Hafner: When religion becomes an issue

And don't forget the crusades. When the Crusaders took Jerusalem, they slaughtered so many people that the streets literally ran ankle deep with blood.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by reuben on November 14, 2009 at 10:19 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hafner: When religion becomes an issue

Honestly, this seems to be a fairly accurate evaluation. Stress does strange things to the mind, and it seems likely that Major Hasan's religious beliefs could have been the place where the stress found its outlet. Things that he would have previously deemed unconscionable suddenly became his actions because the stress of (a) having to fight people of his own religion, (b) having to fight a war he did not believe in, (c) having to go into a war zone in the first place and (d) just the stress of counseling soldiers could very easily have combined into a force that simply overwhelmed his mental barriers. Once that is done, once a break-down is accomplished, then that person becomes capable of many horrible things.

And it is very true that the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not support terrorism, just as the overwhelming majority of Christians do not support hatred of homosexuals. I actually think this is a decent comparison, though the examples work for different reasons. Major Hasan likely did his act out of a mental breakdown, but Fred Phelps does his things with his mental facilities in place. A more accurate Muslim to compare Fred Phelps with would probably be someone like Ayatollah Khomeini, except that Fred Phelps doesn't have a comparable political sway. But they are more alike because they both act out of hate, with sound minds.

As to which religion is better, well, that's a fruitless endeavor. Though I am Christian, and believe that Christianity is the true religion, and I do acknowledge that Islam was founded on holy war, well, Christianity doesn't exactly have a flawless reputation. Though most of the abuses in the Catholic Church were committed out of political and other such selfish reasons, rather than religious ones, the simple fact is that there have been people throughout Christian history that have done terrible things in the name of Jesus; there were even those who have done such things truly believing it was what Jesus wanted.

However, I would caution against such statements as "All the Abrahamic religions are marked by violence and a 'god is on our side' mentality which allows and even justifies the grossest atrocities against innocent people." If you want to do history, you cannot judge the acts of the past through the lens of today. The actions in the Old Testament reflect God, yes, but they also reflect the cultures of the times in which they happened.

The Old Testament doesn't just record the Godly things people did, it records the bad things, too. You cannot judge a person's actions in the Old Testament by today's Western, pacifistic standards. You have to understand their culture, and specifically the author, and then read and try to pull out what the author is actually saying about that person's actions. And until you do that, all you're doing is looking back over history, and over religions, and saying how much better you are than them.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by HoratioSans on November 14, 2009 at 2:07 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hafner: When religion becomes an issue

Why is it that any time someone references the crusades, they single out instances of Christian violence? You all are aware that Muslims committed heinous and extensive acts of violence as well, correct? Why are they given a pass?

And yes, the crusades constituted a defensive campaign that only arose after Islamic armies (note: not missionaries) conquered and subjugated Christian lands. Keep in mind too that this pattern of violent expansion wasn’t limited to the Middle East. North Africa was Christian before it too was overcome by the sword—and it only took the Islamic forces (again, not missionaries) about two generations to complete.

Every time an Islamist attacks and kills innocent people, there's always someone on the sidelines shouting "but remember how terrible Christians were during the crusades!" It's a tired refrain and devoid of perspective.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by RTBatKU on November 16, 2009 at 1:38 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hafner: When religion becomes an issue

glenjamin,

Your analysis that the Christian crusades to the Holy Land was somehow provoked by muslim crusades is ridiculous. Christian nations were moving in on North Africa and trying to seize gold and other resources they could find there. Your opinion that somehow it justified retaliation is ridiculous. The Christian nations moved in on North Africa and were decimated by Almarovid forces. The Pope in response ordered a crusade on Jerusalem where western nations killed everyone in sight. You and your friends who think that Islamic forces destroyed Christian nations in North Africa is silly. The land had no unifying force and was divided along class, race and religion beforehand. There is no way to justify the utter destruction that was laid upon all people in Jerusalem with the arrival of the first, second and third (all unsuccessful) crusades.

I do own a Bible and read it regularly. Those references are there. The references are there and you know it. God will lay upon great wrath for the unchosen.

And your continued public distaste for muslims only sets up a poor situation in the future. Islam is the fastest growing religion not only in the world but in the United States. Conservative groups who continue to use racial undertones to fuel hatred for muslims will only continue to marginalize themselves.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by selliott on November 17, 2009 at 1:47 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hafner: When religion becomes an issue

Dear Selliott,

To paraphrase Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

The analysis presented previously on North Africa and the Crusades is far from ridiculous. As you probably know, North Africa was a Roman (later Byzantine) province. Aurelius Augustinus (better know as the Christian Saint Augustine) was born in what is now Algeria in 354 AD (note: well before the rise of Islam). Almost three centuries later, the Islamic forces arrived (roughly 640 AD) in North Africa and subjugated most of the entire region by 670 AD.

