So all those atrocities committed by Christians against each other are less bad perhaps?

Very good point. Most founders of religions become ignored by their followers. It took very little time for his devotees to do everything they could to make life miserable for those around them. The second they got a whiff of power they started to behave in exactly the ways you condemn.

Of course Jesus was always talking about the short term- his ethics were for the brief period before the arrival of the Kingdom of God when non-believers would be sent to hell in a spirit of forgiveness and mercy.

He said the only way to righteousness was through him – so all non believers are sinners and so damned –
‘I am the way, the truth and the life, there is no way to the Father but by through me.’

Dead heroes are problematic – they never tend to live good lives in the light of later generations and tend to be careless in their wordings of dogma – ‘the sin against the Holy Spirit’ is a lovely example. It has been taken to refer to everything from masturbation to apostacy – the kind of loophole that has been used to justify every bad behaviour.

Of course, we know next to nothing about Jesus’s life apart from the three years of his notoriety – he may have been all sorts of things – we just don’t know. He certainly did not get on with his family – (‘what is that woman to me’ – not a nice way to talk about your mother)

I accept that most British Christians don’t want to sit in judgement on other people or inflict punishment in the name of Christ but its not that long since they most certainly did – both in law and in enforced community values. That they are nicer now is because we have a strong, civic and secular society that will not tolerate their bad behaviour: as in their persisitent refusal to recognise same sex marriages and support of institutionalised sexism.

100% Accurate.

Jesus never dictated anything. Please revise where are this statement from. In the old testament you may find many death threats from God.

Yes, nothing written after Jesus´s death can be compared to what he said when living. Revelation was written 3 centuries after Jesus death.

Revelation is a work of prophecy by John. The most that any mainstream Christian would say about the words quoted is that they are of the ‘risen Christ’ not the historical Jesus. Many would argue that they’re words put into the mouth of the risen Christ by John. For the historical Jesus you need to go to the gospels.

So the Jesus after he died was not a real Jesus?

And Christians lied about claiming to see ‘the risen Christ’.

Why should I call the author of Revelation ‘deluded’ when he was clearly lying?

You know, religious people can lie.

Especially when it suits them to claim that their god says he hates the same people they hate.

They weren’t the words of Jesus the historical person & John didn’t claim them to be. I don’t believe John was a liar. He was a prophet in the biblical tradition. Whether they were the words of the risen Christ as John claimed or he was deluded I have no idea.

And why were the gospels now forming part of the New Testament selected over others available at the time?

When I was 13, over half a century ago, this was my state of mind in relation to the story of the voice from heaven at Christ’s baptism. Unfortunately, it seems to be the state of mind of many adults today. I regret that I was not introduced at a much earlier age to an intelligent understanding of how to interpret the various writings in the Bible. It is a task that schools could usefully do today and might save us from much bigotry.

To me, and I realise that this to most people of faith is ridiculous, Christians and Muslims are on the the same spectrum – systems of logic based on verifiable precepts.
Much of what is condemned in extremist Islam was present in extremist Christianity until the very recent times and its absence is not so much to do with evolving religious truth but improved standards of education, health and access to decent services – eg. the advantages brought through science and modernity.
Now of course, I am not denying that Jesus said a lot of good things – he also did some things that now look pretty silly, – putting demons into herds of pigs, using saliva as an agent for divine healing, losing his temper at figtrees but I don’t expect a figure from the Iron Age to make sense in the 21st Century. I am sure in some ways his values would be more congenial to me than many Islamic ones – I am with him on water into wine – but I don’t want to chose between ancient sects. This is pretty cold comfort I know but I think it is where we are.

What is the difference between a religion and a cult?
How can you outlaw either in a democracy?
What are the oppressive laws you are complaining of – those ones telling you to be polite to people and not call them racist names?

Here are some points:
Anyone can ‘demand’ a doctor of the same sex.
Mixed sex wards are now generally seen as a disgrace.
Forced marriage is a crime as is female genital mutilation.
People have been prosecuted in Rotherham – tho not enough.
Muslims have been prosecuted for putting out anti-gay leaflets.

