RRC Archives

The war was started by greed, yet enabled by mainstream Christian prejudices in the general public against Muslim countries--along with tons of flagrant dishonesty from Rumsfeld, Bush, Condi, et al.... war criminals in my book.

Question:

If a given religion's teachings said starting a war in God's name is not a valid thing for adherents to do, and people claimed to be followers of that religion, yet intentionally acted against that principle in starting a war, why would you still characterize them and their actions as representative of that religion?

I think the Islams would call it 12b while Christians would go with 12c.

Oh, wait... wrong thread.

pkananen wrote:Question:

If a given religion's teachings said starting a war in God's name is not a valid thing for adherents to do, and people claimed to be followers of that religion, yet intentionally acted against that principle in starting a war, why would you still characterize them and their actions as representative of that religion?

Because people violate the tenets of their respective religions on a daily basis, yet are still considered representatives of that religious group if they profess to be so. What matters is the way people act on a day-to-day basis and the actual outcomes of their behavior, rather than the idealized "principles" of said religion or what is written in some book. Is this fair? Perhaps not. But it is nonetheless the reality.

Ok, so I'm a giraffe if I say it's true?

My point is, criticizing a particular religion when people are really the culprit is stupid.

pkananen wrote:Ok, so I'm a giraffe if I say it's true?

Of course not, but if you claim to be of a certain religion and committing an act based on faith to that religion, then the general public will view that act as a consequence that religion--look at the general backlash prejudice against Islam because of a small minority of extremists, or the way history has viewed the Crusades, or will view the actions of George W. There will always be a disconnect between truth and public perception. Stupid? Maybe from one point of view.

Christianity and other religions have certain ideals, true, but let's be honest--in the real world these are rarely adhered to in a strict, or even loose, sense. Fanatical faith in god has consistently inspired humanity to some pretty sick misdeeds. Is this the "fault" of religion? Perhaps not alone, but it certainly is a significant contributor.

pkananen wrote:That's my whole point. You can't say it was started by 'Christians' (plural) if it was started by the misguided and explicitly un-Christian actions of one person who claimed to have special revelation.

Are you questioning the will of God working through the president!?!

So what do they do, hold a vote with all Christians and if 51% say its a go then we can call it a Christian war, otherwise we call it misguided? I'm mostly just messing with you, I don't really care too much, but when the tables are turned and one "misguided" Muslim sets off a chain of events that starts a war, seems like we would happily label it a Muslim war.

pkananen wrote:Ok, so I'm a giraffe if I say it's true?

My point is, criticizing a particular religion when people are really the culprit is stupid.

Saying people are to blame is obvious, but not helpful. It's and old argument...but never helpful