The Myth of Religious Persecution

Wilso wrote:

Setanta wrote:
and despite the incontrovertible evidence that the use of condoms dramatically reduces the spread of the virus and its concommittant syndrome.

I know from personal experience that condoms prevent disease. If anyone knew or even saw some of the women I've been with, they would have no doubt either

....oh-----kayyyyy......

thanks for sharing.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

And let's not forget that time when the a Catholic group lied about there being microscopic pores in a condom that made it useless...

I don't know about Catholic groups, but I do know that the cheaper the condom, the more likely the presence of microbial-permeable pores.

0 Replies

Setanta tells us that the African states were set up long ago in foreign ministries in Europe more than a century ago.

That may be so, but some have pointed out that the transfer from colonial rule to indepedence in the early 1960's began to collapse with militarization by the late 1980's. It was then apparent that the great bulk of the continent had become and would remain politically unstable and incapable of self sustained economic growth , or even of a place within the international economy.

I am not aware of any solid evidence showing that the US "Fundamentalist" groups are responsible for denying the populace access to condoms. Does anyone have a link?

I do know that absolutely frightful charges have been made in the past against the American Medical Establishment which, allegedly, inoculated African babies under the guise of giving them Polio shots which were in reality the AIDS virus.

It may appear that the fundamentalists are attempting to proslytize again.

I know they were and are still preaching in India against the continuing practice of Suttee.

There are some ideas which are absolutely inimical to the future and health of mankind. They must be ruthlessly stamped out. Freedom of Speech cannot trump the maintenance of good health.

I am sure that the next President of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton, will be able to remove Fundamentalist preaching from the African continent. They will thank her for it. She also may be able to restore the rights of women in Moslem countries who disproportionately suffer from the lack of good medical help because of highly retarded and ancient religious views!

0 Replies

When it comes to post-colonial African history, you're babbling--the wars have arisen because tribes thrown together in nations which are artificial geographical constructs want to destroy one another. It is a very simple concept, such as Rwanda including the Hutu and the Tutsi, simply because Rwanda exists as a nation by virtue of having been drawn on a largely blank map during dimplomatic negotiations. The most striking example of this was the Berlin Conference of 1884-85. Absolutely no consideration was given to the ethnic divisions of the African continent, nor the ethnic and tribal hatreds.

As for the rest of your drivel, i will simply note that i find it hilarious that you've decided to make yourself the white knight for defending fundamentalists. It's rather apt, though, given the paranoia you so often display on a political basis, and the paranoia which they display about persecution.

0 Replies

Really? Can you prove the following is not true?
Some have pointed out that the transfer from colonial rule to independence in the early 1960's began to collapse with militarization by the late 1980's. It was then apparent that the great bulk of the continent had become and would remain politically unstable and incapable of self sustained economic growth , or even of a place within the international economy.

There was no militarization by the late 1980's?

The great bulk of the continent is politically stable?

Africa has shown it is capable of sustained economic growth?

Please give evidence!!!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Really? Can you prove the following is not true?
Some have pointed out that the transfer from colonial rule to independence in the early 1960's began to collapse with militarization by the late 1980's. It was then apparent that the great bulk of the continent had become and would remain politically unstable and incapable of self sustained economic growth , or even of a place within the international economy.

Because you seemed a little slow on the uptake, i was pointing out why this occured.

Quote:

There was no militarization by the late 1980's?

Strawman, i did not make such a contention. (Although i would not that militarization began in many of the former colonies in the late 1960s, rather than the 1980s.)

Quote:

The great bulk of the continent is politically stable?

Strawman, i did not make such a contention.

Quote:

Africa has shown it is capable of sustained economic growth?

Strawman, i did not make such a contention.

It is not demonstrated that even the West is capable of "sustained economic growth." One of the greatest discussion in theoretical economics to day is whether or not there is such a thing as sustainable economic growth in the wake of globalization. All previous examples of colonial economies, and exploitative economies of scale in international trade, have depended upon the increasing exploitation of markets which are captive to colonial authority, or to larger, more efficient foreign producers. That African nations have been no more successful since the 1960s at becoming successful export economies than have, for example, the central and south American nations, or the south and east Asian nations, is not surprising. Until quite recently, apart from Japan and Taiwan, there were no successful export economies in south and east Asia. It is only recently that Indonesia, Singapore, Korea and others have joined them. Asian nations were a little more rational, but Indonesia provides a similar example of what happens when a nation is created out of a colony without regard for clan, tribal or ethnic divisions.