Also consider:
Christian priests have been guilty up to the level of the Papacy itself of colluding and covering up child sexual abuse.
Christians have been insisting on their rights to discriminate against gay men.
If you want evidence of anti-semitism, look at responses to almost any blog by Nick Cohen.

Now I am not saying one religion or another – both are dangerous …

and the other points?

And Nick grew up in a family which was not religious and did not identify itself with Judaism. Numerous responses to Nick Cohen’s blogs and articles are infused with loathesome and entirely unself-conscious anti-Semitism. Because Nick has signed up to the principles enunciated in The Euston Manifesto, he earns equally large amounts of whacko opprobrium from the Stalinist bien-pensants that The Guardian likes to employ to write in favour of ‘progressivism’ and other absolutist doctrines in which all forms of reasoned, centre-ground argument are hysterically reviled as signs of incipient nazi-ism.

I gave the document a quick scan and it looks very interesting – perhaps rather in the same spirit as Karen Armstrong’s Charter for Compassion.

Thank you, Pootles, I am sure if we were outside this deliciously polemical environment we may agree on much.

I do think that many, but by no means all, of Jesus teaching is useful to the ethical life. Before I was an atheist I took the trouble to learn Biblical Greek so unlike most of his followers’ I have read him in the original language.

I am not sure that I have met anyone who follows his teachings. Most sermons i have heard seem to consist of explaining away the text – worry not about tomorrow, look at the daisies in the field etc.

I don’t know many Christians (though one or two to be fair, yes) who give all they have to the poor. I doubt many readers of the Spectator would agree with Jesus on the subject of camels and needles or even on rendering unto Ceaser. It is rather interesting to see how many of the comments on this blog here would survive the cheek turning test, enemy loving and concepts of radical forgiveness. I doubt very much he would advocate bombing anybody irrespective of the rightness of the cause.

I am pretty certain that very few people who make angry comments about Islam have read much about the life of the Prophet – I know I have not – but then texts about specks of sand in one’s own eye come to mind.

Yes, Jesus spoke Aramaic and there are a few phrases which have been attributed be traced back to him that language – ‘eloi, eloi. lama sabachtani’ being one of them – The Gospels and all other New Testament books are written in Greek. Reconstructing the original Aramaic is not something that has been attempted by many scholars.

My point still stands; Christianity is perhaps one of the few religions that has by far the majority of its followers illiterate in the languages of its key texts.

I think that’s right Pootles, and it does tend to mean that those who are shamefaced enough to shout the loudest get away with it without being challenged.
One of the great disappointments for me of the Independence debate was the lack of promotion of what used to be seen as ‘British’ values – something positive about the British identity that all inhabitants of the islands could aspire to – I think these problems highlight the need for that kind of conversation.

You have been repeatedly disingenuous on this blog. Just look at the rambling apologias you keep offering and false measures of moral relativity between two noticeably different religions and cultures. The Muslims in the west who urged violence against and the outlawing of harmless cartoons, were given everything by the society that nurtured them. NHS, welfare, education etc in fact they are positively discriminated in favour of in parts of the public sector. Yet they choose in substantial numbers to throw that away and make a stance in favour of violent authoritarianism. There were certainly more and are more Muslims on demonstrations against democracy, against freedom of speech, against Jews living in a secure homeland than have ever protested against Al Qaeda or their equivalents.
On you keep going with your feeble attempts at relativity, you have already made a fool of yourself with insinuations about Northern Ireland (you shifted your position on that one after being called out on it). But when there was ‘Life of Brian’ or the ‘Piss Christ’ artistry many Christians were offended but not one person was killed or riot took place. The two religions and cultures are incompatible. You’ve actually proved this yourself by refusing to be drawn on the life of Muhammad which several commentators here have mentioned to you, your silence is deafening but I think you believe that by not answering a point that undoes your argument you are still correct, you are not.

Tim, reading your answers in regard to Jesus, you should find a Reformed theology person and talk with him about Scripture. Your answers would change markedly, I am sure.

They were doing that just over the water not that long ago – in this very country. I grant that in Europe they have been pretty peaceful to each other recently but lets not forget the three hundred and fifty post reformation years of slaughter and turmoil.

