William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "E.R.N. Reed"
Subject: Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy
The USA has been around for less than three centuries, which is not
what I
would call "several." Definitely came into being well after the
Crusades.
The USA jumped in with both feet right after WWII, and has been
influencing
affairs in the Middle East, generally to the detriment of the Muslim
inhabitants ever since.
Iraq may well have a legitimate claim that Kuwait, or parts therof,
is, in fact, stolen Iraqi land. That border was drawn by the British
in 1923, 9 years after they "recognized" Kuwait as a country.
Go read some real history books.
Would those be the history books in which you apparently read that the
USA was involved in the Crusades and was British in 1923? No, thanks.
I made no comment as to whose land is whose in the Middle East; I said
the suicide bombings in 2001 could not have been a response to US
"occupation" of Afghanistan or Iraq since no such occupation was taking
place prior to those events.
I said that, because someone else suggested that these were cause and
effect. In my experience, effect generally does not precede cause.
Suicide bombers came up in the first place because someone else, lumping
western Christians and Moslems together, made reference to people
blowing themselves up for their religious beliefs (which they wouldn't
for their economic opinions, he said), and I pointed out that the people
who blow themselves up in public places, or send their children to do
so, murdering other people in the process, are usually Moslems, not
Christians. (Also, not any other religious group, none of which had been
lumped in with Christians in the discussion, so I didn't bring them up
at the time.) So apparently something in Moslem beliefs allows, or
encourages, or demands -- I don't know which -- that kind of behaviour,
and that "something" is absent from most other religions.
I also objected to "western Christians and Islam" being collectively
described as intolerant. When non-Christians offend Christian religious
beliefs, nobody gets assassinated for causing the offence, nobody
demands and offers rewards for such an assassination, and nobody dies in
violent demonstrations (aka riots) in the relevant or even unrelated
countries (for the very good reason that riots don't happen.) On the
other hand, rumours of insults to Islamic ideas or symbols, even if
untrue, have such deadly results all over the world as Moslems demand
the deaths of non-Moslems for not following Moslem laws and traditions.
I call that "intolerance." And, again, apparently something in Moslem
beliefs allows, or encourages, or demands -- I don't know which -- that
kind of behaviour, and that "something" is absent from most other
religions.
In majority-Christian countries, and certainly in the much-reviled USA,
Moslems have the freedom to worship openly and to express their beliefs
publicly. They are even invited to participate in ecumenical religious
events in Christian churches. But Christians don't have that sort of
freedom in Moslem countries. So, who's "intolerant"?
