I don't think any liberal feels murder is morally justifiable. It's just common sense that if you deliberately go out of your way to antagonise people, to the extent where your actions are equivalent to ensuring that those you persuade spend an eternity of suffering in hell, you can expect to face significant opposition. In most cases where Christians are targeted by Muslims it's either due to political issues or because those Christians are attempting to convert Muslims to Christianity. As everyone is well aware becoming apostate is a major crime in many Muslim communities according to nearly all interpretations of the various texts. If you attack the social fabric of a community you can't simply expect it to lie obediently on the ground so that kicks will be more effective.

cacto,

Yes, there is the issue of cultural sensitivity. But the actions of these people are not excusable.

Most Christian relief efforts that go into Muslim countries know and teach their workers that preaching Christianity is wrong, and, believe it or not, most do respect that. I know this well, as I know the leadership of Shelter Now International, which has extensive ties in the middle east. They are there for relief efforts and will talk about their faith ONLY if asked. They are very strict on these guidelines.

That being said, I stand by my contention that converting from Islam shouldn't carry a death sentence, any more than converting from/to ANY faith should. Frankly, I'm appalled at anyone who supports the view that it is acceptable. When people want to know why we view some of these countries as we do, a large portion of it has to do with the fact that there are still a good number of clerics in these countries that support these sorts of actions.

Why can't we get back to the idea that human life is sacred, regardless, and stop treating the people who perpetrate these deeds as freedom fighters, and start treating them as the murderers they are

Because we do not consider life to be precious, or we don't consider it precious enough to be the first to stop. AND because we live in an environment where it is easy to say stop. We can imagine stopping because we can only imagine the causes. An American family who loses a loved one in the current war can come close to understanding, knowing that they didn't have to be there. That someone decided to send them over when it would have made no real difference to their lives other than the fact that their loved one would be still alive.

What makes it impossible for us to understand is that we are free and they are not. We know what it is to have a voice and have someone actually listen, they do not. We have never been occupied. We have never been shelled or bombed (terrorist acts are known as such, and not as war, because their singularity and short duration in time. This does not diminish the enormity of something like 9/11, but imagine that year in and year out). We have never known systematic home invasion or foreign control.

There are so many things that we can not understand, and this is why it is very easy for us to say and very difficult for us to do. We can ask for this to stop but we can never easily answer the question of how. I think we always feel the taint of hypocrisy when we tell other countries what they should be doing and how, when we listen to no one ourselves.

The fact remains that they can always claim that we don't know what they have gone through, and in all probability we don't. How can we ask them to stop when for years our countries (in Australia's case, the empire we belonged to, and in light of little-whips current thread, we never complained or spoke out against the injustices of the empire) subjected them to our rule and when they asked us to stop we never did, we always told them that they just wouldn't understand, that it was for their benefit.

Why is it that we start these things (i cannot imagine the Bedouin tribes sailing across the seas and "protecting" the British or Americans), we always want to finish them as well. We always want the last word, because somehow our reasons are always better than theirs.

I'm not a liberal that desires to occupy the enemies camp. I like my lifestyle and my country. But i know that what "they" want is almost always what we want. A place of their own that is prosperous and under their own control, where they can decide the how's and why's. It is when this is thwarted that violence is a real possibility and often an inevitable outcome, whether it be Northern Ireland or the Kurds in Northern Iraq or the Palestinians, or anyone else.

Patriotism has always been about picking up a gun or bomb or pitchfork when someone threatens your way of life, loved ones or families. America and many other countries in the Developed world believe this, and sometimes go as far as acknowledging it in their constitutions, but find it terribly difficult to understand why anyone else would do it.

Marco

Patriotism has always been about picking up a gun or bomb or pitchfork when someone threatens your way of life, loved ones or families. America and many other countries in the Developed world believe this,

Patriotism has NEVER been about slaughtering innocent children in a Russian school, Marco. And it is NOT true that "Americans" believe this. I am one, and I do NOT believe in the legitimacy of murder for political means. So now you've found at least one who defies your sweeping generalizations.

The fact that you find the actions of these terrorists acceptable frightens me. The Boston Tea Party is not akin to the murder of 350 people, half of them children, in a Russian school. It is NOT akin to blowing up a bus full of Israeli commuters, many of whom have political ideologies unknown to the attacker.

Frankly, I have always appreciated your intelligence and your insight. But I am sick to my stomach with the knowledge that you CONSISTENTLY side with murderers.

Patriotism has NEVER been about slaughtering innocent children in a Russian school, Marco. And it is NOT true that "Americans" believe this. I am one, and I do NOT believe in the legitimacy of murder for political means. So now you've found at least one who defies your sweeping generalizations. The fact that you find the actions of these terrorists acceptable frightens me. The Boston Tea Party is not akin to the murder of 350 people, half of them children, in a Russian school. It is NOT akin to blowing up a bus full of Israeli commuters, many of whom have political ideologies unknown to the attacker. Frankly, I have always appreciated your intelligence and your insight. But I am sick to my stomach with the knowledge that you CONSISTENTLY side with murderers.

