Egyptian christian massacre

[CFC]

Anybody know what the motivations of the anti christian movements in Egypt are? Honestly Ive not been following the uprisings, so called Arab spring but Ive seen on Reuters that 25 protesting christians were killed at the weekend and the article said many chuches have been destroyed. I was always under the impression that Egypt was one of the more moderate Arab states but admit my knowledge of Middle East history and politics is not up to par.

[hibsbollah]

I knew nothing about the coptic christians in Egypt until the revolution earlier this year. They are a surprisingly large minority in Egypt, about 15% of the population, and traditionally have fitted in seamlessly to broader muslim society. There were a couple of killings of coptics last year by fundamentalist Islamists, obviously to start
tensions between the groups.

[RyeSloan]

This was pretty much a certainty to happen....similar to Iraq where you remove a dictator and create a power vaccum all the underlying religious and tribal divides come back to the surface.

There is probably a very good reason a lot of these countries are/were ruled by dictators...it can sometimes be the only way to hold them together in the face of religious and tribal extremism.

I expect there to be more bloodshed fo this type in Egypt and beyond, I hope it doesn't decend into radicalism from all parties but the potential is there for sure.

[Geo_1875]

Another Lebanon in the making.

[(((Fergus)))]

Anybody know what the motivations of the anti christian movements in Egypt are? Honestly Ive not been following the uprisings, so called Arab spring but Ive seen on Reuters that 25 protesting christians were killed at the weekend and the article said many chuches have been destroyed. I was always under the impression that Egypt was one of the more moderate Arab states but admit my knowledge of Middle East history and politics is not up to par.

Some muslims feel threatened by other religions, not least the two that islam is supposed to have superseded and rendered redundant: Judaism and Christianity. In many muslim majority countries, these religions have been tolerated but with certain conditions, e.g., either new synagogues and churches are not allowed to be built or, if they are, they must not be bigger/higher/grander than nearby mosques. This particular instance was sparked by the latest attack on a Christian church by a mob of "several thousand Muslims" who objected to a church being renovated:

(http://www.aina.org/news/20110930204413.htm)http://www.aina.org/news/20110930204413.htm

Note that the attack happened - as they often do - after Friday "prayers"...the equivalent of Sunday service. Must have been a hell of a sermon.

According to an Egyptian Coptic NGO, around 93,000 Copts have left Egypt since March.

http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/499187 (http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/499187)

In a related story from Libya, some daft ex-Libyan Jew who was expelled with all the others in 1967 went back to support the rebels, working in a hospital I believe, and then wanted to renovate one of the old synagogues that had since fallen into ruin. This too provoked a muslim mob and he was run out of the country, after being told “There is no place for the Jews in Libya”

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=241109

[magpie1892]

Note that the attack happened - as they often do - after Friday "prayers"...the equivalent of Sunday service. Must have been a hell of a sermon.

You're not kidding. Until March I lived next to a mosque in Doha. I learned to sleep through the call to prayer at 4am, etc. but Fridays were a treat when you get (at ALL mosques in those countries in the Gulf I have been to/lived in (seven in total)) a full half-hour/hour of very aggressive ranting from the loudspeaker guy. You don't need to speak Arabic to know that the words have bad intentions and I asked an Egyptian (muslim) colleague of mine what the story was, saying: 'it doesn't sound very friendly'. 'For you, no, it's not friendly,' he said with a smile.

It's basically a gee-up for muslims to kill non-muslims. 'Kill them where they stand' is one particularly beloved phrase, I am reliably informed.

I'm surprised that the Copt thing is a surprise to anyone, let alone the media. This is what islam does.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Where are the Knights Templar when you need them? :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

You're not kidding. Until March I lived next to a mosque in Doha. I learned to sleep through the call to prayer at 4am, etc. but Fridays were a treat when you get (at ALL mosques in those countries in the Gulf I have been to/lived in (seven in total)) a full half-hour/hour of very aggressive ranting from the loudspeaker guy. You don't need to speak Arabic to know that the words have bad intentions and I asked an Egyptian (muslim) colleague of mine what the story was, saying: 'it doesn't sound very friendly'. 'For you, no, it's not friendly,' he said with a smile.

It's basically a gee-up for muslims to kill non-muslims. 'Kill them where they stand' is one particularly beloved phrase, I am reliably informed.

I'm surprised that the Copt thing is a surprise to anyone, let alone the media. This is what islam does.

Your alleged 'experiences' in Qatar just demonstrate you really have no idea what you're talking about.
You don't have to go any further than Edinburgh Central Mosque on Potterrow to see what Friday prayers are like. There are people to interpret the Imam's Arabic, and there is no "encouragement to kill non-muslims". Its all a bit mumbo-jumbo to an agnostic like me but nothing to be phoning special branch about.

In the unlikely event you were living next to a radical, al qaeda -inspired revolutionary imams mosque in Doha, the sermon might have been a bit fierier than you'll get in Potterrow, but i suggest since you dont speak the language and Qatar isnt a hotbed of revolutionary Islam, you're just letting your imagination run away with you, are talking out of your hole, or both. Dont worry, go on down to ECM and learn something new, they let anyone
in, even those as evidently ridden with prejudice as you clearly are.

Your mask is definitely slipping.

[Betty Boop]

Your alleged 'experiences' in Qatar just demonstrate you really have no idea what you're talking about.
You don't have to go any further than Edinburgh Central Mosque on Potterrow to see what Friday prayers are like. There are people to interpret the Imam's Arabic, and there is no "encouragement to kill non-muslims". Its all a bit mumbo-jumbo to an agnostic like me but nothing to be phoning special branch about.

In the unlikely event you were living next to a radical, al qaeda -inspired revolutionary imams mosque in Doha, the sermon might have been a bit fierier than you'll get in Potterrow, but i suggest since you dont speak the language and Qatar isnt a hotbed of revolutionary Islam, you're just letting your imagination run away with you, are talking out of your hole, or both. Dont worry, go on down to ECM and learn something new, they let anyone
in, even those as evidently ridden with prejudice as you clearly are.

Your mask is definitely slipping.

:agree: He/she comes across as suffering from a severe case of Islamophobia. Egypt is a hotbed of anger and frustration at the moment, mostly at the slow progress towards free and fair elections. Most Egyptians are venting their anger at the Military council and feel that interim regime is much the same as life under Mubarak. No surprise that hundreds of Egyptians hve been arrested and sentenced in Military courts. Such a shame for them, after all they went through to oust Mubarak.
Al Jazeera's take on the sectarian violence....

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/10/2011101072623285752.html

[Twa Cairpets]

You're not kidding. Until March I lived next to a mosque in Doha. I learned to sleep through the call to prayer at 4am, etc. but Fridays were a treat when you get (at ALL mosques in those countries in the Gulf I have been to/lived in (seven in total)) a full half-hour/hour of very aggressive ranting from the loudspeaker guy. You don't need to speak Arabic to know that the words have bad intentions and I asked an Egyptian (muslim) colleague of mine what the story was, saying: 'it doesn't sound very friendly'. 'For you, no, it's not friendly,' he said with a smile.

It's basically a gee-up for muslims to kill non-muslims. 'Kill them where they stand' is one particularly beloved phrase, I am reliably informed.
I'm surprised that the Copt thing is a surprise to anyone, let alone the media. This is what islam does.

Anywhere where we might be able to verify that claim? I don't know if it's true or not, but you'd understand a certain degree of skepticism given the accuracy of some of your previous claims on similar threads.

One might think that if it was as widespread and as constant then it might just possibly have been reported? It's not as if all non-muslims can't understand Arabic.

By the way, you're right it shouldnt be a surprise to anyone. A power vacuum gives the opportunity to for those with religious agendas the opportunity to flex their muscles. As I may have alluded to on another thread....

[hibsbollah]

Anywhere where we might be able to verify that claim? I don't know if it's true or not, but you'd understand a certain degree of skepticism given the accuracy of some of your previous claims on similar threads.One might think that if it was as widespread and as constant then it might just possibly have been reported? It's not as if all non-muslims can't understand Arabic.By the way, you're right it shouldnt be a surprise to anyone. A power vacuum gives the opportunity to for those with religious agendas the opportunity to flex their muscles. As I may have alluded to on another thread.... 'Kill them where they stand' is a quote from the qur'an referring to the Meccans specifically, during a particular war. Its one of those quotes that islamophobes like to take out of context as being a directive to kill all unbelievers, when it doesnt (apparently, im not an arabic scholar :greengrin).Someone is trying to take the odious Daniel Pipes to task for this exact bit of selective misquotation on his lovely website here...http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/162926

[One Day Soon]

Anywhere where we might be able to verify that claim? I don't know if it's true or not, but you'd understand a certain degree of skepticism given the accuracy of some of your previous claims on similar threads.

One might think that if it was as widespread and as constant then it might just possibly have been reported? It's not as if all non-muslims can't understand Arabic.

By the way, you're right it shouldnt be a surprise to anyone. A power vacuum gives the opportunity to for those with religious agendas the opportunity to flex their muscles. As I may have alluded to on another thread....


Boring. Predictable. Wrong.

Baader-Meinhof. Sendero Luminoso. Brigatte Rossi. All killed innocent people. None of them religiously motivated.

It is nothing to do with religious agendas, it is to do with political/economic agendas. Your example is people misusing religion for their own purposes. In the other cases it is a warped political analysis at work. The constant is warped people, nothing else.

[Twa Cairpets]

Boring. Predictable. Wrong.

Baader-Meinhof. Sendero Luminoso. Brigatte Rossi. All killed innocent people. None of them religiously motivated.

It is nothing to do with religious agendas, it is to do with political/economic agendas. Your example is people misusing religion for their own purposes. In the other cases it is a warped political analysis at work. The constant is warped people, nothing else.

Which has been pretty much my point all along. So thanks for finally agreeing.

Not exclusive, and there's lots of nasty people out there. This one happens to be religious.

But what it does do is give people an opportunity to stereotype whole swathes of nationalities and religions. I no more believe all muslims are out to kill all christiansthan I do that all christians are creationists. Lets not sidetrack this debate into well covered ground - my earlier comment should have had :wink:smiley to show I was trying to be a bit ironic.

[One Day Soon]

Which has been pretty much my point all along. So thanks for finally agreeing.

Not exclusive, and there's lots of nasty people out there. This one happens to be religious.

But what it does do is give people an opportunity to stereotype whole swathes of nationalities and religions. I no more believe all muslims are out to kill all christiansthan I do that all christians are creationists. Lets not sidetrack this debate into well covered ground - my earlier comment should have had :wink:smiley to show I was trying to be a bit ironic.

If your argument is that people misuse religion, politics, science, football and a whole host of other things for their own evil purposes then we have no disagreement. :wink:

[magpie1892]

Your alleged 'experiences' in Qatar just demonstrate you really have no idea what you're talking about.
You don't have to go any further than Edinburgh Central Mosque on Potterrow to see what Friday prayers are like. There are people to interpret the Imam's Arabic, and there is no "encouragement to kill non-muslims". Its all a bit mumbo-jumbo to an agnostic like me but nothing to be phoning special branch about.

In the unlikely event you were living next to a radical, al qaeda -inspired revolutionary imams mosque in Doha, the sermon might have been a bit fierier than you'll get in Potterrow, but i suggest since you dont speak the language and Qatar isnt a hotbed of revolutionary Islam, you're just letting your imagination run away with you, are talking out of your hole, or both. Dont worry, go on down to ECM and learn something new, they let anyone
in, even those as evidently ridden with prejudice as you clearly are.

Your mask is definitely slipping.

Nothing alleged about it, and I am not just talking about Qatar. I've experienced the same in numerous Gulf countries. I've experienced this as a witness in multiple venues (multiple venues with Doha, and elsewhere) and independent verification from a third-party Egyptian muslim. What Friday prayers at ECM have to do with what comes out of the loudspeaker in the Gulf is anyone's guess but might I suggest that content in the sermon might just be slightly different in a muslim state? Just perhaps? If you're basing the Friday sermon on what comes out at ECM then you're the one who has no clue of what you're talking about. None at all.

I could go in and ask them about it, but no non-muslims allowed in Mosques in Qatar (or UAE, or Saudi, or Yemen, or Bahrain, or Oman - that's the limit of my 'alleged' experience) but they let you into ECM so that's where I'll find the answers about Friday sermons in Doha. Obviously.

