Democracy, the end of Christianity?


#1

Looking at the MSNBC article I posted about the Vatican backing teaching Islam in public schools. I made a point of how Christians can be put to death in Saudi Arabia by preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A Muslim replied that Italy is a secular country and Saudi Arabia is not.

Then it occured to me, that all democracies (for the most part are Christian, maybe Hindu and Buddhist to an extent), but certainly not Islam. Our own countries (predominantly Christian ones) invite Muslims or anyone else in, where they will undoubetly convert people, but make converting Muslims to Christianity an offense punishable by death in their own countries. It’s brilliant! In England Islam is the fastest growing religon, and middle class Christians are the biggest group converting, it’s the same all over Europe.

Freedom of religion has essentially turned into a proseletyzing tool for Islam, with no worries about Muslims being converted within the heart of Islam.

So is this it? Are we living in the generation where Christians will decline? Will the expansion of Democracy and the “Global Vilage” concept be the death to widespread Chrstianity?


#2

Sorry but if you believe democracy to do that then you are horribly mistaken. Democracy would theoretically allow all people to discuss religion. so in actuality democracy helps religious dialogue and their would not be a global plot to convert the world.

Might I add that a goal of christianity is to “convert the globe”


#3

[quote=Shadowcry]Might I add that a goal of christianity is to “convert the globe”
[/quote]

Yes, through evangelization, not through force of law.


#4

You have to wonder if the “No God in School” crowd is actually doing something good. Now hear me out. Italy made a rule that all children get to learn 1 hour of their religion. Now Muslims think that their children have a right to learn Muslim. Sounds fair in a democracy.

That’s where this thread came into play. Now, not only would Christianity never be able to be taught in a U.S. public school, neither would Islam. That is because the ACLU and other groups have made religion almost non-existent from the schools.

It seems like we want our cake and eat it too. Maybe we can’t say “God” in the classroom but neither do we have to teach the Koran. Interesting huh?


#5

This is why we are better than the oppressors of the world. We allow them in and make no judgements beyond our own safety. More often than not, Muslim immigrants to the United States are trying to escape the fanatics. The ones who want to kill, for the most part, stay in their own countries where they can be right and everyone else gets to be wrong. Sure, this can lead to problems. But by that logic, we should ship out every German who came here during the war years, because most of their country was in the Nazi party.

Everyone is linked to someone who did something wrong. If we imposed restrictions on people based on what people of the same race or gender or nationality did, the world would be a Hell of a lot less fun to be in.


#6

[quote=Pjs2ejs]You have to wonder if the “No God in School” crowd is actually doing something good. Now hear me out. Italy made a rule that all children get to learn 1 hour of their religion. Now Muslims think that their children have a right to learn Muslim. Sounds fair in a democracy.

That’s where this thread came into play. Now, not only would Christianity never be able to be taught in a U.S. public school, neither would Islam. That is because the ACLU and other groups have made religion almost non-existent from the schools.

It seems like we want our cake and eat it too. Maybe we can’t say “God” in the classroom but neither do we have to teach the Koran. Interesting huh?
[/quote]

School is a touchy subject. I don’t beleive kids should have to learn any religion they don’t want to learn from a public school. However, anyone who objects to having an optional class on Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or whatever, is just being silly. It’s an important thing to know about. It just isn’t essential. I would not be opposed at all to optional religious classes in schools. Of course, they would need to be in the vein of teaching about the religion, not teaching to be part of the religion. We have private school for that.


#7

[quote=JimG]Yes, through evangelization, not through force of law.
[/quote]

Basically the same thing.


#8

[quote=Shadowcry]Basically the same thing.
[/quote]

Actually it’s the complete opposite. How is preaching the Gospel and spreading the word the same as killing people who convert others? I don’t get your comparison.


#9

Well their both trying to achieve their own goals. Neither takes into consideration that maybe people do not want to convert?


#10

[quote=Shadowcry]Well their both trying to achieve their own goals. Neither takes into consideration that maybe people do not want to convert?
[/quote]

The difference is that evangelization offers a choice–conversion by law does not!


#11

It still shows a lack of respect for anothers religion.


#12

Freedom of religion has essentially turned into a proseletyzing tool for Islam, with no worries about Muslims being converted within the heart of Islam.

So is this it? Are we living in the generation where Christians will decline? Will the expansion of Democracy and the “Global Vilage” concept be the death to widespread Chrstianity?

This is an exact replica of the argument that Kevin McDonald makes in “Culture of Critique”.

