I realize that the question of what exactly a "christian extremist" is and why supporters of slavery in the US are the best comparison to extremist Muslim terrorists, but it seems that one way to see how accurate the analogue is would be to compare the actions of the two groups and see how similar they are. Just because, we'll also compare the "moderate" Muslims with "christian extremists".
For the purposes of this post, I am assuming that "christian extremists" are those who supported American slavery.
Muslim extremists have two main goals; the destruction of Israel and extermination of the Jews and the establishment of a theocratic government to rule all Muslims according to Sharia.
"christian extremists" had no desire to destroy any other countries or exterminate people because of their religion. They certainly did not want to start a theocracy.
Muslim extremists frequently use children, women, and the mentally disabled as a means to detonate bombs in areas full of innocent people.
"christian extremists" never once strapped a bomb to anyone and blew them up as a means to kill innocents.
Muslim extremists believe that if they kill infidels (especially Jews), or die in the process that they will be rewarded with an express trip to heaven and 72 virgins.
"christian extremists", not so much.
Muslim extremists believe in the concept of Jihad, and they they are called to force the submission of everyone to Islam.
"christian extremists" did fight a war but believed that they were defending their rights, they were not trying to impose their religious views on anyone using force.
Muslim extremists believe that is proper to kill their daughters if they dishonor the family (honor killings), they also believe that it is appropriate to mutilate the female genitalia in the belief that it will keep their daughter from dishonoring the families.
"christian extremists" certainly believed in chastity and modesty before marriage, but didn't mutilate their daughters, nor did they kill them for being seen in public with a male who is not a relative.
Muslim extremists recruit teenage girls from the U.S. and Western Europe to travel to various enclaves where terrorists congregate in order to turn them into the equivalent of sexual slaves.
I'm sure that there were prostitutes in the areas where the "christian extremists" lived, and I'm sure that there were instances of slave owners engaging in sexual relations with their slaves.
Muslim extremists kidnap prepubescent girls and sell them as sex slaves.
"christian extremists" I'm not aware of this happening.
Muslim "moderates" believe in the death penalty for apostasy, as well as for homosexuality.
Some "christian extremists" believed in torture and capitol punishment for slaves who tried to escape or to incite rebellion.
Some "moderate' Muslim countries continue to practice slavery.
"christian extremists" stopped practicing slavery over 150 years ago.
Some "moderate" Muslims captured innocent Africans, transported them to the African coast and sold them to ship captains who transported them to the Western hemisphere.
"christian extremists" purchased the Africans who had been enslaved by Muslims.
Many "moderate" Muslim countries abide be Sharia law. They oppress Muslim women, Mutilate petty criminals, execute homosexuals, and allow/support various radical sects of Islam.
"christian extremists" pretty much only oppressed slaves. (Not condoning the oppression of anyone)
For now I'll make one final comparison, although I'm sure others will come to mind.
Muslim extremists are engaging in these behaviors (as are the "moderates") today. This is current events.
"christian extremists" engaged in their behavior hundreds of years ago.
One thing I noticed, is that the better comparison is not with Muslim extremists, but with the Muslim "moderates".
17 comments:
The problem, it appears, with your reasoning is that it appears you are wanting to say "Unless two analogues are alike in EVERY WAY, it is a weak analogy."
Of course, this is not the case.
Christian extremists enslaved men, women and children against their will.
Christian extremists killed men, women and children in their efforts to enslave others.
Christian extremists tortured slaves who were disobedient.
Christian extremists separated families.
Christian extremists treated people worse than dogs.
Christian extremists chopped off hands and otherwise maimed disobedient slaves.
This is harmful oppressive behavior, IS IT NOT?
It's a simple question, Craig.
Likewise, Muslim extremists do all the things you mention. THAT is harmful, oppressive behavior. Agreed?
So, the analogy of Christian extremists to Muslim extremists is not sound because... What? That is the question that remains unanswered.
"christian extremists" pretty much only oppressed slaves. (Not condoning the oppression of anyone)
Slaves, free black men, women of any color, gay folk, people who were the wrong religion. Just for the record.