More than four hundred years later, Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade, and he only did that after a full two-thirds of Christian lands were similarly subjugated. Contrary to your implications, the Pope was really spurred to action by the Islamic attacks on Christian lands in present-day Turkey (remember, Istanbul is really just the re-named Constantinople)—not the brutal conquest of North Africa (though I imagine he took those earlier atrocities into account). Have you ever read about how the newly-conquered Christian slaves were treated by their Islamic captors? Pretty sobering, indeed sad, material.

It is in this sense that the Crusades were defensive in nature. And keep in mind, despite having the last Crusader remnants dispatched from the Middle East in 1291, Islamic expansion (the Islamic Crusades?) did not end. Remember, in addition to North Africa and the Middle East, the countries eventually forced to endure Islamic subjugation included Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia and much of Germany.

By reviewing this history, I am not seeking to diminish or excuse wrongs committed in the attempted reclamation of the Holy Lands. I simply seek to provide some context, which I see too-often ignored in these discussions.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by RTBatKU on November 17, 2009 at 3:25 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hafner: When religion becomes an issue

And yet none of this justifies, by today's standards, the actions of either side. The Muslim invasion of North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, and the Byzantine Empire still does not justify the slaughter of Jerusalem. Nor does the slaughter of Jerusalem justify the execution of prisoners and the the slaughter of the Christian inhabitants of many cities when they were taken by Muslims. Both sides did all those things, and numerous times.

The simple fact is that they fit the mold of the wars of their times: savage, brutal, and careless of civilians. I mean, the Crusader army didn't just kill Muslims when it took Jerusalem, it killed pretty much anybody not wearing the red cross of the crusade. The soldiers slaughtered Jews, Muslims and even Christians - they couldn't tell them apart, nor did they care. They were an army comprised of men who had just marched from France all the way around the Mediterranean to Constantinople, then down to Jerusalem, and from Constantinople on, they had been subject to ambush and dehydration. When they finally took their objective, they let out all the hate that had been building along the entire war. And that is really how most wars of the era went, regardless of people group or religion. They fought their way to their objective, took it, and then did as they pleased with it.

And no action of the past justifies hatred now or in the future. People wonder why the Middle East is in such conflict; it's because of this same thing. The Middle Eastern cultures are steeped in their history, and they don't let it go. We see this in Israel. The Israelis hate the Palestinians because they occupied the land after their ancestors were taken from it. The Palestinians hate the Israelis because they occupied the land after the UN took it from the Palestinians. So they fight, and they kill each other, which leads to more incidents upon which they look and justify their hatred now. And in America, we look at it and say, "Let the past go, learn to live with each other." But you're all doing the very same thing. You're hating each other because of the actions of ancestors dead almost a thousand years! That is pointless, that is asinine, and, for us Christians, that is unacceptable by the teachings of Jesus and thus totally against our religion.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by HoratioSans on November 18, 2009 at 12:46 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hafner: When religion becomes an issue

Dear Horatio:

No one here is hating each other because of the ancient actions of others—consequently, your lecturing is premature. The entire historical discourse here was meant to add context to a current issue. Would you have us ignore history in evaluating the present?

Having accused us (or maybe just me) of being asinine, let me now ask you a few questions to challenge your own assertions.

Why are you so quick to presume that Major Hasan would have previously deemed his mass murder unconscionable? Does his documented history of communicating with al Qaeda and extremist imams mitigate against such a position? What about his comments to other medical providers about how infidels should be treated—comments he made at a medical conference?

According to you, “Major Hassan likely did his act out of a mental breakdown.” You really have no basis for this—it’s pure conjecture on your part. Worse, your conjecture requires looking past the fact that he declared “allahu Akbar” during his attack. Guess who else follows this exact same pattern? That’s right, al Qaeda and other Islamic militants engaged in the act of violence.

Even if your statement that “it is very true that the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not support terrorism” (another unsubstantiated claim, but I believe you are probably correct), aren’t you concerned that a minority of them do? If a minority of Christians hate homosexuals, that may spell hurt feelings for some in the future. But if a minority of Muslims embrace terrorism, that may spell the deaths of thousands in the future. I’m not sure your moral equivalency of the two groups holds much water.

