Politics

[pkt77242]

Why Obama Can't Say 'Radical Islam' - Bloomberg View

 

[Buster Bluth]

They're discussing the term Islamic terrorists/militants on the Nightly Show right now and one of the guests said that Arab allies have asked the White House to not use the term Islamic militants when referring to ISIS because they think it'd be a boost to their recruitment. Whatever that's worth.

 

[Bluto]

Saw this today and just thought Id share since some were discussing this,...

Yeah, Well, But What About the Crusades? | TGC

Interesting article. If I remember correctly the Papacy used crusades to "clean house" from time to time.

 

[EddytoNow]

There is no need to go all the way back to the Crusades for a parallel. One only has to go back to the stealing of Native American land and resources under the name of Christianity. We are now doing much the same thing with the oil of the Middle East.

The strategy is to make friends with representatives of the group who are willing to exploit their own and pretend they speak for the entire nation or culture (Shah of Iran, anyone?). Then, establish them as puppet leaders with our military support while our multi-national corporations exploit the native people and their resources.

And we do all this in the name of Christianizing the heathens. Can you really expect the natives not to resist this exploitation?

 

[IrishLax]

There is no need to go all the way back to the Crusades for a parallel. One only has to go back to the stealing of Native American land and resources under the name of Christianity. We are now doing much the same thing with the oil of the Middle East.

Dude... what?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

There is no need to go all the way back to the Crusades for a parallel. One only has to go back to the stealing of Native American land and resources under the name of Christianity.

How were Native Americans dispossessed "in the name of Christianity"? Early Americans undoubtedly believed themselves to be culturally superior to the indigenous tribes for a whole host of reasons, including some religious. But to indicate that their dispossession was primarily due to religious bigotry is completely indefensible.

We are now doing much the same thing with the oil of the Middle East.

Really? Do tell how we're spreading the Gospel via the sword in the Holy Lands. By toppling the government of Iraq and nearly doing the same in Syria, we've created a power vacuum in which Islamists have been free to virtually wipe out Christian communities who have existed in the region since Jesus walked the earth. I'm sure the Coptics and other persecuted Christians would prefer America to act as you've just described, but that isn't the case.

And we do all this in the name of Christianizing the heathens. Can you really expect the natives not to resist this exploitation?

See Lax's post above. I'm very skeptical of American military adventurism, and I detest crony capitalism. But to imply that either of those things is motivated by Christianity is simply laughable.

 

[Rack Em]

Dude... what?

White Privilege

How were Native Americans dispossessed "in the name of Christianity"? Early Americans undoubtedly believed themselves to be culturally superior to the indigenous tribes for a whole host of reasons, including some religious. But to indicate that their dispossession was primarily due to religious bigotry is completely indefensible.



Really? Do tell how we're spreading the Gospel via the sword in the Holy Lands. By toppling the government of Iraq and nearly doing the same in Syria, we've created a power vacuum in which Islamists have been free to virtually wipe out Christian communities who have existed in the region since Jesus walked the earth. I'm sure the Coptics and other persecuted Christians would prefer America to act as you've just described, but that isn't the case.



See Lax's post above. I'm very skeptical of American military adventurism, and I detest crony capitalism. But to imply that either of those things is motivated by Christianity is simply laughable.

White Privilege.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

White Privilege.

Check your privilege, bro.

 

[EddytoNow]

How were Native Americans dispossessed "in the name of Christianity"? Early Americans undoubtedly believed themselves to be culturally superior to the indigenous tribes for a whole host of reasons, including some religious. But to indicate that their dispossession was primarily due to religious bigotry is completely indefensible.



Really? Do tell how we're spreading the Gospel via the sword in the Holy Lands. By toppling the government of Iraq and nearly doing the same in Syria, we've created a power vacuum in which Islamists have been free to virtually wipe out Christian communities who have existed in the region since Jesus walked the earth. I'm sure the Coptics and other persecuted Christians would prefer America to act as you've just described, but that isn't the case.



See Lax's post above. I'm very skeptical of American military adventurism, and I detest crony capitalism. But to imply that either of those things is motivated by Christianity is simply laughable.

