"At Least We're Not As Bad As the Muslims!"

Christians in Prakasam, Srikakulam, Vijayawada, Nizamabad and other towns in India stormed and ransacked multiple offices of a local daily newspaper, Sakshi, destroying furniture, tossing computers to the ground and smashing them, and in the meantime smashing windows in a nearby public bus. What terrible offense triggered this attack by the Christian community? The newspaper had printed a picture of Jesus with a beer and a cigarette. .

Sound eerily familiar? Does anyone here remember Christians claiming that such things were unique to Islam and other "barbaric" religions, and that Christianity was much more tolerant? I do. Does anyone here remember people demanding that every Muslim everywhere immediately and unconditionally denounce these actions, or stand accused themselves? I do. Yet here we have a picture that was only mildly sacreligious, was apparently published by mistake (they were looking for a generic picture of Jesus from the Internet, and didn't check it closely enough), and an apology quickly followed. Yet the apology wasn't fast enough to stave off the violence from the followers of Christ. Christian extremists have joined Muslim extremists in threatening free speech. Do those Christians who bleated loudest at the Muslim outrages over the Danish cartoons now retreat in quiet humility and introspection to determine what went wrong in their religious community, or do they bleat louder that this is somehow different? Or, do they ignore it and hope it goes away? My money is on option (C).

Here is a copy of the offending picture.

42 comments:

Barry de la Rosa said...

Ah, but were they TRUE Christians??

Yoo said...

At least the outrage looks like it's limited to India, although this may have more to do with limited media exposure rather than Christian tolerance. On the other hand, there's already the outrage and death threats over a piece of bread, so I think Christians get one point over the Muslims' single outrage of a cartoon. On yet the other hand ...

Screw this, there isn't going to be an end to the list of outrage over trivial things from both Christians and Muslims. I should give up now.

Unknown said...

On naturalism mob action, for whatever reason, is a normal and expected human behavior. However, on Abrahamic supernaturalism, such behavior is not at all expected. The Holy Spirit, so called, is supposed to influence the Christian believer to obey the Gospel. Incidents like that in India and throughout the world during Christian history are strong empirical evidence that there is no Holy Spirit influencing Christian believers.

Evan said...

Robert, an alternate explanation is that the Holy Spirit is an evil bastard.

I prefer to think he doesn't exist, but both hypotheses fit the observed facts.

Unknown said...

Hello Evan: Indeed your probably are correct. Let us suppose a person who was caused to exist by a malevolently evil invisible, non-corporeal, magic, consciousness like the Cartesian demon. Further suppose the person was completely at the mercy of the MEINCMC. What then would be expected to be observed about the victim would depend on a definition of what evil entails in the MEINCMC. It would be possible to predict obtaining states of affairs related to the person. However lacking a definition of what evil in an MEINCMC means, we could not make meaningful predictions about what would be expected to befall its victim.

If evil is simply the absence of good, then we could expect to fail to detect benefit in states of affairs pertaining to the victim. If evil means detrimental states of affairs relative to the life of the victim, then we would expect to see detrimental occurrences bedeviling the victim. If evil is more insidious and subtle entailing frustration of the victims expectations for beneficial outcomes, then we would expect to see the victim prospering for a time, only to have the rug pulled out from beneath them. Perhaps the evil of the MEINCMC is encoded in its enjoyment of witnessing the victim self-destructing after enjoying benefit for a time; if so, then the victim's own folly leading to self-destruction would be expected.

In the case at issue, if the Indian Christians touch off a sectarian war resulting in many deaths and much destruction, then MEINCMC might be well pleased.

Anonymous said...

Incidents like that in India and throughout the world during Christian history are strong empirical evidence that there is no Holy Spirit influencing Christian believers.

Media coverage is a very narrow lens through which to view the world, don't you think? If you choose to pick out the mistakes and negative behaviors in any group of people you will, of course, form a pigeon holed view of that group.

Going on media coverage alone we could conclude that Muslims, in general, are violent and inhumane, but a visit to Jordan proves otherwise...in general.

I understand the context of this post by Shy, but to form opinions about people from media coverage of events that cannot be witnessed and are frozen in print is, in my opinion, painting with a very broad brush over a complex landscape.

I don't personally know any Christians who think or say "we aren't as bad as Muslims". While there are certainly mistakes which are made and pockets of violent Christians, the message of Christ was, and is, overwhelmingly that of grace and peace. The label doesn't matter as much as the belief and the behavior which is borne of it.
Or maybe it does. Once a label is prescribed the fences are set and the ability to think Big Picture is lost, my biggest complaint against our current educational system...which isn't an educational system at all, but I digress!

As for the Holy Spirit...read something other than the newspaper and dig into the lives of those who actually lived or are living a life which empirically proved/proves a "supernatural" influence.

Here is something that might hold more weight as an experiment in personal experience with faith based action:

1. Keep track of every kind action possible throughout the day.

2. Whenever possible, ask the person practicing an act of kindness what their motivation is for behaving that way and if that motivation is in any way related to an underlying religious belief.

3. Keep a record of every negative action throughout the day, when possible.

4. Same as #2 above.

I'm not volunteering to do this because it takes too much time, but I am also not the one pointing my finger at any group of people and spreading hatred and ridicule of them.

John said...

Jennifer,

You told me that religion causes fear in people and you have repeatedly said other places and have criticized the evangelical community for their teachings.

You have pointed your finger and ridiculed just like everybody else has. Don't say you haven't.

Evan said...

