Tag Archives: violence

from “Liberty Voice”

Islam Creates Monsters Says Psychologist
Added by Rebecca Savastio on May 2, 2014.

Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels, an expert in working with Muslim youth criminal offenders, has written a new book entitled Among Criminal Muslims. A Psychologist’s Experience from the Copenhagen Municipality, and in an essay supporting the book, he claims that “Islam creates monsters.” A recent study out of Germany supports Sennels’ statement. It found that devout Muslims were more prone to violence than the non-Muslim participants in the study.

Sennels says Islam is different from other religions because the way it is taught brainwashes its youth with violent messages. Parents inflict violence on their children repeatedly, Sennels claims, and at the same time, deliver religious ideology. He says this behavior makes Muslim extremists far more violent than extremists of other religious faiths.

The brainwashing, as Sennels terms it, begins very early on in a child’s life, and religious messages are repeated vigorously along with a heavy dose of physical discipline. It is this combination of pain and reinforcement, Sennels claims, that creates Islamic “monsters” who then feel justified in torturing and killing innocent people.

Sennels points out that parents want to indoctrinate their children into the religion as early as possible so that the kids will remain Muslim instead of looking to another faith—under Sharia law, turning against Islam is a crime punishable by death.

He goes on to point out that Muslim culture lags far behind in the “understanding of human development,” and therefore, the techniques that Westerners would call child abuse are deeply ingrained and normalized among Muslim parents as correct child-rearing strategies.

Sennels says that in Muslim culture, the idea of “constructive criticism” doesn’t exist, and any criticism of Muslim identity will result in extreme anger and quite possibly, physical violence. The Quran itself, Sennels claims, does not allow for the idea of tolerance, and calls for Muslims to separate from non-Muslims and view people of other faiths as inferior. This, in turn breeds hatred, Sennels claims. He explains:

The cultural and psychological cocktail of anger, low self-esteem, victim mentality, a willingness to be blindly guided by outer authorities, and an aggressive and discriminatory view toward non-Muslims, forced upon Muslims through pain, intimidation and mind-numbing repetitions of the Quran, is the reason why Islam creates monsters.
His remarks have stirred up a great deal of controversy, but a large study out of Germany, involving 45,000 teens, seems to support Sennels’ claims. In that study, a strong link between the level of religious Muslim belief and the willingness to participate in violence was revealed.

Notably, the study’s author undertook the project hoping it would prove the opposite outcome. Christian Pfeiffer, a scientist who works at the Criminal Research Institute in Saxony, said that he has been active in opposing any campaign to denigrate Muslims or other foreigners, and he was disappointed by the study results.

Studies and the opinions of experts like psychologists that show a correlation between Islam and violence are widely criticized by supporters of Islam, and are often described as “Islamaphobia” no matter how scientific the claim.

Supporters of Islam say that it is a religion of peace, and that it is no more likely than other religions to cause violent behavior. In a paper out of the University of Notre Dame, author Rashied Omar says that Islam is not meant to be a pacifist religion and simplistic definitions of the faith are reductive. Despite the fact that Islam is not meant to be a pacifist tradition, Omar says, “the history of Islam has certainly not been witness to any more violence than one finds in other traditions.”

Islamic studies professor Waleed El-Ansary in an interview with NPR stated that the Quran forbids the killing of innocent people and sets clear distinctions between Jihad and terrorism. Jihad is considered to be legal war with set parameters and rules, while terrorism is expressly condemned by the Quran, Ansary says.

Muslim scholar Anas Hlayhel, an imam dedicating to eradicating Islamphobia, states that the Quran dictates peace toward those who also show “an inclination for peace” and forbids any violence toward innocent civilians.

Psychologist Nicolai Sennels says Islam creates monsters; a statement that has strengthened the raging debate about the link between Islam and violence. It is a debate which shows no signs of slowing down soon, and one that many feel requires additional scientific stud

By: Rebecca Savastio


Leave a comment

Filed under The Ramblings of a Reformed Ecclesiastic

Baroness Warsi: Extremists are driving Christians out of their homelands.

