View Full Version : If Christians Were Treated Like Muslims
Thomas Paine
12-29-2010, 16:56
If Christians Were Treated Like Muslims
by Gary Bauer
Posted 12/28/2010 ET
Few Americans would deny that Judeo-Christian beliefs and values informed the Founding of this country and that they continue to shape much of American life today. Nor would many of us deny that Americans who embrace Islamic values are a distinct minority here.
I raise these two facts because of an emerging reality: that, in a variety of contexts, American Muslims are treated better than American Christians. That might seem like a bizarre assertion, so think about it in another way: What if the Christians were treated like Muslims in America, and Muslims like Christians?
If Muslims were treated like Christians in America, Muslims would have to tolerate the defamation of their holiest images in our national museums, acts which would be called "artwork" -- and, if particularly provocative, even given taxpayer-funded grants from the National Endowment for the Arts. They would also have to accept Korans being burned and thrown into toilets, which instead of inciting worldwide outrage and retribution would provoke a collective shrug of the shoulders.
If Muslims were treated like Christians, Muslims would be mocked by late night TV talk show hosts and lampooned in crude cartoon parodies. If Christians were treated like Muslims, conspicuous Christianity would be celebrated by our elites as a sign of our diversity and open-mindedness, not disparaged as an embarrassment, a nuisance and a breach of the law.
If Christianity were treated like Islam, our students would be taught a white-washed version of Christian history, with the troubling bits miscast or omitted from textbooks and lesson plans.
If Christianity were treated like Islam, if an evangelical Christian committed an evil act in the name of his faith, he would be portrayed in the media as a deviation from, not a personification of, the Gospel message. Meanwhile, our political and media elites would hasten to assure the public that evangelical Christianity is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of evangelical Christians do not support terrorism.
If Christianity were treated like Islam in America, our president, a professed Christian, would proudly attend Christian-themed dinners and events while skipping Ramadan dinners, not vice versa. And Muslim politicians would go out of their way to assure people that their faith would not affect their policy-making.
If Christianity were treated like Islam, Christmas and Easter would be publicly celebrated for what they are — the signature events of Christianity, marking the birth and the death and Resurrection of Christ — not stripped of all their theological meaning and transformed into secular holidays devoted to crass consumerism.
If Christians were treated like Muslims, NASA would be tasked with reaching out to Christians and recognizing their faith's profound achievements and contributions to science, math and engineering, instead of being told to make Muslims feel good about their rather meager scientific accomplishments.
If Christians were treated like Muslims, the Catholic Church's stances on sex, contraception and human life would be revered as welcome departures from our over-sexed, self-obsessed culture, not condemned as a cause of disease and death in the less-developed world. And if Muslims were treated like Christians, the application of Sharia law around the world would be met not with stony silence but with the outrage it deserves.
If Christians were treated like Muslims in America, amusement parks would celebrate "Christian Family Day," (Six Flags recently celebrated "Muslim Family Day"), and Christians would be asked to embrace, not set aside, their religious convictions at the door when they entered the public square. Meanwhile, Muslim imams, not Christian pastors, would fear hate crimes lawsuits for preaching orthodox views of sexuality and sin.
The notion that American Muslims face discrimination, even to the point of violence, is often posited by America's elites. But that idea evaporates under scrutiny. Remarkably few hate crimes are reported against Muslims (fewer than one-eighth those against Jews). What's more, Muslim immigration to America has risen sharply since September 11, 2001, and Muslims thrive, economically and educationally, once they arrive.
In fact, it is Christians, not Muslims, who increasingly encounter cultural elites who are hostile to their beliefs and values.
Sadly, Christians will never be treated like Muslims by America's elites. Why? Because Christianity can be attacked without fear of retribution. The Christian response to insult and attack -- "to turn the other cheek" -- contradicts the knee-jerk call to violence of many Islamists.
It's also because left-wing elites and radical Islamists are united in the common cause of upending the Judeo-Christian culture and roots of American society.