You are clearly a very thoughtful and intelligent person. By posing these questions, I am not trying to demean you in any way—I just think these are important points that should not be glossed over, or worse, presumed.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by RTBatKU on November 18, 2009 at 11:40 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hafner: When religion becomes an issue

As Bob Saget, I yell from my computer post inside Club Anschutz with the voice of reason. The same voice that united Deej, Steph and Michelle, as well as the same rational voice cleaning away gray areas to reveal the pristine black and white.

Hear me roar. reasonably.

First, may I say the best part of this story's headline is the "Hafner." You know the whole 'guns don't kill people. people kill people." concept? Well, lets take that concept and turn religion into guns (unintended morbidity/slight appreciation for the Saget wit). The point is, religion is not the issue. The people are the issue. Self-interested humanity subconsciously operating on ethics of egoism.

Second, I'd like to buy RTBatKU a draank in Club Auschwitz for wiping away tunnel-visioned ignorance with unarguable history. "By reviewing this history, I am not seeking to diminish or excuse wrongs committed in the attempted reclamation of the Holy Lands. I simply seek to provide some context, which I see too-often ignored in these discussions."

Then I would like to shed the hold-that-thought light on HoratioSans for his poorly-supported Middle Eastern conflict theory, dripping with U.S. ignorance, and kicking it up a notch by suggesting they just "let it go." "People wonder why the Middle East is in such conflict; it's because of this same thing. The Middle Eastern cultures are steeped in their history, and they don't let it go."

Right you are on the Middle Eastern tea bag of Cultures steeping itself silly in their history--so silly that the upheaval of this region ensuing the catastrophic history leaves some so incredibly desperate to reestablish the society they had prior to Western interference that it's manifested in Islamic Extremism/Radical Muslims. This is a minority and an extremity within the Muslim faith itself.

To the handful of thought-provoking folk looking out for Islam and hurt feelings, perhaps the real issue is not the presence of Radical Muslims and their doctrine linked to terrorism in the US, Europe, Africa, Euras- oh heck. Pretty much all over the globe according to the extremist's doctrine... .................[see below for Saget excess].............

• Upvote 0
• Posted by bobsaget on November 18, 2009 at 9:43 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hafner: When religion becomes an issue

...BUT rather that the issue lies in the ignorance and audacity of he who passes judgment, presumably associating the two so closely. Judge, discern, stereotype, exercise your first amendment day to night, but don't jump too high without a foundation padded with fluffy historical knowledge, understanding of INDIVIDUAL AND NATIONAL IDENTITY, as well the components encompassed by these (culture, religion, history, social norms, etc.--none of which can just be "let go") and to really break your ballsy fall, some GRATITUDE for the freedoms, rights and opportunities so prevalent in the United States. So prevalent, perhaps, that they often get taken advantage of; thus, the evolution of an ignorant society getting smashed under the Western bus, flattening the peoples like one-dimensional pancakes. Whether you followed that Sagetry or not, an ignorant one-dimensional pancake is good for ultimately nothing. That's why crepes keep to themselves over in France. blahahaha Blasted Saget joke.

Just as a crazy Hindu might see American cattle farmers as overall wicked Mad Cow-infested fools (Sagetry in pun form: Overall. the Midwest's flap-adorned onezie & an adverb denoting amount of wicked), a crazy Jew calls any candle with fewer than seven branches pure evil Satan fire and considers a BarMitzvah-less male an emasculated man-tween with a the prepubescent squeaky voice to boot, a crazy Christian isolates himself in a pious bubble of expanding hypocrisy (think veruca salt Bubblegum expansion here) alongside fellow believers who confuse world issues with a court case and themselves with Judge Judy (Mike TV?), and lastly... the crazies so sick of religion they're on the brink of following Oprah yet not too sick of it to make self-interested arguments defending their beliefs in the existence of nothingness--esentially an argument for nothing-- the atheists play Oompa Loompa an attempt to rid the religious wonka factory of the crazies, especially the big blue bubble. Madness isn't it? Any decent person, regardless of national and social identity, will research the madness of the bubble, oompas and the other radical crazies; in turn, achieving Wonka High Roller status established by the grateful and perceptive blonde Jonas Brother look-alike Charlie Bucket. I cannot continue this metaphor for the noble Wonka High Roller cannot inherit the factory--far too Hitler-esque. Yes, I just aligned world religions with self-indulgent ignorant candy fiends. It's Anschutz club drug talking.

Also, pure Saget disapproval: "LUMPING" is a terrible verb to explain association and parallels between social, political and religious groups. They are not sour milk, coal in a stocking or any other unappealing lumpables.

