People need to stop using history(or thier interpetation of it) to justify or explain current events.

 

It's not so much the use of History but the time periods people tend to compare that's irrelevant. Yes, a few heads rolled during the crusade era but when compared to Christianity today, Islam doesn't even compare to how much Christianity has progressed when some sects of Islam have stood still ever since. In fact, some have backpedaled

When we have a small cult that feels its their duty to destroy abortion clinics it's just that. Between 1977 and 1994 5 people were killed from abortion attacks here in the USA according to the ATF. Although it's still a tragic figure, the argument would hold a lot more water if snuff and rape deaths could be tied into radical Christianity somehow.

But when look at a similar group of Muslims they dominate entire countries and make up considerable amounts of followers within Western Societies. Not only did heads roll under the will of Allah way back when, but they are continuing to do so and levels that far surpass anything Christian followers have done in the last century and even beyond.

The comparison between Christianity and Islam can only be measured effectively in modern times… in this case that comparison is absolutely bunk because times were remarkably different back then.

Everyone here knows it or else they wouldn't have asked for the name of a crooked Democrat within the last 10 years (from the California Coruption thread). Not the best comparison but you still catch my drift. Why not 20 or 200yrs for that matter?

 

I would have to disagree. History repeats itself, over and over again. Looking back at history gives us a idea of what went wrong, what caused these events to happen and what the outcome would be. Look at the Roman republic/empire, Greek empire, Persian empire, anything and you will find paralells between today and more recent events. We are not trying to justify what these extremists are doing, we are just trying to show that such fanatisism is not isolated to Islam, but has taken over most religions at some point or another.

Salty: I have to disagree. Comparing things today to things in our past is not bunk, what we are doing here is bunk. Trying to say, "our world has advanced so much since then" is true, but it is a diffrent story in the Middle East. When I traveled to Jordan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia their world and ideals are so diffrent from what we hold here. They are in many ways caught between two worlds. One being the near-ancient world which the middle east was part of for so many years, the other being the modern world. It is a strange sense when you walk though a Jordanian street and see women completely covered up on your left, and a Internet café on your right.

Fanatasism to the extent that it is practiced in the Middle east and southern Asia right now could probably never take hold of the western world right now due to the education level and well, the internet.

Islam is not the problem here, as some people would like you to believe. The problem, as in the crusades (yes they are relevent) or really any religous war is the leaders. The moderates in Islam have been overwhelmed by the propaganda power of the extremists. The Qua'ran may be slightly more violent in natuer than the Bible but really it is all in your interpretation. I could read the bible and take from it "kill all the muslums and baby-killing heathens!" but I don't because i dont have someone instructing me as that is the meaning of the book. Any religion is subject to hijack from extremists, and Islam is in the "right" time and place for it. Put together unhappy public, years of oppression from the western world, ignorant political boundries put in place by the brits and french, powerful and intelagent (yes, these leaders ARE smart) leaders who know how to use propaganda, and the western worlds craze for Oil and you have a situation in which extremism can brew.
-Jeff

 

Fine, but it's not as relevant as people make it seem. It's always the first thing out of anyone's mouth from the left. It's a defense mechanism that isn't nearly as effective as comparing religion and cultures in modern times.

Honestly, how relevant is the killing of numerous Christian/Infidels of today effectively compared to an event that took place in Medieval times when even Christians of today don't reflect what they once were in the slightest? It's a very, very weak comparison at best.

And saying their culture isn't as advanced as ours further proves my point because it's nobodies fault but their own for not keeping up with the West. It's still the 21st century whether anyone likes it or not.

 

Salty you are missing my point by a LONG shot.

I am in no way comparing christians of today to those of midevil times. I am comparing the forces which caused the crusades and other such religious wars to the forces that are shaping the extremism in Islam today. Of course they are not identical, but most of the elements are there.

You say it is the first thing out of my mouth because I am on the defence, but it is the first thing I think of. My point is: The forces causing Islam's current extremism are not limited to Islam and have been/are experianced by other religions. Islam is not particularly violent or particularly extreme.

 

Do they really need to? How much of this keeping up with the 21st century has to do with OUR pushing for them to assimilate and be like us? True, most want to come up to our level on their own accord, but their innability to is partially our (well, the brits and the french) fault.

 

I'm all for following the prime directive!

 

You're right because most Islamics are not particulary violent. It's just those hundred of thousands belonging to those certain sects and the Muslims leaders that encourage it who really are. They are Muslim too.