I’m not in favor of burning the Koran, and I don’t think insulting or defaming symbols of any religion constitutes art. At a time of the year when intolerance for public displays of Christianity is most acute, it is my Christmas wish that Muslims and Christians would be treated equally.
Former presidential candidate Mr. Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.
LINK:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40839&s=rcmp
mark46th
12-30-2010, 18:45
I think every American publication should print the Danish cartoon.
What are the Islamists going to do? Be mad at us? They already are mad.
Try to kill us? They already are trying to do that.
Are they going to hate us? They already hate us.
Are they going to disrespect us? They already think we are sub-human.
So, what have we got to lose?
greenberetTFS
12-30-2010, 18:52
I think every American publication should print the Danish cartoon.
What are the Islamists going to do? Be mad at us? They already are mad.
Try to kill us? They already are trying to do that.
Are they going to hate us? They already hate us.
Are they going to disrespect us? They already think we are sub-human.
So, what have we got to lose?
Absolutely and totally concur...........;)
Big Teddy :munchin
So, what have we got to lose?
Sir,
Respectfully, what does America stand to gain from this? IMHO, you are absolutely correct regarding the Islamists, frankly if there is a solution other than killing them, or making them too fearful to continue, it isn't obvious. However every Muslim is not an Islamist, and 1.2 billion Muslims constitute 20% of the world's population. If every paper in the States collectively did such a thing, many Americans most affected by the extremists might for a moment breathe a collective " Hell Yeah", what is the tangible benefit beyond this? What comes next?
Unless we decide to set aside our Constitution, American Muslims will still enjoy the same rights and protections as any citizen. Such an act coordinated on a national scale would likely only alienate Muslims worldwide, and strengthen the claims of a religious war AQ is desperately trying to keep alive.
It would only make the job harder for our troops abroad. I don't want the first question asked to a US soldier making contact with an Afghan village to be, " Is it true every paper in your country printed a cartoon mocking Mohammed, or that your priests burn our Koran, yet you say you are my friend, and I should fight with you against the Taliban?"
Religious folks have strong faith in their beliefs. None of them Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc. like being told they are foolish or evil. That artist years ago who presented a crucifix dipped in urine insulted Christians across the board, not just the violent nutty ones.
I had previously never heard of Gary Bauer, I don' t know the man. His arguments are poorly researched and his level of tolerance doesn't seem very Christian to me, instead he comes across as just the type of angry rabble rouser Republics suffer in times of economic crisis. Luckily he lacks charisma, and it's clear he hasn't seen the Taj Mahal, studied geometry, algebra, or seen Jeff Dunham's hilarious Achmed the dead terrorist routine on late night TV.
Just checking, I am assuming you are referring to the architectural beauty of the Taj Mahal, and the Islamic contributions to geometry and math...?
Exactly, Islam has glaring deficiencies, but Mr. Bauer's claims of " meager scientific accomplishments" is a reach. Not to mention ignoring the stifling of science by Western faiths.
“…what is the tangible benefit beyond this? What comes next?
What do we gain?
The central purpose of Islam is the struggle to make everyone on earth submit to Islam. If you’re willing to give in to relentless concessions - fine. However, the only reason why Islam is making progress toward its goal is because we let it.
Considering it is a punishable offense to criticize Islam, should we partially facilitate the punishment by conceding our 1st Amendment rights?
The central purpose of Islam is the struggle to make everyone on earth submit to Islam. If you’re willing to give in to relentless concessions - fine. However, the only reason why Islam is making progress toward its goal is because we let it.
T-Rock,
We will likely always disagree on your first sentence. However, it isn't a question of conceding IMHO it is realizing we are at war with the Islamists and fighting to win, without making the job of our troops any harder than it already is. If printing these cartoons would destroy the Islamists lets do it. But what is wrong with first simply killing the Islamists, and then taking steps via providing security and building schools in their regions to prevent them from replenishing their ranks?
The central purpose of Islam is the struggle to make everyone on earth submit to Islam
We will likely always disagree on your first sentence.
