insult sparks violence in a religion of peace
March 29th, 2008 by Brian Withnell
First, I believe there are those that are peaceful Muslims. But just as Christians have sects that fight each other, Muslims have violent types as well.
Yesterday, a video was released that depicted violence juxtaposed with text of the Qur’an and quotations of spectacularly non-peaceful Muslims. It was placed on LiveLeak.com, but after they received many death threats, the video was pulled off. The removal statement byLiveLeak is rather chilling. What is sad, is that those that find it offensive I can understand, but those that threaten to kill people because of the offense only prove that the video is at least partially true. Those Muslims that are reasonable, that find the video offensive yet share no values with people that perform the acts perpetrated on the video should find at least as much offense at those that have committed these acts in the name of their religion as those that point out these criminals.
If the Muslim world had as many protests with people rioting in the streets over the despicable actions of those that desecrate the idea of Islam being a religion of peace then this kind of video would hold no traction with anyone. That there were fewer Muslims demonstrating against the criminals that flew airplanes into the World Trade Center than there were people celebrating gives the makers of this kind of video credit.
When people defame the Christian religion, you generally do not see rioting in the streets, and there is nearly universal protest against those that resort to violence in the name of Christianity. If the same were true for Islam, perhaps this video would never have been made, and if it were, it would not have gained any attention.
It does appear to be counter intuitive to say “We are a religion of peace, and if you say anything we don’t like, we will kill you!”
This entry was posted on Saturday, March 29th, 2008 at 12:51 am and is filed under Philosophy, religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
If Satan were to invent a religion, it would be Islam.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Naw. Satan just warps mans’ interpretation of religion.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:40 am
ACTivist — please note the subjuntice mood of my statement.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:46 am
Jack,
In the Quran, Abraham is the first prophet of Allah. Throughout the Quran, Islam is referred to as the Religion of Abraham. Can we make a generalized statement about Islam based upon the interpretations of this scripture by some modern day radicals ?
Many of these radicals seem to be living in the 14th century, are they that different from Christians of this same period ?
March 31st, 2008 at 10:19 am
Activists,
Satan’s lies are almost like Ivory soap. Darn near 99&44/100 % pure. It’s that little twist on the end that warps the meaning.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:20 am
Dan,
“Many of these radicals seem to be living in the 14th century, are they that different from Christians of this same period ?”
Try 8th century. By the 14th we already where experiencing the enlightenment as well as the reformation.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:49 am
I understand, Jack.
Any religion that promotes the death or extermination of another because of religious beliefs is not a religion of GOD. It would most definately be a religion of Satan.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:12 am
I suppose that their are extremists in any religious faith.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Perhaps, Dan, but other religions condemn their fanatics. The muslims applaud theirs, and take up donations for their families.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Jack, Regarding some muslims, yes I agree with you. But I for one do not believe that actions of a minority reflect on the entirety. Maybe I am being naive, maybe I am not.
If Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all religions of Abraham, how and why did such a wide divergence come about I wonder. Theology as a political and social tool, or simply a shift away from the pure faith for power ?
March 31st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I’m talking about the inaction — the refusal to condemn murder — of the majority of Muslims. Where is the outrage that their religion is being hijacked by murderous extremists? The silence is deafening.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I agree where is this invisible majority that condemns the murderous antics of the terrorist/jihadist/fanatic? When some stupid cartoon came out and it showed Mohamed with a bomb for a turbin, there where riots from Morrocco to India. The muslim world threw a collective hissy fit, the sissies.
When some poor woman named a teddy bear Mohamed she almost lost her life and again there was rioting across Africa and the middle east. The Muslim word should take a deep collective breath they are hyperventilating.
The are exceeding all expectations for uncivilized out of control behavior. Just because they are a pack of illiterate, unwashed, crazed savages, it does not mean they have to act like illiterate, unwashed, crazed, savages.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:28 pm
jesus hector christ.
the search,
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=muslims+around+the+world+condemn+extremists&btnG=Google+Search
yields a bunch of interesting results, including,
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/02/27/poll-majority-muslims-worldwide-condemn-9-11/
that took abut 4 seconds. remind me never to take you guys seriously again.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Jacob,
The tone of #12 is exactly what I do not expect from Christians or Jews. Consider this a severe tongue lashing, and straighten up. Name calling is just not appropriate. (And that I call you on it, make a big deal about words that are just inappropriate separates what I think you believe from what is Islamic extremism.)
Dan,
The divergence of the three occurred in three separate points of time. The Jewish religion predates the other two. For the Christians, they see the texts of the Messiah as being fulfilled in Jesus — the Jews reject that Jesus is Messiah (well, most of them, there are Jewish groups that think Jesus was in fact Messiah, but generally they are small groups). Christians accept as unadulterated the scriptures of the Old Testament and fully accept that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are exactly the same God, and that he did not change character or attributes between the two testaments. Muslims take the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and state that Jews and Christian leaders purposely twisted their meaning after they were given. They believe that Mohammad came as God’s last and greatest prophet with direct revelation from God (essentially a recitation, which is a loose translation of Qur’an). Both Jews and Christians state that not only is that not true, but that it is marginally blasphemous that they would have the ability to so corrupt the scriptures that the message (what God intended to communicate) would be lost.
While there have been some very recent (the last 150 years) sects that have stated that divine revelation continues, the universal message of the church was for nearly 2000 years that revelation ended with the apostles and the closing of the New Testament. All orthodox Christian teaching would affirm the scriptures are infallible. The Roman church would put the church as the final arbiter of doctrine, while the protestants would put the scriptures as the final arbiter of doctrine (in this age/world — both acknowledge that God is the final authority and that he is incapable of changing, and so his very nature is the final arbiter of doctrine and faith).
From what I can tell, Muslims do not have a God that has both characteristics and attributes that are incapable of change. They would say that God chooses what he is going to be like, and then are very fatalistic about what will happen. That is diametrically opposed to what Christians and Jews believe — and hence the friction. Jews and Christians believe that God is incapable of being anything other than what he is. He stated “I am who I am” to Moses, and that was a statement of eternal consistency. God is not becoming; God is, and does not change.
The _big_ difference between the Jews and Christians is over the nature of Jesus (Muslims would also reject the Christian doctrine of trinity). Christians believe in a single God eternally existing in three persons — a trinity — one God, three persons in that one God. Both Jews and Muslims reject that as non-sense. I can fully comprehend that it is not easy to understand, in fact to fully understand it I believe is impossible (I am of finite capacity, I cannot contain what is beyond that capacity, and certainly God would patently have to be beyond my capacity to understand.)
I believe that is about as “dry” an explanation of the trifurcation of the “faith of Abraham” as I can give. I believe it conveys what each group would say is the main sticking point with the other groups.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:13 am
that’s interesting. only, I’d disagree with with the idea that the source of friction is different ideas about the nature of God. I’d argue that the friction is rooted in this world; in history and politics, and people are looking for justification for their frustrations in their religious texts.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:10 am
Brian,
I considered myself heretofore lashed.
I wish to point out that there is a level barbarity a foot in the Muslim world. I could post links to the beheadings, the riots, the executions of women and homosexuals. How would you answer that?
It is reported that less than only less than 1% of Muslims are actively engaged in this violent behavior. It is also reported that only 10% of the Muslims actively support the barbarity with their money. This all still translates into over 1 to 10 million fanatics with over 100M supporters. The next question is of the rest how many do not give money but approve? What do you call such behavior?