That’s the thing – most wars and imperialisms get dressed up in religious clothes to make themselves look more respectable. One of the innovations of the 20th Century was the secularisation of mass slaughter – they just kept the killing going with less involvement of the clergy. In other words, religion itself is not the issue but its presence may make it easier to dupe the uneducated and the underprivileged into thinking there is some hope based on divine intervention. ‘If you want to make a good man bad, give him a Bible.’
Part of the problem of disaffected youth is engaging them in discussion – answers must lie in promoting reason, evidence based thinking and economic social justice –
Compare the opportunities available in the neighbouring communities of Slough and Eaton – class, privilege and access to economic power lie at the root of these problems.

I am not arguing for one form of religiosity against another and recognise that within each faith there is a spectrum of beliefs. As a person of no faith at all, I am not saying that one is better than another, but that all have the potential for hideous danger in them by appeals to esoteric truth, claims of salvation and so on. I don’t want to live in a Catholic or Islamic theocracy.

Religion is one of the ways that authorities legitimise themselves and undermine others. The creed doesn’t matter much. ISIL people are a form of fascists who have to resisted. The Saudi state is a disgrace and very fond of decapitation. it is a barbaric fascism that survives because of its enormous wealth. It doesn’t intervene becasue they would rather subcontract their battles and the opprobrium to the West.
Eaton/ Slough is the most striking example of extreme privilege that I have ever seen- I found it a shocking experience to walk from the Slough Town Hall through to one of the Eaton train stations – different countries, different hopes – and I think your point is not one that I would disagree with – its not religion or indeed race that are issues but class and entrenched privilege.

We don’t have very much Christianity in the UK now. It has been undermined to such an extent, that it’s almost illegal.
The new “religion” in the UK is now MOTD and Football complete with Celebrities. And now, with the next World cup, the Qataris have even bought into that.

My Christianity is true Christianity, your Christianity is not?
Muslims say the say thing.

Look at what Ava said … her Christianity never did anything nasty probably because it does not exist- sadly the historical Chritistianity, the real one, not the one of sentiment did – our last Christian Ethnic Cleansing in Europe was less than 30 years ago and is implicit in the biggest child care scandal we have ever seen. Sellling children into slavery. Driving them mad through sexual abuse and so on, and so on. And doing this whilst condemning other people for far less crimes. So who is using the straw platitudes?

I am sorry that you have experienced terrible things. Other people have too. Bad people do bad things and use whatever faith structures are around to justify themselves.

I am not sure how you are using the term ‘theocracy’ – Scotland had about 60 years of being a theocratic state a long time ago – and they were pretty sincere Christians who were certainly not Catholics – who behaved like monsters.

You have no idea of my faith journey and I would ask you to treat it with as much respect as you would want me to treat yours. My guess is that I was probably in the kind of Christian group that you would respect and now have come to reject it.

My assumptions were wrong. I apologise – I thought most Christians valued some kind of community life – things like worship, unaccountably – it is something that tends to balance people –

. I am curious about how you think God punishes people?
How you use the Bible? Is any translation you use particularly inspired or do you use the original languages?

Nope they do not. Islam is by default a Radical Ideology.
True Christian is a definition used by Christians as I.

Who refute arguments of past “so-called’ Christians who decided to use Christ in “their own man-made agenda’ which directly is against Biblical Scripture. And that is used as a subjugation to demonize Christians and Christianity as a whole.

If you actually took the time to study Islam. Islam teaches everything that is considered a Sin and Negative to be met with extreme actions in violence and persecution.

Whereas the Christian Bible promotes civility, tolerance, respect, love, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and repentance.

One is a War Ideology met with a Political Force.
The Other is a Ideology of Peace, Tolerance and Love.

If you cannot figure out the difference between which one is truly ‘peaceful’ based on the Word. Alone. Then this conversation isn’t going to go anywhere productive.

Islamist who state that Islam isn’t mean’t to be violent are “Lying” through their teeth. All you have to do is read the Holy Book of Islam. And that completely crushes the concept of ‘peaceful’ Religion.

Those who are ‘peaceful’ Muslims. Are consider ‘Moderate Muslims’, those whom literally follow a 3rd of the Quran that happens to have any redeeming positive values towards humanity. Technically speaking Moderate Muslims are consider ‘non-practicing’ Islamist.