We are discussing an entire continent--and therefore are generalizing. I have not denied the things to which you refer, i am explaining why these things were true. Nations in sub-Saharan Africa armed either because their new governments intended to attack ethnic or tribal minorities within their own borders, or to attack such rivals in other nations, or in fear of being attacked themselves. Even that was not a universal behavior. For example, the former French colony of Sénégal and the former English colony of Sierra Leone did not go through such a cycle. (Sierra Leone only sank into civil war after tribal warfare was imported from Liberia and aided and abetted by Charles Taylor.) Many of the former French colonies have avoided the cycle because the French have remained engaged with their former colonies, much to the economic benefit of both France and the former colonies. The former Belgian colony of Congo was the first great example of the tribal warfare which has plagued Africa, but, as was the case in Uganda, this was not initially recognized as such. In Uganda, Idi Amin was a former Sgt. Major in the colonial armed forces, and his reign of terror was tribally based, but that was not immediately recognized in the West, and is only now becoming apparent to Western observers. In South Africa and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, the tribal rivalries were subordinated in the struggle against white supremacy. In Somalia, the rivalries are clan-based, rather than tribal. In Angola, the tribal rivalries were obscurred by the ideological warfare between a Marxist government and the UNITAS organization.

You are so focused on arguing with anyone whom you believe does not think as you do, that you are missing the point. What you have referred to as the problems of Africa are neither universal in the continent, nor unique to Africa. Once again, Indonesia provides and example in Asia of a "nation" which is the product of colonialism (formerly the Dutch East Indies), and in which groups (ethnic and religious) are potentially in conflict. Review the tragedy in Timor. I have not necessarily disagreed with you about the problems of a good deal of post-colonial Africa (but not all of Africa), i am simply pointing out the reason it has happened.

0 Replies

Africa is not capable of either economic growth, it is politically unstable.

The varied but on balance sombre pattern of the African continent a GENERATION AFTER INDEPENDENCE was reflected in the folloiwng summary of events in the last year of the 1970's decade and the first of the 1980's. For 1979: Sudan:attempted coup. Morocco: War in Western Sahara against Polisario guerrilas. Ethopia: 20,000 Cubans plus Ethiopian troops were fighting wars on three fronts against Eritrea and Somalia, where refugees passed the million mark. Djibouti: Uprising in Adar region. Kenya: successful multi-party elections. Tanzania: 40,000 troops invaded Uganda,when Amin, supported by 2,500 troops from Lybia, was ousted. Ghana: coup by Flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings. Three former heads of state and many other politicians executed by firing-squad; public floggings and canings of corrupt citizens; police strike; country declared officially bankrupt. Liberia: Food riots; seventy killed. Senegal: A fourth legal party created. Mauritania: coup. Mali: Single party elections. Guinea: Relase of political prisoners, including Archbishop of Conakry. Benin: Single party elections; Togo: single party elections; political show trial of so called "Brazillian Elitists". Cameroon: attempted coup followed by small massacre. Chad: Civil War. People's Republic of Congo: coup.

It sounds like the Three Stooges. Can anyone believe that there is the kind of order necessary in Africa that would allow any kind of peaceful "indoctrination" by anyone?

There is a list for 1980 which is even more frightening!

0 Replies

And, of course, one must ask what, if anything (unlikely) this has to do with the myth of religious persecution.

0 Replies

As the litany I laid out clearly shows, Africa is so horribly screwed up that listing "religious persecution" as even being in the top 100 of its problems is completely wrong-headed.

Those who declare "religious persecution" when religious proselytisers, who are nothing, if not conscientious people sure of their faith, are the same people who would attempt to run "scientologists" out of the USA, because they convert young people and "mess with their brains."

If learned and incorruptible African leaders ever emerge, they will be the ones to lead their people towards Democratic rule, which, it is to be hoped, will allow "freedom of religion", even if some of those religions preach what might be inimical to the sectarians who have no religious beliefs.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

As the litany I laid out clearly shows, Africa is so horribly screwed up that listing "religious persecution" as even being in the top 100 of its problems is completely wrong-headed.

No one said anything of that sort of thing. I don't know where you got that from.

Quote:

Those who declare "religious persecution" when religious proselytisers, who are nothing, if not conscientious people sure of their faith, are the same people who would attempt to run "scientologists" out of the USA, because they convert young people and "mess with their brains."

No one said anything about that. In fact, you're the one that's declaring religious persecution, or at least, it appeared that to be that way.