April 1st, 2008 at 5:24 am
Brian,
Regarding the branching out of Abraham’s faith. The Christian and Jewish image of God’s nature is that while he is holy is not capricious. Also in contrast is the nature of God in the Koran is that he seeks military global conquest. The Jews have a limited homeland and Christians have a call to spread the word of globally through peaceful persuasion. The two older traditions have strong pacifistic leanings, this is absent in Islam.
One last note, I see Christianity as post-messianic Judaism pure and simple. The scriptures foretold of Christ’s coming, his nature and of his death. His life, death and resurrection was the fulfillment of a passel of prophesies. That modern Jews reject that Christ is the messiah of which they foretold is not surprising. Many Jews converted to Christianity at the time of the Apostles. Those we see today are perforce the descendants of those who rejected the message of the gospel. Aside from that the two are very self consistent, the dietary laws not withstanding.
Islam has a different feel to it, altogether. There are several thematic rifts as well as the fact that Mohamed is the only non Jewish prophet to be found in the Abrahamic pantheon of prophets.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:32 am
Marshmallow,
I never knew Jesus had a middle name. My education is now complete. Good stuff in those links, and hopeful. It appears the media in our country is underreporting this, a lot of it is new. The London times and the guardian are far quicker to get into this. As for the poll, I am skeptical given other reports and polls I have seen previously.
To put a cap on it, we all have witnessed waves of riots sweep across the the Muslim world time and time again over cartoons, teddy bears, and other things. The size of these demonstrations appear to dwarf the protests against the violence and extremism. This is my observation. Now, is it a function of the coverage only? Perhaps, but I am doubtful. The Levant especially needs to finally grow up.
One last note, you are correct the source of the ‘friction’ is man, not God. He loves us all. The trouble is that we
1. cannot completely understand God, for the finite cannot fully perceive the infinite.
2. are sinful by our nature, God is holy
3. are subject to the evil which exists in us all, it is not a pathology, it is a hideous reality
4. will not solve our problems by holding hands and singing kumbaya
5. are forced to come to terms with the reality that truth is not relative, the stakes are huge, and in spite of all that we must love one another as we love ourselves
April 1st, 2008 at 10:36 pm
SPMM,
The thing that I think points that this is more than just a difference of history and politics is the instances of converts from Islam receiving the death penalty for nothing more than conversion.
Islam is not very tolerant of Muslims converting to a different religion. In many countries that have sharia law, the penalty for conversion is death. This is not people of a different history or politics, it is strictly a religious difference. While there can be historical/political differences between countries, patently two children born and raised in the same family do not have those differences. If one converts, the punishment is death, and the other could very well be the one to point it out.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Jacob,
Of course you see Christianity as post Messianic Judaism: you are a Christian. In a sense, Islam sees itself as post prophet Christianity. The problem is that of all three world views, only one can be true truth. The reality is that when three mutually exclusive propositions are put forth, only one can be true. If present day Jews are correct, then Christianity and Islam are both wrong. If Christianity is correct, then Judaism and Islam are wrong. If Islam is correct, then both Judaism and Christianity are wrong.
The issue here though is more along the lines of what ought to be the response of that knowledge. From my perspective, knowing that Christianity truly is correct, I have no need for aggressive action toward other religions. God does not need my help in assuring his will eventually conquers the entire earth. God is sovereign, and he is consistent in assuring his ultimate will is accomplished. He doesn’t wring his hands in heaven over the actions of people that he made. We cannot thwart his will. So the only reason for me to do what I do in relationship to what he commands is not in order that things get done, but only that I am allowed to take part in that action.
The gospel is not “conquer the world for me” but that Jesus has already conquered sin and death for those that are called by him. The glory is all his, none of it mine. I, by grace, am a servant. Jesus is the King that will accomplish the victory of warfare in the end — he does not ask his wife (the church) to do his fighting for him.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:45 am
SPMM,
I read the article you cited. While I have to accept that they must believe what was written, I also know that during the time immediately after the 9/11 acts of cowardice the *visible* response in many Islamic countries was not outrage at the dogs that killed all those children, women and men, but dancing in the streets.
I could find it more of a historical/political reaction if there were dancing in the streets by non-Muslims. It may be that a very small percentage of Muslims are so extreme as to perform such acts, it may also be true that only a very small percent rejoiced in those actions. But that is exactly what was seen — hundreds of people in many Islamic dominated countries rejoicing, no rejoicing by other groups, and no forceful and stern warnings that the people that planned this acts would be sought out, tried, convicted, and sentenced.
I would think that a strictly political/historical view would have people from different religions acting the same outrageous way. Can you see what I’m saying?
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:26 am
* “From my perspective, knowing that Christianity truly is correct” is a very interesting phrase
* this isn’t the first time a group of people twisted the faith of regular people living in complicated times, and invented a cult-like quasi-religious ideology to justify their positions of power. The parallels between radical islam and fascism are axiomatic
don’t overlook this component. Of course it’s couched in religious rhetoric, but don’t be fooled; it’s an old fashioned recipe for gaining political power. If everyone in the world were Christian, we’d probably be seeing the same thing in regions where people see themselves as the perpetual underdogs: radical movements that find inspiration in religious traditions for their extreme actions. Because this isn’t happing in christiandom at the moment doesn’t mean that it never has, or never will
* I have to say it’s interesting that both you guys use examples of raising kids while discussing the mid east, (”The Levant especially needs to finally grow up.” and “patently two children born and raised in the same family do not have those differences.”) considering that the perception that “the west” has been overly paternalistic in the ME is often played up by muslim extremists.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:41 am
None of what you say contradicts the central premise, that the Islamic extremists are generally not condemned by mainline Islamists, but are praised and rewarded.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:13 am
Brian,
“In a sense, Islam sees itself as post prophet Christianity.”
Where do you get that. The Sura’s explicitly warn against making friends with Christians. Christians are seen as blasphemers for our God is Triune, and the Muslim’s interpret this as polytheism. There is nothing intrinsic to the gospels or the rest of the new testiment that is hostile to the older tradition, that is not so with Islam.
I think you overlooked a critical point I made in my earlier comment sir, the God of the Koran is capricious and hates the unbelievers not just their sins. Th God of the old and new testament hates sin, but not the sinner, nor is he capricious.
Nor do Judaism and Christianity celebrate the fanatic in their midst.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:59 am
Marshmallow,
don’t overlook this component.”
“his isn’t the first time a group of people twisted the faith of regular people living in complicated times, and invented a cult-like quasi-religious ideology to justify their positions of power. The parallels between radical islam and fascism are axiomatic
We are in total agreement ere. I think the nub of where we disagree is that in Islam the violence toward unbelievers is couched in a manner that is radically different from that of the other two. “Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord”, and ‘turn the other cheek’, are radically different from ’smite the neck of the unbeliever’.
What I am saying is that it IS easier for the fanatic to point to the Koran and make a logical argument for violence than it is by looking at the Books of moses, orr the entirety of the new testament. War was endemic to the experience of Israel but note that even by the time of David taking a census for the purpose of determining th size of the army was considered sin.
In short, while what you say is VERY true regarding that even if there was only oe world religion we would still have aggrieved parties using this mechanism, I agree, but some belief systems are more inclined toward this than others. That si the heart of the matter.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:24 am
Of course, when we bombed the crap out of Baghdad, which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, we were dancing in the streets. (Wow! Cool! Shock and awe!)
And for a long time, the KKK were praised by many (most?) in power, especially in the south. Best to not get too high and mighty.