Meet in da club. the voice of reason, Bob Saget.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by bobsaget on November 18, 2009 at 9:44 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hafner: When religion becomes an issue

nobody expects the spanish inquisition!

• Upvote 0
• Posted by timeeeee on November 19, 2009 at 12:34 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hafner: When religion becomes an issue

@RT: First, I apologize for poor wording. I did not mean to call anyone asinine, just the behavior of hating each other over centuries-dead events. And I wish to make clear I don't think most people who comment here are stupid, though all of us (me included) are quite capable of acting stupid at times. Secondly, thank you for being rational and polite :D

It was not my intention to assume that Maj. Hasan was suffering from a mental breakdown. Rather it was my intention to show that it was quite possible, since, "investigators concluded that while Hasan had grown increasingly opposed to U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and his impending deployment there, little evidence for the shooting’s motivation points to any sort of terrorist plot. Instead, the evidence points to pressures of Hasan’s own mental health and religious ideology." I was attempting to explain why such a thing possible, even likely, rather than him, in full rational capabilities, deciding to commit a terrorist act. And (I can't remember which of you pointed this bit out) his exclamation "God is great" doesn't necessarily mean that he was a member of a terrorist group; since the foundation of the faith, Muslims have declared that as they went into battle, which is something the terrorists picked up and used. And even though he was evoking it as a terrorist, if he was in poor mental health, that could simply be a result of the strange workings going on in his brain, that he chose to mimic the Muslim extremist terrorists. Again, I wish to state: I make no claim that this is the way it was; I merely try to explain how it might have been, and how people have no need to jump to the conclusion that all Muslims are terrorists because of what he did.

I do not see your basis for saying that, when Christians hate people, they don't kill them. I mean, the IRA still is fighting in North Ireland to kill Protestants, and the Protestants are still killing Catholics. It's not nearly as bad as it was in the 70s-90s, but such conflict still goes on. I see it as entirely possible that some people, who claim to be Christian, or even are Christian and simply mislead, could kill homosexuals. I mean, just this year, someone murdered Kansas' leading late-term abortion doctor while he was in church. Not everyone claiming to be Christian is Christian, and not all Christians are pacifists. When it comes down to it, even Christians are human and thus are capable of murder. Not that that's Christian behavior, but I have yet to meet a Christian that acts as a Christian should at all times, and I confess that I am not one such person, either.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by HoratioSans on November 25, 2009 at 6:16 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hafner: When religion becomes an issue

[continued. Sorry for long-windedness]

As to my lecture being premature, perhaps it was. I have no problem with discussing history and historical context (I rather enjoy history, especially since it can grant insights into the present). However, what I read, or at least how it struck me as I read it (and remember, print is a medium in which body language and vocal tone are absent, so it is prone to misinterpretation), I did not truly see history, I saw finger pointing. What the previous posts looked like to me was a long argument that amounted to, "Well, Christians struck first!" "No, Muslims struck first!" "Crusades!" "Jihad and the foundation of Islam!" Such an argument demeans all parties involved, is very hateful and, as I said, is asinine. But perhaps I misinterpreted what I read. I'm entirely open to that.

@Bobsaget: My statement that the Middle-Eastern conflict(s) are caused by those cultures never letting history go... that was never meant to be the full reason the conflicts continue. It is A reason. My apologies if I presented that poorly. I do not address other reasons because they are not pertinent at the moment. As to the "let it go" thing; that was sarcastic. Yes, if both sides just let things drop, forgave each other, and learned to live in harmony, the Middle East would (by definition) be at peace. However, that is never going to happen. I apologize again for wording it poorly, that I allowed you to think I was suggesting a viable solution; I would never even dream that the Middle East would just suddenly be like, "What are we even fighting about? Let's go get some tea and smoke a nice hookah." That's actually a highly amusing thought.

No, rather, I freely acknowledge the many levels of identity - individual, religious, national, and so on. There is much interplay in the Middle East between these things. Which is one reason I don't think the Middle East will ever be at peace; the individual may feel she or he is able to let things drop, but as a member of a religion (often enough in the Middle East, Sunni vs Shia), they feel the need to avenge wrongs done against their religion or sect. Then you get into the ethnic conflicts - Palestinians vs Jews, Kurds vs Turks and Arabs, etc. They, too, may feel that they can forgive wrongs against themselves, but they may feel the need to avenge deeds done against their people group.

As to the rest of your post... man, were you really tired when you wrote that? I can't follow it very well. You mostly seem to be talking about how mad the world is. Which I largely agree with (if that's truly what you are saying).

• Upvote 0
• Posted by HoratioSans on November 25, 2009 at 6:17 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal