6 ms·

> 40% of these think you should be killed for leaving Islam. How do these numbers compare to other religions? For example, there is an unconfortable number of

by vog 11y ago

> 40% of these think you should be killed for leaving Islam. How do these numbers compare to other religions? For example, there is an unconfortable number of Christians who do have a fundamentalist mindset, too (although I didn't find any exact numbers). Probably similar issue for other religions and possibly also among non-religious people.

jjoe 11y ago
What would be fair comparison is a country or region with a large Christian population that's at war or serious unrest. One country that comes to mind is Rwanda in 1994.
- crusso 11y ago
  You're assuming that the religious/ideological choices of a society aren't contributing factors to their state of war or unrest. It's like saying, "You'd need to find a Jainist[1] population that's at war or serious unrest." Their ideology tends to self-select states that aren't at war. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
- ctdonath 11y ago
  Poor example. Christianity had nothing to do with that civil war. For reasons incomprehensible to most (as is also currently the case with Shiite vs Sunni), the Hutus and Tutsis had a deep cultural mutual hatred, and eventually acted on it to the slaughter of one side. There was nothing about the motivations related to a [mis-]representation of Christianity. Near as most can tell, Islam _is_ a central factor in recent events. A lot of people are looking for a reason to conclude it isn't; if you can explain (either way) please do.
  - jjoe 11y ago
    Although Rwanda is among the most Christian countries in Africa, in the 1994 genocide, church buildings became the primary killing grounds. To explain why so many Christians participated in the violence, this book looks at the history of Christian engagement in Rwanda and then turns to a rich body of original national and local-level research to argue that Rwanda’s churches have consistently allied themselves with the state and played ethnic politics. Comparing two local Presbyterian parishes in Kibuye prior to the genocide demonstrates that progressive forces were seeking to democratize the churches. Just as Hutu politicians used the genocide of Tutsi to assert political power and crush democratic reform, church leaders supported the genocide to secure their own power. The fact that Christianity inspired some Rwandans to oppose the genocide demonstrates that opposition by the churches was possible and might have hindered the violence. Source: http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/african-history/christianity-and-genocide-rwanda http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/africa... The Rwandan genocide, just like the Paris attacks, must've been carried out by a bunch of nutsos. They both used religion and its tools to promote and support their wicked agenda forward.
    - ctdonath 11y ago
      I read that as reinforcing my point. Christianity was not a motivating factor, ethnic politics was; abuse of houses of worship in any culture is not unusual throughout history, subverting the trappings of righteousness to promote evil. How that promotion was manifest, I don't know; no indication AFAIK of any equivalent of "Allah Akbar" being declared during the slaughter. Beware the rationale of "X had its bad moments, so you can't criticize Y." The current question remains: how to draw a line between the "good" and "bad" actors? lines are being drawn, and better to help draw them well before people act on them being drawn badly.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
Amezarak 11y ago
> For example, there is an unconfortable number of Christians who do have a fundamentalist mindset, too (although I didn't find any exact numbers). Even fundamentalist Christians don't have divine commandments to kill apostates. Nor do atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, or Jews (well, they do, but it hasn't been in force since the Exile.) This is a false equivalency.
- ivanhoe 11y ago
  Well, not anymore, but Holy Inquisition did exactly that for centuries. Protestants burned witches. Buddhist, Jews or Hindus all did the same at some point. So it's not about some religions being good while others are evil, it's about narrow minded people gaining enough power at some point so that they can go with their crazy ideas unpunished. It's not a coincidence that all this started to happen with the collapse of modern Arab society and states, which unfortunately has a lot to do with US and British political ambitions.
  - Amezarak 11y ago
    It's not about religions being good or evil. But different religions are different and expect their adherents to behave in certain ways. Christians, ideally, are supposed to behave like Jesus. Buddhists, ideally, are supposed to behave like Buddha. Muslims, ideally, are supposed to behave like Mohammed. These three individuals were very different. Of course, adherents aren't ideal adherents. But you can still generally expect different behavior from each set of adherents. That's now calling one set evil and one set good (now that's some cultural imperialism!), that's recognizing reality. Muslims, historically, have taken very seriously that apostasy is a serious crime punishable by death. Christians and Buddhists, not so much; it's the rare exception and not an almost-rule.
  - BurningFrog 11y ago
    Right, but if you're talking about immigration policy in 2015, only people alive in 2015 are really relevant.
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  Funny though, how the fundamentalists christians have killed many more muslims than muslims have killed christians. I really dislike this, "but xtians are less violent than muslims because they have a mandate to kill apostates" approach, because it ignores so much of the reality. Not to mention, without diving into old/new testament theology, that there are plenty of commands to kill in the bible, even of unbeleivers (see Dueteronomy 17). I grew up very religiously christian, but that changed after I went to war in Iraq. It took me years of reading, studying, and discussion with others to pull myself out of that mental bondage, and one of the things I realized is that it is religion itself that encourages irrationality, and that is certainly no false equivalance as you claim. I see more American taliban where I live in the bible belt than I saw jihadists in Iraq. We have killed thousands upon thousands more men women and children. (Not debating justification at the moment) That is not to ignore the varying of degrees of extremism and the probability scale on which one religion produces extremists over another, especially given cultural contexts which I would consider more important than the religion itself. (See differences between wahhabi suadis and shia who live in America) That being said though, the real danger is for the west to accept the idea that this is a purely ideological war of muslim fanatics against the oh so peaceful christian (or culturally christian) west, all the time ignoring that same seed of extremism in us that mirrors our so called enemy. Until we can admit that it is religion itself that is the danger, and the irrationality it encourages, this issue will never be solved. Also, regarding France, And I may get downvoted for this, but wasnt France bombing in Syria for almost two months prior to the attack? I would be willing to bet they killed at least as many civilians as died in the Paris attack, not including military age males, but where is the outrage for the syrian people? Ill tell you the main thing I realized about terrorism, is that we create terrorists faster than we kill them, and very few of them are purely reliously motivated. I put it this way to my family and friends: I am a warrior first and foremost. If a random bomb fell on my house and killed my family, or a stray shot from an occuping nation in America killed my son, daughter, mother or wife, I can guarantee you I would be on a great warpath. If the chinese invaded America because they claimed we were a terrorist country, and kidnapped my friend, we would try to rescue him by force if necessary. If we want to reduce terrorism, the number one way is to stop fucking bombing every country in the middle east. not just that, but we need to stop propping up every dictator who has friendly policies to us and overthrowing any democratic movement that isnt friendly. We undermine the very foundational principles of America by doing so, and we should be leading by example, and not by force. That is not to say force should never be used, for Im not a pacifist and beleive in the right of self defense, but I am increasingly having a hard time beleiving self defense means bombing countries halfway around the world. I would like to have that debate with someone knowledgeable.
treehau5 11y ago
The difference is these are incorrect beliefs. There is words, in the Quran, which Muslims believe every word is true and correct, that literally tells you to kill someone for leaving Islam. And before someone makes the "taken out of context", that's in context.

