4,136 Christians Killed For Their Faith Last Year - Where The Outcry?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Jeannette, Apr 3, 2019.

  1. kiwimac

    kiwimac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    1: Taqiyyah does not work that way. It's function was to prevent Islam from dying out. It is used today in life or death situations in which a person's faith could result in their death. It originated in Shi'a communities surrounded by Sunnis where to be a Shi'ite meant death.

    2: Muhammad was a tribal war leader. Many of the actions he took are not acceptable today but they took place within a culture and milieu in which they were acceptable just as they were considered acceptable for the Jews spreading into Palestine, sacking cities and putting their citizenry to death or taking them as slaves and trophies. We do not judge those societies by our standards because it is useless to do so and only leads to our misunderstanding them.

    3: As for the argument that Muhammad was a pedophile. This is based on a series of hadith recorded by Bukhari and relating to Aisha and her age at marriage. Bukhari is considered by scholars to be unreliable about this time in the life of Muhammad and evidence from Aisha herself seems to disprove it.
    Wikipedia

    Source:

    Further
    ibid.

     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2019
    Jeannette and Mandelus like this.
  2. billy the kid

    billy the kid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    2,931
    Likes Received:
    822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    “How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War: Defeating Jihadist Terrorism,”

    Islam must seem a paradoxical religion to non-Muslims. On the one hand, it is constantly being portrayed as the religion of peace; on the other, its adherents are responsible for the majority of terror attacks around the world. Apologists for Islam emphasize that it is a faith built upon high ethical standards; others stress that it is a religion of the law. Islam’s dual notions of truth and falsehood further reveal its paradoxical nature: While the Qur’an is against believers deceiving other believers–for “surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a liar”[1]–deception directed at non-Muslims, generally known in Arabic as taqiyya, also has Qur’anic support and falls within the legal category of things that are permissible for Muslims.

    Muslim deception can be viewed as a slightly less than noble means to the glorious end of Islamic hegemony under Shari’a, which is seen as good for both Muslims and non-Muslims. In this sense, lying in the service of altruism is permissible. In a recent example, Muslim cleric Mahmoud al-Masri publicly recounted a story where a Muslim lied and misled a Jew into converting to Islam, calling it a “beautiful trick.”

    Taqiyya offers two basic uses. The better known revolves around dissembling over one’s religious identity when in fear of persecution. Such has been the historical usage of taqiyya among Shi’i communities whenever and wherever their Sunni rivals have outnumbered and thus threatened them. Conversely, Sunni Muslims, far from suffering persecution have, whenever capability allowed, waged jihad against the realm of unbelief; and it is here that they have deployed taqiyya–not as dissimulation but as active deceit. In fact, deceit, which is doctrinally grounded in Islam, is often depicted as being equal–sometimes superior–to other universal military virtues, such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.

    Yet if Muslims are exhorted to be truthful, how can deceit not only be prevalent but have divine sanction? What exactly is taqiyya? How is it justified by scholars and those who make use of it? How does it fit into a broader conception of Islam’s code of ethics, especially in relation to the non-Muslim? More to the point, what ramifications does the doctrine of taqiyya have for all interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims?

    The Doctrine of Taqiyya

    According to Shari’a–the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances–deception is not only permitted in certain situations but may be deemed obligatory in others. Contrary to early Christian tradition, for instance, Muslims who were forced to choose between recanting Islam or suffering persecution were permitted to lie and feign apostasy. Other jurists have decreed that Muslims are obligated to lie in order to preserve themselves,[2]based on Qur’anic verses forbidding Muslims from being instrumental in their own deaths.[3]

    This is the classic definition of the doctrine of taqiyya. Based on an Arabic word denoting fear, taqiyya has long been understood, especially by Western academics, as something to resort to in times of religious persecution and, for the most part, used in this sense by minority Shi’i groups living among hostile Sunni majorities.[4] Taqiyyaallowed the Shi’a to dissemble their religious affiliation in front of the Sunnis on a regular basis, not merely by keeping clandestine about their own beliefs but by actively praying and behaving as if they were Sunnis.