Don’t take my word for it…
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. (Sura 8:39)
He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse. (Sura 61:9)
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Sura 9:29)
And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice (Sharia) and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. (Sura 2:193)
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/
w4.0 THE FINALITY OF THE PROPHET’S MESSAGE
(1) Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) is the last prophet and messenger. Anyone claiming to be a prophet or messenger of Allah after him or to found a new religion is a fraud, misled and misleading.
(2) Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses in the Holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam, as equally attested to by many verses of the Koran. Both points are worthy of attention from English-speaking Muslims, who are occasionally exposed to erroneous theories advanced by some teachers and Koran translators affirming these religions’ validity but denying or not mentioning their abrogation, or that it is unbelief (KUFR) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,” are acceptable to Allah Most High after He has sent the final messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) to the entire world (dis: o8.7(20).
o9.0 Jihad
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728
ETA
However, it isn't a question of conceding IMHO it is realizing we are at war with the Islamists and fighting to win, without making the job of our troops any harder than it already is. If printing these cartoons would destroy the Islamists lets do it. But what is wrong with first simply killing the Islamists, and then taking steps via providing security and building schools in their regions to prevent them from replenishing their ranks?
Until Islam is recognized for the primitive violent death cult that it is, and until the supremacist ideology is discredited, ranks will continually fill no matter how many freedoms we give up, and no matter how many concessions we make - the true believers will not be deterred. What Islam cannot conquer by force it will try and achieve through intimidation, concessions, and demographics.
Your positions leads me to believe that you think if we offend a few thousand Islamists, we’ll have to go to war with 1.3 billion Muslims?
I don’t buy it because most all of those in that 1.3 billion didn’t chose to be Muslim. Imposition of Sharia forces everyone to become Muslim. How many would choose to live their lives without the constant domination of Islam if they had an option?
Would the war against Hitler have ended sooner had we chosen not to offend Nazism?
To be able to empathize and understand the root cause[s] of such fanaticism does not mean one sympathizes or agrees with their thinking or actions, or is willing to concede to them.
However, an inability to empathize, to not see beyond the superficial rhetoric and behind the eyes of the perpetrator[s], can only lead to an erroneously incomplete understanding and a furthering of their goals by fostering the grievances (real or contrived) which have given and continue to give rise to such war[s] - alienation, humiliation, demographics, History, and territory.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
- Blaise Pascal
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
12-31-2010, 08:39
Two thoughts:
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing freedom of speech."
"An Empire [Nation], like a cake, is most easily diminshed at the edges."
- Benjamin Franklin
...And thanks for the well researched responses T-Rock.
Would the war against Hitler have ended sooner had we chosen not to offend Nazism?
No, but what would have happened to US fighting power if after Hitler declared war on us we had responded, The Germans and Italians are subversives and an enemy who just declared war on us. Any American with German or Italian blood is now suspect, and on a national level US papers started slamming not just " The Huns/Boches" of WW1, but extended it to all German blood.
As a nation of immigrants, how big or effective would our army have been then? Would Eisenhower have resigned his commission in this environment, what if his family was interned?
With 1.3 billion Muslims in the world if even 10% acted on the central purpose you described, we would have daily carnage on a level that would make the West Bank look like a theme park. Of these 1.3 billion Muslims there are definitely violent extremists we must terminate, but what percent? And what percent are just normal average people (sheeple for the cynic) who work, worry about their kids and friends and just want to prosper. Do they agree with AQ or their despotic rulers, or as you suggested perhaps they currently have little option. Absolutes are often contradictory. Note I am not saying Southpark shouldn't be free to poke fun at whomever, the original premise here was a national campaign, that sends a very different, and IMHO unnecessary message.
Would the war against Hitler have ended sooner had we chosen not to offend Nazism?FWIW, the United States did not wage a war against Hitler but rather against the government of Germany <<LINK1 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/dec04.asp#germany)>>, <<LINK2 (http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/pdfs/YaltaConference.pdf)>>, <<LINK3 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/gsmenu.asp)>>.
