"No Compulsion In Religion"?  

Posted by Devin Parker

As Doug Ten Napel, who highlighted this article, said:

So we liberate Afghanistan, then they are free to give Christians the death penalty. Why is that when all of Islam is painted as anti-Christian or anti-Semitic, the moderates are quick to say that we're slandering an entire religion with the actions of a few intolerant radicals? Well, this isn't a terrorist, this is a government court torn between Western ideals of freedom and Sharia law. Didn't these guys read the verse the moderates keep quoting to our media, "There can be no compulsion in religion" and "Islam is a religion of peace"? Well an entire Afghani court system (as well as every other Muslim country) doesn't watch CNN.

I would highly recommend listening to the "Way of the Master Radio" broadcast of January 23, in which Todd interviews a former Islamic terrorist who has become a Christian [I'd give you a link, but there seems to be something wrong with the download part of their website this morning - I have a link to their general website in my Links column, hopefully they'll get it back up quickly]. He touches on a lot of the aforementioned false perceptions of Islam. Given what a lot of Americans think Christianity is all about (the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally; salvation comes as a result of being a generally nice person; God will forgive everyone's sins because He's 'loving', etc.), I'm in no way surprised by the fact that many Muslims don't really believe/practice what the Quran teaches.

Make sure to pray for our brothers and sisters across the world who regularly face torture and death for their decision to recognize and follow the Lord of Creation. Unfortunately, Rahman is far from being the exception to the rule.

This entry was posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 at Monday, March 20, 2006 . You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments feed .

15 comments

Anonymous  

Hmmm, wasn't there a time when Christians were murdering people for heresy, with the support of government?

Oh yeah, it was long ago (for the most part), so that makes it different. I think not--every religion seems to have a capacity for being used to justify questionable actions, whether it's duping people into giving their money to a rich TV evangelist, or murdering someone in the name of God. This is much of the reason I choose not to follow any one belief system.

Devin, I would really like to see you post something positive regarding religion instead of continual attacks on others. What about the love, charity and good works that's supposed to be a part of Christianity? Or if you're going to be angry, then focus on the fellow humans who lack food, shelter, and health care in a country as rich as the U.S.

Do I think it's OK that the guy was murdered for his religious beliefs? Of course not. But you are just perpetuating the hatred and intolerance.

4:13 PM
Anonymous  

Kham,

I know that you aren’t reducing your arguments here to just Medieval Christianity, but you have made such references in the past. So I thought it was fair to point this out:

Christianity entered into a world in which wars and invasions were constant. In the Early Middle Ages, there was a pressing need for society to re-organize, and form new governments. Much of the population had come out of slavery, and was uneducated and ignorant. There were none of the easy forms of communication (such as television or internet) that exist today. Plague and sickness were also constant realities. Medieval society was, at times, literally fighting for its life.

Yet, Christian society in the Middle Ages was able to overcome all of these obstacles (A task we can hardly begin to appreciate). It was Christians who established schools, and hospitals (that were open to everyone) in Medieval Europe. During the Middle Ages, private warfare was put to an end, and slavery was abolished. All of the corporal acts of mercy that you described (such as charity, and good works, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, etc.) were practiced in Medieval Europe by Christians.

Even with a topic as notorious as the Inquisition, we shouldn’t impose quick judgments, but should take time to study it before condemning it outright. Out of curiosity, I started studying the inquisition a few months back, and I’ve learned quite a bit. For one thing, the whole institution was started in order to put an end to mob justice. It replaced mob violence (or at least was intended to). I never knew that before, but it makes sense. The accused were provided with a defender (lawyer), and were presented with an account of the accusations against them, in order that they could prepare a defense in advance. There’s a ton of first-hand source information to shed light on the subject (the cases were recorded in detail, and kept as files), so we know that the extent of executions under various inquisitions were far fewer than they have often been portrayed to have been (Something like a little over 1% overall). I’m not saying that the institution was perfect, or that it was executed flawlessly (even our court system today can’t claim that), but the court system of the Middle Ages was prolific-- definitely a step in the right direction.

In fact, one could argue that, Medieval Christians were a driving force behind the eventual demise of many horrible practices that preceded them. We owe more than we think (I think) to Medieval Christianity. Just because we know things now that they didn’t know then doesn’t give us a right to sell Medieval Christians short.

I'm not trying to justify heinous actions taken by some Christians throughout history. I’ll admit; Christians aren’t perfect. But our principles are good, and, I think, overall we’ve learned from our mistakes. Hopefully, the Islamic culture of the Middle East will be able to do the same, in time.

Take care, Bro.
Dan

6:17 PM

I think your words may be wasted, Dan.