Because they aren’t truly following and implementing the full exercise of Islam.

Your argument and regurgitation of what another one states isn’t ‘fact’. It’s a biased opinion. Baseless and moot. Instead of just taking what others state. You need to research and study for yourself to find the truth.

It is also interesting to point that Jesus explicitly told his followers to avoid confrontation between religion and politics. He said something like “Givet to God what is of God and to the Caesar what is of Caesar” while islam recognizes no law but sharia. Every time I rationalize about Jesus words I´m impressed how “modern” he was. His word have not lost actuality even 2000 years later.

Please forgive me, but although I am somehow christian, I actually try to be absolutely objective without letting my faith to guide my commonsense. I am convinced that Jesus teachings are useful for the peaceful coexistence of different cultures even without faith. In the same way I look to the ten commandments.

Hi!! Thank you for reading my comment 5 months later. I meant that Jesus words (if followed by everyone) could be useful for the coexistence of different cultures. Of course muslim will never follow Jesus words although they claim him to be one of their prophets.

Most Christianity, apart from the really rather important bit about loving people, comes from the precedents of Roman paganism, including the idea of the separation of state and religion – an idea which harks back to anti-Caesarean Republicanism in the light of Augustus’ bid for divinity. It was a handy way for the early Christians not to antagonise the powers that be and go the same way as the Bar Kochba revolt.

The pagan religions of the near east may not have had a particularly strong concept of moral damnation – though they did have one, as any reader of the events which befell the Atreides for just one example would attest – but neither did they preach ‘tolerance’ for other faiths. This is because these cults were not global faiths but were local cults, tribally moored to the regions and city states they represented. Hence, when peoples were defeated their Gods were defeated, too. So saying Graeco Roman paganism taught tolerance misses the point as the reach of these tales into ontology and meaning was largely through art and myth. Only once Christianity was born did the neoplatonists appear and begin the serious fusing of ontology and morality (the idea that the universe has a moral aspect) which Christianity then nicked from them to a large degree. The trinity is pagan, as I guess you know. But still the main difference between Xtianity and GR paganism was that Xtianity preached love, understanding and acceptance of weakness, at least while it was still the religion of ‘slaves and women’. Roman Imperial warfare, all the way into the late middle ages got no more brutal under Jesus than it had been under Apollo.

Yes, a political war with religious/cultural elements, but a political war nonetheless. On one side Irish Republicanism (and Nationalism) and on the other Loyalism-Unionism. And right back to the beginning of modern Republicanism one can find Roman Catholics on the Unionist side, and Protestants on the Republican/Nationalist side – the most famous, of course, being Wolfe Tone. The diffferent sports business is also an expression of political difference, with, for example, the GAA banning all British servicemen from their pitches.
As for the murderous Christians in your link, well, they are doing all that in direct contravention of the teachings of Christ. But, if they were Islamists, they could point to the teachings and life of Mohammed to support their actions. A difference.

Quite right, Pootles. If the IRA or the Loyalist militias had been remotely influenced by Christianity, instead of using it like a football-supporter’s colours, they would have listened to their religious leaders and ended the armed strugghle, or never begun it.

That’s not how I read, ‘They were doing that just over the water not that long ago – in this very country.’ And I mentioned the Wars of Religion later in my discussion with Tim.

No they weren’t. The Northern Ireland armed struggle was against an occupying country, not a rteligion. You should do some reading and educate yourself. The fact that the occupier, William of Orange, used Scots protestants as an army of occupation means their descendents are protestants and in bad faith with the country of Ireland, so they hate catholics, who are of course Irish. But theis is a colonial struggle not religious war.

Did you get that version of history on Wikipedia? Nice work from the IRA “volunteers” of Wikiland.

As I said elsewhere on this page, teaching rational thinking, evidence based reasoning and humanistic values are at the heart of what needs to happen. Self reflection and self criticism as well as respect for but not unthinking subservience to the law are also important.

Being honest about our imperialist past and learning from mistakes may be part of this. We have every right to criticise modern-day Islam – and also Christianity. Extremism is something to be resisted wherever it arises. Most of us will not realise when we are being extreme and the process of self-reflection will help us see ourselves as others see us.

