Egypt: Islamists hit Christian churches

[question everything]

Source: AP (Yahoo News)

CAIRO (AP) — After torching a Franciscan school, Islamists paraded three nuns on the streets like "prisoners of war" before a Muslim woman offered them refuge. Two other women working at the school were sexually harassed and abused as they fought their way through a mob.

n the four days since security forces cleared two sit-in camps by supporters of Egypt's ousted president, Islamists have attacked dozens of Coptic churches along with homes and businesses owned by the Christian minority. The campaign of intimidation appears to be a warning to Christians outside Cairo to stand down from political activism.

Christians have long suffered from discrimination and violence in Muslim majority Egypt, where they make up 10 percent of the population of 90 million. Attacks increased after the Islamists rose to power in the wake of the 2011 Arab Spring uprising that drove Hosni Mubarak from power, emboldening extremists. But Christians have come further under fire since President Mohammed Morsi was ousted on July 3, sparking a wave of Islamist anger led by Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood.

(snip)

Despite the violence, Egypt's Coptic Christian church renewed its commitment to the new political order Friday, saying in a statement that it stood by the army and the police in their fight against "the armed violent groups and black terrorism." While the Christians of Egypt have endured attacks by extremists, they have drawn closer to moderate Muslims in some places, in a rare show of solidarity.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-islamists-hit-christian-churches-235144103.html

[kelliekat44]

1. And in other news...how many innocent people were killed in that mosque? nt

[hrmjustin]

3. Too many! My neighbors who are in Egypt said their Church has been desecrated and Copts

are being beaten and killed.

[jessie04]

2. The similarities are amazing.

"Islamists have attacked dozens of Coptic churches along with homes and businesses owned by the Christian minority."

Nazi germany in 1937... Kristalnacht.

Those who forget the past.....

[fujiyama]

4. Last week's violence was the tipping point.

It starts off with a daily death toll of around ten or twenty in street clashes and when it's over five hundred, I simply have to say "Oh shit, this place is going to be on fire".

The Copts will be the first in the cross fire - certainly the most vulnerable, just like women. The Islamists can use last week's violence as an excuse to further destroy the community.

Short of some sort of miracle diplomatic understanding, Egypt could be in full blown civil war very soon.

[hrmjustin]

5. The Copts have been getting the dirty end of the stick for a long time.

[jessie04]

8. Well, they would have been ok except ...

The Jewish population in Egypt is 2.

[jessie04]

51. Well, at least they had a playbook to go by.

genocide can be tricky at times.

[delrem]

6. This article seems aimed toward fomenting (or apologizing for) a civil war

on strictly sectarian lines.
This is similar to what is going on in Syria, and has begun in Lebanon.

Good ol' King Saud...

[hrmjustin]

9. The reality is that it is happening that way.

The military is going after the MB but the MB has been going after the Copts.

The whole thing sucks.

[delrem]

20. The *reality* is that the military staged a COUP

to overthrow a DEMOCRACY.
This military has now authorized that LIVE ROUNDS be used to quell the PUSHBACK.

Remember Morsi was elected by a CLEAR MAJORITY.
So the Pushback will be backed by a CLEAR MAJORITY.

[hrmjustin]

22. That is true but let us not forget that there was a reason a majority of the nation supported the

coup. He turned into a dictator. He used violence against his enemies and tried to turn the country into a theocracy.

This does not excuse the violence of the military and the massacre of the supporters of Morsi. The Army leaders need to be put on trial.

This is why the whole thing sucks. It is hard to know who to support here.

[delrem]

23. "a majority of the nation supported the coup"

That is a fabrication. A damned fabrication.

[hrmjustin]

26. Ok maybe I am not in a position to make that claim but you have to admit a large portion

of the country did. The MB was destroying the nation.

[delrem]

31. No.

I don't have to "admit to" your crap apologetics for a MILITARY COUP overthrowing a FLEDGLING DEMOCRACY.

And this conversation is on DU. sheeee.

[hrmjustin]

34. I am not saying I support the coup but I understand it.

You do have to admit that the MB were not good at governing. But I agree that overturning a democratically elected government is not good.