Third point: Luke 19:27, Deut. 13:12-16, Deut. 17:2-5, Lev. 24:16
The idea that the God of the Christians is not capricious and doesn’t kill unbelievers is laughable. We’ve just decided to ignore the stupid parts of the bible, of which there are many.
Islam is a sister religion to Christianity. I think you’ll find that in the middle ages, the muslims were more advanced and less bloody than the Christians. Now it’s the other way around. The answers aren’t in more religion, less religion, or different religions. They are in understanding, compassion, human rights, and the golden rule.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
inSanity,
Wow. I now see it your way. Yup. definitely.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
“I think you’ll find that in the middle ages, the muslims were more advanced and less bloody than the Christians. Now it’s the other way around. The answers aren’t in more religion, less religion, or different religions. They are in understanding, compassion, human rights, and the golden rule.”
Exactly. Islam turned civilized men into savages, and Christianity turned savages into civilized men.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Sanity?
“We’ve just decided to ignore the stupid parts of the bible, of which there are many.”
Does the Koran have any stupid parts in it? I figured that YOU would be the one to know this. Before you answer (and I hope you will) just remember that speaking againest my Bible and religion doesn’t allow me to exact some kind of punishment upon your sorry ass. That is for my GOD to decide. On the other hand, speak harshly about the Koran and Mohammed and I will just say my goodbyes to you now.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
SPMM,
I think you mistake my point. For brother to rise against brother, it can hardly be called “history” or “politics”. Those that have common history (even to the history of their upbringing) can hardly be against one another for historical reasons.
I would state that if everyone in the world were in fact Christians, that is, they submit to and strive to conform themselves to the principles of Christianity as taught in the Bible, then I don’t think you would have one group oppressing another. The oppressors would be certainly outside the scope of scriptural principles in dealing with brothers.
Of course from my perspective Christianity is truly correct. If I did not hold that to be true, I would not be a Christian.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Jacob,
While I understand that from a Christian perspective, Islam could not possibly be a follow-up to Christianity. Yet Muslims believe that the Bible we have is corrupted and purposely (willfully) distorted by Jews and Christians. So when we say that the Bible teaches a triune God, Muslims hear that as a lie — not only do they hear it as a lie, but they hear it as a lie with the purpose of leading them astray. Anything you say to them in order to lead them away from Islam, is you trying to get them condemned.
I did not say I agree with their perspective, but unless you know their perspective, you certainly won’t understand them.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Sanity
First, I would dispute that there are “stupid” parts of the Bible. There are parts that point to the purity of God and that the people of Israel were to be pure, even as God is pure. In this age, that is certainly not something that is possible.
As to us “dancing in the streets” at the conquest of Baghdad, I’m not so sure. There may have been a few that did not take it as just recompense for the atrocities committed by S.H., and they may very well have been looking at it as revenge (which is sad — and I would soundly condemn such a view). Ultimately, those that viewed such action as justified should have been viewing it as defense of innocent life. Either the defense of Shiites or defense of countries around them.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Brian,
I was not looking at it from a Christian perspective per se. I was looking at the themes in Judaism, & Christianity and noting a thematic break w.r.t. Islam and the two older faiths. I note that the nature of the God from the Old testament does not differ marketly from the God of the new testament. God in both traditions is absolute, and punishes all sin, but he also makes provision for the sinners even after they have sinned. For example:
1. Adam and Eve were cast out of eden, but God immediately gave them clothing and taught them how to get food
2. Caine was protected, even though he was the first murderer
and
3. Israel in the desert after the golden Calf while chastened was still in the main provided for
4. Today, the rain still falls on the home of the atheist
The examples above fall in both traditions. Another chief element is that one can always be forgiven in both Christianity and Judaism. This is definitely not the case with Islam. For example apostasy is punished buy death, this is not the case in Judaism or Christianity.
In Islam the God of Koran is out to confound and kill the sinners themselves. The of the old and new testaments only hates the sin, not the sinners. The God of the Koran has a pitiless approach for he calls on his followers to kill everyone who is pagan or atheist or agnostic and to extort money from the Jews and Christians.
Claiming they worship the God of Abraham is all well and good, but this is akin to me declaring myself to be your cousin. I make say it over and over again, but that does not make it so.
The proof is in the Sura’s themselves.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Brian,
“I would state that if everyone in the world were in fact Christians, that is, they submit to and strive to conform themselves to the principles of Christianity as taught in the Bible, then I don’t think you would have one group oppressing another. The oppressors would be certainly outside the scope of scriptural principles in dealing with brothers.”
Give SPMM some latitude. I think his point is that if the world is populated by _declared_ Christians then it is likely that this behavior will occur. There is a difference between truly following Christ, and taking up your cross, dying to your fallen self, and just sitting in the pews on Sunday for 45 minutes.
We live in a country with millions of Christians, are they all waking in the way? ‘Christian’ Theology’s of all stripes put the man’s above God glory. They call themselves Christians, I am sure many are, but they do miss the mark. We all still sin, even when we try not to. Though we are made new, we are not a finished work.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Brian, I have truly enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. Thank you for sharing these with us.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:08 pm
inSanity,
Try to make you point cogently. I would like to give it more time, but what you have written thus far is obviously more for shock effect than it is for discussion.
Tone it down son, we ain’t going anywhere, I will try to ‘get’ you point, if it is something other than trying to be obtuse.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Perhaps Northern Ireland is an example that fits SPMM’s comment ? Or possibly the 19th century Utah War ?
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 pm
“For brother to rise against brother, it can hardly be called “history” or “politics”. Those that have common history (even to the history of their upbringing) can hardly be against one another for historical reasons.”
au contraire? That is the very definition of a civil war. We had one of those, were there no historical-political underpinnings in that conflict? What about the Great Patriotic War, and all the other 100s of European conflicts? What about the Hutu and Tutsi, the the Maoists and the Kuomintang, etc. etc. etc.
Furthermore, beware that your reasoning is based on the idea that the Middle East or le Monde Islamique (you aren’t specific) is one big bloc where everyone shares a common culture/history/politics/etc. That simply isn’t so. It’s as complicated, if not more so, as any other region of the world.
“Yet Muslims believe that the Bible we have is corrupted and purposely (willfully) distorted by Jews and Christians.”
Are you sure about that? I know lots of muslims, I haven’t heard this one. It doesn’t seem to be a central, or necessary belief. It isn’t one of the Five Pillars of Islam
Of course, these are Midwest Muslims. Can you think of any historical/political reasons that Mid East Muslims might develop strong feelings toward Jewish people?
I’m not trying to take sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict, mind you. The point is that the conflict is rooted in politics…. I could go on, but that’s enough for now!
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:41 am
SPMM,
When I was talking about brother rising up against brother, I was talking about actual brothers, and not just those that are “societal” brothers. Islam teaches that anyone that is apostate should be killed without mercy (there is some disagreement on an apostate female, but total agreement on apostate males).
The distortion/corruption of the Bible (cf. about the third paragraph) is nearly a universal “truth” from an Islamic perspective. They “accept” the gospels and Torah “as originally given” (but totally lost) as holy and pure.