Quote:

If learned and incorruptible African leaders ever emerge, they will be the ones to lead their people towards Democratic rule, which, it is to be hoped, will allow "freedom of religion", even if some of those religions preach what might be inimical to the sectarians who have no religious beliefs.

You're wrong. Sectarians do have religious beliefs. Secularists also have some beliefs. It is only secularist humanists that have no "religious beliefs". Secularists may be quite religious, yet believe in secularisation.

0 Replies

Bernard gets to ranting, and can't even keep the thread of the discussion. Wolf correctly pointed out that fundamentalist and charismatic christian NGOs working in Africa will not give out information about the use of condoms, despite condoms being the most effective means to limit the incidence and prevelance of HIV/AIDS. That is what brought Africa into the discussion. Bernard is so eager to prove an erudition about Africa which he obviously does not possess, that he has begun to rant, and has completely forgotten how Africa cropped up in this discussion.

0 Replies

Mr. Setanta: With your prodigious intellect and erudition, you surely can find a good synonym for "rant". It is an epithet--in this case--unsubstantiated and only an opinion of yours.

You are, of course, free to express your opinion!

I am appalled at your charge that "fundamentalist and Christian NGO's working in Africa will not give out information about the use of condoms".

What are the African leaders doing to stop them?

Do they have "freedom of speech and religion in African states?

I doubt that they are well enough organized in most of the African states to suppress the "freedom" of the NGO's.

Perhaps, when Mrs. Clinton becomes president, she can send a highly trained team to counter the influence of these benighted people who will not give out information about the use of condoms.

How dare they? Are they so ignorant that they do not understand the science which shows that condoms prevent disease?

They are operating on what they call "biblical injunctions".

Perhaps, it is about time that the African leaders squash these people.

When they get enough order to open the courts!!!

0 Replies

Leaders and Liars
It's beginning to look like in order to gain power you need to be a pathological liar. And the people know they are being lied to. Perhaps they like it in a masochistic way.

0 Replies

Maineus-

Africa is a continent which is politically unstable, incapable of sustained economic growth and even of a place within the international economy.

The list of "capable" and "highly educated and compassionate leaders" is long--Note:

Kwane Nkrumah- Prime Minister of Ghana---a destroyer of the rule of law

Patrice Lumumba--an unstable political agitator in the Congo

Julius Nyerere- The Tanzanian despot

Idi Amin--A muslim cannibal who killed thousands in Uganda

With "leaders" like these, is it no wonder that they cannot bring thier people to consensus about issues such as "birth control". The savages can only think of internecine killing. Darfur is the latest example of a continent gone mad!!!

0 Replies

Re: The Myth of Religious Persecution

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Firstly, I apologise for the length. It's not very long by my standards, but it is very long by Internet forum standards and I apologise for that.

I've been noticing something as of late and that is that American Christians of the far-right persuasion tend to have some kind of persecution complex. Spreading amongst this particular group are memes, thought viruses if you will, that speak solely about how the US Majority is geared against Christianity.

It's present in Islam too, although I can see where the Muslims get the idea that they're being persecuted from. (It doesn't help that the majority of the big terrorist names are all Muslim, or maybe that's the sole reason).

Yes, in the old days Christians were certainly persecuted. In the old days, they were justified to feel so, because they were so.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they are told to expect persecution in their Gospels, that they did in the past and now there's Televangelist (the lowest of the low) hucksters like Pat Robertson and his ilk scaremongering people so as to follow their line and give money to them.

Thing is, if you continue with this persecution complex, that looks very similar to paranoid personality disorder it becomes self-fulfilling.

For example, take Christian iconography during the Christmas season (otherwise known as Christmas decorations). If you perpetuate the myth of Christian decorations being taken down or renamed due to political correctness, you may perpetuate the idea that there really is a group that will get so offended by Christian decorations they'll sue. If you perpetuate that idea, more people will start removing Christian decorations and so forth.

And politicians and the televangelists of the far religious right can capitalise on this paranoia. They turn it to their advantage, telling lies, leaving out information. The ACLU does as much work defending the Christian faith as preventing it from taking over wholesale, yet that is never mentioned.

