yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
I think BVS' basic point was that one can't make informed generalizations about the legalistic or doctrinal aspects of a particular religion--its code of conduct as most of its followers understand it--if all you've read of it is a translation of its primary scriptural text. If you've never studied Talmud and responsa literature, and try to get into making extensive generalizations about what Jewish law says concerning this or that based only on reading the 'Old Testament,' then much of what you say will sound pretty silly to anyone (Jewish or not) well-studied in Jewish law. If you've never studied the major hadith collections, and get into making generalizations about what Islamic law says concerning this or that based only on reading the Koran, then much of what you say will sound pretty silly to anyone well-studied in Islamic law. If you've never studied canon law and get into making generalizations about what Catholic doctrine says based only on reading the 'New Testament,' then much of what you say will sound pretty silly to anyone well-studied in canon law. Etc. etc. etc.
It would be rather like reading The Federalist Papers and on the basis of that considering yourself adequately equipped to mount an effective critical smackdown of contemporary American jurisprudence. While it's obviously true that any of the aforementioned texts can be and are in turn interpreted very differently by various sects, not to mention various individual 'experts,' that only increases the importance of having a solid background on the topic before you venture into the labyrinth.
None of which means that one can't argue against specific known legal or doctrinal principles based on reason alone (for example, forcing a 9-year-old raped by her stepfather to bear the resulting children is wrong because _________), nor that one isn't free to observe that such-and-such scriptural passage sounds appalling or ludicrous. It's when you make the leap to extrapolating, e.g., 'Islam teaches that the faithful should do X' based only on the latter that you get into problems.
Are you asking for instances of Christian terrorism? In addition to the strand of the 'militia movement' right here in the US that's affiliated with the 'Christian Identity' movement (most notably, the Aryan Nations), there are several international examples as well: the NLFT (Baptist separatist militants) and Isak-Muivah (Christian Maoist militants) in India's troubled northeast; the cult-like LRA guerrillas of Uganda, DR Congo and Sudan; and a variety of loosely organized, skinhead-type Russian Orthodox militants active in Russia (most prominently--outside Russia, anyway--the RNU, who briefly attracted international attention after bombing the US consulate in Yekaterinburg and a historic synagogue in Moscow). Some political scientists would also include Northern Ireland's various paramilitary groups on that list; I personally wouldn't, because at least at this point in time, that's IMO primarily a case of religious affiliation functioning as a proxy for what's fundamentally an ethnonational divide, rather than driving the conflict in itself by furnishing ideology and/or extensive institutional support (as is the case with the other groups I listed).
However, concerning the possibility of defining 'Christian violence' more broadly, it shouldn't be overlooked that many Muslims internationally perceive a lingering Crusades mentality--and/or an unholy Jewish-Christian alliance against Muslims--underlying the 'Global War on Terror.'
Last edited:
