For me personally, there are really only very few differences between fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam. Race and ethnicity are the obvious ones, then there’s the language gap, fashion, and location of course of where you are likely to find them. Pretty much both are laden with extremism, hatred, intolerance, misogyny, and an appetite for a little war-mongering good time. Oh and they’re both monotheistic, patriarchal, with rigid social expectations and standards, carved out of their religious dogma. And not forgetting the elephant in the room, both clearly think that they are correct in their faiths and god is on their side, no matter what they do. Anyway, Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon goes further into detail on this, by noting the current situation in Iraq and its key-players on both fundie sides….
Now that it looks like Iraq is going to go the way of Iran and Saudi Arabia and have the government run by misogynistic fundamentalists, I think it’s time to reconsider the roles of the religions known as Christianity and Islam in this entire fiasco. The hateful, scary, sexist fundamentalists of both religions are dead sure that the other religion is the opposite of theirs but I would argue that in fact fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam differ only in the details. Both worship the same deity–male-dominated authoritarianism. The theological dressing is just a means to that end.
If you look at it from that angle–that fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians are just two flavors of the same patriarchal religion–then one thing becomes quite obvious. The winners of the Iraqi War are not the Americans and not the Iraqis, but the fundamentalists. On both sides of the conflict, fundamentalists have been able to use this war as leverage to make progress towards their ideal society–a strict hierarchy where the men on top of society have absolute power over other men and men have absolute power over women.
From that viewpoint, the war ended up being a win-win situation for pious power-mongerers both both nations. If I were conspiratorially minded, I would almost think they planned it that way. But I’m not. Instead I’d suggest that the fundie power-mongerers in both nations simply and accurately concluded that there was no downside to escalating the hate on both sides.
So it’s the Crusades meets Jihad deja vu, all over again? Yes, this is a ‘win-win’ for both fundie groups, because they want that hatred to thrive and become even stronger, in order to meet their desired ends to this conflict. Because you know, both think their side is right in all of this.
Riiiight. Show me a video of Christian fundamentalists beheading someone, and I’ll agree that there’s no big difference.
dave, dave,
you don’t need a video, just look into any history book for the countless accounts of heads on pikes, bodies on racks, blah, blah, blah, the christians like all their brother fundamentalists around the globe have raped and plundered each other for centuries, if you need your truth delivered via video, perhaps a blog is not the place to be, may i suggest FOX*NEWS, its fair and balanced ;}
In response to #1, would abortion clinic bombings count? Extreme people will be extremists regardless what crazy structure they choose to hang their mania on.
Thanks for the link, PA. And Dave, beheading is not the end for extremists, but the means to an end. People aren’t really enthusiastic about beheading by nature–though if they think it will help their cause, they’ll do it. You know, like how our soliders are torturing prisoners.
You failed European history or never attended, didn’t you, Dave?
OK, so the Spanish Inquisition really counts as a modern-day comparison to suicide bombers / terrorism? That’s really a stretch.
How many abortion clinic bombings have there been, total? How many suicide bombings have there been this WEEK?
There are many things wrong with religious fundamentalists, and Christian fundamentalists in particular, but this is a flimsy comparison at best.
Ditto on studying history…. and pick up and read a little book, called the Malleus Maleficarum, which was one of the influential books a few centuries ago.
One difference btwn more mainstream Muslims and Christians and their respective radical fringe elements is that Muslims are expected to more loudly criticize those within their religion who commit violence and Christians don’t seem to bear that same responsbility.
The role that Christianity played in colonialism, and imperialism was considerable as well, in damage done and lives lost. But FTMP, in history books in the past and continuing today, that is celebrated as an accomplishment.
The Malefectorum is not representative of the inquisition, because its author was an extreme rarity: an Inquisitor who saw fit to try witches. The church specifically told inquisitors not to do that. They were to try heretics, not witches. Most inquistitors obeyed, and almost all witch trials were done by vindictive villagers against fellow Christians. The places in which church and state were strongest, less burning happened. That’s not to say the church wasn’t responsible for the Inquisition, though.
Sorry, Malefecarum
Personally I agree that historically there is very little difference between christian fundamentalism and islamic fundamentalism.