Perhaps, you should familiarize yourself with the Papal Bulls issued by the Pope in the time of Columbus, particularly the following:

Alexander, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to the illustrious sovereigns, our very dear son in Christ, Ferdinand, king, and our very dear daughter in Christ, Isabella, queen of Castile, Leon, Aragon, Sicily, and Granada, health and apostolic benediction. Among other works well pleasing to the Divine Majesty and cherished of our heart, this assuredly ranks highest, that in our times especially the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself. Wherefore inasmuch as by the favor of divine clemency, we, though of insufficient merits, have been called to this Holy See of Peter, recognizing that as true Catholic kings and princes, such as we have known you always to be, and as your illustrious deeds already known to almost the whole world declare, you not only eagerly desire but with every effort, zeal, and diligence, without regard to hardships, expenses, dangers, with the shedding even of your blood, are laboring to that end; recognizing also that you have long since dedicated to this purpose your whole soul and all your endeavors -- as witnessed in these times with so much glory to the Divine Name in your recovery of the kingdom of Granada from the yoke of the Saracens -- we therefore are rightly led, and hold it as our duty, to grant you even of our own accord and in your favor those things whereby with effort each day more hearty you may be enabled for the honor of God himself and the spread of the Christian rule to carry forward your holy and praiseworthy purpose so pleasing to immortal God. We have indeed learned that you, who for a long time had intended to seek out and discover certain islands and mainlands remote and unknown and not hitherto discovered by others, to the end that you might bring to the worship of our Redeemer and the profession of the Catholic faith their residents and inhabitants, having been up to the present time greatly engaged in the siege and recovery of the kingdom itself of Granada were unable to accomplish this holy and praiseworthy purpose; but the said kingdom having at length been regained, as was pleasing to the Lord, you, with the wish to fulfill your desire, chose our beloved son, Christopher Columbus, a man assuredly worthy and of the highest recommendations and fitted for so great an undertaking, whom you furnished with ships and men equipped for like designs, not without the greatest hardships, dangers, and expenses, to make diligent quest for these remote and unknown mainlands and islands through the sea, where hitherto no one had sailed; and they at length, with divine aid and with the utmost diligence sailing in the ocean sea, discovered certain very remote islands and even mainlands that hitherto had not been discovered by others; wherein dwell very many peoples living in peace, and, as reported, going unclothed, and not eating flesh. Moreover, as your aforesaid envoys are of opinion, these very peoples living in the said islands and countries believe in one God, the Creator in heaven, and seem sufficiently disposed to embrace the Catholic faith and be trained in good morals. And it is hoped that, were they instructed, the name of the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, would easily be introduced into the said countries and islands. Also, on one of the chief of these aforesaid islands the said Christopher has already caused to be put together and built a fortress fairly equipped, wherein he has stationed as garrison certain Christians, companions of his, who are to make search for other remote and unknown islands and mainlands. In the islands and countries already discovered are found gold, spices, and very many other precious things of divers kinds and qualities. Wherefore, as becomes Catholic kings and princes, after earnest consideration of all matters, especially of the rise and spread of the Catholic faith, as was the fashion of your ancestors, kings of renowned memory, you have purposed with the favor of divine clemency to bring under your sway the said mainlands and islands with their residents and inhabitants and to bring them to the Catholic faith. Hence, heartily commending in the Lord this your holy and praiseworthy purpose, and desirous that it be duly accomplished, and that the name of our Savior be carried into those regions, we exhort you very earnestly in the Lord and by your reception of holy baptism, whereby you are bound to our apostolic commands, and by the bowels of the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, enjoin strictly, that inasmuch as with eager zeal for the true faith you design to equip and despatch this expedition, you purpose also, as is your duty, to lead the peoples dwelling in those islands and countries to embrace the Christian religion; nor at any time let dangers or hardships deter you therefrom, with the stout hope and trust in your hearts that Almighty God will further your undertakings. And, in order that you may enter upon so great an undertaking with greater readiness and heartiness endowed with the benefit of our apostolic favor, we, of our own accord, not at your instance nor the request of anyone else in your regard, but of our own sole largess and certain knowledge and out of the fullness of our apostolic power, by the authority of Almighty God conferred upon us in blessed Peter and of the vicarship of Jesus Christ, which we hold on earth, do by tenor of these presents, should any of said islands have been found by your envoys and captains, give, grant, and assign to you and your heirs and successors, kings of Castile and Leon, forever, together with all their dominions, cities, camps, places, and villages, and all rights, jurisdictions, and appurtenances, all islands and mainlands found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered towards the west and south, by drawing and establishing a line from the Arctic pole, namely the north, to the Antarctic pole, namely the south, no matter whether the said mainlands and islands are found and to be found in the direction of India or towards any other quarter, the said line to be distant one hundred leagues towards the west and south from any of the islands commonly known as the Azores and Cape Verde. With this proviso however that none of the islands and mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, beyond that said line towards the west and south, be in the actual possession of any Christian king or prince up to the birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ just past from which the present year one thousand four hundred and ninety-three begins. And we make, appoint, and depute you and your said heirs and successors lords of them with full and free power, authority, and jurisdiction of every kind; with this proviso however, that by this our gift, grant, and assignment no right acquired by any Christian prince, who may be in actual possession of said islands and mainlands prior to the said birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ, is hereby to be understood to be withdrawn or taken away. Moreover we command you in virtue of holy obedience that, employing all due diligence in the premises, as you also promise -- nor do we doubt your compliance therein in accordance with your loyalty and royal greatness of spirit -- you should appoint to the aforesaid mainlands and islands worthy, God-fearing, learned, skilled, and experienced men, in order to instruct the aforesaid inhabitants and residents in the Catholic faith and train them in good morals. Furthermore, under penalty of excommunication late sententie to be incurred ipso facto, should anyone thus contravene, we strictly forbid all persons of whatsoever rank, even imperial and royal, or of whatsoever estate, degree, order, or condition, to dare, without your special permit or that of your aforesaid heirs and successors, to go for the purpose of trade or any other reason to the islands or mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, towards the west and south, by drawing and establishing a line from the Arctic pole to the Antarctic pole, no matter whether the mainlands and islands, found and to be found, lie in the direction of India or toward any other quarter whatsoever, the said line to be distant one hundred leagues towards the west and south, as is aforesaid, from any of the islands commonly known as the Azores and Cape Verde; apostolic constitutions and ordinances and other decrees whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding. We trust in Him from whom empires and governments and all good things proceed, that, should you, with the Lord's guidance, pursue this holy and praiseworthy undertaking, in a short while your hardships and endeavors will attain the most felicitous result, to the happiness and glory of all Christendom. But inasmuch as it would be difficult to have these present letters sent to all places where desirable, we wish, and with similar accord and knowledge do decree, that to copies of them, signed by the hand of a public notary commissioned therefor, and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical officer or ecclesiastical court, the same respect is to be shown in court and outside as well as anywhere else as would be given to these presents should they thus be exhibited or shown. Let no one, therefore, infringe, or with rash boldness contravene, this our recommendation, exhortation, requisition, gift, grant, assignment, constitution, deputation, decree, mandate, prohibition, and will. Should anyone presume to attempt this, be it known to him that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul. Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, in the year of the incarnation of our Lord one thousand four hundred and ninety-three, the fourth of May, and the first year of our pontificate.

