pertinent difference

Submitted by bos (United Kingdom), Jun 16, 2008 at 06:19

while I can appreciate your sentiment, you seem to have missed a salient feature of each side of this coin. A feature that has massive implications for any assesment of threat, or decision regarding what level of 'dont bother me and I wont bother you' tolerance we can afford to indulge in. In short, one congregation of 'religious nuts' sees the apocalypse as an inevitable event where some of them will play no part while others have the role of righteous resistance forced upon them.

The other congregation sees the apocalyptic conflict as not only inevitable but an event they are free (perhaps even obliged) to pursue, an event where their righteousness is pre assumed and confirmed by participation, meaning they are free to be righteous aggressors.

If fundamentalist muslims dissapeared overnight, would you have any real apprehension of a christian created armagedon? If fundamentalist christians dissapeared overnight do you really think that Ahmadinnerjacket et al would patiently await the unfolding of history?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".