Two Killed and Thirty-Seven Children Abducted by Christofascists in Central Africa

You are obviously severely delusional.

 

If you read up on them..you will find that LRA is a mix and hodgepodge of different beliefs. That is the problem right there. If they were truely Christians they wouldn't be doing what they are doing. And like all cults...the focus is worship the leaders with "special powers" not God.

Worshiping people is a bad sign.

 

Yes I have!

They were in the vicinity of my daughter's kindergarten on the edge of a large immigrant quarter. They celebrated by driving around honking their horns and shouting out of the car windows. Some groups were obviously very elated and were quite sure there was more to come. In Odense a convoy of 15 cars drove around the city in similar fashion. Our PM mentioned it in a speech where he pointed out that it hurt the Danish people with such insensitive actions.

 

You can't compare the average, moderate Christian to what the barbarians in Africa are doing. They use religion as an excuse, it's too bad they don't follow the example of Christ.

 

And people call Christians retarded. Learn our faith before spouting nonsense. It's like, learn our faith before talking (*)(*)(*)(*) on us. The Simpsons had it right...think flanders...

 

You're saying the comparison is not valid because (using your unvetted numbers) nearly 100% of Christians have nothing in common with the LRA, while 95% of Muslims have nothing in common with Al Qaeda.

I'd say the point remains and is valid. The overwhelming majority of Christians have nothing in common with the LRA; the overwhelming majority of Muslims have nothing in common with Al Qaeda.

 

Except the islamic fundamentalist of Al Qaeda follow a strict, literal interpretation of the same doctrine used by most all Muslims. The LRA has made up their own doctrine.

 

It's hardly strict and literal. It's made-up fantasy. They use the same book, but their interpretation of it is widely regarded as effed-up.

For a closer to home example, do most Christians have anything at all in common with the Westboro Baptist nutjobs? They use the same book -- they just twist the hell into it.

 

worth repeating

 

Both very strict and very literal. The same interpretation that motivated the first Caliphs to wage their war on apostasty in the 7th century, motivates the likes of Al qaeda today. Jesus was a pascivist preacher. Muhammad was a warrior.

 

No, that's not what I'm saying but even if it was then your statement would still not be valid since 0% and 5% are not equivalent, not by a long shot. I gave you examples of why your statement is shown to be invalid, why do you choose to ignore them?

Now back to what you claim I'm saying. The issue is "has as much to do with" which is not the same as "have nothing in common with". I'd say even among Western Muslims who do not support Al Qaeda you will find a good degree of consensus about the relation between the West/US and the Islamic world. For example that Western presence and influence in the Islamic world, particularly in the ME is a curse. For many Western Muslims this translates to approval of attacks against US/Western forces in Muslim countries for example Iraq and Afghanistan. Many also want Islamist governance and have little respect for democracy, human rights etc. On the gaols then there is much in common even if not on the tactics for achieving them.

The LRA on the other hand has no well defined ideology for Western Christians to even identify with. Their gaols appear to be limited to regional politics which are not of particular relevance to Western Christians and their tactics have absolutely no support. It is difficult to determine their religious doctrine to make a comparison suggesting that this is not a significant factor. There is no evidence for example that they discriminate on the basis of religion when it comes to their victims or enemy. For example in the Al Qaeda Khobar massacre some saved their lives by falsely claiming to be Muslims when "Christians" were seperated out to be slain.

 

Its a tenet of Islam that the Quran is the literal word of God unlike in Christianity where most Christians believe it is only divinely inspired. Do you have anything authorative to back up your claim that AQ's interpretation is widely regarded as "effed-up"?

 

http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.ph...gainst_extremism_and_terrorism_part_i_fatwas/
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
http://thewhitepath.com/islam-muslims/an_islamic_condemnation_of_al_qaeda_killings/
http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/


Most of the links on the above pages point out that the Quranic interpretations used to justify Islam are *way, way, WAY* outside the mainstream, particularly in the West.

 

The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God was once widely held in Christian circles, too. It's just that most Christians ignore it nowadays in favor of a "metaphor" or "divinely inspired" view.

 

Justify Islam? You mean the actions of AQ?

 

Yep, sorry. Brain fart.

 

Its no "just" but a huge leap!

 

Agreed. I've said before that the major difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam, being 600 years younger, hasn't gone through a Reformation yet.

My point was that there's not that big a *fundamental* difference between Christianity and Islam. It's just that Christians, for the most part, have moved away from the more bloody, literal interpretations of the Bible.

Many Muslims have, too, wrt the Quran.

 

Ok, well lets take your last link and the first Muslim theologian mentioned, Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi. He believes suicide bombings of civilians is justified in Islam given the right conditions. 9/11 was a suicide attack on civilians and so I would say if you count him as being mainstream then his interpretation lies pretty close to AQ and not *way, way, WAY* outside.

 

Are you suggesting that religions naturally evolve through a reformation at a certain age?

And my point is that "moving away from the bloody, literal interpretations of the Bible" is a fundamental difference!

What do you base your belief in that many Muslims have too? I see rather the opposite trend with a resurgence.

 

While I totally disagree with his logic, his justification for that was limited to one specific case: Palestinians attacking Israelis. his "logic" was that Israelis are a completely militarized society in which every Israeli can be viewed as a soldier, that the problem is one of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, and that suicide attacks are one of the few weapons available to the Palestinians.

Outside of Palestine, his condemnation of attacks on civilians is total.

Also note that 2,500 Islamic scholars and have condemned Qaradawi for his more extreme interpretations.

So we're left with this: Here you have a guy who you'd think would be an AQ sympathizer. But even he condemns such attacks everywhere outside of Israel as being un-Islamic, and he himself has been condemned by a very large group of Muslims for allowing that exception.

 

Yes. By reformation I mean there comes a point where they need to reconcile their ancient texts with the modern world.

Um, the fact that only 5% of Western Muslims (your number) support AQ? That there are millions upon millions of Muslims who preach and follow a metaphorical interpretation of the Quran?

 

No, what we are left with is a lack of credibility because a Muslim scholar who supports suicide attacks on civilians is included among those making Islamic statements against terrorism. However many Islamic scholars may have condemned Qaradawi it appears they are willing to have him as a partner when signing declarations representing mainstream Islam. Then the question is why you buy it, why do you claim that this is mainstream Islam when at the same time declaring him an extremist? How many of the 2,500 Islamic scholars you mention are also extremists and how many thousands actually support Qaradawi for he is afterall an esteemed scholar isn't he?

 

Ok so Hinduism is older than Christianity and must have had its reformation much earlier, what happened?

No, the 5% were for US Muslims not all Western Muslims. There's plenty of room between supporting AQ and believing in the more bloody, literal interpretations of the Quran!

I think US Muslims are comparatively moderate when compared with European Muslims. Lets not change to millions and millions but stick to proportions. Which Muslim groups or sects preach and follow a metaphorical interpretation of the Quran and what is their proportion?

 

???? Thats what the Salafist movement has been. Islamic reformation.
Christianity reformed, returning Christianity to the doctrine of the bible and away from the doctrine created by the catholic church. Unfortunately, returning Islam to the doctrine of the koran gives you the likes of Al Qaeda. Reformation of Christianity lead to Thomas Paines "Common Sense" that used the doctrine of the bible to demonstrate the illigitimacy of divine rule of monarchs. Reformation of Islam and you get Sayyid Qutb "Milestones".