I remind you of my ancestors, the Huguenots and my spiritual ancestors, the anabaptists, if you are unaware of Christian oppression of other Christians.
Dan,
I mentioned virtually everything on your list in my comparison, the problem is (as I pointed out) that the better comparison with your "christian extremists" is with "moderate" Muslims. The Muslim extremists are engaged in things that go way beyond what your "christian extremists" did, while the 'moderate" Muslims are a much closer match.
I've never even suggested that an analogue must be a perfect match, just that the two side being compared bear some resemblance beyond the superficial.
The problem you have is that you seem determined to link the two religions in terms of having equally oppressive tendencies and to do that you've constructed this forced bad analogy that you are now stuck with.
"This is harmful oppressive behavior, IS IT NOT?"
I've never suggested it wasn't harmful oppression. There are plenty of groups that have engaged in harmful oppression. The problem is that you desperately want to tie this oppression directly to what you perceive as their christian faith and to analogize the religious motivation for the oppressing. But, so far the only thing you can say with any assurance is that SOME christians "supported" slavery. You may not get the distinction between someone of a particular faith supporting something and having one's faith be the primary motivator for something.
For example a Jihadist would say something like "Allah commands that I go out and kill Jews today, He tells me that if I die I will be rewarded in heaven."
A slave owner would say something like "I believe that God supports my right to own slaves".
Do you not comprehend the difference between religion being a supporting factor, and being the primary motivation?
You are arguing with absolutely no specific data that religion was/is the primary motivator in both groups. It's obvious in the case of Muslims, not so much in the other case.
Even if it could be argued that God permitted slavery for His people (obviously non believers fall into a different category), it can't be argued that God permitted the maiming, torture, and killing of slaves. So, even though some christians supported slavery based on the Bible they certainly weren't following the guidelines for the treatment of slaves outlined for the Hebrew Theocracy. So in essence your argument is that these devout "christian extremists" took the Bible passages (not aimed at Christians) were motivated by them (and noting else), then ignored virtually everything the Bible says about the treatment of slaves. Does that even make any kind of logical sense.
As I've researched this, it's been suggested that one reason the slave owners used religion was that the slaves themselves were religious, some were Christian, and they cynically used the slaves fear or divine retribution as one more tool to enslave them. To me that doesn't sound like the behavior of a Christian.
Do you understand that there is a difference between "supportive of" and "motivated by"?
Do you understand that the Muslims are motivated virtually exclusively by their faith, while you cannot demonstrate as similar motivation for slaveholders.
"So, the analogy of Christian extremists to Muslim extremists is not sound because... What?"
1. Because you haven't reconciled the difference between "supportive of" and "motivated by".
2. Because it ignores the multiple other motivations of the slaveholder.
3. Because it is still built on your assumptions about the motivation of the slaveholders.
4. Because the better comparison is to "moderate" Muslims
5. Because the slaveholders were not engaged in wars of aggression intended to force their views on others.
6. Because your analogy doesn't have any way to differentiate between those who were culturally christian and those who were religiously Christian.
Of course, I've raised these objections before and you haven't demonstrated that you have any sort of definitive answer or rebuttal for them.
The problem with your Huguenots example is that it does not fit with your analogy. I specifically asked you what your best analogy was and you doubled down on the slavery thing. I gave you multiple chances to try to come up with something more apt, and you couldn't/wouldn't. So, now you think that you can just come up with something that bears no relationship to your analogy and use it to support your analogy. It's pretty common for you to move the goal posts, I'm not sure why I'm surprised.
However, during the period when the Huguenots and other Calvinists were being persecuted tat persecution was as much civil as religious. During that period of time both the RCC and the Church of England were so enmeshed in the civil government that persecution was as much about maintaining control as it was about theology. Further, I would argue that once a church becomes so enmeshed in the civil government that they are indistinguishable, then I'm not so sure that they haven't given up at least some claim to be considered Christian.
So that's two problems with your late game substitution.