Catholic priests convicted of running arms and killing people. Protestant pastors reviewing paramilitary troops. You can at least say their faith didn’t interfere with their desire to kill people. I suppose being a libertarian, you are allowed to call other people names.

Yup, starting with stone age theocratic death cults.

Who are you to lecture anyone on NI? You are incorrect on everything you say.

1. ‘ The level of discrimination against the Catholic population was extensive and politically entrenched, from the lowest public jobs to positions of political influence the Protestants made sure that Catholics were excluded.’ Actually working class Protestants were and still are discriminated against. Besides Westminster promptly legislated after 1970 and disbanded large elements of the police actually leaving the RUC unarmed for a period. There was no legal discrimination against Catholics from 1971 onwards. Still 25 years of state sponsored Republican terrorism from pseudo communist thugs followed.

2. Your next piece of crap: ‘the first atrocities were committed by the Shankill Butchers, a Protestant death squad.’ Notwithstanding the fact that the crown prosecuted and imprisoned the Shankill Butchers that was in 1979, hardly making them the first killers of the troubles.

3. This is so tiring: ‘What followed was carnage on both sides. Bloody Sunday happened during a civil rights march, Catholics looking for their civil rights.’ No it did not the paras fired on rioters whom they believed were luring them into an urban ambush. Yes innocent people died but it happened once. Interestingly MM refused to give evidence at the Saville enquiry I wonder what he was hiding? The fact is that the Paras were fired on first, however unjustified elements of their reaction to that may have been.

4. ‘Reading these comments is a bit like reading a German newspaper in the Thirties.’ More childish hyperbole, have you read many 1930’s German Newspapers? Perhaps you stick to Socialist Worker. Religion was only ever tangentially involved in the NI conflict. Socialism however does not escape judgement quite so easily either in NI, Germany (with their National Socialist German Workers party) or half a hundred other places.

Absolute nonsense – Guardian level whataboutery. There were Catholic Unionists and Protestant Republicans. For about the thousandth time, we’ve moved on and Islam hasn’t but still the apologists repeat the same old garbage

Sorry to but in but that comment about Scottish politics is just nonsense. As far as NI goes your wrong there as well. There are plenty of people in NI who have the same politics but some would like to remain in the UK and others be part of Ireland.
Apart from that reading your other responses you give me the impression you tying yourself up in your own arguments.
It is of historical interest only as to what the Christian religion is guilty of or any moral equivalence you care to draw with other religions.
Christians (and most other religions) accept and recognise there are and have been many shortcomings throughout history as opposed to Muslims in general and the IS in particular who don’t recognise anything other than their religious supremacy and are prepared to do anything to promote this. Be thankful they aren’t armed with nuclear weapons.
As Napoleon said “some people see too much”. This applies to you.
The problem at the moment is that we have a large group of religious
psychopaths running amok in the Middle East with expansionist aspirations. Many of their adherants are
born, bred and living in the UK. This is not the time for profound philosophical debates.

For God’s sake stay on the same point for more than two words.
Nobody said sectarianism didn’t exist in Scotland (I know I lived there for 40 years). You conflated sectarianism with a knowledge of people’s politics. That is plain nonsense.
You don’t see how bombing people into submission is going to work. I imagine you would have said that in 1939 as well.

I think the one thing which differentiates this from the Northern Irish situation is that life under a Republican led political administration or under a Unionist led administration, which for the other sector would mean discrimination, never did entail the esablishment of a fascist society. I think the parallels about religion are perfectly fair but the society this faction aims to create is clearly a fascist caliphate. While both paramilitaries had their fair share of the despicable and criminal it was never IRA or UDF policy to set up a sexual slavery network for their adherents. This is the sort of thing the Serbian paramilitaries, the NAZIs and the Japanese did.

Therein lies the difference, I think.

But that’s the whole point. Through Lollardism, the Reformation, world wars etc etc Europe grew up. Islam never has.