Kham, your only intent is clearly to make an attack on Christianity; if the modern institution doesn't provide you with an easy target, you'll dig back to find some issue from the distant past and dredge it up, as if it had anything in the world to do with our faith. We argued for ages about this earlier, and you clearly ignore all points we attempt to make to keep your pasteboard two-dimensional charicature of Christianity intact.

You'll notice that we don't jump on news items about atheists or agnostics and somehow attempt to make out all followers of those belief systems into mindless drones or violent torturers. Shall we bring up Soviet Russia or Communist China as shining examples of secular humanism at its best every time you speak?

I'm afraid Silverback was right--no amount of discussion will move you when all you want to do is attack. Feel free, but a broken record grows very tiresome to listen to.

9:32 PM
Anonymous  

My point is, attacking is all that Devin seems to do. Why not let him answer to that?

9:33 AM

He can. As I said, anyone's free to answer as they'd like.

9:42 AM
Anonymous  

Inheritor: I believe if you delve into the Old Testament you will find a good number of inappropriate reasons to kill someone...
But obviously the world has changed so not everything should be taken word for word (though some choose to).

Dan: I really like your last line about hoping Islam will be able to progress. The part of the world where Islam is most prevalent has not progressed from the Middle Ages in some ways, so perhaps with cultural progress Islam will also move forward. The tone I hear from Devin is comdemnation rather than hope, which accomplishes nothing.

I have said it before, but I have no specific issue with just Christianity, rather it's organized religion as a whole because of the way it can be (and is regularly) manipulated. I had a wonderful Catholic experience myself and have really nothing but good memories (besides sitting in uncomfortable pews). I just don't like people attacking other people's beliefs instead of focusing on ways they can improve themselves.

Mike: How is it you call me the attacker, when all I'm doing is responding to Devin's attack with the point of view from the other side? I would never post anything about religion on my own initiative--leave and let live--but I don't think it's OK to attack someone else's beliefs and go unchallenged.

3:08 PM

Devin: "Religion X is sacrificing babies on altars made of the bones of puppies while smoking crack and selling their wives into prostitution. I think that's horrible and wrong."

Kham: "Oh, sure, like no Christian has ever hurt a baby. Why can't you say something positive about others?"

A charicature, yes, but you have yet to make a post that does not in some way attempt to undercut what a justifiable position by, in essence, saying it's hypocritical for a Christian to take a stance against anything because at some point Christians have been guilty of the same thing (often ignoring cultural and temporal context that renders the events entirely dissimilar; at times the accusations are so vague as to be useless). Perhaps it's simply because Devin is a Christian and making the argument. Perhaps you'd similarly always look for some point on which to call a Muslim or a Hindu if you were responding to a blog by someone of those faiths; however, all I've seen on these blogs is a constant repetition of "Christians can't condemn other faiths because people who claim to be Christian have done the same thing in the past."

Imagine this scenario:

Kham: "The political climate in many South American countries is awful--corruption and despotism are running amuck. People are starving in the streets and corporations are ruining the environment. Our country ought to cut ties and impose sanctions on those governments until they shape up."

Michael: Oh, right, Kham. Like no American has ever mistreated the poor or been part of a big corporation. Every country has a right to be run as the people in that country see fit, and no one should be able to judge them. I'd like to see you say something nice about corrupt governments, rather than just attacking them all the time."

The social ills you decry in your first post ("the fellow humans who lack food, shelter, and health care in a country as rich as the U.S.") are no different than the social ills Devin is decrying (say, the fellow humans who labor under repressive religious laws and are ostracized, maimed, and killed in places as regressive as Afghanistan and Iran) except that they matter more to you than issues of faith. How is your "attack" on US policy on the poor any more progressive than Devin's on foriegn policy on religious matters?

If we want to stick to your "la la la, everyone is right in their own way, let's say positive things about each other because negativity never helps" doctrine, shouldn't you be saying nice things about how hard Americans are trying to combat poverty? If you're allowed to condemn, why are we not?

You say, "Do I think it's OK that the guy was murdered for his religious beliefs? Of course not." Yet you devote far more time to challenging Devin for condemning this practice than you do disapproving the actions of the people who carried out the murder. You liken TV evangelists "duping people into giving their money" to "murdering someone in the name of God" as if they were in some way comparable crimes. That you could think so chills me terribly. You write as though you were free from bias while we are blinded by it, when, of course, your biases are simply different than ours.

Garn it all--I've been drawn back into debating again. Bleh. Ala Michael Corleone, "Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in."

5:08 PM

Kham,

...every religion seems to have a capacity for being used to justify questionable actions...

I think this statement requires amendment: every person has this capacity. The Bible offers no justification for televangelists duping people; on the contrary, it offers dire warnings for people who commit such fraud in the name of God. It speaks at great length both about the corruption of every single human being and the fact that people disobey God constantly. Jesus was killed by some of them.

