I am continually surprised by how much killing of 'other people' on this planet, is done in the name of the aggressor's Religion.
It makes me wonder, again and again, have they even bothered to read the key texts of the Religious Teaching, they claim to be defending -- as they slaughter unnamed, unthreatening, defenseless 'others' -- from afar.
And if they have read these key texts, WHEN pray tell, do they actually plan on following them?
Here are some those key texts, in question -- that simply seem to go by the wayside, when tempers and history grudge matches flare:
Comparison of the Ten Commandments with similar passages in the Qur'an
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance -- religioustolerance.org
The Ten Commandments are also called the Decalogue. There are three versions of the Ten Commandments mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures -- a.k.a. Old Testament. [...]
The Qur'an is the revealed text that Muslims believe was dictated by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad, the greatest and final of the prophets of God.
[...]
Comparison of verses from the Hebrew Scriptures and Qur'an:
Hebrew Scriptures: Exodus 20:13:
Thou shalt not kill.
Qur'an 17:33:
And do not take any human being's life -- that God willed to be sacred -- other than in [the pursuit of] justice."
[...]
Hebrew Scriptures: Exodus 20:16:
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Qur'an 25:72:
And (know that the true servants of God are) those who do not bear witness to falsehood.
[emphasis added]
Or do the adherents of those ancient teachings, believe these key texts were written in vain; that somehow in today's 'sophisticated world' -- such teachings no longer apply to them?
Lest those brought up in the Christian tradition feel 'left out' -- their burden to 'do right by others' is arguably even greater than the followers of Moses and the followers of Muhammad:
Matthew 5:44 is the 44th verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. This is the second verse of the final antithesis, that on the commandment to Love thy neighbour as thyself [aka the Golden Rule]. Jesus has just stated that some had taught that one should "hate your enemies" and in this verse he rejects this view.
[...]
The World English Bible translates the passage as:
But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you,
[...]
This verses matches well with a passage in the Old Testament, in which King Solomon says that one should feed one's enemy if he or she is hungry.[3]
The author of Matthew places this verse in the final antithesis, a summary of all that been stated in the Sermon. Early church thinkers also saw this as one of Jesus' most important teachings. The exact wording does not appear in prior Jewish texts, but there are examples of previous thinkers sharing Jesus' sentiments. Other traditions do have similar views. The Greek stoics expressed similar dicta of universal love. It is theoretically possible that Jesus could have been influenced by these ideas, but unlikely. The eastern faiths of Buddhism and Taoism also share this outlook. Nietzsche rejected the command entirely, arguing that love of one's enemies is weakness and dishonesty. Mao Tse-Tung also wrote a commentary on this precept, arguing that universal love is an ultimate goal, but that it is impossible until the class system is removed.[...]
[emphasis added]
I ask you, by what tortured logic can leaders defending their cultural and religious heritage (from any of these three camps) -- can they argue that these key teachings give them an indiscriminate license to kill their defenseless 'neighbours'; those whom they arbitrarily and collaterally deem to be their mortal enemies, as the occasion warrants it?
By what feeble logic, other than "THEY started it!"
(But even 10 year-olds, know when it's time to quit fighting. Perhaps their parents could one day learn follow their children's lead, on the every-day need to forgive ...?)