Of course the bigger problem is that had you chosen the Huguenots persecution as your best analogue, it actually would have been a better option instead of the "christian extremist" slave owner thing you concocted.
Oh well, you had your chance.
One more thing that I touched on briefly, but want to expand on a bit.
I am making a distinction between Christians and christians. In other words there are plenty of people who live in the US and Western Europe who live in countries that at one point were referred to as Christian countries. Yet they do not regularly engage in the practice of Christianity as a religion. In the US this is part of what's called the civil religion. In other words, there is a history of these countries as countries where Christianity was the predominant religion. In one sense it is not inaccurate to call these people christians. On the other hand you have those who actively practice their Christian faith, they have a saving relationship with God and live that out in their everyday lives. It's similar to the fact that at this point in history that are many people who identify as Jewish culturally, yet are either secular or anti-religious. Your analogy does not clearly delineate which type of christain you are talking about for the fairly obvious reason that there is no way to do so. Given that you are assuming a level of religious faith and motivation that you have not demonstrated with any evidence.
I think had you clarified this earlier it could have eliminated some of the confusion.
Muslims would make a distinction between Muslims and muslims, too. It seems you'd like to reject those Christians who killed, maimed, enslaved, etc as not being "true" Christians, but when Muslims do the same, you insist that those who kill ARE the "true" Muslims.
1. You don't get to decide who is and isn't a true Muslim, any more than you get to decide who is and isn't a true Christian.
2. You can't have it both ways. Reject the Christians who behave badly but insist that Muslims who behave badly are true Muslims... you can't have it both ways, not and be rationally consistent.
I specifically asked you what your best analogy was and you doubled down on the slavery thing. I gave you multiple chances to try to come up with something more apt, and you couldn't/wouldn't. So, now you think that you can just come up with something that bears no relationship to your analogy and use it to support your analogy.
I've been quite literally speaking all along of all those Christians who have used their religious tradition to support oppression. I've mentioned specifically the oppression of slavery, but I've also mentioned killings, oppression of/denying of rights to women, to minorities, to gay folk. I've been speaking literally of all of this. The oppression of fellow Christians is in this realm.
I am sorry if that was less than clear to you. Hopefully, it is clear now.
Regardless, the point stands: There were Christians (John Calvin, anyone?) who supported the oppression of fellow Christians and did so because of their religion/view of the Bible. There were Christians who supported slavery and did so because of their religion/view of the Bible. There were (are!) Christians who support denying basic human liberties to women and gay folk because of their religion.
As a point of fact.
AND, SIMILARLY, there are some Muslims who do the same.
As it is wrong for some Muslims to do so, so, too, it is wrong for Christians to have done so.
What is wrong with that analogy?
I'm seeing you offer nothing other than "They aren't exactly the same" but as I've pointed out, that's not a valid reason.
Do you have anything else?
The problem you have is that you seem determined to link the two religions in terms of having equally oppressive tendencies and to do that you've constructed this forced bad analogy that you are now stuck with.
I never said that the two religions have "equall oppressive tendencies."
Do you understand that fact?
I have said that, as a point of fact, Christians HAVE oppressed others because of their religion.
Do you understand that fact?
So, too, are some Muslims doing the same.
I am saying it is wrong, in both cases to oppress.
Do you understand that fact?
Assuming you understand these demonstrable facts, what is your issue?
Perhaps it's the case that you are just unaware of Protestant history and didn't know that both Protestants and Catholics oppressed, persecuted, tortured and killed "hereticks" like the Anabaptists?
re: John Calvin:
•Prefatory Address in his Institutes to Francis, King of the French, 1536. "But when I perceived that the fury of certain bad men had risen to such a height in your realm, that there was no place in it for sound doctrine, I thought it might be of service if I were in the same work both to give instruction to my countrymen, and also lay before your Majesty a Confession, from which you may learn what the doctrine is that so inflames the rage of those madmen who are this day, with fire and sword, troubling your kingdom. For I fear not to declare, that what I have here given may be regarded as a summary of the very doctrine which, they vociferate, ought to be punished with confiscation, exile, imprisonment, and flames, as well as exterminated by land and sea. This, I allow, is a fearful punishment which God sends on the earth; but if the wickedness of men so deserves, why do we strive to oppose the just vengeance of God?"
•Letter to William Farel, February 13, 1546. "If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."
•Letter to the Lord Protector of Somerset, adviser to King Edward VI, October 22, 1548. "[They] well deserve to be repressed by the sword which is committed to you, seeing that they attack not the King only, but God who has seated him upon the throne, and has entrusted to you the protection as well of His person as of His majesty."
•Letter of August 20, 1553, one week after Servetus arrest. "I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death."
More on anabaptist persecution by fellow Christians doing so because of their religion/views of the Bible...
"This essay will discuss this persecution, concentrating on the three greater persecuting groups, Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists..."
https://thoughtsofalivingchristian.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/the-persecution-of-anabaptism-16th-century-catholic-lutheran-and-calvinist-perspectives-2/
So what. Even if you are correct it still doesn't change the fact that to some degree in each case the punishment was being meted out by the civil government, not by any ecclesiastical body it also doesn't mitigate the fact that you chose the slavery thing as your best example of "christian extremism" and now you want to move the goal posts because your best example sucks.
If you want to go off on a tangent go ahead, I'm just not going with you.
BTW, your Huguenot comparison is better but it still fails for some of the same reasons, but especially because it is an example of how screwed up the Church gets when it becomes enmeshed in politics. It's safe to say that this era of Church history is not looked on as a high point in the history of the church.
Having said that, I will be deleting any further comments on this off topic diversion for a couple of reasons.
1. I gave you the opportunity to pick your best example specifically so I could try to keep these trips down rabbit holes to a minimum. You chose to stick with slavery and that is the comparison we're talking about here.
2. I just don't have the time to spend following you every time you decide to move the goal posts so as for my blog we're going to stay focused.
Feel free to advance this tangent elsewhere, but not this blog.
Feel free to delete. The fact remains that you are complaining about an analogy and have yet to give any solid reason.
Given that reality, I find your complaint to be meaningless and devoid of solidity.
I will continue to allow you to comment on my place, Craig, because I don't delete, but I am increasingly convinced that you are either not able to understand my actual words and respond meaningfully or that you are just being intentionally trollish and are not interested in respectful dialog.
Peace to you.
You are of course free to make whatever contra factual conclusions you wish. But the truth of the matter is that I specifically asked you for your best example so that I could construct arguments against it. You put your cards in the slavery basket, and now you want to change because you think you can see some advantage in it.
"The fact remains that you are complaining about an analogy and have yet to give any solid reason."
I have given numerous solid reasons/examples of why your slavery analogy fails, the fact that you haven't/won't/can't refute them and therefore simply pretend they don;t exist is your problem, not mine.
Personally I'd love to see you actually interact with what I've said and actually try to refute specific points, I'd love it. Who knows, you might even be able to do so. But simply ignoring or pretending that I haven't offered anything doesn't help your case (really lack of) in the least. Moving the goal posts simply reaffirms my original conclusion that you initial analogy was flawed, and that you now realize that and need to substitute another.
"...because I don't delete..."
Sure you do. Maybe not often, but you do.
"I am increasingly convinced that you are either not able to understand my actual words and respond meaningfully or that you are just being intentionally trollish and are not interested in respectful dialog."
You feel free to live in your fantasy world if it helps.
You still haven't explained how "I have no plan." means something other than "I have no plan.".
And of course, as I go through these comments in an unsuccessful attempt to catch up (there's just too much now given all the posts I've yet to peruse), I find that the main distinction that separates the so-called "Christian extremists" from the muslim variety is the lack of expressly delivered mandates for kings, slave holders, etc., to act as they did. None.
Yet the muslim has scores of verses that are not time, place and people specific. They are for the muslim of any time and place. This has been confirmed over and over again by those devoted to islam and those devoted to opposing it.
It should further be understood that the governments of hundreds of years ago assumed a level of sovereignty that they abused for their own purposes, some of which were political, other times legal. In looking at the Spanish Inquisition period, for example, one sees that the Church acted as a mitigating factor against civil authorities arresting, trying and executing people for things like heresy, witchcraft, or whatever they needed to deal with those the didn't like. The Church records are still available and show they generally did more to help those accused than to convict them of the crimes of which they stood accused. I believe one can find the same thing happening with Joan of Arc.
In any case, even during those times, the same level of atrocity was being carried out by muslims as one sees now (minus the suicide vests), and where the European kingdoms appropriated their Divine Right, the islamic tradition was always a theocoracy driven by the "religion" invented by muhammad.
Finally, while the comparing of the two is ludicrous from the start, doing so is a moot point anyway with regard to dealing with the issue of islamic terrorism.
Art, I came across something last night which I'm doing a little research on before I use it, but the short version is that according to a recent summit of Islamic nations the number one issues they want to fix is "Palestine" and gaining control of Jerusalem. That says plenty right there.
As for Jerusalem. It's interesting that the one site in Jerusalem which excludes people is the site controlled by Muslims. Even though the site is significant to the Jews as well. In fact that site held the Temple which predates the Islamic conquest) by thousands of years, yet Muslims exclude Jews and Christians from this site. While the Jews and Christians allow all free access to other significant sites.
But, Islam just wants to get along with others.
"Finally, while the comparing of the two is ludicrous from the start, doing so is a moot point anyway with regard to dealing with the issue of islamic terrorism."
This is one of those things that seems so obvious, I'm a little surprised that Dan has latched onto the "christian extremist" label as long and has fiercely as he has. I suspect that if you put all of the acts of "christian extremists" (using Dan's original definition as well as including his later one) on one side of a balance and the acts of Muslim extremists/terrorists/"moderate" Muslim governments on the other the balance would overwhelmingly tip towards the Muslim side. If you add in the 1400 years of aggression and wars waged against non Muslims it becomes even more lopsided.
Even though he's not really doing so, the effect of his actions can give the impression that he is trying to mitigate (every one else does it) or defend (it's just a response to all the evils of Judaism) Muslim extremists. The fact that he barely acknowledges that intrinsic oppression and hostility that are part and parcel of the "moderate" Muslim nations governance is even stranger.
But, I don"t know that I should have expected anything else.
"This is harmful oppressive behavior, IS IT NOT?"
YES IT IS.
Likewise, Muslim extremists do all the things you mention. THAT is harmful, oppressive behavior. Agreed?
Yes. But that doesn't automatically mean that there is any connection between the two groups.
"What is wrong with that analogy?"
I've pointed out numerous things that you haven't responded to, so why would I repeat myself? One hey difference that you've pointed out is the "christians" supported the acts of those who enslaved others, they did not demand that God had commanded them to own slaves. The Muslims who engage in oppressive behavior (not just extremists) are claiming that God is commanding them to do what they do, and that they will be rewarded directly for the things they do. But, I've pointed this out before so feel free to ignore it again.
"Muslims would make a distinction between Muslims and muslims,..."
In a religion where any deviation from Muslim Orthodoxy is punishable by death, I suspect your being a little generous here.
"Do you understand that fact?"
I never said you did. Read the actual quote you used and you should be able to figure that out.
"Do you understand that fact?"
Yes.
"Do you understand that fact?"
"Assuming you understand these demonstrable facts, what is your issue?"
Other than the simplistic, facile, shallow comparison, and the things I'm waiting for you to address; nothing else at this time.
Oh, look. One more thread where all of Dan's questions will be answered.
Dan, I'm so happy that you made a proposal that I just decided to go ahead and answer/re answer all of your questions. That way you wouldn't need to wait around and search for excuses. I've more than taken you up on your proposal, when will we see you pick up your end.
It's just easier to make proposals and declarations than it is to just go ahead and do something.
Do you have anything else?
Post a Comment