However, the fundamentalism we see today is of a fairly new variety being a product of the 20th century (read Karen Armstron’s ‘The Battle for God’) and some people’s issues with modernity. Nevertheless, we can still very strongly and accurately compare christian and islam fundamentalism, not by looking at the symptoms as some people here are proposing, but rather, as Amanda says, by looking at such symptoms as merely culturally specific means to the same (or very similar) end.
While they may (and, personally, I’m not certainly convinced of this either) differ in deed, their intentions and characteristics do not. Yes, Christian Fundamentalists do not go flying planes into buildings, but they do blow up federal buildings and abortion clinics. It’s just that those that do the latter aren’t labelled as Christian Fundamentalists, for obvious reasons.
What they both want are precisely the things that PS talks about above, and I think it’s a perfectly reason, and very accurate description.
But then I’m an evil atheist, so what do I know?
Sliding the goal posts, eh? There was nothing in the post to indicate that PA was talking about historical fundamentalists. I was talking about modern extremists.
Certainly abortion clinic bombings count. Point well taken. But I think Beth has the perfect counter-point. Let’s talk numbers. How many Christianity-motivated abortion clinic bombings have there been, compared to Islam-motivated suicide bombers?
Amanda – sure, head-loppings are the means to the end. But surely it is fair to compare the means that each group is generally willing to use to reach their ends, right?
You’re correct that fundimentalist Christians in the USA use terrorist violence much less often. But you’re assuming that this means that fundimentalist Christians are therefore less “willing” to use violence. It’s also possible that the political situation in the USA makes violence an ineffective means to their ends, and that if the political situation changed (for instance, a complete collapse of the US goverment) then they’d be willing to use violence.
For myself, I’ve had a lot of Christian evangelical friends over the years, and I’d hate to think that they’d favor extreme means to put their beliefs into practice. And really, I don’t think my friends would do that. But it’s pretty obvious that there are a significant number of fundimentalists who would favor drastic reductions in freedom in order to make the USA a more “Christian” nation, if such a program were politically viable and socially acceptable.
except it is. the “dress code” example is a perfect illustration of where you’re missing differences that can be erased by the right verbal description, but are clearly visible when physically looked at. surely you can’t be implying that there is no difference between, say, an Amish woman in head covering and long skirts and an Afghani woman in a burqa? know what another difference is between those two women? every Amish person is given a time period during adolescence, called rumspringa, where they can choose whether to leave the Amish community. no such choice was offered Afghani women.
This applies not just to the Amish, which I’ll admit are a poor example in many ways. Any religion, from Mormon to Baptist, practiced in the United States, is done freely and by choice. Muslim sharia law in countries such as Iran and the former Afghanistan was conducted under no such circumstances.
In other words, if fundamentalist Christianity in America and fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East were REALLY the same? This website wouldn’t exist. You’d never have the ability to make such comments. You might not even have the ability to read or write.
Like I said above, this is not to say fundamentalist religions of any stripe are a good thing. But if you’re going to oppose something, perhaps having a more pragmatic and realistic view of it would help your cause.
That is certainly true, and that’s why fundies scare the bejeezus out of me. But if I were offered the choice between an America ruled by Pat Robertson, versus an America ruled by Osama bin Laden, I wouldn’t have to think too hard on it. I don’t think anyone else here would, either, they’re just not willing to admit it.
I have thought some about the issue of violence and murder.
I had thoughts that seemed like valid points, but no analogy so direct and compelling that it would sweep Dave’s objection off the table. Mostly they seemed like they would just complicate things.
I guess what I am wondering is how relevant this is.
I mean, terrorism isn’t the same thing as oppression. It is reasonable to make a strong distinction between groups based on the incidence of terrorism, and it is also reasonable to lump groups together based on the manner and philosophy of oppression that they advocate.
The one does not really affect the other, does it?
Apples can be totally different from oranges when you’re talking about color, and very similar when you’re talking about fruit and vitamins.