    However, one of the few books devoted to the subject, At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam (Dissimulation in Islam) makes it clear that taqiyya is not limited to Shi’a dissimulating in fear of persecution. Written by Sami Mukaram, a former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut and author of some twenty-five books on Islam, the book clearly demonstrates the ubiquity and broad applicability of taqiyya:

    Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[5]

    Taqiyya is, therefore, not, as is often supposed, an exclusively Shi’i phenomenon. Of course, as a minority group interspersed among their Sunni enemies, the Shi’a have historically had more reason to dissemble. Conversely, Sunni Islam rapidly dominated vast empires from Spain to China. As a result, its followers were beholden to no one, had nothing to apologize for, and had no need to hide from the infidel nonbeliever (rare exceptions include Spain and Portugal during the Reconquista when Sunnis did dissimulate over their religious identity[6]). Ironically, however, Sunnis living in the West today find themselves in the place of the Shi’a: Now they are the minority surrounded by their traditional enemies–Christian infidels–even if the latter, as opposed to their Reconquista predecessors, rarely act on, let alone acknowledge, this historic enmity. In short, Sunnis are currently experiencing the general circumstances that made taqiyya integral to Shi’ism although without the physical threat that had so necessitated it.

    The Articulation of Taqiyya

    Qur’anic verse 3:28 is often seen as the primary verse that sanctions deception towards non-Muslims: “Let believers [Muslims] not take infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and allies instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God–unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.”[7]

    Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of a standard and authoritative Qur’an commentary, explains verse 3:28 as follows:

    If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers–except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.[8]

    Regarding Qur’an 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), another prime authority on the Qur’an, writes, “Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.” As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.” Another companion, simply known as Al-Hasan, said, “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity].”[9]

    Other prominent scholars, such as Abu ‘Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73) and Muhyi ‘d-Din ibn al-Arabi (1165-1240), have extended taqiyya to cover deeds. In other words, Muslims can behave like infidels and worse–for example, by bowing down and worshiping idols and crosses, offering false testimony, and even exposing the weaknesses of their fellow Muslims to the infidel enemy–anything short of actually killing a Muslim: “Taqiyya, even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelity–even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire.”[10]
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2019
  3. Doug1943

    Doug1943 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,741
    Likes Received:
    1,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And some non-Orthodox Christians are persecuted by the Orthodox-enforcing Russian state.

    In all of these cases, it's important to try to untangle, insofar as possible, 'pure' religious persecution -- where the motive is just the usual one of "my irrational faith must prevail over yours" -- from what we may call 'national-cultural' persecution. In many of these countries, the people being persecuted are being persecuted because they are perceived as 'anti-national' -- perhaps even Trojan Horses for foreign forces, leading the native population away from faith in their Leader and the State.

    So, for instance, Russia has always had some strange quasi-Protestant religious sects, like the Dukhobors and Molokhans (spelling?), who are not loved by the Orthodox Church, but they are indisputably, genuinely Russian. Whereas the Jehovah's Witnesses are probably seen as an American beachhead. Sinilarly, Christian Arabs and Pakistanis are seen as pawns of the Americans -- and aggressively-proselytyzing American evangelicals don't help.

    Irrational belief in this or that particular set of sky-gods is very useful for the ruling class when wedded to unquestioning support for the state and those who control it -- so the latter have a motivation to 'squeeze out' those irrational belief groups who threaten to break up the unity of irrational faiths.

    Thus the revival of Hindu nationalism in India, of hard-line Catholicism in Eastern Europe, of Orthodoxy in Russia. (The Eastern European Catholics are, however, swimming against the tidal currents in their own international church, which is trying to adapt to the social liberalism of Europe and the US. So they had better explore Ukrainian-style 'national religion'. Their grandparents killed off most of their Jews, so they don't have minorities to persecute, and with their anti-immigration policies, the Muslims won't be able to fill the empty spaces left by the Jews.)

    All of these trends run counter to the slow, pervasive, but thinly-spread growth of what we may call 'international rationalism', mainly to be found in the younger, better-educated sectors of the population in every country -- one of the aspects of capitalist 'globalization'.

    It would be good if this group had more empathy for their own countrymen who are not so well-placed, but, like all social groups, they tend to see their particular self-interest as simply the expression of universal values, and themselves as uniquely virtuous.

    Thus the way is paved for some really nasty types to gain the support of those who do not benefit from, or who do not perceive themselves as benefitting from, current cultural and economic developments. This explains the extreme contradictions becoming manifest in the world today: globalization and internationalism and rational thinking, side-by-side with the rise of national and religious hatreds.

    We live in interesting times.
     