My mask is slipping? Aye, I hate muslims right enough, hence the years I've spent in muslim states and the muslim friends I've made. Your mask has slipped right off - you clearly haven't the slightest clue what you're on about, and trying to conflate ECM with mosques in the Gulf is embarrassing in its ignorance.

[magpie1892]

Anywhere where we might be able to verify that claim? I don't know if it's true or not, but you'd understand a certain degree of skepticism given the accuracy of some of your previous claims on similar threads.

I wouldn't understand the scepticism, no. I'm unaware of anything said on similar threads that has been inaccurate.

But there are loads of places to go to verify this kind of thing. Try, as I did, asking a muslim in the locale of a mosque in the Gulf? Or go to ECM - all the answers lie therein, apparently...

[Twa Cairpets]

I wouldn't understand the scepticism, no. I'm unaware of anything said on similar threads that has been inaccurate.

But there are loads of places to go to verify this kind of thing. Try, as I did, asking a muslim in the locale of a mosque in the Gulf? Or go to ECM - all the answers lie therein, apparently...

Yes, that'll be handy for me. Let me just pop down from west Lothian to Bahrain....:rolleyes:

But, no thats fine. I'll take your report as unquestioned confirmation that it is widespread and as inflammatory as you suggest. From some random bloke you've spoken to. Apparently.

[magpie1892]

Yes, that'll be handy for me. Let me just pop down from west Lothian to Bahrain....:rolleyes:

But, no thats fine. I'll take your report as unquestioned confirmation that it is widespread and as inflammatory as you suggest. From some random bloke you've spoken to. Apparently.

I managed it from Edinburgh, numerous times! :wink:

Do as you will. I think, however, there's ample evidence that what you might hear in a Friday sermon over here is quite different to a Friday sermon you might hear over there. The title of this thread, for example, gives an indication of the vastly different attitudes in muslim-majority countries towards other (minority) faiths. It simply wouldn't do to have the ECM Friday ramble along the same lines as in the Gulf, for obvious reasons, so differ markedly it does.

I'm happy to PM you the email address of my (random, 'apparently') Egyptian friend, if you like, and you can ask him yourself? He's back in Cairo now so he might well have worthwhile input into the topic of discussion here also...

[Twa Cairpets]

I managed it from Edinburgh, numerous times! :wink:

Do as you will. I think, however, there's ample evidence that what you might hear in a Friday sermon over here is quite different to a Friday sermon you might hear over there. The title of this thread, for example, gives an indication of the vastly different attitudes in muslim-majority countries towards other (minority) faiths. It simply wouldn't do to have the ECM Friday ramble along the same lines as in the Gulf, for obvious reasons, so differ markedly it does.

I'm happy to PM you the email address of my (random, 'apparently') Egyptian friend, if you like, and you can ask him yourself? He's back in Cairo now so he might well have worthwhile input into the topic of discussion here also...

Thats most kind of you, but I'll decline on the basis that (a) that would be a rather weirdly distrubing thing for me to do, and (b) anecdote doesnt count as evidence. I know a guy who I could put you in touch with who would claim with absolute conviction that ALL catholics are guilty of child molestation. And he's wrong.

Again, not withstanding your pal who I'm sure is a fine chap, is there any credible report backing up what you say? Any independent news wires reporting that this is what Friday prayers are pretty much always about. I'm not trying to catch you out, as I just don't know, but it would be great if you could point me in the right direction for anything that may back your experience and beliefs up. I don't doubt that some mosques do, but I have doubt over whether it is as far reaching as you claim in the middle east. Prepared absolutely to be shown that my doubt is misplaced.

[magpie1892]

Thats most kind of you, but I'll decline on the basis that (a) that would be a rather weirdly distrubing thing for me to do, and (b) anecdote doesnt count as evidence. I know a guy who I could put you in touch with who would claim with absolute conviction that ALL catholics are guilty of child molestation. And he's wrong.

Again, not withstanding your pal who I'm sure is a fine chap, is there any credible report backing up what you say? Any independent news wires reporting that this is what Friday prayers are pretty much always about. I'm not trying to catch you out, as I just don't know, but it would be great if you could point me in the right direction for anything that may back your experience and beliefs up. I don't doubt that some mosques do, but I have doubt over whether it is as far reaching as you claim in the middle east. Prepared absolutely to be shown that my doubt is misplaced.

I'll have a look. The only 'evidence' I have to hand is personal experience, backed up by a muslim. Next time I'm out there I'll try and get some Friday Feelgood on tape and take it from there. FWIW, I am sure my former colleague wouldn't mind an email. Option is there if you want the inside track.

This (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100077810/east-london-mosque-keeps-on-lying/) and this (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/East_London_Mosque) are quite interesting, hate on a Friday in the UK. Perhaps there is not as much difference as I was led to believe betwixt here and there!

[CFC]

I knew nothing about the coptic christians in Egypt until the revolution earlier this year. They are a surprisingly large minority in Egypt, about 15% of the population, and traditionally have fitted in seamlessly to broader muslim society. There were a couple of killings of coptics last year by fundamentalist Islamists, obviously to start
tensions between the groups.

Me too. TBH I was under the misinformed impression that nations like Egypt were almost homogenously Muslim.

[hibsbollah]

Nothing alleged about it, and I am not just talking about Qatar. I've experienced the same in numerous Gulf countries. I've experienced this as a witness in multiple venues (multiple venues with Doha, and elsewhere) and independent verification from a third-party Egyptian muslim. What Friday prayers at ECM have to do with what comes out of the loudspeaker in the Gulf is anyone's guess but might I suggest that content in the sermon might just be slightly different in a muslim state? Just perhaps? If you're basing the Friday sermon on what comes out at ECM then you're the one who has no clue of what you're talking about. None at all.I could go in and ask them about it, but no non-muslims allowed in Mosques in Qatar (or UAE, or Saudi, or Yemen, or Bahrain, or Oman - that's the limit of my 'alleged' experience) but they let you into ECM so that's where I'll find the answers about Friday sermons in Doha. Obviously.My mask is slipping? Aye, I hate muslims right enough, hence the years I've spent in muslim states and the muslim friends I've made. Your mask has slipped right off - you clearly haven't the slightest clue what you're on about, and trying to conflate ECM with mosques in the Gulf is embarrassing in its ignorance. You were suggesting that Islam, not Islam in the gulf, was all aboutpromoting the killing of non-muslims (as you said, "this is what Islam does")...So its quite appropriate for me to point out the lunacy of this statement by pointing out Potterrow mosque as an example.But lets be honest, you have no more interest in honest debate than i have in your CV. Your post history reveals you as a rabidly right wing dullard who rails against islam, the anti fascist movement and immigration. When your frequent misquotes and errors are pointed out or youre just destroyed in debate, you disappear and then pop up a few days later with more of the same. Dull and predictable.

[magpie1892]

You were suggesting that Islam, not Islam in the gulf, was all aboutpromoting the killing of non-muslims (as you said, "this is what Islam does")...So its quite appropriate for me to point out the lunacy of this statement by pointing out Potterrow mosque as an example.But lets be honest, you have no more interest in honest debate than i have in your CV. Your post history reveals you as a rabidly right wing dullard who rails against islam, the anti fascist movement and immigration. When your frequent misquotes and errors are pointed out or youre just destroyed in debate, you disappear and then pop up a few days later with more of the same. Dull and predictable.

That you clearly have limited experience of the Gulf countries is no source of embarrassment, but it is a bit much when you pontificate on matters you are wholly ignorant of, as you have done here. And also, when saying 'this is what islam does' in a thread about events in the MENA region, I'm actually talking about the MENA region, as I go on to say quite specifically, exemplifying the difference between here and there. But you know this.

I'm missing the frequent misquotes and errors being 'pointed out' to me? In the vast majority of cases I don't get anything substantive back apart from ad hom ('rabidly right wing dullard') and game-changers like 'you might think that, but you'd be wrong' - but these are not persuasive arguments. It's hugely hypocritical, and typical, that I am accused of being 'dull and predictable' when you've not made any points to have me reappraise my situation, yet again.

The irony of you telling me I don't know what I am talking about goes off the scale, as does the vacuity of the suggestion that I find the answers at the ECM. You need to have some knowledge of what you're talking about to construct an argument with someone who does, not call me names and run away. I'll see your 'dull and predictable' and raise you hypocritical, ignorant and blinkered.

You write: "You were suggesting that Islam, not Islam in the gulf, was all aboutpromoting the killing of non-muslims" as a response to my post, the first line of which was: "...and I am not just talking about Qatar. I've experienced the same in numerous Gulf countries..." Do you see what you've missed? This is not 'misquotes and errors' being 'pointed out' to me, this is you seemingly unable to see something right in front of your nose. I can't feel threatened by an argument constructed on a fallacy, can I?

The words a poster uses don't seem to matter, what matters is what you deem their motives to have been? "this is what Islam does" actually means "I love the BNP" in your world. That's a wee bit sad.

[hibsbollah]

I havent 'run away'; anytime you find the resources to come back with any sort of argument we can debate let me know. In the meantime its just your normal prejudice and anecdotes.

[khib70]

I havent 'run away'; anytime you find the resources to come back with any sort of argument we can debate let me know. In the meantime its just your normal prejudice and anecdotes.
You're right about Magpie. It's a bit unfortunate that he always levers this kind of debate into being about him and his strange and slightly sinister range of predjudices.

I do have a bit of a concern though that it doesn't seem possible to have any kind of meaningful debate about the very real issue of Islamic fundamentalism on here without someone whipping out the Islamophobia card. There are serious grounds for concern about the behaviour of Islamist regimes and populations, not just in Egypt and the Gulf but in Pakistan as well. Ludicrous, mullah-initiated "blasphemy" cases are pursued fairly frequently with huge popular support and bloody consequences, to little or no condemnation from the western liberal concensus.

It shouldn't be left to the Magpies of this world to condemn this murderous nonsense. Nor should the fact that a substantial majority of Muslims are rational, peace-loving people prevent anyone from condemning the lynch mobs of Iran and Pakistan without being accused of "Islamophobia"

[ballengeich]

Nor should the fact that a substantial majority of Muslims are rational, peace-loving people prevent anyone from condemning the lynch mobs of Iran and Pakistan without being accused of "Islamophobia"

Life is becoming increasingly difficult for Christians in Iraq and Palestine too. The Christian population is decreasing as people flee in the same way that Jews fled from Arab countries last century. Quite tragic.

[Twa Cairpets]

You're right about Magpie. It's a bit unfortunate that he always levers this kind of debate into being about him and his strange and slightly sinister range of predjudices.

I do have a bit of a concern though that it doesn't seem possible to have any kind of meaningful debate about the very real issue of Islamic fundamentalism on here without someone whipping out the Islamophobia card. There are serious grounds for concern about the behaviour of Islamist regimes and populations, not just in Egypt and the Gulf but in Pakistan as well. Ludicrous, mullah-initiated "blasphemy" cases are pursued fairly frequently with huge popular support and bloody consequences, to little or no condemnation from the western liberal concensus.

It shouldn't be left to the Magpies of this world to condemn this murderous nonsense. Nor should the fact that a substantial majority of Muslims are rational, peace-loving people prevent anyone from condemning the lynch mobs of Iran and Pakistan without being accused of "Islamophobia"

Good post. Islamic fundamentalists are dangerous and pursuing very driven agendas based on their beliefs. The fundamentals of islam are very intolerant and very prescriptive in what needs to be done with to christians, apostates etc. However, on a practical level, we dont see tens of thousands of murders of christians. We do see some which are some too many, but in the same way as believers of other religions, either conciously or unconsciously, pick and choose what parts of their religion to follow or treat as most important, so it is I would think with islam. Most christians don't follow OT pronouncements and instruction. Most muslim dont want to kill christians.

The political manipulation of those of faith by those with extreme agendas (picking my words carefully for the benfit of my friend ODS) must be challenged and fought against. Where the (too my mind) lazy broad-brush approach that Magpie takes fails and is dangerous is that it is a stance that instantly polarises. I would no sooner defend Islam than I would any other religion or political extremism based on blind adherence and the advocation of violence against those who are different, but opposing the position taken by Magpie immediately makes you look like an apologist for Allah.

