Equinox
01-14-2005, 05:47 PM
Courtesy of my good friend, DuctapeFatwa. Printed in its entirety with his permission.
It's not because Muslims are engaging in a lot of ethnic cleansing and forced conversions, as one poster here recently suggested.
While both Muslims and Christians may have done their share of "sword evangelism" in the past, today Muslims are much more likely to be too busy dodging various projectiles related to US interest in certain natural resources to spend much time forcing little white children to renounce their Christian values.
Since the beginning of recorded history, people have, from time to time, changed their religion. In ancient times, this was frequently referred to as "changing Gods." (The current rivalry between the two big slices of the Abraham pie must be causing quite a theological crisis for some Christians, who had considered themselves monotheists, but are now obliged to construct arguments that the Muslims are talking about a different God, a different Abraham).
The reasons people change religion are not unlike the reasons they change their shampoo, motor oil, or dry cleaner: they are no longer happy with the current product's performance and they get a better offer elsewhere, or simply feel they can't do any worse than the brand they're using now.
There are quite a lot of people on the planet who are struggling to get by under extremely adverse conditions, and brief Christian flame of Liberation Theology has been quite effectively snuffed out.
Many faith-based NGOs do an enormous amount of good all over the world, but neither revolution nor even political activism is their mission; for the most reputable ones, neither is evangelism.
Those who do evangelize are less likely than those who do not to offer a message liable to resonate with oppressed people. To use a US example, a woman with an unwanted pregnancy and no money is more likely to get practical help from the more sedate Presbyterians or Unitarians than from the fiery-eyed evangelicals who collect funds to buy Bibles for Iraqis so that they can "learn about Jesus."
Outside the US, in the oil-producing regions with large Muslim populations, Christian evangelicals are more likely to come from the US, and be supporters of the Washington warlord consortium, whose activities in the region negatively impact the lives of many people. This does not make the idea of conversion to Christianity more appealing.
While most educated people make a distinction between the actual message of Jesus and Jerry Falwell's interpretation of it, Christianity has acquired something of a guilt by association taint of western imperialism. This is in large part because aside from the ancient churches of the ME, who are not big evangels, if you are a Muslim in Iraq or Indonesia or Pakistan, the Christian most likely to stop you on the street and attempt to inform you of Mary's blessed event is also most likely to be a staunch supporter of the folks who are bombing you, robbing you, and killed your grandma. Being too devout to read the Koran, they are quite sincere in their belief that Muslims have never heard of Jesus.
The end result is not unlike the propensity of mainstream Americans to associate Islam with Mullah Omar et al, simply because those are the Muslims they see on TV.
The growth of Islam in the Majority World is largely due to population density and birth rate. There are lots of people there, they are Muslims, they reproduce, etc, and poof! more Muslims!
There is a greater interest in Islam on the part of those born into it due to political factors. Christianity is not seen to have "delivered."
Interestingly, the region where Islam is growing fastest is the US, and to a lesser extent, Latin America, where fundamentalist Protestants are currently making great inroads with disenfranchised and dispossessed populations for whom Rome has done little. Expect the new Muslim ration there to crank up when the "Haleluyos" prove as ineffective as Rome in vanquishing puppet regimes.
The US's transition to a single industry feudal state is not benefitting a large swath of people in the Americas. Nor is it intended to.
Human nature being what it is, however, even those who earn a low hourly wage are disinclined to embrace the principle that their existence is expendable.
And human nature being what it is, quite a lot of people in the Majority World believe, with even more fervor than they believe any theological doctrine, that neither their land, its resources, nor they themselves are the property of the United States, despite Washington's repeated explanations that such a belief is terrorism.
Can Islam deliver where Christianity could not?
History seems to suggest that even if it does, it will not put the ice cream in the freezer.
While religion is unquestionably the best damn gun marketer known to man, greed bows to no god save itself.
Religions spread, change and decline according to political winds, not heavenly ones.
