Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Religious fundamentalism

Jihad Watch has an excellent critique of CNN's series on religious fundamentalism.

For example, CNN's Christiane Amanpour ask's how the Christian group "BattleCry," which encourages girls to wear long dresses, is different from the Talibal. Robert Spencer responds:
Well, uh, Ms. Amanpour, one might note the absence of AK-47s, the lack of
opposition to the education of girls, the absence of burqas, the absence of
divine sanction for wife-beating, and sundry other things. Unless you're too
blinded by political correctness to notice, as is evidently the case.

Spencer then comments on Ms. Amanpour's negative treatment of Christian homeschooling:
Homeschooling is evil too? Sheesh. Over 9,000 terror attacks
committed in the name of Islam since 9/11
, and Christiane Amanpour is
spending her time demonizing homeschoolers.

3 comments:

renejorgensen said...

Spencer's comments about the "absence of AK-47s" and "over 9,000 terror attacks" is what is truly demonizing. Amanpour was trying to show that there are conservative fundamentalist on both sides. While a very small group of muslem fundamentalist (0.8%) uses terror as the weapon of choice, it is still U.S. foreign policies that are on the attack. From the suport of the creation of the state Isreal (and its breach of Int. law), to the overthrough of the first democratic governemt in Iran in 1953 by the CIA, to the 700 military bases in 130 countries in 2007, the Unites States is in no way neutral in its dealings with the world. Neutrality is also not what the 79% of 26 million Evagelical Christians who voted to re-elect Bush can claim. Especially not when 71% of them supported the war in Iraq, but of course they were probably ignorant like the 70% of American who believed that Saddam Hussein was responisble for 9/11. By judging from who is on the attack, it is pretty clear that there are fundamentalist on both sides, and if Spencer believes that the first series was one-sided all he needs to do is look at the secound part tonight, which explores God's Muslems Warriors. I am sure that Amanpour will not leave out terror or AK-47s to give us a more balance view than what Spencer can concieve of.

Dennis said...

Renejorgensen said: "Spencer's comments about the "absence of AK-47s" and "over 9,000 terror attacks" is what is truly demonizing."

No, it really isn’t. Spencer is simply speaking the truth.

Renejorgensen said: "Amanpour was trying to show that there are conservative fundamentalist on both sides."

For Ms. Amanpour to compare Christian fundamentalists with Islamic fundamentalists—as if they had much of anything in common other than the label, “fundamentalist,”—is either “demonizing” or ignorance.

Religious fundamentalists are just people who take their sacred texts seriously. In other words, they don’t try to allegorize them away or dismiss them simply because the teachings are no longer politically correct.

Islamic fundamentalists take the whole Qur’an seriously—including the parts about killing infidels. Christian fundamentalists take the Bible seriously too. But while the Qur’an teaches Muslims to kill infidels, the Bible teaches Christians to love even our enemies and to go into all the world and preach the gospel.

While Islamic fundamentalists take their “word of God” seriously and kill infidels, Christian fundamentalists take their Word of God seriously and give millions to help the poor, to build medical clinics and hospitals, to educate people and to convince people—by non-violent means—that people need Jesus. Christian fundamentalists have often been slaughtered by the very people groups they were trying to serve. Missionaries in my own denomination not all that long ago were working in a medical clinic to help poor Muslims when Muslim radicals slaughtered them!

Throughout history, Islamic fundamentalism has led to killing of millions in the name of Islam. While many have killed in the name of Christianity down through history, they were often doing so in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus, not in obedience to the teachings of Jesus.

The Old Testament commands for Jews to kill their enemies were specific commands for specific times and places. As long as you are not a 3,000 year old Jebusite, Amorite, Canaanite, Hittite or Perizzite, Christians and Jews have absolutely no mandate to kill you :-)

These Old Testament commands (which were often given for self-defense) were never understood, either by Jews or Christians, as mandates to go into all the world and kill infidels for Moses or Christ.