What I’ve tried to do is put forth what I believe is universal Islamic positions. It might not be talked about much, but the positions I believe are in fact what is taught. Sort of like the idea that the Roman Catholic church holds to transubstantiation (even if some Roman Catholics don’t accept what is universally taught, it is what is universally taught by the church). Sure, there will always be those that do not hold to specific beliefs of the religion they state is their religion, but that does not change the acceptable teaching of the religion.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:49 am
Dan,
Even Northern Ireland generally doesn’t have brothers (i.e., blood brothers) killing each other over their beliefs. It does have one group against another, but the groups are distinct (protestants and Roman Catholics).
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:58 am
“What I’ve tried to do is put forth what I believe is universal Islamic positions.”
A worthy endeavor, but I think you miss the mark. I don’t think it is universally taught, believed, or accepted that converts should be killed. and it’s the wrong place to start when trying to understand the universal aspects of the religion.
In all religions there are passages that, when interpreted literally, seem odd, or out of place. The faithful come to terms with these by understanding them symbolically or metaphorically, but they can also foster misunderstandings, or, when things align to create a window of opportunity, to fan the flames of extremism.
Here’s an example of literal interpretation leading to misunderstanding about “core values”
http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/cruel.htm
The thing about the major world religions is that there are so many people in so many far flung corners of the world using them that there are very few universalities. What is universally taught among self identified christians? Jesus is the son of god, he died for our sins, if we believe that we go to heaven. That’s about it. Beyond that you get into protestant/catholic, sunni/shia type disputes about what the True religion is. If you want to understand what is universally believed by muslims, I suggest starting with the 5 Pillars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Here’s my simple point for those that don’t want to spend the time to actually read the verses I pointed out. If you believe there are no “stupid” parts of the Bible or Koran, then you simply haven’t read them with anything close to an open mind.
All of you are dumping on the Koran and on Muslims. That’s fine. There is much about their religion, their fanatics, and their holy book that should be condemned. You’ve specifically complained that:
They have fanatics that kill people of other religions;
Other muslims have not condemned them as much or as quickly as you would have liked;
Their holy book seems to require that anyone of another religion is inherently bad or evil and should be done away with.
My point is that Christianity suffers from the same problems. To say that Islam is inherently worse than Christianity is to completely miss the big picture. The Bible, as the Koran, is full of passages that require killing persons that are not of the same faith, that pray to other gods, or who commit the smallest of offenses.
Christians also have their fanatics. We call some of them the KKK who, until recently in biblical terms, were praised by many, perhaps even a majority, of much of our country. Only 50 years ago prominent politicians and judges in the south were using the Bible to justify killing blacks. 150 years ago, the Bible was used to advocate slavery. Today it’s used to condemn homosexuals. Now, the bible hasn’t changed in the last 150 years, but now slavery is bad? Were the interpretations of 150 years ago in error? Are ours today in error?
We also have the “advantage” of a born-again Commander in Chief with a huge army. So that when we kill many thousands of muslims in Irag, it’s not “terrorism”. We’re playing fair damnit! With honest bombs and guns! Not like those two-bit muslim hoods with their sneaky IED’s!
My point is that rich Christians in their nice homes with their big armies might appear to be acting differently than the poor, fanatical Muslims with their sandals. But when you look at the big picture with open eyes, you see that (a) both religions advocate killing, maiming, and hurting ones that believe differently, and (b) it’s not at all clear that we “holy” Christians wouldn’t be doing exactly what the Muslims are doing if our roles were reversed.
Reviewing the long histories of both religions leads to that simple, inescapable conclusion. To believe otherwise, or to simply dismiss my thoughts as not “cogent” is to blind yourselves to reality.
Now, having said all that, there’s nothing here that says anything about the “rightness” or “wrongness” of either religion. Nothing is to be construed to be for or against whether Jesus is or is not the Son of God, or anything else. This comment is not an opinion on that at all.
It’s just that I believe you should temper your “holier than thou” comments because they simply have no basis in history. Sure, you can cherry-pick this or that to prove whatever point you are trying to make, but looked at in the whole neither religion seems all that peaceful, the four Gospels notwithstanding.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
For completeness, let me define “stupid parts” in the previous comment: “Verses which when taken literally are only followed by people that mainstream practitioners consider fanatical.”
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Sanity,
“If you believe there are no “stupid” parts of the Bible or Koran, then you simply haven’t read them with anything close to an open mind.”
A bold statement, having read the Bible in its entirety more than once I would appreciate it if you would point out a particular verse as you did previously and tell me your interpretation, and what is ’stupid’ about it, from the standpoint of:
““Verses which when taken literally are only followed by people that mainstream practitioners consider fanatical.””
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Sanity,
“All of you are dumping on the Koran and on Muslims.”
I am dumping on the Koran. I stand by it. It is something we can pursue. Have I dumped on Muslim’s per se? Or are you reading this into what I am saying.
You’ve specifically complained that:
They have fanatics that kill people of other religions;
Other muslims have not condemned them as much or as quickly as you would have liked;
Their holy book seems to require that anyone of another religion is inherently bad or evil and should be done away with.
“My point is that Christianity suffers from the same problems. To say that Islam is inherently worse than Christianity is to completely miss the big picture. The Bible, as the Koran, is full of passages that require killing persons that are not of the same faith, that pray to other gods, or who commit the smallest of offenses.”
Kewel…
1. Please show me a single passage in the NEW testament that calls for the taking of life?
2. Please show me a single passage in the OLD testament that calls for the people of Israel the killing of another nation for worshiping another God.
3. Please show me a case where for a small infraction some common person is put to death.
For the purpose of keeping things from getting garbled let us call this ‘Thread 2′ of the conversation. My previous reply is “Thread 1″. So if and when you reply please note “T1″ or “T2″.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
InSanity,
Thread 3: (hey, you are the one all over the map)
“Christians also have their fanatics. We call some of them the KKK who, until recently in biblical terms, were praised by many, perhaps even a majority, of much of our country.”
The KKK was never a Christian organization burning a cross does not make you a Christian, just like wearing a Swastika does not make you a Hindu.
“Only 50 years ago prominent politicians and judges in the south were using the Bible to justify killing blacks.”
This is crap, you are either making this up or are reaching way to far. Please show me the verses that were used to justify murder. Hell, tell me who said the Bible justified killing blacks. Such a theme is antithetical to the words in the Bible.
“150 years ago, the Bible was used to advocate slavery.”
Yes is was, for the word servant and slave are interchangeable and we ALL are called on to be good servants. So it not at all surprising.
Slavery as an institution existed since time immemorial. Considering that the idea of the abolition of slavery first took root in the Christian West over 250 years ago, and was not made illegal in Saudi Arabia until 1972 I think we can lay the credit for delegitimizing this practice on Christianities doorstep, for it was Christian, mostly protestant ministers, who started, nurtured and grew the abolitionist movement.
“Today it’s used to condemn homosexuals.”
You are actually comparing these to practices? OK. In the case of homosexuality let us compare the Christian response to the Muslim response. In the case of Christians we say you are sining, please stop for it will hurt you. In the case of Muslims they say a ha, you will stop because now we are we will kill you.
“Now, the bible hasn’t changed in the last 150 years, but now slavery is bad? Were the interpretations of 150 years ago in error? Are ours today in error?”
An excellent question. It is actually three questions. One regarding slavery and the second regarding interpretation of scripture, lastly the integrity of the man preaching.
1. Slavery:
First of all, the Bible has nothing in it that disallows “Slavery” per se. HOWEVER, slavery in Israel was different from the chattel slavery in the South. Jews who where sold into slavery in Israel were not allowed to be sold to non Jews. They had rights. The period of slavery was usually limited to seven years. The children of the slaves where free.
