RELIGIOUS Debate on Terroristm-who, why, etc.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Do you think it is appropriate for an American preacher to urge people to take up arms, if our country is in a state of war?

Depends on the state of war. Of late the concept of war has been rather muddled.

Personally, and mind you, personally, I think that regardless of the preacher's nationality, anyone who claims to be a christian preacher should never call for people to kill. To take up arms to defend themselves is of course a whole other matter.

[Spock]

Gee, the mullahs do it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Depends on the state of war. Of late the concept of war has been rather muddled.

Good point.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Personally, and mind you, personally, I think that regardless of the preacher's nationality, anyone who claims to be a christian preacher should never call for people to kill. To take up arms to defend themselves is of course a whole other matter.

I happen to believe that preemptive strike can be an intelligent way to go. If someone is planning to kill you, striking at him first means that you are less likely to be hurt yourself.

Of course this can definitely be abused. However, it also makes sense. I think Mr. Robertson was calling for a kind of preemptive strike, as he views Mr. Chavez to be a serious threat to America's security.

I think Mr. Robertson agrees with you though. He has said it isn't right for him to call people to kill, and he has apologized.

[Spock]

Yep, ever since WJC, an apology makes everything ok. Sort of like the weekend of OJ created marathon chase news.

[Lief Erikson]

Quote from brownjenkins:

Life teaches us to be less harsh with ourselves and with others. ~ Master Po

[Spock]

Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

So it's alright if people use their influence through preaching to incite other to kill as long as they kill bad people? *mind slightly boggles*

I don't think he was saying that, Eärniel. I think he was saying that although all types of killing are serious and grievous, we think the killing of someone who has done no wrong that they know of, and indeed doesn't even know his killer, is probably at the top of the scale of how awful killing is. If a Muslim came to New York and killed someone who knowingly raped and killed his daughter, we would feel differently about it - we would think it was "less bad" and/or "more understandable/justifiable" - even if we don't think he should have killed him.

(pardon my vague use of pronouns - let me know if I need to clear them up!)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't think he was saying that, Eärniel. I think he was saying that although all types of killing are serious and grievous, we think the killing of someone who has done no wrong that they know of, and indeed doesn't even know his killer, is probably at the top of the scale of how awful killing is. If a Muslim came to New York and killed someone who knowingly raped and killed his daughter, we would feel differently about it - we would think it was "less bad" and/or "more understandable/justifiable" - even if we don't think he should have killed him.

(pardon my vague use of pronouns - let me know if I need to clear them up!)

except that "justifiable" is all a matter of PoV... many poor muslims see their social situation in part as a result of exploitation by the western world and by the US, among other countries, supporting the leadership in many of their countries that is very far from democratic... you can argue whether this perception is right or wrong, but give the last few hundred years of history only a fool would say it is completely unfounded

[Rían]

Yes, I agree that "justifiable" is a POV to a large extent, yet I doubt if ANY culture thinks killing someone that THEY think is innocent (by their standards) is just fine and dandy. That was what I was trying to show - our culture thinks the people killed in 9-11 were innocent, so that's why we reacted so strongly.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

except that "justifiable" is all a matter of PoV... many poor muslims see their social situation in part as a result of exploitation by the western world and by the US, among other countries, supporting the leadership in many of their countries that is very far from democratic... you can argue whether this perception is right or wrong, but give the last few hundred years of history only a fool would say it is completely unfounded

The fact that point of view is so closely bound up with justification is why I have often said I find many Muslim terrorists' behavior understandable. When I put myself in their places and impose upon myself the beliefs that they hold, I think the way they behave and the things they do are very logical. To many of them, they must also seem good.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I happen to believe that preemptive strike can be an intelligent way to go. If someone is planning to kill you, striking at him first means that you are less likely to be hurt yourself.

I don't disagree with that but it is not, I think, the issue here. In the event that a preemtive strike against a foreign ruler becomes necesary then it should be done by gouverments, not called on by public religious figures whose own religion preaches against violence and striking at people. That's a little hypocritical in my eyes.

I think Mr. Robertson agrees with you though. He has said it isn't right for him to call people to kill, and he has apologized.

Glad to hear it.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't think he was saying that, Eärniel. [..]

I am well aware of that but that's not what it's about. Regardless of whether the to-be-gunned-down victim is innocent or guilty, it is NOT the job of public religious figures to abuse their influence and ability to reach many people to deal out such death and judgement! That is the justice's department or the duty of the international community, regardless of their often flawed nature.

My main point is that a religious figure, in MY opinion, has no place to dictate such judgement on political affairs or political figures. I quite agree with their right to announce crimes to the world and put injustices in the lime-light. But I DISAGREE with their right to announce that foreign political leaders should either be shot or forcefully removed. And seen the influence religious figures often have or can have on their followers, I would find such actions or demands totally irresponsible from their part.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I am well aware of that but that's not what it's about.

I misunderstood your objection, then - sorry

Regardless of whether the to-be-gunned-down victim is innocent or guilty, it is NOT the job of public religious figures to abuse their influence and ability to reach many people to deal out such death and judgement! That is the justice's department or the duty of the international community, regardless of their often flawed nature.

If you would change "public religious figures" to "public figures", then I would agree with you.

I see what you're saying, and I imagine we agree to a large extent.

[Lief Erikson]

I would agree with you also, Eärniel. I said twice earlier on this thread that the main problem I had with what Mr. Robertson said is not so much what he said as that he said it. He can have this opinion. Talking about his feelings regarding Chavez in private with friends too is all right. But using his position in the way he did was out of place.

EDIT: However, I do not think that this issue is a matter where separation of Church & State applies.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I misunderstood your objection, then - sorry

No problem.

If you would change "public religious figures" to "public figures", then I would agree with you.

Oh, it goes for public figures too, but somehow I think it's worse when done by religious public figures. Somehow I think they at least should know better (at least on our 'civilised' west).

[inked]

Actions speak louder than words:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1125831262546


...especially when the public does the acting!

[Lief Erikson]

A part of the public, anyway.