Terrorist violence against Christians has put the very survival of the religion in some regions in peril. We cannot stand idle, says Baroness Warsi.

There are parts of the world today where to be a Christian is to put your life in danger. From continent to continent, Christians are facing discrimination, ostracism, torture, even murder, simply for the faith they follow. The pages of this newspaper regularly chart the plight of the persecuted, from the scores of worshippers killed recently by bombers at All Saints Church in Pakistan to the Coptic congregation sprayed with bullets by gunmen in Egypt.
Christian populations are plummeting and the religion is being driven out of some of its historic heartlands. There is even talk of Christianity becoming extinct in places where it has existed for generations – where the faith was born. In Iraq, the Christian community has fallen from 1.2 million in 1990 to 200,000 today. In Syria, the horrific bloodshed has masked the haemorrhaging of its Christian population.
Perpetrators range from states to terrorists to people’s neighbours. And victimhood is not exclusive to Christians; Hazara Shias in Pakistan, Baha’is in Iran, Rohingya Muslims in Burma – all have long been singled out and hounded out because of the faith they follow.
While religious persecution may not be a new concept, today the fault lines between faiths and within faiths are ever more volatile. Collective punishment is becoming more common, with people being attacked for the alleged crimes, connections or connotations of their coreligionists, often in response to events taking place thousands of miles away.
This has become a global crisis, and in Washington D.C. today I will be making the case for an international response. Speaking at Georgetown University and the Council on Foreign Relations, I want to call for cross-faith, cross-continent unity on this issue – for a response which isn’t itself sectarian. Because a bomb going off in a Pakistani church shouldn’t just reverberate through Christian communities; it should stir the world.

The spirit of unity is out there: in the compassion of the Muslims who donated blood to help those Christians injured at All Saints Church; in the solidarity of the Christians who encircled Muslims as they prayed in Egypt’s Tahrir Square during the 2011 uprising; in the camaraderie between religions in Nigeria and Indonesia, where the faithful regularly protect one another’s places of worship.
We need to harness that unity. For, from Apartheid to gay rights, intolerance and inequality have only been defeated when the mainstream has got behind the cause.
Laws are not enough. You may be reassured by the fact that 83 per cent of countries with populations over two million guarantee religious freedom in their constitutions. But when you learn that these include some of the most oppressive states in the world – like North Korea, which protects ‘freedom of religious belief’ by law while banishing Christians and other believers to labour camps – these legal guarantees become laughable.
I do not buy the argument that faiths are on a violent collision course, that division and sectarianism are inevitable. Yes, the battle lines have been drawn on religious divisions in the past. People are exploiting them today, finding a convenient ‘other’ – a scapegoat – in their minorities. But history shows this is not inevitable; communities can and do co-exist.
Not only can they co-exist, they can flourish. Pluralism is not only a good in itself; it is good for society. It enables people to play a full part in society, which boosts economies. It is thought that of the 30 wealthiest nations in the world, 26 are ones which respect religious freedom. Religious freedom guards against violence, extremism and social strife, all of which hold back the development of a society.
These are some of the arguments we need to make. As Foreign Office Ministers, we promote religious freedom in our respective countries, working with partners all over the world to crack down on persecution and equipping diplomats with the training to understand these issues. To build on this I want try to build an international consensus, bringing together law enforcers, politicians, charities, journalists, the judiciary and more to develop a strategy for putting this vision for universal religious freedom into practice, and to start making an impact on people’s everyday lives.
Baroness Warsi is Senior Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office & the UK’s first Minister for Faith. Follow her on twitter @sayeedawarsi