This is fundamentally different from the treatment of blacks who were treated worse than cattle w.r.t. breeding. In this country many of the early servants were whites who were enslaved to a given master for a period of 5 to 7 years. Which is a situation fr closer to the old Hebrew model.
In effect the racially delineated enslavement of blacks was a new animal for the English, one not ever seen in Israel. Europe had not seen such slavery since the time of the Romans.
To put a point on it, w.r.t. slavery, please read the following Matt 19:4-8. The passage is one regarding divorce, apply the sentiment to this topic.
2. Interpretation:
Man is fallible, and sinful. No man’s interpretation is holy. I have no trouble with criticizing interpretations given by past pastors/priests. If you want to use this as an avenue to justify some personal behavior go ahead, just remeber you ain’t holy and will have to convince people who read scripture on a daily basis.
3. Integrity:
Those who preach are men. Many walk with God. Some do not. Some have wandered away from God. Ol Wright is a good example of someone who is profaning the pulpit from which he speaks. Falwell was also guilty of this.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Insane,
T4
“We also have the “advantage” of a born-again Commander in Chief with a huge army. So that when we kill many thousands of muslims in Irag, it’s not “terrorism”. We’re playing fair damnit! With honest bombs and guns! Not like those two-bit muslim hoods with their sneaky IED’s!”
Please stop the recreational drug use while trying to make an argument. Where you got all this is beyond me.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Sanity,
T5
“My point is that rich Christians in their nice homes with their big armies might appear to be acting differently than the poor, fanatical Muslims with their sandals. But when you look at the big picture with open eyes, you see that (a) both religions advocate killing, maiming, and hurting ones that believe differently, and (b) it’s not at all clear that we “holy” Christians wouldn’t be doing exactly what the Muslims are doing if our roles were reversed.”
Total moral equivalence hey.
Prove it.
I see us getting bombed for over 20 years now by the Muslim fanatics. This culminated with 9/11. So if you could put together a more compelling argument than “when you look at the big picture with open eyes, you see …” I would appreciate it. It is tiresome to imply that those who disagree with you are just no seeing. Try a different tack; use logic and facts.
“Reviewing the long histories of both religions leads to that simple, inescapable conclusion. To believe otherwise, or to simply dismiss my thoughts as not “cogent” is to blind yourselves to reality.”
More of the same. Starting in the 8th century, Islam crushed the widespread Christian communities in Israel, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Asia Minor and Spain. The Crusades where the response. But we are equivalent? Show how a response to 300 years of unprovoked aggression is equivalent.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Sanity,
I did read those verses, in fact, I read them in three different versions of the English, and made sure I understood the key words in either Hebrew (OT) or Greek (NT). When I said there were no stupid parts of the Bible, I meant it. There are none, and in fact cannot be any. “… then you simply haven’t read them with anything close to an open mind.” Neither have you. You and I are both subject to the world view through which we view all things. If you think that you could in fact make a judgment about the content of the Bible, you have already rejected the premise upon which it is given.
If you approach it from the perspective that it was in fact given as inspired, inerrant, infallible writ, then you would not approach it as something that you can judge, but something that judges you. If you approach it as something over which you can pass judgment, then you have already decided you are more worthy than it (or at the very least, equal to it — and you know your own fallibility, and so you attribute to it fallibility as well.)
No man, woman, or child can be objective in regard to scripture. Saying that you could be would be tantamount to claiming that you are a god able to pass judgment on the words of another. If the Bible is God’s word — and God is God, then his ways will be higher than your ways, his thoughts higher than your thoughts. You will not be able to call him to testify as you have no authority, while he would have plenary over you. The hight of hubris would be to reject that authority.
As to slavery and the Bible, check your history. Who started the present day Republican party, and why? It was religious “zealots” that objected to slavery — at least the racial slavery that we had in the 19th century.
I would also disagree that “Christians … advocate killing, maiming, and hurting ones that believe differently,” — in fact, the only “maiming” that occurs in the Bible is “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand” which was the judicial law (not related to religious principle” of sentencing for someone that had hurt someone in the same way. It was a limit as to what a sentence could be.
Now as to your comment not being an opinion, that is patently false. It is how you interpret what you have read in scripture, and it patently is not what the vast majority of those that hold the Bible as being infallible writ. It is opinion. Your opinion is based on your view of the authorship of the Bible, and frankly, I would think it is based on the idea that neither Islam nor Christianity is absolutely true — i.e., that either is true regardless of whether anyone believes either one. If both are equally valid, then both would have to be false. No, I don’t cede that point in discussion in any way shape or form — it is argument from a false premise, and is therefore useless. I also would not cede being a dhimmi to Islam, and there is no equivalent within Christianity (in fact, Christianity — actually Jewish law — specifies that there is to be one law among all).
April 4th, 2008 at 9:05 am
“Here’s my simple point…”
That is what Sanity? is all about. He’s just that simple. It’s simple!
April 5th, 2008 at 7:48 am
I am a Muslim (living here in Northern Virginia) and I cringe when I see these maniacs speaking in the name of my religion. I agree with you 100% and have written against these homicidal nutters many times on my blog. (Any of you can visit my site and see what I have written is very clear and unambiguous)
I agree that more of us need to take on these murderous fanatics. They are not me and I am not them.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:48 am
We need more people like you, Tariq.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Act — Cut it out! Personal insults are NOT appropriate — even if I agree that Sanity is coming from a world view is further from truth than that of Muslims (again from my world view), I still acknowledge he is with his rights to hold that world view, and that he is attempting to be consistent to that world view.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Tariq,
Bravo! I applaud you. And you are correct. The job of reining in those that murder in the name of a religion belongs to the members of that religion; the frustration those of other religions feel when they see demonstrations in the streets celebrating violence against people who are nothing more than civilians and used as cannon fodder is rather potent. I hope you can get people motivated to turn in the people that defame your religion. Until the world becomes “unsafe” for murderers of innocent, terrorists will continue to trade in bloodshed of innocents.
Again, bravo.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
The problem is, Brian, that the liberal/socialist/progressive weltanschauung is NOT self-consistent. It is built on feeling and emotion, not logic and reason.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
unfortunately, Jack, that sentiment is not based on logic or reason
April 5th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Jack,
If a person is post-modern, then logic is useless. Being consistent is then defined as doing what emotion dictates, not what reason dictates. Post-modernism rejects logic and reason as being futile, and they consistently reject logic and reason. So while from a logical point of view, a post-modernist is neither logical nor consistent, if you use their world view, you will see them as being consistent (if not logical — because to be logical would be inconsistent with that world view).
The point of this is that consistency is not consistency from your point of view, but from their point of view. I want to be judged not from their point of view, but from mine. If I want that, I should be willing to give the same thing.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
But it is, puffalump. Look at liberal/socialist/progressive positions. Abortion, for instance. For them, it is an issue of “choice,” but in the vast majority of cases, the woman made the choice that got her pregnant in the first place. She has already proven that she makes poor choices, so they want to give her the power to choose whether another lives or dies.
Let us take gun control. Despite their alleged distrust of government, liberals want the government to be the only ones with guns!
Take universal health care. Despite the poor performance of military hospitals, the liberals want ALL hospitals to be controlled by the government.
You’re right, Brian, liberals/socialists/progressives are consistently illogical.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
“Verses which when taken literally are only followed by people that mainstream practitioners consider fanatical.”