Is there historical evidence that our choice "to offend Nazism" hastened the end of combat operations against Germany?
Peregrino
12-31-2010, 12:51
FWIW, the United States did not wage a war against Hitler but rather against the government of Germany <<LINK1 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/dec04.asp#germany)>>, <<LINK2 (http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/pdfs/YaltaConference.pdf)>>, <<LINK3 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/gsmenu.asp)>>.
Is there historical evidence that our choice "to offend Nazism" hastened the end of combat operations against Germany?
Is there historical evidence that our choice "to offend Nazism" delayed the end of combat operations against Germany?
No,..
I agree to an extent…{your entire post} but I think you’re confusing an ideology with ethnicity. I disagree with those who express fear in uniting the Ummah - those who hate us already hate us and nothing can be done to change that - what’s wrong with drawing em’ out of the shadows for the world to see?
Is there historical evidence that our choice "to offend Nazism" hastened the end of combat operations against Germany?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cFW1rQ5thI
Is there historical evidence of authoritarian rulers who laid down restrictions on free speech, dissent, and criticism, to tighten their authoritarian grip?
Did Roosevelt or Truman solicit Nazi propagandists to run their War Departments and National Security apparatus?
Were there any concessions made to Nazism’s radical ideology by our Government during WWII ?
Oldrotorhead
12-31-2010, 14:22
Ahhh yes, modern "art":rolleyes:
Just checking, I am assuming you are referring to the architectural beauty of the Taj Mahal, and the Islamic contributions to geometry and math...?
I could be wrong but I believe the majority of the scientific advances were done by Arabs prior to Big Mo.
As an American I can ignore the cross in urine and Mohamed depicted anywhere. That said if the Left insists that there is a separation of Church and State then none of these object belong in a tax supported museum.
We have few enough friend in the Muslim world so there is little gain in being offensive for no good reason. So I think some of these overtly offensive actions such as some of this "art"do not work to our advantage. :munchin
Is there historical evidence that our choice "to offend Nazism" delayed the end of combat operations against Germany?IMO, yes.
FDR's numerous 'insults' to the Nazi regime during America's undeclared war against Germany in 1941 motivated Germany in no small part to declare war against the U.S. in December of that year. (The enemy of the world emphasized this undeclared war in his speech of 11 December 1941 <<LINK (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitler_declares_war.html)>>. ) In the short term, Hitler's umbrage played to his enemies' advantage. By declaring war on the United States, the enemy of the world spared President Roosevelt the uphill task of convincing the American people that fighting Nazi Germany was the right thing to do.
Yet, in 1941 America was not ready to fight a general war against both Japan and Germany (http://www.historynet.com/wp-content/uploads/image/2009/Military%20History/Louisiana%20Main%20Article.jpg). This unreadiness translated to the Americans being treated like junior partners by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee as well as by Winston Churchill. Until the Americans established equal footing with the British, strategic decisions (too) often served Britian's long term interests at the expense of the U.S.'s.
In turn, these decisions led to operations that many Americans felt delayed the establishment of a second front in Western Europe (e.g. GYMNAST/TORCH and HUSKY). The delays exacerbated relations between the Soviet Union and the United States. Both feared that the other might strike a separate peace with Germany.
To placate Stalin, the U.S. emphasized that war in Europe would not end without both the 'unconditional surrender' and subsequent partition of Germany. This position was codified during the Yalta conference of 1945. Although Germany had already committed itself to 'total war' in 1943--if not earlier--the notion of a Soviet interpretation of 'unconditional surrender' impacted the conduct of operations on the eastern front (where the Second World War was won). Anthony Beevor, among others, argues that the horrific civilian causalities suffered during the Battle for Berlin were attributable the Germans' justifiable fears of Russian retribution <<LINK2 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/berlin_01.shtml#two)>>. (General Eisenhower's naval aide, Harry C. Butcher, commented in his diary on how German units would not surrender to Soviet units in May 1945.)