Jennifer you said:

I don't personally know any Christians who think or say "we aren't as bad as Muslims".

You may not know any, but there most certainly are Christians saying that they are better than Muslims.

Martin Gamble said...

Cole,
There's a difference between criticism and ridicule. I've never seen Jennifer ridicule anyone.
Peace to all.

Evan said...

Martin, maybe you didn't look hard enough.

Jennifer has a history on this blog. She's said a lot of stuff. I know that I've probably ridiculed people because sometimes tempers get short. I for sure would never say that I've never done it.

Here's an example of her ridiculing John:

OK..let's have God come tell us to build enormous prisons and then we will farm the land, sew the clothes, fetch the water and provide the medicine they need in order to keep them all alive. Sounds like a great way for the rest of us to live...support all the sickos so they can get free care.

Or..would you propose God supply all their needs through miraculous intervention? If that's the case, there are days I would rather be in prison!

Or maybe you think God should build this prison or create another planet for all the sickos but let us stay here. Those people won't suffer necessarily except to be abusing each other...then what is solved? All of the transgressors would be complaining like you are and saying how unfair it is for God to send them away.

I'm sorry, John, that is just idiocy.

Martin Gamble said...

Hi Evan,
I guess I distinguish between criticism of someone's ideas and statements and personal attacks. I think that you can criticize what someone says (and use forceful language sometimes) without demeaning them personally. I would call the latter ridicule. Just my opinion!
Peace to you

John said...

Martin said "I've never seen Jennifer ridicule anybody."


I have.

Anonymous said...

Evan,

Sure there are Christians saying lots of things, but this is judgement as to whether the Holy Spirit can be empircally verified as an influence. You know, I KNOW you know...that there is no way to reduce the variables to only one in a controlled scientific study of such a soft subject.

And you're right, I do have a history here and you are free to dredge up anything you please; I hope that if you do the readers will dig for deeper context if it seems unsettling and draw their own conclusion as to my intent.

I'm assuming you are using that post of mine because of the last line where I used the word idiocy. If you have read the whole thread I'm sure you know it was a respectful conversation. (Sometimes words such as stupid and idiot are used in their true context and not derogatorily.)
If you'll recall, John took no offense (I hope) and I responded by telling him I meant nothing personal and thought he knew that. I think I may even have put a wink at the end because I felt that the background in conversations allowed for freedom to express the thoughts in an impersonal tone. You'll notice I didn't call John an idiot and I definitely don't think he is!

I do think the train of thought he was supporting and building up to, which is what I was referring to, was idiotic in the true sense of the word. It was completely illogical and infantile. I may have said things at times which would be considered infantile or idiotic and you or anybody else is free to think so and tell me and I won't take it personally...if I see that you are right I will agree that I had a bad idea and I think John may do the same.

I did regret writing that after a time because I wondered if anyone reading it out of context might think I was calling names, but I decided to leave it alone because I did say it and there it is.

Just as the Bible can twisted and meaning applied according to the reader, so can comments. For the record; I respect John and do not think he is in any way an idiot. That said, I think it is within the limits of polite discussion to call an idea onto the floor without making it a personal attack.

Cole,
I don't remember pointing my finger or ridiculed, but I may have and I'm sorry if I have. My one regret in online communication is the controversial comment made to John, here.

Martin,
Thank you for speaking on my behalf! I'm sorry if you are shocked.

Anonymous said...

OK, and the sickos...after reading it again I thought that is probably offensive as well. In context of the conversation I was using the word John gave for people who do evil things. We were not speaking about mentally ill people, but the worst of humanity.

For the sake of being understood.

John said...

Jennifer,

You don't have to apoligize about that. I don't give a fuck about the evangelical community. Maybe I should but I don't right now. I was just pointing out that you have pointed your finger and criticized just like me and everybody else has. Anyway...

With love

Martin Gamble said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Martin Gamble said...

Hi Jennifer,
No, I'm not shocked. I've never felt that you've made personal attacks. When I talked about demeaning someone personally, I was only giving a hypothetical example. I certainly was not referring to anything that you've ever said.
I will reiterate: I've never seen you ridicule anyone.

goprairie said...

"While there are certainly mistakes which are made and pockets of violent Christians, the message of Christ was, and is, overwhelmingly that of grace and peace. The label doesn't matter as much as the belief and the behavior which is borne of it."
Um, Jennifer, read your Bible - Jesus said some pretty harsh things and advocated and did some significant violence. And um, look at history. The vast lists of violence in the name of God and Jesus and to spread Christianity has been covered again and again on this blog.
What is striking about THIS story is that many were mighty arrogant when Muslims took offense at that cartoon and they DID claim that Christians would not do such things, yet here is a nearly identical story that shows Christians are more like Muslims than not. And it would do us good to remember such things as that there are as many Muslim charities as there are Christian charities and as many moderate peace loving Muslims as there are moderate peace loving Christians. The corollary to 'Christians are as bad as Muslims" would be "Muslims are as good as Christians" I think that is the greater point. Stereotypes that lead to discrimination against Muslims are wrong.

Shygetz said...

I understand the context of this post by Shy, but to form opinions about people from media coverage of events that cannot be witnessed and are frozen in print is, in my opinion, painting with a very broad brush over a complex landscape.

Oh, so you're saying that there must be some context that justifies these actions against the newspaper? Please. You claim that I am painting with too broad a brush? I defy you to point out where I claimed this was an endemic problem within the Christian community! I will patiently await the withdrawl of your comment and the apology (but I won't hold my breath).