“A well regulated Militia” fits your description quite well.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Tariq,
Welcome. I applaud holding you fellow beleivers accountable for murder in the name of God
April 6th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Thanks everyone for the kind sentiments. There is another Muslim blogger expressing similar sentiments
http://singularvoice.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/return-to-sender/
April 6th, 2008 at 7:47 am
It is a failing of our governments that the militia is not well regulated. The failing of the government is no excuse for the government to take away the people’s rights.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Brian,
Sanity? may have his worldview but that does not excuse him from being irrational and illogical. There is right and wrong and those may be transposed by your world view. My version of “right” might be opposite from another and vise-versa. I would rather believe that if my view is that which doesn’t infringe on inalienable rights, or does not corrupt or murder or decieve, etc. that it is the true “right”. Just as instincts such as survival. You can’t rely on someone else to preside over your survival. That is a self issue. Instinct=fight or flight; not wait for someone else to take care of the issue for you.
Sanity has proven himself time and again to be “inconsistant” on logic which to him is a definate oxymoron. We allow liberal/socialists their worldviews and with every inch they take a mile. It gets to the point where we are forced to live under these views because they were inacted before anyone had a chance to act. Much as the last and current congress is doing. These “views” are showing the degradation of mankind as of late and left unchecked and unchallenged will be the downfall of us all. THAT is MY worldview! And I feel it appropriate.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Jack,
The failing of the government is no excuse to subvert or circumvent the law-hence why the government is failing. Do you not agree?
April 6th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I neither agree nor disagree, because I do not understand what you are saying.
Could you rephrase it for me?
April 6th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Jack, that’s patently ridiculous. Do you really think you can say, objectively, that any women with an unwanted pregnancy is a poor decision maker?
Assume you can, does that mean that such a women should have less choices in the future? Should, for example, an employer have the right to know that a woman once had an unwanted pregnancy in assessing that woman’s decision making capacity?
A women I know had an abortion years ago. She’s since started and runs a successful business. She clearly has an ability to make good decisions when it comes to hiring, business strategy, etc. What you’re saying really makes no sense, and in terms of consistency, it isn’t.
If it were, one could say, “Jack supported the gay marriage amendment, even though there is no logical evidence in support of his stance on the issue. Therefore we shouldn’t let Jack vote on future ballot proposals because he’s demonstrated that he does so in an illogical manner.”
Brian,
I think something’s missing from your understanding of post-modern philosophy. In a broad sense, it doesn’t say that logic and reason are irrelevant, but it does suggest that a lot of what is logical or reasonable is socially constructed. That doesn’t mean there’s no such thing. The meaning behind these symbols I’m stringing together right now are socially constructed, that doesn’t mean that written words serve no purpose. Maybe “everything is nothing” would be the extreme interpretation, but the fringes of philosophical movements are typically ugly. It doesn’t mean that gut level emotional reactions (as in, “gay marriage is wrong” for instance) are all we have to base decisions on. As evidence, deconstructionist thought tends to be very methodical and analytical. Such analysis would be impossible within a framework built around the idea that logic doesn’t exist. In essence, the idea is that logic exists, though not necessarily universally. People can agree to use the same logical assumptions, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that those stem from some universal truth. It just allows things to get done. going back to the language example, if you were to talk to a Chinese guy in english, it it isn’t because english is the True language, it’s just that agreeing on a certain set of meanings for sounds is necessary for communication to take place.
so the question becomes, which assumptions are necessary for society to work, and which ones are frivolous?
April 6th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
“Do you really think you can say, objectively, that any women with an unwanted pregnancy is a poor decision maker?”
No, puffalump, but, as I said, the “vast majority.” The fact is, the vast majority HAD a choice already, screwed it up, and want someone else to pay the ultimate price for their mistake.
As for the Marriage Amendment, go see the archives at Vivian Paige’s blog. I took apart every reason she tried to come up with against the amendment.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:40 am
I’m familiar with your position on abortion. It all hinges on that phrase, “The fact is”
“I took apart every reason she tried to come up with” I’m sure you did
April 7th, 2008 at 5:18 am
I take it Jack is not a woman?
April 7th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Marshmallow,
A simple question: Is a woman who got herself pregnant, when she does not want to get pregnant, guilty of making a bad decision? It is HER body, so did SHE make a bad decision?
If you answer yes, then you are making Jack’s point.
April 7th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Yes, puffalump, my position on abortion does hinge on FACT.
April 7th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Lovisa, facts and reason are not determined by one’s sex. Do you know of no women who oppose abortion?
April 7th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Well, inSanity, are you going to answer the points made by Brian and Jacob, or are you going to cower in the face of reason like a good “progressive” socialist?
April 7th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Most women I know do are NOT for FOR abortion; they are for being able to make a CHOICE. There are few things in the world that so definite that one can say NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. And when I mention that you’re not a woman, I’m trying to point out the fact that you’ll never have to make that choice. THERE is a “never” that cannot be refuted.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Lovisa,
So you are saying that men, specifically the child’s father, should NEVER be involved in the abortion decision ?
April 7th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
NoVisa,
“Most women I know do are NOT for FOR abortion; they are for being able to make a CHOICE.”
If they are not for abortion then what is their reason? If they are for being able to make a choice then I assume that they are willing to commit murder or be complicit in the manner.
I know people that don’t want to go thru a painful death (like burns, many cancers, etc) and want loved ones to “pull the plug” or have someone help them do it. Last time I looked, and I believe it is in ALL 50 states, it is againest the law to commit suicide or mercy kill. How come they don’t have the same choice as abortionists? Is one any more wrong than the other?
April 7th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
complicit in the manner. I meant matter.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
“Most women I know do are NOT for FOR abortion; they are for being able to make a CHOICE.”
They already MADE a choice and screwed it up — that’s why they’re pregnant.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
dan - Have I said that? No, I haven’t. I HAVE said that men can never become pregnant, and I stand by that as being the truth.
Jack - Women don’t get pregnant by themselves unless they have been inseminated, and I doubt that those who go to the trouble of doing that, wouldn’t have an abortion. You sound if you don’t like women very much. “They made a choice and screwed it up - that’s why they’re pregnant”. I would suggest they got screwed and got pregnant.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Lovisa,
“I would suggest they got screwed and got pregnant.”
OK, so they were not in control when they ‘got screwed”? Either they are in control or they are not, you cannot have it both ways.
If they are incapable, as YOU imply, of maintaining control of their bodies before they got pregnant via the old fashioned method why should they have the power of life and death AFTER they are “knocked up”?
April 7th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Because I said so. Once a mother, always a mother. No reason needed. Go to your room for 30 seconds, jacob!
April 7th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Ah, there’s that liberal “logic” again, eh, Lovisa?
April 7th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
“I HAVE said that men can never become pregnant, and I stand by that as being the truth.”
Then what do you call Thomas Beatie?
April 7th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
HOLY COW !!! For once I’m speechless. jack, I concede defeat. Does it give you ideas???
April 8th, 2008 at 5:38 am
Jack,
the dude is a freak show.
Lovisa,
I am NOT going to my room. so there! You can’t make me.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Yes, it gives me the idea that liberalism is a mental disorder.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:00 am
“He” is not a dude, but a woman. She can call herself a man all she wants, but it changes nothing.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Speaking of abortion in terms of the origin of this thread, I would propose that the widespread use of abortion is one of the reasons some in the Muslim world harbor animosity towards us.
Open purveyance of porn over the internet, drug use, and the perceived decadence of our lifestyles, is it these policies of our leftists that are bringing much of this hate upon us ?
