False Equivalence
By Mitch Berg
I don’t write much about the difference between Islam and Christianity (or Islam and the West, for that matter); other people do it better.
But when I have, I’ve gotten the occasional comment claiming that, at least as far as this country is concerned, fundamentalist Christianity remains a bigger threat than fundie Islam.
The commenters (I’m not going to look them up now – they’re on the old site) never cite any concrete reasons, of course. And I wish they would.
Because I’m trying to find an example of any group of Christians doing something like this any time since the Middle Ages:
The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy.
The 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely. But his life was over, he was part-disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes, the remains put on display as a warning to others against defying Taliban orders to stop educating girls.
Anyone?
December 5th, 2006 at 7:02 am
I haven’t posted much lately because quite honestly, your blog has really become pretty weak but I couldn’t let this go without comment.
Mitch said,
I’ve gotten the occasional comment claiming that, at least as far as this country is concerned, fundamentalist Christianity remains a bigger threat than fundie Islam.
then follows it with a story about an incident that happened in Afghanistan.
Welcome once again to Mitch Berg’s Strawman Theater.
December 5th, 2006 at 7:16 am
As usual, Doug, you are not only wrong, but so full of shit I have to believe it’s deliberate.
The point being show me a Christian in the past 500 years who’s made this a matter of policy?
And yet there is a thin, greasy film in American society who believes that “fundamentalists” and “the religious right” are a bigger threat to this nation than Islam.
It’s not too tricky a point for most people. But you’re not most people, are you?
December 5th, 2006 at 7:38 am
Doug: “your blog has really become pretty weak”
Then fuck off. It’s not like your contributions, obsessive as they’ve been, have been worth jack.
December 5th, 2006 at 8:22 am
Mitch, the equivalence arises in the mind of the person who states it. Lots of people hate Christianity as much as they hate Islam, both of them representing things that stand between them and their bliss. They only seem to hate Christianity more because they think they know more about it.
December 5th, 2006 at 11:25 am
In these more modern times, I don’t recall people having their heads chopped off when criticizing “fundamentalist” Christianity.
I forget who said it, but it was right on:
Radical Islam demands sending your sons to die for them. Christianity involved the sending of God’s son to die for us.
December 5th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Mitch: “As usual, Doug, you are not only wrong, but so full of shit I have to believe it’s deliberate.”
ak: “Then fuck off. It’s not like your contributions, obsessive as they’ve been, have been worth jack.”
See Doug? It’s not just me that’s carving your ass like a Christmas turkey.
Do you practice law, Doug? Because only a lawyer (or a dishonest, disingenous, condescending lout) could claim to miss Mitch’s point.
December 5th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
And Doug? How about responding to Mitch’s point? You don’t read stories anwhere in the world like this:
Following Tuesday morning mass, enraged Christians poured into the streets of many major cities, smashing shop windows and setting cars on fire, screaming “Crucify them!” and “Death to the Moors!”
The riots were set off by news that Muslim students in Melbourne had urinated on a Bible.
The riots are false of course, but the Bible desecration is true:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,20879483,00.html
December 6th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Paul blathered,
“Do you practice law, Doug? Because only a lawyer (or a dishonest, disingenous, condescending lout) could claim to miss Mitch’s point.”
Did you fail fourth grade reading, Paul? Where did I claim to miss Mitchs point?
And Paul, Mitch’s point was very clear. He posted unsupported and allegedly unverifiable comments made by anonymous sources then relays a tragic event that happened in a country increasingly controlled by the Taliban in an attempt to discredit the unverifiable comments. In the process, he also either plays loose with the context by or is just sloppy when he mentions the “at least as far as this country is concerned” bit then goes on to relate the events that happened in another country.
Now, it’s entirely possible that the mysterious dialogue that Mitch is alluding to was a discussion for example, about legislation influenced by fundamentalist Christian groups. That could be legitimately regarded as a more serious threat than Islam simply because now, they have the power to make laws and direct foreign and domestic policy.
Let’s take Dennis Pragers comments for example. In effect, he said that an elected official shouldn’t be allowed to serve simply because that official wants to use a different religious book while swearing an oath to defend the Constitiution.