I am only mentioning this because I think that people on the right and the left tend to think of different distinctions and similarities first, and sometimes it leads debates in really weird directions. Like me—I don’t take it for granted that Christianity’s hands are clean on the terrorism front, but when I read the post, I didn’t think about it as a terrorism-related issue, and I’m not particularly interested in accusing Christianity on that front. Terrorism scares me. I support fighting it tooth and nail. But I am frankly more concerned with government-sponsored oppression.
Rebecca
Dave: “Riiiight. Show me a video of Christian fundamentalists beheading someone, and I’ll agree that there’s no big difference.”
I don’t know how strong your stomach is, but I’m sure if you searched around you could definitely find ample footage of the genocide that occured in Rwanda in 1994.
Yes, government-sponsored oppression is scary. And if we remain complacent, we could very well end up in a version of the Handmaid’s Tale. Militant Christian Fundamentalists are quite happy to point the finger at Muslims and decry their violence, their intolerance, and their misogyny. Yet they aren’t willing to clean their own house, and we overlook it since, well, gosh, they aren’t as bad as those Muslim Fundamentalists.
Yet.
Just FYI, Amp, “evangelical” and “fundamentalist” are not synonyms.
Robert said:
Just FYI, Amp, “evangelical” and “fundamentalist” are not synonyms.
Really?
evangelical: ‘ relating to or being a Christian church believing in personal conversion and the inerrancy of the Bible especially the 4 Gospels.’
Fundamentalist Christians: ‘typically believe that the Bible is inspired by God and is inerrant’.
Not seeing a difference, Robert. :)
Actually, I am kidding. Religion in general creeps me out, so I don’t know enough about it to talk about it. So as an outsider, they seem the same to me. “Evangelical”, “Fundamentalist” just seem like code words to me for folks who want to impose their beliefs on others. Religious folks wouldn’t bug me so much if they kept to themselves and practiced what they believed in private. But for most religious types, that’s not good enough. They have to go around telling others how to be or act. It seems like if they are going to miserable and not have any fun, by golly, everyone else should be miserable and lacking in fun as well.
Evangelicals and fundamentalists both believe, broadly speaking, in Biblical inerrancy (although the evangelical view of this is much wider than the fundamentalist view). The difference is proselytization.
Evangelicals always proselytize; their basic mission is to spread the Gospel. Fundamentalists do not always proselytize; their basic mission is to live a Christian life.
That’s a very compressed version of what is a fairly complex set of relationships. Rock can probably do a better job of explaining it.
Amanda – sure, head-loppings are the means to the end. But surely it is fair to compare the means that each group is generally willing to use to reach their ends, right?
No, not really. They are in different circumstances. Fundies here have to be careful because they live in a country where they can’t use constant fear of death by invasion to justify themselves. In Iraq, they can. The fundies and neocons have made it clear as day here that they do not have limits on their willingness to use violence to get their way–observe the amount of torture and murder encouraged in our war prisons.
Frankly, using the beheadings of Americans to claim that we are somehow inherently superior lost all its usefulness the second it became public knowledge that our soliders in Abu Gharib filmed themselves raping screaming children. War is hell on both sides and it’s silly childish wishful thinking to claim otherwise.
My main point was that the real deity of both Muslim and Christian fundies is patriarchy. On that, I think I’m accurate.
Also, Robert is 100% correct. Evangelicals are by no means fundamentalists. Many good friends of mine are evangelical Christians and quite socially liberal.
So, the difference between the extremes in Christianity and Islam is context. I agree that in the context of Iraq, terrorism is an sad product of Islam while Christianity has avoided that here- because of the tempering influence of all us liberals?
Did anyone read Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer? I see many similarities between Mormonism and Islam. Putting terrorism aside, Colorado City is pretty fricking oppressive.
Also, Robert is 100% correct.
Well, that’s going on my blog, in 100 point type.
Robert, thanks for the vote of confidence.
I am trembling in my heart and hands with reading this thread. I am not sure what lobbing generalities that speak to human nature more than anything else can possibly do to benefit Feminism, understanding or improve the community we share.
