Is my response a bit too late and too little?
Not at all. I appreciate that you have taken the time to reply to my reply.
No, it is not an excuse ‘but other people did it, too’. Ok, the extremists did it in the name of the religion. I was thinking, what are you trying to derive at?
I am afraid I do not understand this response. My reply was in reference to your statement that Muslims are terrorists now, while in the past other people were. I agreed but said (in essence) that this does not matter for the discussion we are having. One group doing something that is wrong does not give others the right to do the same at a later date (and if this is not the point you were trying to make, then I really don’t understand why you made that comment in the first place).
Muslims do denounce terrorism. That’s for sure. Only they do not show it like how you do it in the U.S. Maybe as rough indicator - not all political parties with radical Islamic ideology win the election in Muslim countries. But some do win, I think because the one with moderate Islamic stance are even worse politicans in governing the country.
This is a fair answer, though I do not think voting the less radical of the Islamic parties is good enough when the terrorists operate with the tacit (and sometimes explicit) approval of the majority and the government regardless of which party is in power. I want terrorism to end, not democracy.
I was trying to separate the religion and terrorism per se.
There is some legitimate question as to whether or not this is possible when the terrorist acts are given religious sanction, whether rightly or wrongly in your view.
Muslims support for the cause of the so-called terrorists is far more profound than just what meet the eyes, that is, they see the terrorists as giving their lives for what they saw as unjustice treatment of Muslims. In many cases this thought has valid root. Oppression.
I don’t debate that Muslims have been oppressed in some ways, only the conclusion that terrorism is a valid or acceptable response to that oppression. I do not believe it is. If others do, that is their position and their problem. I do not share their view, even if I do recognize that injustice must be remedied. By way of example, look at an action like the bombing the Oaklahoma City Federal building. If people feel themselves oppressed by their government and blow up a government building, what then? People die and chaos is created. The end. And what if you do not even agree that they are justified? No doubt not all Muslims agree with the views of the terrorists, so what about those Muslims who don’t think that the ends justifies the means? Don’t their ideas count for anything? They can’t, if they are being murdered by terrorists with the tacit approval of those who justify those actions.
Thus it is very easy for Muslims to get attracted when some shiekhs come out with ideas and use religion to back them up to champion their cause. It does not help either when young people are schooled up with extremism theology in various madrases and religious institutions.
Hey, something we agree on!
I do not think Christians fully understand this scenerio. As I said what’s happening today in the Muslims world cannot be simplified with a simple conclusion. You may not know, but many Muslims are in a delemma - killing, suicide and violence are wrong but on the other hand, them being victimized and suffered justice by foreign power is still a reality.
I am aware that this is happening. It is a terrible situation for all involved. This is why I wish Muslims would not find justification for violence, but reason for unity and peace in their societies. But I will not hold my breath. They have been through so much and it is truly awful in many regards. The desire for revenge is strong, I am sure. Nevertheless, as a Christian I cannot agree with such actions. This is, I believe, a huge difference between Christians and Muslims: We are not indulged in our desire for revenge upon those who wrong us, while you are. I have heard Muslims say that this is proof that Christians are “weak”, but I beg to differ. Who is weaker: the one who is overtaken by anger and strikes out in his blind rage, or the one who feels that same anger but does not strike out, knowing revenge begats revenge and opens a never-ending cycle of pain? (We need not look very far to see examples of this)
I still disagree. Political conviction is a political conviction. It can be spruced up with religious objective if the leaders believe it that way, but at the end of the day, it is still political conviction - and you need supporters to win and achieve your objective.
Indeed. And Islam contains within it a political system, so I am not suprised at the interaction between religion and politics in the Muslim countries.
Aren’t you supporting my contention when you say that the church condemned certain philosopy by Christians leaders?
No. Your contention was that terrorists have a cause, right or wrong. I replied that some violent, politically-minded movements in Christianity have been condemned by the Church. I do not see how this supports anything you’ve said.
It is just you don’t see the equivalent of that in Islam because she does not have a Pope.
Indeed. This is an internal, structural problem for Islam.
I am grossly misunderstood. I thought of not addressing this because it may be lost in the mudslinging quagmire in this thread but you seem to be genuine in this.
My sincere apologies for my misunderstanding. I am glad you are able to recognize that I am not out to get you, merely trying to engage in mutually enlightening discussion.
I was talking about a cause that drive people to do extaordinary deeds. Not whether it is just or not.
How can you separate the two? I do not believe they can or should be separated.
And yes, the terrorists do have a cause. Sure it may be shrouded with the cause of Islam, because anyone can make use of religion because of the strong emotion that it pulls.
This is a problem, yes. You cannot stop them from saying they do what they do in the cause of Islam, but you can and should reject the version of Islam that sanctions actions you do not agree with.
Now please look at this fairly maybe minus the western philosopy of fairness
I do not understand this at all. Look at it fairly minus the philosophy of fairness…?
was not in both cases people were killed? That at the end of it, people were killed? So what’s the difference? I know, I know, you may object to this. And again as I said, it does not mean I support the terrorists, if fact just the opposite.
Er…okay. I’m not sure what your point is. Of course people were killed in World War II. Are you trying to say that the circumstances in which people are killed do not matter?
I will go further to appeal to your Christian righteousness - did Jesus said about anything that we should kill anyone? Did he teach for a Christian to kill his enemy? If none, what justification whatsoever for Chrsitians to wage war?
You will have to ask someone more knowledgeable than I about the doctrines of “Just War” put forth by the Church. This is not an area that I know enough about to be able to comfortably answer you. I apologize and do hope that someone more knowledgeable than I can answer your question.
Thus, as i said, what’s the difference? - for good or for bad, people gave their lives for a cause.
This is one thing I think we can not say: “For good or for bad…”, as though it does not matter why we engage in this or that activity. Good and bad are NOT arbitrary terms, to be applied by the individual at his leisure! We have guidelines for what is good and what is bad, set down for us in the Bible (and for you in your Qur’an), and in the tradition and authority of our Church to make sure that we do not behave like some other Christians sects that pick and choose whatever interpretation of the Bible that best sets their dispositions and desires.
Again, I must apologize that I cannot answer your question regarding “Just War”. I am not trying to be deliberately evasive on this issue, because obviously it is very important to everything we are discussing, I just don’t want to give you information that might be incorrect, since this is not an area that I know much about. I am a convert to Catholicism from a Protestant denomination, so I have a somewhat larger learning curve to overcome than some others who did not have other, vastly different teachings given to them from a very young age. We covered “Just War” only briefly in RCIA (basically saying that it exists and is applied on a case-by-case basis), and it is something that absolutely did not exist in my previous religious tradition. I wish I knew more right now, but I am also glad that I still many opportunities to learn and grow in my faith.
Peace to you, Harris. Thanks for your honest answers and questions.
:extrahappy: