Understanding religious fanatics

There's a popular parlor game in some circles, where apologists for Islamic fanaticism list all the historic and contemporary cruelties and injustices that they can think of (or make up out of thin air) that were performed by peoples who could be labeled as being Christian, or specifically Catholic, and use that to condemn the faith. Likewise, some Christian apologists have fallen into the same game trap, listing every personal flaw they can find in Mohammed's life, and every cruel deed or injustice by Islamic groups or individuals, and use that to condemn the faith.

It is a tempting trap. It is understandable that in the attempt to characterize and respond to contemporary terrorist acts by fundamental extreme Islamics that some try to understand the threat and the source through selected deeds. In response, it is very easy for Christians themselves to tap into Christian guilt trips by dragging out the Inquisition, missionary excesses, and current scandals, as a way to attack the faith. What started out as a quest for understanding, even if the quest originated in the pain of terrorism, conflict, or injury, has turned into a context free and destructive kabuki game (no offense to kabuki theater, I'm just using it's rich analogy.) It's like a theoretical knife fight where when there's a lull in the action one engages in self cutting.

True scholars know better. They know that in order to understand a point in history, one must understand the context in total, including the mind set of the protagonists. For example, if one does not understand the genuine belief in heaven/hell held by ancient people, and their genuine fear for it, one cannot understand excesses such as forced conversions (Islam) or the inquisition (Christians). It is easy for armchair faithful, agnostics, or atheists today to focus on the horror of the deeds without understanding that in the context of the times, religious fanatics feared for their souls and for the souls of the people they oppressed because they truly believed in the ultimate consequences. They thought that torturing someone into faith would save their own and someone else's soul. (Let's ignore for the moment the obvious material ploys all people use to seize assets and cloak it in the excuse of faith, since that is not the arguing that is taking place today.)

So there is no point in slinging historical accusations back and forth because that fervor of conversion to save one's own or someone else's soul is not the same today as it was (and thank God for that because it is not true faith to use violence to convert). However, some very irreligious pundits have turned this into ego and bank stoking employment. Each side lines up for the books, the interviews, and the talk shows to be pretend experts while not doing even the most fundamental (pun not intended) analysis of the historic events of which they speak. This is a HUGE disservice to people who are sincerely trying to understand the clash of cultures and faith that is taking place today. No one learns anything about their own faith or someone else's by listening to kabuki theater parlor games of listing "good" and "bad" events in a faith's past.

I posted the following at open book, in response to a discussion about populist books and interviews by one person in particular. Here is what I wrote:

In Matthew, 12:33 Jesus said: Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

It is how the scriptures, either the Bible or the Koran, are lived in the individual person that determines the worth. I have many Islamic friends who are refreshing in their faith and belief in one God, who they put ahead of their own will, and to whom they pray throughout the day, like a thread woven through their life. I find this much more refreshing than some I know who can quote the Bible to the "T" but do not live their faith. Here I am not speaking of Mohammed's life, or of cruelties performed by some of the Islamic faith throughout history and today. I am speaking of one man or woman and their faith. If in Islam they find God, and live a Godly life, then their fruit is good and their tree is good.

Likewise, a Catholic knows that their faith is in their Savior Jesus Christ, who is the gateway to salvation, yet also recognizes that groups of "Christians" have performed cruelties in history, and even today. I argue that while those people may have identified themselves as Christians, they are not so, because they are not living a Christ like life, and they allow their deeds to be rotten fruit pretending to have fallen off a good tree. The wise man or woman can tell the difference between the good faithful who are of the tree, and the bad fruit from the bad tree, who rolls under the good tree and tries to pretend to be from that stock.

Armstrong is chameleon fruit, rolling under the Christian tree for a while, and then rolling under the Islamic tree. I think it is sad and disrespectful to both religions, and does good for neither, and certainly is not in the service of God. Her tree, judged by her fruit, seems to be financial, celebrity, and ego. That makes her the most suspect of analyst of any religion.