The paranoid persecution complex must stop and the masses that belong to the religious right must realise they're being duped by those that supposedly lead them. To carry on would be deterimental to the society and to the faith itself.

http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2004/12/the_myth_of_chr.php

What an interesting concept wolf. Well, I gotta hand it to you... Persecution definitely isn't what it was. I shared a story once here I think. I'll share it again though. Pretty good story. True too. There was this church (I forgot where) that the pastor was preaching on "Standing up for the Lord, paying the price, being willing to die even if that's what it took for the sake of the gospel message." Those were shouting messages. He'd get all the "Praise the Lord! and Hallelujahs!" any pastor would want to get while preaching. So, one sunday morning... they had just finished worship and were about to sit down for the sermon, when three masked gunmen walked in the door and shouted, "Anyone willing to die for their God stand up and be counted!" While pointing guns at them.

Well... you can imagine what happened next... they all hit the floor running... right out the door, that is. There were only a few left standing. So when everyone was gone the pastor said, "Ok, you can take off the masks now and we can have church." You guessed it. It was the associate pastor and two ushers I believe just checking to see who was serious. No big surprise really. We don't know what persecution is. Simple things like calling us a "bible thumper" and so forth are what is commonly felt is persecution now-a-days. I believe it boils down to the victim mentality. I've seen it a lot. Shoot... I bet I've lived in it as well... People think just because someone hurts their feelings or doesn't treat them the way they think they deserve to be treated they are being persecuted.

Never mind being burned at the stake, hung on a cross, flogged, whatever. Oh heavens no. Personally, I think that if that was a "threat" now-a-days there probably wouldn't even be 10% of "christians" left in this world. Pastors included. It's easy to talk about, much different to live. What is the purpose of "persecution" anyway? Well, one thing I do know just from living is that resistance builds strength. Without resistance of some sort in our life we don't grow. We don't learn. We don't move on. I guess that would be the whole reasoning behind the ideal of "persecution" within the church. To "grow in faith". To have a stronger belief in God. I've had some pretty cool things happen to me along the way. Things I've always contributed to God. Things that have, I believe, made me a stronger person. Willing to stand up and fight instead of laying down to die.

Maybe it means enough on the emotional level to the "christian" to make them a stronger person. Of course I realize I'm asserting this to many people who sometimes believe that "christianity" is about being weak. Not being willing to stand on your own two feet without some invisible friend to help you. I don't know though. I don't think it's so bad to have something to lean on. To have something else there when there's nothing left in the physical rhelm. To have something to hope in beyond just what I am, what I can do, where I can go. Aaaah who knows... Just a thought I guess...

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Mr. Setanta: With your prodigious intellect and erudition, you surely can find a good synonym for "rant". It is an epithet--in this case--unsubstantiated and only an opinion of yours.

You are, of course, free to express your opinion!

I am appalled at your charge that "fundamentalist and Christian NGO's working in Africa will not give out information about the use of condoms".

What are the African leaders doing to stop them?

Do they have "freedom of speech and religion in African states?

I doubt that they are well enough organized in most of the African states to suppress the "freedom" of the NGO's.

Perhaps, when Mrs. Clinton becomes president, she can send a highly trained team to counter the influence of these benighted people who will not give out information about the use of condoms.

How dare they? Are they so ignorant that they do not understand the science which shows that condoms prevent disease?

They are operating on what they call "biblical injunctions".

Perhaps, it is about time that the African leaders squash these people.

When they get enough order to open the courts!!!

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050831-094717-5243r.htm

Uganda AIDS fight shuns condoms
WORLD BRIEFINGS
By Blake Lambert
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
KAMPALA, Uganda - Aid workers and foreign activists say Uganda is moving away from the highly successful "ABC" formula that won the country international recognition as Africa's leader in the fight against AIDS.
The pioneering formula -- which stands for "abstain, be faithful or use a condom" -- helped the government reduce the infection rate in Uganda from 18 percent to 6 percent in a decade.
But the infection rate remained at 6 percent in recent years and rose to 7 percent in the most recent Health Ministry survey. Critics say this is because the government -- influenced by evangelical Christians -- has de-emphasized condom use, focusing exclusively on abstinence and marital fidelity.
A government official involved in AIDS issues, who refused to be named, said the shift reflects the influence of first lady Janet Museveni, a vocal evangelical Christian. She has persuaded many people, including President Yoweri Museveni, to stress abstinence and marital fidelity over condoms, the official said. .....

http://www.healthgap.org/press_releases/05/091905_Uganda_condoms_press_clippings.html

In the 1990s, western donor governments lauded Uganda for setting the standard in the continent's fight against AIDS. Mr Museveni talked openly about the disease, when many of his peers remained silent. He also pioneered the now famous "Abstain?'Be faithful?'use a Condom" (ABC) campaign that showed Ugandans how best to protect themselves. Partly as a result, infection rates fell from 18% in the 1980s to 6% in 2003.