  4. billy the kid

    billy the kid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    2,931
    Likes Received:
    822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Continued.....
    Deceit in Muhammad’s Military Exploits

    Muhammad–whose example as the “most perfect human” is to be followed in every detail–took an expedient view on lying. It is well known, for instance, that he permitted lying in three situations: to reconcile two or more quarreling parties, to placate one’s wife, and in war.[11] According to one Arabic legal manual devoted to jihad as defined by the four schools of law, “The ulema agree that deception during warfare is legitimate … deception is a form of art in war.”[12]Moreover, according to Mukaram, this deception is classified as taqiyya: “Taqiyya in order to dupe the enemy is permissible.”[13]

    Several ulema believe deceit is integral to the waging of war: Ibn al-‘Arabi declares that “in the Hadith [sayings and actions of Muhammad], practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than the need for courage.” Ibn al-Munir (d. 1333) writes, “War is deceit, i.e., the most complete and perfect war waged by a holy warrior is a war of deception, not confrontation, due to the latter’s inherent danger, and the fact that one can attain victory through treachery without harm [to oneself].” And Ibn Hajar (d. 1448) counsels Muslims “to take great caution in war, while [publicly] lamenting and mourning in order to dupe the infidels.”[14]

    This Muslim notion that war is deceit goes back to the Battle of the Trench (627), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against several non-Muslim tribes known as Al-Ahzab. One of the Ahzab, Na’im ibn Mas’ud, went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam. When Muhammad discovered that the Ahzab were unaware of their co-tribalist’s conversion, he counseled Mas’ud to return and try to get the pagan forces to abandon the siege. It was then that Muhammad memorably declared, “For war is deceit.” Mas’ud returned to the Ahzab without their knowing that he had switched sides and intentionally began to give his former kin and allies bad advice. He also went to great lengths to instigate quarrels between the various tribes until, thoroughly distrusting each other, they disbanded, lifted the siege from the Muslims, and saved Islam from destruction in an embryonic period.[15] Most recently, 9/11 accomplices, such as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, rationalized their conspiratorial role in their defendant response by evoking their prophet’s assertion that “war is deceit.”

    A more compelling expression of the legitimacy of deceiving infidels is the following anecdote. A poet, Ka’b ibn Ashraf, offended Muhammad, prompting the latter to exclaim, “Who will kill this man who has hurt God and his prophet?” A young Muslim named Muhammad ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that in order to get close enough to Ka’b to assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet. Muhammad agreed. Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka’b and began to denigrate Islam and Muhammad. He carried on in this way till his disaffection became so convincing that Ka’b took him into his confidence. Soon thereafter, Ibn Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Ka’b’s guard was down, killed him.[16]

    Muhammad said other things that cast deception in a positive light, such as “God has commanded me to equivocate among the people just as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations”; and “I have been sent with obfuscation”; and “whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr.”[17]

    In short, the earliest historical records of Islam clearly attest to the prevalence of taqiyya as a form of Islamic warfare. Furthermore, early Muslims are often depicted as lying their way out of binds–usually by denying or insulting Islam or Muhammad–often to the approval of the latter, his only criterion being that their intentions (niya) be pure.[18]During wars with Christians, whenever the latter were in authority, the practice of taqiyya became even more integral. Mukaram states, “Taqiyya was used as a way to fend off danger from the Muslims, especially in critical times and when their borders were exposed to wars with the Byzantines and, afterwards, to the raids [crusades] of the Franks and others.”[19]

    Taqiyya in Qur’anic Revelation

    The Qur’an itself is further testimony to taqiyya. Since God is believed to be the revealer of these verses, he is by default seen as the ultimate perpetrator of deceit–which is not surprising since he is described in the Qur’an as the best makar, that is, the best deceiver or schemer (e.g., 3:54, 8:30, 10:21).

    While other scriptures contain contradictions, the Qur’an is the only holy book whose commentators have evolved a doctrine to account for the very visible shifts which occur from one injunction to another. No careful reader will remain unaware of the many contradictory verses in the Qur’an, most specifically the way in which peaceful and tolerant verses lie almost side by side with violent and intolerant ones. The ulema were initially baffled as to which verses to codify into the Shari’a worldview–the one that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims till they either convert, or at least submit, to Islam (8:39, 9:5, 9:29). To get out of this quandary, the commentators developed the doctrine of abrogation, which essentially maintains that verses revealed later in Muhammad’s career take precedence over earlier ones whenever there is a discrepancy. In order to document which verses abrogated which, a religious science devoted to the chronology of the Qur’an’s verses evolved (known as an-Nasikh wa’l Mansukh, the abrogater and the abrogated).

