The "You ain't no Muslim" remark made by a bystander in the London subway stabbings has been a major internet sensation. Substitute "Christian" for Muslim, and we atheists would be saying it ALL the time. Hate filled rhetoric, especially aired by Republican presidential candidates, is so anti-Christian. Of course, they can't see it as such. Shameful.
Both peaceful "live and let live" folks and violent killers find support in the Quran and Hadiths; both can make a claim to be true Muslims. Ditto for Christians and the Bible. (Ditto, I'm sure, for many other religions' foundational scriptures and teachings.)
If the line between murderous revenge and passive disagreement is interpretation of the scriptures then the scriptures have to be responsible for both interpretations.
You might be interested to know that Charles Koch has been funding Muslim hatred big time.
...the Muslim community itself has been under relentless assault by homegrown religious extremists since the attacks on the World Trade towers on September 11, 2001.
Following the hate money trail ...
All roads led to Charles Koch, the right wing billionaire.
Gee ... is this supposed to be a surprise or what? :-P~~~~~
Yep, it's "divide and conquer" at its finest!
Randall, you stated, "Hate filled rhetoric, especially aired by Republican presidential candidates, is so anti-Christian." I've got to disagree. Hate filled rhetoric is very Christian. And very Muslim, and very Hindu, etc., etc., etc. It's all part and parcel of the tribalism on which religion thrives. Religionists have to have enemies. How else do you keep the adherents in a state of fear, xenophobia, and loyalty to the tribe?
Yes, sometimes there really are enemies - suicide bombers, beheading agents, and mass murderers. Usually, they're the idealistic, gullible, young, and easily lead 'true believers.' Encouraged, of course, by old men who talk a big game, but won't put their own ass on the line for whatever cause they are promoting.
A lot of the time, however, the enemies are uppity women who demand to control their own reproduction (can you believe that crap?), gays, and of course, those outside the tribe: different skin color, beliefs, language, and customs.
Sorry, but in my estimation, there is nothing anti-Christian about hatred. Yes, you can find certain adherents who may eschew the darker parts of their cult. But, it's and integral part an parcel of any religion.
Right on, Pat. That's nicely written.
Thank you, Michael.
Pat, of course you're right. "Anti-Christian" was not the correct word. Or else, I should have elaborated, as you did. We just often hear the phrase "un-Christian-like" and expect to understand what is meant by that. Really, it's meaningless--or, in your definition, hate-filled.
It's easy to defend a belief system by claiming that the violent believers aren't True Believers (TM).
This thing about moderates and extremists is purely wordplay. There are no religious moderates. Religious is an adjective describing the amount of passion one holds or endeavours to achieve concerning a personal ideological principle. The ''moderates'' are simply shackled by the laws of the land, unable to express they're true colours because of civil law.
Is there any need to wonder what sort of society people would be living in if religious organisations of whatever colour had hegemony over the laws of the land?