I've had a look as Magpie hasnt managed to show me any reports of the consistent and widespread call for muslims to kill non-muslims, notwithstanding his mate in Egypt. I cant find anything that suggests this is the case. If I'm wrong then I'll agree with him that it is disgusting. If it's not then that type of claim becomes accepted wisdom and repeated and is used to justify hate, fear and suspicion.

[magpie1892]

I havent 'run away'; anytime you find the resources to come back with any sort of argument we can debate let me know. In the meantime its just your normal prejudice and anecdotes.

The statement was: 'this is what islam does' - kill non-muslims (and each other) like no other 'faith'. That's a fact. I can link you to a list of muslim atrocities if you like, but you must know about most of them. Beslan is as good a place as any to start.

But the murder of these copts, Egyptian copts, by Egyptian muslims - it's not a surprise, it's par for the course, as I said. How many terrorist attacks in Iraq by muslims against muslims since 2000? They're on the news every week, the ones we even hear about through atrocity fatigue.

My argument: the copt massacre was part of a long (1,400 year) trend. I'd be happy to argue that if you wish...

[magpie1892]

It shouldn't be left to the Magpies of this world to condemn this murderous nonsense.

:top marks

[Twa Cairpets]

The statement was: 'this is what islam does' - kill non-muslims (and each other) like no other 'faith'. That's a fact. I can link you to a list of muslim atrocities if you like, but you must know about most of them. Beslan is as good a place as any to start.

But the murder of these copts, Egyptian copts, by Egyptian muslims - it's not a surprise, it's par for the course, as I said. How many terrorist attacks in Iraq by muslims against muslims since 2000? They're on the news every week, the ones we even hear about through atrocity fatigue.

My argument: the copt massacre was part of a long (1,400 year) trend. I'd be happy to argue that if you wish...

You're moving away from the point you made, and now are going on about inter-religion murder. Its horrible and wrong, but its not what you were talking about earlier which was very specifically about killing non-muslims.

I cant find any stats other than this (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ter_ter_act_196_fat_percap-1968-2006-fatalities-per-capita) which gives figures of people killed by terrorism 1968 - 2006. Not all were islamic terrorists, and not all victims were christian. But lets say for the sake of argument those numbers are correct, and double it for the last 5 years - say 70,000. Thats a lot of people. but over an estimated 1.5 billion muslims worldwide over 40 years, that works out at that each muslim in that time has been responsible for the death of 0.00000016 infidel.

They may be preaching hate and terror and death as you claim, but they're pretty crap at it.

[magpie1892]

You're moving away from the point you made, and now are going on about inter-religion murder. Its horrible and wrong, but its not what you were talking about earlier which was very specifically about killing non-muslims.

I cant find any stats other than this (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ter_ter_act_196_fat_percap-1968-2006-fatalities-per-capita) which gives figures of people killed by terrorism 1968 - 2006. Not all were islamic terrorists, and not all victims were christian. But lets say for the sake of argument those numbers are correct, and double it for the last 5 years - say 70,000. Thats a lot of people. but over an estimated 1.5 billion muslims worldwide over 40 years, that works out at that each muslim in that time has been responsible for the death of 0.00000016 infidel.

They may be preaching hate and terror and death as you claim, but they're pretty crap at it.

The original point I made was to posit that it was odd that anyone should express surprise at the copt killings as 'it is what islam does', which was - on the surface at least, though this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/10/attack-on-egyptian-christians-not-sectarian?INTCMP=SRCH) piece says not - muslims killing non-muslims. I'm not sure the 'murders per muslim' figure is relevant; more relevant is the glut of muslim atrocities outweighing - by some distance - every other faith, certainly in the last 1,400 years. Which is the point I was making: islam has a history of violence unlike any other 'religion'. I would dispute that they're crap at execution of the hate and terror they preach - some quite complex and murderous schemes have been managed and attempted using very basic technologies.

They keep a tally of muslim murders and maimings on thereligionofpeace.com but I'm uncertain as to the probity of that site. Even if it's only half true, it makes for pretty alarming reading.

[(((Fergus)))]

Here's a story from Saudi Arabian football that illustrates how insecure some Islamic societies (societies in the sense of the prevailing practice, i.e. what is allowed to happen in public) can be about their religion. The player in question was arrested for displaying tattoos of Jesus on his arms:


From Emirates 24/7 (http://www.emirates247.com/news/saudi-bans-footballers-with-tattoos-report-2011-10-10-1.422726):
Saudi Arabia’s religious police have told foreign players with tattoos on their arms tocover such drawings while on the field, saying they are adversely affecting young Saudis, a newspaper reported on Monday.

The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice sent a letter to the Higher Youth Committee asking it to warn all foreign players in the conservative Muslim Gulf kingdom to cover their tattoos before going into the field during matches, Sabq Arabic language daily said.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kuoBy-Eb1Zk/TpVxnojwrnI/AAAAAAAAE2U/9veJvVmnGt0/s1600/pino.jpg)
The letter cited Columbian player at Al Nasr Club, Juan Pablo Pino, whose hands and shoulders are covered with tattoos “in violation of existing rules.”

“These tattoos have negative effects on the Saudi youth…you are asked to draw the attention of all foreign players in the Kingdom to the need to abide by the rules and cover their tattoos during matches,” the letter said.

The paper said the letter contained a photograph of Pino, showing his two arms are covered with tattoos.

The paper said the letter followed a picture published in local newspapers showing Pino’s tattoos included some “Christian drawings.”

The 24-year-old Pino and his pregnant wife were detained by Commission members at a Riyadh shopping mall this week on the grounds he was wearing a T-shirt without sleeves.


More from Zimbabwe Metro:
(http://www.zimbabwemetro.com/?p=28572)

“Sleeveless shirt is a threat to Saudi’s society, and the tattoo is an insult to our local Muslims. It is completely a negative influence and would send wrong message for the Saudi youths who may imitate him,” the letter said.

Pino is under contract to play for Saudi Arabia’s Al Nasr football club. He has expressed his “deep sadness” over the incident and said that it was not his intention to violate the laws of the country. The communiqué adds that the player was in the mall “to buy Muslim clothes for his wife, so that she can go out in public dressed in a respectful manner.”

Last year, Romanian player Mirel Radoi, from the Saudi Al-Hilal club kissed the cross he was wearing after scoring a goal. The episode outraged Saudi Muslims and caused a media outcry.

Following the incident however, Pino’s pregnant wife is so distressed that she is now demanding that she and her husband be allowed to leave Saudi Arabia immediately. Al Nasr club has asked its Argentine coach Gustavo Costas to try and persuade Pino’s wife to change her mind but his attempts so far have been futile.

The Argentine coach sent to persuade Pino’s wife himself, also had similar issue. In an interview with the Peruvian newspaper El Comercio, Gustavo Costas told about his new life in Saudi Arabia (previously he coached the Peruvian team in Lima, Alianza Lim). In Lima he made the sign of the cross before every game, and wore a rosary around his neck. “Now I can not do this in public, I can only do it in the locker room. If I made the sign of the cross publicly, the Saudis would kill or stone me,” said Costas.




For all its faults, I have to say I greatly appreciate living in a "liberal democracy" (or whatever the hell we have) where people are free to follow or not follow any religion or philosophy they want without fear of violence or persecution...outside of hibs.net. :greengrin


BTW here is some mobile footage of the mourners, morgue and the Egyptian army running people down. Not nice viewing but it's (one) reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh5F0ot_p3s

[Twa Cairpets]

The original point I made was to posit that it was odd that anyone should express surprise at the copt killings as 'it is what islam does', which was - on the surface at least, though this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/10/attack-on-egyptian-christians-not-sectarian?INTCMP=SRCH) piece says not - muslims killing non-muslims. I'm not sure the 'murders per muslim' figure is relevant; more relevant is the glut of muslim atrocities outweighing - by some distance - every other faith, certainly in the last 1,400 years. Which is the point I was making: islam has a history of violence unlike any other 'religion'. I would dispute that they're crap at execution of the hate and terror they preach - some quite complex and murderous schemes have been managed and attempted using very basic technologies.

They keep a tally of muslim murders and maimings on thereligionofpeace.com but I'm uncertain as to the probity of that site. Even if it's only half true, it makes for pretty alarming reading.

This may or may not be true, but frankly, so what? I've killed x million and youve killed 2x million so my death toll committed in the name of my religion or dogma or politics is less abhorrent than yours?

I had a look a that site by the way. I would suggest that its accuracy is somewhat less than 50%.

Youve still not found anything then that would suggest that a message of hate and instruction to kill is emitted from pretty much every minaret then?

(By the way - I'm with you to some extent. Sam Harris suggests that the problem isnt with Islamic fundamentalism but with the fundamentals of Islam. Its hard to disagree with that with a literal interpretation of the Quran.The question is how literal is the Quran taken by Joe Saudi).

[Kato]

The statement was: 'this is what islam does' - kill non-muslims (and each other) like no other 'faith'. That's a fact.



Religion, any religion, has never killed anyone. People have killed in the name of religion but that's a different thing altogether. People kill people, not religion.

[hibsbollah]

the glut of muslim atrocities outweighing - by some distance - every other faith, certainly in the last 1,400 years. Which is the point I was making: islam has a history of violence unlike any other religion.

You have provided no evidence for this, because there isnt any.

[Twa Cairpets]

Religion, any religion, has never killed anyone. People have killed in the name of religion but that's a different thing altogether. People kill people, not religion.

With apologies for appearing rude, that is a daft statement. Its the same as saying Nazism never killed anyone or Communism never killed anyone, which is equally true but equally fatuous in terms of denying that it means something other than people acting under the principles and guidance of those philosophies commit atrocities.

[Kato]

fatuous in terms of denying that it means something other than people acting under the principles and guidance of those philosophies commit atrocities.

They are usually acting under the principles and guidance of self-service, political aims or are just plain psycho. Some people are tools to further someone else's aims.

It's you that's daft if you think wars are engineered for communism or some other abstract like furthering a religion.

People kill people for power, nothing else. Whether it's a small piece of power or a greater one that's all it is.

Those two pieces of pie in the sky, religion and political theses, are just tools to be wielded.

[hibsbollah]

I do have a bit of a concern though that it doesn't seem possible to have any kind of meaningful debate about the very real issue of Islamic fundamentalism on here without someone whipping out the Islamophobia card. There are serious grounds for concern about the behaviour of Islamist regimes and populations, not just in Egypt and the Gulf but in Pakistan as well. Ludicrous, mullah-initiated "blasphemy" cases are pursued fairly frequently with huge popular support and bloody consequences, to little or no condemnation from the western liberal concensus.

It shouldn't be left to the Magpies of this world to condemn this murderous nonsense. Nor should the fact that a substantial majority of Muslims are rational, peace-loving people prevent anyone from condemning the lynch mobs of Iran and Pakistan without being accused of "Islamophobia"

Its a fair point. I'll take a stab at it.

The way I look at it, the problems start when someone generalises across an entire religious/cultural/racial group. Fergus crossed this line IMO when talking about 'The Arabs' and their love of conspiracy theories, how they left Judea a desert before the Jews came, and so on. When pushed he refused to give me a definition of what an 'Arab' was. Is there a racial definition? Cultural? is it referring to the Palestinians only? did it include the Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, the sizeable minority of Israeli Arabs? And crucially, do we really believe that it is logical to generalise across whole racial/ethnic groups? If you think Scots are inherently mean, Americans are inherently stupid or Muslims are inherently violent, then you're a racist, xenophobe, islamophobe. By definition. End of story.

A lot of contemporary debate talks about Islam as if it a simple, homogenous group. It of course isnt. ****** and Sunni, reformer and conservative, rural and metropolitan, young and old, nationalist or pan-Arab, theres as many fault lines across Islam as there is any other massive monoethiest religion. Do we expect similar beliefs and morals from say, a Mormon with nine wives from Salt Lake City, a Greek Orthodox from Cyprus or a pentecostalist from Seoul? They're all Christian, but theyre shaped by a myriad of cultural, national, linguistic, racial, personal experiences. By trying to pin some sort of negative common characteristic on any group by generalising and stereotyping, we are denying them their humanity.

I honestly don't remember that many playing of the Islamophobia 'card', as you put it on this messageboard. I can't speak for others but if i see it i'll point it out, because it genuinely disgusts me. If you mean that the Left more broadly (outside of Hibs net :greengrin) needs to be more vocal in speaking out against fundamentalist Islam, i tend to agree with you. I was listening to Tony Benn the other day, and despite being a bit of a hero of mine his attitude was driving me mad, he was refusing to accept that violent extreme Islam even existed to any degree, everything kept returning to the West's historical blame for carving up the region post Ottoman empire and anger with the Iraq Afghanistan invasion, which is no sort of explanation or justification. Provide context for sure, but dont ignore whats staring you in the face either.

As to your other points about the mullahs, the Arab Spring and so on, yes I agree there are massive problems and misrule in Islamic countries that needs to be highlighted. (and to be fair, we have talked about them on here, the Egyptian revolution particularly) Whether or not these problems are as a result of fundamentalist Islam itself depends on the individual case; the Arab Spring doesnt seem to have any religious dimension, the programme of state murders in Syria is about political power, not religious division (opposition to the bloody crackdown in Syria has been Amnesty International's most visible campaign for some months now,so the liberal western consensus hasnt been as silent as you suggest). Iran seems to be much more clearly Islamic violence, but again, its complicated; its a power struggle between conservatives and moderates, its about the legislature and the legal system, the rural hard liners and urban youth, what direction the country travels in, all that power game stuff. Religion is just a small element.


I'm digressing a bit. Condemn wrongs wherever they occur. I agree with you.

[magpie1892]

You have provided no evidence for this, because there isnt any.

There's a list of nearly 18,000 terror attacks carried out by muslims in the last 10 years alone at thereligionofpeace.com

I know that the thread is about Egypt but 'denial' is not the name of the river that runs through it...

[Twa Cairpets]

They are usually acting under the principles and guidance of self-service, political aims or are just plain psycho. Some people are tools to further someone else's aims.

It's you that's daft if you think wars are engineered for communism or some other abstract like furthering a religion.

People kill people for power, nothing else. Whether it's a small piece of power or a greater one that's all it is.

Those two pieces of pie in the sky, religion and political theses, are just tools to be wielded.

States and groups are driven by power, control, preservation of gain of resources and the like, agreed. Individuals within that state commit bad acts because of their personal beliefs - this may be because they are a tool of the leading group, but the conditioning required to kill someone as an individual, when not at war especially, is from the personal conviction that it is the right thing to do in the name of God/Allah/Stalin/whoever, no matter how misguided it actually is. People will go to war becuase they believe it is a crusade for their religion or a jihad or to protect their country or culture or whatever, whether or not that is the motivating factor behind the action for their leaders.

[Twa Cairpets]

Its a fair point. I'll take a stab at it.

The way I look at it, the problems start when someone generalises across an entire religious/cultural/racial group. Fergus crossed this line IMO when talking about 'The Arabs' and their love of conspiracy theories, how they left Judea a desert before the Jews came, and so on. When pushed he refused to give me a definition of what an 'Arab' was. Is there a racial definition? Cultural? is it referring to the Palestinians only? did it include the Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, the sizeable minority of Israeli Arabs? And crucially, do we really believe that it is logical to generalise across whole racial/ethnic groups? If you think Scots are inherently mean, Americans are inherently stupid or Muslims are inherently violent, then you're a racist, xenophobe, islamophobe. By definition. End of story.

A lot of contemporary debate talks about Islam as if it a simple, homogenous group. It of course isnt. ****** and Sunni, reformer and conservative, rural and metropolitan, young and old, nationalist or pan-Arab, theres as many fault lines across Islam as there is any other massive monoethiest religion. Do we expect similar beliefs and morals from say, a Mormon with nine wives from Salt Lake City, a Greek Orthodox from Cyprus or a pentecostalist from Seoul? They're all Christian, but theyre shaped by a myriad of cultural, national, linguistic, racial, personal experiences. By trying to pin some sort of negative common characteristic on any group by generalising and stereotyping, we are denying them their humanity.

I honestly don't remember that many playing of the Islamophobia 'card', as you put it on this messageboard. I can't speak for others but if i see it i'll point it out, because it genuinely disgusts me. If you mean that the Left more broadly (outside of Hibs net :greengrin) needs to be more vocal in speaking out against fundamentalist Islam, i tend to agree with you. I was listening to Tony Benn the other day, and despite being a bit of a hero of mine his attitude was driving me mad, he was refusing to accept that violent extreme Islam even existed to any degree, everything kept returning to the West's historical blame for carving up the region post Ottoman empire and anger with the Iraq Afghanistan invasion, which is no sort of explanation or justification. Provide context for sure, but dont ignore whats staring you in the face either.

As to your other points about the mullahs, the Arab Spring and so on, yes I agree there are massive problems and misrule in Islamic countries that needs to be highlighted. (and to be fair, we have talked about them on here, the Egyptian revolution particularly) Whether or not these problems are as a result of fundamentalist Islam itself depends on the individual case; the Arab Spring doesnt seem to have any religious dimension, the programme of state murders in Syria is about political power, not religious division (opposition to the bloody crackdown in Syria has been Amnesty International's most visible campaign for some months now,so the liberal western consensus hasnt been as silent as you suggest). Iran seems to be much more clearly Islamic violence, but again, its complicated; its a power struggle between conservatives and moderates, its about the legislature and the legal system, the rural hard liners and urban youth, what direction the country travels in, all that power game stuff. Religion is just a small element.


I'm digressing a bit. Condemn wrongs wherever they occur. I agree with you.

Fine post Hibsbollah, spot on.

[Twa Cairpets]

There's a list of nearly 18,000 terror attacks carried out by muslims in the last 10 years alone at thereligionofpeace.com

I know that the thread is about Egypt but 'denial' is not the name of the river that runs through it...

Who's denying what here?

[magpie1892]

This may or may not be true, but frankly, so what? I've killed x million and youve killed 2x million so my death toll committed in the name of my religion or dogma or politics is less abhorrent than yours?

I had a look a that site by the way. I would suggest that its accuracy is somewhat less than 50%.

Youve still not found anything then that would suggest that a message of hate and instruction to kill is emitted from pretty much every minaret then?

(By the way - I'm with you to some extent. Sam Harris suggests that the problem isnt with Islamic fundamentalism but with the fundamentals of Islam. Its hard to disagree with that with a literal interpretation of the Quran.The question is how literal is the Quran taken by Joe Saudi).

I think it's several hundred times more, no? For me that would suggest that islam has a problem that other faiths don't have - even those with more followers than islam.

It's not the best, I agree. They do cite the majority of their reports though....

I agree. It's down to interpretation. I know and like many muslims but there are interpretations - held by far too many people, as evidenced by things like this (http://charmingjustcharming.blogspot.com/2006/08/long-list-of-atrocities-commited-by.html) - of islam that are evil beyond belief. Fortunately, the people who think there is no problem whatsoever with islam are few and far between - the evidence surrounds us daily, even here in the UK. Some interpretations of islam - the racism, bigotry, terrorism, expansionism, homophobia, misogyny, attitudes to creation, science and free speech, attitudes to other faiths, especially jews, etc. - are vile and I would question the sanity of anyone who defended the above.

p.s. I didn't say 'pretty much every minaret' - I said the Gulf had a whole different bag and independent confirmation from a muslim about content. Like I say, you're welcome to check this. If you can't be arsed, you can't really dismiss the probity of my claim...

[magpie1892]

Who's denying what here?

Hibsbollah (great username, I'm loving the AK47 on the Hezbollah flag) said there was nothing to suggest islam has a history of violence, saying that there was no evidence to support this.

[hibsbollah]

Hibsbollah (great username, I'm loving the AK47 on the Hezbollah flag) said there was nothing to suggest islam has a history of violence, saying that there was no evidence to support this.

I said you have no evidence to suggest that islam has a history of violence far beyond other religions, which was your claim. Your link does not prove anything. Please dont misquote me, its a fairly desperate tactic.

[magpie1892]

I said you have no evidence to suggest that islam has a history of violence far beyond other religions, which was your claim. Your link does not prove anything. Please dont misquote me, its a fairly desperate tactic.

How many buddhist, jewish, christian, hindu terror attacks in even the last ten years, combined.

Probably less than 18,000, but I'm guessing. Please put me right if I've got it all wrong...

My, muslims really don't like (http://www.unitedcopts.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=33) those pesky copts.

[hibsbollah]

How many buddhist, jewish, christian, hindu terror attacks in even the last ten years, combined.

Probably less than 18,000, but I'm guessing. Please put me right if I've got it all wrong...

My, muslims really don't like (http://www.unitedcopts.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=33) those pesky copts.

Since you made the daft unsubstantiatable claim, its your job to substantiate it, not mine.

[magpie1892]

Since you made the daft unsubstantiatable claim, its your job to substantiate it, not mine.

I linked to 18,000 islamic terror incidents in the last decade alone. It's now your job to show another religion with a 'better' tally. Good luck with that.

If you can even do better than this wee snapshot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks) with any religion, I'll be impressed. You can combine every single other religion on the planet if you like. On the 'jewish terrorism' wiki, someone threw a bagel at an Arab once.

[hibsbollah]

I linked to 18,000 islamic terror incidents in the last decade alone. It's now your job to show another religion with a 'better' tally. Good luck with that.

So you dont know how many terror attacks have been made in the name of other religions? OK. So you cant make a comparison.


Do you have any statistics showing other religions propensity to violence, terrorism or otherwise, over the last 1400 years (pogroms, insurrections, other acts carried out by armed forces, for example) which was the basis of the claim you made?

Looks like a bit of a ropey source as well. Major media outlets would be a lot better. Cheers.

[magpie1892]

Do you have any statistics showing other religions propensity to violence, terrorism or otherwise, over the last 1400 years (pogroms, insurrections, other acts carried out by armed forces, for example) which was the basis of the claim you made?

Looks like a bit of a ropey source as well. Major media outlets would be a lot better. Cheers.

We're going in circles. I say islam is by far the most violent faith with 18,000 incidents in the last decade alone. I've cited that and the wiki is cited x30-odds, (from CNN, Times of India, Russia Today, Al Jazeera, BBC, Asia Times, etc. - these 'major' enough for you?) for that highly selective list. Even if you discount the first cite, the wiki is extensively cross reffed from reputable sources. If I am wrong, then you'll be able to prove it. My marker's up - I have to do your research for you? Do your own if you fancy a shot at disproving what I say. It's a lot of work.

[magpie1892]

So you dont know how many terror attacks have been made in the name of other religions? OK. So you cant make a comparison.

I need an exact figure to make a comparison. How convenient for you. I don't know how many goals Alan Sneddon scored in his career, but it was less than Alan Shearer. Not allowed, by your argument, to compare the goalscoring prowess of the two. You're trolling now.

[Kato]

Sorry about the tangent to the discussion.


States and groups are driven by power, control, preservation of gain of resources and the like, agreed.

You're starting to agree with me as "states and groups" are made up of people.



Individuals within that state commit bad acts because of their personal beliefs - this may be because they are a tool of the leading group, but the conditioning required to kill someone as an individual, when not at war especially, is from the personal conviction that it is the right thing to do in the name of God/Allah/Stalin/whoever, no matter how misguided it actually is.

That's a really one dimensional portrayal of human nature. There are all sorts of factor's as to why someone will kill; hunger, territory, status - it may done in the name of whatever but usually there is something else at the root or as you say because they are being used as tool. The Russian peasantry were given an avenue to revolt by the way Communism came to the fore but they revolted because they were mistreated and hungry, Communism just gave them that chance.


People will go to war becuase they believe it is a crusade for their religion or a jihad or to protect their country or culture or whatever, whether or not that is the motivating factor behind the action for their leaders.

Don't buy that at all. For example the Crusades were suggested because of religiosu belief but were launched for ambition and expansionism. Two different things, one using the other as cloak.

[Twa Cairpets]

Don't buy that at all. For example the Crusades were suggested because of religiosu belief but were launched for ambition and expansionism. Two different things, one using the other as cloak.
Thats a good example. There were undoubtedly both religious and political motivations for all the crusades, but I think equally that the armies were largely made up of the devout answering Gods call. Sure there will have been psychos and opportunists and criminals and adventurers and people who could fall into a number of categories - I accept that totally, but religion gave the framework for this broad spectrum of people to gather under a coalescing banner.

