We didn't send out troops in the name of Christianity. We sent our troops in the name of the United Nations and America. There was no outcry from Christian organizations. Just as there is no significant outcry from Christian organizations about the otrocities occuring in Darfur.
or there's this: http://www.christianaid.org.uk/sudan/ http://www.christianaid.org.uk/world/where/eagl/sudan/0404upd.htm Christian Aid's response to Darfur Christian Aid does not have partners working in Darfur but we have contributed £50,000 through the Action by Churches Together (ACT) appeal. ACT is working through local organisations to provide blankets, seeds and tools, basic health care, food for work schemes, and emergency schooling, however this work and all the work of humanitarian agencies is severely restricted as they can not get access to those in need. Christian Aid is calling with other agencies for an immediate peaceful settlement to the conflict in Darfur, an end to attacks on civilians, international monitoring to protect civilians and immediate access for humanitarian relief. http://www.christianpost.com/articl...draws.cautious.optimism.from.methodists/1.htm http://www.cws.org.nz/Emergencies/Sudan.asp http://www.tear.org.au/appeals/darfur.shtml http://www.weekofcompassion.org/pages/updates/june0529.html http://www.christianpost.com/articl...up.endorses.call.to.end.darfur.genocide/1.htm http://www.mennonitecc.ca/sudanconflict/questions/tragedy.html http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_050110sudan.shtml krosfyah -- i've noticed that you have some misconceptions about Christians and what they are or are not doing. i'm betting that a very large percentage of the people in Sudan on the ground actually helping out are doing so from a Christian aid organization. i realize it's not fashionable to credit Christians with anything. but to make a blanket statement that there is no outcry from Christians on what's going on in the Sudan is not only wrong..it's very wrong.
I don't know about Kros' post specifically but I looked at the argument being not about whether Christians were doing anything or not, because clearly they are, but about people calling on Christians to do something. There are Muslims and Muslim groups that actively speak out against Islamic terrorists, Muslim troops from nations with Muslim populations that were part of the coalition in Afghanistan, yet we always here people clamoring for the moderate Muslims to do more. We don't here the same calls for Christians to speak out. I don't think people should be making that claim, because as is similar with Muslims Christians are speaking out, and if folks did make those demands it would be because they weren't listening. I just think it is the same case regarding Muslims. But maybe there was a particular post that you were responding to that makes claims that christians aren't active in issues like Darfur.
Not really accurate. The first interventions in Bosnia were not under the UN auspices. And there was a LOT of outcry from Christian organizations. In fact it was a main component in getting airtime about things like the Serb rape camps etc. FB, not sure what your claim of Muslim troops in Afghanistan proves, although I think it would be great if you could qualify your claim.
You mentioned Christian troops in Bosnia. I am mentioning Muslim troops in Afghanistan. It goes to show that like moderate Christrians, moderate muslims also oppose unjust acts supposedly done in their name.
MadMax, this is a bit off topic since we are talking about the London bombings. But I was simply trying break some of the misconceptions about Muslims. I'm not really bashing Christians here. I'm simply saying many Americans are crying out for Muslims to act in ways that Christians themselves don't really do. It is a double standard. (One exception is the Catholic church but even the Pope has limited influence on global politics) So is it the place of religion to respond to every world event? I say religion has it's place but folks are acting Like Islam is some unified organization that some head of state can step up. So when that doesn't happen, I see Americans use that as an excuse to further their anti-Islam positions. But c'mon MadMax, let me digress and answer your post to me. When you pulled up the Christian Darfur stuff, I'm sure you didn't have that info off the top of your head. I'm guessing you Googled that...and that further proves my point. How significant is the aid? I'd argue it isn't signifcant enough...but Christian organizations worldwide certainly have the resources, if they so choose, to flood Darfur with Media attention and Aid. I didn't count dollars in your links but is the Christian aid significant to make a real difference? ...which is what I said in my post. A couple of the links you provided are simple news type articles that don't describe any aid provided. Another one said they pulled together 50,000 Lbs. Admirable, yes, but when Lakewood Church just spend $3 million for just HVAC for their new building, 50k to help an entire country, sadly, won't be enough. So I say if I wasn't aware of, as I'm sure most people are not, the Christian based efforts in Darfur...why do you think anybody would be aware when Muslim's denounce violence?