Forget about whether or not Ellison should use the Koran or use no book at all. Prager is suggesting that an elected official not be allowed to serve unless he meets Pragers qualifications for serving.
We’ll never know though since Mitch doesn’t offer any examples to judge.
As for Mitch’s request for crimes perpetrated by Christians against non-Christians, I have friends and teachers who are in their 70’s and 80’s and grew up at Pine Ridge, Standing Rock and Rosebud. They tell stories how as children, they were taken from their parents and enrolled into Catholic Schools. They were punished for speaking their native language and were forced to abandon their native religious customs.
They also talk about how their parents and grand parents generation saw the slaughter of family members while they were practicing their rituals. The 1890 massacre at wounded knee started after the Ghost Dance was banned.
I’m guessing the Ethnic Albanian Moslems may have a few things to say about the Christian Serbs too.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:50 am
As for Mitch’s request for crimes perpetrated by Christians against non-Christians, I have friends and teachers who are in their 70’s and 80’s and grew up at Pine Ridge, Standing Rock and Rosebud. They tell stories how as children, they were taken from their parents and enrolled into Catholic Schools. They were punished for speaking their native language and were forced to abandon their native religious customs.
Wow. There’s one, and seventy years old, and – ahem – everyone lived.
They also talk about how their parents and grand parents generation saw the slaughter of family members while they were practicing their rituals. The 1890 massacre at wounded knee started after the Ghost Dance was banned.
True, and tragic, wrong with 116 years of retrospect, and as it happens irrlevant. WOunded Knee was a result of jittery trigger fingers at the very least, and had NOTHING to do with religious extremism.
Say, Doug, while we’re on your not-very-relevant strawman – who was it who most vocally opposed the Indian Wars and the worst excesses of the indian policies? Hint: It was church people, descendants of the same Christians who fought slavery.
I’m guessing the Ethnic Albanian Moslems may have a few things to say about the Christian Serbs too.
Religion is and always was window-dressing on the Balkan war – the feuds are deeply ethnic and would still exist if all were Christian (indeed, the Orthodox Serbs and the Catholic Croats fought pretty brutally too; the Croats, being stronger, didn’t suffer as badly as the weaker Bosnian moslems).
And – I know this is a niggling detail – I DID specify “In America”, no?
December 7th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Mitch said,
“Wow. There’s one, and seventy years old, and – ahem – everyone lived.”
Well, we don’t know that do we Mitch? Reporting is a little bit different today than it was 80 years ago at Rosebud or Pine Ridge.
“…and as it happens irrlevant. WOunded Knee was a result of jittery trigger fingers at the very least, and had NOTHING to do with religious extremism.”
Wrong. Wounded Knee was the tragic consequence of a several year long policy of outlawing the spiritual rituals practiced by the Sioux and others. In addition to the Wounded Knee incident, there are stories of men and women being slaughtered while in the lodge during Inipi ceremonies. That’s why in the mid to late 1800’s women stopped doing Inipi ceremonies and essentially stood guard while the men were in the lodges.
Of course, you won’t read that in very many news sources. In a culture with no written language and only oral traditions to pass on stories, that tends to happen.
“who was it who most vocally opposed the Indian Wars and the worst excesses of the indian policies? Hint: It was church people, descendants of the same Christians who fought slavery.”
Ironic then isn’t it that it was the “church people” who were so insistent upon defining the indigenous tribes as barbarians, animals and savages and in need of salvation by conversion to Christianity.
As well as intentioned and you may need to believe it, the systematic extermination of millions of native people was the ultimately result of religious fundamentalism that said these people were less than human.
“And – I know this is a niggling detail – I DID specify “In America”, no?”
Well, aparently not since it was you who offered the example of extreemist Islam in Afghanistan – not “In America” which if you recall, was the reason I felt conpelled to respond in the first place, no?
December 7th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Also Mitch, as my wife reminded me, shall we review what the Christian Puritans, both here and in Europe, did to their neighbors who were found guilty of such awful crimes and fornication and not being obedient to their parents?
That would have been around 300 – 400 years ago. Well within your challenge to,
“show me a Christian in the past 500 years who’s made this a matter of policy?”