If you are going to take all the dead caused by a religion then you are going to have to go back with Christianity to Constantine the Great, consider Charlemagne and the forced conversion of Scandinavia – so that’s just Christians versus the pagans. For the sake of argument let’s not include was crimes committed by Christians in imperialistic wars of expansion in non-Christian lands that were partly intended to spread the Gospel – so expansion in South America – the Catholic Church did at least try and stop the barbarity there.
But you do have to consider the inter-confessional wars – civil wars in France, Ireland and then in Germany – say a full century of slaughter that destroyed about a third of the population of the Holy Roman Empire.
We then have the social persecutions to think of – destruction of Albigensians witches, Jews and so on.
Then if we are going to come up more to date – what about the Ustase and the ethnic cleansing against Muslims in the former Yugoslavia.
I am not saying that Christian history is worse than Islamic history because they have crimes like the Armenian genocide at their door. Western naivety about the inherent niceness of Buddhists has been rather knocked to hell by recent events in Burma.

The point seems to be that whenever politicians pick up icons of any creed to get the poor and dispossessed on their side we are going to have a long and bitter fight to get back to any form of rationality.

I can certainly accept that I am not always well thought out so let me be clear. I am arguing that the fundamentalist mindset is dangerous and takes different forms depending on what is allowed to get away with in different cultures.
I see little material difference between the outcomes of Christian and Islamic fundamentalists. People who act on a received wisdom that is exclusive to themselves are dangerous to other people if they have too much power.
I do not think that extremes in either faith discredit or taint their co-religionists. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not in the same category as the Rwandan bishop who was advocating genocide. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/dojustice/j245.html
In particular I am not stating that western culture is more advanced than eastern ones. Anyone who can say that after the monstrous imperialism and genocides and of the last one hundred years is doolally.

Thanks for your response I think you may have made my point. The same thing cans be said about Christians world wide I am afraid -the neo-cons who are Christians in the US are hardly on the side of peace and justice – even attacking socialised medicine as the work of the Devil.

I am not seeing values of self-restraint amongst the people who are calling themselves Christians here – no matter what their religion says – seem very happy to wage wars that they have little chance of winning and to drop bombs in ways that almost guarantee the death of innocent people.

In terms of sexism, the Church of England has only in the last months allowed women to become bishops. Women in catholic churches are allowed nowhere near the priesthood and well let’s not start on traditional Jewish attitudes. And homophobia – well British churches are pulling themselves apart on this very issue and certain US evangelical churches have actually been funding campaigns to support the death penalty for gay men in Uganda. I have no doubt whatsoever how some American and African churches would treat people like me given the opportunity – http://www.publiceye.org/publications/globalizing-the-culture-wars/pdf/full-executive-summary.pdf.

i agree with you on most of what you have said. The point of difference is that I do think that US Christians who support campaigns for the death penalty for gay men are guilty of murder and it appears that the US courts in the current prosecution of Scott Lively have something to say about it too.

Changing standards about the treatment of minorities in the West have nothing or little to do with faith – some believers have resisted progress at every turn and indeed participated in atrocities when given an opportunity- think of some of the responses to violence against children. When people get religious power and feel unaccountable to anyone but God they get wicked and will find texts to support themselves – spare the rod and spoil the child – suffer no witch to live – and so on.

Positive changes have everything to do with advances in education, scientific reasoning, access to medicine and so on and also the demands of minorities to be treated as equals. We cannot be complacent about what has been achieved at all – and that’s why we all have to be watchful about what is being doing by the far left and the far right. One of the terrifying images that shocked most of us of in Scotland was after the Referendum when Protestant thugs were waving Union Jacks and giving Nazi salutes in Glasgow.

So economic advancement, education – especially for women – promoting genuine democratic structures are ways of ending extremism. Pretty sure we would agree on that.

Palestine is a huge prison camp – land being consistently stolen in illegal land grabs – people denied opportunities for work, trade and so on. Hardly a normal situation.

The majority of Musilims in Scotland are assimilating. Your arguments are the kind that were made against Irish Catholics in the late 19th century and created the sectarian hatred we are just getting rid of now. The biggest factor that changes birth rate is access to education for women and economic power. If fertility was just about religion, Catholic Europe would not be having population issues.
Racism in England – (go on say its not there) – entrenches divides and makes integration almost impossible.

Bin Landen was a very wealthy young man – and his family directly connected to the Bush administration – he was one of those people who use religion to seize power – who see it as an opportunity for self advancement – exactly the kind of man who gets direct benefits from the fundamentalist mindset.