Except that he claims this about Jews instead of muslims.

We are all on dangerous ground now that the same accusations the nazis made against jews are being made against muslims. The next step is for people to start advocating the same methods of dealing with muslims, and when that happens our humanity will be well and truly lost.


#13

The problem is people don’t see this. It is too far out, in a society where technology is advanced to the point that we live hour to hour, rather than even day to day.

This is, again, what I see as the problem with so-called “convictions”: they’re used as a tool by people whose central goal it is to hate. Yes, they can be used as a good tool by good people. But more often they end up as blindness.


#14

This is, again, what I see as the problem with so-called “convictions”: they’re used as a tool by people whose central goal it is to hate. Yes, they can be used as a good tool by good people. But more often they end up as blindness.

Agreed. Which is why everyone who does see it has to work twice as hard now to expose it and convince everyone else to stop and think, before we start reliving the horrors of the 20th century.


#15

Perhaps this belongs here: While I don’t believe anything will ever defeat Christianity the Enlightenment sure hurt it in the Western world. An interesting article.

ad2000.com.au/articles/1992/jun1992p13_756.html

CDL


#16

[quote=pro_universal]Agreed. Which is why everyone who does see it has to work twice as hard now to expose it and convince everyone else to stop and think, before we start reliving the horrors of the 20th century.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, that seems to be a dwindling number of people. And world leadership, isn’t helping when the heads of every country want to get into a contest with the heads of every other nation, because like it or not, people follow that example. This coupled with the fact that hate sells, unfortunately. That’s why a “conservative” like Ann Coulter is famous across the country, but a conservative like O’Rourke is becoming known to a decreasing number of people, primarily long-time fans and other writers.


#17

This coupled with the fact that hate sells, unfortunately. That’s why a “conservative” like Ann Coulter is famous across the country, but a conservative like O’Rourke is becoming known to a decreasing number of people, primarily long-time fans and other writers.

Yes, it’s a shame how people are so eager to repeat the errors of the past.


#18

Lib, nice comments. I agree with you.


#19

[quote=pro_universal]This is an exact replica of the argument that Kevin McDonald makes in “Culture of Critique”.

Except that he claims this about Jews instead of muslims.

We are all on dangerous ground now that the same accusations the nazis made against jews are being made against muslims. The next step is for people to start advocating the same methods of dealing with muslims, and when that happens our humanity will be well and truly lost.
[/quote]

No it isn’t you psuedo-Intelectual, you back up how what I wrote in about proseltyzing for Muslims in anyway way correlates with “Culture of Critique” and Nazi accusations against Jews, or stop slinging your mud.

What I stated was simply an insight into how Muslim nations proselytizing is an offense punishable by death, but in free societies they can convert at will with no fear of any punishment, which puts Islam at an advantage. Yet I’m the hate monger? Please.

Now back it up or get off the board with your rubbish.

Let’s see between your gratuitous pointless red herring’s about the crusades, and your ridiculous comaprisons to nazi’s, you ahve proved to be a complete ignoramous. Either make a point without slinging garbage around or get out of the topic. What you are doing is dishonest, and a dispicable form of debate.


#20

No it isn’t you psuedo-Intelectual, you back up how what I wrote in about proseltyzing for Muslims in anyway way correlates with “Culture of Critique” and Nazi accusations against Jews, or stop slinging your mud.

Sure. The argument McDonald makes is that Jews beg for the rest of society to open up to multi-culturalism and to allow pro-jewish agendas to be preached, while at the same time remaining closed themselves. He argues that Jews prevent intermarriage, stifle any anti-Jewish speech, and encourage being staunchly pro-Jewish in order to exploit the advantages created by the openness in the rest of the population.

That’s exactly the argument you’re making about Muslims, that they are “exploiting democracy” to preach Islam to the rest of us while they permit no preaching against Islam or dissent within the muslim community. They’re pretty much carbon copy except that where you say “muslim”, McDonald says “jew.”

Let’s see between your gratuitous pointless red herring’s about the crusades, and your ridiculous comaprisons to nazi’s, you ahve proved to be a complete ignoramous.

I am claiming that your propaganda follows the Nazi model for propaganda against Jews. I am not accusing you of being a Nazi. Rather, I am saying that your views towards muslims follow a similar pattern to the Nazis views of Jews. I will make this more clear in my next post, using your original post on the thread with “Jew” substituted in for “Muslim.” Please read it and tell me how different your post is from Nazi propaganda, when all I have to do is substitute a single word to make it that way.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.