I do find it interesting how you tried to twist a post about Christians violently attacking a newspaper over a picture into a commentary on atheist hate-mongering, but I'm not biting. I do notice that you have chosen option C. You never addressed how a religion of peace and love could possibly, in this modern enlightened age, come to harbor people who would take such violent action over a picture. You just ignored it and changed the subject, claiming that I am "spreading hatred".

I don't personally know any Christians who think or say "we aren't as bad as Muslims".

Let's just look at a few excerpts from hate mail received by PZ Myers over the cracker kerfluffle and see if this notion of "Christians peaceful, Muslims violent" is really all in my head.

"IF Catholics had half the testosterone of muzzies, the answer would be simple. Holy hollowpoint."
"Hey Mr. Critical, I dare you to do something to desecrate Islam. -Oh thats right; they are not passive like Christians and a loud mouth Jerk like yourself would get jihaded."
"If any professor denigrated and insulted homosexuals, Muslims, threatened to desecrate the Koran, or insulted Martin Luther King in this way you would have an all-out riot on your hands. However, as usual, it seems to be open season on Catholics with no consequences."
"If you have such apparent regard for the sincere faith of others, I challenge you to publish a similar disparaging remark about the Koran or other sacred beliefs of Islam"
"Would you be so brave as to use such hate-filled rhetoric against the MUSLIM tenets? I doubt you'd want a jihad launched against you..."
"I seriously doubt that he would ask someone to get him a Koran from a mosque...Asking for the Koran would probably bring him and the U of M physical harm."
"You would not choose a Muslim symbol to desecrate because you would be in grave danger. You pick a Catholic symbol because you know that Catholics will just pray for you."
"You just don't have the backbone to attack the Muslims do you? ...Coward"
"I dare you to show the same sacrilege with "equal fanfare" to the Muslim religion...I guess your version of atheism doesn't include hating a religion that would surely respond by threatening your life and limb huh? You pitiful, immature coward."
"If you're looking for something to desecrate, why don't you try a Quran...You won't do that? Why? Oh! You're a COWARD...You pick on a true religion of peace and won't do anything to upset followers of a pedophilic so-called "prophet". Count your blessings that Catholics don't behead people, ass hole."
"Since you mentioned fatwa, I bet you don't have the balls to descreat a Koran...Go ahead, I dare you."
"if you have balls, go after the Muslim....or I forgot you scare."
"Now just go pick on the Muslims - or are you too afraid - you must be - you assinine PHD - too afraid to affront a religious belief that would terminate you."
"DO YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR REGARDING THE MUSLIM RELIGION? I DOUBT YOU DO, YOU KNOW THEY WOULD LOP YOUR HEAD OFF !"
"Do you want to demonstrate REAL courage by desecrating a religious symbol? Make an image of Mohamed (one serious affront to Islam) then desecrate it (another even more serious affront to the "religion of peace"). Of course, that would expose your person to actual, corporeal danger."


That's not all of them, but I had to stop for space issues. And remember, this was one batch of mail sent to one person (about a cracker, to boot). So yeah, it looks like you were right and I was wrong, no one claims that Christians are peaceful and tolerant and Muslims are barbaric and violent. Nope, nuh-uh, all in my head...if you honestly don't know any Christians who think that their religion is more civilized and peaceful than Islam, you really should get out more.

Shygetz said...

Sure there are Christians saying lots of things, but this is judgement as to whether the Holy Spirit can be empircally verified as an influence. You know, I KNOW you know...that there is no way to reduce the variables to only one in a controlled scientific study of such a soft subject.

That's what statistics are for. You don't have to eliminate all variables, you just have to have a large enough sample size to reduce the influence of uncontrolled variables and give you sufficient statistical power to pick out influences. Work like this has been done, and it was found that more religious people in general valued tradition and conformity, along with values that encouraged benevolence within the group, while disliking change and autonomy, self-enjoyment, and self-enhancement. The effects were consistent regardless of religion (Christian, Jews, and Muslims were included), but changed in magnitude based NOT on the religion but on the socio-economic development of the country.

Saroglou V, Delpierre V, and Dernelle R (2004) Values and religiosity: a meta-analysis of studies using Schwartz's model. Personality and Individual Differences 37, 721-734.

If there was a Holy Spirit that moved Christians, we would expect to see that some of these values would be different from religion to religion (e.g. Christians would score higher in Benevolence). The only category in which there were differences was in Universalism (the idea that all people are of equal worth); there was an inverse correlation between religiosity and Universalism (the more religious you were, the less you thought of people outside your group), but the inverse correlation was greater in Muslim samples than in Jewish or Christian samples.

Thus, the only thing you could POSSIBLY say the Holy Spirit influenced was making devout Christians less of an asshole to non-Christians, but still more of an asshole than non-religious people. However, even this difference in Universalism was found to vary most strongly with the role of media and education in the sample; Christians without TVs, without newspapers, and with little education tended to be less Universalist than Christians with these things. The effect was better explained statistically by a disproportionate amount of outside exposure in these Muslim communities rather than by the difference in religion.

In summary, controlled studies have shown that there is no apparent difference between religions as far as what general values they engender in their followers. All religions encourage authoritarianism, insular behavior, conservatism, and risk aversion while discouraging the seeking of self-pleasure, openness to change, and openness to new experiences. There was a minor (we're talking MINOR here--~0.1 for benevolence compared to ~0.6 for tradition) positive influence on benevolence, but it was countered by a negative influence on universalism (-0.1 for Christian to -0.4 for Muslim)--religious people are slightly more giving than normal, but only to people within their religious group; to others they tend to be less kind than normal.