The fact that people have abused and treat other human beings terribly in the name of most anything has been (and will be) well documented for all generations to see, and will still not be curbed as a result of the revelation. That similarities arise between groups justifying ignorance and hatred should not surprise anyone. The Muslim fundamentalists are murdering liberal Muslims and others, the same for, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, (yes the middle way folks fight to the death over dollars like everyone else) and have for years, is not based on religion but on fear, greed and power and is not an indictment on Islam or any other faith but on broken hearts and spirits and what they can do to others. The same can be said for much of mass murder in the name of anything. The carnage in Rwanda can be simplified to sectarian violence but anyone spending any time on that awful situation quickly realizes that there are far more “fundamental” issues at hand than simply one faith or another.
How do we explain the carnage and slaughter as a result of Brother Marx in China, and Mother Russia? The state as God is no more benevolent when casting about for an excuse to be horrid. The nature of people to subjugate, steal, rape, enslave and murder is not due to religion, but may use it to justify greed.
It would not take long should anyone really want to see the good done by people of faith. It would blow some peoples minds, and help in the struggle for the values many speak of on this site to work with Evangelicals, Holiness, Social Justice, Orthodox, Souphies, Catholic, Social Gospel, etc. people that simply will not engage in this sort of dialog that is based on such a narrow view of the faiths in question. We are just as offended by the miscarriage of our Faiths as many making these sweeping generalities. How about cultivating commonality and uniting with the minds using Religious Doctrine to support our same conclusions? It might be what we need to tip the scales to a more progressive and humane society. (It also might take away the martyr status that some may have grown accustomed to.) The folks using Christian doctrine to support violence, misogyny or whatever evil one wishes to point to are not using the full measure of the teachings or the Spirit that the Creator of the Faiths intended. Is that the fault of the Faith or humanity?
I am at a loss to share my thoughts; however I can say this is not a valid comparison not because one Faith is better or worse, but it isn’t based on the right premise. Blessings.
BTW the Amish are pacifists as are the Jehovah’s Witnesses and many other Faiths, including many Fundamentalist Christians.
Any religion, from Mormon to Baptist, practiced in the United States, is done freely and by choice. Muslim sharia law in countries such as Iran and the former Afghanistan was conducted under no such circumstances.
To add to the Krakauer reference, here’s more about Short Creek from the amazing Teresa Nielsen Hayden:
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/004560.html
Some quotes:
“It wasn’t the first time children have tried to run away from Short Creek. The difference was that this time, the authorities didn’t return the Fawns to their families. They escaped and stayed escaped. …
“The local slang term for marriageable girls is “poofers”. One day they’re living with their parents, attending school, just being teenage girls. The next day, poof, they’re gone. Marriages aren’t publicly announced or celebrated…often they’re scarcely celebrated at all…and the girls are given minimal advance notice. They just disappear into their husbands’ households: poof! Sometimes FLDS girls from the Arizona Strip are swapped for girls from the Bountiful colony, which makes the girls on both sides of the swap even more tractable. …
“Once these girls have had babies, they’re stuck. They can’t abandon their children, and they have no more place to go than they did before. They can’t sue their “husband” for support; they were never legally married to him. They may not have a Social Security Number. They may not have a birth certificate. They have minimal education. They’ve been told all their lives that outsiders are sinful, dangerous, and malign. And everyone they know in the world keeps telling them that where they are is where they belong. So they still don’t run. And because they don’t run they have more children, often at a rate of one a year, which leaves them depressed and exhausted.”
So, not always so easy to leave the Mormon faith in the US, at least.
I think I’m with Rebecca. When I read the post, I didn’t think of terrorist groups: I thought of fundamental religion in government. So the proposed theocracy in Iraq compared with the “Christian Values” set-up in the US. And while there are still distinctions in the power that the two religious groups have, the similarities, to my mind, are stronger than the differences.
Beheadings, in that context, are something of a red herring.
Stefanie,
The Mormon Church, (LDS) condemns and does not support or endorse polygamy as does the FLDS of which you speak; they are not one in the same. Your posting seemed to not make that clear. The Government is working to prosecute these people, that are of such a small number it is difficult to locate them. (Not that it means those being treated this way are not worth the effort.)