April 8th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Jack - That is such a TRITE statement; banal from overuse. However, I must ask how you connect a “pregnant” male (?) with liberalism as a mental disorder.
Is this Beatle guy a liberal? Do you have inside info maybe? O, mystic, tell me, tell me, do!
April 8th, 2008 at 11:52 am
NoVisa,
True conservatism doesn’t condone homosexual lifestyle, gender change or liberalism. I think Jack was refering to you-not the pregnant it. Liberalism IS a mental disorder based on scientific law being that of proof and logic. Liberals do not fit this criteria.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:56 am
dan
I would agree with your summation. I believe that and the jealousy of true freedom which allows these things to happen is the basis for hatred from other nations and religions.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
SPMM,
Sorry for the delayed response to #66, things here are sometimes crazy.
Perhaps what is “missing” from my understanding of post-modern philosophy is not being willing to take it to a logical conclusion. I am trained in mathematics. I look at the world view of a person from the standpoint of the axioms they adopt (or at least from what can be re-engineered from the stated positions and interpolation of the underlying axioms). Post-modern thought does not take a position that it hold inviolate. Some of that can be seen in your statement “Maybe “everything is nothing” would be the extreme interpretation, but the fringes of philosophical movements are typically ugly” because within that statement, you specifically say “extreme interpretation” when others would say using the base as a means of exploring the theoretical space of the philosophy. That is exactly what I am talking about. The argument that gut level emotional argument is in fact all post-modernists have — if they think of the logic of the theoretical space defined by a set of axioms as “extreme” and reject it when convenient, then the emotional aspect of trumps the logical aspect. The philosophy hinges not on principles, but on emotion because when the logical is emotionally unacceptable, the post-modernist would label the logical conclusion “extreme” and resort to emotion.
As a reference to a discussion on post-modernism as it relates to history, perhaps you might look at this.
Comment 3, (BTW, that Brian is not, me) examines post-modern thought in that context, and how it has rejected objective, verifiable, logical thought. Extreme subjectivity is the rule in post-modern philosophy — “I am the center of the universe” might be a rally cry for post-modernists. In a sense, post-modernism could be summed in a single axiom statement “What I want is right, everything else is wrong.” The rejection of logic has to put something else as the center. The only thing left is “me”.
Oh, on Jack’s statement about women and making poor decisions, not every woman made the decision to have sex — some are raped, some are victims of incest (which is just another name for rape if you ask me). But the percentages of women that become pregnant by that means is less than 2% of all pregnancies. The other 98% did make a decision, and if the pregnancy that is the consequences of their decision was unwanted, then they made a patently poor decision. Allowing abortion in cases such as these is a sign of the times: we do not want to face the consequences for our decisions. (Note: these cases are the ones that are easy to affix a moral judgment upon — it is much more difficult to affix a moral value in the cases of rape or incest. While I find it horrific that a rape has occurred, I also do not believe the child that was conceived by that rape is guilty of any crime themselves — let the guilty father pay the penalty, not the child.) But then I work from a framework (world view) that does not permit emotion as a trumping issue. Killing an innocent person is wrong in my framework, and while I might agree that all are guilty in principle, an unborn child is the least guilty person on this planet. (And to put in an emotional appeal to those that reject logic, we defend dogs and cats better than we defend unborn children.)
April 16th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Jack,
“Well, inSanity, are you going to answer the points made by Brian and Jacob, or are you going to cower in the face of reason like a good “progressive” socialist.”
No, I’m not going to respond. They’re right, my worldview is different. They start with the assumption that the bible and the U.S. are correct and then cherry-pick facts that support that position. I look at the situation from a broader viewpoint and make no apriori ssumptions about right and wrong. When I do that, it’s clear that Islam and Christianity, over the long term, are much more alike than different. While one may be “right” and one “wrong”, there doesn’t appear to be a whole lot of inherent moral superiority with either one.
Jacob, in fact, does seem to agree that different persons’ interpretations of the bible can be different. That’s a good step! Even if you start with the “infallibility” of the bible, if the interpretations are fallible, then it hardly matters whether the bible was infallible to begin with (except psychologically). Of course, Jacob’s assertion that there are no verses in the bible that shouldn’t be taken literally is absurd. There are hundreds, if not thousands.
The “discussion” about post-modernism and liberals and logic is too stupid to comment on. I could just as easily state that RWN’s like yourselves stick with your own points of view and simply ignore facts you don’t like. If you lived back in Ptolemy’s time, no doubt you would be blogging about the lunacy of believing that the earth revolves around the sun. “Nothing wrong with epicycles unless you’re a post-modern liberal.”
On the latest topic, it’s clear that none of you have had an opportunity to emphathize with many women that were in need of/had abortions. Especially for poor, uneducated, fatherless girls, the social/sexual pressures can be enormous. In “real life” it’s nowhere as simple as a choice between having casual sex culminating with an abortion and not having sex. (I left out “… or having sex with birth control because, interestingly, most staunch anti-abortionists don’t approve of birth control either.) Sure, maybe it is in “Pleasantville”, but not in most places. The choice often (usually?) comes down to (a) aborting an embry or young fetus, or (b) having a baby, not wanting it, and pretty much messing up the child’s life and the mother’s. There is also a shocking lack of education and funding for these girls to have easy access to birth control. So the choice ends up being between “bad” and “worse”. Certainly not a good situation, but more abortion controls are not likely to solve the root problem.
In summary, the liberal/progressive worldview is no more illogical than yours. The differences aren’t in “logic” or “illogic”, but in how different criteria are weighted. In health care, for instance, your interpretation of the “liberal” viewpoint just translates as they would rather have worse health care, but for everyone, rather than better health care for those that can afford it. You can certainly disagree with this tradeoff, but it’s not necessarily illogical. (BTW, I don’t believe that’s the choice, I’m just using it for comparison.)
And, last, the vast majority of liberals that I know don’t want “just the government to have guns”. What they object to is letting everyone have automatic weapons with no background checks and no licensing. Again, you may disagree with the tradeoffs, but that position is not illogical.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Sanity,
“Of course, Jacob’s assertion that there are no verses in the bible that shouldn’t be taken literally is absurd.”
Gadzooks!! Where did I say that? Seriously, point it out. That is certainly not a position I ascribe to.
One more thing …
you wrote:
““Only 50 years ago prominent politicians and judges in the south were using the Bible to justify killing blacks.””
I responded:
“This is crap, you are either making this up or are reaching way to far. Please show me the verses that were used to justify murder. Hell, tell me who said the Bible justified killing blacks. Such a theme is antithetical to the words in the Bible.”
If you would please be so kind as to answer the two questions in my response above.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Sanity,
“On the latest topic, it’s clear that none of you have had an opportunity to emphathize with many women that were in need of/had abortions. Especially for poor, uneducated, fatherless girls, the social/sexual pressures can be enormous. In “real life” it’s nowhere as simple as a choice between having casual sex culminating with an abortion and not having sex.”
Oh boy. Could you admit this is a huge reach. You have not the foggiest clue what my experiences where growing up in NYC. Same goes for the others here. Admit you are reaching and step away.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Jacob,
Sorry about that, I should have given some of the “credit” to Brian. Please substitute his name in that sentence regarding biblical inerrancy. Considering that, even if the entire bible was god-given, it was passed down by humans, written down by humans, translated by humans, and interpreted by humans, then his statement “If you approach it as something over which you can pass judgment, then you have already decided you are more worthy than it” is ludicrous on its face. Of course, it still doesn’t explain how Brian can believe all this stuff while there are so many verses that NO ONE believes are both true and relevant for the 21st century.