Muslim fundamentalists, on the other hand, believe they have a mandate from Allah to bring the whole world into submission to Allah—peacefully if possible, but by force if necessary—by any and all force necessary. This is why the world has nothing to fear from Christian fundamentalists—but everything to fear from Muslim fundamentalists. For anyone to imply otherwise is pure anti-Christian hatred and bigotry.

Renejorgensen said: "While a very small group of muslem fundamentalist (0.8%) uses terror as the weapon of choice,"

There are over a billion Muslims. I’m mathematically challenged but I believe that 8% of a billion is 80 million Muslims who use terror as a weapon of choice!!!

How many more Muslims do you suppose there are who do not personally use terror, but support those who do? 10%? 15%? 20%?

How many more just sit silently by and allow the terrorists to speak for Islam? 90%? 95% 99.9999%?

Renejorgensen said: "it is still U.S. foreign policies that are on the attack. From the suport of the creation of the state Isreal (and its breach of Int. law),"

Excuse me, my history is a bit fuzzy, but wasn’t that the Left’s beloved United Nations that established the nation of Israel in 1948? I mean, we can argue all day long about how much influence the United States and Great Britain had, but at the end of the day it was a UN mandate.

Renejorgensen said: :to the overthrough of the first democratic governemt in Iran in 1953 by the CIA, to the 700 military bases in 130 countries in 2007, the Unites States is in no way neutral in its dealings with the world."

Does the world really want us to be neutral? I mean, there are many Americans who would like nothing more than to take all our military personnel and billions in foreign aid and bring it all home and let the world go to hell in a handbasket. Then the world would REALLY hate us!

Every country in the world looks out for its own best interests. Why is the US singled out as the great satan for doing the same?

There is no country on earth that has given more and done more over the years to help others. Throughout history when on country conquers another, the victor often enslaves or exacts taxes from the conquered nations. By contrast, the United States actually goes back in and re-builds the conquered nations—Germany, Japan, Iraq, etc.!

And speaking of Germany, if the US had just minded its own business and stayed out of world affairs, the world would be ruled by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union by now! Nazi Germany killed well over 6 million people while the Soviet Union was responsible for as many as 100 million lives!

And speaking of Iraq--virtually all Americans want Iraqis to have better lives. We have been trying to rebuild their country, for crying out loud! If Muslim's could just stop fighting against each other and against us, America would like nothing more than to get out of Iraq and come home! The Muslim "insurgency" has just hurt and destroyed other Muslims!

Certainly the US has done some terrible things and I’m not excusing that. Unfortunately, good people can not always keep their government from doing bad things, and every government on the face of the planet has done terrible things!

On the other hand, if the US is so horrible, why is it that one of our number one problems is that so many millions of people want to live here?

Renejorgensen said: "Neutrality is also not what the 79% of 26 million Evagelical Christians who voted to re-elect Bush can claim. Especially not when 71% of them supported the war in Iraq, but of course they were probably ignorant like the 70% of American who believed that Saddam Hussein was responisble for 9/11."

You’re right. Many Evangelicals supported the war. We saw the way Saddam had thumbed his nose at UN mandates for over ten years. We saw the way he was manipulating the UN food program by starving his own people to make himself (and his cronies in France, Germany and Russia) rich. We saw how the Left had been pushing “negotiations” for ten stinking years all the while Saddam was starving his people. We say how he was in violation of international law. We saw the atrocities Saddam had committed against his own people. We knew that he had once had WMD’s, which he used against his own people and we saw news reports about how he was constantly blocking UN weapons inspectors. And we—along with most Democrats!—thought something needed to be done.

Excuse us. Perhaps from now on America should just let the Saddam’s and Hitler’s of this world overrun their neighbors and slaughter people by the millions--
because after all, if we try to do something it might not work out as planned and then we will just become vilified even more than the satanic monsters we tried to fight!

Dennis said...

One correction: I'm taking your figures at face value and I read 8% rather than the .8% that you wrote(I told you I was mathematically challenged :-)

.8% is 800,000 terrorists willing to use force to kill us. 800,000!!!! It really only takes a fraction of that number of people who are willing to use terror and to die for their cause, to bring an entire nation to its knees! That should terrify all of us.