Whats happening in Egypt with the coptic christians is that being suddenly freed from restriction, one group under one religious banner have decided to attack against another under another religious banner, and the second group understandably, react.

[Kato]

Thats a good example. There were undoubtedly both religious and political motivations for all the crusades, but I think equally that the armies were largely made up of the devout answering Gods call. Sure there will have been psychos and opportunists and criminals and adventurers and people who could fall into a number of categories - I accept that totally, but religion gave the framework for this broad spectrum of people to gather under a coalescing banner.

There's nothing in Christianity to say that the lands where JC was said to have lived should be in Christian hands. That was a human decision. I've no doubt that many who went on the Crusades thought they were doing it for their faith. However the main aim was land, expansionism, finding something for the aristocracy's second and thrid sons to do, in other words ambition. Ambition was at the heart of teh crusades, if the people involved were truly religious they would never have happened.


Whats happening in Egypt with the coptic christians is that being suddenly freed from restriction, one group under one religious banner have decided to attack against another under another religious banner, and the second group understandably, react.

....and you will probably find that the religious differences are a mask for pettier, local reasons.

[Twa Cairpets]

There's nothing in Christianity to say that the lands where JC was said to have lived should be in Christian hands. That was a human decision. I've no doubt that many who went on the Crusades thought they were doing it for their faith. However the main aim was land, expansionism, finding something for the aristocracy's second and thrid sons to do, in other words ambition. Ambition was at the heart of teh crusades, if the people involved were truly religious they would never have happened.

....and you will probably find that the religious differences are a mask for pettier, local reasons.

I believe that this viewpoint is largely modern revisionism to paper over what happened. For example, I recently read "A Great and Terrible King" by Marc Morris - its fairly clear that the motivation Edward I had to go on a crusade, as was the case with a great many of his nobles, was his religious devotion.

[Kato]

I believe that this viewpoint is largely modern revisionism to paper over what happened.

I'm not trying to paper over anything, just pointing out that human nature never changes.

What other examples of this viepoint have you came accross to give you the belief it's "revisionism". (BTW History is and should be revised constantly, otherwise it's presented as truth and we do not know the truth.)

There's pious and materialistic people now just as there's always been. No revisionism needed, the guys who went out on Crusade were hungry for glory and many of them hungry for personal gain.


For example, I recently read "A Great and Terrible King" by Marc Morris - its fairly clear that the motivation Edward I had to go on a crusade, as was the case with a great many of his nobles, was his religious devotion.

In that historian's opinion.

Part of his reasoning may have been religious devotion, but status, making a galvanising mark after what amounted to civil war in England, ambition, the chance of glory - all these things are usually "papered over" by historians as many of them consider those times to be full of pious people - when motivations were usually all too modern.

You also forget that without the fashion for crusades Edward Longshanks wouldn't have bothered and the fashion was created by those who craved expansion. If he was pious he was merely a tool.

[magpie1892]

....and you will probably find that the religious differences are a mask for pettier, local reasons.

Not sure I agree with that in the copt/muslim context in Egypt. This has been going on for quite some time and does appear to be purely religiously motivated. Here's (http://www.unitedcopts.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=33) a list of attacks on copts by muslims going beck just 40 years. It's more than a petty local squabble.

[Kato]

Not sure I agree with that in the copt/muslim context in Egypt. This has been going on for quite some time and does appear to be purely religiously motivated. Here's (http://www.unitedcopts.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=33) a list of attacks on copts by muslims going beck just 40 years. It's more than a petty local squabble.

...well done for bringing it back to the subject.

I'm not sure I agree with the bit in bold. There are always other reasons for such persecutions.

[Twa Cairpets]

...well done for bringing it back to the subject.

I'm not sure I agree with the bit in bold. There are always other reasons for such persecutions.

So religious prejudice is never to blame?

[Kato]

So religious prejudice is never to blame?

It's a factor but you might as well ask why someone purportedly religious acts in a violent manner. Religious prejudice in Ireland was/is engineered for reasons of power (political power, even drug patch power), so do the murders have there roots in religious difference or, for want of a better phrase, petty local reasons. Copts or jews, they are mainly picked on as they are the "outsider" as are muslims in Europe. Copts were treated ok at times in Egypt as were Jews at times during the Caliphate - until someone pushes the buttons that triggers dissent.

[magpie1892]

It's a factor but you might as well ask why someone purportedly religious acts in a violent manner. Religious prejudice in Ireland was/is engineered for reasons of power (political power, even drug patch power), so do the murders have there roots in religious difference or, for want of a better phrase, petty local reasons. Copts or jews, they are mainly picked on as they are the "outsider" as are muslims in Europe. Copts were treated ok at times in Egypt as were Jews at times during the Caliphate - until someone pushes the buttons that triggers dissent.

I hear you on the Ireland thing. I don't think it applies in the copt/muslim case because 'the troubles' were played out (for want of a better phrase (!)) by two strands of the same religious foundation - christianity. In Egypt, the situation has arisen between religious faiths that have far less in common and who have been opposed for over a thousand years, not decades as in Ulster.

In Ulster's darkest moments it would be tit-for-tat shooting of minicab drivers to make the point. In Egypt, muslims are burning the copts' churches and forbidding the construction of more. This is not an economic argument.

While your points are well made, and definitely provide food for thought, I am not seeing a parallel betwixt Ulster and Egypt.

Re: copts as 'the outsiders' - no, they were there first by 400+ years after the pagan gods were supplanted by christianity.

[Kato]

not decades as in Ulster.

In Ulster's darkest moments it would be tit-for-tat shooting of minicab drivers to make the point.

You need to read some history, going back to Lizzie the 1st, take in some Cromwell etc, they didn't have mini-cabs in his day.

[magpie1892]

You need to read some history, going back to Lizzie the 1st, take in some Cromwell etc, they didn't have mini-cabs in his day.

Yes, I can accept that.

[Twa Cairpets]

It's a factor but you might as well ask why someone purportedly religious acts in a violent manner. Religious prejudice in Ireland was/is engineered for reasons of power (political power, even drug patch power), so do the murders have there roots in religious difference or, for want of a better phrase, petty local reasons. Copts or jews, they are mainly picked on as they are the "outsider" as are muslims in Europe. Copts were treated ok at times in Egypt as were Jews at times during the Caliphate - until someone pushes the buttons that triggers dissent.

Its fear and mistrust of people who think differently or look different or have different cultural values. The differences can be skin colour, religious belief, political, tribal, familial. In this case, the trigger is primarily religious, there's no getting away from it. Certainly the people perpetrating the violence are doing so because they fear/dilslike/distrust those of a different religion

[Jack]

Its fear and mistrust of people who think differently or look different or have different cultural values. The differences can be skin colour, religious belief, political, tribal, familial. In this case, the trigger is primarily religious, there's no getting away from it. Certainly the people perpetrating the violence are doing so because they fear/dilslike/distrust those of a different religion There does seem to be a single common denominator.

[magpie1892]

Its fear and mistrust of people who think differently or look different or have different cultural values. The differences can be skin colour, religious belief, political, tribal, familial. In this case, the trigger is primarily religious, there's no getting away from it. Certainly the people perpetrating the violence are doing so because they fear/dilslike/distrust those of a different religion

Yes, absolutely on the button. But I will, indulge me, select 'dislike' from your count of three and ante it up to 'hate'.

Me and TC in agreement. Who'd have thunk it.

[Kato]

Its fear and mistrust of people who think differently or look different or have different cultural values. The differences can be skin colour, religious belief, political, tribal, familial. In this case, the trigger is primarily religious, there's no getting away from it. Certainly the people perpetrating the violence are doing so because they fear/dilslike/distrust those of a different religion


OK Your statement "there's no getting away from it" tells me you've already decided on the motive for the attacks.

Bare with me one last time and I'm out of here. How many times did we hear on the news about "Catholic killing a protestant", or vice versa, during the Irish troubles whereas the real reason went unspoken? From the mid-80's onwards many killings in Northern Ireland were Gangster related, drugs patches usually. "Catholic" or "Protestant" had nothing to do with it but the press continued reporting every single incident which occured in terms of religion.

On the ground in Egypt (which we aren't) there will be local resentment over Copts businesses, patches of land the own, water supply, areas where they live - non of which has anything to do with their religion. Any and all of these and the Copts religious status could trigger attacks.

The difference is relilgion is reported to be the cause, and it will be every time as religion is the easy trendy target to blame and no-one from Sky News or whereever would be at all interested to find out anything any deeper than that. It's not only fashion to blame religion it's deeply ingrained in both the media and society, whereas there are usually always other factors that drive attacks and religion is not always primarily the cause but it will be put at the top of the list by the media every single time.

Maybe it's me but when I hear religious bigotry being reported on TV or in the press I think of Ireland where we knew that religion was not always primarily to blame and in fact in later years had nothing to do with it.

[Twa Cairpets]

OK Your statement "there's no getting away from it" tells me you've already decided on the motive for the attacks.

Bare with me one last time and I'm out of here. How many times did we hear on the news about "Catholic killing a protestant", or vice versa, during the Irish troubles whereas the real reason went unspoken? From the mid-80's onwards many killings in Northern Ireland were Gangster related, drugs patches usually. "Catholic" or "Protestant" had nothing to do with it but the press continued reporting every single incident which occured in terms of religion.

On the ground in Egypt (which we aren't) there will be local resentment over Copts businesses, patches of land the own, water supply, areas where they live - non of which has anything to do with their religion. Any and all of these and the Copts religious status could trigger attacks.

The difference is relilgion is reported to be the cause, and it will be every time as religion is the easy trendy target to blame and no-one from Sky News or whereever would be at all interested to find out anything any deeper than that. It's not only fashion to blame religion it's deeply ingrained in both the media and society, whereas there are usually always other factors that drive attacks and religion is not always primarily the cause but it will be put at the top of the list by the media every single time.

Maybe it's me but when I hear religious bigotry being reported on TV or in the press I think of Ireland where we knew that religion was not always primarily to blame and in fact in later years had nothing to do with it.

Sky News (http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16086142)
BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15241257)
CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/10/world/africa/egypt-tensions-explained/index.html)

I made up my mind upon the motive because every bit of credible evidence and reporting suggests to me that the cause of the violence is overwhlemingly sectarian. Give me something that in this situation backs up your claim then I'll likely agree with you.

You also defeat your own argument: "there will be local resentment over Copts businesses, patches of land the own, water supply, areas where they live - non of which has anything to do with their religion." And why is that resentment there? Because they are a different religion.

Finally, the most damning indictment of your stance is that if me and Magpie1892 agree then that represents a fairly broad spectrum of opposition. (I realise that I am commiting a logical fallacy of appeal to popularity, but nonetheless...).:wink:

[Kato]

Sky News (http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16086142)
BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15241257)
CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/10/world/africa/egypt-tensions-explained/index.html)

I made up my mind upon the motive because every bit of credible evidence and reporting suggests to me that the cause of the violence is overwhlemingly sectarian. Give me something that in this situation backs up your claim then I'll likely agree with you.

I haven't got one.

Just experience knowing that there are usually other local factors. If every relieable source is saying it's religious I'm not surprised.

You are also ignoring the fact I put to you that "every reliable source" told us every incident in Ireland was religious which they patently were not. So relibale source, reliable schmource.



You also defeat your own argument: "there will be local resentment over Copts businesses, patches of land the own, water supply, areas where they live - non of which has anything to do with their religion." And why is that resentment there? Because they are a different religion.

Your getting that back to front. The resentment will be there because they are jealous of their businesses/land etc. It could be they resent other Muslim's situations as well but the difference is the Coptic aspect gives them the excuse to attack, which doesn't make it the reason.


Finally, the most damning indictment of your stance is that if me and Magpie1892 agree then that represents a fairly broad spectrum of opposition. (I realise that I am commiting a logical fallacy of appeal to popularity, but nonetheless...).:wink:

Your both trendy bassas as blaming religion is todays first stop fashion.:wink:

Sad thing is it allows the gangsters, crooks and "business advisors" free-reign to do as they please. Blame the fanatics, poke them a bit, paint an area as a "religious hot-spot" then get stuck into their resources while the world tut-tuts at the religious aspect.

A big con if you ask me.

Still stand by what I said. Religion/Communism etc, all abstract concepts, have never killed anyone. It takes people to do that and that type of violence at it's root has motives other than the abstract, they are usually all too concrete. Reoprting that the abstract concept is to blame is lazy at best and at worst is propoganda.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I haven't got one.