Gratis by order of our most holy lord, the pope
"

 

[GowerND11]

How were Native Americans dispossessed "in the name of Christianity"? Early Americans undoubtedly believed themselves to be culturally superior to the indigenous tribes for a whole host of reasons, including some religious. But to indicate that their dispossession was primarily due to religious bigotry is completely indefensible

Could it be said that they felt they were culturally superior for all those reasons because of their religion?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Perhaps, you should familiarize yourself with the Papal Bulls issued by the Pope in the time of Columbus, particularly the following:

If you think the motivations behind colonialism were primarily religious, rather than economic and political, we're not likely to have a productive discussion on this topic. The church hierarchy and the monarchy in Spain were so close as to be indistinguishable in many ways. A cozy relationship between the government and the Church corrupts them both, which was a constant issue throughout medieval Christendom. Fortunately the Reformation lead to a separation of church and state throughout the West.

But if you insist on laying every injustice in the Western world from 313 until 1945 at the feet of Christianity, you'll at least have plenty of company. The "long but inexorable climb out of superstition and oppression" is one of the foundational myths of our current secular and progressive order. But it's still a myth.

Could it be said that they felt they were culturally superior for all those reasons because of their religion?

So what's the argument here? Christianity is implicitly racist and oppressive? Or perhaps that Christianity fostered technological advancement which in turn allowed European nations to oppress the rest of the world?

 

[Rack Em]

Check your privilege, bro.

<------------------------------------------

Look at this face. I ain't got no privilege to check.

 

[GowerND11]

If you think the motivations behind colonialism were primarily religious, rather than economic and political, we're not likely to have a productive discussion on this topic. The church hierarchy and the monarchy in Spain were so close as to be indistinguishable in many ways. A cozy relationship between the government and the Church corrupts them both, which was a constant issue throughout medieval Christendom. Fortunately the Reformation lead to a separation of church and state throughout the West.