The men in the Anabaptist communities that I have experienced also follow similar restrictions as the women. (Pennsylvania, Missouri and Mississippi.) The focus is not on the restrictions within the Faith groups but within the liberation found by living a Holy life devoted to community and to God. Many of the social ills found in the surrounding communities do not occur or do so at reduced levels in these communities, as do illnesses from drugs and pollutants etc. For many it is a very rewarding, and fulfilling lifestyle. The children brought up in a majority of the homes in this blogosphere have no more choice in their belief systems than do the cloistered communities. We start to sound like those we see as oppressing us when we try to make generalizations about folks not looking to be liberated to our beliefs. Freedom to be, is freedom to be different from us too. Blessings.
Hmm. Damn. You’re clearly right, and I’m clearly wrong. My projecting “Islamic Fundamentalists->Terrorists” is equivalent to other posters’ projecting “Christian Fundamentalists->Inquisitors”.
I suck, and humbly withdraw pretty much everything I have said.
Sorry about that.
Christian fundamentalists in America are still part of the consuming culture, are by and large “middle-class”, and worship Mammon as much as other Americans. Also, they are in a country with a functional legal and penal system. Also, they are “in power” at the moment, and worship their government and leader. All this makes them highly unlikely to leave their split-level ranch homes and SUVs to bomb or kill and then go to jail. However, they would be happy to abrogate freedoms of non-Christians, women, and gays, if what is needed is just their vote.
Muslim fundamentalists are in a state of civil war against governments that they feel are insufficiently pious, or insufficiently representative (eg., Saudi Arabia), or Aren’t Run By Their Own Party. They don’t respect the laws of the government because they don’t think the government is legitimate. The legal and penal systems of the countries are often inefficient. The press is often not free, and violence represents great publicity unobtainable by other means. So Muslim fundamentalists find violence a useful political tactic, and they can find enough unhappy footsoldiers to carry it out.
I think NancyP made some good points. Also, and please correct me if I am wrong, Christian fundamentalists condemn suicide while Muslim fundamentalists glorify it, if in committing suicide you take some infidels with you. (Puts a whole new spin on “making yourself a martyr,” doesn’t it?)
For me personally, there are really only very few differences between mice and elephants. The both have eyes, ears, legs, and tails, stomachs, hearts, skeletons, feet, entrails, etc. Both are also spatially oriented the same way, are warm-blooded, have live births, walk on four legs, and share well over 90% of each other’s DNA. With all these similarities, how pray tell, are we to see the differences?
(Not to be a complete smart-ass, my point should be obvious)
Hmmm, wasn’t Timothy McVeigh a Christian fundamentalist?
The fact is Islam taken as a whole is meant to be liberational as is Christianity. The fact that hammers were designed to build things does not preclude they can be used as a weapon. I know far more Moslems (mostly from India) that are living their faith in expressions that are loving and grace filled (Including a few from arranged marriages that are very progressive, one of their stories is a hoot.) than I do fundamentalists. However the Fundamentalists I know while sympathetic to the plight of their ilk are not willing to go as far as their violent counterparts. (obviously this is not universal.)
The undermining and exploitation of all that is familiar and Eastern by Modern and Post Modern Western companies and values is a terrifying thing for many Eastern peoples. (Why should this be news?) At the very same time, the undermining of what has largely been a Judeo/Christian culture in the West, Enlightenment and Modern for a couple centuries is slipping into a Post Modern yet to be defined culture. This scares the heck out of the folks looking for stability in the faith, largely conservative Fundamentalists. (What is news about this?) That fear incites in people the worst in us is not surprising. What if we enjoined them to stymie the fears?
The bigger fear (in my mind) is if the two Fundies ever got together seeing that they have similar interests and fears and really put the pressure on the rest of us to be like them. Blessings.
I’m wondering if anyone here (particularly Amanda since she made the comparison) has read “Raising the Stones” by Sherri Tepper? She draws a clear line between Christian, Muslim and Jewish forms of fundamentalism, pointing out quite clearly that patriarchy is the real God of all three. It’s an interesting book that makes the case in a far more skillful way than any of us can (Tepper is a scarily talented writer), and is well worth a read for anyone who wants to explore this idea more.