[delrem]

71. The Egyptian military could give a flying fart about "democracy" and "inclusiveness".

The Egyptian military coup, with the jets trailing colored jetstreams flying overhead and the all the rest, was the most well orchestrated coup I've ever seen.

I hear it's "not really a coup", and the meme I hear on the (Canadian) news is that this military junta is "transitional to democracy". The fracturing of language would be *almost* beyond belief -- except this is 2013 and that's the kind of contradictory voice now routinely expressed by "the west". Meaning, by the MSM.

[hrmjustin]

72. I think most westerners thought that a majority of people were for the coup in Egypt and it

would be peaceful. It was a coup so lets not lie to ourselves. The military has showed that it is murderous. It is hard to find sympathy for the MB, but I am sympathetic to their members protesting in the streets being killed and beaten. This is a horrible thing happening.

[delrem]

73. I've been part of demonstrations numbering in the 100's of 1,000's.

The demonstrations were *not* listened to by the ptb (who countered with asinine statements about a "silent majority&quot . If polling on various issues were done on the demonstrators I've little doubt that the majority would decry the state of "democracy" and "the MSM", etc. I'm quite certain that most would say that in fact they doubted even double such a demonstration would make a real difference w.r.t. the ptb. I'm quite certain that close to zero would be in favor of a military coup to "deliver the people".

The fact that there might be "a million marching" in the USA doesn't mean that those million desire a military coup.

Finally: how the fuck can a military coup ever be "peaceful"?

[hrmjustin]

74. I do not know how a coup can be peaceful, but people here thought it would be.

Americans are not in favor or fans of the MB so that is why Americans in general favored the coup. But the people of Egypt are suffering for what the world wants.

[FarrenH]

58. delrem its not that black and white

Morsi got in on a mandate of half of the 30% of Egyptians that ended up voting, thanks to disorganized elections with some parties boycotting, IIRC. So literally only a 5th of the electorate. The Brotherhood wooed non-Islamist voters with promises of full consultation of all parties to create a consensus constitution and downplayed fears that they would permanently stamp their Islamist ideology on the fledgling democracy. Morsi was running against a hangover from Mubarak's government that few wanted. If you read some Egyptian blogs you'll find liberals saying they voted for Morsi just to ensure the new government wasn't headed by someone from Mubarak's regime, and deeply regretted it after only a few months.

As soon as he got power Morsi railroaded the constitution-making process to ensure the country's law was rooted in Islamist ideology, prosecuted critics, shut down TV stations and made laws by fiat. In other words, as Professor Cole rightly noted, he was basically enacting a slow-motion coup himself and dismantling the very fledgling democracy that brought him to power. The situation has echoes of Algeria years ago, where the military intervened after Islamists basically promised to dismantle democracy itself if the democratic process brought them to power. Only in the Egyptian case, the Brotherhood seemed to have learned from that example and were all sweet lies and moderation until they were elected. These are not democratic Islamists, like Turkey's Erdogen.


http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/transition-military-dictatorship.html

[delrem]

70. A military coup is about as 'black and white' as you can get.

[FarrenH]

75. Not in terms of the value judgements you're making

Turkey has had several military coups that were immediately followed by the election of a civilian government. This is because Turkey has a secular democratic tradition ever since Kemal Ataturk and Islamist parties have come to power in the past that immediately tried to entrench Islamism in the democratic institutions. It wasn't because the military was anti-democracy and wanted to run the country.

In Algeria several years ago, Islamist parties ran on a platform that explicitly stated they would dismantle democracy. The military stepped in and prevented them from taking power. Obviously its just foolish to pretend that you can democratically get a mandate to dismantle the very democracy that elected you.

In Egypt, as Professor Cole pointed out, the Brotherhood were in the process of dismantling the very fledgling democracy that you're huffing about and quite overtly did several things their election did not legitimately allow them to do, like Morsi making laws by fiat and using the police to suppress political opposition. He was setting up Egypt to be a one party, Islamist state. The military shows no sign of actually wanting to rule Egypt, which is why they immediately appointed liberals not linked to the military in an interim government and promised a speedy return to democracy.