When will people stop short changing the bad parts of that religion just because it's not exactly peaceful? Instead of saying "particular" let's get it right out in the open and say a lot of people over there want us dead for no considerable reason other than the interpreted word of a being that may or may not even exist. The word that was passed down from the questionable illusions one man had in a cave!

This is the point I’m trying to make: Why is it that Christianity has come leaps and bounds on it's ability to be peaceful, but when someone farts about Islam people immediately revert to how Christianity once was?

I'm not saying you're doing this now but it always pisses me off when people do this. I'm done here... sorry if i'm not tracking on the point you're trying to make.

 

Don't leave now Salty, it was just starting to get interesting

Here is what I am trying to say, and hopefully it will come off as making more sense:

These extremists most likely did not look back at christianity's earlier years and say, "hey, thats what we should do!". However, they are following the same pattern.

My point: People revert back to Christianity to point out that this is not a unique event to Islam. The reason Islam has not come leaps and bounds further as Christianity has is simply because of the culutral context. The Middle East in the last centuries has been a very diffrent place from the Western world. THe history is almost completely diffrent, the culture has developed almost completley diffrently, and when the world becomes "flat" (to use Friedman's term) there is bound to be conflict between diffrent cultures. We probably come off as overly violent to them too.
-Jeff

 

I realize what you're saying... so why not compare it to the Islam of years past instead?

 

No, the reason islam has not come "leaps and bounds" is because it has not allowed its self to evolve past the fundamentals it was based upon.

 

Exactally! Islam is now trying to play "catch up" and it is coming with conflict, just like Christianity went through back hundreds of years ago. The only diffrence is the amount of time it has taken for both to "evolve". The conflict you are having now is the "moderates" we think of are really the extremists in the religion, who are pushing the religion into the future (who I agree with BTW). The people who we think are the "extremists" are the ones who want to stay with the fundamental values of the past. They are fighting us because we are the ones who push them forward and they do not want that, but in principle they are as much fighting us as they are the "moderates" in their own religion.
-Jeff

 

You guys are ignoring all the wars that have been started because of Christianity in the modern era also. Civil wars in England, the revolutionary war for our US, most of the recent conflicts in eastern europe, part of the conflict between Russia and the rest of europe...they all have ties to Christianity and or Catholicism. Not to mention that even in the middle east there are Christians that fight and kill those of other religions.


No religion is on higher ground than any other.

 

I'm still wanting an answer on this, please.

Why not compare actions from radical Islam of today to actions that spawn from the Turks in the late 10th century to the many atrocities by the Muslims during the crusades?

Aside from the Crusades of old, Islam has had countless wrong doings from the Crusades onward… basically ever since the days of Muhammad. There’s been numerous battles instigated from the Crusades onward, the conquest and blood shed in Spain and Africa and Asia for hundreds of years. Even more recent atrocities in Sudan that have taken hundreds of thousands of innocent Christian lives, etc. I didn’t even cover half of what that Religion has done in other parts of the world since it was established.

So why is it never compared to this? The answer is that mentioning the Crusades allows for a comparison to Christianity as defense to Islam when Christianity is the only one that’s apologized dearly and progressed. Sure, it is a comparison to be made and that can be made but it’s very weak next to the comparisons that can be made regarding the consistent blood-filled past of Islam.

EDIT: My point is that the comparison to Christianities past would be justified if Islam wasn't around during the same era doing the same despicable crap at a consistent rate to this day.

Seems like a fair better comparison to me. Would it be more realistic to do a car article that compares the new Chrysler 300 to the 1955 Chrysler 300? Or would it be more appropriate to do one that compares it to the 1955 Chevy Bel Air?

 

...well, we could compare them to themselves...but that's not much of a comparison. How about we compare them to the s***storm that's happening in NIreland because Catholics and Protestants (both Christian) can't get along. Pretty similar to the Sunni v Shi'ite thing in Iraq, no?


How about the conflicts in Africa that have christian-backing on one side and indinous (non-christians) on the other? There are still a fair number of Christians that kill for their beleifs.


Besides, all religions have the same morral 'rightness' because of the fundamental idea of religion; they all beleive they are better than those who are not of their religion. When and if a religion starts killiing others is nearly irrelevant, because emotionally and mentally they already feel people who don't beleive as they do are either going to hell or are lesser people on earth.