    But why the contradiction in the first place? The standard view is that in the early years of Islam, since Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by their infidel competitors while living next to them in Mecca, a message of peace and coexistence was in order. However, after the Muslims migrated to Medina in 622 and grew in military strength, verses inciting them to go on the offensive were slowly “revealed”–in principle, sent down from God–always commensurate with Islam’s growing capabilities. In juridical texts, these are categorized in stages: passivity vis-á-vis aggression; permission to fight back against aggressors; commands to fight aggressors; commands to fight all non-Muslims, whether the latter begin aggressions or not.[20] Growing Muslim might is the only variable that explains this progressive change in policy.

    Other scholars put a gloss on this by arguing that over a twenty-two year period, the Qur’an was revealed piecemeal, from passive and spiritual verses to legal prescriptions and injunctions to spread the faith through jihad and conquest, simply to acclimate early Muslim converts to the duties of Islam, lest they be discouraged at the outset by the dramatic obligations that would appear in later verses.[21]Verses revealed towards the end of Muhammad’s career–such as, “Warfare is prescribed for you though you hate it”[22]–would have been out of place when warfare was actually out of the question.

    However interpreted, the standard view on Qur’anic abrogation concerning war and peace verses is that when Muslims are weak and in a minority position, they should preach and behave according to the ethos of the Meccan verses (peace and tolerance); when strong, however, they should go on the offensive on the basis of what is commanded in the Medinan verses (war and conquest). The vicissitudes of Islamic history are a testimony to this dichotomy, best captured by the popular Muslim notion, based on a hadith, that, if possible, jihad should be performed by the hand (force), if not, then by the tongue (through preaching); and, if that is not possible, then with the heart or one’s intentions.[23]
     
  5. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Christians don't even figure into this.
     
  6. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure ... well deny everything until you believe the BS yourself, eh?
     
  7. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    16,888
    Likes Received:
    17,111
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if your only case against Christians is having to go back 100s of years to find acts of violence, then you already fail IMO
     
  8. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lord’s Resistance Army

    Use Google and educate your own please... :)
     
  9. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    16,888
    Likes Received:
    17,111
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK I will go do that! While we are on the topic of African extremist groups, please use google and educate your own please
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram
     
  10. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dude ... I know all these Islamist scum terror groups very well. The major problem is that they abuse the religion Islam for their pure political goals that have nothing to do with religion at least. And it is rediculous to write again and again how much evil is in Koran written, when all has also another and totally different translation too, Also ... in reverse ... the Christians always forget the Old Testament or want to tell that it has nothing to do with Christianity, what is crap and a lie. If this would be true ... all the content of the Old Testament is irrelavant? No ... this not but .... they start then to argue - simply rediculous!

    And also ... when was Koran written and when lived Mohamed again? At this time were things normal and totally OK common daily issue, which are today minimum a No Go. But people always make the error to rate history with opinion and morality from today ... not with the common one at the time when it was!
     
  11. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    16,888
    Likes Received:
    17,111
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I partially agree.

    when was Koran written and when lived Mohamed again? At this time were things normal and totally OK common daily issue, which are today minimum a No Go.

    and there is the issue. What was acceptable way back then is still being done by Islam extremists TODAY, but you guys need to go back 100s of years to find similar Christian occurences (ok so you found one christian extremist group in backwards Africa, congrats!
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2019
  12. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    With comparable evil deeds often, but not always yes.
    But not for smaller offenses. There was a new US movie about some Christian fundamentalists from the Bible Belt where the father is Reverent and the son is gay. As a result, he was sent to a special Christian institution against his will to correct his great sin of being gay, including physical violence as a therapy.
    The film is based on a reality ... and sorry, the Reverent would experience hell on earth with me and I would let him eat the Bible side by side to get the word of his Jesus he worshiped!

    Whatever ... What was the reason for the crusade in the Bible? Would anyone do that today with reasoning such a crusade? No.
    The Islamists do the same and they are a minority ... not even 0.1% of all Muslims. But unfortunately, these 0.1% are so violent violent and loud in public perception ... the normal and runaway Muslims but so incredibly quiet that it gives the impression that most Miuslime approve of the deeds.
     
  13. Doug1943

    Doug1943 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,741
    Likes Received:
    1,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    May I recommend the following book to anyone who wants to understand Muslims and what's happening to them, (and to us): Forces of Fortune, by Vali Nasr, an Iranian academic living in the US.

    The basis of historical change is economics. Capitalism is transforming the world -- unevenly, brutally, intermixed with cultural traditions from the pre-capitalist era, overlaid with horrible national and ethnic conflicts, in some cases made worse by modern technology.