All of these are quite different from the military coup in Chile that deposed the government of Allende and set up a permanent military dictatorship. Not all military coups are the same and not everything is black and white.

You can huff and puff about it as much as you like but if you're not going to bother referencing facts that are peculiar to each situation, then rather than sounding like the voice of moral logic, your protestations come across as the most ineffectual kind of naive idealism. None of this, obviously, exonerates the Egyptian military for escalating the conflict the way they did. As Professor Cole points out in the article linked above, the Brotherhood were a threat to real democracy in Egypt AND the military screwed up horribly after getting rid of them. These things are not mutually exclusive.

[delrem]

85. You already had lost me before you suggested that I "huff and puff".

The fact is that Egypt had a so-called "revolution" against Mubarak's rule that ended with Mubarak getting out of jail in a couple days.
It was a very peaceful "revolution", that's for certain.
Then there was an "election" held in circumstances that NO american would warrant as valid, after which there was some hocus-pocus about "democracy".
To prove the hocus-pocus about "democracy" was total hocus-pocus, there quickly was a military coup which put Mubarak's team back into power. (and you lecture me about Allende!)

And you tell me that I "huff and puff".

[FarrenH]

91. How is that a rational response?

You didn't address the following issues in my post:

1. That someone who uses the vehicle of democracy to dismantle it has invalidated what mandate they have
2. That Morsi, qualitatively, and for the reasons given, was dismantling democracy
3. That we have historical examples of military coups that preceded a rapid return to democracy because the primary reason for the military coup was that democracy was being used as a vehicle to dismantle some or all democratic institutions. In very similar circumstances, too (they all involve Islamists subverting democratic institions)
4. That these coups are materially different from coups intended to set up a permanent military dictatorship.
5. That there are sufficient reasons to believe that this was among the reasons, and possibly the primary reason, the Egyptian military deposed Morsi

Not only did you spectacularly fail to respond to a single one of these propositions or the facts that inform them, but you imply that the military cleared Mubarak of corruption charges, whereas the legal process that started under the Brotherhood's brief tenure and proceeded unmolested through it's fall actually cleared him.

You seem to have convinced yourself of a few things, and think that just repeating yourself with a righteous tone is going to convince people with a more nuanced understanding. It won't. It just looks like poorly informed posturing based on irrational idealism. Your response clearly signals that you didn't even think about what I wrote (or read the article by Professor Cole, a liberal and sympathetic expert on Middle Eastern politics) but instead scanned the post and carelessly threw together a sarcastic restatement of your position that seems to be premised on a confidence that is not warranted, but rather brings to mind the Dunning-Kruger effect, to put it in the kindest way I can.

I'm not arguing that the situation now is ideal or that the military came out of this smelling of roses. In fact, like Professor Cole, I think many of their actions after the coup have been reprehensible. But I think its foolish to pretend the Brotherhood's actions prior to that were legitimate and fail to acknowledge that they themselves were a threat to real democracy and the future of Egypt and their abuse of power was not mandated or legitimised by the electoral process that gave them that power.

Sometimes, there aren't any good guys, and saying "because this is bad that is good (or legitimate)" is simpleminded.

[delrem]

92. First I "huff and puff". Now I'm irrational.

[FarrenH]

93. Indeed

Quite unsatisfying

[delrem]

94. And now I'm supposed to *satisfy* you?

We disagree, FarrenH. No need for the ad hominem.

[FarrenH]

106. Fair enough

Some need for engagement, though, as in actually reading and qualitatively responding to the propositions made by the person you're arguing with instead of replying with glib, self-assured sarcasm not warranted by your submissions.

