[Vision2020] Christ is Commander-in-Chief

[Sunil Ramalingam]

If we simply apply broad labels, then the European theaters of World Wars I 
and II could be labeled as Christian violence.  I think that sort of 
analysis is as useless as what we see today with people labeled as Muslims.  
The social and political reasons for strife are more meaningful than simply 
applying religious labels.

I say that as someone whose family lived as Christians in a Muslim state 
(Malaysia) for 22 years.  I have Hindu friends who might be as willing to 
jump on the anti-Muslim bandwagon as some on this listserve, and I don't 
agree with them either; I think extremist Hindus in India are guilty of 
atrocities against Indian Muslims, and recently, and to a far lesser degree, 
against Christians.

There are very few groups that can claim to have caused no harm, or claim 
the moral high ground.  I don't think the labels applied to me would put me 
in that company.

Sunil


>From: "david sarff" <davesway at hotmail.com>
>To: jampot at adelphia.net, nickgier at adelphia.net, vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Christ is Commander-in-Chief
>Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:21:15 +0000
>
>
>Hi Gary,
>Many people seem to be fingering Muslims as being more violent than other 
>peoples.  I am trying to understand where the solid ground is for that kind 
>of accusation. Are you saying that defining ones spiritual life through 
>interpretations of the Quran vs. other religious beliefs raises ones 
>ability to consider and insight violence ?
>Or are there more territorial and social cultural issues that underlie this 
>issue. To me, there are peoples from certain parts of the world, where 
>Islam just happens to be the predominating religion that are acting against 
>what they perceive as serious outside interference. There is a struggle 
>against overbearing imperialistic interests and land occupations. The 
>destabilization in the middle east is fraught with complexed property 
>disputes. The Dome of the rock on top of Solomon’s temple is a good 
>example.
>It may be that  Abrahamic based religions can be co-opted easily by zealots 
>to support their own cause, and so these are used  as a crutch. I can 
>agree, that happens. But that does not make the religion itself the force 
>driving violent activity. I can agree that there is a lot of violence 
>stemming from a part of the world where Islam is the predominant religion. 
>But is it really Islam that’s the problem, or is it something else? I think 
>its something else and using Islam as an identifier for a foundational 
>explanation of the problem is wrong .  Please help me more clearly 
>understand your concept of Muslim associated violence.
>Dave
>