by vog 11y ago

jjoe 11y ago

What would be fair comparison is a country or region with a large Christian population that's at war or serious unrest. One country that comes to mind is Rwanda in 1994.

crusso 11y ago
You're assuming that the religious/ideological choices of a society aren't contributing factors to their state of war or unrest. It's like saying, "You'd need to find a Jainist[1] population that's at war or serious unrest." Their ideology tends to self-select states that aren't at war. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
ctdonath 11y ago
Poor example. Christianity had nothing to do with that civil war. For reasons incomprehensible to most (as is also currently the case with Shiite vs Sunni), the Hutus and Tutsis had a deep cultural mutual hatred, and eventually acted on it to the slaughter of one side. There was nothing about the motivations related to a [mis-]representation of Christianity. Near as most can tell, Islam _is_ a central factor in recent events. A lot of people are looking for a reason to conclude it isn't; if you can explain (either way) please do.
- jjoe 11y ago
  Although Rwanda is among the most Christian countries in Africa, in the 1994 genocide, church buildings became the primary killing grounds. To explain why so many Christians participated in the violence, this book looks at the history of Christian engagement in Rwanda and then turns to a rich body of original national and local-level research to argue that Rwanda’s churches have consistently allied themselves with the state and played ethnic politics. Comparing two local Presbyterian parishes in Kibuye prior to the genocide demonstrates that progressive forces were seeking to democratize the churches. Just as Hutu politicians used the genocide of Tutsi to assert political power and crush democratic reform, church leaders supported the genocide to secure their own power. The fact that Christianity inspired some Rwandans to oppose the genocide demonstrates that opposition by the churches was possible and might have hindered the violence. Source: http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/african-history/christianity-and-genocide-rwanda http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/africa... The Rwandan genocide, just like the Paris attacks, must've been carried out by a bunch of nutsos. They both used religion and its tools to promote and support their wicked agenda forward.
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    I read that as reinforcing my point. Christianity was not a motivating factor, ethnic politics was; abuse of houses of worship in any culture is not unusual throughout history, subverting the trappings of righteousness to promote evil. How that promotion was manifest, I don't know; no indication AFAIK of any equivalent of "Allah Akbar" being declared during the slaughter. Beware the rationale of "X had its bad moments, so you can't criticize Y." The current question remains: how to draw a line between the "good" and "bad" actors? lines are being drawn, and better to help draw them well before people act on them being drawn badly.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]