Getting this back on the respectful engagement track. I lived through Apartheid in South Africa and the transition to a secular, human-rights oriented democracy with one of the most liberal constitutions in the world (one that guarantees protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, as well as reproductive rights - forever hindering anyone who wants to impose their religious bigotries on gays or women who want to get abortions)

So for me, the form democracy takes is critical. And when we talk about a "fledgling democracy" in Egypt, we're talking about a democracy which was still taking shape during the Brotherhood's brief tenure and one that they were trying to effectively turn into something I don't recognize as a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word. They were trying to create a "democracy" that looked more like Iran than, say, Turkey. Although they stopped short of a supreme religious authority superseding elected officials in every way, they inserted a veto by an unelected religious body into their illegitimately constituted constitution on a large swathe of possible laws and effectively tried to ensure that a range of political opinions held by a massive proportion of the Egyptian population could not only never find expression in law, but would be prosecutable offenses under the constitution, before you even got to law.

Then, when the very rules of the fledgling democracy that they agreed to failed to produce a government capable of ramming through their agenda, Morsi started making law by fiat, unilaterally declaring the upper house of government to be the whole of government. IOW, he went beyond what little mandate he had and effectively staged a coup himself. And all of this was done with a mandate of 1/5th of the population, which is actually the number of people that brought the Brotherhood to power - *and even some of those were non-Islamists voting for the "lesser of two evils" candidate who *promised* them that the constitutional drafting process would not reach a final determination without buy-in from all major interest groups, a promise he straight-up broke.

So to me, clinging to the notion that the Brotherhood was a legitimate interim authority reflecting the will of the people and acting legitimately in the creation of a new democratic order is absurd on its face. It's an insult to millions and millions of Egyptians who in the space of a year watched their aspirations and economy crumble under a lying sack of shit trying to establish a theocracy in direct violation of his own promises, without a popular mandate.

This doesn't make angels of the military, who are as Professor Cole says also trying to protect some of their privileges in the process of ousting the government and appear incapable of subtlety and peaceful engagement. But at this point its also absurd to assume their end game is a military dictatorship. It was effectively a military dictatorship under Mubarak and *the military helped to topple him and didn't immediately install a permanent military leadership, but acquiesced to a democratic process*. To read their second toppling of a government as being a simple case of attempting to set up a permanent military dictatorship or bring back Mubarak seems quite absurd. A far more reasonable reading is that they think the first effort at democracy failed and want a secular democracy with civilian leaders, albeit one that will acquiesce to certain self-serving measures like letting powerful military figures maintain the military's commercial interests.

[telclaven]

77. Technically inaccurate

Morsi was elected by a plurality. Sorry, but my math is showing.

[burnsei sensei]

83. True. And a plurality is NOT a majority.

nt

[telclaven]

90. Oh, I apologize

I misread it initially. I thought you were saying Morsi was elected by a majority.

[hrmjustin]

84. Your math is fine but you did not read m statement.

I was talking about the coup not the election.

[MADem]

102. In the first round of elections, something like forty percent of eligible voters turned out.

He got under a quarter of those votes.

There were a shitload of candidates; IIRC, sixty percent of the vote went to secular candidates, and the remainder to assorted religious ones.

He managed to squeak through like a wet fart after a suspicious meal, but there's no way that the majority of the country actually "supported" him. Most were sick at heart.

I knew he was bad news the minute they announced the results--I honestly thought the corrupt Mubarak was a better option.

[get the red out]

78. Agree!

Thanks for the post.

[MADem]

101. No, the military staged a revolution, supported by three fourths of the population--or more.

They removed sexist enablers of child rape from the halls of power. They are jailing people who support the wholesale murder of Copts and Shi'as.

The LIBERALS in Egypt support the Army. The right wing FUNDIES support the Muslim Brethren.

That's the reality.

[VirginiaTarheel]

10. No, the truth is that Islamicists are attacking Christians

And they have been doing it for a while. The world needs to act to stop this genocide.

[another_liberal]

16. That's what happens when Fascists stage a coup and people support them.

The Egyptian army used that nation's Christians to help them overthrow the first democratically elected President in Egypt's history. Now the Muslim Brotherhood is taking revenge on Christians for hundreds of pro-Morsi demonstrators murdered by the army. It is deplorable, but when you support murderers, it can backfire on you in terrible ways.