But if you insist on laying every injustice in the Western world from 313 until 1945 at the feet of Christianity, you'll at least have plenty of company. The "long but inexorable climb out of superstition and oppression" is one of the foundational myths of our current secular and progressive order. But it's still a myth.



So what's the argument here? Christianity is implicitly racist and oppressive? Or perhaps that Christianity fostered technological advancement which in turn allowed European nations to oppress the rest of the world?

I think more along the lines that, while the technological advancements in Europe were not due to Christianity, the European settlers felt culturally superior through religion. They felt the need to oppress based on their belief that, as Christians, they were better than those "non-believers" and should thus be masters of these savages.

It would be more like Christian =/= racist and oppresive, but rather racist and oppressive usually = Christian.

 

[MartyIrish]

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Sheila Jackson Lee accused of hypocrisy over Grammys appearance | Daily Mail OnlineWhite privledge....Shelia Jackson Lee enjoys it

 

[MartyIrish]

I think more along the lines that, while the technological advancements in Europe were not due to Christianity, the European settlers felt culturally superior through religion. They felt the need to oppress based on their belief that, as Christians, they were better than those "non-believers" and should thus be masters of these savages.

It would be more like Christian =/= racist and oppresive, but rather racist and oppressive usually = Christian.

Or.....


Evolution, people. We came, we saw, we conquered. Unless you all prefer hunting animals in the nude covered in warpaint, it was necessary.

Maybe the way it went down (as far as how the Natives were treated) wasn't a good thing...but all this has led to where we are now. Which is the greatest country in the world.


Murica'

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It would be more like Christian =/= racist and oppresive, but rather racist and oppressive usually = Christian.

Quite the opposite, actually. Slavery, racism and oppression have been present in virtually every human civilization throughout history. Medieval Europe was an outlier in that it did not condone slave-holding. And it was Christian moral leaders in Christian nations advancing Christian arguments about universal human dignity that ultimately abolished the slave trade and the entire institution.

But it's telling that you think most racists and oppressors have historically been Christians.

 

[EddytoNow]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Christianity is inherently racist. My own argument is that native peoples were exploited and in many cases genocide committed. The perpetrators (not all Christians fall into this group, but the vast majority were Christians) justified their actions on the basis of their perceived religious superiority, and the Papal Bulls and Christianity only encouraged such exploitation by referring to non-Christians as savages or barbarians. Therefore, any means of converting the pagans was permissible, including killing them, stealing their land, and exploiting their natural resources.

 

[GowerND11]

Quite the opposite, actually. Slavery, racism and oppression have been present in virtually every human civilization throughout history. Medieval Europe was an outlier in that it did not condone slave-holding. And it was Christian moral leaders in Christian nations advancing Christian arguments about universal human dignity that ultimately abolished the slave trade and the entire institution.

But it's telling that you think most racists and oppressors have historically been Christians.

Right, I agree with all of that. I would argue still that while the Christian institution did/does not condone slavery and oppression, there have been many a person in history that, in the name of bettering the oppressed and enslaved, used the name of Christianity for justifying their deeds.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Christianity is inherently racist. My own argument is that native peoples were exploited and in many cases genocide committed. The perpetrators (not all Christians fall into this group, but the vast majority were Christians) justified their actions on the basis of their perceived religious superiority, and the Papal Bulls and Christianity only encouraged such exploitation by referring to non-Christians as savages or barbarians. Therefore, any means of converting the pagans was permissible, including killing them, stealing their land, and exploiting their natural resources.

We're getting far afield here. This debate was initially over an apparent moral equivalence Obama made between Christianity and Islam. It's difficult to untangle religious, political and economic motivations in Christendom; for instance, one doesn't have to look back very far to find testimony of Catholic bishops asserting a duty to "protect the Church" as justification for their complicity in the sexual abuse scandal. Were they doing so "in the name of Christianity", or out of a common and fallibly human (though in this case, indefensible) desire to "defend their tribe"? Regardless, no one here has argued that primarily Christian societies are paragons of justice, so this is a strawman.

Islam has primarily been spread by the sword, while Christianity hasn't. Full stop. I don't believe that Islam is inherently violent, or that a clash of civilizations is imminent. But the secular modern impulse to insist that Christianity is "just as bad" is simply ahistorical.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Right, I agree with all of that. I would argue still that while the Christian institution did/does not condone slavery and oppression, there have been many a person in history that, in the name of bettering the oppressed and enslaved, used the name of Christianity for justifying their deeds.