I’ve actually lived under fundamentalist Islam and in general it’s a pretty decent analogy BUT we really need to leave Saudi Arabia out of this particular analogy. The situation that exists in the Kingdom makes even Iran look progressive, and is so extreme that even that wackiest Christian fundamentalists are usually horrified when they see it. I actually knew a family of extremist Southern Baptists in Saudi and they were deeply troubled by what they saw their (in fact I think it helped to make them all a bit more liberal as a reaction). The situation in the Kingdom goes so far beyond standard religious patriarchy that it can really only be described as gender apartheid. I think that if we’re going to talk about Islamic fundamentalism it’s very important to note the difference between the Wahabbi version and the Sunni or Shia version. In fact, for those familiar with the region the real concern is that the Wahabbis have become extremely evangelical and thus their sect is spreading (with the help of Saudi money), which really is a threat to every woman living in the region.
Amanda’s basic argument still holds, but the Wahabbis are a special case. The only Christian sect that would be even vaguely comparable is FDLS, and even they aren’t as terrifying, if only because as rock points out there are very few of them and they aren’t likely to be in charge of the government any time soon.
Jay,
That is ridiculous. Timothy McVeigh was a psychopath. The connection is beneath you.
Either way, he should not have been executed. Blessings.
I think what Pat Robertson said on the 700 Club about assassinating the President of Venezuela just underlines some of what this thread has been discussing. Every time I start to think he can’t saw the tree limb he’s on any faster, he surprises me yet again.
Rock,
My bringing up McVeigh is precisely the point. Most people in this country are quick to dismiss McVeigh’s christianity as “wrong” or him as a “psychopath.”
But we are not so quick to dismiss Osama Bin Laden’s Islam. The “suicide bombers” Islam is never questioned, at least not in the mainstream media.
Until we can distinguish religiosity from terrorism in this country across the board and particulary in the left, I will continue to remind those of us on the left that Timothy McVeigh identified as a Christian.
Regards,
Jay
Jay,
Point taken. Blessings.
The Abrahamic faiths have a lot to answer for.
The Abrahamic faiths have a lot to answer for.
Right, because life in the pagan societies they sprang from was enlightened and gentle.
Human nature has a lot to answer for. The Abrahamic faiths are what have pushed people from the days of sacrificing babies on altars, to the days when people living on Abraham’s moral inheritance can persuade themselves that the lack of bloodshed in their own life is due to their own intrinsic goodness.
The Abrahamic Religions have been used as have all major faiths that I am aware of including the faiths based on humanities self assuredness as an excuse to do all kinds of evil. To simply stop their and not see the incredibly good things that have occurred as a result of peoples faith is to only tell part of the story. Had Abram never started his relationship with Yahweh, the human nature still residing in the very same people would have found another way to express itself as far as evil is concerned. Blessings.
Robert: Why sacrifice babies on altars when stoning philandering spouses, burning heretics or forcing women to have children they don’t want beckons and probably draws a larger crowd? You’re right about two things, though: pagans weren’t exactly sweet people, either (sorry, Riane Eisler fans, but it’s true) and human nature doesn’t always serve humans well. I’ll take that any day over the notion that humans are born with a moral debt that they could never even pay the interest on, let alone the principal. Life is unfair and these three creeds have the nerve to insult my intelligence and say it is, if you do as they command. Utter piffle.
Why sacrifice babies on altars when stoning philandering spouses, burning heretics or forcing women to have children they don’t want beckons and probably draws a larger crowd?
Indeed–not to mention offering your daughters up for gang-rape, incestuous marriages, and child sacrifice.
Not that the pagans were any better, or that atheists were/are any better. But come on. Religion does not make one moral or less inclined to commit evil deeds.
I don’t care what anyone believes, but when people try to turn their faith into law I get hives. And that’s the main point of the original post–for all of their differences, fundamentalists (and I do see a difference between someone who’s evengelical and who’s fundamentalist) of all Abrahamic stripes share the same restrictive view on women, gays, and life in general.