[hrmjustin]

19. The Copts would not support the MB because they are responsible for murdering Copts.

Copts have been persecuted in Egypt for centuries.

The MB made life deplorable for Copts. What were they supposed to do? They do not deserve what they are getting. Just like the people who are protesting in the streets do not deserve to be killed.

[another_liberal]

63. I wasn't suggesting they had no reason to oppose Morsi.

I'm sure they were largely justified in doing so. What caused their undoing was partnering with a crowd of uncaring, murderous Fascists like Egypt's coup-leading generals. That was truly going from the frying pan into the fire for the Coptic Christians.

[hrmjustin]

65. The MB would have gone after them whether they supported to coup or not.

[another_liberal]

66. You know that for a fact?

Exactly how is it that you gained this singular knowledge?

[hrmjustin]

67. Because when they were in power they were doing it already.

Copts have been oppressed for centuries.

[another_liberal]

68. Do you have proof it was the Muslim Brotherhood's official policy?

You admit anti Christian bias was a factor in Egypt "for centuries," and then try to tell me the Muslim Brotherhood was causing it. You can't have it both ways.

[hrmjustin]

69. forgive me my friend I was not clear. What I mean is that Copts have been oppressed by

Muslims in Egypt for centuries. Just like Jewish people in Europe there were periods of peace and periods of persecution. I do not mean to say the MB did it for centuries, and I am sorry for not being clear.

The MB when they came to power clearly began to go after the Copts.

[tabasco]

59. Your posts are sickening

You are either quite ill-informed or extremely biased. In either case, clearly immoral.

[another_liberal]

62. I'm fascinated and I want to learn more!

Please explain why you feel that way. Provide examples.

[leftynyc]

76. Blaming the victims of religious

thuggery and trying to use the coup as an excuse. Can't imagine why the would have supported the coup against the religious freaks. Maybe it was this:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/egypt-christians-greet-revolution-against-muslim-brotherhood/

Since the Muslim Brotherhood took power, the situation of Egypt’s Christians has deteriorated rapidly. Ramelah said that not only had attacks on Christian communities rapidly increased under Morsi, but churches have been attacked or bombed.
In an unprecedented move, Islamists besieged St. Mark’s Cathedral in Cairo, the heart of Coptic Orthodoxy, in broad daylight. More than 500 Christian women have been kidnapped by Islamists to face forced conversion, rape or forced marriage.
Samir Assaad, an Egyptian Melkite, told the Register that he took his wife and three daughters with him from Egypt in August 2012 to the U.S. because he feared for their lives and safety. He did not want his children kidnapped on their way to school — a fate suffered by other Christian friends and neighbors.
Just going to church required an act of faith, he explained.
“You go, you pray, and you don’t know whether your church will be bombed or not,” Assaad said.
Assaad also said the Muslim Brotherhood’s religious police would muster around the churches before their liturgies and would harass Christian women for not being covered head to toe in burqas. “It’s like Saudi Arabia,” he said.
He explained these same religious police would attack women — Christians or Muslims — for driving cars, not wearing Islamic dress or the “crime” of wearing makeup and heels. Assaad said the religious police would either beat women with sticks or kill them.



The brotherhood is nothing but a bunch of theocratic thugs and I have zero sympathy for them.

[get the red out]

79. Great post

I completely agree!

[another_liberal]

80. Finding out that what you believed to be the one and only truth is really a lie?

That can make one quite queasy.

[leftynyc]

81. I have no idea

what you're babbling about.

[another_liberal]

82. Ignorance is bliss . . .

Or so they say.

[leftynyc]

87. More babbling

and now with cliches - Sorry, not interested.

[another_liberal]

88. Seems rather odd . . .

You replied anyway.

[NutmegYankee]

86. Holy fucking hell

Worst "blame the victim" post I've seen on DU in a long while.

[another_liberal]

89. There are victims on both sides . . .

There are victims on both sides of what is happening in Egypt. Only the victims on one side supported democracy and the first freely elected President in Egypt's history. The victims on the other side supported a military overthrow of that democratically elected government, because of their religious biases.

