Response to commenter Ron Green. So-Called Christians?

Submitted by Brutus (Canada), Feb 15, 2005 at 20:12

It is an old cannard to defend your faith by stating that the wrong-doings that came before were not a result of the principles of the religion. This is, of course, patently gibberish - gibberish that the Founding Fathers throughly rejected when they rejected state-sponsored religion and a religious test for holding office.

Every generation of religionists (and this is common to most religions) have claimed that the past misdeeds and transgressions came from some sort of misunderstanding of the true faith. Looking at the history of Christianity; the numerous schizims, bloody religeous wars, religeous persecutions by every denomination (orthodox, catholic, calvinist, protestant or even the puritans who established Massachussetts Bay Co.), hatreds and dogmatisms... one should obviously wonder whether it is the ambiguous priniples of the religeon itself which are not at fault.

The Founding Fathers were learned men, wise to classical and contemporary history, and they had seen scores of Christians, all ardently claiming to be the one true source, tear apart men and society with a bloody ravenousness. As deists, they attempted to enshrine a different value in America, that of reason.

Obviously, a similar ruberic applies to all religions, especially Islam. This is why a "moderate Islam", which in effect translates to a Westernized/Anglicized Islam, is a useful step, but one that must ultimately be transitionary.

-B.

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".