What Does the Religion of Peace Teach about Violence?

Okay, once again on social media I encountered a provocative political video posted by a longtime friend. The video was to essentially show how Muslims and Islam are the reasons for all of our problems here on US soil. In other words, a precursor to a head-desk moment.

To encapsulate, in the video, a young Muslim woman who identifies as a student asks a female journalist the following question:

"How can we fight an ideological war with weapons?" 

Now, the station producing the video is of course of the Right Wing flavor. In other words, it should now make perfect sense when I tell you that the female journalist goes on 5 minute rant but doesn't scratch the surface in answering the young woman's question. Zero; zip; nadda in the way of a direct answer to the question. But, okay, whatever.....par for the course. 

I don't want to focus on the video so much as I want to focus on what was posted in response to the video. To set up the encounter, an acquaintance of the guy who posted the video chimed in and posted a link to a website called, "The Religion of Peace"(addy: TheRelgionofPeace.com).

The title of the referenced article is, What Does the Religion of Peace Teach about Violence? 

'Ironic that both Christianity and Islam think of themselves as a "Religion of Peace", both taking the self-righteous attitude that.... Oh, it's the 'other guy who's the problem. But again, par for the course.

In any case, I thought that if someone was going to selectively extract the most violent and gruesome verses from the Qu'ran - in other words, if someone was going to cherry-pick verses to suit their agenda - then to give a fair and balanced perspective, we need to also point out that the same can be done with the Bible. And, well, that's precisely what I did, remarking......

"So, you cherry picked some verses that show violence, did you? The same can be done with the Bible."

Concluding with.....

 "So, no, the problem isn't just with 'The Quran's Verses of Violence.' The problem is the belief that certain books contain information "from Above" regarding the way we are to live our lives and treat others, etc., and unfortunately, a few of those books instruct to kill the infidel. One such book even talks about dashing the heads of your enemy's children against rocks. It doesn't get much more violent than that."

The person who posted the link and the guy who was now attempting to defend the Bible(I'll call him "Blake") responded with the following.....

"Nothing in the New Testament instructs believers to convert or kill non believers. Your example is from the Old Testament and is in a closed ended historical context. Evidently you failed to read the entire link and the additional links within"

RE: point # 1, um, yes, in fact there are passages in the NT that talk about killing non-Christians. One such passage is in Luke, where Jesus advocates, if not requires, that any person who does not want to be his "disciple" be brought before him and slain. I give you that unequivocal passage now....

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. ~ Luke 19:27(KJV)

"Blake" then gave a defense that this was a "bad example", arguing that it was in third person and was  "parable". Okay? So? It's "parable". But it's evidently a parable that uses VIOLENCE to make a finer point or to illustrate a poetic truth. In other words, "Blake" offered a red herring. He offered a tangential point of no practical value, a point that doesn't negate the fact that passages in the Bible contain violence.

And now is a good time to delineate what my argument is, and what it is not:

What I am arguing: I am contending that, in the same way that people can go into the Qu'ran and extract passages that depict violence, to include, but not limit to, the condoned killing of all non-Muslims, people can likewise go into the Bible and find passages that are equally violent. The Bible contains passages that are every bit as violent as any of those found in the Qu'ran. That is my argument.

What I am not arguing: I am not contending, asserting, suggesting, nor arguing that passages in the Bible depicting violence are inciting today's Christians to commit acts of violence, albeit, I contend that elements of the Christian philosophy influence certain individuals to commit violence..e.g...a Christian gunman believing that he is doing "God's Will" by shooting up an abortion clinic.

RE: point # 2,  the point of contention or apologetic that the OT no longer applies because the NT(i.e.."Jesus") made it obsolete is a debatable topic in itself. To avoid going down that path, I simply concede that point, and move on to the NT. After all, the NT is replete with barbarism, threats of bodily harm for noncompliance, and just downright stupid advice. Note, I'm not saying there aren't some gems in there. But it's not gems, exclusively.

RE: point # 3,  True, I did not read the entire link. Why? Well, for starers, I know all about how and why Christians believe that the OT no longer applies. How do I know? Simple, I was a Christian for 2/3rds of my life and I believed and spouted the same dishonest Christian apologetic..i.e..that the "Old Law" no longer applies, because Jesus!!! Yep, even as a believer I knew something was amiss, because then that meant that the "Commandments" were "Old Law", too.....you know, for the Jews? Excuse my French, but what utter guano..i.e..shit. This is especially true when factoring in Jesus' (supposed) own words in Matthew 5:18. But alas, there's an apologetic for that, too. It's utter insanity. The mental gymnastics required to reconcile it all are insanity.

Moving on, the second reason that I didn't read the whole link was because of some remarks I saw from the get-go. That is, the website in question, the one that amusingly claims not to represent any particular religion(true story), starts out by extracting two of the most vile, barbaric, violent passages they can find from the Qu'ran, passages that are presumably from "Allah" himself. Then what do they do next?? Lo and behold, they juxtapose those two passages with a passage that is (presumably) Jesus' own words, and that passage is the whole "love your neighbor" rigmarole.

Now, did you catch that? Well, of course you caught it! Yes, the website that claims to be "neutral" and to not represent any one particular religion, disingenuously compares the worst passages that they can find from the Qu'ran, and then they contrast them with the best, "Jesus meek'n mild" passage they can find from their Bible. Un-flippin'-believable. And yes, any "source" that attempts such downright dishonesty does not deserve me as their readership. I make no bones about it: To hell with that "source" and others like it. I am being completely reasonable to be skeptical of such tactics, and frankly, when apologists attempt this crap, I am being reasonable to dismiss them out of hand.

Throughout the discussion, "Blake" employs the disingenuous(and fallacious) tactic of moving the goal posts. In other words, his criteria changes slightly with every single post. First, it's "Show me the violent verses".

Check, criteria met.

Next, *"Okay, then show me the violent verses in the New Testament".

Check, criteria met.

Next, it's.. *"Show me where Christians are following the commands".

*Quotations denote a paraphrasing.

Well, while it would admittedly be difficult to show how Christians are bringing non-believers to Jesus to slay them before him, mainly because Jesus is a perpetual no-show(or doesn't exist), I can provide mounds of evidence that there does exist cases of Christian terrorism, and in fact, many of the most extreme instances of terrorism committed on US soil have been done by Christian extremists. This is factual data that anyone can research, mind you.

So, in closing, the underlying problem, and in fact what I contend is the the bigger picture, is that there are Muslims and Christians who follow their respective "holy" books a little too closely. We have Christians using their bibles as a license to blow up federal buildings, to bomb and shoot up clinics that perform abortion, and to overtake government dwellings, threatening violence if anyone confronts them.

We don't have a "Muslim" problem, "Blake"(and people like "Blake"); we have a religious certainty problem.