And here I thought that there would be a real measurable difference between religions, but it all seems to be socio-economic. Come for the arguments, stay for the education. I learned something new today.

Bugger_Butt said...

Maybe this will be a wake up call for all the idiots that make fun of Jesus and think its funny. Apparently, some people think it is a-ok to make fun of and mock Jesus with no consequences. If someone put up a picture of my mom and made her look like a hooker, I'd be mad. People should expect backlash when they do stupid things.

Anonymous said...

Shygetz,

Oh, so you're saying that there must be some context that justifies these actions against the newspaper?

I'm not sure how you got this from my comment. From what I understand, and maybe it's wrong, you are here to shed light on the errors of Christianity and really all religion. Your goal in this post is to show how Christians are just as violent and negatively responsive as other people groups while they have defended themselves by saying they are not as bad as Muslims. In other words, you are making a case for hypocrisy. While your context is of an isolated incident, your tone is universal.

You did not make a connection between the Indian Christians saying "we are not as bad as Muslims" and their actions, you are taking local statements and applying them to global problems. I'm not faulting you for that, but for insinuating Christians as a whole would make such a claim and then take actions such as were taken. Again, I do not know any Christians personally who have said what you quoted, do you?

This is all based upon the media which is a useful and valuable part of communication, but cannot substitute for the local community where we all live and have our daily experiences.

You'll notice that I did not choose option C if you read again. I admitted that there are and will continue to be these terrible actions done in the name of God and Christ. I'll choose an option that hasn't been presented. The option to address the reality of taking things too far without retreating while at the same time working toward the best solutions to the problem of conflicting values within a community and how to diffuse the frustrations. I'm not sure it can be done, but that doesn't mean we can't keep trying.

So, no, I am not saying there is any context that would justify the actions taken. I'm saying that your context is a localized story that you are applying to a larger population.

Anonymous said...

Goprarie,
I am very familiar with what Jesus did and said, if it's all recorded correctly, and I have no idea what you are referring to. What are the horrible things he said and did? If you're talking about hell I'm not the person to debate that with as I am 99.9% convinced that hell is a metaphor and not an eternal torment, given the language used and the context. Jason would glad to know he helped me think that through more completely, if he still reads here.

Stereotypes that lead to discrimination against Muslims are wrong.

Absolutely! That doesn't mean the stereotypes have no basis in reality as there are factions within Islam that fit the bill, just as any other group of people will support a stereotype, but to make uninformed decisions on a case by case basis because of a stereotype is wrong.

Anonymous said...

Shygetz,
I do find it interesting how you tried to twist a post about Christians violently attacking a newspaper over a picture into a commentary on atheist hate-mongering, but I'm not biting. I do notice that you have chosen option C. You never addressed how a religion of peace and love could possibly, in this modern enlightened age, come to harbor people who would take such violent action over a picture.

Wow. I do think you are doing a bit of hate mongering, but that aside, do you have some sort of formal statement from the Christian community here in the U.S. that supports and harbors the actions taken by the Christians in India?

The quotes you gave for Christians claiming "peaceful Christians, violent Muslims" were all MEDIA again. Via the computer, right? That was my point! This medium of communication is all hypothetical and statistics based, not real, breathing life. My attempt was to bring it down to our real communities and talk about what we actually experience. Statistics have a place, but they don't take the place of the the fluidity of living. I didn't say it was in your head. I am well aware that there are Christians who arrogantly make such a claim, my point was/is that it has not been my personal experience and I wonder how many people here actually know people who say such things and believe them.

About the Holy Spirit...Romans 2: 14-15, in addition to other passages, would indicate that the Holy Spirit is at work to influence all people, not only "Christians". I don't think the Holy Spirit makes any distinction with regard to religion, but aims for the heart in whatever form it takes. Obviously no Christians are perfect, though I've met some I think are close, so it wouldn't make any sense for someone as wise and discerning as the Holy Spirit to stick with the label.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

you refuse, of course to follow what the muslims have been doing to them.

Maybe those Christians just got off the message boards.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

be a nice a little passive mouse now, while we ill you. sit still love us while the redicule and harm and ill moest you. O, the didn't do it. He lost his temper the fifth time we drug him through the catus. God is such a bully and his eivl little Christians are so violent. they just cant' refrain from insulting us as we murder them.

Evan said...

I do think you are doing a bit of hate mongering, but that aside, do you have some sort of formal statement from the Christian community here in the U.S. that supports and harbors the actions taken by the Christians in India?

Wow Jennifer. I was not aware that the US was the home of true Christianity. Thanks for letting me know that.

I suppose the US became the home of true Christianity after we stopped enslaving people.

Evan said...

Hahaha.

Maybe this will be a wake up call for all the idiots that make fun of Jesus and think its funny. Apparently, some people think it is a-ok to make fun of and mock Jesus with no consequences. If someone put up a picture of my mom and made her look like a hooker, I'd be mad. People should expect backlash when they do stupid things.

As if to prove my point, Jennifer. There ya go. A poster on this board in complete agreement with the actions of the Indian Christians. Perhaps he is not from the US?

Bugger_Butt said...

As if to prove my point, Jennifer. There ya go. A poster on this board in complete agreement with the actions of the Indian Christians. Perhaps he is not from the US?

I didn't say I was in complete agreement. I said that if you do stupid things you should expect a backlash.

Ty said...