But the AIDS problem is worsening again. A Ugandan health-ministry survey suggests that the infection rate is going back up to 7% for men and 9% for women. And just as Mr Museveni basked in the praise during the good times, now he?'and particularly his wife Janet?'are taking the blame as things go sour. For they have been accused of promoting the A at the expense of the C, partly under American pressure. As a result, the disease is spreading once again?'a charge repeated last week by the UN's special envoy to Africa on AIDS. The government denies any change in policy, but critics point to several interlocking trends.

Since Mr Museveni made a speech strongly attacking condoms last year, say campaigners, primary-school children are no longer taught about condoms, which are no longer prominent in public advertisements. This chimes with the campaigning of the president's wife, a vocal evangelical Christian and condom-basher, who funds pro-abstinence and pro-fidelity posters and radio spots, and has called for a census of virgins in the country. Bolstering that approach is the (American) President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which explicitly promotes abstinence and has pumped in more than $230m to the country since 2003. Uganda, say campaigners, is dancing to America's tune, so condoms are no longer a key part of public policy. That disgusts many Ugandans, who contend that all three prevention options?'A, B and C?'must have equal priority . "We're not fighting HIV any more," complains Beatrice Were, an HIV-positive campaigner. "We're fighting each other." ...................

Now this balanced approach is tilting, and Ugandans will die as a result. The country still prescribes condoms for high-risk groups. But in the last few years, pushed by Washington, it has begun to emphasize abstinence only, for the general population. Washington is moving away from condom advocacy in all its overseas AIDS programs, but Uganda is the only place that this policy has been so fully embraced by the government. Last year at an international AIDS conference, Mr. Museveni gave a blistering speech attacking condoms. Meanwhile, his wife, Janet, has been condemning condom use as immoral and has called for a national census of virgins.

Billboards that promoted condom use have come down. More than half of Washington's funds for preventing sexual transmission of AIDS now go to groups promoting abstinence only. Among Washington's grantees are groups that argue incorrectly that the AIDS virus can pass right through a condom. While free condoms used to be widely available at clinics in Uganda, in the last year they have virtually disappeared, and condoms in stores have tripled in price.

0 Replies

Re: The Myth of Religious Persecution
That, hephzibah is the cruelest thing I've heard a pastor do. The only thing I can remember is a priest dressing up as a homeless person and sitting at the back of a congregation to prove a point about prejudice.

Only today was I just thinking about what he did.

True, the congregation was prejudiced against him and stared at him and treated him as if he was infectious or insane.

Thing is, only just today did I realise that they probably had good reason to. He picked a Church in the suburbs. You don't get homeless people in the suburbs, or people so poor they dress in rags, so the local parishioners must have thought he was just really sloppy or insane.

hephzibah wrote:

He'd get all the "Praise the Lord! and Hallelujahs!" any pastor would want to get while preaching.

I never understood churches that do that. The sermons I went to were always quiet affairs with the Priest talking non-stop and people listening respectfully. Then again, I never went to those churches where the people sing jazzy-sounding Gospel music.

You make a good point too, but there is a limit to what you can really do.

I mean, do you approve of what that one Phillipino sect does? Crucify someone for an hour on Easter Sunday, just so they can experience what Jesus experienced?

0 Replies

Well wolf, I must apologize then because I honestly thought that was rather funny. While I do understand that doing such a thing would be quite scary for the poor people involved, I understand the nature of people somewhat... I think... well... ok... sometimes... and most people tend to talk pretty big and act pretty small. Meaning, it is very easy for us to blow things up as if we can do all these great things, however, when faced with the reality of actually doing what we talk about... it's a totally different ball game. That is what I found humorous about it. Just the ideal that a bunch of people would be so excited about doing "anything" for this cause they support, yet when it came right down to it they hit the road and FAST.

Quote:

The only thing I can remember is a priest dressing up as a homeless person and sitting at the back of a congregation to prove a point about prejudice.

Only today was I just thinking about what he did.

True, the congregation was prejudiced against him and stared at him and treated him as if he was infectious or insane.

Thing is, only just today did I realise that they probably had good reason to. He picked a Church in the suburbs. You don't get homeless people in the suburbs, or people so poor they dress in rags, so the local parishioners must have thought he was just really sloppy or insane.