Brian, BTW: Back in the Civil War era the Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives. If you lived back then you would certainly have been a Democrat.
On abortion, if you HAVE had a lot of contact with poor/less educated girls that have had abotions, then I’m surprised anyone can be that jaded. I was ready to give Jack all the “credit” here, but I see that you jumped in and agreed with him. I’ll assume, at least, that you’ve never been a young, poor, uneducated, fatherless girl. I haven’t been either, but I’ve been close to some; close enough to understand their sense of self-worth (low), their selection of boyfriends (bad), and their plan for their future (non-existent). Related to the saying that “A goal without a plan is just a dream,”, well, these girls have only “now” and dreams. Little surprise then that “all of a sudden” they find themselves pregnant with virtually no resources to raise a child effectively. Abortion sucks, but at times it may be the “least terrible” alternative.
The saddest part is that if even one tenth of the energy used trying to ban abortions had gone into trying to prevent the need for them, we would have had millions fewer. It’s even arguable that banning abortions will not have much of an affect on the number performed, completely removing the reason to ban them in the first place. http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/11/abortion.global.ap/index.html
It’s data like this that have people like me questioning how much “pro-lifers” actually give a damn about 8-week old embryos, vs. how much they’re beign “holier than thou”. Easy to speak against something that isn’t affecting you.
Or, since the “bible-thumpers” don’t care about 100’s of verses in the bible, how much of their anti-gay agenda is actually biblically based, and how much is because gays creep them out? I mean, c’mon, if gays get married is it really going to “cheapen” a straight marriage?? Of course not.
My theory is that RWN’s like violence and hate sex, while LWN’s love sex and hate violence! Hmmm. I wonder if we could predict future party affiliations by giving kids a test that measures whether they prefer sex or violence? I wonder how early this occurs and whether adults can really influence it? Better get the gene-spicers to work on it! We may end up with a Repub gene and a Dem gene! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7315656.stm
April 16th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
The only problem with your theory is that they keep managing to reproduce in fairly substantial numbers.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Sanity,
If we hated sex why do we have more kids and when polled we are more satisfied with our sexual lives and partners than the LWN’s?. AN answer to this question would be fun to see.
Sex inside of marriage is to be celebrated, it is a gift from God and is not something to be ashamed of. It is sex outside of marriage that we as Christians take issue.
As for violence, what other religion states that one ought to turn the other cheek? If you look at the LWN types of the 20th century they were the biggest butchers in history. Let us see the body count:
Stalin 40M
Mao 80-100M
Pol Pot 3-4M (he was running out of people)
As for Pagans let us look:
Genghis Khan 15M
Japan (WWII) 30M (24M Chinese, 4M Indonesia …)
Care to tell me Hitler was a Christian? Or conservative?
Furthermore, none of the above did anything (w.r.t. slaughter) that went against their beliefs. Would you like to show such casualties done in the name of Christ?
Go work on your theory some more. It appears we like sex, and are not into slaughtering as much as our non_RWNs. But aside from that the theory is just fine.
I have to say you are improving at least both sides get an N, for Nut, at the end. Excellent, there may be a feeble glint of hope for you.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Sanity,
Scripture being inerrant is not the same as taking each and every verse literally. You may inadvertently built a straw man.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I’ll tell you, Hitler was a right winger:
for instance…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAgtYbw2Se8
April 18th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Sanity,
This may come as a shock to you, but you can say nothing that isn’t your opinion — neither can anyone else for that matter — as even what you see with your eyes you will filter with your world view. I’ve told the story of the guy who thinks he is dead, asked if dead men bleed, to which he says “no” and then gets jabbed with a lancet and starts bleeding; he is told “see you are wrong” to which he replies “your right, dead men do bleed!”
If you cannot see what shapes your world view you have no way to look outside it — no possibility of looking through a different world view even if you wanted. You won’t be able to understand another’s position without doing that.
You talk about “cherry picked facts” — examples that show what someone is saying is correct? Do you “cherry pick” your facts to emphasis what you are trying to support? Of course you do. No rational person goes to facts on the growth of peaches in northern climatic conditions to support the big bang theory of creation of the universe! You take what is relevant, what is salient, not something that is peripheral or has extraneous or irrelevant issues that would cloud the conclusion. Of course you can always disagree with what someone else might say are irrelevant issues — and so include what they would not include (and so find them “cherry picking”) or not include because of issues you think are irrelevant (and be “cherry picking” yourself).
As to “I look at the situation from a broader viewpoint and make no apriori ssumptions” you cannot be logical and make no a priori assumptions. Without the axioms (a priori assumptions) you can make no conclusions in logic. Axioms are required. The axiom set from which you start will either have “right and wrong” in them, or be logical conclusions from them. Just like in mathematics, you can substitute a theorem for an axiom, and then “prove” the axiom, the same is true for all world views. If you take an axiomatic start that, while it says nothing about right and wrong, but then start talking about right and wrong in any way shape or form, then you have an axiomatic position on right and wrong. (As an aside, this is the same fallacy that atheists have when they say you cannot “prove the existence of god” in that they insist starting with an axiom set which precludes the existence of a god.
As to my statement about passing judgment over something, you do not judge something which is bigger, broader in scope (i.e., you have no capability to comprehend it). If you believe you can pass judgment on something, you are already stating that it is not so broad in scope (from a philosophical view) that it is incomprehensible as a total whole. If you know that it is larger than what you can ever hope to understand, then you would know it is not something you can judge.
One more thing … even if nobody can ever get a complete and correct knowledge of the value of pi (the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle) that does not diminish the need to understand that value (so I only know it as 3.14159625 … that does not mean that pi does not exist, or that there is only a single value for it). Just because I do not know the one true interpretation of the Bible does not mean that the interpretation does not exist, and that while I am surely learning it, I might disagree with others who are more learned than I, that I should just throw up my hands and say “well, nobody’s perfect, so I’m good enough!”
On “pro-lifers” and how much we care for 8-week old children, I personally have donated thousands of dollars to crisis pregnancy centers that provide health care, clothes, homes (for those that have none), adoption services (for those that choose not to keep their children), and baby clothes, furniture, baby medical care, parenting training, job training and more for those that do plan to keep their children. I have not seen a single “pro-choice” person do nearly anything in order to help a young woman have a real choice other than push abortion. When is the last time you saw a “pro-choice” advocate pony up their house to be converted to a home for unwed mothers? (I’ve seen pro-life people do that…what “choice” is being given to a homeless girl by “pro-choice” advocates won’t give them a place to stay?)
BTW, I would *never* have been in favor of racial slavery, and I most certainly would have been one of the abolitionists. While I would not have been a “John Brown” abolitionist, I would have been Republican from the start. I am more of a moral conservative than anything else, and conservative tracing roots back to the time of Jesus. Please remember, you don’t know me very well, and you certainly won’t as long as you attempt to put my argumentation into your straw man positions that you know so well.
April 20th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
a lot of words for someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about!!
April 21st, 2008 at 12:13 am
Marshmallow,
No, Hitler is a Patriots Fan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvQNu7QnQtY&feature=related
Since the Patriots are from MA, which votes straight Democrat Congressionally and Presidentially then I guess that makes him a Democrat.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
SPMM
ad hominem … find out what it is — if you knew, you wouldn’t resort to it so often.