I will admit that I don't find a whole lot of positivity about a man being sentenced to death because of his decision to follow Christ. I'm not sure why you find my intolerance of this deed to be a problem, given that you seem to take issue with other injustices.

You're probably right in that I don't say a whole lot of positive things here that Christianity is doing in the world. Due to my schedule these days, I don't post very often, so I usually only post if I read something that makes me want to respond in some way. Additionally, in this particular situation, we as Christians are Biblically directed to pray for those fellow believers who face persecution, so I thought I'd provide a reference to those who might not have seen the story.

Fortunately, I can say something positive about it now: the Afghan government has decided to release the man due to "pressure from the West and other countries". Criticism isn't always a negative thing.

9:22 AM
Anonymous  

Mike,

You just love to turn things around--I never said "lalala everyone is right in their own way". My point was to find out why Devin never seems to post anything but condemnation of others who believe differently. The tone of Devin's posts seems to be anti-Islam, rather than focused against the groups who are carrying out the actions. He picks out the worst offenders to make his case--and I simply like to remind him that some people following his faith are subject to misdeeds. There will always be extremists--can you assure me that there are no Christians worldwide, who are out there killing people for not believing as they do? Perhaps it's not so obvious, but an Iraqi could argue the case that thousands of innocent Iraqis were killed by a Christian President--because he believes they should live as he sees fit. I'm not saying that's right--but you have to take into account opposing points of view or you are going to perpetuate problems between people.

By the way, Mike, I don't see Americans "fighting hard to combat poverty", as you claim. In your little world it might be easy for you to believe that. I think you can just look at the Katrina debacle and see how concerned we are about the poor--do you think if Orange County was hit by a hurricane like that there would be such a half-assed relief effort? Get a clue! Man, I prefer to keep these discussions civil and productive, but you just can't stay away from condescending pontification.

Unfortunately, as usual I have to wade through your posts to get to Devin's reply. Don't you have a book to write or something?

10:10 AM

So, Kham, are you saying that it is wrong to be anti-Islam? If you are then define anti-Islam. (Remember, Islam is not a person but one of those organized religions you love so much.) Is Devin supposed to love the precepts of Islam, is he supposed to agree with it, is he supposed to convert? I don't know what you want here other than to make Devin stop saying things you don't like.

Because if Devin's not allowed to dismiss the religion of Islam as sheer and utter nonsense and a lie of the devil that leads people nowhere but to eternal damnation, then so much for free will or even free speech. We all might as well be living in a police state.

You seem to lack the understanding of the foundation upon which Devin has built his life, absolute truth. In the mind of most Christians there is only one choice to make in life to either follow God or follow the devil. Christianity states that God is He who revealed Himself to Abraham as written in the Bible and came to Earth as the man known as Jesus Christ; and, any belief system other than this is of the devil and leads to eternal damnation. Devin is not anti-Islam so much as he is anti-Hell. Until you understand this basic premise of his faith you will most likely not understand anything else he says.

If you think that it is wrong for Devin to want people to spend eternity in heaven vs. hell, for him to want others to know the truth (as he sees it), then nothing he does or says will ever be acceptable to you.

If you still want to tell Devin he is wrong then I don't know whether to label you anti-Christian, anti-free speech, anti-truth, or just anti-Devin. For a guy who doesn't like organized religion you're sure quick to defend it (well, as long as it's not Christianity).

If you want to have a conversation with Devin and not the twelve people who read his blog I suggest you email him. Just remember he's busy with homework until after May 9th. I pretty much disallow him internet access from home until I KNOW his homework is done. Yeah, I'm evil that way. He was only able to post this because I wasn't home cracking the whip over his head.

3:14 PM
Anonymous  

Marilyn,

What I do understand, is that people like you, who believe they are always right no matter what, perpetuate human conflicts. Islamic fundamentalists are doing the same thing, they know they're right because of their "faith". So both groups will simply continue the cycle--there's no way to find common ground. As far as I can tell, the only solution in the mind of fundamentalists is elimination of opposing ideas.

This "absolute truth" you speak of is really the easy way out, you never have to critically consider complicated issues. "I'm right, you say, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. You will never learn anything, because you're not ever going to be open to learning anything or admitting mistakes.

And you can label me whatever the heck you want, because impressing you is the last thing I want to do.

10:08 AM

Kham,

One question. Are you not engaging in the exact behavior you accuse me and others of? ...thinking you're right and we are wrong...trying to eliminate our opposing ideas?