No one could have explained it better. Well said Gideon
They (the Islamo-fascists) consistantly target civilians (women, and children especially) because they are easy marks that cannot fight back. A testiment to the character of these maggots. A legitimate excuse for their actions simply does not exist and IMHO, anyone who manufactures one is pulling it right out of their @ss.

way to go Gid. Murder is wrong. It is always morally wrong to harm another person. Always. Funny how what one finds antagonizing, another finds thought-provoking, enlightening, or even worthwhile for strengthening his/her own opinion. The emotional reaction is never predictable therefore the only thing we can judge is the action taken in response to emotional reaction. In countries where the populace is allowed to execute the fruits of its initial rage freely with no reprecussions or checks or just trials, the fault does not lie with the victims, but with the murdering individuals and the society that excuses it.
"Excusing the fault doth make the fault worse for the excuse." -- Shakespeare.

Patriotism has NEVER been about slaughtering innocent children in a Russian school, Marco. And it is NOT true that "Americans" believe this. I am one, and I do NOT believe in the legitimacy of murder for political means. So now you've found at least one who defies your sweeping generalizations. The fact that you find the actions of these terrorists acceptable frightens me. The Boston Tea Party is not akin to the murder of 350 people, half of them children, in a Russian school. It is NOT akin to blowing up a bus full of Israeli commuters, many of whom have political ideologies unknown to the attacker. Frankly, I have always appreciated your intelligence and your insight. But I am sick to my stomach with the knowledge that you CONSISTENTLY side with murderers.

Gideon, No one specifically brought up the Beslan incident. You didn't in your article and I didn't in my response. In a thread by Larry Kuperman i expressed my disgust at the slaughter, at one point wishing for a "Hell" so those responsible would pay.

The Beslan massacre stands on its own in that it specifically targeted children. I'm surprised Gideon, that you would take my response as a justification for a single incident that was never mentioned. I have denounced it else where and i will denounce it here.

But I am sick to my stomach with the knowledge that you CONSISTENTLY side with murderers

No matter who I side with, i side with murderers, my own government included, a government who allows people to drown, who has allowed, if not incited xenophobia. I see the regression of years of work and labour, the great humanist project, we could be superior cultures and societies. Smarter and more accepting. How disappointed we have been.

How easily we hate like them, attack like them, bomb like them, refuse to learn or think like them, generalise like them, murder like them.

I can't do anything about the way they feel about us (language and all), but i can discuss how we feel about them, and i should be able to introduce the point that we can never really understand what inspires people to kill and die in the most terrible ways, without feeling like a traitor, because that's what you made me feel like Gid, like this isn't discussion, but an actual war and soon exclusion is going to be the name of the game and how are we going to answer the call of fundamentalism, of rigidity, with a yay or nay?

Patriotism has NEVER been about slaughtering innocent children in a Russian school, Marco. And it is NOT true that "Americans" believe this. I am one, and I do NOT believe in the legitimacy of murder for political means. So now you've found at least one who defies your sweeping generalizations.

Gideon, If a country invaded America tomorrow, what would happen? They would rise to arms, right? What about service in the military, doing and killing what you wouldn't necessarily do or kill because of Patriotism (i do know that some are in the military for entirely different reasons), what about the militias you have scattered around your country, all of them claim they do it out of patriotism. News channels (FOX in particular uses patriotism as an integral part of its broadcasting). And again I NEVER said or implied that patriotism has been about the slaughtering of children, you did (if you care to re-read my response), but sometimes its the only thing that allows a pilot to drop a bomb on an unsure target that leads to civilian casualties, many of them children. Why would they do it? For love and defence of their country.

More than anything else, I am sorry that you feel that I have lost (or never possessed) my morality. Reason is the ability to weigh and compare while you shed tears, the ability to make sense of something, even if it sickens you, the ability to realise that your perspective has no monopoly on reality. I am sorry if i offended you Gid, as I still have an immense amount of respect for you as a person and your writing.

Marco

No matter who I side with, i side with murderers, my own government included, a government who allows people to drown, who has allowed, if not incited xenophobia. I see the regression of years of work and labour, the great humanist project, we could be superior cultures and societies.

My suggestion, then, would be to not side with a person or entity, but with a principle.

The incidents that prompted this article were based in part on responses to an article whose tone I will agree was inflammatory. I did not reply to the comments to that effect directed to the author. However, the author made several valid statements within the article about human rights abuses. Many who disagreed with her position used the approach of defending these abuses in their rebuttal towards her. Basically, the assumption was that these people deserved what they got.