Were they sincere? Or were they merely using the Cross to justify an otherwise mundane power grab? As I mentioned above, it's nearly impossible to tease out religious from economic and political motivations when we're discussing the sins of Christendom.

 

[tussin]

Right, I agree with all of that. I would argue still that while the Christian institution did/does not condone slavery and oppression, there have been many a person in history that, in the name of bettering the oppressed and enslaved, used the name of Christianity for justifying their deeds.

Outliers. Human history has taught us individuals practicing oppression and slavery will always exist. Pointing to religion as justification is just an easy way to mask an inherent evil. Those justifications say absolutely nothing about the religion in question.

 

[GowerND11]

Outliers. Human history has taught us individuals practicing oppression and slavery will always exist. Pointing to religion as justification is just an easy way to mask an inherent evil. Those justifications say absolutely nothing about the religion in question.

Of course. No way am I making a statement about the religion, but rather, as you said, individuals will exist that wish to oppress and will continue to do so, masking their beliefs through religion.

Either way, as Whiskey has said, we are getting somewhat off track here.

 

[GowerND11]

Were they sincere? Or were they merely using the Cross to justify an otherwise mundane power grab? As I mentioned above, it's nearly impossible to tease out religious from economic and political motivations when we're discussing the sins of Christendom.

I have a hard time believing they ever were sincere. You are absolutely right. I was curious to see your view on this matter of using the Cross as a veil.

 

[tussin]

Of course. No way am I making a statement about the religion, but rather, as you said, individuals will exist that wish to oppress and will continue to do so, masking their beliefs through religion.

Either way, as Whiskey has said, we are getting somewhat off track here.

I think the point is there is absolutely no basis in any religion for that sort of behavior. Religious justifications are simply a facade, often knowingly. It's a lot more convenient to say "God told me to do it" rather than "I do it because I'm an amoral, power-hungry lunatic."

 

[EddytoNow]

The connection:

Is Christianity inherently racist? No. Do some Christians commit terrorist acts (dropping bombs on innocent civilians, drone strikes, bombs in Oklahoma City, etc.) or identify the enemy on the basis of religion? Yes. Do we call these terrorists "Christian Terrorists"? No.

Is Islam inherently racist? No. Do some Muslims commit terrorist acts (placing bombs that kill innocent civilians, hijacking airplanes, etc.) and identify the enemy on the basis of religion? Yes. Do we call these terrorists "Islamic Terrorists"? Yes.

Now, ask yourself which group has killed more innocent people and why we refer to one group as terrorists, but would never call the other group the same?

 

[tussin]

The connection:

Is Christianity inherently racist? No. Do some Christians commit terrorist acts (dropping bombs on innocent civilians, drone strikes, bombs in Oklahoma City, etc.) or identify the enemy on the basis of religion? Yes. Do we call these terrorists "Christian Terrorists"? No.

Is Islam inherently racist? No. Do some Muslims commit terrorist acts (placing bombs that kill innocent civilians, hijacking airplanes, etc.) and identify the enemy on the basis of religion? Yes. Do we call these terrorists "Islamic Terrorists"? Yes.

Now, ask yourself which group has killed more innocent people and why we refer to one group as terrorists, but would never call the other group the same?

Christianity is both larger and has a longer history. So while I have no idea if that is even correct, the bolded isn't really a fair comparison to begin with. Also, drone strikes? Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't recall any drone strikes being justified solely in the name of Christ.

All that aside, I generally agree with the point of your post. Although at this point I've been wrongly programmed to personally associate the term "Islamic Terrorist" more with a geographic region than a religious ideology.

 

[EddytoNow]

Christianity is both larger and has a longer history. So while I have no idea if that is even correct, the bolded isn't really a fair comparison to begin with. Also, drone strikes? Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't recall any drone strikes being justified solely in the name of Christ.

All that aside, I generally agree with the point of your post. Although at this point I've been wrongly programmed to personally associate the term "Islamic Terrorist" more with a geographic region than a religious ideology.

If you reread my post you will find that I never claimed any such thing. My point was that some Christians have committed acts the victims regard as acts of terror. Drone strikes authorized by our President (who claims to be Christian) and condoned by our Congress (who fall over each other telling us how Christian they are) have killed plenty of innocent civilians. Bombs kill indiscriminately. The guilty and innocent die together. Likewise, some Muslims have committed acts the victims regard as acts of terror. These are well-documented and need no repetition here.

I am not justifying the acts of either group, just pointing out the similarities.

 

[tussin]

If you reread my post you will find that I never claimed any such thing. My point was that some Christians have committed acts the victims regard as acts of terror. Drone strikes authorized by our President (who claims to be Christian) and condoned by our Congress (who fall over each other telling us how Christian they are) have killed plenty of innocent civilians. Bombs kill indiscriminately. The guilty and innocent die together. Likewise, some Muslims have committed acts the victims regard as acts of terror. These are well-documented and need no repetition here.

I am not justifying the acts of either group, just pointing out the similarities.

This is an unrelated discussion point. The topic was the justifications for such acts, not what parties are committing them.

There is a huge difference between geopolitical action by the US and ISIS using Islam as a justification for barbaric acts. If you're point is that people from all religions drop bombs, then... ok?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The connection:

Is Christianity inherently racist? No. Do some Christians commit terrorist acts (dropping bombs on innocent civilians, drone strikes, bombs in Oklahoma City, etc.) or identify the enemy on the basis of religion? Yes. Do we call these terrorists "Christian Terrorists"? No.

Is Islam inherently racist? No. Do some Muslims commit terrorist acts (placing bombs that kill innocent civilians, hijacking airplanes, etc.) and identify the enemy on the basis of religion? Yes. Do we call these terrorists "Islamic Terrorists"? Yes.

Piggy-backing on tussin's point, this is a completely false equivalence. No one here has argued that being born Christian, or being raised in a primarily Christian country ensures against the commission of evil acts. This is another straw man.

The distinction is not in the identity of the killers, but in their motives. ISIS wants to form a theocracy and enforce Sharia law. Their motivations and goals are explicitly religious, which is born out by their brutality toward religious minorities.

McVeigh didn't carry out his attack for religious reasons. I deplore our over-reliance on drone strikes and the collateral damage they often inflict, but the US isn't bombing targets because they're Muslims or Arabs, but because they're terrorists. That's a crucial distinction.

Furthermore, there's no wealthy Christian monarchy out there funding the spread of its fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible which happens to be producing virtually all of the world's terrorists. This comparison you're trying to make it completely inapt.

Now, ask yourself which group has killed more innocent people and why we refer to one group as terrorists, but would never call the other group the same?

Ask yourself this: if you agreed to be dropped randomly in some part of the world, where would you like to end up? Sub-Saharan Africa? The Middle East? Southeast Asia? Or perhaps the West? And now ask yourself what all those Western countries have in common historically.

 

[EddytoNow]

Piggy-backing on tussin's point, this is a completely false equivalence. No one here has argued that being born Christian, or being raised in a primarily Christian country ensures against the commission of evil acts. This is another straw man.

The distinction is not in the identity of the killers, but in their motives. ISIS wants to form a theocracy and enforce Sharia law. Their motivations and goals are explicitly religious, which is born out by their brutality toward religious minorities.

McVeigh didn't carry out his attack for religious reasons. I deplore our over-reliance on drone strikes and the collateral damage they often inflict, but the US isn't bombing targets because they're Muslims or Arabs, but because they're terrorists. That's a crucial distinction.

Furthermore, there's no wealthy Christian monarchy out there funding the spread of its fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible which happens to be producing virtually all of the world's terrorists. This comparison you're trying to make it completely inapt.



Ask yourself this: if you agreed to be dropped randomly in some part of the world, where would you like to end up? Sub-Saharan Africa? The Middle East? Southeast Asia? Or perhaps the West? And now ask yourself what all those Western countries have in common historically.

Religion may be their unifying feature, but I would suggest their motivation comes from years of exploitation by their Western-backed leaders, leaders who have gained great wealth by cooperating with their European and American backers and by enabling the exploitation of the vast majority of their people. The effort of the masses is fueled by a desire to overthrow these dictatorships. The Europeans and the Americans have backed the wrong horse, and they are now paying for it as the targets of terrorism. The armies of these dictators are equipped with arms furnished by Western nations, primarily the United States. These nations are not democracies. They remain in power to the extent their military can keep the masses at bay.

As long as we continue to choose sides in these civil wars, we will remain a target for the opposition. The religious fanatics take advantage of the hate built up over many years and use our military actions to fuel recruitment and support. Terrorists have learned that their support will increase if they can provoke the opposition into some overly repressive actions. We have willingly taken the bait.