Moreover, contemporaneous American criticism of Nazi ideology struck many a nerve stateside. On the one hand, the U.S. rightly pointed out that Nazism codified a constellation of beliefs antithetical to liberalism (note, the lower case 'l'). Yet at the same time, America itself still had a long way to go on the long road to democracy <<LINK3 (http://amhist.ist.unomaha.edu/module_files/DoubleV.jpg)>>.
While I am skeptical of the notion of 'the lessons of history,' I do think we should be exceedingly cautious in how we beat the drums of war during this current conflict.
My $0.02. YMMV.
Is there historical evidence of authoritarian rulers who laid down restrictions on free speech, dissent, and criticism, to tighten their authoritarian grip?
Did Roosevelt or Truman solicit Nazi propagandists to run their War Departments and National Security apparatus?
Were there any concessions made to Nazism’s radical ideology by our Government during WWII ?With respect, you have a habit of not addressing questions posed to you.
Were there any concessions made to Nazism’s radical ideology by our Government during WWII ?
Neville Chamberlain the Appeaser....while he wasn't from 'our Government' he did represent the allies (imo) and he signed away the rights of countries and their citizens, and we didn't object too much.
With respect, you have a habit of not addressing questions posed to you.
I’m still waiting for you to explain to me how the Islamic terrorists are theologically violating the basic tenets of their faith?
The Reaper
12-31-2010, 18:37
....the notion of a Soviet interpretation of 'unconditional surrender' impacted the conduct of operations on the eastern front (where the Second World War was won).
IIRC, we (the US and UK) destroyed more German cities than the Soviets did, and provided other Allies with large quantities of war materials.
No doubt the Reds were engaged in ground combat longer and against much greater numbers of Nazi forces, but I would not presume to categorically state that they "won the war".
TR
I agree to an extent…{your entire post} but I think you’re confusing an ideology with ethnicity. I disagree with those who express fear in uniting the Ummah - those who hate us already hate us and nothing can be done to change that - what’s wrong with drawing em’ out of the shadows for the world to see?
We are actively targeting the extremists across the globe as we should be. In regard to ideology, IMHO the hierarchy of identification in sentient beings is not so simply defined.
A man can be, a son, a brother, a husband, a father, a Waziri, a Pakistani, a Sunni, a Muslim, an engineer, a soldier of the 7th Division, and the list goes on. The hierarchy of this man's identification and loyalty just isn't as simple as Islam trumps everything all the time, if it was for example the different interpretations and massive historic violence between Sunnis and Shi'ites wouldn't exist.
We are at war, precision and knowledge can only help us. IIRC one of the ways we were initially able to track AQ in the hills of Afghanistan, was talking to the spice merchants, taxi drivers, and money changers of Kabul. A great number of AQ are Saudi Arabs, Afghans are not Arabs, the Saudis eat different spices, dress differently, had to change currency, and needed to be driven around to get these things. We put ourselves at disadvantage by ignoring the diversity, rifts, and competing motivations within Islam.
IMHO the hierarchy of identification in sentient beings is not so simply defined.....
.....We put ourselves at disadvantage by ignoring the diversity, rifts, and competing motivations within Islam.
I've enjoyed this thread thus far. Part of the problem with Hierarchy is putting a face to the cause. In Facsism, Cummunism, Socialism, we have a leader. In Christianity, Roman Catholic, we have the Pope, in Mormonism, we have a Prophet, in Evangelical Christian, we have, ?????, In Judaism, we have ????
What face do we put on Islam, is it Arab, Malaysian, other? Who speaks for Islam?
mark46th
01-01-2011, 12:11
If I thought that Islam, in general, was working to subdue Terrorism/Jihad, I would tend to be more respectful of Islam's sensitivities. But, other than Saudi Arabia, I know of no other Islamic country that is actively trying to thwart Terrorism/Jihad. Even the Saudis give money to appease terrorists but at least on a minimal, self-serving level, they do cooperate. There may be others assisting the U.S. and I will applaud them. But, I will not forget the Muslim masses celebrating in the streets after 9-11. Islam exposed its true feelings towards the rest of the world at that time.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mark's Rule of War #1- You must fight the war on terms the enemy understands.