Honestly wolf it shouldn't matter where homeless people are. I can't imagine why it would be acceptable if you are called a "christian" to be prejudice against homeless people just because they don't live in your neighborhood. As a matter a fact, if these people really followed the teachings of Jesus they would actually be going out to where the homeless people are on Sunday to help them rather than sitting in a nice air conditioned building, on nice comfy pews, listening to a nice 20 minute round of worship, followed up by a nice 40 minute sermon. After all Jesus Himself said, ""Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature..." Aaaah yes, the great commision. Anyone remember that?

No one wants to get their hands dirty. It's sad. If you are so sure about what you believe, (not directed at you wolf) why would you ignore what you are told to do, and instead put up a bunch of propaganda to get them to come to you. And the icing on the cake? Scoff at them when they come to your little church with their raggedy clothes and unkempt hair? What a waste. *shakes her head* Not that what I think really matters. Once again though, it comes right back around to walking the walk you talk. Many say they do, very few actually do. IMO

Quote:

I never understood churches that do that. The sermons I went to were always quiet affairs with the Priest talking non-stop and people listening respectfully. Then again, I never went to those churches where the people sing jazzy-sounding Gospel music.

Yeah, I can understand why you wouldn't if you have never been to a church that does that. Me... on the other hand... I've seen it all. And when I say all I mean AAAALL. Everything from what I described above to the dancing in the aisle, waving flags and banners, banging tambourines and rolling on the floor roaring like a lion. Everything inbetween as well. Yup... been there... done that. I try not to pass judgement on any of them though. As strange as it all is, they believe it's real. So I gotta hand it to them, they've got some guts taking things that far. Whew...

Quote:

I mean, do you approve of what that one Phillipino sect does? Crucify someone for an hour on Easter Sunday, just so they can experience what Jesus experienced?

Uuuum... really it doesn't matter what I think here, however, I wouldn't do that. #1 I see no purpose or gain for anyone in doing such a thing. #2 They've got it all backwards. Easter Sunday is supposedly when Jesus arose from the dead. So why on the day He arose would you crucify yourself? Odd. That's very odd indeed...

0 Replies

Thank you. Paul Girl, for emphasizing what I already pointed out. The leaders in Africa are either vicious(like Idi Amin was) or "misguided" like Lady Museveni MAY very well be in some eyes.

If she is "misguided" then it is the duty of the populace to turn her out--Eg---"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for etc etc" on the other hand, if she is not viewed as "misguided" she may. of course, remain.

The sovereignty of a country should not be guided by the views of outside commentators but rather the wishes of the people.

0 Replies

Excellent posts, Miss Eppie. In my cynical and critical way, i express what you have expressed about "a persecution complex" in a less charitable manner--that many christians (and i'd add Muslims, as well) want to assert that they are persecuted, and that they are prepared for martyrdom, as long as they don't actually have to suffer physically. Your stance that they assume criticism of or an evinced lack of respect for their beliefs to be persecution looks as the same behavior from a different angle, and posits a different attitude.

However, many Muslim fanatics are much more willing to die for what they believe than Christians. And, it is also noteworthy that they may be pumped up to suicidal behavior, but which behavior is not necessarily a natural choice with them. On the CBC news yesterday, they told of the driver of a black pickup truck near Kandahar in Afghanistan who was driving aggressively, and when a Canadian officer in an armored vehicle became suspicious and ordered his gunner to put the truck in his sights, the truck veered off, and then exploded--doing no harm to the Canadians, but killing four passers-by. The nerve of the driver failed at the last moment. Either he could face the prospect of being instantly vaporized in the blast, but not of being killed, or worse, badly wounded but not killed by the gunfire from the armored vehicle; or, his vehicle was remotely detonated by someone esle, someone unwilling to practice martyrdom himself, and sufficiently aware of human nature to know that the driver of the truck could not be relied upon himself.

The old tales of the christians are full of martyrs and martyrdom. Much of it is created from whole cloth, active persecution of christians did not appear until very late in the "pagan" era of the Roman Empire, within the century before christianity was officially tolerated. Most often, because christians would not publicly pay lip service to the state religion of the Roman empire, local rabble-rousers were able to whip crowds up to attack them--we have no real basis to assume that most early christian martyrs sought martyrdom, or that they would willingly have accepted it if they had known how to avoid it.

I'd suggest the martyr as christian (or muslim) hero is a "bred-in-the-bone" iconic image. When push comes to shove, i'd hazard the guess that most people aren't willing to go to that length. So, i often say that christians like to see themselves as persecuted, so long as they don't actually have to suffer personally.

0 Replies

The Myth of Religious Persecution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know