Jennifer,

You are actually one of the most decent Christian commentors I have read on here. I sincerely appreciate your comments and civility. However, I have some differs in thought. I think you may have missed the point Shy was making. In my opinion the point of his post was: "Christian extremists have joined Muslim extremists in threatening free speech. Do those Christians who bleated loudest at the Muslim outrages over the Danish cartoons now retreat in quiet humility and introspection to determine what went wrong in their religious community, or do they bleat louder that this is somehow different? Or, do they ignore it and hope it goes away? My money is on option (C)."

He readily acknowledges that the Christians responsible for the violence are "extremists" comparible to muslim extremeists. However, the point of the post is "Where is the Christian outrage?!" Why isn't this story picking up traction with those same individuals?

My opinion only, but I think you were over reading into what Shy implied in his original post.

Another interesting issue you brought up: "I don't personally know any Christians who think or say "we aren't as bad as Muslims"." Sam Harris has some revealing polls from taken from Middle East countries in his book, "The End of Faith." The most non-violent country polled of the Middle-Eastern countries was Turkey. But even there 4% of the population supported suicide bombings as being acceptable. The more typical Middle-Eastern country had 60-75% of its population believing in the justafiability of suicide bombings. Even if the high were ONLY 4% throughout the entire Middle-East, this would still be drastically higher than the percentage in Western countries (excluding Muslim citizens). This is why the majority of Christians YOU know actually do think that Christians are better (less violent) than Muslims in general.

However, the most amazing comment I read of yours was that you believe hell to be metaphorical. I think that is a very honest admission and quite intellectual as well. That was the slippery slope that I was on just a few months back. Have you taken John's Challenge?

Since I'm not html literate enough to post the link, go to the the home page, look on the left side, and click on "Take the DC Challenge."

Anyway, after going through similar books mentioned in John's challenge I found my belief system to be dishonest and unsustainable. Like the story of Ananias and Sapphira, where God kills with vengence, I eventaully realized that the whole Bible was fable or metaphor of man's ideas of God, not a book inspired by God. Having read just a few of your posts I honestly believe you could write a book that represents God's thoughts better than what is compliled in the Bible. Sure, there are some absolutely amazing passages. But there are just as many horrible passages that we have become innoculated to because of our Christian upbringing.

ex-evangelically yours,
Ty

Shygetz said...

ty said: He readily acknowledges that the Christians responsible for the violence are "extremists" comparible to muslim extremeists. However, the point of the post is "Where is the Christian outrage?!" Why isn't this story picking up traction with those same individuals?

Ty is absolutely correct; the point of this post was that the idea of Christian exceptionalism is a myth, and the Christian outrage over Muslim extremism is not matched by their outrage over Christian extremism. In no case did I state or imply that violence was typical of Christians OR Muslims. And criticism is NOT hate-mongering, and it's sad that you can't tell the difference, Jennifer.

bugger_butt said: Maybe this will be a wake up call for all the idiots that make fun of Jesus and think its funny. Apparently, some people think it is a-ok to make fun of and mock Jesus with no consequences. If someone put up a picture of my mom and made her look like a hooker, I'd be mad. People should expect backlash when they do stupid things.

So you were just fine and dandy with the Muslim riots after the Danish cartoons, right? You were cheering them on, right? Or were you bellowing about free speech rights?

jennifer said: The quotes you gave for Christians claiming "peaceful Christians, violent Muslims" were all MEDIA again. Via the computer, right? That was my point! This medium of communication is all hypothetical and statistics based, not real, breathing life.

Oh...my...God! You just made the argument that, unless someone hears something directly, with no technological medium, it is not valid? So why are you reading these message boards? After all, everything we write on here is somehow magically becoming "all hypothetical and statistics-based" once I move my thought from my brain to my keyboard and turn them into electronic impulses. Thank God that when I move my thoughts from my brain to my vocal cords and turn them into vibrational impulses, I am able to prevent them becoming "all hypothetical and statistics-based" or we would never be able to communicate in a Jennifer-approved method!

My attempt was to bring it down to our real communities and talk about what we actually experience. Statistics have a place, but they don't take the place of the the fluidity of living.

Do you not realize that all of these messages that I posted were written by real people, and sent to (and experienced by) a real living, breathing person? There were no statistics in that list of messages; they were all examples sent to a single living human being by other living human beings that directly refuted your belief that Christians don't think they are more civilized than Muslims.

Your reduction of people outside of your community to "statistics" is xenophobic and dehumanizing--they are real people with real feelings, and they are just as important as you. You write as though the only thing that truly matters (indeed, that is truly "real") to you is your local community. The fact that this occurred in India does not make it any less (or more) important.

Ironically, your attitude directly follows the statistics in the paper I cited; devout religious people tend to be kinder to people in their community, but less kind to those outside of their community.

Again, I do not know any Christians personally who have said what you quoted, do you?

In effect, yes (not the exact words, but the exact meaning). It is not a tiny minority of Christians who feel that Christians are better behaved then Muslims; I would say its either a large minority or perhaps even a slight majority. You should get out more.

About the Holy Spirit...Romans 2: 14-15, in addition to other passages, would indicate that the Holy Spirit is at work to influence all people, not only "Christians". I don't think the Holy Spirit makes any distinction with regard to religion, but aims for the heart in whatever form it takes.

This passage in Romans is referring to the Law, not the Spirit; in this case, almost certainly to the Noahide Laws, which are thought by Jewish teachings to be written on the hearts of all men since the time of Noah (of which Paul was certainly aware). Where in the Bible does it list the Gifts of the Spirit being given to non-Christians/non-Jews? Indeed, most of the lists of Gifts of the Spirit involve things like ministry, evangelism, prophecy, and other religion-specific things.