Just experience knowing that there are usually other local factors. If every relieable source is saying it's religious I'm not surprised.

You are also ignoring the fact I put to you that "every reliable source" told us every incident in Ireland was religious which they patently were not. So relibale source, reliable schmource.




Your getting that back to front. The resentment will be there because they are jealous of their businesses/land etc. It could be they resent other Muslim's situations as well but the difference is the Coptic aspect gives them the excuse to attack, which doesn't make it the reason.



Your both trendy bassas as blaming religion is todays first stop fashion.:wink:

Sad thing is it allows the gangsters, crooks and "business advisors" free-reign to do as they please. Blame the fanatics, poke them a bit, paint an area as a "religious hot-spot" then get stuck into their resources while the world tut-tuts at the religious aspect.

A big con if you ask me.

Still stand by what I said. Religion/Communism etc, all abstract concepts, have never killed anyone. It takes people to do that and that type of violence at it's root has motives other than the abstract, they are usually all too concrete. Reoprting that the abstract concept is to blame is lazy at best and at worst is propoganda.

I'd tend to agree with that but with some obvious exceptions. In line with Primo Levi's point that Soviet death camps were proof of a project gone wrong while Nazi death camps were proof of a project gone 'right'...

Relatedly but more on topic, and avoiding even giving credence to Fergus and magpie's pathological nonsense, a large part of the tensions between Copts and Salafis in Upper Egypt is based on class. Copts in the area are often land and/or business owners whereas Salafis are invariably from the lower classes - violence and resentment against a relatively well off minority from certain reactionary sections of society (in this case the Salafis) is something that has occurred in pretty much every human society with a similar social formation - there is nothing particular to Muslims about this despite what some would have you believe. Watch the footage of Muslims forming defensive rings around Coptic services in Tahrir Square a few months back if you think that's the case.

But the massacre was carried out by the state - not some raving fundamentalist mob - and it was a show of force from the SCAF, a statement of intent that they will not allow the revolution to go beyong a certain point and some fairly classic attempts at divide and rule from what's looking like an inchoate junta.

[Sir David Gray]

I am not surprised that this is happening at all. It's simply yet another disastrous consequence of the 'Arab Spring'. It's something that I warned about several months ago and I think that warning has been vindicated.

Proclaiming yourself as a Christian in a predominantly Muslim nation has always been a very dangerous thing to do and many people often pay with their lives. However, under mainly secular leaders such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Christians were able to live in relative peace and able to practice their faith in relative freedom. Yes there were a number of restrictions but nothing like in some hardline nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Now that secularist leaders have been ousted in Egypt and Tunisia and militant Islam is looking increasingly likely to follow, the situation for Christians and other non-Muslims is going to become a lot more critical, right across the Middle East, and I think we'll see a lot more incidents such as this one in the months and years to come.

I've heard the likes of David Cameron, Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy hail the events in the Arab world this year as a great thing and I just think that this is extremely premature.

I'd love to see peace and harmony break out right across these nations and for Christians to be able to practice their faith freely. I just do not see it happening at all. In fact, I think we'll see quite the opposite.

[magpie1892]

I am not surprised that this is happening at all. It's simply yet another disastrous consequence of the 'Arab Spring'. It's something that I warned about several months ago and I think that warning has been vindicated.

Proclaiming yourself as a Christian in a predominantly Muslim nation has always been a very dangerous thing to do and many people often pay with their lives. However, under mainly secular leaders such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Christians were able to live in relative peace and able to practice their faith in relative freedom. Yes there were a number of restrictions but nothing like in some hardline nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Now that secularist leaders have been ousted in Egypt and Tunisia and militant Islam is looking increasingly likely to follow, the situation for Christians and other non-Muslims is going to become a lot more critical, right across the Middle East, and I think we'll see a lot more incidents such as this one in the months and years to come.

I've heard the likes of David Cameron, Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy hail the events in the Arab world this year as a great thing and I just think that this is extremely premature.

I'd love to see peace and harmony break out right across these nations and for Christians to be able to practice their faith freely. I just do not see it happening at all. In fact, I think we'll see quite the opposite.

...yet we (still) have wildly deluded people trying to float the idea that the murders are based on class, not religion. It's embarrassing and wrong-headed but, worse than that, it's actually dangerous. Thankfully, not many people are 'buying' this lunatic line.

[Kato]

...yet we (still) have wildly deluded people trying to float the idea that the murders are based on class, not religion. It's embarrassing and wrong-headed but, worse than that, it's actually dangerous. Thankfully, not many people are 'buying' this lunatic line.



First port of call for people with a dodgy argument - call someone with an opposing view a "loony".

[Twa Cairpets]

First port of call for people with a dodgy argument - call someone with an opposing view a "loony".

Can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Magpie here.

Whether or not the actions are based on economic jealousy (which just happens to co-incide with religious belief), or one religious group hating others because they believe different stuff and are driven to violence because of fear/manipulation/jealousy/ignorance, is neother here nor there. The common denominator is that a group of people with one set of beliefs are threatened by another group of people with a different set of beliefs. Not all of them, but the ones that are engaged in violence are demarcated pretty strictly along faith lines. To suggest it is otherwise is just wrong.

[magpie1892]

Can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Magpie here.

Don't knock it, that's twice in one thread.


To suggest it is otherwise is just wrong.

Totally. The evidence in support of the fact that this conflict runs along religious lines is overwhelming.

[magpie1892]

First port of call for people with a dodgy argument - call someone with an opposing view a "loony".

Perhaps 'lunatic' (not 'loony' - quote correctly please :wink:) was too strong, but 'my' argument has foundations of such solidity that it has me and TC agreeing not once, but twice. This would normally cause a tear in the fabric of space/time, so powerful an event this is.

p.s. if you read the thread, I think you'll find that 'lunatic' has been my very last port of call, not the first.

[Hibrandenburg]

Religion like, politics, race, sexual orientation and cultural differentation would all seem good reasons to pick a pagger with someone else. Seems like all we need is an excuse to hate others.

[Kato]

p.s. if you read the thread, I think you'll find that 'lunatic' has been my very last port of call, not the first.

Good point man, fair do's.

All I can say is my argument may be subtle but it's not loony. Religion may be what marks their differences but the violence that can ensue always has other more mundane catalyst.



Can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Magpie here.

Whether or not the actions are based on economic jealousy (which just happens to co-incide with religious belief), or one religious group hating others because they believe different stuff and are driven to violence because of fear/manipulation/jealousy/ignorance, is neother here nor there. The common denominator is that a group of people with one set of beliefs are threatened by another group of people with a different set of beliefs. Not all of them, but the ones that are engaged in violence are demarcated pretty strictly along faith lines. To suggest it is otherwise is just wrong.

See above.

People in Egypt who've heard of the Old Firm probably think that the violence surrounding that hysteria is caused by Catholicism/Protestantism little realising they are the most irreligious people on the planet.

[magpie1892]

Good point man, fair do's.

All I can say is my argument may be subtle but it's not loony. Religion may be what marks their differences but the violence that can ensue always has other more mundane catalyst.




See above.

People in Egypt who've heard of the Old Firm probably think that the violence surrounding that hysteria is caused by Catholicism/Protestantism little realising they are the most irreligious people on the planet.

Ah, now I see why you snapped at me. The use of the word 'lunatic' wasn't really directed at you. You made a position, which is one with which I disagree, but the 'lunatic' jibe was referring to the (thankfully small) number who thought that the centuries-old persecution of copts was based on class lines. You've not actually gone anywhere near that far so apologies if you thought I was having a go at you. I wasn't.

As far as the copts/muslims thing goes, though, I think it's very clear cut. Attempting to cloud the issue with spurious factoids and wibble 'arguments' are not gaining traction with me and - pleasingly - more people who are 99% of the time diametrically opposed to my usual stances.

Next thing you know, me and Hibsbollah will find common ground...

[Kato]

Ah, now I see why you snapped at me. The use of the word 'lunatic' wasn't really directed at you. You made a position, which is one with which I disagree,...

Cool, looks llike it'll stay thath way.

[QUOTE]As far as the copts/muslims thing goes, though, I think it's very clear cut. Attempting to cloud the issue with spurious factoids and wibble 'arguments' [QUOTE]

I'm not trying to do that in all honesty. Those carrying out the attacks are thugs pure and simple whatever banner they hide behind.

[hibsbollah]

I am not surprised that this is happening at all. It's simply yet another disastrous consequence of the 'Arab Spring'. It's something that I warned about several months ago and I think that warning has been vindicated.Proclaiming yourself as a Christian in a predominantly Muslim nation has always been a very dangerous thing to do and many people often pay with their lives. However, under mainly secular leaders such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Christians were able to live in relative peace and able to practice their faith in relative freedom. Yes there were a number of restrictions but nothing like in some hardline nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.Now that secularist leaders have been ousted in Egypt and Tunisia and militant Islam is looking increasingly likely to follow, the situation for Christians and other non-Muslims is going to become a lot more critical, right across the Middle East, and I think we'll see a lot more incidents such as this one in the months and years to come.I've heard the likes of David Cameron, Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy hail the events in the Arab world this year as a great thing and I just think that this is extremely premature.I'd love to see peace and harmony break out right across these nations and for Christians to be able to practice their faith freely. I just do not see it happening at all. In fact, I think we'll see quite the opposite.The Tunisian elections have just resulted in a high turnout dwarfing most western liberal democracies. The result? A likely coalition between a moderate islamist party who is committed to pluralism and freedom of religious practice, and two left-of-centre parties.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15453579Hardly the apocalyptic vision you are predicting. The truth is, militant and violent Islamist movements in the Arab world usually happen when there has been a history of imperialism or invasion (Iran, Iraq, Algeria). Peaceful transition is a lot more likely when they are left to sort it out for themselves.

[magpie1892]

The Tunisian elections have just resulted in a high turnout dwarfing most western liberal democracies. The result? A likely coalition between a moderate islamist party who is committed to pluralism and freedom of religious practice, and two left-of-centre parties.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15453579Hardly the apocalyptic vision you are predicting. The truth is, militant and violent Islamist movements in the Arab world usually happen when there has been a history of imperialism or invasion (Iran, Iraq, Algeria). Peaceful transition is a lot more likely when they are left to sort it out for themselves.

Bloody hell, we're almost there but...

Yemen?

Sudan?

Somalia?

[hibsbollah]

Bloody hell, we're almost there but... Yemen?Sudan?Somalia?After tonights debacle im not really in the mood to give you a history lesson. But just to get you started...Somalia and Sudan are failed states with a long and unpleasant history of imperialist occupation. Yemen is the exception and probably the only country on earth where radical islam is in immediate threat to the ruling government. You will note i said 'usually'.Anything to say about developments in Tunisia or does it not fit with your world view?

[One Day Soon]

Sky News (http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16086142)
BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15241257)
CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/10/world/africa/egypt-tensions-explained/index.html)

I made up my mind upon the motive because every bit of credible evidence and reporting suggests to me that the cause of the violence is overwhlemingly sectarian. Give me something that in this situation backs up your claim then I'll likely agree with you.

You also defeat your own argument: "there will be local resentment over Copts businesses, patches of land the own, water supply, areas where they live - non of which has anything to do with their religion." And why is that resentment there? Because they are a different religion.

Finally, the most damning indictment of your stance is that if me and Magpie1892 agree then that represents a fairly broad spectrum of opposition. (I realise that I am commiting a logical fallacy of appeal to popularity, but nonetheless...).:wink:


Not to intrude on this private love-in but two of you agreeing doesn't constitute a fairly broad spectrum of opposition, it constitututes two people in agreement. Given your views on all religion and Magpie's views on Islam, I'd say what you have here is a fairly narrow agreement of convenience.

In historical terms Kato is right. Most religious pogroms manifest as religiously motivated but there is almost always a series of wider and deeper root causes at work without which the religious symptom or manifestation simply would not take place. And its almost always economic.

[magpie1892]

After tonights debacle im not really in the mood to give you a history lesson. But just to get you started...Somalia and Sudan are failed states with a long and unpleasant history of imperialist occupation. Yemen is the exception and probably the only country on earth where radical islam is in immediate threat to the ruling government. You will note i said 'usually'.Anything to say about developments in Tunisia or does it not fit with your world view?