Let me just add one more thing. Absolute truth. There is nothing easy about absolute truth. Absolute truth demands we turn to the author of truth, to our creator, and admit we are wrong. In doing so we realize that we are not worthy of even the very gift of life let alone the free will to live it by our own choosing. Facing our own sin, death, and the ugliness of our hearts is never easy. It's hard and pride causes us much pain but the truth is greater than even my pride. Absolute truth disallows me the comfort of relying on my own judgment, I should constantly be critically analyzing every issue, complicated or not, against the standard of truth. Even if I may not always be successful in doing so. I don't think I am always right, in fact I am wrong on an hourly basis if not more often. I have made *huge* mistakes in my life and I still have a *lot* to learn. But I do believe with all my heart that God *is* right, that Christ is who He says He is and did what the Bible says He did. If my choice, if my belief is hard for you, I'm sorry, it's not easy for me either. Honestly, Christianity is hard. If I wanted an easy life Christianity would not be my first choice.

If I've offended you I don't think there is anything I can do about that; but, if I've hurt your feelings there is something I can do about that, which is apologize. I'm sorry if my comments have been hurtful to you. My form of sarcasm isn't instantly obvious and I shouldn't engage in it online. My comment about labeling you was meant to be a bit more tongue in cheek, a bit more wink-wink, nudge-nudge, than a full frontal assualt. None of my comments were intended to inform you of how horrible I think you are but rather more of a frustrated rant of hair-pulling and crying "won't you please understand!" Honestly, I think you are an intelligent, passionate, witty human being and it frustrates me beyond belief that we can't agree. I'm sure you must feel somewhat similarly in that respect.

If I'm going to be honest, my fist instinct after I read your post was to fire back a scathing and manipulative reply. But knowing that doing so would only "perpetuate human conflict" I put my hurt feelings away from me and looked into my heart and asked "how do I really feel about Kham?" Let me say this, I care more about you than about being right. I care more about what you think of God then what you think of me. The fact that I have to ask you not to judge Him by me makes me more mad at myself then you've ever been mad at me. I have wept tears over you this morning, Mr. Kham, and not because you don't want to impress me ;) I want you to know that I don't see this issue as so much of an I'm right/you're wrong issue as it is the prayer of my heart that we *both* honestly seek the truth and we *all* come to understand what is right.

12:38 PM
Anonymous  

I like the opportunity to give input on these discussions, but I'm thinking maybe it would be best for me to avoid the topics involving religion. I don't think we're going to get anywhere. To put it bluntly, I'm not convinced anyone in the world has got it exactly right.

Let's see, other fantasy books...

2:57 PM

I know thi spoint of view wasn't popular in the past debate but I can't help but notice it here again.

16 posts later and the conversation almost nothing about Devin's original, and valid point point. Instead it's several people defending Christianity against one guy who can occupy the entrie time with baseless accusation. You cna lead a horse to water...

But to those who are still tracking with the original point: I think we woudl do well to make fair distinctions between culture and religion. I think Kham's first response had some fair points. Any religion (or person as Devin pointed out) has the capacity for evil. Justifying that evil in the name of Gad or Allah doesn't make it not evil. But there we're talking about a pretty ephemeral philosophical question. It's not really about what TRUE Christianity is or what5 TRUE Islam is because those things are interpretive by their nature. I'm sure some folks could level scripturally based accusations of canibalism against Christians - and it's only AS Christians that we know that charge to be false. Similarly, the question of whether or not Islam "is a religion of peace" is an esoteric one that I'm frankly not qualified to answer since I'm not a Muslim.

What I AM qualifed to talk about, and what I think is a very pressing issue these days, is how cultures and individuals are acting. What they are doing and why? If the particular interpretation of a particular religion is driving these decisions it's worth understanding that. However I don't see any point in our tryign to decide if Isalm is a religion of peace or not. What's important is to know how these people are interpreting their own religion. Whether its radical Islam, moderate Islam, or watered down Islam - people ARE getting their heads sawn off on TV - that's dreadful. More to the point, in my mind it's a clear and present danger to my life and millions of others.

Likewise, Isalm only happens to be the focus of today's threat. It wasn't many years ago that the big threat was Communism, which just happens to be atheist, before that it was Nazism which is either pagan or Crristian depending on who you ask, before that, perhaps one would point to Imperialism in the hands of reportedly Christian nations. Our interpretation of our faith, just like every body else in the world, evolves as we try to work out the details in the very real, very messy world.

Right now, today, many people who are motivated by theri understanding of Islam, and also their understanding of Judaism and Christianity, have picked a fight with the Israel and the West in that order. That's the way I see it and I recognize that as a debatable position. THEY have mad it clear that religion is foundational to their cause. In such a case, I'm less concerned about defending my faith as I am about defending my life.

From where I sit, this is truly the conversation we need to have today - and not to get distracted by sniping.

There's my two cents...

3:19 PM
Anonymous  

While I don't see my points vs. religion as "baseless accusation", I will agree (as I stated in my last post) that that particular discussion is doomed to go no where on this board. Your suggestion to talk about the actions of cultures and individuals would likely be much more productive.

10:09 AM

Post a Comment