I want to make sure I'm getting this right, so I can quote you later; you believe the gift of the Holy Spirit is not unique to Christians (or even more prevelant in Christians), but is bestowed equally on people of all faiths, and that is why we do not see any differences in the values of people of different faiths--because they are all equally granted the Holy Spirit. Is that correct?

Shygetz said...

hinman said: you refuse, of course to follow what the muslims have been doing to them.

Which "them" are you referring to? The "them" who wrote to PZ Myers? If so, I can almost guarantee you that most of these "them" probably don't even know a Muslim, much less have been violently persecuted by one, seeing as most of the letters came from the States.

be a nice a little passive mouse now, while we ill you. sit still love us while the redicule and harm and ill moest you. O, the didn't do it. He lost his temper the fifth time we drug him through the catus. God is such a bully and his eivl little Christians are so violent. they just cant' refrain from insulting us as we murder them.

Put down the keyboard and slowly back away...and remember, I'm not the one who commanded you to turn the other cheek, give him also your cloak, love them that hate you, etc. Put your anger and blame on your master who commanded these things, not me.

And please elaborate who the "we" and "us" is in your passage. If you are accusing me of killing Christians and dragging them through cacti multiple times, please have the courage to do so unambiguously. If you are accusing the general Muslim community of doing so, again, please put your bigotry in clear terms so no one is confused as to your position. Also, "ill" is not a verb, "kill" is spelled with a "k", and proofreading would at least make you look like an educated demented bigot instead of someone who needs special help and a safety helmet.

Anonymous said...

Evan,

Wow Jennifer. I was not aware that the US was the home of true Christianity. Thanks for letting me know that.

It was Shygetz who used a quote from the Christian community in the U.S.. I don't think any nation has a corner on true Christianity, in fact I'm more Eastern Orthodox than anything.

Ty,
Thank you for your friendly reply and I see your point about Shy's use of extremist. I didn't catch that.

I haven't taken the DC challenge, but I have read some of the books, including John's and will probably read more as time allows over the years. I didn't start out with the same theology as John so many things he mentioned I had already wrestled with. It's interesting how people come to different conclusions faced with the same problems.

I haven't read Sam Harris's books, but I'm curious to know why there is little violence in Turkey, as an example. I think the distinction being made between violence as a result of religious beliefs would need to rule out other factors.

* Is the government allowing it's citizens to own firearms? If so, "an armed society is a polite society" as statistics show. Not that an armed society is polite to other nations, as the Armenian Genocide shows.

* What violence is being reported as murder? With the practice of honor killings, many deaths may go unreported as murder under a government heavily influenced by fundamental Islamic law.

* Does the majority population share the same religion, ethnicity and language? Homogeneity would reduce a lot of tension.

Anyway, I would be curious to find out to what extent those factors influence the reported non-violence vs. religious belief system. I don't know much about Turkey except that they make beautiful silk carpets!


Shygetz,
The comments you made about media vs. real life I won't comment on any further because I'm not getting my point across very well so I'll leave that one.

You said:
This passage in Romans is referring to the Law, not the Spirit; in this case, almost certainly to the Noahide Laws, which are thought by Jewish teachings to be written on the hearts of all men since the time of Noah (of which Paul was certainly aware).

I have never heard of Noahide law so I cannot comment to that, but while this passage in Romans IS referring to Law, the Law was only meant to be a tutor for the law that is written on the hearts of all men and then corrupted by the choices men make. If you read from chapter 1 through chapter 2 I think you may be able to see what I'm talking about. Going on in Romans 2:29 the Spirit IS mentioned:
But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

This, following the verses I gave before, would seem to imply that the Holy Spirit is not limited to only Jews or Christians or any other label. How people respond to the influence of the Holy Spirit is what matters.

So....
I want to make sure I'm getting this right, so I can quote you later; you believe the gift of the Holy Spirit is not unique to Christians (or even more prevelant in Christians), but is bestowed equally on people of all faiths, and that is why we do not see any differences in the values of people of different faiths--because they are all equally granted the Holy Spirit. Is that correct?

No, I don't believe that all people receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The gifts are specifically for a community of people who respond to the Holy Spirit faithfully for the purpose of glorifying God.

and...

Yes, I believe the Holy Spirit is always at work drawing the hearts of men to participate in the fruit of the Spirit, which is the character of God. Galatians 5:22-23 - love,joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, self control, kindness and faithfulness.

And...

I do think we see a difference in values between religions. Because there are some differences in values between religions, you enjoy a culture that does not practice honor killing or temple prostitution of 6 year old girls and boys, or infanticide (well, I guess we do that don't we?) for gender. The West is unique this way and I believe it stems from Judeo-Christian beliefs.

That said, I do not think a person who calls themselves a Christian is better than a person of another religion because we are all individuals (the individual being a Jewish "invention") and each individual can believe peripheral things about God while in practice, act out the fruit of the Spirit.

Now I have a couple of questions for you.
If Christianity and Judaism have not been the most powerful influence, good and bad, on Western culture, what has? Why are we different from the East, the islands and the Orient? Would the Enlightenment have happened under another system? Why didn't it?

So to over-explain it all, I do think that the effects of the gospel message have had a better influence on a large population than any other religion, but the individual is still responsible for how they behave according to their conscience, which was awakened through the Jews for the sake of all people.

Maybe you can give examples of nations in history who supported the individual as independently responsible as opposed to being controlled by their government?? I don't know of any, but there may be something I've missed.