It's not the responsibility, nor should we expect, Muslim and Christian organizations to be at the forefront of denouncing every single atrocity taking place around the world, nor is it their sole responsibility to take action on behalf of the victims everytime something happens. Remember? Our world is composed of sovereign nation-states, not a hyperpower Caliphate or Holy Christian empire. Sovereign states are the primary actors, and it's up to each individual state (not individuals who follow a certain faith) to contribute towards solving the world's problems, preferably by working together and cooperating through the United Nations or other world organizations. So my point is that in a world where many seem to embrace the concept of secular politics, it's hypocritical to all of a sudden turn to religious people whenever something happens and lament them for "not doing more"! Well, since there is no power base (politically speaking) from which Muslims and Christians can act positively and affect global issues, they shouldn't be blamed when they are limited to what secular governments allow them to do. Bless the Christian aid groups for helping out in the Darfur region, and there are as well millions of dollars going towards the Darfur region from Islamic organizations, since, afterall, the Darfur population that is being starved to death IS a majority Muslim population. But don't ask them to do more when powerful, secular nations are standing on the sideline not doing ****, at least the Christian and Muslim organizations are doing something, which is better than one can say for all the wealthy secular states around the world. Just wanted to make this point, since some here are conveniently forgetting who the primary actors in world affairs are, and they are NOT religious organizations.
Er, yeah. Well, my question is aside from the Muslim troops already IN Afghanistan, ie the Afghanis - which other troops are you referring to?
Nope, because all he can do is speak and urge people to do something, and you saw how effective he was speaking against the Iraqi war, or urging peace in the Middle East, etc. Besides, how many Catholics worldwide give a damn about what the Pope says? The Pope, unlike Bush, doesn't have his own military, powerful corporations, or can enforce his will/agenda on Catholics worldwide, while Bush at least can control the United States of America, and has an officially recognized position as the leader of the country, which grants him certain powers that the Pope can only dream of. In short, the Pope is a symbol more or less, the President of the U.S. isn't. At best, religious organizations are nothing more than secondary actors on the international scene.
I find your lack of faith disturbing. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of peace. Religion is secondary only if you look at use of force as the only way to change things. I don't think most people are asking religions to fight wars. In fact it would be the opposite. Like I stated earlier, the young and confused might listen to a religious leaders/community and their parents for guidance over that of the President. I can tell you that my religious upbringing had more affect on me than any President. I was happy when the Pope warned Bush over Iraq. Did that stop the war? No. Did it influence Catholics and other Christians etc. think twice about it, maybe even denounce it? Of Course. There needs to be a voice of peace over the politics. If that's not a responsibility of religious leaders, I don't know what is. It's much better than nothing, and it is never in vain.
Uh, quite a few give a damn what he says - see birth control, women priests etc. And your analogy is silly: France, Germany, China, and Russia weren't effective in speaking against the war in Iraq - does that make them non-entities? The Vatican IS a powerful corporation, first off. Bush doesn't 'control' the US, he shares power with Congress. The Pope DOES control the Vatican, however. The whole idea that the ONLY major actors in world politics are nation states is ludicrous. Globalization is tearing apart the very fabric of the nation state system and independent sovereignty. Osama bin Laden isn't a nation state - but he seems to be a player in world politics.
Well put tigermission. I'm not bashing Christians so much as pointing out it isn't necessarily their role to be the world's savior...just like it isn't the Muslim's responsibility. So I say it is a double standard to blame Muslim's for not taking a larger role. I agree the countries where these people reside should be the leaders. Saudia Arabia, for example, isn't really doing crap...and how many Saudi's are directly/indirectly involved in terrorist activity? We should demand the counties take better care of their own affairs within their own country. Governments have the power to influence this stuff. Now religious leaders should take a role...but really only on a local level. That is their greatest sphere of influence.
Apparently there seems to be a misunderstanding of what I said, so let me clarify... I said religious organizations/leaders are not PRIMARY actors, I didn't say that they weren't actors at all, for I do acknowledge their role in society and global peace, tolerance, etc. I meant to address those that claim religious organizations aren't doing enough to be a positive force on a global stage, while not applying an even harsher criticism to the primary actors in world affairs: nation-states. Religious organizations are just like any other NGOs in any given counry, and they can only operate under the authority of a secular legal body like a sovereign government, and always they need the backing of governments across the world to get their job done, i.e. provide aid to Darfur under protection of UN/AU forces, or otherwise it would be unsafe for them to get in and carry out relief work. My point was that there are multiple obstacles these organizations have to overcome in order to provide for the needy and do charitable work, while at the same time they can only speak about peace and urge peace in any given conflict, but it's up to the primary actors -- the states -- to heed their call to peace or not. If the Pope calls for peace in the ME, and it doesn't happen, what the hell can he do about it? Precisely nothing! He can pay lip service to any cause all day long, but he has tremendous constraints on his ability to end conflicts, send aid to a particular distressed region of the world, etc. Sure a religious leader can affect individual lives, but he can't enforce his will on a global stage. It's up to individuals to collectively take it upon themselves to carry out what the Pope says we should do. Hope everyone gets my point now.