Where have I said anything about not wanting people to adopt decent standards of equal rights/ opportunities? You just don’t get there by the kind of hysterical shouting on these pages that entrenches people on both sides of the debate. Joint activity and meeting people changes things. Claire Stevens shows how this works on her stepson.

People who promote hate against other groups and do oppressive things must be stopped – be they Imams, Police or Catholic clergy. So anyone one who attacks human rights needs to pay a price for that. I don’t disagree with you at all.

But bearing in mind that people here – into the second and third generation – what do you suggest? Do you intend to ban an entire religion? Close down all its places of worship? How will that help? I am not being facetious but I can see no alternative but patient engagement and arresting people where necessary who engage in abuse, advocate terrorism or violent overthrow of the state.
Claire Stevens’ son is coming back to her. Its a long slown process – as would have happened if he had fallen into almost any other adolescent extreme activity. If she had thrown him out he would have been lost to them for ever.

I am not excusing any violent action based on religious or political bigotry. I am saying that Christianity and Islam both get misused.
I am sure that no one reading this page has remotely considered supporting a Government carrying out an illegal war or doing business with war criminals. I am confident of that and would not suggest it.

I am saying that fundamentalist habits of thinking are dangerous. Christians in Africa are killing people whose sexuality they disapprove of. The execution of gay men is one thing that certain Islamic and Christian groups both agree on.
My point is that those extremist behaviour does not taint the reputation of their co-religionists.

How do you intend to outlaw Islam? Are you advocating closing down Mosques and interning all Muslims? Are you going to burn all copies of the Quran? Do you advocate compulsory apostasy?

Christians who commit any atrocity are going against the teachings of Christ, while the activities of islamic activists like ISIS are obeying the commands of Mohammad as written in the Quran/islamic scripture.

I don’t claim expertise in it. I have read enough to know that I don’t want to be a Muslim. I certainly have no Arabic and would always be at the mercy of translators.
Happily I am not in that position with the New Testament (though not the Old) and was once fluent in Biblical Greek.
I am fascinated about how believers have demonstrated their faith in these posts. They are full of examples of Christians turning the other cheek and forgiving their enemy in just the way they want to be forgiven. Peace, justice and mercy are constant themes running through them.

You say, “Simply put, friends don’t let friends become Muslim. If you can’t parent the boy properly, try being his friend.”
I am not sure what this means and I certainly don’t know how you would stop your friends changing their faith.

Thank you very much for your thoughful reply. I am not saying that the Bible and Quran are similar at all. What I am saying is that the ways believers of different creeds use religious texts to back up their often extreme behaviour is often very similar and normally highly selective. Most groups loose portions of texts that are not congenial or do not fit in with their own current needs.
My argument is not with either Christianity or Islam but with fundamentalisms that claim to lock up all wisdom into one received text and its interpretation. Effectively scriptural interpretation is rather like the constant
attempts of the US Supreme Court to fits its consitution to
circumstances it was never intended to cope with. The rules appropriate for desert camps under Moses or Mohammed cannot be simply applied to the 21st century.
Jesus is rather different i agree to both Moses and Mohammed in that in no sense was he a warlord. He was a story teller and his parables, rather like Aesop, are so general that they still remain useful. Many of his beliefs are less so – I am not sure that many people would hold to the demonic basis of mental illness now.
The key issue is selection – we have to address the reasons why people feel the need to commit hateful crimes and justify them from ancient texts. Simple blanket condemnations of all Islam help no one and simply reinforce the belief on both sides that any form of communication is impossible. We have to demonstrate that dialogue is possible and can achieve tangible results.

Mass persecutions of Jews in Eastern Europe qualify.

Yes, islam is so generous with unbelievers that only take the head and let the body intact.

Westboro is one church in one town in one state in one country. No one claims them and they speak for no one but themselves. In fact, many of them are related.
ISIS is simply salafi islam on jihad. Their rhetoric and the Grand Shiekh of SA’s theology is simply indistinguishable. They enjoy strong financial and theological support – that’s how they recruit young, committed muslims, both men and women, to their cause. Among Saudi’s 80-90 percent see them, their goals and methods as FULLY Islamic.