[hrmjustin]

96. Religious Biases? The Muslim Brotherhood did not respect the civil right or Christians or religious

minorities. Were they supposed to support a government that openly allowed people to attack them? The Copts are victims. They did nothing to nobody.

[another_liberal]

97. Right, Virginia . . .

"They did nothing to nobody."

And, yes, there is too a Santa Claus.

[hrmjustin]

98. Do you not like the Copts? Do they deserve what they are getting?

[another_liberal]

99. No one deserves to have their houses of worship burned down, of course not.

No one deserves to die by the dozen, choking to death on tear gas in the back of a police van either. Nor do hundreds of Muslim people deserve to be stoned and assaulted by Christian thugs with machetes for merely trying to march in protest against a brutal military coup which overthrew the democratically elected government of their country.

[hrmjustin]

100. What Christian thugs? I am not aware of what you speak of.

And yes I agree that the violence is just as wrong against the Muslims.

[another_liberal]

105. There have been numerous reports of Christians attacking anti-coup marchers.

I guess those were at odds with your preconceptions and therefore easy to ignore?

[hrmjustin]

107. I have heard no reports of this. Violence is wrong.

[another_liberal]

108. Yes, whether against pro-democracy marchers or Egyptian Christians, it is wrong.

Violence only leads to more violence.

[delrem]

25. Islam vs Christian. GENOCIDE!!!! Thanks, Virginia.

[hrmjustin]

27. More like the MB against the Copts. It is very sad.

[delrem]

32. I'm sure you think it's "very sad", hrmjustin.

Every post of your proves it.

[hrmjustin]

39. I am saddened by violence. I am a Christian, I do not believe in violence.

My neighbors who are in Egypt for the summer had their church desecrated by the MB. That saddens me. It saddens me that people were massacred in a mosque and in the streets.

I do not support the military killing people.

[hrmjustin]

43. I understand what you mean about the article here. It does make it seem like all Muslims are out to

get the Copts which is not true. The article was poorly written.

[delrem]

44. No shit.

[hrmjustin]

46. Ok point taken.

[Leontius]

64. No it does not, all you have to do is read the whole article.

[jessie04]

7. Since its wrong to call them Islamists or terrorists...

lets call them ACTIVISTS.

It sounds much better and it's much more friendly.

[1ProudAtheist]

11. Religion Is Evil

My manifestation has a bigger d*ck then your manifestation, so.......off with your head.

People, it is just this simple.......ALL religion is evil! Intolerance is the heart and soul of everyone of them.

[hrmjustin]

12. I have to disagree. I am a Christian and I don't feel it is evil.

That is not to say that Christians and other people of faith do not do evil things.

[1ProudAtheist]

14. Of Course Not

Where religion is concerned, it is always the "others" who are wrong, who are evil, and who are intolerant.

Tell you what.......you explain to me how rampant child abuse by members of the clergy in the xstian faith is not evil. While you think about that one, try and explain away the church covering it up, denying it, and trying to sweep it under the rug.

If you can stomach that without puking, then read the history books about the xstian crusades. Tell me all about how civilized your religion is.

OK, now that you are invested........here is a quote from the 2nd president of The United States about YOUR religion..........these are John Adams opinions, not mine:

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"

Sure, people inside of a cult do not see the harm that the cult is doing. They do not recognize the bad. For to do so, would mean that they would have to admit to using bad judgement in getting involved.

With any of these cults, it's always just as you say......"Mine is OK, it's everyone else's that is messed up".

[hrmjustin]

18. Ok

1) I never said just Christianity is not evil and the others are. I respect other religions.

2)Child abuse is evil as is covering it up. And it is criminal and the ones who did it and covered it up should go to jail.

3)Yes the Crusades were horrible but that was centuries ago. The fact is both Christianity and Islam had period where they discriminated and tortured members of other faiths. Christianity is not alone in having dark moments in the past.

4) Christianity has a bloody history but other faiths have just as bloody history as ours.

You can say all the evils done by Christianity and other religions but please do remember that religious people in this world do good things as well.

