|
Nnanji -> RE: London elects Muslim as Lord Mayor (5/16/2016 4:16:19 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:
Yes it's totally left leaning BS about Islam. False teachings about Islam perpetrated by the left. The way I see it, the left seem to be against fundamental Christianity for a long time, and then somehow, just went absolutely crazy and decided the enemy of their enemy is their friend. And went on full crazy support for Islam. I feel it's almost from spite towards fundamental Christianity to give them a taste of their own medicine. Let's support a religion that is even WORST in imposing their religious beliefs on others!
And I speak as someone who used to see myself as left leaning, until I disagree with leftish blatant dishonesty about Islam.
Completely misconceived, in my view. I hold what are probably pretty standard lefty views re all this. Christianity and Islam are much of a muchness to me because they're both religions and religions don't form any essential part of my worldview. Therefore I don't support Christianity, Islam or any other religion. Furthermore, I don't see them as the root cause either of aggression or of peace. If people live in a violent and brutal culture, or are just made up that way as individuals, and want to act way themselves, then they may choose to 'sanctify' their violence and brutality with whatever they can pick from their religion, whatever that religion happens to be. If they're peaceable, they'll pick the peaceful bits instead. Likewise if they want to be greedy rather than generous, get a hate on against homosexuals or befriend them, commit adultery, or anything else. Suddenly, all those bits of the Bible/Koran that fit nicely with one's outlook are 'self-evidently the most crucial bits', whereas all those bits that don't fit were, somehow, never all that important in the first place. Or, they 'never meant what we used to think they meant'. It doesn't even matter how great a focus there is in the Bible or Koran on, say, kindness (re the former) or holy war (re the latter), you still get avowedly Christian societies that have greed woven into their culture and institutions, and you still get ostensibly Muslim societies in which the people don't actually pick wars with anyone.
It should be added that this process of sifting and moulding the words of the Bible or the Koran in order to big up the bits one likes while minimising the bits one doesn't like generally works smoothly because it isn't, of course, what is actually in the Bible or the Koran that matters. It's what the priesthoods of both say is in them - and what is important/unimportant in them - that does.
Peon, if I may offer just a little. And it is just a little. The old testiment introduced a singular deity and provided the law and ritual for God and man to interface. The new testiment came as a fulfillment of the olds testiment, or the personal interaction between God and man. It explained a spiritual connection outside ritual. The Koran continued and added a secular government day to day aspect to the spiritual connection between God and man. So, for instance the new testiment says render on to Cesar that which is Cesar's and render onto God that which is gods, while the Koran combined Cesar and God into what is sharia law.
In that regard, at times in history when the church took secular roles it can be argued that was outside the actual teaching of Christianity. The church justified it by saying it was the lesser evil necessary to save souls. However, in Islam, nothing is outside the realm of Islam. Secular and spiritual are both managed from the pulpit. (The metaphorical pulpit). In the Koran, and many Hadith, there are a great many exhortations to kill the infidel. When it does so it has the power of both spiritual and secular exhortations and is a root cause of aggression.
Having said that, the rest of your statement was insightful.
|
|
|
|