As a Christian. That isn’t in line with Christian scripture.
And you have a point. While I hate my enemies. Christ teaches us (painfully) to “Love” are enemies. Even when they want us annihilated.

I do not recognize Muslims. As a religion.
It’s a Theocracy, because it corresponds not just with a ideological belief system but it is ingrained in Politics.

Unlike Christianity, it seeks to be implemented into the American Government. Hence, Sharia Law.

1st Amendment states that it protects Freedom of Religion.
Not Freedom FROM Religion. Meaning any Religious person, Religious belief system as long as it doesn’t under Constitutional Law impose forcefully on another. Publicly, Media wise, professing, expressing one’s religious beliefs in supported and protected by our First Amendment.

The reason Islam doesn’t fall under Religion. Is because it puts Politics + Ideology together and neither can be separated apart.

Hating Islam is justified over hating Christianity. Islam is written and controlled under a mindset of hate, with a hateful, unmerciful, unforgiving God.
Which is different from the Christian God.
It also seeks to intentionally rid the world of those who refuse to convert to it. And also already has scripturally written of who is specifically a target.

In reference to the Westbro Baptist Church. Christians absolutely ‘hate’ them. Not them AS People. But their actions which is in complete contradictory of Biblical Scripture. (With exception of Homosexuality being a Sin.)

Christians are taught to Tolerate Homosexuals.
Tolerating is very different then ‘hating’ or ‘accepting’.

I am a Christian and I am not prejudice of Homosexuals. I don’t have to agree with their lifestyle choices. But I can still respect them, love them and still also allow them their choices to do what they please.

This is the difference between those who ‘claim’ to be Christ Followers and those who truly are. I would be the true definition of a person of Faith. Of thee Christian Faith.

I would agree with the point you are trying to make … 🙂

Great point you make Willshome, though is it not also a little weak to compare 0.0000000001% of Christians with a dramatically higher proportion of Islamics on the subject of intolerance? Modern Christianity having evolved to ‘God is Love’ with 99.99% of Christians acting accordingly, yet with Islam having reverted to Old Testament days we left at the dawn of real civilization? If only it were true of the bulk of Islam, but it’s not. But there is a match here for people who want to hide from the truth. As Algirdis Degutis wrote a decade ago, the liberal left and Islam are ideal for one another, because this is where absolute intolerance meets suicidal hospitality. There simply aren’t Buddhist or Christian terrorists. Even if Old Testament Judaism and Islam are counterparts, as they obviously are, there’s just one liberal progressive state in the Middle East.

Islam is no different than Islamists.

An Islamist wants to behead you while a moderate simply holds your feet while the Islamist beheads you.

And there are about 10 Westboro nuts compared to millions of Muslims just in the UK who espouse fundy versions of Islam.
Its about scale.

I’m not so sure the experts agree with you here, willshome. Over whiskey at Millroy’s in Soho last week, the UK’s top political analyst for Middle East at the UN told me that in the diplomatic corps, everyone knows that ISIS is the real Islam. The reason we don’t hear this more often is because the press still loves to make a good-meaning politician into a good xenophobe. Best article on the reality driving ISIS? Read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

So that means most Pakistanis and millions of others (most Indonesians for instance) are clueless about the qur’an’s “meaning” – they generally don’t speak arabic. That aside, if you think we’re going to swallow the notion that Al’lah (“the god” – quite probably a Qurayshi tribal lunar deity and nothing else) spoke contemporary or classical arabic via the Angel Gabriel then you must provide extraordinary evidence please for this extraordinary claim. And there is none. Let’s add too that the qur’an may originally have been orally transmitted (before it was compiled from various and often questionable sources) in something closer to Aramaic than the arabic you recommend. If so, any translation from that tongue may give a quite radical, in places, alternative reading.
But even setting all this aside and taking your so called sacred texts as they are, they are incoherent and contradictory: later passages abrogating earlier ones; the satanic verses (of which you are in collective denial) entirely excused. Moreover, they are not the doctrines of a religion of peace. Instead they may more easily be seen as a manifesto or ideology for imperial domination – a domination that was cruelly and ruthlessly conducted.
I think you should change your religion.