Anonymous said...

Shygetz,
Thank you for the introduction to the Noahide Law, something new to learn about. I had read about the 7 laws for non-Jews, but didn't know about or realize it is in relation to the Noahide Law.

Shygetz said...

If Christianity and Judaism have not been the most powerful influence, good and bad, on Western culture, what has? Why are we different from the East, the islands and the Orient? Would the Enlightenment have happened under another system? Why didn't it?

A) There is no monolithic Western culture. There is no monolithic Eastern culture, or islander culture, etc. Hell, there isn't even a monolithic American culture, despite all of the homogenizing effects. But I know what you mean.
B) I would say that the most powerful human influence on Western history is the Roman Republic/Empire. Christianity didn't become a historical influence of great import until after its adoption by the Empire; the remnants of the Empire greatly influenced the politics of the Middle Ages; the Enlightenment was marked by the reinvigoration of the values of the Roman Empire and the eariler Greek city-states that were conquered and co-opted by the Roman Empire. I would say the greatest human influence on the history of Eastern Asia would be the dynastic empire that unified much of the mainland. The Near East has had so many influences that I would hesitate to try to name one--almost all of the great human endeavors were scrawled across her face, and they have all left scars. I would say that the biggest human influence in many islander and sub-Saharan African cultures was the arrival of colonization.

Jared Diamond makes a convincing argument that the progress that supported the Enlightenment would have occurred much more slowly in areas other than Eurasia. I highly recommend his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" if you are actually interested in this question.

You also have to remember that the Enlightenment was a Western phenomenon because it was a response to another Western phenomenon; it required the ignorance and oppression of the Middle Ages to have something to recover from, the weakening of the central religious authority from the Reformation to allow the rise of reason to proceed unfettered by the Church that had previously crushed secular knowledge, the strife of the religious wars to give a central rallying point for the counter-religion movement and to weaken centralized governments to the point where an individualistic radicalism philosophy could take hold--this convergence was peculiar to Western Europe in the 17th century, and all were required to allow and sustain the Enlightenment. China had been united under an empire that lasted 2000 years--the central authority was too strong to allow individualistic radicalism to thrive. The Islamic Near East was united under the centralized Ottoman Empire that lasted over 400 years; again, there was too much centralized authority (temporal and religious) for the individualist radicalism of the Enlightenment to take place. Once these centralized governments fell (early 20th century), the Western powers were too great, and imperialism/colonization was in full swing, which radically entwined the histories of these regions with Western Europe (and, to a lesser extent, America). The island cultures varied widely, and some islands did highly value individualism; their isolation did stunt the scientific basis required for a rationalist worldview though, and most were still heavily in the grip of superstition when colonization took hold.

To sum up, it wasn't Christianity that allowed the Enlightenment; it was the fall of Christianity as a centralized force (along with other factors) that allowed the Enlightenment. With no Reformation, complete with schisms and wars, there would have been no Enlightenment.

Maybe you can give examples of nations in history who supported the individual as independently responsible as opposed to being controlled by their government?? I don't know of any, but there may be something I've missed.

Study some of the Greek city-states (especially Athens from 510-338 BCE); study some of the isolated cultures of the Pacific islands; study almost any pre-city-state culture. All of these cultures highly valued the individual rights and concerns of its citizens (although the definition of citizen varied greatly). The Roman Republic also valued individualism until its subversion into the Empire. All of these occurred independent of (and often before) Christianity.

Anonymous said...

it required the ignorance and oppression of the Middle Ages to have something to recover from

Yes!, but my perspective here is that it was the gentling influence, in general..embodied in people such as Boniface, Patrick, John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila etc. that paved the way for a civilization to be built on the notions of grace and mercy, peace and love. I'll grant you that Hellenistic culture was relatively peaceful and civil with a fairly good design for government, but some other forms of human degradation were practiced, unabashedly.

I have wondered if the reason the Muslims have not experienced a real Enlightenment is because they are taught not to do too well as it is prideful. I love the architecture of the Moors, but was told that they always had to leave something askew because it is a way of giving homage to Allah.

Thank you for addressing the spirit of my meaning of the previous post; I do recognize there is not a homogeneous West.

I will look into the book you mentioned. That is something I'm very interested in.

Colonization is a gray area, with Christian missionaries often being a major influence both good and bad. Our own country may have had a very different government if Jamestown had been more successful than Plymouth. The influences of both have made a pretty cool place to live!

DingoDave said...

Shygetz wrote:
"Let's just look at a few excerpts from hate mail received by PZ Myers over the cracker kerfluffle and see if this notion of "Christians peaceful, Muslims violent" is really all in my head."
"Since you mentioned fatwa, I bet you don't have the balls to descreat a Koran...Go ahead, I dare you."

"Do you want to demonstrate REAL courage by desecrating a religious symbol? Make an image of Mohamed (one serious affront to Islam) then desecrate it (another even more serious affront to the "religion of peace"). Of course, that would expose your person to actual, corporeal danger. What's the matter? Don't you have the stomach for real confrontation?"

There has been a new catchphrase coined because of comments such as these. It's called 'Fatwa Envy'. These Christians really wish that they could commit the kind of violence against their critics which the Muslim extremists commit, and it would appear that it's only their fear of our secular post-enlightenment laws which prevents them from doing so.

Here are a few other examples of the kind of hate mail which Professor Myers has received from our 'loving' Christian bretheren because of his comments regarding the Catholic Eucharist.