No, no, not at all. My 'world view' is not exclusive by any means. I take your point, fully, which is why I am pleasantly surprised that there is common ground, of sorts. I think it is blunt to suggest that formerly 'occupied' countries makes for foment is way too simplistic. We can, I hope, at least believe that an exception proves the rule.

My personal belief - and I have to stress that despite the silly accusations, I am not a 'swivel-eyed Nazi' - is that if we believe that capitalism is failing, then democracy is in far more dire straits.

It vexes me terribly because I do believe, last man standing, that we are not too far apart. The current situation is untenable; UK, Europe, World.

Major changes need to come but I resent massively the insinuation that I want to put 10-year-olds up chimneys.

The Norwegian PM said in the wake of Utoya: 'We need more democracy'. Yes, yes, yes, we do.

My ideal? A proper social democracy where exists a demos. We do NOT have that. Monday in Westminster is evidence.

[One Day Soon]

No, no, not at all. My 'world view' is not exclusive by any means. I take your point, fully, which is why I am pleasantly surprised that there is common ground, of sorts. I think it is blunt to suggest that formerly 'occupied' countries makes for foment is way too simplistic. We can, I hope, at least believe that an exception proves the rule.

My personal belief - and I have to stress that despite the silly accusations, I am not a 'swivel-eyed Nazi' - is that if we believe that capitalism is failing, then democracy is in far more dire straits.

It vexes me terribly because I do believe, last man standing, that we are not too far apart. The current situation is untenable; UK, Europe, World.

Major changes need to come but I resent massively the insinuation that I want to put 10-year-olds up chimneys.

The Norwegian PM said in the wake of Utoya: 'We need more democracy'. Yes, yes, yes, we do.

My ideal? A proper social democracy where exists a demos. We do NOT have that. Monday in Westminster is evidence.

In the words of Homer Simpson, "I like your ideas and I'd like to subscribe to your magazine". So, what would you regard as a proper social democracy and a healthy functioning demos?

[Twa Cairpets]

Not to intrude on this private love-in but two of you agreeing doesn't constitute a fairly broad spectrum of opposition, it constitututes two people in agreement. Given your views on all religion and Magpie's views on Islam, I'd say what you have here is a fairly narrow agreement of convenience.

Purely meant it that I suspect that Magpie and I are at opposite poles of the spectrum on most things, so if we agree theres a good chance that people between our position may likewise tend to agree. I agree that its a narrow convergence though.


In historical terms Kato is right. Most religious pogroms manifest as religiously motivated but there is almost always a series of wider and deeper root causes at work without which the religious symptom or manifestation simply would not take place. And its almost always economic.

This isnt anything to do with my views on religion. It's arguing against the point that the religious views of the combatants - in this particular example - are not the lines upon which people are divided. There may be economic factors as well, sure, but to suggest that people arent lining up with their co-religionists just isn't true.

In other conflicts the sides may be defined by ethnicity, tribal affiliation, political belief, national identity, resource jealousy and any number of other things or a combination of factors. I'm not suggesting religious identity or belief is always the root cause for conflict by any stretch, but it is here. If you're arguing that historically people have had their beliefs manipulated by their leaders to attain more secular goals then I'd agree, but I think to underplay the impact of fervent belief within many conflicts - especially as you go back further in history - is to re-write it from a modern apologetics view.

[Kato]

Not to intrude on this private love-in but two of you agreeing doesn't constitute a fairly broad spectrum of opposition, it constitututes two people in agreement. Given your views on all religion and Magpie's views on Islam, I'd say what you have here is a fairly narrow agreement of convenience.

In historical terms Kato is right. Most religious pogroms manifest as religiously motivated but there is almost always a series of wider and deeper root causes at work without which the religious symptom or manifestation simply would not take place. And its almost always economic.

Thankyou. I often find that those who are quickest to blame religion in these conflicts also have a deep hatred of either religious people or at least religiosu institutions.

I'm a total heathen by the way but don't really see people with spiritual beliefs as the problem some others do.


In other conflicts the sides may be defined by ethnicity, tribal affiliation, political belief, national identity, resource jealousy and any number of other things or a combination of factors.

There is no definate line between the things you list - alll those things, and religious beliefs, are blurred together.


[UOTE]If you're arguing that historically people have had their beliefs manipulated by their leaders to attain more secular goals then I'd agree, but I think to underplay the impact of fervent belief within many conflicts - especially as you go back further in history - is to re-write it from a modern apologetics view.[/QUOTE]

That's the second time you've used that "apologetics" which is frankly a pathetic stance to take in terms of historical fact. War doesn't happen because of religion, it happens because people's political ambition.

[Twa Cairpets]

Thankyou. I often find that those who are quickest to blame religion in these conflicts also have a deep hatred of either religious people or at least religiosu institutions.

I'm a total heathen by the way but don't really see people with spiritual beliefs as the problem some others do.

I dont hate religious people. I dont hate religious institutions - although I do believe that bodies whose raison d'etre is to promulgate what I believe to be a fiction are by their very nature pernicious and dishonest. They (religious institutions) do have the capability to provide comfort and community and charity, and people working within them can be hugely good and caring and driven individuals, I just believe that their core foundations are simply not true. I find a lot of their activity contemptible, but then I view a lot of the actions of the Tories, the Edinburgh Council and lots of other bodies contemptible also.

So although it may aid your argument to paint me and others as rabid anti-religionists wandering the streets with an atheist burning cross seeking out those dam' faith-heads it simply isn't true.


There is no definate line between the things you list - alll those things, and religious beliefs, are blurred together.

I'd argue that there can be some very clear differences between all these things, both in fact and more importantly in the minds of those involved. We dont have to look very far back to see them: Rwanda, Korea, Bosnia, Cyprus.


That's the second time you've used that "apologetics" which is frankly a pathetic stance to take in terms of historical fact. War doesn't happen because of religion, it happens because people's political ambition.

What's pathetic about using the correct word to describe something? From Wiki: Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and other disciplines. You seem to think it is a pejorative term. It isn't.

Some conflicts happen primarily because of religion. Some are fuelled primarily by religion. Some are extended and escalated primarily because of religion. In lots of conflicts religion plays a tiny or no part. It is seldom (if ever) the sole motivating factor, because to claim that would be to taking a ludicrously narrow view. To deny it is is ever a factor or catalyst or reason, as you are appear to be claiming, is equally blinkered.

[Kato]

I dont hate religious people. I dont hate religious institutions -

Fair do's.



although I do believe that bodies whose raison d'etre is to promulgate what I believe to be a fiction are by their very nature pernicious and dishonest.

That is what you see as their raison d'etre - religious institutions are far more than that, sometimes towards good causes and sometimes bad ones. Promulgating a fiction, as you see it, is a pretty modern outlook, for Christianity at least. It really came about from the enlightenment onwards as a product of being attacked by "rational scientists". Up till then many Christians even those in power were happy to see those teachings as just that, teachings couched in allegory. Even the Bible itself contains passages disclaiming any historical ambition and asking readers to look for a deeper meaning. Saying it's their raison d'etre seems to me be taking the opinions and methods of the more extreme nutjobs and painting every religious person as that outlook.


They (religious institutions) do have the capability to provide comfort and community and charity, and people working within them can be hugely good and caring and driven individuals, I just believe that their core foundations are simply not true. I find a lot of their activity contemptible, but then I view a lot of the actions of the Tories, the Edinburgh Council and lots of other bodies contemptible also.

Your applying your version of their "core foundations" and then attacking them on terms you've applied. Surely their core foundations are peace and love 'n that. Something lost on a lot of people from the Emporer Constantine down to these eejits attacking the Copts and apparently you.


So although it may aid your argument to paint me and others as rabid anti-religionists wandering the streets with an atheist burning cross seeking out those dam' faith-heads it simply isn't true.

Did I paint you as that?

Like many discussions on boards like this extremes are now the norm. I never suggested you were "rabid" in anything - and you do your argument no good by painting me as saying so.


Rwanda, Korea, Bosnia, Cyprus.

All political problems with an ethnic/tribal or whatever veneer.


What's pathetic about using the correct word to describe something? From Wiki: Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and other disciplines. You seem to think it is a pejorative term. It isn't.

Because I'm not apologising for anything, anyone or any institution. I'm discussing current affairs and applying an historic backdrop. Again inflammatory langauge is applied to anyone seen as "letting religion off the hook".



Some conflicts happen primarily because of religion.

Which ones?


Some are fuelled primarily by religion.

No doubt, and I said the same myself from the outset. The fuel isn't in question, it's the motive which is being fuelled which is.



Some are extended and escalated primarily because of religion.

Which ones?


It is seldom (if ever) the sole motivating factor, because to claim that would be to taking a ludicrously narrow view.

Hold on.

Now you are agreeing with me?!?!?!


To deny it is is ever a factor or catalyst or reason, as you are appear to be claiming, is equally blinkered.

It can be and quite often is a factor, if you read what I said in earlier posts you can see I agree with that.

My argument is that scratch enough below the surface, sometimes not very far down the catalyst or reason is all too earthly.

[Twa Cairpets]

That is what you see as their raison d'etre - religious institutions are far more than that, sometimes towards good causes and sometimes bad ones. Promulgating a fiction, as you see it, is a pretty modern outlook, for Christianity at least. It really came about from the enlightenment onwards as a product of being attacked by "rational scientists". Up till then many Christians even those in power were happy to see those teachings as just that, teachings couched in allegory. Even the Bible itself contains passages disclaiming any historical ambition and asking readers to look for a deeper meaning. Saying it's their raison d'etre seems to me be taking the opinions and methods of the more extreme nutjobs and painting every religious person as that outlook.

Theres so much wrong with this post. Surely you cant be arguing that religions don't exist to further the interests of their beliefs and those who share them? Some of this is good - community, belonging, charity. Some of it is bad - subservience, faith without evidence, submission to man-made morality masquerading as divine guidance (in my opinion of course). To claim that pre-enlightenment there existed some kind of tolerant spiritual analysis of allegorical messages is a new one on me, and I would genuinely love to see where you've got that idea from. Blasphemy and heresy were viewed rather seriosuly were they not? Our way or death/imprisonment.


Your applying your version of their "core foundations" and then attacking them on terms you've applied. Surely their core foundations are peace and love 'n that. Something lost on a lot of people from the Emporer Constantine down to these eejits attacking the Copts and apparently you.

Yes to the first part because for the reasons above. As for the second, most christians will select the biblical teachings of Jesus as their motivation. I think they cant cherry pick the bible, and if it is a book youve read you'll not be able to make the peace and love claim. The Qu'ran is worse, by the way, although I've not read it other than in synopsis.



Did I paint you as that?
Like many discussions on boards like this extremes are now the norm. I never suggested you were "rabid" in anything - and you do your argument no good by painting me as saying so.

"I often find that those who are quickest to blame religion in these conflicts also have a deep hatred of either religious people or at least religious institutions"
Certainly in the ball park.

I don't think either stances are extreme - we're debating a point of detail within a larger topic.


All political problems with an ethnic/tribal or whatever veneer.
Veneer? If you're defining politics as anything that effects the minds of people, then yes, I agree. But that doesn't do a lot for any meaningful analysis. The examples were Rwanda (Tribal), Korea (Geopolitical), Bosnia (Community identity and religion), Cyprus (national identity).


Because I'm not apologising for anything, anyone or any institution. I'm discussing current affairs and applying an historic backdrop. Again inflammatory langauge is applied to anyone seen as "letting religion off the hook".
Apologetics is an entirely respectable theological and philosphical stance. It does not mean apologising. There's no inflammatory language, there's no suggestion of letting anyone of any hook by using the phrase. It is what the movement/philosophy of defending christianity is.


Which ones?

No doubt, and I said the same myself from the outset. The fuel isn't in question, it's the motive which is being fuelled which is.

Which ones?

Historical - Crusades, Current: Egyptian Copts Others - Tamil Tigers, Any number of Sunni/Shia conflicts, Balkans, any anti-semitic action through history. If you're saying religion as an abstract concept doesnt do the killing, then you're right. But then you'd have to say that killing because of love, killing because of politics or killing because of nationality is an equally abstract concept.


Hold on.

Now you are agreeing with me?!?!?!
I've never said anything other than the point I made.


It can be and quite often is a factor, if you read what I said in earlier posts you can see I agree with that.

