, that's something more commonly found in monotheistic religions).And now i've drifted off from what i was saying in the beginning. TL;DR: it's very rare to find a muslim who can take an impartial point of view or not try to spin facts and shift blame away from muslim nations when it comes to anything related to religious wars or religious tolerance (or the lack of it).
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.