"Well sir, you don't get to blaspheme and walk away from this. You have two choices my fucked up friend, first you can quit your job for the good of the children. Or you can get your brains beat in. I give you till the first of the month, get that resignation in cunt."

"You are really fucked now. Lock your doors at night, and check under your car before you turn the ignition key."

""You are a monster. We need another Inquisition to root out idiots like you (and anyway, the Church only excommunicated heretics and witches, then handed them over to the state for punishment. We never executed them directly). Losers like you will suffer. I hope and pray that this will loose (sic) you your job and your career."

"Come on down to Florida. We know how to welcome bastards like you.....with a bullet."

"Thank you for your comment regarding the desecration of the Eucharist. I am sure Jesus has heard it and will respond accordingly. It may hurt a little, but don't worry.."

Can't you just FEEL the love? 'Fatwa envy' indeed. Or should that be 'Inquisition envy'?

Because Christians (in western nations) are not permitted to commit acts of violence against non-believers in this present life, then they inevitably resort to threatening us with pain and suffering in the afterlife. I think it was Hector Avalos who described Christianity as being not so much a 'religion of peace', so much as one of 'deferred violence'. It's much the same as a small child who threatens one of his school mates that his older brother will give him a whuppin' the next time he sees him. Religions seem to have the uncanny ability to bind their followers into a kind of perpetual intellectual childhood.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if this has ever been brought up here, but, has anyone ever noticed how christianity seems to dominate the memberships of pretty much all of the major hate groups in the west?

The Klan, the Aryan Nation, the Neo-Fascists are all pro christian. Not that these are christian organizations - they go out of their way to make that clear. But just try and join up if you're not a christian. (on second thought don't try!)

I have yet to see any christian attempt to explain this except to merely dismiss these people as "false christians". But how could a theology supposedly built on the theory of a loving and forgiving god be exspoused by people who are so violent and intolerant?

I think it may have something to do with the creed of divine judgement. I mean aren't heaven and hell examples of god segregating humanity into the "good kind" (who are blessed) and the "bad kind' (who must suffer) based, not on virtues or ethics, but on god's "grace".

Aren't these hate-mongers simply mirroring god's appearant desire to discriminate against those who are just the wrong "kind"?

goprairie said...

It is all very judgemental and exclusive - 'chosen people', 'saved' vs. 'not saved', heaven-bound vs. hell-bound, all the rules that are to separate the chosen or saved from the rest - even the concept of good and evil creates separation - people who commit a crime are 'evil', rather than just like us but having made a mistake of some sort. judging them evil separates them and allows us to dispose of them instead of showing them any compassion or love as fellow humans. it is passed off as being a peaceful loving religion of compassion, yet in nearly every case, when I reveal my atheism to a christian, i am greeted with disdain and mockery and very nearly shunned for it. truth lies in what they DO, not in what they say they do. and what they do in the name of religion, today, now, in little ways such as the reactions to the 'kidnapped cracker', reveals just how ugly religion really is.

Shygetz said...

Yes!, but my perspective here is that it was the gentling influence, in general..embodied in people such as Boniface, Patrick, John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila etc. that paved the way for a civilization to be built on the notions of grace and mercy, peace and love.

The "gentling influence"? Are you f*$^ing kidding me?!? Did you not read the part about the violence and strife of the Reformation being the destabilizing influence that allowed the Enlightenment? Those were Christians fighting Christians over whose Christianity was right. Why don't we ask the Native Americans about the "gentling influence" of Christianity during the Age of Colonization...though perhaps I shouldn't say "Native Americans", because it's hard enough just to find one nowadays. Should we ask the West Africans, and if so should we ask the ones we left in Africa for forced labor, or the ones we kidnapped and impressed into slavery, along with their descendents? Would you like to ask the victims of the Inquisition, or would you prefer to ask the Jewish victims of various Church-sponsored pogroms, forced expulsions, and lynchings? Christianity was adopted by the Empire supposedly because it promised victory in battle, and it hasn't looked back from its martial beginnings since.

You mention Boniface...this was the guy who converted people by destroying their shrines and daring their gods to strike him down as he did so (which is why he finally got killed by some fed-up Germans). If this is the "gentling influence" of Christianity, then surely you wouldn't mind if I put some churches to the torch while demanding God strike me down, right? Similarly, Patrick destroyed the sacred sites of the Druids (and, according to the stories, killed the Druid leaders themselves), so the people could not hear their teachings? John and Theresa both seemed to be relatively harmless (although Theresa DID bring back self-flagellation...hardly "gentle").

Someone told you that Christianity has been a historical "gentling" influence, and you just bought it. You should look critically at that notion; Christianity's record once it acheives power is not "gentle" in the least, which is part of the reason why it is able to acheive and maintain power.

Shygetz said...

I don't know if this has ever been brought up here, but, has anyone ever noticed how christianity seems to dominate the memberships of pretty much all of the major hate groups in the west?

Unsurprising, considering that Christians seem to dominate the memberships of pretty much all of the major groups in the west, hate or otherwise. I think it has more to do with the fact that Christianity fails to stop such hate than that Christianity does anything spectacular to promote it. It is just as corrupted and corruptable as any other human philosophy completely unbounded by consistency or rational thought, and (as many on this blog have noted) it can be coopted to support almost any position, laudable or horrible.

Pine Mountain Walker said...

This is just part of human nature. Religion or no religion. We have evolved to believe in silly fairy tales from tribal religions. There is some survival quality to it or it would likely not be there. We just can't evolve our ape brains fast enough for our human moral and rational aspirations.