Ketraar wrote:@Morkonan
I understand now better what you mean and I agree in general, but the reasons as to why it is that way in detail, I think is not as straightforward. Islam has 2 main "factions" as you mentioned, that basically fight for control. This is not too different how the Catholics came to be, it just happened sooner.
Yes, no, not really... The Catholic Church "began" with Jesus's disciple Peter. The various schisms occurred because of interpretations of scripture and practices of the church. (And other stuffs)
AFAIK, the great schism in Islam began over who was the legitimate successor as head of Islam after Muhammad.
It also was a bloody mess (literally). The reason why there are not many "Christian" people doing attacks is that people are not as attached to their scripts.
I'd have to disagree, there. That would imply that the difference is that Christians are not as religious as Muslims... So, logically, that would imply that pacifists must be least religious people, ever.
IOW - You can not go about looking at this by lumping the different religious beliefs together as some sort of generic religious variable. The substance of those religious beliefs matters greatly.
There is no Manifest Destiny clause in Christianity, no call to establish religious rule over subjects in the secular world. AFAIK, some forms of Islam still seek to establish Islam as a holistic, political and religious, doctrine. There's the primary defining difference in this particular matter.
(Note: ISIS is not only attempting to quickly establish a caliphate, but attempting to embroil the world in an Armeggedon-like war, which will bring about the end of the world and the appearance of the Mahdi, AFAIK. The establishment of the caliphate is critical if this prophecy is to be fulfilled, AFAIK.)
With the obvious exception, most people would not think to live their lives based on the literal wordings of a Bible. But the question is, why? Why dont people do that? Has it not rather more to do with education and enlightenment?
Not sure I quite understand the question. Why don't people live by a literal interpretation of religious doctrine? I imagine some do just that. But, what is agreed upon as a "literal interpretation" can be argued, too. Some religions, like Christianity, have clear changes in doctrine, sort of like their own "reformations" as well. ("The New Covenant" represented by the Christ.)
There's no mention of cell phones in the Bible. So, how does one apply Christian religious beliefs in the matter of cell phones? Reforming, discussing, interpreting, ancient religious practices in order to apply them to the modern day can be difficult, especially, very much especially, if a religious practice is dogmatic and seemingly inviolate and unchangeable. In Christianity, the general gist of the New Testament appears to provide a much more broad directive than specific practices when compared to the Old Testament. "Love" is the order of the day, across all things. This flexibility and ease of application contributes to the idea of "The Living Word" of holy scripture - It's as easy to apply one's beliefs today as it will be tomorrow and the next day, no matter the situation.
Also a quick diversion for comparison. Why are we not banning al bankers and CEOs? Flint water crisis had 14 deaths and an estimated (low number) 6000 injured. Paul Ryan's removal of 24 MILLION people from coverage will result in an estimate 20 THOUSAND MORE DEATHS PER YEAR. Just to mention 2 of many examples.
Prove that people intentionally caused these deaths or injuries and they will certainly be put in jail. But, if one banker or CEO did some of these things, does that mean that all bankers and CEOs should be jailed? If there were no bankers, money would not flow and if money did not flow, poverty would be rampant. A "CEO" is nothing more than the head decision-maker of a company, whether it's publicly traded or not. Is that a criminal occupation?
I'm not saying suicide bombers should be ignored, but the amount of outrage and media coverage give these acts is disproportional. The conspiracy theorist will claim one serves to hide the other, which may not be far from the truth, even if not purposely orchestrated.
They're different, for one. It's natural to try to group "like things" together. It makes making sense of a complicated world just a bit easier. But, these are not "like things" - They are not equivalent. Nobody, for instance, deliberately put deadly bacteria in people's water in order to murder them.
But, people do pay more attention to things that can effect them and their empathy, and strong sense of self-preservation, attract their attention to the things happening to other people that could effect them as well. Flint is an isolated case and isn't capable of effecting someone not in Flint. Terrorism is a mobile, dynamic, intelligently directed and purposeful threat of murder that could, possibly, maybe, might... effect anyone who could be a target. For terrorists, legitimate targets seem to be anyone who isn't them.
Maybe consumerism is our true religion and that is why we dont blow stuff but kill people in more subtle ways, but is it less tragic?
People's attention can be easily gained and that attention can be manipulated. In that regard, a news agency and a terrorism organization aren't very different from each other. But, that variable isn't the one that has the most bearing on what these two, very different, things are, is it?