[1ProudAtheist]

33. People Everywhere

in every phase of life, do good things. Religion is not the reason that people do good things. Religion is the reason that people do bad things. Here a few examples:

1-11 Islamic fanatics flew airplanes into buildings in a religious jihad.

2-Scott Roeder, a xstian fanatic, murdered Dr. George Tiller in a fit of religious hatred.

3-August 2012, seven Mosques were attacked with air rifles. paintball guns, acid bombs, and other religious items.

4-August 5, 2012, right wing xstian extremist Wade Michael Page killed 6 Sikh worshipers in Oak Creek Wisconsin.

Religion drives people to do evil things out of intolerance and religious hatred. Worldwide, the scope of the evil is off the charts. All of this because people of faith cannot be content to keep their beliefs to themselves. They somehow feel the necessity to preach to others, and get themselves, and their entire religion's, in trouble. Religion should be kept private, and secret. Others are not necessary. The cults get people involved to the point where they cannot think straight, or make rational decisions.

Keep your faith, just get rid of organized religion, as it is the center of all of the hatred in the world.

[hrmjustin]

38. I can not deny the fact that people have done evil in the name of religion.

I can also say people have done wonderful things in the name of religion.

[Igel]

50. I can add that people have done truly horrible things in the name of atheism. n/t

[MellowDem]

61. Really?

I don't think it's even a comparison. Communism wasn't in the name of atheism.

Atheists can be bad people, but it's never because of their atheism. Meanwhile, otherwise good people do bad things in the name of religion all the time.

The difference is that theism is irrational, and can lead to some truly scary results when people take things on faith. Anyone who doesn't use critical thinking is a potential tool for bad people, and most religion requires the suspension of critical thinking.

[jessie04]

13. The Tibetan Monks will be happy to hear this.

Now back to reality....

When will will hear from the Pope?

Oh that's right, he doesn't want to cause trouble...no point upsetting another religion.

[1ProudAtheist]

15. Buddhism

Is synonymous with demonism. Surely there is no evil involved there......sarcasm

[madrchsod]

28. really? so as a religious person i'm evil?

intolerance is the heart and soul of everyone of them? my, my what a broad brush you wield...

[1ProudAtheist]

35. No

YOUR RELIGION is evil.

[onehandle]

29. Have you thought about being a Deacon for the Atheist Church? nt

[1ProudAtheist]

36. Atheism

Is not a religion, and does not have churches. We can think for ourselves, and have better things to do with our money.

[Pterodactyl]

104. Yeah, especially Wicca.

[bhikkhu]

17. Mixing religion and politics creates evil

Which is why we have separation of church and states here. I hope Egypt doesn't go into the same kind of downward spiral of intolerant hatred that has destroyed the diversity of so many other societies...

[Igel]

53. I keep hearing that. I don't think you mean what you think.

Or perhaps you do.

Harriet Tubman and Martin Luther King, as well as Susan B. Anthony to start out, did what they did because they mixed religion and politics. They took deeply held values and beliefs and tried to remake society to conform with them.

The first was an abolitionist. The second, civil rights leader. The third may have had WCTU stamped on her forehead but also fought for women's rights.

Mixing religion and politics can produce evil. Religion is usually just a codified set of morals with a set of rites and rituals; few require belief in their deity, just adherence to their rules. Mixing "wrong morals" and politics can produce evil.

[Scootaloo]

21. Well, that certainly seems counter-productive

And no doubt, we'll be seeing people using this as a justification for killing even more Egyptians.

[azurnoir]

24. Tell us are we supposed to translate "Islamists" to Morsi supporters?

less than 48 hours after over 700 "Islamists"? were massacred by the US backed Egyptian military coup the news is filled with this.

The article says that Egyptian Copts backed the military coup, why isn't the military protecting them?

[hrmjustin]

30. That is a great question. If the leadership of the Copts stood with the Military then the military

needs to protect them. And the military needs to stop killing people. The leadership of the army need to be arrested.