Mark's Rule of War #2- Don't start a war with someone who can blow up your shxt
faster than you can make it.
Ambush Master
01-01-2011, 13:13
I'm saying it again!!!
We must have (not to be read as "NEED") an Amendment to Our Constitution, which states that these "Rights" are only applicable to those that are in TOTAL agreement to all of them (The Rights Granted To Us By The Constitution and It's Amendments!!)!!!
If "they" can't accept these terms, then NONE of those Rights, Granted by Our Constitution,............APPLY to THEM!!!
Happy New Year!!
Martin
What face do we put on Islam, is it Arab, Malaysian, other? Who speaks for Islam?
Sir,
IMHO that is exactly the $64 question. Islam has a global leadership failure which makes Zero look competent. They have had strong leaders in the past, Saladin was revered for both his strength and chivalry by his Crusader enemies. More recently Ataturk built a secular state with Democracy in the 1920's, people are people most want to be led , a strong leader can change tradition. I believe Anwar Sadat eventually saw the light as well, and what might have been had he not been assassinated?
Folks have mentioned the Saudis, IMO they are the worst of the lot, Despots who accept our protection while funneling terror through the back door. They never worked for their wealth and it shows, they are lucky the West chose to pay them for their oil instead of just taking it. Do we think Stalin would have paid them for oil in 1945?
It may be ignorance, but I cannot currently point to a significant Muslim statesman with any global credibility, Karzai seems as shady as the day is long. Perhaps this is just the nature of Third World leadership, though there are certainly instances of credible non Muslim Third World statesmen, India's Manmohan Singh for example.
In this leadership vacuum, with the only prominent Muslims voices being the infamous actions of wolves like Saddam or UBL, the face of Islam is easily perceived in a dark light.
Folks have mentioned Muslims dancing in the streets after 9-11, frankly that makes my blood boil. However, consider the Palestinians we saw cheering on CNN, initially I just wanted to carpet bomb them, but these people are pawns, for all their wealth the Arab nations pay lip service to this cause, but do nothing significant to help the Palestinians. In their eyes, they have equal claim to the land, they aren't highly educated, they view the Israelis as aggressors with tanks, and are manipulated by the other Arab states. They believe America enables their enemies to harm them, hence the cheering at our loss. The options are simple, either exterminate them or foster the leadership and infrastructure within their communities to co-exist.
IMHO it will all boil down to Iraq, if a stable prosperous democracy can be established in the heart of the Middle East, the ramifications for the neighboring despots and their subjects will move towards regime change in American interests.
We have shed a great deal of American blood there, and need to see this through. The Islamists are terrified at the thought of a modern secular Iraq becoming the flagship and face of the Muslim world, it would confirm what the fundamentalists already know and fear, they have no future.
What face do we put on Islam, is it Arab, Malaysian, other? Who speaks for Islam?
Muhammad is the model of virtue, and a “beautiful pattern of conduct” for anyone who attempts to represent Islam.
Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day (Sura 33:21)
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/033.qmt.html#033.021
17518
IMHO it will all boil down to Iraq, if a stable prosperous democracy can be established in the heart of the Middle East, the ramifications for the neighboring despots and their subjects will move towards regime change in American interests.
Which is exactly why the Russians and the Chinese, via the Persians and Jihadists, cannot allow that to happen. IMO, we have allowed ourselves to become distracted.
What did it take for a young Croatian boy, less then 20 yo, to have a Christian tattoo done I'm guessing in the 1920-1930's.
...but thanks for bringing this up, it will give me more items to research - particularly on the topic of Turkish Slavery. Thank you Sir.
The number system we use is Arabic (1,2,3,4,5...etc...are Hindu-Arabic numbers).
Zero, as well as the concept of zero was also important. In this case the general belief is this system was developed by the Hindu's, but presented to the West via the Arabs who traded with both sides.