My argument is that scratch enough below the surface, sometimes not very far down the catalyst or reason is all too earthly.

This is where we do agree competely. All the actions are earthly, just that some of them are inspired by a belief in the heavenly.

[Kato]

Sorry for the delay - been enjoying reading about the cult of Mad Vlad too much.



Theres so much wrong with this post. Surely you cant be arguing that religions don't exist to further the interests of their beliefs and those who share them? Some of this is good - community, belonging, charity. Some of it is bad - subservience, faith without evidence, submission to man-made morality masquerading as divine guidance (in my opinion of course).

I think religions exist as a path for people toward some kind of spiritual enlightenment and at localised level at their origins as a "way" to
live cohesively. That their tribal origins have been long lost and that these teachings are used for other more earthly motives or political
expansion I've no doubt but I don't that religion's exist to further that religions cause.

Faith doesn't require evidence, their are plenty of religious types who struggle with the "belief" stuff but have a strong faith, and man-made
morality is all we have however it's presented.


To claim that pre-enlightenment there existed some kind of tolerant spiritual analysis of allegorical messages is a new one on me, and I would genuinely love to see where you've got that idea from.

If it's a new one on you you've allowed yourself to be brain washed into thinking that religious institutions and what they demand are equal
to the religious experience.

Luke 8:10 Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
But he said to them, “It has been given to you to know the secret of the Kingdom of God, but to those others, it is spoken in an allegory, that while seeing they will not perceive, and when hearing, they will not understand.”

There are instructions within the books that make up the New Testament for it to be read that way. People taking those teachings as allegory is as old as the bible itself - even hard line biblical literalists see at least part of those writings as having "hidden meanings".


Blasphemy and heresy were viewed rather seriosuly were they not? Our way or death/imprisonment.

Some of the time and in some places but no where near everywhere all of the time. The Inquisition, for example, had legal roots and it was an easy way for the church to grab it's victim's property. Their three main tools were fear, rhetoric and an almost fanatical dedication to collecting real estate. The bible and what people believed were cultural trimmings.


Yes to the first part because for the reasons above. As for the second, most christians will select the biblical teachings of Jesus as their motivation. I think they cant cherry pick the bible, and if it is a book youve read you'll not be able to make the peace and love claim.

See what you are doing there (see bold), is putting down your own rules as to what Christians should do. The bible isn't one book, it's a whole load of seperate books. Hierarchy's may demand that they see some kind authorised unification of those to be seen as a whole but that's not how thet were written and they have been taken in singularity since they were written. There's no shortage of baptist, Johannite, apocalyptical &c sects and cults from ancient to modern times.

You say they can't cherry pick the Bible and Hierarchy's say they can't cherry pick the Bible but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. So if some Christians want to take Christ's message of peace and love as the core message of those writings who are you or some church oligarch to say they can't?



The Qu'ran is worse, by the way, although I've not read it other than in synopsis.


Sounds riveting.



"I often find that those who are quickest to blame religion in these conflicts also have a deep hatred of either religious people or at least religious institutions"
Certainly in the ball park.

I don't think either stances are extreme - we're debating a point of detail within a larger topic.

I think you are being extreme.

With a statement like "Blasphemy and heresy were viewed rather seriosuly were they not? Our way or death/imprisonment." you are cherry picking history and trying to make it the norm over the course of time, which it is anything but. Also when you said above "I think they cant cherry pick the bible" you are corraling how you see Christian's should approach their texts.

You find them wanting on your terms, which is a warped history and an imposed theology as impossible as the Hierarchy's you criticise.

That's extreme.



Historical - Crusades, Current: Egyptian Copts Others - Tamil Tigers, Any number of Sunni/Shia conflicts, Balkans, any anti-semitic action through history.

If you read this thread I already claimed that the Crusades were more to do with European war-lords finding themselves at a point of development whereby they had the where-with-all to mount an invasion in the Levant - which was rich-pickings for all those second and third sons which would have been snapping their ankles if left at home. Some were obviously but the roots of those Wars were ambition and control of trade.

Weren't the Tamil's at one point the ruling class in Sri Lanka and subsequent discrimination against them came about as some kind of historic reprisal - class and territory seem to have a lot more to do with that than religion. The whole Sunni/Shia thing has it's roots in trying to grab temporal power, the Balkans = Nationalism from beginning to end.

If by "any anti-semitic action through history" you mean that all anti-semitic actions were carried out because of some kind theological
difference then you are naive in the extreme. From Vespasian onwards there are political motives behind attacks on the Jewish people. "The Outsider" makes a great political scapegoat and sady for the Jews they have been scapegoated many times. Theology doesn't get a look in although it may referred to as a tool to get the troops going.


If you're saying religion as an abstract concept doesnt do the killing, then you're right. But then you'd have to say that killing
because of love, killing because of politics or killing because of nationality is an equally abstract concept.

There is profit in killing for Nationalism or for political motives. All I'm saying is what appears to us either currently or in history, to
be a religous war, is not. There are always more earthly, material motives behind that - with religion being used as a tool to either start
or continue the fighting.



This is where we do agree competely. All the actions are earthly, just that some of them are inspired by a belief in the heavenly.

And I say bollocks to that. The way you've attempted to corral the way Christians should approach the Bible and tried twist their history tells me you want it to be that way.

Any "heavenly" inspirations towards war are just the hogwash to cover over the instigator's greed.

[Twa Cairpets]

Sorry for the delay - been enjoying reading about the cult of Mad Vlad too much.
We agree 100% on something!


I think religions exist as a path for people toward some kind of spiritual enlightenment and at localised level at their origins as a "way" to
live cohesively. That their tribal origins have been long lost and that these teachings are used for other more earthly motives or political
expansion I've no doubt but I don't that religion's exist to further that religions cause.

Further on in your post you have a right old go at me for defining religion in general and christianity in particular by terms that you disagree with and regard as being unfair and limiting. I regard your description above as being naive and idealistic. It may well be correct for some people, but most of the major religions have a requirement to preach, to proseltyse, to witness - that people choose not to is a moot point.


Faith doesn't require evidence, their are plenty of religious types who struggle with the "belief" stuff but have a strong faith, and man-made
morality is all we have however it's presented.
Plenty of threads on faith v evidence so I'll body swerve that, but I agree that man made morality is all that we have.


If it's a new one on you you've allowed yourself to be brain washed into thinking that religious institutions and what they demand are equal
to the religious experience.

I hope thats not true about me. I dont think it is. I understand that religious organisations and personal "religious" experiences may be utterly different, but surely you're not suggesting that people have a kind of personalised, bespoke faith based experience that are for the most part not based on what is taught or preached to them by the particular religious body or culture to which they belong?


Luke 8:10 Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
But he said to them, “It has been given to you to know the secret of the Kingdom of God, but to those others, it is spoken in an allegory, that while seeing they will not perceive, and when hearing, they will not understand.”

There are instructions within the books that make up the New Testament for it to be read that way. People taking those teachings as allegory is as old as the bible itself - even hard line biblical literalists see at least part of those writings as having "hidden meanings".

Luke 8:10 is a cracker. Jesus speaks in parables and allegory so people cant understand him. Cheers. That'll really help everyone live in harmony.


Some of the time and in some places but no where near everywhere all of the time. The Inquisition, for example, had legal roots and it was an easy way for the church to grab it's victim's property. Their three main tools were fear, rhetoric and an almost fanatical dedication to collecting real estate. The bible and what people believed were cultural trimmings.

Again I believe this is very naive. The motives may well for many have been very earthly, but for many were religious. The cultural trimmings you ascribe are a damn sight more than that. Whether or not they are this spiritual religion you think is somehow above being in any way culpable for anything bad, you cant just say "its not religion" and therefore it doesnt count somehow.


See what you are doing there (see bold), is putting down your own rules as to what Christians should do. The bible isn't one book, it's a whole load of seperate books. Hierarchy's may demand that they see some kind authorised unification of those to be seen as a whole but that's not how thet were written and they have been taken in singularity since they were written. There's no shortage of baptist, Johannite, apocalyptical &c sects and cults from ancient to modern times.

You say they can't cherry pick the Bible and Hierarchy's say they can't cherry pick the Bible but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. So if some Christians want to take Christ's message of peace and love as the core message of those writings who are you or some church oligarch to say they can't?

No, I'm not putting down rules. I'm stating my opinion. Of course you can cherry pick the bible. Virtually every christian on the planet does. To me this cherry picking robs it of any validity as a belief system or moral guide or creation explanation. Sure, you can take out the good bits and choose to believe in them, but then you could take the good bits out of The Lord of the Rings and get a pretty good story covering all the above and with fewer inconsistencies. I'm not saying that they can't cherry pick, I'm just suggesting that to do so means that they can't claim to be acting according the word of the Bible or the Qu'ran or whatever with any validity.


Sounds riveting.

It's not


I think you are being extreme.
A few posts ago you said you that you weren't painting me as extreme. Make up your mind.


With a statement like "Blasphemy and heresy were viewed rather seriosuly were they not? Our way or death/imprisonment." you are cherry picking history and trying to make it the norm over the course of time, which it is anything but. Also when you said above "I think they cant cherry pick the bible" you are corraling how you see Christian's should approach their texts.

You find them wanting on your terms, which is a warped history and an imposed theology as impossible as the Hierarchy's you criticise.

That's extreme.

This is one of the most tortured pieces of logic I've seen. Start with a straw man followed by a fallacious assertion and reach a conclusion. Wow.

Do you honestly think that those of a religious slant were more tolerant downthrough history? Bloody Mary? Warped religion maybe by any standards - historical or otherwise - but you'd be pushed to see reasons other than religious mania for people being burned at the stake. The extermination of the Cathars in the Albigensian crusades (certainly some economic background, but kicked off by religious intolerance?

You accuse me of pigeon holing what defines religion or religious belief. Your definition seems to be that if its appears to be religious and its bad then its not really religion thats to blame. Ever.


If you read this thread I already claimed that the Crusades were more to do with European war-lords finding themselves at a point of development whereby they had the where-with-all to mount an invasion in the Levant - which was rich-pickings for all those second and third sons which would have been snapping their ankles if left at home. Some were obviously but the roots of those Wars were ambition and control of trade.
I disagree with your interpretation. It is (as I think I mentioned earlier), the stance of Christian Apologetics.


Weren't the Tamil's at one point the ruling class in Sri Lanka and subsequent discrimination against them came about as some kind of historic reprisal - class and territory seem to have a lot more to do with that than religion. The whole Sunni/Shia thing has it's roots in trying to grab temporal power, the Balkans = Nationalism from beginning to end. So the division of people along religious lines was just a bizarre accident that happened to match their national identity? It was coincidence that Srebrenica just happened to involve, exclusively, Muslims? Territory and nationalism may have kicked the war off, it was fuelled and catalysed by religious intolerance.


If by "any anti-semitic action through history" you mean that all anti-semitic actions were carried out because of some kind theological
difference then you are naive in the extreme. From Vespasian onwards there are political motives behind attacks on the Jewish people. "The Outsider" makes a great political scapegoat and sady for the Jews they have been scapegoated many times. Theology doesn't get a look in although it may referred to as a tool to get the troops going.
I dont think they were carried out by theological differences - if it was then that would be at least justifiable. Its been stupid, scared, malleable people being told that the perfidious jew is evil or dangerous or money grabbing or child killing. Yes, they're the outsider. Yes, they're the scapegoat. Yes, they have been seen and described as such because they are of a different religion that is alien to the people they live among. They are persecuted because their religion is different, even if those doing the persecuting dont have the first clue about the theological differences or what they may be.


There is profit in killing for Nationalism or for political motives. All I'm saying is what appears to us either currently or in history, to
be a religous war, is not. There are always more earthly, material motives behind that - with religion being used as a tool to either start
or continue the fighting.
There's profit in killing for religious motives too. I just think you are wrong in saying religion is never to blame. Its not always to blame, but it is sometimes to blame. If it makes you happy I'll define at as religious groups rather than religion itself.


And I say bollocks to that. The way you've attempted to corral the way Christians should approach the Bible and tried twist their history tells me you want it to be that way. Any "heavenly" inspirations towards war are just the hogwash to cover over the instigator's greed.
So no leader or soldier has ever been motivated exclusively or even primarily by their spiritual belief?