[azurnoir]

40. okay however reread the opening of the OP

wherein it seems a single Muslim woman was able to rest 3 nuns from these violent Islamists who we're told were parading them like war prizes, something doesn't add up at least IMO

[hrmjustin]

41. Yes I can see what you mean now. The words were poorly chosen.

It also makes it seem like every Muslim in the country is out to get the Copts when that is not true.

[azurnoir]

42. well kind of but not so much

how did one lone woman manage to 'save' 3 nuns from "Islamists", unless she didn't really save the nuns at all, perhaps the description of the nuns being held like prisoners of war, was a bit umm creative writing, but then again I tend to take a fishy eyed view of Western reporting on ME events such as these

[hrmjustin]

45. Skepticism is not a bad thing. The story could have been embellished.

There are a whole bunch of possibilities I just hope the fighting stops soon.

Good night my friend, see you tomorrow. Signing off and fading fast.

[Igel]

54. That's the problem I have.

I keep hearing stories about how horrible the Morsi supporters are. Before they did anything they were billed as "terrorists." They killed police--possibly after being fired upon.

They tossed an armored personnel carrier off a bridge--one wonders why, exactly, but since they're "terrorists" they're just evil and do such things as a matter of course. You have to wonder if the police had just killed their colleagues and this was revenge. No context, no way of telling.

So the police clear a mosque from terrorists, police fire on terrorists to clear streets, police do all kings of things--and then let churches burn and museums get looted.

But the police also let groups of anti-Morsi folk surround, that now infamous mosque, threatening and beating those who tried to flee. You have to wonder how many such groups and what they're doing when there aren't Morsi supporters to assault.

Then again, Tamarrud called for the creation of a pro-Army anti-Morsi citizens militia.

[Rebellious Republican]

47. GOD BLESS EVERYONE!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

48. Bless everyone. There is no god/goddess/gods. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

49. Recommended this thread because it is a problem that deserves notice (not something I like). nt

[School Teacher]

52. Story is a Plant by Our Govt. to Get US Citizens on the Side of the Army

I think this story is true, but it is also a planted one by the US govt. to get us on the side of the Egyptian Army. It is no surprise that the US has been successful in stirring up and fomenting sectarian strife all over the middle east for some time now. For example, in Iraq
before the war there was coexistence between the 3 religions but later with the clever use of types in military uniforms with no logos would blow up mosques and churches. And who benefits? If the Arab World is all kept busy fighting each other, they are no threat to Israel! This coup fits nicely with the Neocon objectives. Stir up Islamophobia in the US, make all Arabs the enemy and make a lot of money off selling arms and protect Israel at all costs. Win Win Win for them.

I suspect that the large number of posters on this story is a message that there are many planted on the net to influence public opinion.
For example, Israel has a new campaign to pay young bloggers to get all over the net and plant comments to influence opinion.

Nevertheless I deplore violence and the burning of any religious institution.

[jessie04]

55. Thank you for the "deplore".

I was getting nervous.

So its the US that's to blame, huh?

I like the way you think. Very interesting.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

60. If it is true, it's not a plant. At most it might be a push. nt

[jessie04]

56. And here some of the results of the Coptic "Kristalnacht"

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/xcrnSkKBuLCzAAnV6wuVLw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MTcyODtjcj0xO2N3PTI1OTI7ZHg9MDtkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTQyMDtxPTg1O3c9NjMw/

The Evangelical Church of Malawi is left in ruins Saturday, Aug. 17, 2013, after it was ransacked, looted and burned on Thursday by an angry mob, in Malawi, south of Minya, Egypt.


http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/DUEInI5ACOKLgiU4kMD0JA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0xMDI0O3E9Nzk7dz0xNTM2/

Rows of display cases are broken and empty at the Malawi Antiquities Museum after it was ransacked and looted between the evening of Thursday, Aug. 15 and the morning of Friday, Aug. 16, 2013

[delrem]

103. You're a pro at this. Robotic, yes, but a pro nonetheless.

[Devil Child]

57. MB shows true colors again

Security forces suppress MB protests, so MB burn churches and attack Coptic minorities. Way to go MB supporters! The sooner the security forces can deal with the MB the better.