4 ms·

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

by 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]

by 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]