Check out his blog for some really interesting stuff:
http://ductapefatwa.blogspot.com/
It's not because Muslims are engaging in a lot of ethnic cleansing and forced conversions, as one poster here recently suggested.
While both Muslims and Christians may have done their share of "sword evangelism" in the past, today Muslims are much more likely to be too busy dodging various projectiles related to US interest in certain natural resources to spend much time forcing little white children to renounce their Christian values.
Since the beginning of recorded history, people have, from time to time, changed their religion. In ancient times, this was frequently referred to as "changing Gods." (The current rivalry between the two big slices of the Abraham pie must be causing quite a theological crisis for some Christians, who had considered themselves monotheists, but are now obliged to construct arguments that the Muslims are talking about a different God, a different Abraham).
The reasons people change religion are not unlike the reasons they change their shampoo, motor oil, or dry cleaner: they are no longer happy with the current product's performance and they get a better offer elsewhere, or simply feel they can't do any worse than the brand they're using now.
There are quite a lot of people on the planet who are struggling to get by under extremely adverse conditions, and brief Christian flame of Liberation Theology has been quite effectively snuffed out.
Many faith-based NGOs do an enormous amount of good all over the world, but neither revolution nor even political activism is their mission; for the most reputable ones, neither is evangelism.
Those who do evangelize are less likely than those who do not to offer a message liable to resonate with oppressed people. To use a US example, a woman with an unwanted pregnancy and no money is more likely to get practical help from the more sedate Presbyterians or Unitarians than from the fiery-eyed evangelicals who collect funds to buy Bibles for Iraqis so that they can "learn about Jesus."
Outside the US, in the oil-producing regions with large Muslim populations, Christian evangelicals are more likely to come from the US, and be supporters of the Washington warlord consortium, whose activities in the region negatively impact the lives of many people. This does not make the idea of conversion to Christianity more appealing.
While most educated people make a distinction between the actual message of Jesus and Jerry Falwell's interpretation of it, Christianity has acquired something of a guilt by association taint of western imperialism. This is in large part because aside from the ancient churches of the ME, who are not big evangels, if you are a Muslim in Iraq or Indonesia or Pakistan, the Christian most likely to stop you on the street and attempt to inform you of Mary's blessed event is also most likely to be a staunch supporter of the folks who are bombing you, robbing you, and killed your grandma. Being too devout to read the Koran, they are quite sincere in their belief that Muslims have never heard of Jesus.
The end result is not unlike the propensity of mainstream Americans to associate Islam with Mullah Omar et al, simply because those are the Muslims they see on TV.
The growth of Islam in the Majority World is largely due to population density and birth rate. There are lots of people there, they are Muslims, they reproduce, etc, and poof! more Muslims!
There is a greater interest in Islam on the part of those born into it due to political factors. Christianity is not seen to have "delivered."
Interestingly, the region where Islam is growing fastest is the US, and to a lesser extent, Latin America, where fundamentalist Protestants are currently making great inroads with disenfranchised and dispossessed populations for whom Rome has done little. Expect the new Muslim ration there to crank up when the "Haleluyos" prove as ineffective as Rome in vanquishing puppet regimes.
The US's transition to a single industry feudal state is not benefitting a large swath of people in the Americas. Nor is it intended to.
Human nature being what it is, however, even those who earn a low hourly wage are disinclined to embrace the principle that their existence is expendable.
And human nature being what it is, quite a lot of people in the Majority World believe, with even more fervor than they believe any theological doctrine, that neither their land, its resources, nor they themselves are the property of the United States, despite Washington's repeated explanations that such a belief is terrorism.
Can Islam deliver where Christianity could not?
History seems to suggest that even if it does, it will not put the ice cream in the freezer.
While religion is unquestionably the best damn gun marketer known to man, greed bows to no god save itself.
Religions spread, change and decline according to political winds, not heavenly ones.
Check out his blog for some really interesting stuff:
http://ductapefatwa.blogspot.com/