Amezarak 11y ago

> For example, there is an unconfortable number of Christians who do have a fundamentalist mindset, too (although I didn't find any exact numbers). Even fundamentalist Christians don't have divine commandments to kill apostates. Nor do atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, or Jews (well, they do, but it hasn't been in force since the Exile.) This is a false equivalency.

ivanhoe 11y ago
Well, not anymore, but Holy Inquisition did exactly that for centuries. Protestants burned witches. Buddhist, Jews or Hindus all did the same at some point. So it's not about some religions being good while others are evil, it's about narrow minded people gaining enough power at some point so that they can go with their crazy ideas unpunished. It's not a coincidence that all this started to happen with the collapse of modern Arab society and states, which unfortunately has a lot to do with US and British political ambitions.
- Amezarak 11y ago
  It's not about religions being good or evil. But different religions are different and expect their adherents to behave in certain ways. Christians, ideally, are supposed to behave like Jesus. Buddhists, ideally, are supposed to behave like Buddha. Muslims, ideally, are supposed to behave like Mohammed. These three individuals were very different. Of course, adherents aren't ideal adherents. But you can still generally expect different behavior from each set of adherents. That's now calling one set evil and one set good (now that's some cultural imperialism!), that's recognizing reality. Muslims, historically, have taken very seriously that apostasy is a serious crime punishable by death. Christians and Buddhists, not so much; it's the rare exception and not an almost-rule.
- BurningFrog 11y ago
  Right, but if you're talking about immigration policy in 2015, only people alive in 2015 are really relevant.
arca_vorago 11y ago
Funny though, how the fundamentalists christians have killed many more muslims than muslims have killed christians. I really dislike this, "but xtians are less violent than muslims because they have a mandate to kill apostates" approach, because it ignores so much of the reality. Not to mention, without diving into old/new testament theology, that there are plenty of commands to kill in the bible, even of unbeleivers (see Dueteronomy 17). I grew up very religiously christian, but that changed after I went to war in Iraq. It took me years of reading, studying, and discussion with others to pull myself out of that mental bondage, and one of the things I realized is that it is religion itself that encourages irrationality, and that is certainly no false equivalance as you claim. I see more American taliban where I live in the bible belt than I saw jihadists in Iraq. We have killed thousands upon thousands more men women and children. (Not debating justification at the moment) That is not to ignore the varying of degrees of extremism and the probability scale on which one religion produces extremists over another, especially given cultural contexts which I would consider more important than the religion itself. (See differences between wahhabi suadis and shia who live in America) That being said though, the real danger is for the west to accept the idea that this is a purely ideological war of muslim fanatics against the oh so peaceful christian (or culturally christian) west, all the time ignoring that same seed of extremism in us that mirrors our so called enemy. Until we can admit that it is religion itself that is the danger, and the irrationality it encourages, this issue will never be solved. Also, regarding France, And I may get downvoted for this, but wasnt France bombing in Syria for almost two months prior to the attack? I would be willing to bet they killed at least as many civilians as died in the Paris attack, not including military age males, but where is the outrage for the syrian people? Ill tell you the main thing I realized about terrorism, is that we create terrorists faster than we kill them, and very few of them are purely reliously motivated. I put it this way to my family and friends: I am a warrior first and foremost. If a random bomb fell on my house and killed my family, or a stray shot from an occuping nation in America killed my son, daughter, mother or wife, I can guarantee you I would be on a great warpath. If the chinese invaded America because they claimed we were a terrorist country, and kidnapped my friend, we would try to rescue him by force if necessary. If we want to reduce terrorism, the number one way is to stop fucking bombing every country in the middle east. not just that, but we need to stop propping up every dictator who has friendly policies to us and overthrowing any democratic movement that isnt friendly. We undermine the very foundational principles of America by doing so, and we should be leading by example, and not by force. That is not to say force should never be used, for Im not a pacifist and beleive in the right of self defense, but I am increasingly having a hard time beleiving self defense means bombing countries halfway around the world. I would like to have that debate with someone knowledgeable.

treehau5 11y ago

The difference is these are incorrect beliefs. There is words, in the Quran, which Muslims believe every word is true and correct, that literally tells you to kill someone for leaving Islam. And before someone makes the "taken out of context", that's in context.