Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (98637)	5/20/2003 6:34:06 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

the reason the Christians accepted it, when forced to, is that it is in the Bible. I'm not terribly familiar with the doctrines on either side, but I am painfully familiar with the history, and I know very well that when Christian religious leaders sought temporal power they never had any problem coming up with doctrinal justification. Christian groups that would like to see the current separation of Church and State ended have no problem citing kilometric Biblical passages in support of their view. Fortunately, because we have effective secular government, only the obsessed will ever listen. I am shaking my head as I write this, Atheist that I am, to find myself defending Christianity, but it has gone through a reformation and been domesticated. Precisely my point. Christianity, in its day, produced as much violence and as much oppression as Islam does today, until the rise of secular government forced the clerics out of power. Islam never will. Never is a big word. I'm sure a Jew living in Spain during the inquisition would have had a very hard time imagining the domesticated Christian churches of today. Islam will be domesticated: the question is when, and how violent the process will be. Any exclusivist and/or absolutist ideology, whether religious or secular, carries in it the seeds of tyranny. The trick is not to select the "right" exclusivist/absolutist ideology, but to prevent any of them from achieving power.

To: LindyBill who wrote (98637)	5/20/2003 11:45:24 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Damnit, Steve, the reason the Christians accepted it, when forced to, is that it is in the Bible. There is no such thing in the Koran. That is difference between the two. The argument that Christianity=Islam is not true. Bill, This is just not going to hold water until you distinguish between the present and the past and find some time line to demarcate the two. The history of Christianity in the west is replete with state theocracies. Calvin is only one source; the Puritans tried such here. It's not a doctrinal thing that does it; it's the history of the evolution of the strong state. If you are arguing, as in the second part, about the present, that's a different matter. I think the matters more complicated, by a great deal, than you make it. The Koran is too straightforward on it's goals. All we can do is hope that the moderate Clerics prevail. More than a little bit of contradiction here. If "moderate" clerics can state theological doctrine with widespread credibility, it must be the case that the "Koran" is not only not straightforward but capable of multiple interpretations. Just like the founding document of most religions.