Leave a comment

Filed under The Ramblings of a Reformed Ecclesiastic

Ten Things You Can’t Do While Following Jesus

Jesus, follow, christian, what not to do

by Mark Sandlin
Lot’s of people claim to be “following Jesus” and then they do stuff like this. Sure, people who follow Jesus do these things all the time but you can’t say you are doing them because you are trying to follow Jesus’ example. (Clearly, this is not a complete list but it’s a good place to start).
10) Exclude people because they practice another religion. Jesus was constantly including people and he did it with a radical disregard for their religion. We have not one recorded incident of Jesus asking for a person’s religious affiliation before being willing to speak with them or break bread with them. We do have several records of Jesus seeking out folks who happen to practice faith differently from him. There was even this one time when he used a hated Samaritan as an example of how we are supposed to take care of each other.
9) Exclude people for what they look like, how they were born or things beyond their control. I may have mentioned this already but Jesus was constantly including people. Jesus had this rebel streak in him that actually sought out folks who didn’t “fit in.” People who were different, people who were marginalized, people who were made to feel unwanted in one way or another held a special place in the heart, life and actions of Jesus. I suspect he did it because he understood they weren’t actually different at all. Touch the leapers (the “untouchables”). Do it.
8) Withhold healthcare from people. Ever play the game “Follow the Leader”? If you don’t do what the leader does, you are out. Following means you should imitate as closely as possible. When people who were sick needed care Jesus gave it to them. If we are following Jesus, we will imitate him as closely as possible. No, we can’t repeat the miracles he did but I’ve seen modern medicine do things that are about as close to a miracle as I expect to get.
7) Exclude people. Last time. Promise. Jesus was constantly including people. It’s a little concept called love. He was pretty big on it.
6) Let people go hungry. When Jesus said “feed my sheep,” it was about more than just a spiritual feeding. As a matter of fact, if Gandhi was right (and I suspect he was), you can’t have one without the other: “There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.” There is not a food shortage in the world. There is enough for everyone. There is not a problem with having a capable distribution system; I can eat lobster from Maine while looking at the Pacific ocean. The problem is that we aren’t very good at sharing.

5) Make money more important than God (and the children of God). The love of money really is the root of all sorts of evil. Every day we make choice about what we will do with our money. Our choices speak louder than our words. Willingly or not, our choices frequently hurt the least of these and others rather than help them. Sometimes we even hurt ourselves. Our money is so important, we willing shop at stores because they are cheeper even though we know the products they sale recklessly endanger the lives of those who make them. We buy food which is mass produced with disregard for health impacts because the farmer down the road is more expensive. We’d rather keep more of our money than pay the taxes it takes to provide for those in need. We have a money problem.
4) Judge others. “That ‘speck of sawdust in you brother’s eye’ and ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ stuff? Meant it,” Jesus.
3) Be physically aggressive or violent. Okay, okay. “Jesus in in the temple grounds with the money changers.” I’ll give you that one but other than that Jesus both gave the example of and taught his followers to avoid violent behaviour. “Put your sword away, (Insert your name here).” So, what about the money changers? See #2.
2) Use the church to hurt people. For the most part, Jesus practiced Dudism. That man could abide. However, there were a few times when he seemed to get more than a bit worked up (most notably, with the money changers in the temple grounds). What could take this chill, peace-loving, Jewish-hippie from 0 to 60 in the flip of a switch? Using an institution whose primary goal is meant to be love to hurt people. (It’s important to note that while you might describe Jesus as aggressive in the temple grounds with the money changers, even then he was not physically violent toward people).
1) Hate. The one possible exception might be “hate” itself but even then hate breeds hate, so best to avoid it.

Leave a comment

Filed under The Ramblings of a Reformed Ecclesiastic

Lights, action, blood

The Meenister’s Log

Very occasionally, I felt that the best place (having assessed the client) was to invite the person in need of pastoral help to a hostelry in a neighbouring town.where nobody knew us and we could have a private conversation

On one occasion, a particular gent whose wife had discovered that he was visiting massage parlours and was about to divorce him, met with me in some pub in a neighbouring town.

He tried, pathetically, to justify what lay behind all this.

I was very frank and ,perhaps, somewhat too blunt  in my opinion of him, (though offering what I thought was positive advice )  but he somewhat lost the plot, and hit me over the head with a beer bottle (luckily empty)

It wasn’t even his round!!!!!!

Leave a comment

Filed under The Ramblings of a Reformed Ecclesiastic