While it is appropriate and even to some degree necessary to understand the rationale of the militant factions of Islam, I do not believe it is appropriate to defend their actions if you have any desire to see peace. Everyone who has one shred of belief in human rights needs to be calling these animals out (although separating them from the Muslims who do not hold such views), and I DO feel it is appropriate to call on the Muslims who don't support these views to speak out--the same as it was to issue such a call to Christians in the deep south in the 1880's who didn't hold to the Klan's views, or in Berlin in the 1930's who didn't hold to Hitler's views. It is the responsibility of these individuals to speak out and help shed light on those who hold to such an evil agenda.

What I have seen done by 4 individuals in these threads (3 of them consistently, one occasionally) is a perpetual defense of the mindset of the terrorists. This infuriates me. Defend Islam all you want; that is appropriate. But do NOT defend these animals or their agenda.

As an end note I will add: had the targets of 9/11 all been military targets (as the Pentagon was), while I would have still been outraged, I would have agreed, in principle, at least, that it was consistent with the aims of a freedom fighter (although I still would have felt retaliation to be appropriate as it was essentially a declaration of war). The fact that many of these terrorists choose civilian casualties is what makes them reprehensible and indefensible in my book.

Thank you Gideon for allowing, as I could see from the way you replied, my right of response.

My suggestion, then, would be to not side with a person or entity, but with a principle.

This is what I attempt, and by attempting this I do not stand on one side or the other. I realise that we are just as culpable as they are, and that while we suggest that those Muslims not complicit with the murder, but silent, stand up and be counted, those in our own nations who try and do that very thing are shouted down as traitors and unpatriotic, as standing with the enemy.

If we feel this pressure in our own, presumably free societies, then imagine the pressure for those in countries under Islamic rule.

My point is that we can not understand their reasons for doing what they do, but we can understand our reaction to it, and we can do something to temper it and make it reasonable. To pander to something as passionate and emotive as patriotism or revenge or hatred, with the help of generalisation and simplification, is counter-productive and can only lead to further bloodshed as these are the things, sometimes along with cold political calculation, that cause the violence in the first place.

Let me make it clear, hear and now, that i do not agree with their position, nor do i agree with ours, but i can attempt to alter our position where i have no discourse with theirs.

Gideon, you still stand, in my eyes, as a clear and precise voice of reason within JU. Once again i am sorry, and i understand that you took offence for all the right reasons.

Marco

Gideon -

The problem ( as in ALL Religions ) is that there are always going to be a group of people within that religion who read and believe what they what to believe.

That is why almost all of the Religions fight with other Religions. God is ALWAYS on "their side".

In 1999 , I believe it was, two Christian brothers ( siblings ) murdered two Gay men in California. They stole their credit cards, made them make answering machine messages saying they were going away. They shot the unarmed men to death.

They then used the Gay men's credit cards to buy weapons for more murder. They were also charged with synagogue bombings, and hate literature was found with them.
They believed that they were doing God's work , and can't imagine why they were arrested. Very "Christlike" , huh?

This happens all the time. Eric Rudolph , Tim McVey (sp ?).

When I posted the murder of the gay men on another web site, dozens of Christians called me a liar, and said that it never happened - Christians wouldn't do that.
Well , all they would have to do is a quick search of the Net , and the truth is right there.

Whether Muslim or Christian, or anything else - extremists are not healthy , and there are more of them than we think. And there are more every day.

Live,

Yes, and my point is, it is never morally justifiable, no matter who is perpetrating it.

For the record, Timothy McVeigh didn't purport to act as a Christian. As for Eric Rudolph, I will guarantee you that the vast majority of Christian churches denounced him and what he did, even if they were appalled by abortion.

When Matthew Sheppard was killed, the vast majority of Christian churches denounced the acion.

I am not familiar with the story you related (if you have the link, I'd like to see it--I try to stay informed about these things), and find it tragic that the media downplayed it so horribly, but can assure you I was completely revolted when you relayed the story. It is not morally justifiable, and is not the position held by the VAST majority of churches. In fact, it's the kind of news story that the church SHOULD be putting out, to let the world know that they are vehemently opposed to such actions.

It is always morally wrong to harm another person

The only way I could ever see myself harming another is if I witnessed that individual harming someone I cared about.  It is easy to judge a person's reaction if you haven't experienced their situation.  I am pretty sure most people would shoot back if being shot at or fight back if their loved ones were in harms way.

That being said, I can never understand harming someone over their beliefs or life style.  I don't understand hatred of strangers.  I will never understand being so arrogant that you believe your way of life is the only way one should live.  I won't understand hating someone because they are gay or have a different skin color or are from a different country.

Aren't Christians supposed to hate the sin but love the sinner?  I think that is easier said than done and many fail that test. 

In response to live's story, there are nut cases from every walk of life.  If there are people crazy enough to think a dog told them to do something, there are people crazy enough to think God or Jesus or whatever higher power they believe in told them to do things.  I think most true Christians don't believe God is "on their side" but rather they are on Jesus' side.  True Christians would try to emulate what Jesus would do rather than justify their actions with what they think God would want them to do.