    But the long-term movement is in one direction -- rationality and democracy and the dissolution of tribal groups and their absorption into a single human race. This is happening simply because capitalism and democracy provides a better life for most people. This is why religion is dying, including Islam. In the case of Islam, not peacefully.

    If we can survive the next few decades without a great war, the human species is going to undergo an enormous transformation, especially when 'synthetic biology' comes into its own.
     
  14. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not implying anything. I'm stating an ugly truth. The targets of the NZ event have made terrorism horribly common. Are you implying that they haven't?

    And how about that double standard?
     
  15. JessCurious

    JessCurious Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2019
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The Muslims in New Zealand did not deserve to be murdered. Muslims have set the World afire with violence since the creation of Israel in 1948. But only a minority of Muslims are involved in these
    acts. Its understandable that people are afraid of and suspicious of Muslims but that doesn't justify murder. What irks me about the New Zealand murders is that about the same time a Muslem mob in
    Nigeria attacked a Christian village in Nigeria and murdered 30 people, mostly women and children, and another mob burned ten churches in Ethiopia. The Liberals who sobbed so over New Zealand
    didn't give a rats' ass about these other incidents.
     
    Jeannette and billy the kid like this.
  16. kiwimac

    kiwimac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Source your damn quotes. JihadWatch is not a reputable site and if you are using it, it is no wonder your ideas of Islam are warped.
     
  17. billy the kid

    billy the kid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    2,931
    Likes Received:
    822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Appears as though you dont like the truth, Reverend....
     
  18. kiwimac

    kiwimac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Not to mention the IRA.
     
  19. kiwimac

    kiwimac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Rot and nonsense,
     
  20. kiwimac

    kiwimac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Son, I have studied Islam for 40 years. I know Muslims and have fellowshipped with them. What have you done other than read Jihad Watch?
     
  21. billy the kid

    billy the kid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    2,931
    Likes Received:
    822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please explain...
     
  22. billy the kid

    billy the kid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    2,931
    Likes Received:
    822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does fellowshipped mean....is that another word for "grab-arse"
     
  23. Observing

    Observing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,321
    Likes Received:
    910
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is their countries, their religion and their politics. What business is it of ours? The US army is supposed to enforce religious tolerance and respect for gender identification worldwide? The west can offer to take in any Christians and gays that want to come here after vetting is the only thing we should do. But this is just a by-product of the US getting involved militarily Quadafi, Assad and Hussein protected the religious minority as appeasement to the west. We got rid of them and now you got religious nuts running whole areas of the mid east.
     
  24. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    37,994
    Likes Received:
    7,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Russia recognizes 5 major religions: Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Orthodox Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. They do not allow proselytizing, nor does the Orthodox Church believe in proselytizing. Lutherans and Anglicans are recognized and many Tsars were raised in Germany and in the Lutheran faith. Only the Tsarina had to convert to the Orthodox faith, not the other wives - who were usually German and Lutheran.

    I know there is at least one Baptist Church, but faiths other than the five mentioned must have special permission. They've had too many problems with cults in the past, so they're not going to allow the thousand and one Protestants to establish Churches without special permission. Nor will they accept the liberal Jewish faiths. I don't think they accept Mormons which is a Christian heresy, or the Jehovah's Witnesses which is really an off shoot of Judaism. I read that they're cracking down on Scientologists.

    I know there is persecution of Christians in some of the Islamic Republics in the Russian Federation, but the Republics are independent and Putin is not the dictator that the propagandists make him out to be, so it's up to the local Governor's to handle it.

    To be an Indian one must be a Hindu. I don't think it's a formal belief, but how the people feel. It's sort of like the Romans wanting people to pay tribute to their gods as a sign of loyalty. Nationalism in contrast is a sin in Christianity since it stems from an ego and pride in one's identity, rather than a respect of one's own heritage and traditions like patriotism - which to me is a virtue.

    In contrast to Christianity and its spiritual growth in uniting with God, Islam and Judaism are also political entities that concern themselves with this world's values as well. That the European nationalists and many Evangelicals want to place Christianity into their own realm of 'self love', shows their ignorance and spiritual immaturity.

    As for the rest of what you wrote, seems like nothing more than a reflection of your own hang ups.

     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2019
  25. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    37,994
    Likes Received:
    7,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    That's not the only sign of Western Hypocrisy. When there was a terrorist act against a cartoonist in France who mocked Mohamed, they had a march to show how they supported a free press - which included among others Merkel. And yet when Belgrade was bombed under false pretenses by Nato so they could break up Serbia, they destroyed the TV station and killed the reporters to stop Belgrade's free press.


     

Share This Page