DP,
One may look at it as debt in the traditional sense and many do. Many also ascribe to the thought that they are in debt due to Adam’s original sin. However that one should be held responsible for another’s debts is not widely supported by scripture. No, the debt issue is valid as it represents the same Adamic nature as befell the first folks, that is to be impetuous and rebellious. Each person at some point turns and does things that are hurtful or evil in their lives. The theme of atonement is an old and worthwhile belief. The debt that cannot be paid is done for and by someone else as a free act of love, this is grace, and is bound to forgiveness. It is by grace when we do it and it is by Grace when Christ does it.
Many folks do make it a legal thing and that is too bad, it is worth so much more as a love offering. I am not lecturing, as the way you describe it, I agree; Piffle! Blessings.
It’s interesting to read here the attempts to equate Christians engaged in violent acts with Islamic terrorists. Yes, Christians in the stories cited did horrible things. But the difference is that (with very, very few exceptions), the Christians noted did not perform their acts in the name of God, whereas the Islamic terrorists do. That’s why the Rwandan Christians weren’t Christian terrorists; the acts they committed were to gain the ascendency for their tribe, not their God. But the Islamic terrorists are constantly invoking Allah and the writings of Mohammed in the Qu’ran as their authority for their actions. Yes, there are remnants of the Baathist Party regime that are probably acting out of a desire to regain power, at least in the Sunni-dominated areas of Iraq. But then I wouldn’t classify them as Islamic terrorists.
Rock: I assume the reason I was baptized a Catholic as an infant, not an adult, had to do with a taint that needed—literally in this case—to be washed away, not once, but through the course of my life a sinner who falls (continually, it seems) short of God’s glory. Other religions see things differently. The Hindu/Buddhist idea of karma presupposes absolute transience: nothing is forever, including paradise or perdition. Even the gods die. Unlike the Abrahamic creeds, good, bad and evil wear away eventually whether you believe or not. Not that I’m positing their believers as superior. When I go to the Radha-Krishna temple in Berkeley for devotional chanting, I never see the men scrubbing the floor or cooking. That tells me something, even if it doesn’t stop me from chanting.
Ron F: No one here doubts that the acts of jihadists are evil. And at a certain level, you have a point; when Christian fundies see art that offends them, they tend to want to do away with the NEA, whereas the Taliban took great pride in destroying the Buddhist statues at Bamiyan. But I find that cold comfort. I agree with Amanda; put the turban on Falwell and give Bin Laden a shave and even with my glasses on, I sure couldn’t tell the two apart.
DP,
I have always interpreted the act of infant baptism to represent the committing of the congregation to the child and not for the free will acceptance of the faith by the child. I do not believe that an infant is guilty of anything needing atonement. That is the entire point of Prevenient grace. I also do not believe that water baptism is essential either. (It can be however a deeply moving liturgy.) In fact, I see no magic in any of the Sacraments other than what they offer or express relative to a relational shift or commitment in the faith of the person seeking. I recognize the Catholic and other Churches believe in transubstantiation, etc. that is their prerogative and bless them for it, I do not.
For me the Baptism is the public expression of a change that has undertaken ones spiritual relationship and position. The symbolism is ancient (and karmic). The symbol of the water as the boundary of life above and death and the underworld below is present in many systems. It is the death of the worldly will and burial by going under the surface as did Christ. The reentering of the world a new being is signified, the resurrection into new life is illustrated by coming out. The death, burial and resurrection are all wrapped into one ceremony. It is not for the forgiveness of sin as some think. (I guess for them it could be.) Even Johns Baptism wasn’t for the forgiveness but for repentance of sins. (Closely tied to the Miqwat baths for ritual cleanliness.) The sins thing is tied in as folks being baptized did so often at conversion and the sin connection was present from the beginning. The early Church in Acts relates the Baptism with the bestowing of the Holy Spirit, again a Sacrament that conveys the depth of the change, yet does not create it, IMO. (Christ did not Baptise anyone in water for anything, however His Disciples did with John the Baptist.)
As soon as Christ left the earth the Church was on track to be changed by the Jews and the Greeks, and many others as well. A lot of baggage has been added, however all we have to do is keep it simple and it works just fine. All the law can be summed up in to the law of love, how simple is that?
I yakked with the Krishna’s in Berkley in the mid 70’s, great fun, free food and warm company, I missed the spiritualism, my loss. Blessings.